Have WW been too safe in their card design?

Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". A whole box for Aranthebes? I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for me. I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: Jake Washington (FN) 1 Week of Nightmares (FN) 1 Khobar Towers (FN) 2 Treasured Samadji (FN) 1 PB: Montreal (SW) 2 Aranthebes (AN) 1 Art's Traumatic Essence (B) 2 Reins of Power (AN) 1 Year of Fortune (AN) 1 Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) Chris.

> Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > A whole box for Aranthebes? I would hope not. While Anarchs was generally seen as being a less than successful set it did have a few bright spots. Cooler is a great card. Virtually makes it into any deck I have with a Blood Doll (or several). The swords in the set were very good as well. Banshee Ironwail was a great addition to my Salubri anti deck. Ghouled is a card that I am amazed wasn't printed earlier. Although I'm sure it could have been a stronger card. Magazine is an excellent card for any gun based deck. I have a Tor/Malk Run & Gun deck that could use a couple more of it. Also the crypt cards continue to interest me. In many cases I prefer the vampires to the minion cards. Maybe that's just me. > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > me. > I can see what you're saying. But I also think they have been trying to get the 'feel' of each set to match the theme. Anarchs was ... all over the map. Big shock for a set based on Anarchy. > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > Jake Washington (FN) 1 > Week of Nightmares (FN) 1 > Khobar Towers (FN) 2 > Treasured Samadji (FN) 1 > PB: Montreal (SW) 2 > Aranthebes (AN) 1 > Art's Traumatic Essence (B) 2 > Reins of Power (AN) 1 > Year of Fortune (AN) 1 > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > Well what you use and what you don't is, of course, a matter of taste and strategy. The Call is one of my favorite Bloodlines cards for example. As is Sanguine Instruction. Charisma from Final Nights is a must for any Ally based decks in my opinion. And I'm sure I could give many more examples of worthwhile cards. As could anyone else who regularily plays the game. > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong bloodline if properly played. As for the Anarch action. They did give multiple ways to get your anarch groove on. So it could be worse. > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) That's easy for you to say. I'd really hate to be in a tournament and have someone win with a overpowered twink card. I keep hearing Magic players bitch and moan about card X or card Y screwing the game. That's one of the attractions of this game. No one card is a game breaker. No deck is unbeatable. It really does come down to luck of the draw and knowing how to use it. At this point Anarchs is behind us. From what has been shown so far Black Hand looks strong. And Gehenna draws near. I'd say the game is in good shape. I'm looking forward to what they have for us in the future.

"Morrison" <kry...@shaw.ca> wrote > > The swords in the set were very good as well. Banshee Ironwail was a great > addition to my Salubri anti deck. I'm trying to trade my swords away actually. > Ghouled is a card that I am amazed wasn't > printed earlier. I agree that the concept was overdue, but it still lacks power IMHO. May I ask what you have been using Ghouled for? I don't see too much of a use for it. Except for Muddles throwing a Sewer Lid at first strike, it's not so impressive. How many allies can even use this card? > In many cases I prefer the vampires to the minion cards. > Maybe that's just me. True. Some nice minions... I wonder how many of the vampires were used in the EC 2003 poll two posts above? Seems like the original poster was only counting the minion cards. > I can see what you're saying. But I also think they have been trying > to get the 'feel' of each set to match the theme. Anarchs was ... all over > the map. Big shock for a set based on Anarchy. Err... no, I will resist the urge to argue this here. But if you'd like to meet me over in alt.society.anarchy I'll be happy to debate this to the death with you :) > Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong > bloodline if properly played. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how powerful the Baali are supposed to be. In Ann Arbor yesterday, I sat down next to three Baali decks in two different games and none were all that powerful (Oros' doesn't really count since we didn't finish the game). In a pickup game while everyone else was playing in the finals (sob) I had a Baali predator and a Baali prey. For fun I started counting the amount of pool invested by each Methuselah for inernalism throughout the game. It was fairly insane actually. My predator's Mary the Black cost about 15 pool I think and the High Priest cost about 17 total or so. He had plenty of pool gain bleed cards to pay the cost, but other than that they may as well have been Setites. My prey's Sargon (his only Baali actually) cost about 10 throughout the game. Is he worth 10 pool? BTW I swept that game, and easily at that... I don't mention this to brag, but as additional evidence of just how bad it is paying ~42 pool for 3 vampires who are normally worth a total of 20. > At this point Anarchs is behind us. From what has been shown so far > Black Hand looks strong. And Gehenna draws near. I'd say the game is in good > shape. I'm looking forward to what they have for us in the future. I think we're fine. It's ok if White Wolf make a set that is not-so-good once in a while. And considering this game is still around after the mostly garbage of Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts, that says something about the core game's quality and the tenacity of all of its players, old and new. Pat yourselves on the back people. We're in for the long run. Cheers, WES

"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. I've been a bit worried about this too. I suspect it's better than getting lots of overpowered cards though. And I understand that it must be very hard to strike a balance when designing cards. I don't envy the design team (though I would love to help! :) > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: <snip> This is very inconclusive I think. Maybe the European players are more content to play with older style decks, or maybe they did for that tournament *because* it was the EC. And everyone knows that all the French players ever play are Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (c'est en jeste! relaxe!). I think this may also show that the original cards by Richard Garfield were particularly well designed. In fact, I'm often surprised by just how elegantly designed the initial set was, considering just how unbalanced a lot of CCGs seem to be. Many of these original cards have been reprinted in a lot of the sets you are complaining about. So I would be curious to see how many of the original set were represented in the same poll. Probably a majority and that says something about the core game I think. Also, the vampires are a key part of any expansion and I think most of the vampires since Sabbat War have been pretty well done. There are exceptions however. I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the library cards though. Many have seemed very underpowered to me. Especially Anarchs. > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? I have no problem with the Anarchs action costing 2 blood. Infernalism is horrible IMHO. > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) Be careful what you wish for... I dunno... I'd settle for a slower expansion rate and more thorough playtesting (possibly). I would rather *not* see Return to Innocence crap made, but I can also do without cards like Bounty. Hey, isn't there a brand of toilet paper called Bounty? Hmm... Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bo7qh...@enews3.newsguy.com... > And everyone knows that all the > French players ever play are Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (c'est en jeste! > relaxe!). There is confusion here : you all seem to think that belgian guys attending to french tournament are french. No, they are belgian from belgium =)

"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> escribió en el mensaje news:5a63bace.0311...@posting.google.com... > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > A whole box for Aranthebes? > Play more Anarch decks, then :-P > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > me. > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > Jake Washington (FN) 1 > Week of Nightmares (FN) 1 > Khobar Towers (FN) 2 > Treasured Samadji (FN) 1 > PB: Montreal (SW) 2 > Aranthebes (AN) 1 > Art's Traumatic Essence (B) 2 > Reins of Power (AN) 1 > Year of Fortune (AN) 1 > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > You have lost touch here. Now rethink your whole statement from the CRYPT side. Now tell me how many decks in the final round were made from vamps created by WW and how many created by vamps from earlier sets. > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > I think they managed to translate a bit more difficulty and background flavor than anything else in this set... > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > That will be awfull. I don't want to hold cards that cannot be played/traded. No thanks. > Chris. Smiling Tom

I agree with Chris on all accounts. But I also understand WW being careful - the game balance of VtES is very delicate and fragile. As I see it the old cards (the original set) is and should always be, the "core set" and those cards should be the most played. And being forced to ban new cards is no fun. But in the case of the Anarch expansion (and ALL starter decks except maybe the CE Ventrue one) I have to question WW愀 intentions... Do they want to sell cards? Although I admire if they do not go "Deciphery" with foils and infinte numbers of alternate versions of popular cards just to sell more, they should try to make rares at least playable (The example from EC 2003 speaks its own language, but I think Bloodlines was realy nice rare-wise). And add sought-after reprints in starters to get them off the store shelves. I look forward to seeing the Black Hand expansion (I pray not getting to many of those pesky Crusade-rares in the boosters I open). So, WW could take good care of the game balance, but try to increase sales a bit and in the same time make me smile when I open a booster! What about that?

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bo7qh...@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote > > > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > > I've been a bit worried about this too. I suspect it's better than > getting lots of overpowered cards though. > > And I understand that it must be very hard to strike a balance when > designing cards. I don't envy the design team (though I would love to > help! :) > > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > <snip> > > This is very inconclusive I think. no its not!!!!! it shows that the newer cards are not strong enough. WW didn´t adress the balance problems of the past. The indies (excluding the govanni) are still very weak. The new assamite combat cards are a joke. the setites still lack defense. at least the ravnos got some weenies and week of nightmare (their actions still suck, nothing like sense dep or mass reality). and the govanni became power bleeders. S&B still rules (although the european Metagame somewhat adjusted to it). combat is still weak. the large vampires are still underpowered, it is still better to have 2 decent 5 caps than one of those "strong" 10 caps. bloodlines was a nice try but why not print more cards for the bloodlines? anarchs would have been fine if there would have been some anarchs out of the box. maybe WW could design more of the 3way cards (but on the level of diversion not the others). I would say that all sets since SW were underpowered and could have been much better. By the way i think a bloodlines2 set would sell like hell because most of the players really liked the bloodlines. >Maybe the European players are more > content to play with older style decks, or maybe they did for that > tournament *because* it was the EC. there are only few new style tourney worth decks. >And everyone knows that all the > French players ever play are Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (c'est en jeste! > relaxe!). > > I think this may also show that the original cards by Richard Garfield > were particularly well designed. In fact, I'm often surprised by just > how elegantly designed the initial set was, considering just how > unbalanced a lot of CCGs seem to be. Many of these original cards have > been reprinted in a lot of the sets you are complaining about. So I > would be curious to see how many of the original set were represented in > the same poll. Probably a majority and that says something about the > core game I think. > agreed > Also, the vampires are a key part of any expansion and I think most of > the vampires since Sabbat War have been pretty well done. There are > exceptions however. up to a capacity of 7 i think. name four 10caps that you play a lot of times witsome success! > > I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the library cards > though. Many have seemed very underpowered to me. Especially Anarchs. > > > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. i like trifle Infernalism > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? no but thats the drawbacks when you are based on a RPG > > I have no problem with the Anarchs action costing 2 blood. Infernalism > is horrible IMHO. > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. amen. you can take more risk without designing an overpowered card (thats what play testing is for) stefan

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 03:55:22 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> scrawled: >> Ghouled is a card that I am amazed wasn't >> printed earlier. > >I agree that the concept was overdue, but it still lacks power IMHO. > >May I ask what you have been using Ghouled for? I don't see too much of >a use for it. Except for Muddles throwing a Sewer Lid at first strike, >it's not so impressive. How many allies can even use this card? I'm trying to cinvince a friend to put ghouled in his Courier deck. makes them slightly more durable (extra life), and High Ground/Sewer Lid is nothing to be sneezed at...and is eminently playable by the !nos who get the couriers, too. i use a few in a Muddles deck just for the extra life. >> Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong >> bloodline if properly played. > >I'm still waiting for someone to show me how powerful the Baali are >supposed to be. > >In Ann Arbor yesterday, I sat down next to three Baali decks in two >different games and none were all that powerful (Oros' doesn't really >count since we didn't finish the game). I have a Baali deck that i am sure is bad, and yet i still manage to get the odd vp and GW with it. I think you really need to focus on one vamp and his/her discs/specials, and then throw in suitable support in the form of non-baali. and damnans once told me you only need one or two Heralds in play in a Herald deck, and he was right. ..and then i took Tension in the Ranks out of the deck, because it kept biting me in the arse when i wasn't able to _not_ pay for a Herald, because of the Tension cost. :) >> At this point Anarchs is behind us. From what has been shown so far >> Black Hand looks strong. And Gehenna draws near. I'd say the game is >in good >> shape. I'm looking forward to what they have for us in the future. > >I think we're fine. It's ok if White Wolf make a set that is not-so-good >once in a while. And considering this game is still around after the >mostly garbage of Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts, that says Those two sets were very spread, i think. their highs were very high (RtI, TB, etc), but their lows were very low (Phobia, Death pact, etc). >something about the core game's quality and the tenacity of all of its >players, old and new. Pat yourselves on the back people. We're in for >the long run. yay long run. if this game dies before i get a real job and actually have loads of cash to throw at it, i'm going to be mighty peeved. don't let me down, people! salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

> S&B still rules (although > the european Metagame somewhat adjusted to it). combat is still weak. the > large vampires are still underpowered, it is still better to have 2 decent 5 > caps than one of those "strong" 10 caps. bloodlines was a nice try but why > not print more cards for the bloodlines? Bloodlines a nice try ? If I remember correctly only one S&B place before my Bloodlines deck in the EC. So there are competitive bloodlines, just not all of them. And probably some have not been explored enough. But a Bloodlines 2 would be great, agreed. While certainly not the most powerful expansion it was the most fun one. I think there is also more power lying in the Anarchs but with short release cycle WW has put up (and that will stretch out again, luckily) there has not been enough of testing and exploring. And there are tournament winning decks (Karsh multirush, Hesha/Kyogo/Feeding Razor and friends hunt and bloat) built upon Anarch cards and vampires. After all it was also a small set (no need to buy many boxes) and hat appart from some really good cards (Aranthebes, Bleeding the Vine, Fiendish Tongue just to name a few) although very much appreciated reprints e.g flesh of marble being common. just my .02 ? -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

hate to answer my own posts but look just a few threads below, the most recent tournament winning deck was also anarchs ! a fine deck by the way, congrats to the winner. [ quoted text not captured ]

Anarchs was not a great set to be honest, but it wasn't terrible. Its biggest flaw was the lack of Anarchs. Only Adv Jeremy MacNeil was an Anarch and you had to combine him with his basic self to do so. Add to that the fact that too many cards require a ready Anarch and you see where the set fell short. I don't think I've used very many Anarch's cards, except for the Gangrel/Protean ones, and a good number of the library were reprints. ------------------------- Cambridge by Night. http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

> Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > A whole box for Aranthebes? Diversion. Improvised Tactics. Unlicensed Taxicab. The vampires, most of them with very cool specials that improve too much some deck archetypes (Tegyrius Adv for Assamite voting, Cristos Mantigo for Gun decks and so on). The plenty of Protean reprints for Gangrel lovers. And the opportunity of getting a new take on crypt building, more toolboxy and challenging. > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > me. <snip> I don't agree with that. I think that impression - and the whole 'only 12 new cards used on finalist decks on EC 2003' - are much more a result of conservative view on the game than anything else. I'll write more on that soon, class is beginning.

salem expounded: > >mostly garbage of Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts, that says > > Those two sets were very spread, i think. their highs were very high > (RtI, TB, etc), but their lows were very low (Phobia, Death pact, > etc). Mostly i think they are pretty good. What makes you call them "garbage", Wes?

Continuing my ranting. > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. More than you can find in Bloodlines? And all the cards that made the indy clans playable in Final Nights? Until that expansion, almost nobody could suceed with the Giovanni, the Ravnos, the Setites (other than sneaky bleed) and the Assamites (well, that didn't change that much, but that's why I play them so much). And Baltimore Purge? And LOTS of new vampires, making it possible weird combinations like Malkavians with Protean? How could you build something like this with Jyhad and VTES modules (putting lots of skill cards)? > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? No, but *the cards* usable by anarchs are. Your playgroup just didn't realize it yet. Diversion provides, in just one card, an additional strike for free at inferior (you won't find any other celerity card that does this) and two damage prevention for free at inferior (same case with Fortitude). Improvised Tactics provide a "fixed ranged signpost" of 2R *every round*. OK, you'll have to use Trap to be effective, but it is still a little above the usual. Too many people are used to Blur and Immortal Grapple and Skin fo Steel for many years, and these advantages in crypt selection, since you don't need superior anymore, and in blood saving, didn't get noticed yet. But they will. Another problem is the way you should work anarch decks to be valuable. Most people didn't realise that most of the time you should think the crypt and the deck to be wholly anarch - unless you want to risk cornercase situations. That means: throw in lots of Galaric's Legacy and Go Anarch. The first is trifle, it will in fact help you with masters hand jamming. Go Anarch will save your blood and won't take you a precious action, since you untap immediately. Most people didn't realize this. I have an anarch version of Fatima Multi-Rush that works very well, and will be better when I get some more Diversions. With this card instead of Pursuit, I can mantain combat at zero blood cost, make a new crypt with obf/cel weenies that will be able to use additionals, and add lots of free damage prevention to an archetype deck that didn't had much room for it (there's always some Drawing Out the Beast around). The combat module could consist of Disguised Weapon, Diversion, Taste of Vitae and Psyche!, and nothing more. > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) I don't want to get cards that seem too good just to wait it to be banned soon. This is just plain silly, IMHO. That's why I like VTES so much: you have to put your brain working hard to build around some cards. It's a challenge. And even V:TES has its overpowered cards. They're discussed in this forum every now and then. We don't need anymore. cheers!

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote > > > > This is very inconclusive I think. > > no its not!!!!! Note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with the original poster's thesis. I just do not think that his method of testing was conclusive enough to prove it. > The indies (excluding the > govanni) are still very weak. A lot of the new Necromancy cards are not that fantastic. The good ones I would say are Call of the Hungry Dead is powerful, Daemonic Possession is potentially fantastic, but difficult to play. Shambling Hordes is its own archetype. Nothing else stands out as all that strong to me really. > The new assamite combat cards are a joke. Draught of the Soul is good. Thin Blood I like. Provision of the Silsila. Ghouls of Plaza Moreria. But I'm probably the world's worst Assamite player, so I'm not qualified to judge. I can make any Assamite deck fall on its face and die. > the setites still lack defense. Do not speak ill of our Dark Lord and his servants! Hisssss! Actually, you're right. I'd like to see them more combat-capable like in the RPG. And none of the new SER cards are really all that fantastic IMHO. But Amam is awesome, as are the new Setites themselves. Extortion is also pretty cool. I'm working on a Nadima/Mirembe deck based around this. And the best card in Final Nights is a Setite card... Free States Rant! (well... I consider it a Setite card). > at least the ravnos got some weenies and week of > nightmare (their actions still suck, nothing like sense dep or mass > reality). Mirror Image is definitely a power card in my books. Nightmare Curse can put the beats down. Reality is probably good but I've never used it. Path of Paradox came with Final Nights and is essential to Ravnos decks. Did Ravnos work at all before FN? > and the govanni became power bleeders. And Horde-makers, yeah. > >Maybe the European players are more > > content to play with older style decks, or maybe they did for that > > tournament *because* it was the EC. > > there are only few new style tourney worth decks. I've actually seen (and played) a lot of new decks played in tourneys. SER/PRO Enticement did well for me. Free States Rant decks are popular. Hordes of course. Baltimore Purge. Multi-rush, while hardly new, seems to be coming into its own (due to new vampires mostly). Honor the Elders decks seem to do well. Choir decks are ugly. Ahrimanes have won a lot of tourneys. Are these not tournament worthy? Some are not fantastic granted, but many just need to be ironed out a bit. Not sure on the exact number of new cards since SW, but there are plenty of new decks floating around. I still see the old favourites like S&B played a lot, but I also see some really original stuff. And msot of the innovative stuff is due in some part to the cards *since* SW. > > Also, the vampires are a key part of any expansion and I think most of > > the vampires since Sabbat War have been pretty well done. There are > > exceptions however. > > up to a capacity of 7 i think. name four 10caps that you play a lot of times > witsome success! Since Sabbat War? 10 caps or higher... let's see. Nehsi. Sutekh. Spider Killer. Moncada. Marcus Vitel. Aziz. Cock Robin. Goratrix. Pascek. Rachel Brandywine. And more... And 8-9 caps are no laughing matter either. You should see what I can do with Howler in play. Gabrin? Omaya? There's too many to mention... I really like a lot of the new vampires. The original complaint was about the library cards though. I'm not sure if he thinks the vampires are also bad. > Infernalism > > > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > > no but thats the drawbacks when you are based on a RPG It's a bit pick and choose on this score though, no? I mean what about SER combat, as I mentioned above? I don't mind if the inspiration comes from the RPG... that makes sense. But the clans should all be equally powerful in their own ways. Balance is needed. > amen. you can take more risk without designing an overpowered card (thats > what play testing is for) Agreed. But I'm very hopeful about Black Hand. What I've seen so far is impressive. I've already thought of certain decks and I've only seen, what, six or seven new cards! That's a good sign I think... Cheers, WES

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1a1198066...@news.freeserve.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Mostly... as Salem adds, there were a lot of good cards also. I think it depends at what level of the crack-smoking curve the designers were on at the time they thought of the card. Crescendo of high. Feelin' no pain. This is good shit, man! ======================================== -- Might of the Camarilla (Oros proved this to me) -- Arika -- Leandro -- Banishment -- Form of Corruption -- etc Rock-bottom hangover. My head hurts. Where the &^%$ am I? ============================================ -- Phobia -- Patrizia Giovanni -- Eyes of the Dead -- Mummify (this one is funny though) -- Madness of the Bard (it's like poetry... man... snort) -- etc Gotta take the crunchy with the smooth I guess. But if you want to buy my garbage off me, Timlagor... I'll be happy to give you good prices. Cheers, WES

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote > > I'm trying to cinvince a friend to put ghouled in his Courier deck. > makes them slightly more durable (extra life), and High Ground/Sewer > Lid is nothing to be sneezed at...and is eminently playable by the > !nos who get the couriers, too. Are those Rafastio Ghouls mortal? Hmm... I was thinking of Torn Signpost/Blood Fury, but it has to be a Potence *strike*... that's very limiting. How many POT strikes are there? How many are worth playing with? Thrown Gate might be a good survival card. But that's two cards devoted to keeping a Ghouled Mortal alive. Why not just put another copy of that ally or Possession or something instead? > >something about the core game's quality and the tenacity of all of its > >players, old and new. Pat yourselves on the back people. We're in for > >the long run. > > yay long run. > > if this game dies before i get a real job and actually have loads of > cash to throw at it, i'm going to be mighty peeved. don't let me down, > people! I may be optimistic, but I do not see this game dying at all. There are way too many loyal fans who love this game, and even if a lot of people drop off or WW stop making cards, there will still be a tournament base and JOL and its ilk. New cards may be the good for infusing interest in the game, but I believe it would survive now even if they stopped making them. Not that I want that though. Cheers, WES

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:26:17 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> scrawled: > >"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> I'm trying to cinvince a friend to put ghouled in his Courier deck. >> makes them slightly more durable (extra life), and High Ground/Sewer >> Lid is nothing to be sneezed at...and is eminently playable by the >> !nos who get the couriers, too. > >Are those Rafastio Ghouls mortal? Hmm... I was thinking of Torn in a crazy turn of events, the Rafastio's are not mortal...they are, in fact.....Ghouls! >Signpost/Blood Fury, but it has to be a Potence *strike*... that's very >limiting. How many POT strikes are there? How many are worth playing >with? Thrown Gate might be a good survival card. But that's two cards >devoted to keeping a Ghouled Mortal alive. Why not just put another copy >of that ally or Possession or something instead? action consolidation. the pot strike is sometimes useful. i think it'd be best if the deck was lined up for it's use. it's not so useful 'just thrown in' to any old mortal ally deck. which is why i probably shouldn't be using it. :) >> >something about the core game's quality and the tenacity of all of >its >> >players, old and new. Pat yourselves on the back people. We're in for >> >the long run. >> >> yay long run. >> >> if this game dies before i get a real job and actually have loads of >> cash to throw at it, i'm going to be mighty peeved. don't let me down, >> people! > >I may be optimistic, but I do not see this game dying at all. There are >way too many loyal fans who love this game, and even if a lot of people >drop off or WW stop making cards, there will still be a tournament base >and JOL and its ilk. > >New cards may be the good for infusing interest in the game, but I >believe it would survive now even if they stopped making them. Not that >I want that though. I beleive that too. the Dark Times between Sabbat and Sabbat War proved how loyal vtes fans can be. [ quoted text not captured ]

Interesting analysis, but i think it can be considered a compliment to WW that they don't bring out powercards... I like it the way it is, you don''t need to buy lots of cards to stay competitive, and most cards are to broaden your options, not really to make older options no longer viable. On top of that, i don't think all options with the newer cards have been explored thoroughly, and very often people use their conservative decks (decks that they know can win something) on tournaments. On your average playgroup the metagame will evolve anyway, you don't need much good new cards for that. W

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Wes wrote: > I may be optimistic, but I do not see this game dying at all. There are > way too many loyal fans who love this game, and even if a lot of people > drop off or WW stop making cards, there will still be a tournament base > and JOL and its ilk. I'm itching and rarin' to go with IRC jyhad and Derek's beerbot. Unfortunately, I'm too much of a doof to figure it out in the couple of minutes I've been able to throw at it lately. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On 4 Nov 2003, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > On your average playgroup the metagame will evolve anyway, you don't > need much good new cards for that. Really good point. How many years did many of us happily play with just the base set? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<bo7ph...@enews3.newsguy.com>... > "Morrison" <kry...@shaw.ca> wrote > > > In many cases I prefer the vampires to the minion cards. > > Maybe that's just me. > > True. Some nice minions... I wonder how many of the vampires were used > in the EC 2003 poll two posts above? Seems like the original poster was > only counting the minion cards. > 34 of the 64 vampires tabled were designed by WW. Which is a really positive figure for WW, who have printed 314 different vampires (including Adv. versions as different vampires) compared with WotC's 330 (promos included). I think people are asking the wrong question here. The far more worrying statistic is the 44 bleed-bounce cards that average nearly 9 per deck (!) from the 5 decks that were playing either Aus or Dom*. Whilst WW may be guilty of erring on the side of conservatism (and I think they might), Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection and My Enemy's Enemy would never make it past playtesting now- and rightly so. The presence of these four cards in the environment has a huge effect on the game. It would have been easy for WW to get their cards played more frequently if they had printed bounce cards in different disciplines, but they have not, not even in Bloodlines. I think this is a good decision to have made, but eventually someone is going to have to answer the question: "Why do you bother turning up to tournaments if you are not playing Auspex or Dominate?" Matt Green *The 2003 NAC winner included 10 bounce cards too, playing both disciplines.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:34:42 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >On 4 Nov 2003, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > >> On your average playgroup the metagame will evolve anyway, you don't >> need much good new cards for that. > >Really good point. How many years did many of us happily play with just >the base set? I can even top that with the fact that a lot of players that started out with jyhad when I did dropped out during DS allready since they didn't like the fact there where more vampires and titles added. They liked the fact that you had to work with a limited amount and deal with contesting.

The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > > A whole box for Aranthebes? > Nope > Diversion. Improvised Tactics. Unlicensed Taxicab. Nope The vampires Absolutely, though we have a different view on what the better vamps seems to be. . The plenty of Protean reprints for Gangrel lovers. If you didn't already have your closet bulging with those, then indeed yes. > And the opportunity of getting a new take on crypt building, more > toolboxy and challenging. Maybe.. > > > I don't agree with that. I think that impression - and the whole 'only > 12 new cards used on finalist decks on EC 2003' - are much more a > result of conservative view on the game than anything else. > I strongly disagree here. European and US metagames and playstyles have always been very different.To say which is more conservative is strictly a point of view. I believe that the last few expansions were, although some were quite fun,not adding so very much to the game from a minion/master card perspective. Vamps were good. I think, and I believe many other players will agree, that the game is, for all *fun* purposes really ok, and that the WW expansions brought us a lot of good on that side. However, for tournament play: I'm very sorry, but it just *isn't* balanced, never has been. IMHO, it needs only a few cards to bring everything back into a state of equilibrium, but apparently, I'm one of the very few who thinks that's the way to go.In stead of trying to bring certain clans/disciplines on the same level as others, I believe they should look at how to get the whole game on the same (high) level. And to make tihngs maybe a little clearer: why don't they edit a simple reaction card- either disciplineless or some well spread discipline like ani- which does a simple thing: the same as deflection or tel misdirection. IMHO, cards in that style could rebalance it.Bet you'd see a lot more of the uncommon clans/disciplines played if there were such a card (even if it would have a huge cost, like 3, or 2+only youger acting minion+ and tap reacting vamp).; But hey, that's just my 0.2 conservative Eurocents. BTW: I really never look at what expansion my cards are from when creating a deck :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bo7ph...@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Morrison" <kry...@shaw.ca> wrote > > > Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong > > bloodline if properly played. > > I'm still waiting for someone to show me how powerful the Baali are > supposed to be. I have a reasonably good Baali stealth bleed, it got 3 GWs in a tournament, and didn't draw misdirections in the finals (early enough) still got second however. It also won a storyline last time around, but that seemed easier, and luckier. Admittedly it would be really hard to argue that its better than that Great Greta deck that get played in europe. Mostly because at a certain point you HAVE to go forward, or lose the use of half your minions. You could say that better combat, and better blocking, better cycling, cheaper bleed make up for it, but I wouldn't stand behind that argument. Nevermind, I might as well, its only usenet. :) Look at Jol204 that I played in, managed to sweep with the same deck. The infernalism wasn't that big of an issue. http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?jol204 > > In Ann Arbor yesterday, I sat down next to three Baali decks in two > different games and none were all that powerful (Oros' doesn't really > count since we didn't finish the game). > > BTW I swept that game, and easily at that... I don't mention this to > brag, but as additional evidence of just how bad it is paying ~42 pool > for 3 vampires who are normally worth a total of 20. There are a lot of non-competitive ideas to play with the Baali, sadly. And I would like a better example of power Baali than stealth bleed. Maybe that Storyline winning FSR baali deck from this years go around. There are good Baali decks around, there are just many many more bad ideas. (Huitzi and Mary get concordance, then get heralds, then block things. Yeah that'll win.) Colin Riggs not infernal

Chris wrote: > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > A whole box for Aranthebes? While an understandable viewpoint, you need to keep in mind that the last two independant expansions, Bloodlines and Anarchs, were both very narrow expansions. Thios doesn't mean that they weren't good and well designed, but both of them had sort of a limited field of use. Bloodlines had tons of new and exciting stuff, but unless you are building a fringe strategy bloodline deck, you aren't going to use most of the set. Anarchs as well--unless you are building an Anarch specific strategy, most of the set isn't that useful--maybe 5-10% of the cards in the set are general use while the rest require an Anarch strategy. This being said, I think both sets were very well designed and did quite well what they wanted to do. But overall, both sets were more "fun" sets than "competetive" sets (although there are certainly some very good, winning strategies using Bloodlines clans--there are probably similar winning strategies in the Anarchs set, but we haven't really found them yet). But in any set, there are going to be good general use vampires, and good general use cards. Off the top of my head in Anarchs, in terms of good general use cards we got: -Life in the City, which is very solid in the right deck. -Cooler, which can be very handy (see the most recent Nosferatu Newsletter :-) -Bleeding the Vine, which is fringe but powerful. -The various hold cards certainly have potential. -Aranthebes, which is very potent. -Blow Torch, which is a good, cheap weapon. -Lots of very good vampires. -Tons of easy to get reprinted protean cards (I finally have all the Flesh of Marbles I need). Even without making an Anarchs strategy (which I am yet to actually do), I have found a great deal of potential in the Anarchs set. > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > me. How are most of the cards useless? Yeah, if you aren't making an Anarch deck, a lot of the set isn't going to be playable. But if you are making an Anarch deck, you have a lot of solid material to work with. And if you aren't, there is a good supply of other good stuff too. > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. There are plenty of good new cards. All the new vampires are in heavy use. Many Bloodlines strategies are very competetive. Anarch decks are still being experimented with, and it seems likely that at some point someone will come up with a scary one. > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) There are plenty of potent cards in the new sets. But again, limited in scope. I suspect that Black Hand will be much more general use. -Peter

On 4 Nov 2003, the_capuchin wrote: > I have an anarch version of Fatima Multi-Rush that works very well, > and will be better when I get some more Diversions. With this card > instead of Pursuit, I can mantain combat at zero blood cost, make a > new crypt with obf/cel weenies that will be able to use additionals, > and add lots of free damage prevention to an archetype deck that > didn't had much room for it (there's always some Drawing Out the Beast > around). The combat module could consist of Disguised Weapon, > Diversion, Taste of Vitae and Psyche!, and nothing more. Understand that you are low-balling the maneuvers, then. If you are playing in a metagame light on Immortal Grapple, or if (as you say) the odds of getting hit with DotB are high, then it may be a reasoned choice. Still, it opens you up to a wide range of nastiness that reliably gaining long range lets you avoid. From what I've seen of other people playing this deck, most people cut the Ghoul Retainer. If you've kept him, then some of the maneuver issues are lessened. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > S&B still rules (although > the european Metagame somewhat adjusted to it). combat is still weak. It rules because your metagame has not achieved a critical mass of combat. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but if more players took the plunge and committed to high amounts of combat, you're beloved stealth bleeders would be going squish all over the place, the metagame would ajust, and S+B would no longer be the no-brainer that it clearly is on the other side of the pond. The problem isn't with combat per se, it's with there only being one combat deck (if that) at a table full of s+b decks. > the > large vampires are still underpowered, it is still better to have 2 decent 5 > caps than one of those "strong" 10 caps. Generally true, but if a vampire has a special that directly translates into saved card slots (e.g. Goratrix), that can open up whole strategies that one would lack room for otherwise. > there are only few new style tourney worth decks. Do you think this is a universal truth, or merely true of your highly skewed metagame? Just to head this one off at the pass, I'm not denigrating your playstyle or play group. Report after report shows the large European events to be the most homogenously S+B of all the metagames we see. IMO, the size of your events creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where S+B does indeed rule (though not necessarily so). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Nov 2003, mgreen02 wrote: > "Why do you bother turning up to tournaments if you are not playing > Auspex or Dominate?" Bragging rights. [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.0311...@posting.google.com>... > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > A whole box for Aranthebes? > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > me. > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: Now take look at the Storyline results. I guarantee you *every* of the Giovanni decks (of which what, 18 won and many more made finals?) and every Necromancy deck used a considerable portion of WW cards (Call the Hungry Dead, anyone?) Or look at the NAC, where one of the finalists used a Bloodlines-heavy deck (Daughters), and several of the other four used a handful of non-WotC cards. One consideration with Anarchs is that the set is still relatively new, and people are still figuring out clever and sneaky ways to use it. Also, you're completely overlooking the distinction that WotC printed all but a handful of the cards in the 'base sets' (Jyhad, V:tes, Sabbat, with Sabbat War and CE having lots of reprints of those three sets). They're base sets for a _reason_, because the majority of the cards you'll want to play with are in those sets. Everything else is an expansion that is designed to compliment the base sets, not replace them. It's hard to build an effective deck that ignores the base sets - and that's exactly to be expected! > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. Whoo boy, are you missing a ton. I almost *never* see PB: Madrid played. Maybe you meant PB:Montreal? And if you don't want those 'not good' Anarch cards, I'll take them off your hands for the little you think they are worth. :) > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? Actually, I like that extra blood cost for the first Anarch - there are several Anarch mechanics where there's a benefit to your *opponents* if they suddenly start going Anarch in response to you doing so (like The Mole, or more importantly Anarch Salon). The cost of Infernalism balances nicely both the fact that the Infernal vamps are overpowered for their capacity and that several very powerful cards require you to be Infernal. If anything, I and others wish (hope hope hope for BH card) that a card existed to allow you to make MORE vampires infernal - a clear sign that the price is not too high. (What powerful cards, you say? Imagine an Anson Anarch Revolt deck where the vamps are infernal and Contagious to boot. Or notice how Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) Planning to fall back on banning cards is awful. Given that a large percentage of play groups use tournament rules in casual play, cards that are just going to get banned from tourney use are coasters. Notice how WW has never printed or reprinted any 'only useable with ante' cards? Printing cards that can only be played in certain types of games is a quick way to dilute the 'worth' of a set. Imagine what would happen if cards started appearing that said 'only useable in a 2-player game' or 'not usable in a 2-player game' - certain portions of the market would be really pissed that they're buying cards they'll never (or almost never) even be *able* to play with. (And yes, there are people out there who play V:tes as an almost-exclusively 2-person game. Just not on this mailing list usually.) > Chris. -John Flournoy

Hey Colin, where you been hiding? "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Look at Jol204 that I played in, managed to sweep with the same deck. The > infernalism wasn't that big of an issue. > http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?jol204 I remember this one actually. Is the deck list posted somewhere? Maybe I'll take it for a test drive. > There are a lot of non-competitive ideas to play with the Baali, sadly. And > I would like a better example of power Baali than stealth bleed. Maybe that > Storyline winning FSR baali deck from this years go around. Coincidentally, I did attend that particular storyline (Battle Creek, MI). With no disrespect intended toward the winning player Neil, I have to say that that particular deck did not perform very well all day, despite luckily winning the finals table. It went into the finals with 0 GW and 0 VP (I swept both prelims IIRC). His deck made it into the finals because there were so few of us there. Five or six players, I can't remember. His FSR votes were totally scuppered by my IC votes... I was basically telling him where to apply the FSR 'damage' all day. I was passing votes for him just so he could gain from the Voter Cap and stay in the game. I wanted him in the game because he was my grand-predator. That kind of thing. The final table was particularly messy and I think Neil benefited more from the general chaos and mutually assured destruction of vampires than any inherent strength in his Baali deck. When everyone else has beaten each other up and you're the last person standing, it's pretty hard not to win. It was more of a case of all four other finalists *losing* than it was of him *winning*. Again, not to take away from Neil. He played well and it was a lot of fun. His deck was a cool idea and it may have potential. A few more Bewitching Orations/Awes and a Presence master or two (one of his Baali didn't have the superior like he thought) and the deck would do pretty well. Was it posted here? I don't recall. Cheers, WES

On 4 Nov 2003, wolflord wrote: > I strongly disagree here. European and US metagames and playstyles > have always been very different.To say which is more conservative is > strictly a point of view. I think there's some objective truth to the categorizations. "Conservative" means, to me, taking the least amount of risk. Pure stealth bleed in a low-combat environment (because everyone else is gunning for the S+B, too) is the most likely path to victory. So that seems conservative. Conservative can also be taken to mean "sticking with what's known" and, again, I see less willingness to experiment with new cards in the Eurogame. I would imagine the "Govern/Condition/Deflect" litmus test gets applied very harshly over there. This seems to me a narrow view of the game. It's a valid way of looking at things, so far as it goes, but there are synergistic effects emerging above the card level that carry all the way up to the (theoretical) universal metagame. > I believe that the last few expansions were, although some were quite > fun,not adding so very much to the game from a minion/master card > perspective. Vamps were good. Disagree, but I don't have anything new to add beyond what others have already said. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bo8l1...@enews4.newsguy.com... > Hey Colin, where you been hiding? Hell. > > "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > Look at Jol204 that I played in, managed to sweep with the same deck. The > > infernalism wasn't that big of an issue. > > http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?jol204 > > I remember this one actually. Is the deck list posted somewhere? Maybe I'll > take it for a test drive. I'll post it here, the version I played in JOL is actually better than the earlier versions. I still haven't updated the physical version. I am so lazy. :( > > > There are a lot of non-competitive ideas to play with the Baali, sadly. > And > > I would like a better example of power Baali than stealth bleed. Maybe > that > > Storyline winning FSR baali deck from this years go around. > > Coincidentally, I did attend that particular storyline (Battle Creek, MI). > That explains it then... > > Again, not to take away from Neil. He played well and it was a lot of fun. > His deck was a cool idea and it may have potential. A few more Bewitching > Orations/Awes and a Presence master or two (one of his Baali didn't have the > superior like he thought) and the deck would do pretty well. > > Was it posted here? I don't recall. No I heard about it in the ranking thread, and went to look it up on the storyline site. I think, either that or it was posted and I like making it seem like I do work. Yeah the inferior presence is Giotto's curse. He is so good, but so bad at the same time. Especially in voting decks. Hmm... it seems like both Baali storyline wins were tainted by collapsing final tables. I won because I was the prey of the anarch revolt deck, sure I chose to sit there, but anarch wins are mostly random. (Assuming the anarch player doesn't win, then its skill.) Ok here is the deck. I think the combat selection should be changed due to the decrease in grapple combat and the increase in Long range, not sure how though... Deck Name: Bounce'n BaaliJOL Created By: Colin Riggs Description: Get out Greta or Antionette, get out Baali, strike when you should, win. Giotto rules. Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 27, Max: 34, Avg: 7.42) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Antoinette AUS cel obf PRE 6, Toreador, Primogen 4 Greta Kircher AUS CEL obf PRE 7, Toreador Antitribu 3 High Priest Angra Mainyu DAI dem OBF PRE ser 8, Baali 3 Giotto Verducci DAI for OBF pot pre 7, Baali 1 Huitzilopochtli AUS DAI DOM OBF PRE POT 10, Baali Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (14 cards) 1 Anarch Revolt 6 Blood Doll 1 Coven, The 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Giant's Blood 1 Jake Washington (Hunter) 1 Presence 1 Rack, The Action (14 cards) 1 Contagion 1 Entrancement 3 Legal Manipulations 2 Revelations 7 Social Charm Action Modifier (18 cards) 4 Aire of Elation 2 Cloak the Gathering 2 Faceless Night 4 Lost in Crowds 6 Spying Mission Reaction (18 cards) 2 Delaying Tactics 8 Telepathic Misdirection 8 Wake with Evening's Freshness Combat (15 cards) 5 Behind You! 5 Conflagration 5 Majesty Combo (11 cards) 9 Sense the Sin 2 Swallowed by the Night Colin Riggs reading, just not writing

> "Morrison" <kry...@shaw.ca> wrote > > > > The swords in the set were very good as well. Banshee Ironwail was a > great > > addition to my Salubri anti deck. > > I'm trying to trade my swords away actually. Interesting. What do you want for them? > > > Ghouled is a card that I am amazed wasn't > > printed earlier. > > I agree that the concept was overdue, but it still lacks power IMHO. > > May I ask what you have been using Ghouled for? I don't see too much of > a use for it. Except for Muddles throwing a Sewer Lid at first strike, > it's not so impressive. How many allies can even use this card? Well I haven't played it all that much. But one attempt was Weenie deck based partly on potence. The mortal Allies like Muddled Vamp Hunter and Brujah Allies worked well. Throw in some Panders and Ghouled Street Thugs and you bash down the establishment. I never got the Anarch angle into it. But another time perhaps. > > > In many cases I prefer the vampires to the minion cards. > > Maybe that's just me. > > True. Some nice minions... I wonder how many of the vampires were used > in the EC 2003 poll two posts above? Seems like the original poster was > only counting the minion cards. Which is a shame. The vamps are half the set. And for a guy like me sometimes even more. I love new crypt cards. > > > I can see what you're saying. But I also think they have been trying > > to get the 'feel' of each set to match the theme. Anarchs was ... all > over > > the map. Big shock for a set based on Anarchy. > > Err... no, I will resist the urge to argue this here. > > But if you'd like to meet me over in alt.society.anarchy I'll be happy > to debate this to the death with you :) Nah. I was referring to White Wolf related vampire anarchy. I have no interest in debating the ins & outs of 'True" anarchy. But thanks anyway. > > > Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong > > bloodline if properly played. > > I'm still waiting for someone to show me how powerful the Baali are > supposed to be. > > In Ann Arbor yesterday, I sat down next to three Baali decks in two > different games and none were all that powerful (Oros' doesn't really > count since we didn't finish the game). > > In a pickup game while everyone else was playing in the finals (sob) I > had a Baali predator and a Baali prey. For fun I started counting the > amount of pool invested by each Methuselah for inernalism throughout the > game. It was fairly insane actually. My predator's Mary the Black cost > about 15 pool I think and the High Priest cost about 17 total or so. He > had plenty of pool gain bleed cards to pay the cost, but other than that > they may as well have been Setites. My prey's Sargon (his only Baali > actually) cost about 10 throughout the game. Is he worth 10 pool? I can see your point. I have tried several Baali decks. Some were good. Some were not worth it. One deck I enjoy is Baali bruise and bleed. Basically use the more damaging combat cards and drag the other player down to hell. Another deck, which I have yet to try, is based on extra Master Card. Trying to gain as many Master actions I use Ascendance cards to pay the infernal tax (as I like to call it). Otherwise the use of Blood Dolls and Minion Taps leaves my minions low on blood usually. Cuts the wind from my sails. So I figured I'd see what happens. Baali do take work to make a successful (ie winning) deck. Which is part of the fun. I like a challenge. Otherwise I could just play Malk stealth/bleed all the time. That would be way too boring. > > BTW I swept that game, and easily at that... I don't mention this to > brag, but as additional evidence of just how bad it is paying ~42 pool > for 3 vampires who are normally worth a total of 20. It is bad. That's what makes them a trade off. They have powerful abilities and must pay for them accordingly. > > > At this point Anarchs is behind us. From what has been shown so far > > Black Hand looks strong. And Gehenna draws near. I'd say the game is > in good > > shape. I'm looking forward to what they have for us in the future. > > I think we're fine. It's ok if White Wolf make a set that is not-so-good > once in a while. And considering this game is still around after the > mostly garbage of Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts, that says > something about the core game's quality and the tenacity of all of its > players, old and new. Pat yourselves on the back people. We're in for > the long run. Agreed. > > Cheers, > WES > >

I think you forgot that more than half of a deck is made of discipline cards (and unless you like weenie decks that's a good thing) and one sixth of it of mastercards. Except for the bloodlines and part of the indie disciplines, WW released about no discipline cards. And for mastercard, out of say 15 master slots, at least half of them are taken by a few standard cards, thereby letting at most seven slots for new cards. Blood Doll Direct intervention Dreams of the Sphinx Pentex Subversion Minon tap Giant's blood Secure Haven Sudden reversal So IMHO there are about 50% of the deck that is merely "non avaliable" unless new basic discipline / master cards. And in fact, the new cards make a good work of insserting in the "still available slots"

> > I don't agree with that. I think that impression - and the whole 'only > > 12 new cards used on finalist decks on EC 2003' - are much more a > > result of conservative view on the game than anything else. > > > I strongly disagree here. European and US metagames and playstyles > have always been very different.To say which is more conservative is > strictly a point of view. I can't even say what is more conservative since I never played on either continent. I'm south american :-) The point here is, you can't use the number of new sets cards in finals of a given tournament as a guide. I *could* say Final Nights and Anarchs are overpowered since one of the last finals here (Storyline Guarulhos, Brazil) had two Setites and one Giovanni, all of them using some Anarch cards like the mentioned Unlicensed Taxicab. But I'd just be trying to defend a point of view I already had, not really analysing the state of the game now. To me, it is *true* that the older strategies are still very efficient - and that's good for the game -, but that's far different to say the newest sets are too underpowered when some cards clearly give your minions abilities they didn't have (additional strike for free at inferior and such. anyone who did look carefully at anarch cards know what these are). And sincerely, waiting for a set and its cards to appear in the finals of a tournament is negating your own skills on deckbuilding. Anarchs has a lot of problems, but it brings on too many new possibilities to anyone to say that has fully explored it in a few months. It requires a new take on old assumptions, like the number of masters on a combat deck. Would 20 masters be too much, when 5 of them are trifles? Does it make hand jamming with masters less probable or it would be the same as using 15 'regular' masters? So what I can say as my opinion is: it doesn't matter what metagame is "conservative" or not. Discarding a new set without even trying to explore its possibilities is conservative though, specially when this attitude is based on how many cards of that set had effectively won something.

> >Signpost/Blood Fury, but it has to be a Potence *strike*... that's very > >limiting. How many POT strikes are there? How many are worth playing > >with? Thrown Gate might be a good survival card. But that's two cards > >devoted to keeping a Ghouled Mortal alive. Why not just put another copy > >of that ally or Possession or something instead? Leonardo the Mortician + Burning Wrath? (nasty surprise to anyone who wants to stop the Giovanni bloat machine?) !Brujah allies? (since the deck will probably use many Pot strikes anyway) Ventrue with Potence using Political Ally for a *really* big surprise? Don't think it's limiting. If allies could use Torn/Pushing the Limit, why use weenies? ;-) > action consolidation. the pot strike is sometimes useful. i think it'd > be best if the deck was lined up for it's use. it's not so useful > 'just thrown in' to any old mortal ally deck. which is why i probably > shouldn't be using it. :) That's why I'm sure many people can't imagine how good or bad anarch cards could be. You can select cards from camarilla, bloodlines, final nights etc. and throw in your old decks. you can't do that with anarchs; you gotta build most of the deck around it.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > I'm itching and rarin' to go with IRC jyhad and Derek's > beerbot. Unfortunately, I'm too much of a doof to figure it out in the > couple of minutes I've been able to throw at it lately. I played two games last night on deckbot, and it was a blast. For the most part, it's easy to backup if you make a mistake, and Derek's usually there to help as well. You should jump in an play some with us :-) ----------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Texas Justicar http://texas.vekn.org/ http://monger.vekn.org/

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031104...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On 4 Nov 2003, wolflord wrote: > > > I strongly disagree here. European and US metagames and playstyles > > have always been very different.To say which is more conservative is > > strictly a point of view. > > I think there's some objective truth to the > categorizations. "Conservative" means, to me, taking the least amount of > risk. Have you ever played a game in europe? I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent more or less conservative just different. looking at the finallist decks of the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the EC. maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). i am preety sure that a bsaic malk S&B would have the same succes in the states as it has in europe, people just don´t play them! stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote in message news:<a346f9cb.0311...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, typically-astute. Jyhad/VTES is a brilliant game i think principally because despite being a game about vampires there is not much vampirism in it. Vampirism destroys games because of the double-whammy of stealing stuff from your opponent and gaining it for yourself, so good games should not include vampirism. The difficult cards infringe this rule, and include the ones you mention. Mind you, i still think GtU is the best card in the game.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031104...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > > S&B still rules (although > > the european Metagame somewhat adjusted to it). combat is still weak. > > It rules because your metagame has not achieved a critical mass of > combat. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but if more players took > the plunge and committed to high amounts of combat, you're beloved stealth > bleeders would be going squish all over the place, the metagame would > ajust, and S+B would no longer be the no-brainer that it clearly is on the > other side of the pond. The problem isn't with combat per se, it's with > there only being one combat deck (if that) at a table full of s+b decks. Come on, this is *gross*. how can you talk about the metagame here ? did you *ever* attended a big tourney in europe ? how can you say that at a european tournament table you have one fighter and four S&B ? You travel under a secret identity or something ? go figure.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031104...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > Report after report shows the > large European events to be the most homogenously S+B of all the metagames > we see. IMO, the size of your events creates a self-fulfilling prophecy > where S+B does indeed rule (though not necessarily so). False. Or as you prefer : "facts are not your friends". The last finals i saw as a spectator (couldnt wake in the morning) : 30 people Finals : Weenie presence vote. Palla grande mass embrace. Anarch voters. Ventrue old school vote. Anson Anarch revolt. Tell me where is the bleed stealth here ?

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:04:09 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >how can you talk about the metagame here ? >did you *ever* attended a big tourney in europe ? >how can you say that at a european tournament table you have one fighter and >four S&B ? I'm not the first person to characterize "European" and "American" metagames. Of course it isn't based upon personal observation. Time to move on, Reyda.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:tcohqvo2kmd04v3f0...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] again, how can you say that at a european tournament table you have one [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:08:47 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That's one final, against many more tournament reports. Hardly a refutation. >Tell me where is the bleed stealth here ? Nonetheless, you have pointed out that I got sloppy with my terminology. What I should have said in place of "S+B" was "decks focused mostly around payload and delivery and light on minion control."

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:12:51 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >again, how can you say that at a european tournament table you have one >fighter and four S&B ? Do you agree that your metagame is combat-lite? If not, why not? If it is, and you were going to characterize this fact for purposes of discussion, would you agree that "lite" falls somewhere short of half? If we agree on less than half, are you OK with calling that "one or less"? If you think everyone should confine their arguments to those based upon personal experience, come out and say so. If you're just looking for an excuse to fight, take it to email.

Chris Arthur wrote: >I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to >see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that >there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: >Jake Washington (FN) 1 >Week of Nightmares (FN) 1 >Khobar Towers (FN) 2 >Treasured Samadji (FN) 1 >PB: Montreal (SW) 2 >Aranthebes (AN) 1 >Art's Traumatic Essence (B) 2 >Reins of Power (AN) 1 >Year of Fortune (AN) 1 WW cards from my deck that you missed: Into the Fire (AN) 1 Sniper Rifle (FN)2 Also, my 4 Concealed Weapon are sort of a WW and WotC joint effort in their current form. Jay

> Nonetheless, you have pointed out that I got sloppy with my > terminology. What I should have said in place of "S+B" was "decks > focused mostly around payload and delivery and light on minion > control." Payload and delivery...sounds like we're dropping bombs. Albert

Hey Reyda, you know I am a friend of you, but can you please stop to jump at David at every occasion. It is enerving and not adult-like behaviour. You probably do not like him personally, but I don´t want to read it every day in the newsgroup. Settle down your tone a bit and everybody will be pleased. Please note that this is not only adressed to Reyda, he is just the first person (by accident) that my level of annoyance has reached the critical mass for writing a post. All you other flamers out there, calm down. Sometimes one can get angry, that´s only human and happens also to me once in a while. But not every day, please. -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:35:16 +0100, "Stefan Ferenci" >Have you ever played a game in europe? No. Are you disputing wolflord's original assertion that the metagames are different? >I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent >more or less conservative just different. And I'll consider that opinion seriously. It's still based upon a very narrow personal experience, which isn't necessarily better than what you can observe by staring at the newsgroup for a few years. Only getting to see the decks in the finals, or sometimes only the winner, is a huge limitation, granted.. >looking at the finallist decks of >the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the >EC. I'll have to go back and look at them, which I don't have time to do at the moment, before I can comment on that. I know I was too busy being pissed about narrowly missing them to pay much attention to the finals. I remember is was won by a fairly "crappy" Tremere toolbox, though. I wonder if it passed the Weak Blood Doll Test? [1,2] [1] Weak Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive environment without pool gain at least as good as what you'd get out of four blood dolls. [2] Strong Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive environment without at least four Blood Dolls. >maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play >basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). No, I really think the differences in the metagame derive simply from raw numbers. The larger the tournament, the more likely 2 or even 3 tablewins are necessary to make the finals. Stealth bleed is, and always has been, the strongest strategy, so it makes sense to me that people playing in those tournaments play conservatively. I'd guess your casual games are as varied as anybody's. >i am >preety sure that a bsaic malk S&B would have the same succes in the states >as it has in europe, people just don´t play them! No, I still disagree with this (which is incidentally much more interesting to discuss than trying to determine if I have any right to hold an opinion). People still certainly play them here, even in tournaments of moderate size. I saw plenty of Malk, neo-Malk, and every other major bleed archetype at the NAC, for example. They just tend not to do *as* well.

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.031104...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something about: >On 4 Nov 2003, mgreen02 wrote: > >> "Why do you bother turning up to tournaments if you are not playing >> Auspex or Dominate?" > >Bragging rights. And major cojones display. "The size of BASKETBALLS, I tell you. BASKETBALLS." -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On 4 Nov 2003 11:02:38 -0800, fa...@cohesp.com.br (the_capuchin) scrawled: >> >Signpost/Blood Fury, but it has to be a Potence *strike*... that's very >> >limiting. How many POT strikes are there? How many are worth playing >> >with? Thrown Gate might be a good survival card. But that's two cards >> >devoted to keeping a Ghouled Mortal alive. Why not just put another copy >> >of that ally or Possession or something instead? > >Leonardo the Mortician + Burning Wrath? (nasty surprise to anyone who >wants to stop the Giovanni bloat machine?) surpising, maybe, as the opponent watches your leonardo burn on the declaration of his strike, and it never gets to resolve..... >!Brujah allies? (since the deck will probably use many Pot strikes >anyway) i was thinking, for cam brujah, maybe a bunch of street gangs and arms dealers....the new bru have a few ally-helping vamps.. >Ventrue with Potence using Political Ally for a *really* big surprise? or, at the worst, high ground/sewer lid. :) undead strength for 1 is not really a 'big surprise'. >Don't think it's limiting. If allies could use Torn/Pushing the Limit, >why use weenies? ;-) weenies can taste, and be rescued from torpor. :) > >> action consolidation. the pot strike is sometimes useful. i think it'd >> be best if the deck was lined up for it's use. it's not so useful >> 'just thrown in' to any old mortal ally deck. which is why i probably >> shouldn't be using it. :) > >That's why I'm sure many people can't imagine how good or bad anarch >cards could be. You can select cards from camarilla, bloodlines, final >nights etc. and throw in your old decks. you can't do that with >anarchs; you gotta build most of the deck around it. yup. i've always wanted to make a giovanni ghouled-mortal ally deck, but there's only like, 2? leonardo and scapelli? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:26:38 -0500, "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > >Deck Name: Bounce'n BaaliJOL >Created By: Colin Riggs >Description: Get out Greta or Antionette, get out Baali, strike when you >should, win. Giotto rules. > >Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 27, Max: 34, Avg: 7.42) >---------------------------------------------- >1 Antoinette AUS cel obf PRE 6, Toreador, Primogen >4 Greta Kircher AUS CEL obf PRE 7, Toreador Antitribu >3 High Priest Angra Mainyu DAI dem OBF PRE ser 8, Baali >3 Giotto Verducci DAI for OBF pot pre 7, Baali >1 Huitzilopochtli AUS DAI DOM OBF PRE POT 10, Baali i thought you said you won a storyline with this deck? :/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:21:02 -0500, "Albert Chang" <na...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Payload and delivery...sounds like we're dropping bombs. I first heard Ben Peal use the terms. They're useful.

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:j6jgqv8rj9t0qn44k...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Nope, I said a previous version won a storyline. That is probably still on the storyline site. It had 3 Greta and maybe 2 Huitzi? Nah, nevermind I was really on crack. That one had intercept, and inferior auspex. Wow... Here is the link to the thread, with a long transcript of the final round. Not that you were *that* interested. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C642176 Colin Riggs

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: > [1] Weak Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive > environment without pool gain at least as good as what you'd get out > of four blood dolls. Hey, that's a nice invention. But can pool gain be replaced with "don't lose pool"-tactics, like Telepathic Counter? Or is there something fundamentally different between gaining pool to compensate for lost pool, and not losing the pool in the first place? (Like doing your own thing instead of reacting?) > [2] Strong Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive > environment without at least four Blood Dolls. Easily refuted by cards such as Minion Tap, Tribute to the Master and Art Scam. -- hg@ It's better to open your mouth and appear stupid, iki.fi than to hold it shut and keep thinking you know it all.

On 05 Nov 2003 03:17:01 +0200, <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > Hey, that's a nice invention. I like to think of it as lemonade. > But can pool gain be replaced with "don't lose pool"-tactics, like >Telepathic Counter? Sure, why not. > Or is there something fundamentally different between gaining pool to >compensate for lost pool, and not losing the pool in the first place? >(Like doing your own thing instead of reacting?) No, that's clearly violating the principle. >> [2] Strong Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive >> environment without at least four Blood Dolls. > > Easily refuted by cards such as Minion Tap, Tribute to the Master and >Art Scam. Agreed.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:21:02 -0500, "Albert Chang" <na...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Payload and delivery...sounds like we're dropping bombs. Well... It's called "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle". And it used to be called "Jyhad". It's not called "Vampire: the Peaceful Negotiation", formerly known as "United Nations". :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>On top of that, i don't think all options with the newer cards have >been explored thoroughly, and very often people use their conservative >decks (decks that they know can win something) on tournaments. It can take longer with any sort of unusual combination of cards, but I figure people find the strong strategies in the first two months a set comes out, even with this game.

[snip] > > I would hope not. While Anarchs was generally seen as being a less > than successful set it did have a few bright spots. Cooler is a great card. I disagree. I love it as well but i would hesitate to play it in a tournament. it's a good example of what frustrates me about the WW designed cards - a good idea that is just slightly underpowered. > addition to my Salubri anti deck. Ghouled is a card that I am amazed wasn't > printed earlier. Although I'm sure it could have been a stronger card. Exaclty. Another example of the type of card mentioned above. Why did it have to cost one blood? > Magazine is an excellent card for any gun based deck. I have a Tor/Malk Run > & Gun deck that could use a couple more of it. I've yet to see Magazine put to good use. >Also the crypt cards continue to interest me. In many cases I prefer the vampires to the minion cards. > Maybe that's just me. It's not just you. I deliberately avoided discussing the crypt cards as i think they have been designed pretty well. [snip] > > > I can see what you're saying. But I also think they have been trying > to get the 'feel' of each set to match the theme. Anarchs was ... all over > the map. Big shock for a set based on Anarchy. They've done well with themes. Agreed. [snip] > > > Well what you use and what you don't is, of course, a matter of > taste and strategy. The Call is one of my favorite Bloodlines cards for > example. As is Sanguine Instruction. Charisma from Final Nights is a must > for any Ally based decks in my opinion. And I'm sure I could give many more > examples of worthwhile cards. As could anyone else who regularily plays the > game. I mentioned Sanguine Instruction as a good card. I am still in two minds about Charisma, i play a lot of ally decks and i find i need at least two copies, if not three to make charisma worthwhile and two to three master slots is a big investment. I am not denying that WW have produced good cards, i am saying that many of the cards they have produced are too underpowered to be competitive. [snip] > > > Infernalism IS high. But it should be. The Baali are a strong > bloodline if properly played. I think it's too high. I know that when i sit down at a table and i have a predator or prey lpaying Baali then i have an instant advantage. > As for the Anarch action. They did give > multiple ways to get your anarch groove on. So it could be worse. Yes but the investment in becmoing anarch isn't worth the pay off. > > That's easy for you to say. I'd really hate to be in a tournament > and have someone win with a overpowered twink card. So would i. i was a bit rash with my statement. Hopefully that card would be caught in playtesting. > > At this point Anarchs is behind us. From what has been shown so far > Black Hand looks strong. And Gehenna draws near. I'd say the game is in good > shape. I'm looking forward to what they have for us in the future. I actually think we're at a point where we could go either way. But that's a whole other discussion. :) Chris.

>I think you forgot that more than half of a deck is made of discipline >cards (and unless you like weenie decks that's a good thing) and one >sixth of it of mastercards. > >Except for the bloodlines and part of the indie disciplines, WW >released about no discipline cards. And for mastercard, out of say 15 >master slots, at least half of them are taken by a few standard cards, >thereby letting at most seven slots for new cards. > >Blood Doll >Direct intervention >Dreams of the Sphinx >Pentex Subversion >Minon tap >Giant's blood >Secure Haven >Sudden reversal > >So IMHO there are about 50% of the deck that is merely "non avaliable" >unless new basic discipline / master cards. And in fact, the new cards >make a good work of insserting in the "still available slots" Is there any particular reason about 50% of a deck should never evolve?

> > > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > > I've been a bit worried about this too. I suspect it's better than > getting lots of overpowered cards though. Yes I agree, it's a fine balance i suppose. > > And I understand that it must be very hard to strike a balance when > designing cards. I don't envy the design team (though I would love to > help! :) Me too. :) > > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > <snip> > > This is very inconclusive I think. And i said as much. [snip] > > I think this may also show that the original cards by Richard Garfield > were particularly well designed. In fact, I'm often surprised by just > how elegantly designed the initial set was, considering just how > unbalanced a lot of CCGs seem to be. Many of these original cards have > been reprinted in a lot of the sets you are complaining about. So I > would be curious to see how many of the original set were represented in > the same poll. Probably a majority and that says something about the > core game I think. I agree completely. Much as I admire the design team for their work i don't think any set has come close to the original. > > Also, the vampires are a key part of any expansion and I think most of > the vampires since Sabbat War have been pretty well done. There are > exceptions however. Yes i agree. I didn't include the crypt cards as i think they have been well done. > > I don't necessarily disagree with your point about the library cards > though. Many have seemed very underpowered to me. Especially Anarchs. > > > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > > I have no problem with the Anarchs action costing 2 blood. Infernalism > is horrible IMHO. > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > > Be careful what you wish for... > > I dunno... I'd settle for a slower expansion rate and more thorough > playtesting (possibly). I would rather *not* see Return to Innocence > crap made, but I can also do without cards like Bounty. Hey, isn't there > a brand of toilet paper called Bounty? Hmm... That's exactly the type of card that made me write this post. A good idea scuppered by being too underpowered. Other examples are True Faith, Lobotomy, Shock Troops, Contingency Planning, Ghouled etc. Chris.

> > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > > A whole box for Aranthebes? > > > Play more Anarch decks, then :-P I played a few. Becoming anarch just wasn't worth it. > > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > > me. > > > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > > > Jake Washington (FN) 1 > > Week of Nightmares (FN) 1 > > Khobar Towers (FN) 2 > > Treasured Samadji (FN) 1 > > PB: Montreal (SW) 2 > > Aranthebes (AN) 1 > > Art's Traumatic Essence (B) 2 > > Reins of Power (AN) 1 > > Year of Fortune (AN) 1 > > > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > > > You have lost touch here. Now rethink your whole statement from the CRYPT > side. Now tell me how many decks in the final round were made from vamps > created by WW and how many created by vamps from earlier sets. I deliberately avoided talking about the crypt cards because i think they have been well done. > > > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > > > I think they managed to translate a bit more difficulty and background > flavor than anything else in this set... > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > > > That will be awfull. I don't want to hold cards that cannot be > played/traded. No thanks. You already do - Toy Chest Test, Lobotomy etc. Chris.

> > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > > More than you can find in Bloodlines? And all the cards that made the > indy clans playable in Final Nights? Until that expansion, almost > nobody could suceed with the Giovanni, the Ravnos, the Setites (other > than sneaky bleed) and the Assamites (well, that didn't change that > much, but that's why I play them so much). And Baltimore Purge? And > LOTS of new vampires, making it possible weird combinations like > Malkavians with Protean? How could you build something like this with > Jyhad and VTES modules (putting lots of skill cards)? The indies did get some good cards - Call of the Hungry Dead, Week of Nightmares, Enticement. I'm not saying there are no good cards but that there are an unusual amount of underpowered cards and i believe they are underpowered because the DT has been determined to avoid printing overpowered cards. i just want them to take a few more risks. There's no good reason why Ghouled should cost a blood for example. > > > > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > > No, but *the cards* usable by anarchs are. Your playgroup just didn't > realize it yet. > Diversion provides, in just one card, an additional strike for free at > inferior (you won't find any other celerity card that does this) and > two damage prevention for free at inferior (same case with Fortitude). > Improvised Tactics provide a "fixed ranged signpost" of 2R *every > round*. OK, you'll have to use Trap to be effective, but it is still a > little above the usual. > Too many people are used to Blur and Immortal Grapple and Skin fo > Steel for many years, and these advantages in crypt selection, since > you don't need superior anymore, and in blood saving, didn't get > noticed yet. But they will. That strikes me as a little optimistic. > Another problem is the way you should work anarch decks to be > valuable. Most people didn't realise that most of the time you should > think the crypt and the deck to be wholly anarch - unless you want to > risk cornercase situations. That means: throw in lots of Galaric's > Legacy and Go Anarch. The first is trifle, it will in fact help you > with masters hand jamming. Go Anarch will save your blood and won't > take you a precious action, since you untap immediately. Most people > didn't realize this. Yes they do. Other players realise it as well so they block the Go Anarch action or reverse Galaric's and then your deck falls in a heap. > I have an anarch version of Fatima Multi-Rush that works very well, > and will be better when I get some more Diversions. With this card > instead of Pursuit, I can mantain combat at zero blood cost, make a > new crypt with obf/cel weenies that will be able to use additionals, > and add lots of free damage prevention to an archetype deck that > didn't had much room for it (there's always some Drawing Out the Beast > around). The combat module could consist of Disguised Weapon, > Diversion, Taste of Vitae and Psyche!, and nothing more. Sounds good although i'd be surprised if it was more than occasionally successful. > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > > I don't want to get cards that seem too good just to wait it to be > banned soon. This is just plain silly, IMHO. That's why I like VTES so > much: you have to put your brain working hard to build around some > cards. It's a challenge. > And even V:TES has its overpowered cards. They're discussed in this > forum every now and then. We don't need anymore. Yes I agree I was a bit rash in my statement about banning cards. Chris.

> Chris wrote: > > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > > A whole box for Aranthebes? > > While an understandable viewpoint, you need to keep in mind that the > last two independant expansions, Bloodlines and Anarchs, were both > very narrow expansions. Thios doesn't mean that they weren't good and > well designed, but both of them had sort of a limited field of use. > Bloodlines had tons of new and exciting stuff, but unless you are > building a fringe strategy bloodline deck, you aren't going to use > most of the set. Anarchs as well--unless you are building an Anarch > specific strategy, most of the set isn't that useful--maybe 5-10% of > the cards in the set are general use while the rest require an Anarch > strategy. > > This being said, I think both sets were very well designed and did > quite well what they wanted to do. But overall, both sets were more > "fun" sets than "competetive" sets (although there are certainly some > very good, winning strategies using Bloodlines clans--there are > probably similar winning strategies in the Anarchs set, but we haven't > really found them yet). I agree and that brings up another point. Is it worth printing "fun" sets if they're not competitive? i'd say not because they end up becoming frustrating if you can't at least win occasionally. > But in any set, there are going to be good > general use vampires, and good general use cards. Off the top of my > head in Anarchs, in terms of good general use cards we got: > > -Life in the City, which is very solid in the right deck. > -Cooler, which can be very handy (see the most recent Nosferatu > Newsletter :-) I like it but i think it's slightly underpowered. > -Bleeding the Vine, which is fringe but powerful. Heard that but haven't seen it in action yet. high cost, no? > -The various hold cards certainly have potential. Yes but will it be realised? I have my doubts although Regarhegan's looks like it might be useful. > -Aranthebes, which is very potent. Agreed. > -Blow Torch, which is a good, cheap weapon. > -Lots of very good vampires. Yes I was only talking about library cards, not crypt cards which on the whole have been fairly good. > -Tons of easy to get reprinted protean cards (I finally have all the > Flesh of Marbles I need). I was only discussing new cards but i take your point. > > Even without making an Anarchs strategy (which I am yet to actually > do), I have found a great deal of potential in the Anarchs set. > > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > > me. > > How are most of the cards useless? Yeah, if you aren't making an > Anarch deck, a lot of the set isn't going to be playable. But if you > are making an Anarch deck, you have a lot of solid material to work > with. And if you aren't, there is a good supply of other good stuff > too. I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. lobotomy personal scourge san nicolas de los servitas shock troops vagabond mystic baleful doll contingency planning crimson fury pseudo-blindness relentless pursuit save face shadow parasite > > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > > There are plenty of good new cards. All the new vampires are in heavy > use. Many Bloodlines strategies are very competetive. Many? I would quibble with the use of "many". Ahrimanes with long range animalism, Kyasid S+B...i'm struggling... > Anarch decks are > still being experimented with, and it seems likely that at some point > someone will come up with a scary one. I don't share your optimism. > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > > There are plenty of potent cards in the new sets. But again, limited > in scope. I suspect that Black Hand will be much more general use. > > -Peter

> > Here in Australia a local distributor has marked down Anarchs booster > > boxes but no one in my playgroup wants to buy them. Why not? What's > > going on? The reason most had was "What's Anarchs worth buying for?". > > A whole box for Aranthebes? > > > > I think WW have been too careful in the design of their library cards. > > While it is an admirable goal to avoid printing overpowered cards like > > RtI it seems to have had the unintended side effect of making most of > > the cards fairly useless. The Anarchs set has cemented that idea for > > me. > > > > I did a quick and admittedly inconclusive scan of the EC 2003 decks to > > see how many WW created cards were in the five decks. I found that > > there were only 12 out of 425 library cards created by WW: > > Now take look at the Storyline results. I guarantee you *every* of the > Giovanni decks (of which what, 18 won and many more made finals?) and > every Necromancy deck used a considerable portion of WW cards (Call > the Hungry Dead, anyone?) I doubt it. Yes they would have used Call of the Hungry Dead but as for the others i would expect standard bleed cards. Mind you I haven't checked so i could be completely wrong. > > Or look at the NAC, where one of the finalists used a Bloodlines-heavy > deck (Daughters), and several of the other four used a handful of > non-WotC cards. > > One consideration with Anarchs is that the set is still relatively > new, and people are still figuring out clever and sneaky ways to use > it. > > Also, you're completely overlooking the distinction that WotC printed > all but a handful of the cards in the 'base sets' (Jyhad, V:tes, > Sabbat, with Sabbat War and CE having lots of reprints of those three > sets). They're base sets for a _reason_, because the majority of the > cards you'll want to play with are in those sets. Everything else is > an expansion that is designed to compliment the base sets, not replace > them. It's hard to build an effective deck that ignores the base sets > - and that's exactly to be expected! Yes I know. I wrote the post out of frustration with cards like True Faith, Ghouled, Bounty, Blackmail etc. Good ideas implemented in underpowered cards. > > > Off the top of my head I can think of a few more that are useful (e.g. > > Enticement, Sanguine Instruction, PB: Madrid etc.) however after five > > sets I would have expected there to be more good cards. > > Whoo boy, are you missing a ton. I didn't try to list them all. no time. > I almost *never* see PB: Madrid played. I've used it to reasonable effect. > Maybe you meant PB:Montreal? No, that was already accounted for in the EC decks. >And if you don't want those 'not good' Anarch cards, I'll take them off your > hands for the little you think they are worth. :) I think i'll hang onto them, you never know, they might get updated with new and improved text. ;) > > > The new mechanics leave a little to be desired as well. Infernalism > > has too high a cost and why does the first Anarch action cost two > > blood???? Did they really think it would be that powerful? > > Actually, I like that extra blood cost for the first Anarch - there > are several Anarch mechanics where there's a benefit to your > *opponents* if they suddenly start going Anarch in response to you > doing so (like The Mole, or more importantly Anarch Salon). The cost > of Infernalism balances nicely both the fact that the Infernal vamps > are overpowered for their capacity and that several very powerful > cards require you to be Infernal. If anything, I and others wish (hope > hope hope for BH card) that a card existed to allow you to make MORE > vampires infernal - a clear sign that the price is not too high. > > (What powerful cards, you say? Imagine an Anson Anarch Revolt deck > where the vamps are infernal and Contagious to boot. Or notice how > Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat > too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike > Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) Well they would need to get daimonion as well so it doesn't sound all that powerful. > > > I'd like to see the DT take more risks. So what if an overpowered card > > comes along every now and then? We can always just ban it. :) > > Planning to fall back on banning cards is awful. Given that a large > percentage of play groups use tournament rules in casual play, cards > that are just going to get banned from tourney use are coasters. > Notice how WW has never printed or reprinted any 'only useable with > ante' cards? Printing cards that can only be played in certain types > of games is a quick way to dilute the 'worth' of a set. Imagine what > would happen if cards started appearing that said 'only useable in a > 2-player game' or 'not usable in a 2-player game' - certain portions > of the market would be really pissed that they're buying cards they'll > never (or almost never) even be *able* to play with. (And yes, there > are people out there who play V:tes as an almost-exclusively 2-person > game. Just not on this mailing list usually.) I agree my statement about banning cards was rash but notice you make the point about coaster cards - that's my point too. what else are bounty, blackmail, lobotomy etc. if not coasters? Chris.

> I think you forgot that more than half of a deck is made of discipline > cards (and unless you like weenie decks that's a good thing) and one > sixth of it of mastercards. > > Except for the bloodlines and part of the indie disciplines, WW > released about no discipline cards. That's a big "except" considering Bloodlines and Final Nights were two big sets. > And for mastercard, out of say 15 > master slots, at least half of them are taken by a few standard cards, > thereby letting at most seven slots for new cards. > > Blood Doll > Direct intervention > Dreams of the Sphinx > Pentex Subversion > Minon tap > Giant's blood > Secure Haven > Sudden reversal Standard cards? I don't consider DI, Dreams, Pentex, Secure standard cards. In fact isn't that a damning indictment of the game if everyone plays with the same cards? Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com>... > Yes I know. I wrote the post out of frustration with cards like True > Faith, Ghouled, Bounty, Blackmail etc. Good ideas implemented in > underpowered cards. There are definitely some stinker cards in the new sets. Of course, there are some stinker cards in the WotC sets, too. There's tons of chaff in the AH/DS sets alone, potentially much more so than in the more recent non-base expansions. > > I almost *never* see PB: Madrid played. > > I've used it to reasonable effect. So've I; my point was just most people would not include it in their list of 'best' cards out of WW-created ones. I doubt most people would put it in the top 50. Doesn't mean it's bad, cause it's not. > > (What powerful cards, you say? Imagine an Anson Anarch Revolt deck > > where the vamps are infernal and Contagious to boot. Or notice how > > Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat > > too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike > > Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) > > Well they would need to get daimonion as well so it doesn't sound all > that powerful. There are lots of ways to at least temporarily get inferior Daimonion. Off the top of my head: Be a !Tremere (or impersonate to one) with an Infernal Pact. Be any minion with tha (or with the Thaum item) and an Infernal Familiar. Be absolutely any vampire with a Vial of Elder Vitae (an uncommon in the Cam set, even, not at all hard to acquire.) Be a Lasombra (or impersonating one) with a Cam Vitae Slave. Impersonate one way or another to have a Baali teach you via Sanguine Instruction. Play Ian Forestal. > I agree my statement about banning cards was rash but notice you make > the point about coaster cards - that's my point too. what else are > bounty, blackmail, lobotomy etc. if not coasters? Cards that still have use, either in a cornercase situation or in sealed-deck formats. (One of the things I enjoy most about sealed-deck games is the opportunity to put oddball cards to use without putting you at a big disadvantage, admittedly.) I don't think Lobotomy is any more a coaster than say Ravnos Acceptance, Goodnight Sweet Prince or Werewolf Pack. While you may find some cards in recent sets less than ideal, the percentage (as noted elsewhere in this thread) of truly wretched cards in an expansion is still better than it was in the past, in a lot of people's opinions. > Chris.

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<ZDWpb.34604$3N5....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Doing a quick scan of the NAC 2003 decks also reveals: Life in the City (AN) 3 Paris Opera House (BL) 2 Missing Voice (BL) 6 Siren's Lure (BL) 6 Tourette's Voice (BL) 6 All these were from Forrest Nielsen's DoC/!Tor deck.

"Ethan Burrow" <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote > > I played two games last night on deckbot, and it was a blast. For the > most part, it's easy to backup if you make a mistake, and Derek's > usually there to help as well. You should jump in an play some with > us :-) I'm intrigued. How do you keep track of the current game state? Cheers, WES

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > >Are those Rafastio Ghouls mortal? Hmm... I was thinking of Torn > > in a crazy turn of events, the Rafastio's are not mortal...they are, > in fact.....Ghouls! LOL... right. Though ghouls are technically mortal in the RPG I think, right? I claim that as my defense then :) > action consolidation. the pot strike is sometimes useful. i think it'd > be best if the deck was lined up for it's use. But I can't think of any deck that could build around this. Maybe an Arms Dealer/High Ground/Sewer Lid deck. Use Marlena to bring them out sans tap. That would be pretty funny actually. Cheers, WES

"John Flournoy" <flou...@rcn.com> wrote > > Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat > too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike > Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) Hmm... has anyone tried Baali with the following angle? Give Giotto Concordance and superior Fortitude. Do not pay to untap Giotto during untap phase. Force of Will to bleed with tapped Giotto. Freak Drive and do something else as needed. Untap Giotto during influence phase. It would certainly save on the infernal costs... You could also give him a Soul Gem and make it turbo-like. Cheers, WES

"Morrison" <kry...@shaw.ca> wrote > > > > I'm trying to trade my swords away actually. > > Interesting. What do you want for them? Best if we discuss this off list. > Well I haven't played it all that much. But one attempt was Weenie > deck based partly on potence. The mortal Allies like Muddled Vamp Hunter and > Brujah Allies worked well. Throw in some Panders and Ghouled Street Thugs > and you bash down the establishment. I never got the Anarch angle into it. > But another time perhaps. Sounds funny. Effective? Maybe, maybe not. But funny decks have their own merit. Wait until you all see my "Is there a doctor in the house?" deck I'm working on! Featuring Dr. Jest, Dr. Allan Woodstock, Dr. John Casey and Dr. Douglas Netchurch... they all have at least inferior auspex. There's a deck in there somewhere. > Which is a shame. The vamps are half the set. And for a guy like me > sometimes even more. I love new crypt cards. I'm usually far more interested in the new vampires myself. New tech is fun, but I love playing around with weird discipline combos. I'm working on a new Mirembe/Nadima deck as we speak. Hey... Nadima is brand new isn't she! :) > Nah. I was referring to White Wolf related vampire anarchy. I have > no interest in debating the ins & outs of 'True" anarchy. But thanks anyway. Heheh... s'ok. > Baali do take work to make a > successful (ie winning) deck. Which is part of the fun. I like a challenge. > Otherwise I could just play Malk stealth/bleed all the time. That would be > way too boring. I *want* them to work, don't get me wrong. I just think the infernal cost is way too prohibitive. But now that I have mentioned the Concordance idea a few posts up, I may just try to build it. > > BTW I swept that game, and easily at that... I don't mention this to > > brag, but as additional evidence of just how bad it is paying ~42 pool > > for 3 vampires who are normally worth a total of 20. > > It is bad. That's what makes them a trade off. They have powerful > abilities and must pay for them accordingly. I agree that their abilities are good, as is Daimonion itself. But the cost is still way too high. I'll email you about those cards. Cheers, WES

> Hmm... has anyone tried Baali with the following angle? > > Give Giotto Concordance and superior Fortitude. > Do not pay to untap Giotto during untap phase. > Force of Will to bleed with tapped Giotto. > Freak Drive and do something else as needed. > Untap Giotto during influence phase. > > It would certainly save on the infernal costs... > > You could also give him a Soul Gem and make it turbo-like. I saw a deck like that up in Ithaca...I thought it worked pretty well, but if memory serves Sackett kept on getting frustrated with it. Albert

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20031104215602...@mb-m21.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] None at all. Unless no new cards fitting this 50%, thus cards for the "standard" disciplines are released.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.0311...@posting.google.com>... > > I think you forgot that more than half of a deck is made of discipline > > cards (and unless you like weenie decks that's a good thing) and one > > sixth of it of mastercards. > > > > Except for the bloodlines and part of the indie disciplines, WW > > released about no discipline cards. > > That's a big "except" considering Bloodlines and Final Nights were two > big sets. Not that big if you consider that both bloodlines and FN deal with specific clans, and that decks based around these clans : - can be pretty efficient - use many cards from these sets > > > And for mastercard, out of say 15 > > master slots, at least half of them are taken by a few standard cards, > > thereby letting at most seven slots for new cards. > > > > Blood Doll > > Direct intervention > > Dreams of the Sphinx > > Pentex Subversion > > Minon tap > > Giant's blood > > Secure Haven > > Sudden reversal > > Standard cards? I don't consider DI, Dreams, Pentex, Secure standard > cards. In fact isn't that a damning indictment of the game if everyone > plays with the same cards? I agree with you, I would be eager to see more variety in the mastercards played. The problem is that those cards are pretty generic and way above the others, unless you have a startegy based on some master cards

> I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are > the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because > they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can > see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. > > lobotomy > personal scourge > san nicolas de los servitas > shock troops > vagabond mystic > baleful doll > contingency planning > crimson fury > pseudo-blindness > relentless pursuit > save face > shadow parasite Let me add some: Tortured Confession Save Face Canopic Jar Forgery Zoning Board Blood of the Cobra Mythic Form Thrones Crumble Dismemberment of Osiris Malleable Visage Emissary Sensory Overload The Haunting Total Insanity The Summoning Blood Clots Border Skirmish Guard Duty Legion Gift of Experience Tajdid Lazarene Inquisitor Regenerative Blood High Museum of Art, Atlanta Storage Annex Venetian Conference Crimson Furey Abandoning the Flesh Voice of Madness Veil of Silence Set's Call Choir Steal the Mind Panacea Resurrection Frozen Object Internal Recursion Rewind Time Putrefaction Rigor Mortis Rayzeel's Song Sense Vitality Circle Swoop Iron Heart Denial of Aphrodites Favour San Nicolas de las Serivtas Starshell Grenade Launcer Smoke Grenade Quetu Tutu Brigitte Gebauer Honor the Elders Rabble Razing The Final Nights Reality Mirror Trackers Mark Fata Amria Personal Scourge King of the Mountain Shadow Parasite Just a list. :) Carl

> > I have an anarch version of Fatima Multi-Rush that works very well, > > and will be better when I get some more Diversions. With this card > > instead of Pursuit, I can mantain combat at zero blood cost, make a > > new crypt with obf/cel weenies that will be able to use additionals, > > and add lots of free damage prevention to an archetype deck that > > didn't had much room for it (there's always some Drawing Out the Beast > > around). The combat module could consist of Disguised Weapon, > > Diversion, Taste of Vitae and Psyche!, and nothing more. > > Understand that you are low-balling the maneuvers, then. If you are > playing in a metagame light on Immortal Grapple, or if (as you say) the > odds of getting hit with DotB are high, then it may be a reasoned > choice. Still, it opens you up to a wide range of nastiness that reliably > gaining long range lets you avoid. From what I've seen of other people > playing this deck, most people cut the Ghoul Retainer. If you've kept > him, then some of the maneuver issues are lessened. Pardon me. I forgot that my version of it already packed some Flashes instead of many Pursuits (from 6 to 8 of each) because I often fall as prey or predator of a Fortitude lover, and a press is almost mandatory to guarantee that I'll send the opposing minion to torpor. (since I don't have that many Psyche! and Freak Drive as needed by the archetype, there's a lot of room to add Flash; and that's why it does not win more than once in a while. But gee, it's fun as hell to play, specially when you look at the other player's face when she pulls the gun. It has been so scaring that I can't do any deck with Fatima anymore without getting the flag of "the biggest menace of the table"). And yes, I've kept two Ghoul Retainers in it. Just for the record too, I think that i dropped many Pursuits because of the local metagame. I've run across only two deck archetypes that used maneuvers in large quantity: Tzimisce (most of'em from Spirit's Touch) and Tremere. The first i can prevent since they rarely do more than two (aggro) damage. The second will Theft me anyway, so... As soon as possible I'll post this "anarch version" here.

"Carl Pilhatsch" <car.pi...@chello.at> wrote > > > I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are > > the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because > > they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can > > see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. > The Summoning You don't like this? It's good when you own one copy of a rare ally/retainer and need another. Just substitute the Summoning for the copy you need. Think of it as an ally/retainer version of Magic of the Smith. Sort of. > Blood Clots Has potential I think. So far, I have had no luck with it however. > Border Skirmish Annoying yes, but it could be good in the same way that Lupine Assault can be good. Throw the rest of the players into chaos, and then take advantage of said chaos. A lot of decks will be crippled if they lose the right card in their hand. It's a shame it also cripples people across the table though. > High Museum of Art, Atlanta I like this card. I read the text on it as "Give another player in the game 4 pool to keep them in the game." :) > Storage Annex Very useful in some decks. Comparable to Elder Library. > Choir Never been the victim of a DoC Choir deck I guess? > Starshell Grenade Launcer Great with weenies. > Honor the Elders This card has won a few tournaments. Speedy influence of elders and pool gain. > The Final Nights This should be good, but the targeting aspect of Free States Rants keeps it from going in my decks. Still, a deck that has lots of blood gain could cripple a table with this card without suffering much itself. > Just a list. :) I agree with most of your list. Cheers, WES

> I agree my statement about banning cards was rash but notice you make > the point about coaster cards - that's my point too. what else are > bounty, blackmail, lobotomy etc. if not coasters? Challenges. I'm currently trying to find use to Blackmail. I thought it would be a nice addition to a Setites bleed/Form of Corruption deck. You'll certainly have plenty of stealth to make it pass; after two or three Blackmails in play, your prey will have problems when choosing who to leave untapped *or* will have to spend the blood to get rid of it, what is always good when there's a FoC waiting to be used. I do agree that Blackmail should've been a +1 stealth action.

Morrison expounded: > > May I ask what you have been using Ghouled for? I don't see too much of > > a use for it. Except for Muddles throwing a Sewer Lid at first strike, > > it's not so impressive. How many allies can even use this card? > > Well I haven't played it all that much. But one attempt was Weenie > deck based partly on potence. The mortal Allies like Muddled Vamp Hunter and > Brujah Allies worked well. Throw in some Panders and Ghouled Street Thugs > and you bash down the establishment. I never got the Anarch angle into it. > But another time perhaps. I must say I find it a bit disappointing that your allies can't be anarchs too. I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Anarchs in Atlanta in one of the Books...

David Cherryholmes expounded: > Nonetheless, you have pointed out that I got sloppy with my > terminology. What I should have said in place of "S+B" was "decks > focused mostly around payload and delivery and light on minion > control." That's a whole different comment. What's "minion control" anyway? Now you appear to be saying that the big Euopean tournaments have everyting except a lot (40%) of combat...?

h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid expounded: > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: > > > [1] Weak Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive > > environment without pool gain at least as good as what you'd get out > > of four blood dolls. > > Hey, that's a nice invention. > > But can pool gain be replaced with "don't lose pool"-tactics, like > Telepathic Counter? > > Or is there something fundamentally different between gaining pool to > compensate for lost pool, and not losing the pool in the first place? > (Like doing your own thing instead of reacting?) Fundamentally different. You can't be sure that your pool-preservation will work. Eg: TC vs Votes/Fame.

[snip] > > May I ask what you have been using Ghouled for? I don't see too much of > a use for it. Except for Muddles throwing a Sewer Lid at first strike, > it's not so impressive. How many allies can even use this card? > >[snip] A friend of mine is thinking about a weenie-ish Brujah deck with several debates and a lot of Ghouled-loyal street gangs trowing Lids. Which I think is a pretty good concept with Charisma, left for dead and Memories of mortality. Tim

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:19:14 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> scrawled: [snip] >Wait until you all see my "Is there a doctor in the house?" deck I'm >working on! > >Featuring Dr. Jest, Dr. Allan Woodstock, Dr. John Casey and Dr. Douglas >Netchurch... they all have at least inferior auspex. There's a deck in >there somewhere. There's also a non-consecutive pairing of Groups in there somewhere... :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On 4 Nov 2003 21:54:09 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) scrawled: [snip] >There are lots of ways to at least temporarily get inferior Daimonion. [...] >Be a Lasombra (or impersonating one) with a Cam Vitae Slave. Cam Vitae Slave allows you to upgrade one of your existing basic level disciplines to superior. it doesn't grant disciplines. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:07:57 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> scrawled: > >"John Flournoy" <flou...@rcn.com> wrote >> >> Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat >> too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike >> Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) > >Hmm... has anyone tried Baali with the following angle? > >Give Giotto Concordance and superior Fortitude. >Do not pay to untap Giotto during untap phase. >Force of Will to bleed with tapped Giotto. >Freak Drive and do something else as needed. >Untap Giotto during influence phase. i tried it again about an hour ago, with a deck i've been tweaking on and off for about 4 months now. got hurt by a rushy predator quite badly. :( the 'something else' to do, as needed, is usually D'habi Revenant. :) >It would certainly save on the infernal costs... The set up is tricky (if you have enough Concordances and Fort skills to get them early, you tend to get them at all sorts of bad timings. Giotto's discard special helps out a lot. :) Runs through minion blood like a haemophiliac on speed, though, which is what most of my master phase actions try and help out with. >You could also give him a Soul Gem and make it turbo-like. Soul Gem also makes a nice Archon Investigation insurance policy. [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote > > There's also a non-consecutive pairing of Groups in there somewhere... > :) Ha! Foiled again... Are Morticians doctors? Kind of I guess... hmmm. Cheers, WES

Timlagor wrote: > I must say I find it a bit disappointing that your allies can't be > anarchs too. I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Anarchs in > Atlanta in one of the Books... As disappointing as it is that allies can't be Tzimisce? I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Tzimisce in one of the book. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 01:38:53 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >I'm intrigued. You should be. I played my first game last night, and it rocked the hizzouse. >How do you keep track of the current game state? status <playername> David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:54:42 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >That's a whole different comment. What's "minion control" anyway? Now >you appear to be saying that the big Euopean tournaments have everyting >except a lot (40%) of combat...? Well, I still think they are pretty stealth-bleedy, but in the interest of getting a rabid poodle off my heels, I dialed it back some. Minion control is..... I don't know what else to call it. Being able to control your opponenet's access to minions. Other examples would be SenseDep, Banishment, Temptation, etc. A really good combat deck has the potential to just completely deny your opponent(s) access to minions. Most strategies collapse under those conditions. When faced with nothing but collapsed strategies, it doesn't take a lot to go on and win the table, even without much bleed, or much pool gain. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>The Summoning > > > You don't like this? It's good when you own one copy of a rare > ally/retainer and need another. Just substitute the Summoning for the > copy you need. Think of it as an ally/retainer version of Magic of the > Smith. Sort of. > It would be cool, but it's again a "halfway-done" card, as the superior version won't allow you to bring a retainer directly into play. :( >>Border Skirmish > > > Annoying yes, but it could be good in the same way that Lupine Assault > can be good. Throw the rest of the players into chaos, and then take > advantage of said chaos. A lot of decks will be crippled if they lose > the right card in their hand. It's a shame it also cripples people > across the table though. Actually I don't think so. I have found no use for it so far, and I have tried hard in a milling deck. > > >>High Museum of Art, Atlanta > > > I like this card. I read the text on it as "Give another player in the > game 4 pool to keep them in the game." :) It still leaves a bad taste when you actually use it. It goes out of my decks everytime I have to reduce the size down to 90 - it's just not worth it. > > >>Storage Annex > > > Very useful in some decks. Comparable to Elder Library. I tried it often enough to say that it's in essence nothing but a chaff card - want to use less than 60 cards: here you go. > > >>Choir > > > Never been the victim of a DoC Choir deck I guess? Oh, I've build a choir deck myself, but again, it's just not cost/action-effective compared to other strategies. Too much buildup for less effect. > > >>Starshell Grenade Launcer > > > Great with weenies. 2 pool, tapping for the effect (and the equip-action itself) for -1 stealth just doesn't cut it. The weapon itself is only usable at long range and only once per combat! > > >>Honor the Elders > > > This card has won a few tournaments. Speedy influence of elders and pool > gain. Before putting Honor the Elders in a vote deck, I almost always take Ancient influence, Reins of Power and Political Struggle first - they are *way* more effective. > > >>The Final Nights > > > This should be good, but the targeting aspect of Free States Rants keeps > it from going in my decks. Still, a deck that has lots of blood gain > could cripple a table with this card without suffering much itself. There has to be a reason nobody plays this card. Yes perhaps in a Cryptic Mission - Gregory Winter - Smiling Jack - blood denial deck, perhaps. *Extremely unlikely* :) Carl

On 4 Nov 2003 21:54:09 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote: >There are lots of ways to at least temporarily get inferior Daimonion. But none of these make you infernal. Concordance requires an infernal vampire (at least for dai/DAI). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message news:5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com... > I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are > the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because > they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can > see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. I don't want to get caught up in nitpicking specific card examples too much, but I do think this is a problem that isn't new to the game and can probably never be totally avoided in CCGs. (I do agree that it could be done better than in some recent cases.) Examples from the original Jyhad set: Blood Bond Cat Burglary Patagia: Flaps Allowing Limited Flight Psychic Projection The Sixth Tradition: Destruction Disarming Presence Hidden Lurker Loyal Street Gang The Knights Cauldron of Blood Conquer the Beast Drain Essence Glaser Rounds Growing Fury Open Grate Vanish from the Mind's Eye Well-Aimed Car Bastard Sword Chainsaw Hawg RPG Launcher Blood Puppy Deal with the Devil Frenzy Gird Minions Illegal Search and Seizure Masquerade Endangered Police Department Protracted Investment The Spawning Pool Unnatural Disaster XTC-Laced Blood Camarilla Exemplary Consanguineous Condemnation Kindred Segregation Masquerade Enforcement Peace Treaty Political Flux Regaining the Upper Hand Dread Gaze Fast Reaction Political Backlash Pulling Strings Surprise Influence Wolf Companion Not all of these totally suck, of course - but I do think they're all at least cards that are somewhat underpowered, even if the concept was interesting. Josh more on the topic later...

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:boa5o...@enews2.newsguy.com... > > "salem" <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote > > action consolidation. the pot strike is sometimes useful. i think it'd > > be best if the deck was lined up for it's use. > > But I can't think of any deck that could build around this. > > Maybe an Arms Dealer/High Ground/Sewer Lid deck. Use Marlena to bring > them out sans tap. That would be pretty funny actually. Funny you should mention that. Colin Riggs has made this deck. I don't know if he was using Marlena though. It's really bad. Really really bad. Want to post the decklist, Colin? :-) Josh also he didn't use that many high grounds because he didn't own enough of them, but fake out is almost as good since you're not that likely to be going multiple rounds anyway

> Not all of these totally suck, of course - but I do think they're all at > least cards that are somewhat underpowered, even if the concept was > interesting. I think we all agree that judging the power of a to-be-released card is quite complicated even with a lot of playtesting. There are hundreds to thousands of other cards that might interact with the new card in some way so that it will be broken. I further think it is near impossible to create perfectly balanced new cards and so you have two options : aim high or aim low. WotC has aimed very high some times in "that other game" and then aimed very low for some expansions. This has created a lot of frustration for some people, either because the expansion was all crap (anyone remember Homelands or Fallen Empires ?) or so good that it killed all that was before (except for alpha/beta). WW on the other hand has tried to aim constantly a little bit low. This resulted in some good yet balanced and some not-so-good ones (cards). Yet all expansions WW has produced (and also WotC while still owning V:TES) are worth buying to some amount, some more some less (Anarchs certainly being the one where you don´t need THAT many boxes and Sabbat or Bloodlines probably the most interesting one). Which option do you prefer ? BTW : I find it a challenging and interesting task to put some use to cards that are widely considered as "crap". -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

LSJ expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > I must say I find it a bit disappointing that your allies can't be > > anarchs too. I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Anarchs in > > Atlanta in one of the Books... > > As disappointing as it is that allies can't be Tzimisce? > I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Tzimisce in one of the book. > :-) Even more disappointing than that. I've never wanted to play a Clan card with an ally you see. (besides the huge the difference between a Clan and a sect -or whatever Anarchs are: subsect?)

"Carl Pilhatsch" <car.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message news:b47qb.195847$vL1.2...@news.chello.at... > >>The Final Nights > > > > > > This should be good, but the targeting aspect of Free States Rants keeps > > it from going in my decks. Still, a deck that has lots of blood gain > > could cripple a table with this card without suffering much itself. > > There has to be a reason nobody plays this card. Yes perhaps in a > Cryptic Mission - Gregory Winter - Smiling Jack - blood denial deck, > perhaps. *Extremely unlikely* :) Sigh, I was hoping on not sharing this deck, because I hate it. But I think the design works rather well. The once or twice that I could stomach playing this deck the Finals Nights really shut everyone but myself down. This deck would be much better with multiple toreador grand balls. There are a few more improvements that never made it into the paper version. So blast away. Deck Name: Smile on the Final Nights Created By: Colin Description: arrgh Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 8, Max: 38, Avg: 5.83) --------------------------------------------- 3 Anneke AUS CEL dom PRE 10, Toreador, Justicar 3 Anson aus CEL dom PRE 8, Toreador, Prince 1 Antoinette DuChamp cel pre 1, Caitiff 1 Delilah Easton pre 2, Toreador 1 Frederick the Weak pre 2, Brujah Antitribu 1 Gideon Fontaine PRE 3, Ventrue 1 Mariana Gilbert cel PRE 4, Toreador 1 Violette Prentiss dom PRE 4, Ventrue Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (31 cards) 1 Art Museum 1 Bleeding the Vine 4 Dominate 1 Elysium: The Arboretum 2 Fortitude 1 Golconda: Inner Peace 1 KRCG News Radio 2 Life Boon 4 Life in the City 4 Minion Tap 1 Powerbase: Chicago 1 Powerbase: Washington, D.C. 1 Rack, The 3 Smiling Jack, The Anarch 1 Society Hunting Ground 2 Storage Annex 1 Visit from the Capuchin Action Modifier (11 cards) 2 Awe 2 Bewitching Oration 7 Voter Captivation Political Action (11 cards) 2 Banishment 7 Final Nights, The 2 Kindred Restructure Reaction (34 cards) 3 Enhanced Senses 15 Obedience 15 Second Tradition: Domain, The 1 Spirit's Touch Equipment (3 cards) 1 .44 Magnum 1 Sniper Rifle 1 Sport Bike

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:vkqhqvkgu3ssk9bma...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:35:16 +0100, "Stefan Ferenci" > >looking at the finallist decks of > >the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the > >EC. > > I'll have to go back and look at them, which I don't have time to do > at the moment, before I can comment on that. I know I was too busy > being pissed about narrowly missing them to pay much attention to the > finals. I remember is was won by a fairly "crappy" Tremere toolbox, > though. I wonder if it passed the Weak Blood Doll Test? [1,2] Depends how you count it, but it had 3 Blood Doll, 2 Dreams of the Sphinx, 1 Powerbase Montreal, and 13 Govern the Unaligned (and may well have planned on using some Governs as pool gain since it looks like it had 6 DOM vampires). > [1] Weak Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive > environment without pool gain at least as good as what you'd get out > of four blood dolls. > > [2] Strong Blood Doll Principle: no deck can succeed in a competitive > environment without at least four Blood Dolls. Cute. :-) Possible counterexamples to the weak principle from the TWD archive... Jay Kristoff's Origins qualifier this year (the Meshenka/Horrid Form thing): http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k3originsqualifier 3 Dreams of the Sphinx, 1 Golconda, 1 Slave Auction. Only the Slave Auction is consistent pool gain IMO. And your own Praxis Seizure: Charlotte this year (Ravnos with Gabrin, Week of Nightmares): http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k3charlottejune 1 Blood Doll, 1 Dreams of the Sphinx. 2 Govern the Unaligned but I can't see those as really being pool gain when no vamp starts with DOM and there are only two Dominate masters in the deck. I don't suppose you were thinking of this deck when proposing the theorems? :-) Though I'd have to guess that the moral of the story is more that "there is no single feature that is necessary to every successful deck, if played well (and perhaps luckily)" than that "pool gain isn't worth having". > No, I really think the differences in the metagame derive simply from > raw numbers. The larger the tournament, the more likely 2 or even 3 > tablewins are necessary to make the finals. Stealth bleed is, and > always has been, the strongest strategy, so it makes sense to me that > people playing in those tournaments play conservatively. I'd guess > your casual games are as varied as anybody's. People seem to overestimate this a little bit. Even in the largest tournament I've ever heard of (the Spanish Open this year, 171 players), only one of the five finalists had 3 game wins. Granted, you needed 2 GW as far down as 17th place and the finalists had at least 2 GW 8 VP. :-) Josh unprincipled

Carl Pilhatsch expounded: > >>The Summoning > > > > > > You don't like this? It's good when you own one copy of a rare > > ally/retainer and need another. Just substitute the Summoning for the > > copy you need. Think of it as an ally/retainer version of Magic of the > > Smith. Sort of. > > > It would be cool, but it's again a "halfway-done" card, as the superior > version won't allow you to bring a retainer directly into play. :( But then you wouldn't get the extra discard! ;-P > >>Border Skirmish > Actually I don't think so. I have found no use for it so far, and I have > tried hard in a milling deck. Probably the wrong sort of deck for it. Looks to me like it would go well with revelations or something. > >>Storage Annex > > > > Very useful in some decks. Comparable to Elder Library. > > I tried it often enough to say that it's in essence nothing but a chaff > card - want to use less than 60 cards: here you go. Good place to put that Week of Nightmares. I'm sure there are other cards that you might want to store, and it isn't Unique. > >>Honor the Elders > > This card has won a few tournaments. Speedy influence of elders and pool > > gain. > > Before putting Honor the Elders in a vote deck, I almost always take > Ancient influence, Reins of Power and Political Struggle first - they > are *way* more effective. HtE speeds up your transfers though. Struggle is totally different -did you mean Stranglehold? > >>The Final Nights > There has to be a reason nobody plays this card. Yes perhaps in a > Cryptic Mission - Gregory Winter - Smiling Jack - blood denial deck, > perhaps. *Extremely unlikely* :) You probably wouldn't have the votes. Looks like a Setite card to me.

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bob2ed$1c5nc6$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > Maybe an Arms Dealer/High Ground/Sewer Lid deck. Use Marlena to bring > > them out sans tap. That would be pretty funny actually. > > Funny you should mention that. Colin Riggs has made this deck. I don't > know if he was using Marlena though. > > It's really bad. Really really bad. Want to post the decklist, Colin? Sure, I didn;t use Marlena because the group 1/2 are weenier. Although that would have been hot. This was one of the decks that I didn't bother using ELDB for so this is probably wrong. Group 1/2 Brujah (including Rake and Volker) 19 Fake Outs 20 Sewer Like 2 Hgh Ground 12 Computer Hacking 8 Arms Dealers 3 Loyal Street Gang 1 Knights 1 Slashers 13 Ghouled 15 Haven Uncovered It was meant to be bad, and it sure was. Kind of funny though. The whole problem is concelaed .44s would be more effective. > also he didn't use that many high grounds because he didn't own enough > of them, but fake out is almost as good since you're not that likely to > be going multiple rounds anyway > For crap decks I don't believe in going to the trouble to use proxies. Colin Riggs got a majesty? No, WHAM!, got a majesty now? No? WHAM, heheh >

>>>>Honor the Elders >>> >>>This card has won a few tournaments. Speedy influence of elders and pool >>>gain. >> >>Before putting Honor the Elders in a vote deck, I almost always take >>Ancient influence, Reins of Power and Political Struggle first - they >>are *way* more effective. > > > HtE speeds up your transfers though. Struggle is totally different -did > you mean Stranglehold? > Ah, yes of course Political Stranglehold. ;) Carl

Timlagor wrote: > LSJ expounded: > >>Timlagor wrote: >> >>>I must say I find it a bit disappointing that your allies can't be >>>anarchs too. I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Anarchs in >>>Atlanta in one of the Books... >> >>As disappointing as it is that allies can't be Tzimisce? >>I seem to remember a ghoul working for the Tzimisce in one of the book. >>:-) > > Even more disappointing than that. I've never wanted to play a Clan card > with an ally you see. (besides the huge the difference between a Clan Then substitute "prince" or "Sabbat" or "vampire". I seem to remember a ghoul working for a vampire in one of the books. The point is that "used/manipulated/employed by" is not equivalent to "is". > and a sect -or whatever Anarchs are: subsect?) "Anarch" is a trait/attribute in the CCG, like "infernal". In the RPG, it's something like a subsect (of the Camarilla). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > Depends how you count it, but it had 3 Blood Doll, 2 Dreams of the > Sphinx, 1 Powerbase Montreal, and 13 Govern the Unaligned (and may well > have planned on using some Governs as pool gain since it looks like it > had 6 DOM vampires). I'd say it passes with flying colors. > Possible counterexamples to the weak principle from the TWD archive... > http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k3charlottejune > 1 Blood Doll, 1 Dreams of the Sphinx. 2 Govern the Unaligned but I > can't see those as really being pool gain when no vamp starts with DOM > and there are only two Dominate masters in the deck. I don't suppose > you were thinking of this deck when proposing the theorems? :-) I don't personally agree with *either* of them, but they seem like status-quo ideas (at least the Weak one). > Though I'd have to guess that the moral of the story is more that "there > is no single feature that is necessary to every successful deck, if > played well (and perhaps luckily)" than that "pool gain isn't worth > having". Well said. Sarcasm aside, I'd never take the latter position. I simply dispute it being a *necessity*. And I also agree that luck will always play a significant role in performance. > People seem to overestimate this a little bit. Even in the largest > tournament I've ever heard of (the Spanish Open this year, 171 players), > only one of the five finalists had 3 game wins. Granted, you needed 2 > GW as far down as 17th place and the finalists had at least 2 GW 8 VP. Well, I did say "2 or 3". If 2 GW and 8 VP isn't enough, then you might as well call that "3". David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

LSJ expounded: > The point is that "used/manipulated/employed by" is not equivalent to "is". > > and a sect -or whatever Anarchs are: subsect?) > > "Anarch" is a trait/attribute in the CCG, like "infernal". > In the RPG, it's something like a subsect (of the Camarilla). I thought it was an ideology ;-) The ghoul in questino certainly shared the ideology and they being Anarchs was more a part of the group than a ghoul could be part of a Clan. 'vampire': I do think it's a shame that retainers can't be turned into vampires as well. It's a trait I would like to be able to put on allies :-P I want to play Improvised Tactics with my ghouls!

Carl Pilhatsch <car.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message news:<Gq3qb.192254$vL1.2...@news.chello.at>... >shock troops While kinda weak in a way, this card is an absolute blast to use. > vagabond mystic I use this guy all the time. Good in any ally heavy deck (the relative power of allies in general is a different debate). > baleful doll Extremely limited, but I've seen it used well. > contingency planning Not as bad as it looks. > Tortured Confession Yeah, this one's pretty bad. If only it were free... > Save Face Too much text on this one. > Canopic Jar Yeah, this one's pretty bad. > Forgery Damnans actually has an excellent Baali deck using this. > Zoning Board See shock troops above (same deck even!). > Blood of the Cobra The little rare that couldn't. Has potential if they make good close range quietus strikes to use with it at some point in the future. Right now, the only ones that are vaguely useable with it are Coagulate Blood, Vascular Explosion and Weakness. Basically they'll have to make a close range Quietus strike that's better than Blood Sweat. > Mythic Form This card does so much, but it's nothing Protean can't do with other cards already. It is kinda neat to turn into a dragon and eat people. > Thrones Crumble > Dismemberment of Osiris Fairly weak. > Malleable Visage Pretty weak, yeah. > Emissary Dunno. 3 votes is nothing to sneeze at. > Sensory Overload This card is extremely good. > The Haunting > Total Insanity Definitely weak. > The Summoning Doesn't seem that bad. > Blood Clots Keeping the trend up from Erosion to make sure that Quietus actions are nice and overcosted. > Border Skirmish Neat, but poor. Pretty powerful in limited play though. > Guard Duty Would have been useable if you could use the untap without needing the intercept. > Legion Weak, but really neat. Absolutely perfect power level for a promo card, so I have no problem with this one. > Gift of Experience Don't see anything wrong with this one. > Tajdid Kinda weak, mainly because being shoved into torpor with 0 blood makes poor targets for diablerie. > Lazarene Inquisitor Seems useable. > Regenerative Blood Also seems useable. > High Museum of Art, Atlanta Misunderstood and underrated card. > Storage Annex Hugely underrated. > Venetian Conference I believe this was a metagame choice of a continental championship winning deck. > Crimson Fury Lots of fun; not terribly useful. > Abandoning the Flesh Yeah, the ball got dropped a little bit on this one. Opportunity cost is pretty huge and the benefit is only "good". The new Death Pact. > Voice of Madness Obedience for Dem? Seems good to me. > Veil of Silence Shadow Feint does the same thing, without a block requirement, without a strike restriction and with 2 more common disciplines. > Set's Call Not needed, since they have Entrancement. > Choir Poor, but neat. > Steal the Mind Not awful, but they generally have better things to do with their actions. > Panacea > Resurrection While very in-theme, it's a pity the Salubri clans got so much to do with allies and so few allies to work with in them. And the clans they're most related to in disciplines (!ventrue, ventrue, Harbingers) dont' really have any allies to speak of either. > Frozen Object Pretty powerful effect. Not sure why we haven't seen more. > Internal Recursion Seems useable. Guess I'll have to make a Tru Brujah deck that blocks. > Rewind Time This card is hysterical. > Putrefaction Kinda weak. > Rigor Mortis This one's really good. Has a lot of use in "Baron gets eye and smashes things" deck. > Rayzeel's Song Yep. It's bad. Although some friends like it for use in recurring Cry Wolf decks. > Sense Vitality This is a really good card. > Circle Kinda weak. > Swoop Underrated. Better than fake out in a deck that uses flight and wants to punch. > Iron Heart Somewhat weak, but satisfying when it works. > Denial of Aphrodites Favour Same. > San Nicolas de las Serivtas I think there's a tournament winning deck that's used this. Still, I would have rather seen Camarilla Vitae Slave reprinted instead. > Starshell Grenade Launcer Doesn't seem so bad. > Smoke Grenade Weak, but neat. Could have been better without being overpowered (maybe Dodge if used at close range, S:CE if usd at long). > Quetu > Tutu Don't hate the mummies. > Brigitte Gebauer Well, she does bleed for 2. > Honor the Elders I've seen it good in a bloat deck. > Rabble Razing > The Final Nights Both of these had good intentions, but didn't work out so well. Snipe Hunt blows them away. > Reality Mirror Perfectly fine card. > Trackers Mark Weak. > Fata Amria Too much to read. > Personal Scourge Yep. It's weak. > King of the Mountain Just costs too much. > Shadow Parasite They generally have better things to do, but with a path it's not so bad.

"Carl Pilhatsch" <car.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message news:b47qb.195847$vL1.2...@news.chello.at... [snippage] > >>Storage Annex > I tried it often enough to say that it's in essence nothing but a chaff > card - want to use less than 60 cards: here you go. Oh, here I strongly disagree. Storage Annex is definitely good. It's one of those things where you have to make an effort to make the master slots available for it, but (a) you can stick other excess masters in the Annex if you need to, so it's almost like a Trifle and (b) they make your hand flow better *all the time* while letting you keep things that will be useful later. There are decks using it in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive to back me up. :-) > >>Honor the Elders > Before putting Honor the Elders in a vote deck, I almost always take > Ancient influence, Reins of Power and Political Struggle first - they > are *way* more effective. You're right, but you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not just about gaining pool, it's about messing with the basic dynamics of the game. Another funny Colin Riggs deck that he probably doesn't like anymore (and which inspired all kinds of revulsion in everyone else around DC), but which made the tournament finals in DC at least once and won a tournament when Ian Lee played it: Deck Name: Honor the Elders Created By: Colin Riggs Description: See name Crypt: (18 cards, Min: 5, Max: 44, Avg: 7.33) --------------------------------------------- 1 Alexandra ANI AUS CEL dom PRE 11, Toreador, Inner Circle 1 Angela Decker pre 1, Pander 1 Anneke AUS CEL dom PRE 10, Toreador, Justicar 1 Anson aus CEL dom PRE 8, Toreador, Prince 1 Arika aus cel DOM FOR OBF PRE 11, Ventrue, Inner Circle 1 Delilah Easton pre 2, Toreador 1 Etrius AUS DOM OBF pro THA 11, Tremere, Inner Circle 1 Francois Villon AUS CEL chi obf pot PRE 10, Toreador, Prince 1 Frederick the Weak pre 2, Brujah Antitribu 1 Gideon Fontaine PRE 3, Ventrue 1 Gratiano DOM obf OBT pot 8, Lasombra, Priscus 1 Gwendolyn aus CEL FOR POT PRE tha 11, Brujah, Inner Circle 1 Harrod ANI aus CEL OBF POT pre 11, Nosferatu, Inner Circle 1 Igo the Hungry pre pro 1, Caitiff 1 Leandro AUS cel dom OBF PRE 11, Malkavian, Inner Circle 1 Quentin AUS cel DOM FOR obt 9, Ventrue Antitribu, Bishop 1 Smudge the Ignored none 1, Caitiff 1 Stanislava ANI CEL DOM FOR PRO 11, Gangrel, Inner Circle Library: (80 cards) ------------------- Master (19 cards) 1 Archon Investigation 11 Effective Management 7 Minion Tap Action (6 cards) 6 Charming Lobby Action Modifier (14 cards) 7 Bewitching Oration 4 Bribes 3 Business Pressure Political Action (35 cards) 2 Dramatic Upheaval 26 Honor the Elders 6 Kine Resources Contested 1 Rumors of Gehenna Combat (6 cards) 3 Fake Out 3 Majesty ---------------------------------------------- josh

Chris wrote: > I agree and that brings up another point. Is it worth printing "fun" > sets if they're not competitive? i'd say not because they end up > becoming frustrating if you can't at least win occasionally. Absolutely. Not all players play "tournament" style (I'm not one of them, but there are plenty :-). Not all players are concerned with competetiveness. On the other hand, there *are* a lot of players who want to see the RPG reflected well in VTES. Bloodlines and Anarchs both do a great job of reflecting the RPG. And they are fun to mess around with. Sure--am I seeing, like, the Samedi tearing up the tournament scene any time soon? Probably not, but that is ok. In the end, I'd much rather have cards err on the weak than too strong. And with expansions like Bloodlines and Anarchs, they work fine, there are certainly some tournament caliber cards in the set, and they are always playable. > I like it but i think it's slightly underpowered. Nah. Cooler is fantastic. For all intents and purposes, it is a zero discipline Govern the Unaligned (take an action to gain 3 pool). Everyone loves Govern. And Cooler can be played by anyone, regardless of discipline. Yeah, they aren't going in every deck, but decks that are built to use them can really use them. > Heard that but haven't seen it in action yet. high cost, no? Yes, Bleeding the Vine has a high cost (1 pool a turn). But in the appropriate deck, they can be devesatating--you foil your prey's every Master card. > Yes but will it be realised? I have my doubts although Regarhegan's > looks like it might be useful. I haven't seen them in action much yet, but they have a fairly unique mechanic that certainly has potential. > Yes I was only talking about library cards, not crypt cards which on > the whole have been fairly good. Which is one of the main draws of any of the expansions--the vampires. Yeah, it is difficult to make a really effective Bloodlines deck, but there are plenty of pre-existing decks that are strengthened a great deal by the Bloodlines vampires. Which is as good a draw as any. > I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are > the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because > they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can > see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. All of the cards presented below have use. Well, most of them. Are they RTI? No, but then RTI was removed from the game. But they all have a use somewhere. It might not be in a tournament winning deck, but it is somewhere. > lobotomy A reasonable card in the right circumstances. > personal scourge A damage dealing card in a non combat discipline. > san nicolas de los servitas > shock troops Certainly useful in the right deck. > vagabond mystic ??? A fine free ally that helps out Ally decks a lot. What self respecing Garou deck doesn't use Vagabond Mystics? > baleful doll Yeah. That is a bad one. > contingency planning Not a bad card at all. > crimson fury Not at all unreasonable. Kind of corner case, but certainly could fit in the right deck--say a Gangrel Regeneration/Minion Tap blood farm. You have minions in torpor. Someone is gonna try and diablerize them. Play Crimson Fury a few times, and they'll stop ever trying. > pseudo-blindness > relentless pursuit Could have been free. > save face Too many words. > shadow parasite > Many? I would quibble with the use of "many". Ahrimanes with long > range animalism, Kyasid S+B...i'm struggling... Ok. "Many" might not have been completely accurate, but some certainly is. I have seen very copetetive decks built out of the Kisayid, the Daughters, the Ahrimanes. The Agitas/Ian Forrestal deck is reasonable. Spirit Marrionette/Fortitude Skill/Daring the Dawn decks are very viable. Blood Brothers Pot/For Rush combat isn't completely out of the realm of reason. > I don't share your optimism. Some of the Anarchs cards are really good (The Mole; the free additional strike or prevent 2 damage combat card). And if the right deck is built around them, they can be very effective. -Peter

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > Another funny Colin Riggs deck that he probably doesn't like anymore > (and which inspired all kinds of revulsion in everyone else around DC), The kind of revulsion where you sit there and watch it work unimpeded because you're all pool whores? That kind of revulsion? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03110...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > Another funny Colin Riggs deck that he probably doesn't like anymore > > (and which inspired all kinds of revulsion in everyone else around DC), > > The kind of revulsion where you sit there and watch it work unimpeded > because you're all pool whores? That kind of revulsion? ;) hehehehe. As you probably saw to some extent, it can be hard to keep it from getting off the ground unless opposing titled vampires show up very early or you're able to torp its early weenies before they start passing Honors. Plus, the only person who can keep it totally pinned down without worrying that they're giving away a VP is its predator. (It does kind of turn out to be the sort of deck where you have to be willing to give away the VP because if you let it grow it will swallow the earth. But until you see it quite a bit, that's not necessarily obvious to your opponents.) It also has the potential to make funny stuff happen that mitigates how good the Honors can be for everyone else, like calling enough Honors per turn to make two Huitzilopochtlis explode due to not being able to pull the pool back fast enough to keep them from coming out. And getting out Leandro making everyone else pay for the ability to suck pool back off any Elders they may have. Josh dishonored

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:vkqhqvkgu3ssk9bma...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:35:16 +0100, "Stefan Ferenci" > > >Have you ever played a game in europe? > > No. Are you disputing wolflord's original assertion that the > metagames are different? > no they are different. > >I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent > >more or less conservative just different. > > And I'll consider that opinion seriously. It's still based upon a > very narrow personal experience, which isn't necessarily better than > what you can observe by staring at the newsgroup for a few years. > Only getting to see the decks in the finals, or sometimes only the > winner, is a huge limitation, granted.. > > >looking at the finallist decks of > >the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the > >EC. > > I'll have to go back and look at them, which I don't have time to do > at the moment, before I can comment on that. I know I was too busy > being pissed about narrowly missing them to pay much attention to the > finals. I remember is was won by a fairly "crappy" Tremere toolbox, > though. I wonder if it passed the Weak Blood Doll Test? [1,2] > Why crappy? because it has little combat? because it´s based on bloat and bleed? >> >maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play > >basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). > > No, I really think the differences in the metagame derive simply from > raw numbers. The larger the tournament, the more likely 2 or even 3 > tablewins are necessary to make the finals. Stealth bleed is, and > always has been, the strongest strategy, so it makes sense to me that > people playing in those tournaments play conservatively. I'd guess > your casual games are as varied as anybody's. > the finals of the ec 2003 saw only one S&B like the NAC (The Doc deck was S&B to some extend) > >i am > >preety sure that a bsaic malk S&B would have the same succes in the states > >as it has in europe, people just don´t play them! > > No, I still disagree with this (which is incidentally much more > interesting to discuss than trying to determine if I have any right to > hold an opinion). You have the right to build an opinion and i never meant to give the impression that ou should not be allowed to build an opinion i just wanted to know if your opinion was based on Tourney reports or personal experiance. Stefan >

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bobavt$1ca2ah$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03110...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > > Another funny Colin Riggs deck that he probably doesn't like anymore > > > (and which inspired all kinds of revulsion in everyone else around > DC), Why do I keep coming up in this thread? > > > > The kind of revulsion where you sit there and watch it work unimpeded > > because you're all pool whores? That kind of revulsion? ;) > > hehehehe. As you probably saw to some extent, it can be hard to keep it > from getting off the ground unless opposing titled vampires show up very > early Actually in that Finals, there were 'plenty' of High cap voters really early. I think Arika and some Justicar. I got out Gratiano or Quentin on the 3rd turn, and then had no problem pushing past the opposition with Bewitchings, Charming Lobby, Business Pressure, and cryptic Riders. If not for David's "lunge" that table was totally mine. Grr... I thought I was safe at 16 pool, and had 3 minon taps clogging my hand. Curses! > or you're able to torp its early weenies before they start passing > Honors. Plus, the only person who can keep it totally pinned down > without worrying that they're giving away a VP is its predator. (It > does kind of turn out to be the sort of deck where you have to be > willing to give away the VP because if you let it grow it will swallow > the earth. But until you see it quite a bit, that's not necessarily > obvious to your opponents.) That is one of the many annoying things about the deck, at least it goes well with the first rule of Jyhad. Torping the minions early is the big weakness... > > It also has the potential to make funny stuff happen that mitigates how > good the Honors can be for everyone else, like calling enough Honors per > turn to make two Huitzilopochtlis explode due to not being able to pull > the pool back fast enough to keep them from coming out. And getting out > Leandro making everyone else pay for the ability to suck pool back off > any Elders they may have. Thats why I like it. In that finals, I made my prey and grandprey contest Arika, Lucinde, and Marcus... tee hee! Its still around by the way, sitting in a deckbox, just waiting.... Colin Riggs must... honor... Elders...

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > hehehehe. As you probably saw to some extent, it can be hard to keep it > from getting off the ground unless opposing titled vampires show up very > early or you're able to torp its early weenies before they start passing > Honors. IIRC, the only game I played with it was with him as my prey and you as his prey. I think ya had votes, Josh. But you were also playing huge-ass vampires yourself, so you probably did think it was a good deal. > Plus, the only person who can keep it totally pinned down > without worrying that they're giving away a VP is its predator. (It > does kind of turn out to be the sort of deck where you have to be > willing to give away the VP because if you let it grow it will swallow > the earth. But until you see it quite a bit, that's not necessarily > obvious to your opponents.) Well I was trying to keep it pinned down, I just wasn't getting any help. Clearly, that is because you are Evil, as has been established with certainty many games ago. Speaking of which, I wish my predator would get off his butt in local39. I want to beat on you some. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Why crappy? because it has little combat? because it愀 based on bloat and > bleed? Lord no. Combat is the crappiest leg of the triangle. I called it "crappy" because that's what I think you would call it. There's no real stealth to the deck, and the combat is solidly Tier B. I imagine the gazillion deflections would appeal to you, though. > the finals of the ec 2003 saw only one S&B like the NAC (The Doc deck was > S&B to some extend) Right, because most everyone that *made it to the finals* was playing decks *extremely* focused *against* stealth bleed. Because your metagame is thick with it. > You have the right to build an opinion and i never meant to give the > impression that ou should not be allowed to build an opinion i just wanted > to know > if your opinion was based on Tourney reports or personal experiance. Cool then. Definitely not based on personal experience, but I think I can glean something from general discussions that take place here, above and beyond the contents of tournament reports. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes: > Ha! Foiled again... > > Are Morticians doctors? Kind of I guess... hmmm. The morticians are the ones that are called after the doctors have done their... thing. So Leonardo fits the theme. :-) -- hg@ It's better to open your mouth and appear stupid, iki.fi than to hold it shut and keep thinking you know it all.

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > I do think it's a shame that retainers can't be turned into vampires as > well. Fear the Murder of Vampiric Crows! Turn your Wolf Companion into an Abomination Lite. Or embrace your Infernal Familiar. Teach extra auspex to your Raven Spy. "Why does your owl have fangs?" [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com>... > > There are plenty of good new cards. All the new vampires are in heavy > > use. Many Bloodlines strategies are very competetive. > > Many? I would quibble with the use of "many". Ahrimanes with long > range animalism, Kyasid S+B...i'm struggling... > Well, let's look at the Legion storyline results. Multiple wins for Ahrimanes. Win for the Baali, Blood Brothers, multiples for the Daughters, multiple wins for the Harbringers, a win for the Samedi. Going back to the Eye Storyline results: Wins for the Salubri, Baali, DoC, Ahrimanes, Kiasyd, Harbringers, and Samedi. The Lasombra keeps a pretty complete list of non-Storyline tourney-winning decks. In it, we see wins with decks built around: Ahrimanes, Blood Brothers, Baali, Gargoyles, Harbringers, Kiasyd, Salubri, and Salubri Antitribu. So, just skimming the list of decks that win tourneys (a good indicator that they can be competitive), we've got multiple wins with every non-scarce bloodline (except !Salubri who've only won once) and one of the three scarce ones. Since you seem to be struggling to think of how these clans can work, I'd say 'check the tourney deck archives' and examine deck lists. -John Flournoy

>Is it worth printing "fun" >sets if they're not competitive? i'd say not because they end up >becoming frustrating if you can't at least win occasionally. It's important to avoid printing weak sets. Weak sets reduce sales. Discourage people looking for competitive variety. Are annoying when some sets aren't weak. Produce a mindset that weak should be the way to go. I've played a CCG that put out as its first expansion a set that may be the most powerful for any CCG ever. Made the game massively better. No, I'm not saying power = good. I understand trying to avoid significant power escalation - a problem pretty much only fixed by rotating out older sets, rebooting the game, or whatever. But, zero power escalation results in a stagnant game. That multiplayer CCGs lend themselves to a stronger social aspect to play means that they survive such better, but it's frustrating for people like me when the optimal paths to victory hardly change.

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) writes: > Yes, Bleeding the Vine has a high cost (1 pool a turn). But in the > appropriate deck, they can be devesatating--you foil your prey's every > Master card. If you allow your opponent's Bleeding the Vine to cancel *every* master card you play, you're not thinking it through. The algorithm: if you have a single master card in your hand, don't play it. Watch him pay for the Bleeding, and wait until you have two master cards. Play the first. It's blown to bits, you gain a master phase action. Play the second. Laugh at his tapped Bleeding the Vine. This way, you get to play your every other master card. If you manage to sneak a Parthenon past the Bleeding, it gets even better - two out of three of your masters will get through. A cool thing about Bleeding the Vine, is that it's practically an *infernal* master card. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>Before putting Honor the Elders in a vote deck, I almost always take >Ancient influence, Reins of Power and Political Struggle first - they >are *way* more effective. I wouldn't bother putting less than 25 HtEs in a deck. I wouldn't bother putting HtE in a vote deck ... can't remember if it was Colin or Trey who disagreed as to whether Colin's deck is a vote deck or a bleed deck. I think it's a swarm bleed deck that just happens to run around 30 votes. Not to say the card isn't weak in practice. Problem with an HtE deck seems to be how much easier it is to combat when you know how it works. Get one shot to surprise people and can probably never revisit the concept.

>I further think it is near impossible to create perfectly balanced new cards >and so you have two options : aim high or aim low. I like aiming for perfectly balanced. Fewer problems when you miss. >WotC has aimed very high some times in "that other game" and then aimed very >low for some expansions. This has created a lot of frustration for some >people, either because the expansion was all crap (anyone remember Homelands >or Fallen Empires ?) or so good that it killed all that was before (except >for alpha/beta). One of my favorite articles on CCGs had to do with Homelands and Alliances. One underpowered, one really strong at the time. The article was all about how Homelands was underplaytested where Alliances was rigorously playtested. The less you playtest a set, the more conservative you have to be to avoid printing broken cards and the less time spent on the crap cards that need to be upgraded to be worthwhile. This would seem to support the idea of bringing out sets less frequently as they would have more time to be playtested. But, my experience with CCG playtesting has been that improving the process gives plenty of time to playtest sets that come out in a timely manner. >WW on the other hand has tried to aim constantly a little bit low. This >resulted in some good yet balanced and some not-so-good ones (cards). Yet >all expansions WW has produced (and also WotC while still owning V:TES) are >worth buying to some amount, some more some less (Anarchs certainly being >the one where you don´t need THAT many boxes and Sabbat or Bloodlines >probably the most interesting one). I could see people buying no Anarchs. The percentage of good cards outside of Protean reprints is tiny. Now, I'd be willing to cut the patheticness of Anarchs more slack if we didn't have to wait 16 months between expansions. Could just write it off as an aberration. Actually, what I've seen of BH, makes me think it is the aberration. >Which option do you prefer ? I prefer striving for excellence. >BTW : I find it a challenging and interesting task to put some use to cards >that are widely considered as "crap". So do I (amazingly? enough based on comments I've made in the past). But, this ignores that having most cards being useful in some, possibly obscure, deck means that the same benefit can be gained applying that effort to building tournament quality decks. I don't want to spend most of my time *only* trying to get any use out of crap.

h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid expounded: > Play the first. It's blown to bits, you gain a master phase action. > Play the second. Laugh at his tapped Bleeding the Vine. that would be why the right deck also has Sudden Reversals in it ;P

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<boa5o...@enews2.newsguy.com>... > But I can't think of any deck that could build around this. Worst one I've seen yet is the Samedi + Weenie Malk deck. Malks bring out Muddled Vampire Hunter Ghouled, who can then punch for 5 OR throw a lid with first strike, and the Samedi are there to keep him alive with Infections if necessary, and also to bring out additional support in the form of Shambling Hordes. These allow you to let the first Muddles die if you didn't have a Ghouled in your hand, because you want him in your ash heap. Pick Malks that can deflect, and it can usually hold on long enough to get going. It probably doesn't actually need a lot of potence cards. Maybe just some grapples and lids. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

The best use I found for the new ghouled card was the invincibility it lent to my allies if I used a Samedi and the combat card INFECTION (prevent all damage to an ally or retainer in combat). Terrorists being mortal allies, when ghouled, become evil Al Qaeda monsters with bombs if George Fred or Lithrac or the Baron are there to prevent the damage on their behalf. Also, it gave a TON more mileage to Muddles. I looked around for the decklist I build but couldn't find it. I think I tooled the Samedi up with lots of blood gain stuff like coolers and etc to offset the cost. -Matthew Scrivner (THE PSYCHIC PIRATE Wears an Eyepatch over his THIRD EYE)

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<decjqvc7p9sg8l4i6...@4ax.com>... > On 4 Nov 2003 21:54:09 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote: > > >There are lots of ways to at least temporarily get inferior Daimonion. > > But none of these make you infernal. Concordance requires an infernal > vampire (at least for dai/DAI). Originally this sub-thread started with 'the cost of Infernalism is too high', to which I was responding that 'no it's not, and one sign of this is how many people wish there was a card to make you Infernal, so you could then patch Daimonion on and use the powerful cards that require infernalism and basic Daimonion, like Concordance.' So your comment is kind of redundant. (Chalk it up to a hugely active thread!) > David Cherryholmes > VEKN Prince of Durham, NC -John Flournoy

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03110...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Why crappy? because it has little combat? because it´s based on bloat and > bleed? Lord no. Combat is the crappiest leg of the triangle. I called it "crappy" because that's what I think you would call it. i was surprised because vienna is very intercept heavy and such deck would have a hard time around here. There's no real stealth to the deck, and the combat is solidly Tier B. I imagine the gazillion deflections would appeal to you, though. i prefer aus bounce (no perfect clarity). but how come you think i prefer S&B. > the finals of the ec 2003 saw only one S&B like the NAC (The Doc deck was > S&B to some extend) Right, because most everyone that *made it to the finals* was playing decks *extremely* focused *against* stealth bleed. Because your metagame is thick with it. i wouldn´t say that my deck was soley against s&b. intercept decks generally work great against most deck types except combat.(although i faced 7 combat decks in the preliminary rounds) stefan

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > I think there's some objective truth to the > > categorizations. "Conservative" means, to me, taking the least amount of > > risk. > > Have you ever played a game in europe? > I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent > more or less conservative just different. looking at the finallist decks of > the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the > EC. maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play > basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). Some things we do know: - The sizes of the North American and European player bases are roughly equivalent. - Americans tend to travel more frequently for V:TES events than Europeans. Reasons for this include more gaming conventions in the US, and fewer restrictions for travel (cost of gasoline and language immediately pop into mind). This, however, is becoming less and less the case, with the popularity of the game on the rise in Europe, and a lessening of travel restrictions due to the EU. More travel means more exposure to decks, strategies, and playstyles and more homogenization of the metagame. Less travel means that regional differences in decks, strategies, and playstyles are pronounced. As such, the overall American metagame is less heterogenous than the European metagame (though still heterogenous). - Americans have greater access to cards than Europeans. Reasons for this include online discount ordering (more cards for your money), better distribution, and more retailers who actually carry the game. Greater access to cards results in greater ability to explore new deck designs and strategies. Things I think we know, but I could very well be wrong (and please correct me if I am!): - Americans have greater access to gaming space at gaming shops than Europeans. This probably varies a lot from region to region on both continents. However, it seems to be the case that more shops in America have space for gaming than in Europe. - European tournaments are larger, on average, than American tournaments and occur less frequently, on average and per region, than American tournaments. Robyn Tatu would probably be best able to answer this. I think the above statement about the lower access to gaming space in Europe has a lot to do with this. Because Americans have greater access to gaming space at gaming shops, they have greater access to tournament venues than Europeans, resulting in more frequent tournaments. The larger number of gaming conventions in the US also adds to the greater access to tournament venues. Because there are fewer tournaments in Europe, European players put more emphasis on attending the tournaments that do happen, resulting in larger events (from what I understand, Spain is a great example of this). So, what is the result of all of this? Because of the lower amount of travel and the lower access to cards, you'll find that there's less diversity in European deck styles (and a greater reliance on the tried and true) than in America. This has nothing to do with the ability level or demeanor of the players in their respective continents, and in my personal experience, I've found that the better players in Europe and the better players in the US are equivalent in playing ability, in deck design ability, and in ruthlessness. Because of the larger tournament sizes in Europe, you see a difference in the styles of decks you see in tournaments. Generally speaking, the more players in a tournament, the more game wins and victory points you need to make the finals. In particularly large tournaments, where you might need 8 VP to make the finals, a greater emphasis is placed on decks that have a higher capacity to get a lot of victory points at a table. There are other deck styles that might win games more often, but the sheer volume of players means that statistically more players will have opportunities to sweep tables and otherwise accumulate lots of VP. It becomes less about whether or not you win, and more about how you win if you do win. As a result, you see more decks that have a lesser chance of winning the game, but that can get more VP if they _do_ win, knowing what is likely required to make the finals at all. One of the deck styles that meets this description is Steath-Bleed. > i am preety sure that a bsaic malk S&B would have the same succes in the > states as it has in europe, people just don´t play them! Given the same access to cards, the same restrictions on travel, the same access to gaming space, and the same sizes of tournaments, you'd get the same results in America and Europe. However, all of these factors are different, so the results will be different. There's nothing intrinsic about being an American or a European that would change things. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

On 5 Nov 2003 12:43:22 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] Ghouled people can't play Grapple, only a strike card. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

> > > I don't have time to compile an exhaustive list but the following are > > the types of cards i'm talking about. They frustrate me because > > they're good ideas that are hamstrung for no other reason that i can > > see apart from concern that they'll be overpowered. > > I don't want to get caught up in nitpicking specific card examples too > much, but I do think this is a problem that isn't new to the game and > can probably never be totally avoided in CCGs. (I do agree that it > could be done better than in some recent cases.) > [snip examples] Yes I'm not saying there weren't underpowered cards in the older sets. I was commenting on the WW sets. I would have thought there would be less as time went on. I suppose it's easy with hindsight to criticise but i can't help feeling that if i was a designer i would have noticed that True Faith for example was overcosted. Chris.

> Chris wrote: > > I agree and that brings up another point. Is it worth printing "fun" > > sets if they're not competitive? i'd say not because they end up > > becoming frustrating if you can't at least win occasionally. > > Absolutely. Not all players play "tournament" style (I'm not one of > them, but there are plenty :-). Not all players are concerned with > competetiveness. On the other hand, there *are* a lot of players who > want to see the RPG reflected well in VTES. Bloodlines and Anarchs > both do a great job of reflecting the RPG. And they are fun to mess > around with. Sure--am I seeing, like, the Samedi tearing up the > tournament scene any time soon? Probably not, but that is ok. > > In the end, I'd much rather have cards err on the weak than too > strong. And with expansions like Bloodlines and Anarchs, they work > fine, there are certainly some tournament caliber cards in the set, > and they are always playable. > > > I like it but i think it's slightly underpowered. > > Nah. Cooler is fantastic. For all intents and purposes, it is a zero > discipline Govern the Unaligned (take an action to gain 3 pool). I don't think i would go that far considering it takes four turns before it equals a govern. > > Which is one of the main draws of any of the expansions--the vampires. > Yeah, it is difficult to make a really effective Bloodlines deck, but > there are plenty of pre-existing decks that are strengthened a great > deal by the Bloodlines vampires. Which is as good a draw as any. I'm actually not that convinced by that either from what i've seen. i know the intention was for the bloodlines to compliment other clans but apart from a few vampires - Le Din Tho, Mattias - i don't see people playing them that way. [snip analysis of card list] Sorry, no time to go into all that. Save to say that i don't quite agree with your opinions of those cards. > > Many? I would quibble with the use of "many". Ahrimanes with long > > range animalism, Kyasid S+B...i'm struggling... > > Ok. "Many" might not have been completely accurate, but some certainly > is. I have seen very copetetive decks built out of the Kisayid, the > Daughters, the Ahrimanes. The Agitas/Ian Forrestal deck is reasonable. > Spirit Marrionette/Fortitude Skill/Daring the Dawn decks are very > viable. Blood Brothers Pot/For Rush combat isn't completely out of the > realm of reason. > > > I don't share your optimism. > > Some of the Anarchs cards are really good (The Mole; the free > additional strike or prevent 2 damage combat card). And if the right > deck is built around them, they can be very effective. > Yes the anarchs do have some good cards but i think it's the anarch mechanism that lets them down (the other criticism in my original post). It's too easy to stop an anarch deck by concentrating on not allowing them to become anarch and if they manage it then target the anarch vamps. Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm aware of the archive and have myself built a reasonably good Blood Brother deck. As I state above the Ahrimanes and Kiasyd are quote strong. I won't argue about the other clans you mention as my original post really isn't about Bloodlines itself or that WW have produced no good cards. They have. I was merely stating that i think too many of their cards seem underpowered and i think that's because they're playing it safe. i would prefer to see them take more risks. Chris.

> > Yes I know. I wrote the post out of frustration with cards like True > > Faith, Ghouled, Bounty, Blackmail etc. Good ideas implemented in > > underpowered cards. > > There are definitely some stinker cards in the new sets. Of course, > there are some stinker cards in the WotC sets, too. There's tons of > chaff in the AH/DS sets alone, potentially much more so than in the > more recent non-base expansions. I never said there weren't bad cards in the old sets. That doesn't change the fact that there are too many in the new sets. [snip mutual praise for PB: Madrid] > > > > (What powerful cards, you say? Imagine an Anson Anarch Revolt deck > > > where the vamps are infernal and Contagious to boot. Or notice how > > > Concordance at basic makes agg damage into normal outside of combat > > > too - one of the what, four cards in the game to do so? And unlike > > > Armor of Terra or Heart of Darkness, it's there for good.) > > > > Well they would need to get daimonion as well so it doesn't sound all > > that powerful. > > There are lots of ways to at least temporarily get inferior Daimonion. > Off the top of my head: Be a !Tremere (or impersonate to one) with an > Infernal Pact. Be any minion with tha (or with the Thaum item) and an > Infernal Familiar. Be absolutely any vampire with a Vial of Elder > Vitae (an uncommon in the Cam set, even, not at all hard to acquire.) > Be a Lasombra (or impersonating one) with a Cam Vitae Slave. > Impersonate one way or another to have a Baali teach you via Sanguine > Instruction. Play Ian Forestal. I'm aware of those (although as Salem points out the Cam Vitae Slave is not viable) however it's still a considerable setup considering they need to be infernal as well and you wanted to combine it with Anson and Anarch Revolts? You could go to all that trouble and then have the Contagion action blocked. I would be happy for you to play this deck as my prey/predator. ;) > > > I agree my statement about banning cards was rash but notice you make > > the point about coaster cards - that's my point too. what else are > > bounty, blackmail, lobotomy etc. if not coasters? > > Cards that still have use, either in a cornercase situation or in > sealed-deck formats. (One of the things I enjoy most about sealed-deck > games is the opportunity to put oddball cards to use without putting > you at a big disadvantage, admittedly.) The cards i'm talking about aren't even corner-case. As for sealed deck i don't think its worth printing coasters just so you can say "Hey wow I played [crap card] !" > > I don't think Lobotomy is any more a coaster than say Ravnos > Acceptance, Goodnight Sweet Prince or Werewolf Pack. While you may > find some cards in recent sets less than ideal, the percentage (as > noted elsewhere in this thread) of truly wretched cards in an > expansion is still better than it was in the past, in a lot of > people's opinions. I'd be interested to read that post but i still think it's too high. Chris.

> > I agree my statement about banning cards was rash but notice you make > > the point about coaster cards - that's my point too. what else are > > bounty, blackmail, lobotomy etc. if not coasters? > > Challenges. I'm currently trying to find use to Blackmail. I thought > it would be a nice addition to a Setites bleed/Form of Corruption > deck. You'll certainly have plenty of stealth to make it pass; after > two or three Blackmails in play, your prey will have problems when > choosing who to leave untapped *or* will have to spend the blood to > get rid of it, what is always good when there's a FoC waiting to be > used. > I do agree that Blackmail should've been a +1 stealth action. That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided it shouldn't have any stealth???? Chris.

In message <5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) mumbled something about: >That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth >playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided >it shouldn't have any stealth???? What's going through YOUR mind? Blackmail is a beautiful 0-stealth action. It encourages people to attempt to block, thus allowing you to cycle some of the stealth in your hand. Giving +1 stealth actions to THE premier stealth discipline just makes the actions guaranteed to happen, since Lost in Crowds (a single free card, mind you) puts it out of reach of all but dedicated intercept. I've also noticed that nobody's even tried using Blackmail in a stealth/bleed deck, which is pretty surprising if you ask me; using your first minion action to tap your prey's untapped Gloria Giovanni looks pretty strong from where i'm sitting. I'd guess that just goes to show that people haven't even really BEGUN to properly digest most of the sets yet and build decks... that, or people are being super-conservative and not even trying to venture away from the traditional archetypes, even when there's plenty to gain. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> Worst one I've seen yet is the Samedi + Weenie Malk deck. Malks bring > out Muddled Vampire Hunter Ghouled, who can then punch for 5 OR throw > a lid with first strike, and the Samedi are there to keep him alive > with Infections if necessary, and also to bring out additional support > in the form of Shambling Hordes. These allow you to let the first > Muddles die if you didn't have a Ghouled in your hand, because you > want him in your ash heap. Pick Malks that can deflect, and it can > usually hold on long enough to get going. It probably doesn't > actually need a lot of potence cards. Maybe just some grapples and > lids. > That is cute. Multiple Muddles make a *lot* of sense in a Horde deck... Ive paired them up via Malks and Serpents (starring Dedefra). One nitpick is that a ghouled ally cannot Grapple.

> > - Americans have greater access to cards than Europeans. Reasons Australians probably have the best access of all. We can buy boosters from every set ever printed, including Sabbat. :) Chris.

> > >That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth > >playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided > >it shouldn't have any stealth???? > > What's going through YOUR mind? > > Blackmail is a beautiful 0-stealth action. You've used it to great effect? > It encourages people to > attempt to block, thus allowing you to cycle some of the stealth in your > hand. Giving +1 stealth actions to THE premier stealth discipline just > makes the actions guaranteed to happen, since Lost in Crowds (a single > free card, mind you) puts it out of reach of all but dedicated > intercept. What happens when i've burnt my stealth on tapping them and they wake with a 2nd Tradition? > > I've also noticed that nobody's even tried using Blackmail in a > stealth/bleed deck, which is pretty surprising if you ask me; using your > first minion action to tap your prey's untapped Gloria Giovanni looks > pretty strong from where i'm sitting. Have you tried it? > > I'd guess that just goes to show that people haven't even really BEGUN > to properly digest most of the sets yet and build decks... that, or > people are being super-conservative and not even trying to venture away > from the traditional archetypes, even when there's plenty to gain. Or they've done mental calculations about cards and found them wanting? I admit some seemingly useless cards can surprise you (I love Left for Dead) but more often than not they perform as expected. I have actually put Blackmail into a deck once and I discarded it because it was useless at the time. I have a stealth heavy deck at the moment though and I'm playing tonight so i'll put two copies in and see how i go. I'll let you know if they see play. Chris.

Ben Peal wrote: > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > >>David Cherryholmes wrote: >> >>>I think there's some objective truth to the >>>categorizations. "Conservative" means, to me, taking the least amount of >>>risk. >> >>Have you ever played a game in europe? >>I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent >>more or less conservative just different. looking at the finallist decks of >>the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the >>EC. maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play >>basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). > > > Some things we do know: > > [snipdawordz) Americans have Taco Bell. We not :( -- Andreas Nusser www.vekn.de a.nu...@vekn.de

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.03110...@posting.google.com>... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > > I think there's some objective truth to the > > > categorizations. "Conservative" means, to me, taking the least amount of > > > risk. > > > > Have you ever played a game in europe? > > I have played games on both continents and i wouldn´t call any continent > > more or less conservative just different. looking at the finallist decks of > > the NAC i wouldn´t say they were more or less conservative than those at the > > EC. maybe europeans are more ruthless than the americans and therefore play > > basic straightforward decks (maybe they know what it takes to win). > > Some things we do know: Thought provoking. > - The sizes of the North American and European player bases are > roughly equivalent. > > - Americans tend to travel more frequently for V:TES events than > Europeans. Reasons for this include more gaming conventions in > the US, and fewer restrictions for travel (cost of gasoline and > language immediately pop into mind). This, however, is becoming > less and less the case, with the popularity of the game on the > rise in Europe, and a lessening of travel restrictions due to > the EU. More travel means more exposure to decks, strategies, > and playstyles and more homogenization of the metagame. Less > travel means that regional differences in decks, strategies, and > playstyles are pronounced. As such, the overall American metagame > is less heterogenous than the European metagame (though still > heterogenous). I'd like to know a little bit more about this. I agree on your analysis of travel 'increasing' in the EU (it certainly is for the Dutch scene, both people traveling to it, and from it). The general American is, in my experience, more prepared to (road) travel distances than the Europeans. Then again, you might have much more distance to travel. Within 3 hours, I can reach about 8 other domains - all of which host tournaments with tournouts above 20. (To add some fact to the discussion: The Dutch tournament scene: (16 million inhabitants, tiny country, 68 registered players on the WW site) - 4 domains with active player bases (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Arnhem, Eindhoven) - 1 'domain' (Deventer) without a regularly convening player base, but people travel to it and the players are in the woodworks. - at least 1 domain (Utrecht) holding almost weekly pickup games in a store, centrally located in the country (almost anyone can get there within around 1.5 hours, basically) - around 10 (?) 'big' tournaments a year (25ish people). > > - Americans have greater access to cards than Europeans. Reasons > for this include online discount ordering (more cards for your > money), better distribution, and more retailers who actually > carry the game. Greater access to cards results in greater ability > to explore new deck designs and strategies. Probably true. Although to know for sure, you'd also have to look at the income and willingsness to spend, for those people who are playing the game. And there's another catch: I know I may not have all the cards I need to play a war ghoul deck, but I know I can play one easily if I mail my buddies before the tournament. Same for every decktype, really. I know the Belgians (used to) do this as well - so it probably happens a lot more. Of course, if those 10 War Ghouls are not sitting in your own collection, you're less likely to be sparked to thought about War Ghoul decks than if they are. Oh, and these people pooling cards are all 'suitcase' players, at the least. > Things I think we know, but I could very well be wrong (and please > correct me if I am!): > > - Americans have greater access to gaming space at gaming shops > than Europeans. This probably varies a lot from region to region > on both continents. However, it seems to be the case that more > shops in America have space for gaming than in Europe. The little I've seen of the world would indicate that gaming stores are spread about as thickly in the US as in Europe, nowadays. It might be that Americans don't think anything of jumping into a car and driving 45 minutes to get to the gaming store. Europeans, in general, wouldn't. (At least, when I lived in the States, I would certainly hop in the car without thinking twice about it). But there's more 'living room' play in the Netherlands than any other type, I think. > - European tournaments are larger, on average, than American > tournaments and occur less frequently, on average and per region, > than American tournaments. Robyn Tatu would probably be best > able to answer this. I think the above statement about the lower > access to gaming space in Europe has a lot to do with this. > Because Americans have greater access to gaming space at gaming > shops, they have greater access to tournament venues than Europeans, > resulting in more frequent tournaments. The larger number of > gaming conventions in the US also adds to the greater access to > tournament venues. Because there are fewer tournaments in > Europe, European players put more emphasis on attending the > tournaments that do happen, resulting in larger events (from what > I understand, Spain is a great example of this). I'm curious as to what Robyn can share on this one, yes. > So, what is the result of all of this? Because of the lower amount > of travel and the lower access to cards, you'll find that there's > less diversity in European deck styles (and a greater reliance on > the tried and true) than in America. This has nothing to do with > the ability level or demeanor of the players in their respective > continents, and in my personal experience, I've found that the better > players in Europe and the better players in the US are equivalent in > playing ability, in deck design ability, and in ruthlessness. I think there's a lot of creativity in all out brains, that something as simple as lack of access to cards won't stop. Of course, there's always the hassle of having to borrow stuff from friends, or play friendly games with proxies, that makes experimenting less easy. > Because of the larger tournament sizes in Europe, you see a difference > in the styles of decks you see in tournaments. Generally speaking, > the more players in a tournament, the more game wins and victory points > you need to make the finals. In particularly large tournaments, where > you might need 8 VP to make the finals, a greater emphasis is placed on > decks that have a higher capacity to get a lot of victory points at a > table. There are other deck styles that might win games more often, but > the sheer volume of players means that statistically more players will > have opportunities to sweep tables and otherwise accumulate lots of VP. > It becomes less about whether or not you win, and more about how you > win if you do win. As a result, you see more decks that have a lesser > chance of winning the game, but that can get more VP if they _do_ win, > knowing what is likely required to make the finals at all. One of the > deck styles that meets this description is Steath-Bleed. I think this (tournament size) contributes more to the deck types you see at the very competitive tournaments, than access to cards. When I went to the Belgian ECQ, I did indeed go with the idea that I needed a deck type with a lot of strong forward power (and some measure of table control), so I settled for Weenie presence vote. When I later went to a tournament in Utrecht with the same deck (no time to build a new one), the organizer actually (in jest) scolded me for bringing a 'power' deck to his tournament. Over here, most normal tournaments are as much a fun get-together (especially storyline) as they are a contest. In this environment, we do see a bunch of experiments. > > i am preety sure that a bsaic malk S&B would have the same succes in the > > states as it has in europe, people just don´t play them! > > Given the same access to cards, the same restrictions on travel, the > same access to gaming space, and the same sizes of tournaments, you'd > get the same results in America and Europe. However, all of these > factors are different, so the results will be different. There's nothing > intrinsic about being an American or a European that would change things. And, of course, once a (meta)game has, under influence of seeing each other more, evolved away from everyone S&B-ing, it's unlikely to evolve into a (prolonged period) of S&B again. -- Tobias Devener

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20031104215104...@mb-m21.aol.com>... > >On top of that, i don't think all options with the newer cards have > >been explored thoroughly, and very often people use their conservative > >decks (decks that they know can win something) on tournaments. > > It can take longer with any sort of unusual combination of cards, but I figure > people find the strong strategies in the first two months a set comes out, even > with this game. I think indeed people find the strongest (obvious) strategies in the first two months, but the use of some sets that require other build up can take longer... Just look at the Anarchs...the good cards will find their way in traditional archetypes pretty fast (Aranthebes anyone?) but it takes some time until good Anarch decks get used in tournaments. Same thing with bloodlines, i think not everything has been explored there... W

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0jfjqv03bpn31bd6m...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Now listen up kiddos, Uncle Derek is trying to teach you a very valuable lesson, and I think you would do well to listen to him. While I do think some cards WW have printed are underpowered (contingency planning, tortured confession, that sort of thing), the amount of great cards they have printed far outweighs the other side. And I get to sleep comfortably at night knowing the next expansion of VTES I buy into will always be usable, and not redundant before it's even legal to play in a tournament unlike certain other CCGs. Lets just take one little example out of Anarchs shall we? Firebrand. I played against an obf/pre barons deck last night in the irc room #vtes-game, and the amount of extra actions my oponent gained via that card was what probably won him the game, despite my relatively wall-like Cailean deck. And when Evan Kline became a firebranded baron, well, he's essentially a 5 cap cardinal or justicar (minus access to the cards, of course) which is just HUGE. And it was all for the cost of 2 actions, which he will regain almost imedeately (and no, it didn't cost him an action to become anarch, he got Galaric's Legacy played on him) I think Derek showed something very important. Cards *must* be viewed in a context to see their true worth. How people react to the card, how you play it, when it's played, yadda yadda, all add up and Blackmail is just one very good example. Teach us more, Uncle Derek.

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.03110...@posting.google.com>... <snip interesting comments> Aggreed. Where can i sign for the Ben peal Fan Club ? (no irony). KS

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote > > >How do you keep track of the current game state? > > status <playername> So each player updates their own part of the game state? Ok... Some other questions: How long did the game take? How are games arranged? Just whoever is waiting in the chat when someone announces it? Is finding enough players to play with a problem? Can decks be "stored" for future use? Or is it a one-shot thing for every game? Are there shorthand conventions of any kind? When is a good time to come try this out? Will JOL or myself become obsolete? :) Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bod6r...@enews1.newsguy.com... > > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote > > > > >How do you keep track of the current game state? > > > > status <playername> > > So each player updates their own part of the game state? Ok... > > Some other questions: > > How long did the game take? We've been playing roughly 3-4 player games so far (although I'm just in the first 5 player one right now), so they usually take 1-2 hours. > How are games arranged? Just whoever is waiting in the chat when someone > announces it? Whoever is registered with deckbot at the time. > Is finding enough players to play with a problem? Not recently :) > Can decks be "stored" for future use? Or is it a one-shot thing for > every game? Deckbot stores one deck per player permenantly. > Are there shorthand conventions of any kind? Players in #vtes game use "nb" for declaring no block, but that's all I can think of at the moment. > When is a good time to come try this out? We get a good range of both american and european players, so there is *usually* somebody around willing to play. [ quoted text not captured ]

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.03110...@posting.google.com>... As Ben says the tournment in Europe will be larger and less frequent than americans. Normally I like to travel to play but I never played in USA. So I give my considerations only on italian tournment reality (which I know very well) and spanish (which I love, and I know a little). In Italy we have 3 kind of tournments area: In the NE (Pordenone, Udine, ecc.) of Italy I'll see a lot of Stealth & Bleed decks with no space for rushes and very less combat prevention (those decks are not always weenie): all players have a lot of deflections... In NW (Torino, Milano, Genova) of Italy many decks have the goal of being the biggest head hunter of the day... not necessary the tournment winner and so all players will be prepared with some combat in any deck. In center of Italy (Bologna, Modena) we have very different tournment: in one tournment you can see 20 players with bouncing bleeders because all are S&B with deflections, the next tournment will be similar to a war zone, the next one will be full of Guns... so you can't know what to play... (and almost every time I choose the WRONG deck!). I've seen also some tournment in Spain and heard rumors from local players: and the situation is near the same... in a region all players have a lot of allies (and all have far mastery, restructure, ecc. in decks), in another region all use POT and FOR (with disarm) and are very combat oriented. So the lack of travelling will be one of the factors about the local meta-game, but it's not the only factor. If I play always with the same 10-12 people and a player uses always a Rush deck to kill all Vamps at the table in the "non-tournment" games, all players of his entourage will be oriented to "more combat" decks or weenie to survive the "mad rusher". If I play for fun and I will be destroyed in every game by Beast/Winn/.... I'm supposed to change my playing mood to match the table behaviour. So the next time all play you will have 2 combat decks, then 3-4 and so on... and if a new player will arrive in that city after 2-3 games he will change is gaming mood to match the others (or to outwit them). I hope that my poor english will be enough to explain my thoughts. Best deranges to all who read! RavATwoFaces - VEKN bishop of Torino

> > Challenges. I'm currently trying to find use to Blackmail. I thought > > it would be a nice addition to a Setites bleed/Form of Corruption > > deck. You'll certainly have plenty of stealth to make it pass; after > > two or three Blackmails in play, your prey will have problems when > > choosing who to leave untapped *or* will have to spend the blood to > > get rid of it, what is always good when there's a FoC waiting to be > > used. > > I do agree that Blackmail should've been a +1 stealth action. > > That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth > playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided > it shouldn't have any stealth???? Maybe because Obfuscate has plenty of stealth available, and making it +1 stealth would make some decks too powerful since they could save the extra stealth for other actions? It depends very much on what type of deck you're playing with. As stated later in this thread, Blackmail helps cycling your hand jammed with stealth cards. I wouldn't rely on this, but that's personal taste; almost every card has its uses in the right deck (note that I said *almost* every card; I'm not saying there's no shit around, just that one should not despise any seemingly "weak" card before trying to put it to use somehow. That's part of the beauty of this game).

> > Blackmail is a beautiful 0-stealth action. > > You've used it to great effect? I've tried once and it was not that effective because I was ousted before I could put Form of Corruption to use (that is, one or two turn after it was brought into play). But the four Blackmails I've played (inferior and superior) in that game has helped me three ways: - it sucked Joaquin Morietta down to two blood, making it easier to get him in two or three turns if I haven't been ousted; - it tapped the last ready minion twice, which made it easier for me to bleed for two to four in two consecutive turns, denying my prey the chance to influence a third minion; - it helped me to cycle stealth cards. When I got out of Blackmail and my prey decided it would be silly to keep trying to block, I got a pretty annoying stealth hand jam. Maybe all this is not as outstanding as calling a PTO or deflecting a bleed for 5 to your 4-pool prey with all minions tapped, but it was still useful *without* attracting the attention of the whole table on me. Sometimes this is all you need. > > It encourages people to > > attempt to block, thus allowing you to cycle some of the stealth in your > > hand. Giving +1 stealth actions to THE premier stealth discipline just > > makes the actions guaranteed to happen, since Lost in Crowds (a single > > free card, mind you) puts it out of reach of all but dedicated > > intercept. > > What happens when i've burnt my stealth on tapping them and they wake > with a 2nd Tradition? The same that would happen if you had burnt your stealth to pass a Mind Numb, or a Jar the Soul, and they woke up with a 2nd Tradition or even a Wake + Precognition. Being a +1 stealth action doesn't mean it is unblockable. A good combat deck with some permanent intercept could do the job. And any deck based in Obfuscate should have plenty more of stealth cards than a Mind Numb or a Jar the Soul based one. Maybe that's why they're +1 stealth actions. > > Or they've done mental calculations about cards and found them > wanting? I admit some seemingly useless cards can surprise you (I love > Left for Dead) but more often than not they perform as expected. Maybe because they're used as expected? One must admit that is not the end-line of possibilities. I've never noticed how Temptation could be used on your own vampires to untap them once each turn until I've seen someone doing it. If for some strange reason taking a vampire from other Meth for one turn was nothing worth doing, maybe Temptation would be considered a "coaster" and would never been used as a "freak drive for Setites" of sorts. > I have actually put Blackmail into a deck once and I discarded it > because it was useless at the time. I have a stealth heavy deck at the > moment though and I'm playing tonight so i'll put two copies in and > see how i go. I'll let you know if they see play. > Chris. They won't, certainly. It's like playing a Setites deck with two Corruptions. Of course they would seem fodder for the ash heap.

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m89jqvoolt09a48ad...@4ax.com>... > On 5 Nov 2003 12:43:22 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) scrawled: > Ghouled people can't play Grapple, only a strike card. > > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm Right. Whoops. Just the lids then. The primary use of the Ghouled is making Muddles a valid Infection target (requires a ghoul). [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com>... > > > > - Americans have greater access to cards than Europeans. Reasons > > Australians probably have the best access of all. We can buy boosters > from every set ever printed, including Sabbat. :) > *I (and th eplayers I know)have (and for those of you who don't know where Belgium is, I'm European) never had any problems getting my cards in abundant quantities. Over the recent years I don't buy mine in Belgium anymore though, due to the fact that WW's distributors in Belgium have grown very scarse indeed, resulting in incredibly high prices. *I have to admit though, that I was under the impression (from reading this very newsgroup and watching the card prices in US) that US people had quite a lot of trouble getting their cards. I've never heard anybody in Europe saying things lik: "I need to get my hands on more Improvised tactics", or "Jeez, that Ian Forrestal is hard to find", so you've kinda surprised me. *Regarding to the amount of tournaments: I think that's a point of view. I can tell you that if I would find the time, I could go and play a tournament alkmost every week or 2 weeks, at the very least once a month. But it kinda peaks in certain months around here. In some periods I've known some of us to play 5 or 6 relatively big tournaments in under 3 weeks.. greetz Jo > Chris.

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote > > *I (and th eplayers I know)have (and for those of you who don't know > where Belgium is, I'm European) This is a lie. Everyone knows that Belgium isn't in Europe. It's a small country on the east coast of Central America. It used to be a haven for pirates, or so I'm told. > *I have to admit though, that I was under the impression (from reading > this very newsgroup and watching the card prices in US) that US people > had quite a lot of trouble getting their cards. I've never heard > anybody in Europe saying things lik: "I need to get my hands on more > Improvised tactics", or "Jeez, that Ian Forrestal is hard to find", so > you've kinda surprised me. I'm from Canada, which is still in North America last time I checked. I can't speak for other parts of North America but here in Windsor, Ontario I have had a hell of a time finding cards. Although Windsor is a fair-sized city with a university and other large buildings, we have not had much luck with game stores. It's depressing because I can go to much smaller cities in Canada and find a thriving gaming community. I just don't get it. So for buying V:tES cards, I have had to special order them from a sports card store (overpriced) or through one of the friendly players in Michigan (the other side of Michigan *sigh*) who then smuggle them over for me. Fortunately, a new game store has opened here just last week, so this may not be a problem any longer. > *Regarding to the amount of tournaments: I think that's a point of > view. I can tell you that if I would find the time, I could go and > play a tournament alkmost every week or 2 weeks, at the very least > once a month. But it kinda peaks in certain months around here. In > some periods I've known some of us to play 5 or 6 relatively big > tournaments in under 3 weeks.. That does it! I'm moving to Central America. I want to play more V:tES! Cheers, WES

On 6 Nov 2003, RavATwoFaces wrote: > In center of Italy (Bologna, Modena) we have very different tournment: > in one tournment you can see 20 players with bouncing bleeders because > all are S&B with deflections, the next tournment will be similar to a > war zone, the next one will be full of Guns... so you can't know what > to play... (and almost every time I choose the WRONG deck!). This has been my experience attending tournaments in the US. The rock-paper-scissors element of the game seems highly accentuated. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On 5 Nov 2003, John Flournoy wrote: > Originally this sub-thread started with 'the cost of Infernalism is > too high', to which I was responding that 'no it's not, and one sign > of this is how many people wish there was a card to make you Infernal, > so you could then patch Daimonion on and use the powerful cards that > require infernalism and basic Daimonion, like Concordance.' So your > comment is kind of redundant. (Chalk it up to a hugely active thread!) Yup, I missed that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > i was surprised because vienna is very intercept heavy and such deck would > have a hard time around here. I don't get the connection. The deck had little stealth. That makes the presence of lots of interecept at least irrelevant, and probably a point in this deck's favor. > i prefer aus bounce (no perfect clarity). but how come you think i prefer > S&B. I don't know that you do. I was just going with my premise that "europe" is very stealth-bleedy and, hence, very prone to bounce. T > i wouldn´t say that my deck was soley against s&b. intercept decks > generally work great against most deck types except combat.(although i faced > 7 combat decks in the preliminary rounds) Perhaps not solely focused against S+B, but that brings me back to my more general revision of payload and delivery. What you were *not* worried about was what happened after you blocked, since you (correctly) estimate that combat will be disregardable. I'd like to hear more about the 7 combat decks you say you faced, if you have the time. It certainly goes against my assessment of "one or less" combat decks per table. I will say that I make a distinction between a combat *deck* and a deck with light hit-back. I'd guess you survived by a combination of playing a weenie deck and the combat decks having too much workload to handle alone, if they were indeed combat decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) wrote in message news:<1b066664.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] That's funny. I was thinking the same thing. (And I also mean that seriously.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andreas Nusser <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> wrote in message news:<bod1k7$gp7$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > Americans have Taco Bell. We not :( Lucky guy. There's plenty of good and decent fast food places here (Baha Fresh and Wendy's spring to mind), but Taco Hell isn't one of them, in my opinion. Unlike you're actually fond of food that stays in your body for half an hour, tops, of course. Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) wrote in message news:<614f2a39.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] How about a Harbrigner/Weenie Malk , Hordes/Muddled with Martyr Resilience ? I played a Regina Giovanni Hordes/Martyr Resilience deck and its just gets your hordes going and going ... Mechadick

Chris wrote: > I don't think i would go that far considering it takes four turns > before it equals a govern. Sure. But you can play Cooler on a 1 capacity vampire with no disciplines. And in the long run, it does essentially the same thing--it gains you 3 pool. Sure, it doesn't get you transfers, and it requires a Blood Doll, and it can, concievably, be destroyed or stolen, but in the long run, it is a viable card that duplicates much of the effect of a very powerful pre-existing card. > I'm actually not that convinced by that either from what i've seen. i > know the intention was for the bloodlines to compliment other clans > but apart from a few vampires - Le Din Tho, Mattias - i don't see > people playing them that way. I see weird Bloodlines vamps show up all the time, even if their Bloodlines disciplines aren't being used. Many of them have very solid discipline spreads and special abilities that fit into many deck styles. > Sorry, no time to go into all that. Save to say that i don't quite > agree with your opinions of those cards. Ok then. > Yes the anarchs do have some good cards but i think it's the anarch > mechanism that lets them down (the other criticism in my original > post). Garlicks Legacy is a trifle. Go Anarch is a free action. Sure, it is *possible* that someone might completely foil every attempt you make to become an Anarch, but then it is possible that someone might foil every attempt you make to call a vote. Does this mean vote decks are a bad strategy? -Peter

"Wes" wrote: > "wolflord" wrote: > > > > *I (and th eplayers I know)have (and for those of you who don't know > > where Belgium is, I'm European) > > This is a lie. > > Everyone knows that Belgium isn't in Europe. It's a small country on the > east coast of Central America. It used to be a haven for pirates, or so > I'm told. ??? What the bloody hell are you talking about? Last I checked, it's NE of France, which certainly isn't in Central America. Regards, Noal

Andreas Nusser <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> wrote in message news:<bod1k7$gp7$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > Some things we do know: > > > > [snipdawordz) > > Americans have Taco Bell. We not :( Consider yourselves fortunate! After your first time spending $20 on Taco Bell "food" and EATING IT ALL IN ONE NIGHT, you'll know what I mean.

Noal McDonald expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] That's ok. I'm told that most Americans didn't want to invade iraq without support from the UK because they thought we were right next door and they could stage their troops here. (I disclaim all responsibility for any inaccuracy in this statement -or rather in the claim within it)

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I believe he is referring to Belize....I suppose they can be mixed up, seeing as how they both start with "Bel". LD > > Regards, > Noal

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] You should know as much as anyone that Wes partakes of "Strange Brew" a bit too often.... ;)

In message <5a63bace.03110...@posting.google.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) mumbled something about: >> >> >That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth >> >playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided >> >it shouldn't have any stealth???? >> >> What's going through YOUR mind? >> >> Blackmail is a beautiful 0-stealth action. > >You've used it to great effect? Yes. In a Samedi bleed deck, which can play it at inferior to tap a Deflector OR superior to lock down a key minion, and then Freak Drive, untap, and bleed. >> It encourages people to >> attempt to block, thus allowing you to cycle some of the stealth in your >> hand. Giving +1 stealth actions to THE premier stealth discipline just >> makes the actions guaranteed to happen, since Lost in Crowds (a single >> free card, mind you) puts it out of reach of all but dedicated >> intercept. > >What happens when i've burnt my stealth on tapping them and they wake >with a 2nd Tradition? Then you get blocked and they spend a blood for the 2nd, instead of playing it for free -- or you get blocked instead of just Deflected, which is a clear win for you. This is a corner-case example which doesn't demonstrate anything at all about the utility of the card, and instead shows that All Effects have Counters(tm). >> I've also noticed that nobody's even tried using Blackmail in a >> stealth/bleed deck, which is pretty surprising if you ask me; using your >> first minion action to tap your prey's untapped Gloria Giovanni looks >> pretty strong from where i'm sitting. > >Have you tried it? Yes, I have, Chris. Have you? >> I'd guess that just goes to show that people haven't even really BEGUN >> to properly digest most of the sets yet and build decks... that, or >> people are being super-conservative and not even trying to venture away >> from the traditional archetypes, even when there's plenty to gain. > >Or they've done mental calculations about cards and found them >wanting? I admit some seemingly useless cards can surprise you (I love >Left for Dead) but more often than not they perform as expected. Mental calculations are absolutely no substitute for actually playing with the card. If you think they are, I have three words for you: you are wrong. It's that simple. >I have actually put Blackmail into a deck once and I discarded it Wow, what a lot of testing! One Blackmail, one deck, once. I'm glad you made such a thorough evaluation of the card inside your mind. I bet it saved you lots of actually playing with it, and you still came up with a perfectly accurate result! Amazing. [NOTE: THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SARCASM] >because it was useless at the time. I have a stealth heavy deck at the >moment though and I'm playing tonight so i'll put two copies in and >see how i go. I'll let you know if they see play. If nobody leaves minions untapped, you certainly won't be seeing much use of the inferior, no. Fortunately the superior is also free, and making someone burn 2 blood is rarely a bad thing. Consider that you can also use it on your predator's Deflectors. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Garlicks Legacy is a trifle. Go Anarch is a free action. Sure, it is > *possible* that someone might completely foil every attempt you make > to become an Anarch, but then it is possible that someone might foil > every attempt you make to call a vote. Does this mean vote decks are a > bad strategy? Don't forget to mention that it's conceivable that people can block every bleed you try to pull off...and it doesn't even have any default stealth. I guess that means bleeding's not a good way to win as well, eh? From what I've seen myself, people do tend to let the "become anarch" actions through. Most of the time in my case it's because I want to see the Anarch wackiness they might try to pull off, and it may be that way for most of the people I've played with, but that's what I have observed. Albert Chang

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.03110...@posting.google.com... > Consider yourselves fortunate! After your first time spending $20 on > Taco Bell "food" and EATING IT ALL IN ONE NIGHT, you'll know what I > mean. Wow, it's possible to eat that much Taco Bell in one night? Doesn't that kill you or something? Albert Chang

Lord Darksword expounded: > > What the bloody hell are you talking about? Last I checked, it's NE of > > France, which certainly isn't in Central America. > > I believe he is referring to Belize....I suppose they can be mixed up, > seeing as how they both start with "Bel". Just in case anyone hasn't realised... IT WAS A JOKE

round one: cel/gun my predator and cel gun my grandpredator Round 2: Fatima multirush /with assault rifle) pot weenies my grand predator round 3: my prey nossie prince rush with for, his prey eurobrujah, his prey pot weenies stefan "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03110...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Nov 2003 22:57:39 -0800, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) scrawled: >> >> >That's exactly what i'm talking about. At +1 stealth it would be worth >> >playing. What was going through the designers minds when they decided >> >it shouldn't have any stealth???? >> >> What's going through YOUR mind? >> >> Blackmail is a beautiful 0-stealth action. > >You've used it to great effect? At the Canberra Qualifier a Nos deck played it cross table at inferior on the weenie dom sleaze deck's only deflector, erm, untapped minion, thus getting the sleaze ousted before it could sweep. There was much amazement from the table that someone was playing Blackmail. More amazement that it did something dramatic. yay for sleazekillers. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I think you fell for it, Noal. Don't worry, we love you still :) Patrick Columbus, OH

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Noal, let me introduce you to Sarcasm. Sarcasm, Noal. -John Flournoy

[snip disagreement over usefulness of cooler] > > > I'm actually not that convinced by that either from what i've seen. i > > know the intention was for the bloodlines to compliment other clans > > but apart from a few vampires - Le Din Tho, Mattias - i don't see > > people playing them that way. > > I see weird Bloodlines vamps show up all the time, even if their > Bloodlines disciplines aren't being used. Many of them have very solid > discipline spreads and special abilities that fit into many deck > styles. i don't see many different bloodlines vamps appearing in strong decks. oh well. > > > Yes the anarchs do have some good cards but i think it's the anarch > > mechanism that lets them down (the other criticism in my original > > post). > > Garlicks Legacy is a trifle. Go Anarch is a free action. Sure, it is > *possible* that someone might completely foil every attempt you make > to become an Anarch, but then it is possible that someone might foil > every attempt you make to call a vote. Does this mean vote decks are a > bad strategy? > I would say that that analogy doesn't hold as votes are often damaging in and of themselves whereas going Anarch is just part of the setup of a deck. If you block a vote they can use a support card like Cloak to get it through but if you block Go Anarch they can't hurt you with that Improvised Tactics they're holding. I think the setup involved in going Anarch is not worth the payoff. Chris.

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote > > Just in case anyone hasn't realised... > IT WAS A JOKE Thanks, man! You know a joke has failed when it needs to be explained. Move on folks, nothing to see here. Cheers, WES Note to self --> Use more smilies.

Eric Simon <vol...@yahoo.com> wrote: > kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) wrote in message > news:<1b066664.03110...@posting.google.com>... >> Where can i sign for the Ben peal Fan Club ? >> (no irony). >> KS > > That's funny. I was thinking the same thing. (And I also mean that > seriously.) > > Eric Simon > Prince of Chicago http://groups.yahoo.com/group/benpealfanclub/ Now paying a bounty for unseen pictures of Ben Peal! Email me at benpealfanclub at yahoo dot com! Kevin M., Ben Peal fan! =) BPFC Moderator & Treasurer

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > round one: cel/gun my predator and cel gun my grandpredator > Round 2: Fatima multirush /with assault rifle) pot weenies my grand predator > round 3: my prey nossie prince rush with for, his prey eurobrujah, his prey > pot weenies That's as much combat as I would expect to see at an American tournament. I wonder if your spread was average? For example, I wussed out at the NAC and chose Potent Princes over The Fatimator. I did it partly at the urging of my powercurve-hugging friend, but also because I thought I needed the vote defense. There were vote decks all over the place, but I never saw a single one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<0gKqb.3016$Cj1.666@fed1read07>... [ quoted text not captured ] A picture of Ben with my Prince at the EC will be found at the following link... http://www.geocities.com/rava1974/EC2003/pages/2verdiPrincipi.htm Did I win the bounty?

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... > "Wes" wrote: > > > > Everyone knows that Belgium isn't in Europe. It's a small country on the > > east coast of Central America. It used to be a haven for pirates, or so > > I'm told. > > > ??? > > What the bloody hell are you talking about? Last I checked, it's NE of > France, which certainly isn't in Central America. Yes, but after World War II, they moved their country to a safer place. Spending *two* consecutive world wars between Germany and France, being invaded three bazillion times in the process, was really getting tiresome. Unfortunately, it makes managing the European Union a total pain, because Brussels, the EU "capital", is in Belgium. Which is now located in the Caribbean. You really think the bureaucrats and elected officials are going to do their jobs, when all those wonderful beaches and abundant sunshine are there to tempt them? ;-) -- hg@ It's better to open your mouth and appear stupid, iki.fi than to hold it shut and keep thinking you know it all.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.03110...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 6 Nov 2003, RavATwoFaces wrote: > > > In center of Italy (Bologna, Modena) we have very different tournment: > > in one tournment you can see 20 players with bouncing bleeders because > > all are S&B with deflections, the next tournment will be similar to a > > war zone, the next one will be full of Guns... so you can't know what > > to play... (and almost every time I choose the WRONG deck!). > > This has been my experience attending tournaments in the US. The > rock-paper-scissors element of the game seems highly accentuated. David, you know Assamite rush is always the correct choice! It's just whether you want to use Fatima, Thetmes, Parnassus or Tariq. ;)

On 07 Nov 2003 21:37:14 +0200, <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > >dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.03110...@posting.google.com>... >> "Wes" wrote: >> > >> > Everyone knows that Belgium isn't in Europe. It's a small country on the >> > east coast of Central America. It used to be a haven for pirates, or so >> > I'm told. >> >> >> ??? >> >> What the bloody hell are you talking about? Last I checked, it's NE of >> France, which certainly isn't in Central America. > > > Yes, but after World War II, they moved their country to a safer place. > > Spending *two* consecutive world wars between Germany and France, being >invaded three bazillion times in the process, was really getting tiresome. > > > Unfortunately, it makes managing the European Union a total pain, because >Brussels, the EU "capital", is in Belgium. Which is now located in the >Caribbean. > > You really think the bureaucrats and elected officials are going to do >their jobs, when all those wonderful beaches and abundant sunshine are there >to tempt them? > > ;-) Nonono! Belgium is just a province of the Netherlands... Has been in the past, and will always remain that way :p ROFLMAO

Pepijn <ka...@xs4all.nl> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] You're just jealous at the Belgians. Admit it, they were smarter and more practical than you. You took your quest for security *way* too far, when you moved your country to the Antarctic. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 07 Nov 2003 22:41:18 +0200, <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote: >Pepijn <ka...@xs4all.nl> writes: > >> On 07 Nov 2003 21:37:14 +0200, >> <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote: >> > >> > You really think the bureaucrats and elected officials are going to do >> >their jobs, when all those wonderful beaches and abundant sunshine are there >> >to tempt them? >> > >> > ;-) >> >> Nonono! Belgium is just a province of the Netherlands... Has been in >> the past, and will always remain that way :p > > > You're just jealous at the Belgians. Admit it, they were smarter and more >practical than you. It's just the beer.. they make better beer then we do..;) > You took your quest for security *way* too far, when you moved your country >to the Antarctic. You really haven't been here during last summer right? Was more like the saharah over here ;) > ;-)

Pepijn expounded: > Nonono! Belgium is just a province of the Netherlands... Has been in > the past, and will always remain that way :p Since they increased the average IQ of both countries by the forced emigration of Hollanders to Belgium. The funniest thing about Belgium though has to be chips: American Style Chips [/Fries] (UK) = French Fries (USA) =[Pommes] Frites (France) which were invented in Belgium. And no one comes close for Chocolate. ... Hmmm... Perhaps i should become a Eurocrat ;)

Wolflord wrote: > *I (and th eplayers I know)have (and for those of you who don't know > where Belgium is, I'm European) never had any problems getting my > cards in abundant quantities. Over the recent years I don't buy mine > in Belgium anymore though, due to the fact that WW's distributors in > Belgium have grown very scarse indeed, resulting in incredibly high > prices. By contrast, players from Bratislava, Slovakia often travel to Vienna because their local game shop is _horrible_ about carrying V:TES cards. While in Hungary, I had difficulty trading cards because the players there wanted to _buy_ my cards instead. Why? They didn't have cards to trade me! (it wasn't that they didn't have cards I wanted - they didn't have much of a stock of cards at all) On top of that, Americans have much greater access to discounted boxes of cards (US$65/box through Potomac Distribution). For the same money, we get a lot more cards. > *I have to admit though, that I was under the impression (from reading > this very newsgroup and watching the card prices in US) that US people > had quite a lot of trouble getting their cards. I've never heard > anybody in Europe saying things lik: "I need to get my hands on more > Improvised tactics", or "Jeez, that Ian Forrestal is hard to find", so > you've kinda surprised me. Well, again, when we can get booster boxes for $65/box, card availability is much less of an issue here. > *Regarding to the amount of tournaments: I think that's a point of > view. I can tell you that if I would find the time, I could go and > play a tournament alkmost every week or 2 weeks, at the very least > once a month. But it kinda peaks in certain months around here. In > some periods I've known some of us to play 5 or 6 relatively big > tournaments in under 3 weeks.. Again, it was a general statement, and certainly you'll find areas in Europe where you can play frequently. You can also find areas of the US where one plays less frequently. But hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Heh...if I'm this bored, I should go look at the Event Calendar. :) Better yet, I could get the Create-A-Clan and EC2003 pictures sites up and running. Those should be ready on Monday or Tuesday. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Jeff Kuta wrote: > David, you know Assamite rush is always the correct choice! It's just > whether you want to use Fatima, Thetmes, Parnassus or Tariq. ;) Always Tariq. He's the only one who finishes what he starts. ;) - Ben Peal, Official Ben Peal of the Ben Peal Fan Club fu...@mindstorm.com

On 7 Nov 2003 15:36:09 -0800, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote: > Always Tariq. He's the only one who finishes what he starts. ;) Not true. Graverobbing is a legitimate solution to the problem. It's just hard to play with a ten cap you only get one action out of. David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

[ quoted text not captured ] What is that Prince's name and country, please? [ quoted text not captured ]

<h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote in message news:<m2vfpvv...@etemenanki.homelinux.net>... > Pepijn <ka...@xs4all.nl> writes: > > > On 07 Nov 2003 21:37:14 +0200, > > <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > > > > > > You really think the bureaucrats and elected officials are going to do > > >their jobs, when all those wonderful beaches and abundant sunshine are there > > >to tempt them? > > > > > > ;-) > > > > Nonono! Belgium is just a province of the Netherlands... Has been in > > the past, and will always remain that way :p > > > You're just jealous at the Belgians. Admit it, they were smarter and more > practical than you. > > You took your quest for security *way* too far, when you moved your country > to the Antarctic. > Not to mention the fact they actually moved their country to *below* sea level. :-))) /Jo > ;-)

wolflord expounded: > Not to mention the fact they actually moved their country to *below* sea level. > :-))) > /Jo > > ;-) They were getting rid of those pesky great mountains and the workmen got a bit over-enthursisastic -not the sort of thing you risk with english Workmen. Tim "We can't stand around here doing nothing." "Why not?" "Well we might get mistaken for workmen." 8-)

No argument about anything here. I'd just like to point out I kicked Mr Peals ass. ROCK? Rock on..... Baker no 74/78