Is it just me, or has Dementation gotten more and more powerful lately? I don't
mean to whine too much but:
In Final Nights, Dementation got Deny, useful in combat or as stealth (so it's
easily to cycle). Most importantly though, it's a press at inferior Dementation
(something very few disciplines have at inferior). Not to mention all the new
toys Dementation got in Sabbat War too.
And now in Bloodlines, Dementation gets a pair of cards that make it just about
as dangerous as Dominate. It is true that both Madman's Quill and The Call
require auspex along with dementation, but of the 15 !Malks, all but one
(Quira) have Dementation, and of those, there are only two !Malks without
Auspex (Boy Toy and Yorik). The Call is scary because it replicates the
Scouting Mission / Govern the Unaligned aspect of Dominate, allowing sneak 'n
bleed !Malk decks to work even faster (and it's free). And Madman's Quill is a
tremendously powerful bleed card (just like Govern at inferior) at inferior,
and is also very powerful at superior as well.
It just seems that a lot of the perks that Dominate once had are now being
copied by Dementation. So if this trend continues, Dementation will have the
best parts of Dominate, while still having a powerful selection of its own
cards. Mono-dominate has the problem that it can bleed well, but doesn't have
stealth to back it up, nor does it have combat defense. But mono-dementation
seems to fair much better. With Madman's Quill or Kindred Spirits + Eyes of
Chaos or Confusion can be a pretty potent bleed. Confusion, Mind Tricks, and
Deny provide stealth (which Mono-dominate has problems with 'cept for Bonding
and Dominate Kine). You have combat defense with Deny (press to end) and Coma
(expensive, but can teach combat monkeys a lesson). Also Voice of Madness to a
lesser extent (variation of Obedience). Just like Presence, you have minor pool
gain via Kindred Spirits (along with powerful cross-table flexibility). If you
don't want to stealth 'n bleed, you can always tap 'n bleed with Passion. And
though it isn't a complete hoser, Blessing of Chaos can really hamper vote
decks and bleed decks. Add to all this various cards that let you really screw
your opponent's vampires (Derange, Haunting, Lunatic Eruption, Total Insanity,
Mind of a Child, etc.). Maybe I'm just getting worried for nothing, but the
more and more I think of it, Dementation seems like an extremely powerful
discipline. Yes, it is hampered by the fact that only the !Malks have it (BTW:
People that whine about how the !Malks don't have Camarilla counterparts with
the same discipline should remember how powerful Dementation is!). Maybe I'd
rather have the Camarilla Malks stick with Dominate after all...
Halcyan 2
> and Dominate Kine). You have combat defense with Deny (press to end) and Coma
> (expensive, but can teach combat monkeys a lesson).
dominate recently got a dodge card at basic level =) definitely better
than the disciplineless dodge card (its probably not much defense
against a dedicated combat deck but its a start)
Yes, it is hampered by the fact that only the !Malks have it (BTW:
> People that whine about how the !Malks don't have Camarilla counterparts with
> the same discipline should remember how powerful Dementation is!).
Maybe I'd
> rather have the Camarilla Malks stick with Dominate after all...
Anatole is a Cam Malk with Sup DEM i think...and there are other vamps
from diff clans with dem like the litle tailor of praque...and that
baali vamp...
johann
mads...@hotmail.com (Johann) wrote in message news:<d8262103.01123...@posting.google.com>...
> Anatole is a Cam Malk with Sup DEM i think...and there are other vamps
> from diff clans with dem like the litle tailor of praque...and that
> baali vamp...
all of which have aus if I'm not mistaken (didn't check, just a
guess... ok, probably not the baalie guy, but still...)
~SV
>> from diff clans with dem like the litle tailor of praque...and that
>> baali vamp...>
>all of which have aus if I'm not mistaken (didn't check, just a
>guess... ok, probably not the baalie guy, but still...)
>
Yeah, most of the non-!Malk vampires with Dementation have Auspex as well:
Gisela Harden, The Winnower - aus dem
Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna - AUS DEM
Victor Revell, Loyalist - aus dem
Little Tailor of Prague - AUS dem
Marlene, The Infernalist - AUS dem
Here are the few that don't:
High Priest Angra Mainyu - dem
Larry - dem
Gillian Krader - dem
The thing is, Madman's Quill and The Call are already scary enough with "aus
dem," which several of the !Malks have (in addition to just about all of the
!Malks)
Halcyan 2
On 31 Dec 2001 23:34:10 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote:
>And now in Bloodlines, Dementation gets a pair of cards that make it just about
>as dangerous as Dominate. It is true that both Madman's Quill and The Call
>require auspex along with dementation, but of the 15 !Malks, all but one
>(Quira) have Dementation, and of those, there are only two !Malks without
>Auspex (Boy Toy and Yorik). The Call is scary because it replicates the
>Scouting Mission / Govern the Unaligned aspect of Dominate, allowing sneak 'n
>bleed !Malk decks to work even faster (and it's free). And Madman's Quill is a
>tremendously powerful bleed card (just like Govern at inferior) at inferior,
>and is also very powerful at superior as well.
Powerful dementation cards are fine by me - I like the Malkavians.
But both The Call and Madman's Quill are rare, right? And you'd want
several copies of each in your deck, right? That makes them power
rares, right? This is wrong, right?
Andrew
>Powerful dementation cards are fine by me - I like the Malkavians.
>But both The Call and Madman's Quill are rare, right? And you'd want
>several copies of each in your deck, right? That makes them power
>rares, right? This is wrong, right?
Perhaps. And if Govern the Unaligned was rare, it would definitely be a power
rare. However, The Call and Madman's Quill are both Dementation cards, which
pretty much limits you to playing !Malks. It could perhaps be explained as
being low-utility to most people (though high-utility to the !Malk players).
Halcyan 2
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020101042254...@mb-mc.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wouldn't call it a power rare either but just because a card is
pretty-much restricted to a single clan I wouldn't say it automatically
qualifies it as low utility. I find it very rude that there are several
cards that you'd want quite a few of in BL that are rare. The one that I'm
most offended by for being rare ( so far ) is Darkling Trickery. Too bad if
you want to build a LR deck using Kyasid, the only manuver cards for them
are ( excluding Fake Out and IR Goggles ) Shadow Step ( R, and non-reprinted
at that ) and Darkling Trickery ( R1 ). To add insult to injury there are
some very good LR cards for them, Shadow Parasite, Shadow Strike and Earth
Swords. I'd love to build a LR Lasombra/Kyasid MTY/OBT deck but it's going
to be awful hard to get the cards, esp considering the number of .manuvers
the average LR deck needs.
In message <20011231183410...@mb-fj.aol.com>, Halcyan 2
<halc...@aol.com> writes:
>In Final Nights, Dementation got Deny, useful in combat or as stealth (so it's
>easily to cycle). Most importantly though, it's a press at inferior Dementation
>(something very few disciplines have at inferior). Not to mention all the new
>toys Dementation got in Sabbat War too.
Certainly true. Though, of course, the stealth on Deny is only usable
at superior Dementation which makes it slightly harder to achieve for a
very weenie-fied deck, which would do better with Obf, potentially.
However, it should be noted that, in general, the press isn't a terribly
useful option - significant second round combat is still a nice theory
but difficult to pull off.
>And now in Bloodlines, Dementation gets a pair of cards that make it just about
>as dangerous as Dominate. It is true that both Madman's Quill and The Call
>require auspex along with dementation, but of the 15 !Malks, all but one
>(Quira) have Dementation, and of those, there are only two !Malks without
>Auspex (Boy Toy and Yorik).
True. Unlike the earlier Camarilla sets (the base Jyhad specifically),
vampires have been given their disciplines at useful levels consistently
as opposed to a much more hit and miss approach. Partly, this reflects
the necessity within Sabbat of only having a small number of vampires
with which to construct a functional deck so there seem to be
considerably fewer "dross" vampires knocking around. Shane Grimald is
an exception.
> The Call is scary because it replicates the
>Scouting Mission / Govern the Unaligned aspect of Dominate, allowing sneak 'n
>bleed !Malk decks to work even faster (and it's free).
True, but it does require "aus/dem"/"AUS/DEM". To get 3 blood, you need
an AUS/DEM vampire - potentially, Dolphin Black (6) who is the smallest
natural vampire. So the inferior is equivalent to Scouting Mission's
superior, but requires an extra discipline instead of a superior one -
which seems roughly equivalent. That it also requires a vampire with
Dementation is unlikely to be a *significant* problem - since you'll
build your deck around it - but it certainly could create some problems.
> And Madman's Quill is a
>tremendously powerful bleed card (just like Govern at inferior) at inferior,
>and is also very powerful at superior as well.
Again, bleed at +2 bleed is good - but you need two disciplines, not
just one, making it unquestionably inferior (even if only slightly).
And whilst the superior is good, consider the fact that to get +2 bleed,
you need to take *three* actions, whereas you could do it with Madman's
Quill inferior and a second action. It also provides a significant
target for blocking of an action - block this one or get bled for a lot
more. And again it requires bigger vampires, necessitated by the
disciplines, or a setup to get that discipline. And it has a built in
burn clause. To some extent, it reminds me of Carthage Remembered.
>It just seems that a lot of the perks that Dominate once had are now being
>copied by Dementation.
Partly. Except not quite.
>So if this trend continues, Dementation will have the
>best parts of Dominate, while still having a powerful selection of its own
>cards. Mono-dominate has the problem that it can bleed well, but doesn't have
>stealth to back it up, nor does it have combat defense. But mono-dementation
>seems to fair much better. With Madman's Quill or Kindred Spirits + Eyes of
>Chaos or Confusion can be a pretty potent bleed. Confusion, Mind Tricks, and
>Deny provide stealth (which Mono-dominate has problems with 'cept for Bonding
>and Dominate Kine).
Well, there are a couple of issues here.
Confusion is equivalent to Bonding - identical cards, effectively.
Madman's Quill could be equivalent to Govern the Unaligned.
Kindred Spirits is slightly out on its own, but roughly equivalent in
bleed power to Govern, say, though you need DEM to get +1 bleed.
Mind Tricks *is* unique to Dementation, as is Deny. So that's a
relative +2 stealth that Dementation can get to (cancelling out
Confusion vs Bonding). But Dominate Kine can get +1 stealth, so that's
a relative +1 stealth that Dementation has, overall.
So, Dementation wins on pure stealth. But Dominate isn't quite done
yet. Seduction can, in some ways, be better than stealth; in other
ways, of course, it falls down. Yes, you need to be playing slightly
larger vampires - but playing with Madman's Quill etc. in the !Malk deck
has just upped our capacity there slightly anyway. And The Sleeping
Mind is also tremendously powerful, played "well".
Then we look at sheer bleed power. Dementation can be extremely potent,
yes, but Dominate can throw down a Command of the Beast and Conditioning
(or, potentially, Foreshadowing Destruction) to get more raw bleed. So
you can do more damage with mono-Dominate but Dementation has a +1
stealth advantage at getting it through which Dominate has to compensate
for with taps (Misdirection, Anarch Troublemaker) or capacity.
Then we look at what we actually have in hand. Deny is a useful card
which you bring up - the press or the +1 stealth - so look at what
Dominate gets.
Madman's Quill is equivalent to Govern the Unaligned, yes. And Madman's
Quill can function as a set-up for more bleed, at the expense of
actions. But Dominate's power here comes from the fact that Govern the
Unaligned is so flexible. You have +2 bleed or up to 3 pool on an
uncontrolled vampire, potentially. Sure, you have both options in
Dementation - Madman's Quill and The Call - but you can't know which
you'll get in hand at once. With Dominate, you get both in hand at
once. Similarly, Dominate Kine is stealth and bleed, or it's a location
stealer. Flexibility is key here.
Is Flexibility necessarily more powerful? Perhaps not. Dominate
certainly wouldn't complain if it got a card that, at inferior Dominate,
(+ something else) allowed it to mimic Madman's Quill inferior, but it's
certainly not in desperate need of it. It's a different set-up, and
it's subtly different in playing style, but they're both slightly
distinct in their own ways.
> You have combat defense with Deny (press to end) and Coma
>(expensive, but can teach combat monkeys a lesson).
In some ways, one might regard Thoughts Betrayed as combat defence.
It's also notable - as a side issue to the interest of mono-
Dominate vs mono-Dementation - that Dominate pairs up extremely
well with combat defence already. The Ventrue have Fortitude
and Presence, which are superb defensively. The Lasombra have
both fight-back and evade capabilities, when they try. The
Giovanni have Ex Nihilo and Spiritual Intervention, as well as
fight back potential. The Malkavians are in a similar situation
to the !Malks, and the Kiasyd and Nagaraja are a bit of a
special case anyway.
Obedience, as you note, can be exceptionally good combat defence.
Outside of that, the Malkavians don't have any exceptional combat
defence that isn't available to everyone (Purchase Pact, Leather Jacket,
whatever). Both Auspex and Obfuscate can provide a little bit, but such
things tend to be a little bit more focused than, say, Deny.
>Also Voice of Madness to a
>lesser extent (variation of Obedience). Just like Presence, you have minor pool
>gain via Kindred Spirits (along with powerful cross-table flexibility).
The minor pool gain is good, yes. But again, that's at the expense of
some raw bleed power and whilst it is flexibility of a sort, it has to
be played .
> If you
>don't want to stealth 'n bleed, you can always tap 'n bleed with Passion.
Sure, though that's a fairly different strategy to pursue. Trying to
mix stealth and bleed with tap and bleed is hard.
Dominate certainly has other strategies it can pursue, major or minor.
> And
>though it isn't a complete hoser, Blessing of Chaos can really hamper vote
>decks and bleed decks.
Vote decks, probably. An attempt to block will stop Bewitching Oration
being played. Or Awe. Or Voter Captivation. Or even (god forbid)
Disarming Presence.
However, many bleed decks will function adequately, because of the
sequencing rules. (You play Govern the Unaligned, then Conditioning,
then you give them the option to block.) There's also the issue of
bruise and bleed decks, where an "attempt" to block could be detrimental
to your health. Or Kiss of Ra decks (which is far more corner case, but
is a sufficiently good card on the power/cost curve that it turns up a
fair bit). Though Auspex - and though the emphasis is on mono-
Dementation, the fact that that's a lot of Malkavian Antitribu means
that Auspex is likely to crop up a fair bit - could make things trickier
with a little bleed bounce.
> Add to all this various cards that let you really screw
>your opponent's vampires (Derange, Haunting, Lunatic Eruption, Total Insanity,
>Mind of a Child, etc.).
True. These do provide a significant boost for Dementation.
But on the flip-side, mono-Dominate has bleed bounce for itself. And
unlike a "mono"-Dementation with an Auspex sideline, it doesn't have to
tap - both My Enemy's Enemy and Telepathic Misdirection force that - so
a single vampire can provide significant defensive capabilities. And
bleed bounce is not to be sniffed at, of course.
You get some vote influence - Pulling Strings, Kindred Co-ercion etc. -
though to be honest, Delaying Tactics seems to be a better option in
many instances.
Mind Rape and Graverobbing provide some nasty, nasty options. A quick
Mind Rape/diablerie can often result in a dead vampire, rather than one
who's just been screwed around. (And the sick, sick combination of that
with Judgement: Camarilla Segregation/Clan Impersonation is just
horrid.)
So it all seems to balance up in a kind of useful sort of way. And
Dominate can, of course, weenie in a horrible fashion, whereas
Dementation can't really.
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
>Sure, though that's a fairly different strategy to pursue. Trying to
>mix stealth and bleed with tap and bleed is hard.
Tap is important to stealth bleed. Makes it much harder to bounce, forcing the
defender to have both wake and bounce in hand. Even if they do, one or the
other should run out.
Snipped the rest as just being too much material to respond to for a short
comment. But, in my experience, !Malk stealth bleed has an often unrecognized
problem with not enough kill. Bloat, Greta, TC can slow !Malks down too much
where Govern/Conditioning can overwhelm them. Madman's may help that
particular problem. OTOH, the strength of Dem bleed is Kindred Spirits.
In message <FrxFR+aK...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>>Just like Presence, you have minor pool
>>gain via Kindred Spirits (along with powerful cross-table flexibility).>
>The minor pool gain is good, yes. But again, that's at the expense of
>some raw bleed power and whilst it is flexibility of a sort, it has to
>be played .
Hmmm... chances are, that was going to end "played off against the fact
that you don't get a bleed bonus at inferior, for instance".
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20020102002434...@mb-ca.aol.com>, Curevei
<cur...@aol.com> writes:
>>Sure, though that's a fairly different strategy to pursue. Trying to
>>mix stealth and bleed with tap and bleed is hard.>
>Tap is important to stealth bleed. Makes it much harder to bounce, forcing the
>defender to have both wake and bounce in hand. Even if they do, one or the
>other should run out.
Potentially. The problem with combining tap and bleed with stealth and
bleed is getting what you need into hand at the right times, because you
now have two almost orthogonal goals competing for your hand space.
And, in many decks, if you get the cards that will, say, make a rush
with Jimmy Dunn good now, you can play them. And if you then draw the
ones that will help Beast out, you can use him second. Net difference
in the end isn't exactly zero but it's better than getting through a
turn and then drawing the Forgotten Labyrinth and Passion which would
have made life a lot easier if you could get it at the start.
>Snipped the rest as just being too much material to respond to for a short
>comment. But, in my experience, !Malk stealth bleed has an often unrecognized
>problem with not enough kill.
I don't think it's unrecognised. Nor do I think it's unintentional.
With a !Malk deck, you get a few (but noticeably and significantly) less
options for heavy bleed. This also makes you slightly less vulnerable
to bleed bounce, as you can never be doing Govern->Command of the Beast-
>Conditioning to your prey, which is really rather splendidly good
bleed. And the !Malk deck does, of course, have the capacity to mess up
minions.
>Bloat, Greta, TC can slow !Malks down too much
>where Govern/Conditioning can overwhelm them. Madman's may help that
>particular problem. OTOH, the strength of Dem bleed is Kindred Spirits.
It (Madman) may; and it (KS) is certainly a potent force for them to go
forward with, since they can more easily distract a predator with real
threats, whereas a Dominate deck has to pile forward for pool. Though,
of course, the Dominate deck can Deflection anything.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message
<A9776167C9D00DC3.6CF257F7...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
>Powerful dementation cards are fine by me - I like the Malkavians.
>But both The Call and Madman's Quill are rare, right? And you'd want
The Call and Madman's Quill are both R2, yes.
>several copies of each in your deck, right? That makes them power
>rares, right? This is wrong, right?
You are incorrect in your assessment, however.
The Call is most closely comparable to Govern the Unaligned.
GtU costs 1 blood, requires one superior discipline, and requires a
younger uncontrolled vampire. The number of times you play a Govern at
superior during a game averages probably around 3-4 -- in a deck that is
built to make use of it. GtU's superior rarely makes an appearance
except at the start of the game.
However, its inferior effect requires only an extremely common
discipline (172 of 486 vampires have Dominate) and one blood. It is an
effect you could easily want 10-15 of in your deck, and as such is
properly set at Common.
The Call is free, requires two disciplines, and requires a younger
uncontrolled vampire. One of those disciplines is not especially
common; the total number of vampires who can play The Call is 17,
one-tenth of the vampires who can play Govern. There is no "inferior"
effect on the card equivalent to "bleed at +2", and as such I consider
The Call's rarity to be appropriate.
Madman's Quill ALSO requires two disciplines, and at superior provides
an easily-defensible effect (considering the clan who is playing it
possesses Auspex and Obfuscate). In a deck properly designed around it,
you should never need to play more than one or two at superior per game.
As such, I consider Madman's Quill's rarity also appropriate.
--
"Now remember, class; rape BEFORE you pillage."
In message <u335889...@news.supernews.com>,
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> mumbled something about:
>cards that you'd want quite a few of in BL that are rare. The one that I'm
>most offended by for being rare ( so far ) is Darkling Trickery. Too bad if
>you want to build a LR deck using Kyasid, the only manuver cards for them
>are ( excluding Fake Out and IR Goggles ) Shadow Step ( R, and non-reprinted
>at that ) and Darkling Trickery ( R1 ). To add insult to injury there are
You are forgetting Darkness Within, and Eyes of the Night.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:05173uo7niaunqcv4...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I always forget Darkness Within but the damn thing costs 1 ( and you need
OBT ). EotN doesn't count since you can't use it if you're the acting minion
or don't need the intercept.
> I always forget Darkness Within but the damn thing costs 1 ( and you need
> OBT ). EotN doesn't count since you can't use it if you're the acting minion
> or don't need the intercept.
With Darkness Within, you also get that blood back after combat. The
card pays for itself, I'm surprised more people don't use it.
Shadow Strike also has a built in manuever.
I built a Kiasyd LR combat deck, and I never had any problems getting
to long. There again, I never had to deal with celerity or protean
maneuvers, but those are the only two disciplines that I think can
outmanuever the deck consistently.
Fanboy
texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.02010...@posting.google.com>...
> > I always forget Darkness Within but the damn thing costs 1 ( and you need
> > OBT ). EotN doesn't count since you can't use it if you're the acting minion
> > or don't need the intercept.
>
> With Darkness Within, you also get that blood back after combat. The
> card pays for itself, I'm surprised more people don't use it.
>
The problem with Darkness Within is that it's a Sabbat War uncommon,
which might as well be a rare. I probably bought about 10 packs and 2
starters of Sabbat War, but each pack is painful, knowing that I'm
paying almost 3 bucks for like 1 or 2 cards (and the starters seem to
be nowhere near as good as the FN starters). There are some useful
reprints, but not enough to buy a whole box.
So it continues the trend of obt maneuvers being rare. Shadow Strike
is common, assuming you don't want to do anything *else* at long
range, like Earth Swords. But if you're not increasing your vamp's
strength, then it's just an Aid From Bats that costs a blood. I'd
still rather use Fake Out if I just want the maneuver (and my Lasombra
decks *do* use Fake Out, since I only have like 1 Shadow Step).
> The problem with Darkness Within is that it's a Sabbat War uncommon,
> which might as well be a rare.
No, it is an uncommon which is like 3 or 4 times more common than a rare.
I probably bought about 10 packs and 2
> starters of Sabbat War, but each pack is painful, knowing that I'm
> paying almost 3 bucks for like 1 or 2 cards (and the starters seem to
> be nowhere near as good as the FN starters). There are some useful
> reprints, but not enough to buy a whole box.
You obviously own alot of Sabbat if you are upset about only getting
reprints. I will be happy to trade you my Swallowed by the Night or other
Sabbat War only cards for some of your non-reprinted Sabbat Cards. How
about for Jimmy Dunn, Royce, Tremere antis, Kendrick, or Imogen.
> So it continues the trend of obt maneuvers being rare. Shadow Strike
> is common, assuming you don't want to do anything *else* at long
> range, like Earth Swords. But if you're not increasing your vamp's
> strength, then it's just an Aid From Bats that costs a blood. I'd
> still rather use Fake Out if I just want the maneuver (and my Lasombra
> decks *do* use Fake Out, since I only have like 1 Shadow Step).
I have all the Darkness withins you need and I am sure the trade/sell sights
have you covered as well.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
>
> You obviously own alot of Sabbat if you are upset about only getting
> reprints. I will be happy to trade you my Swallowed by the Night
Oops, I meant Darkness Within.
A Thousand Apologies,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
> The problem with Darkness Within is that it's a Sabbat War uncommon,
> which might as well be a rare. I probably bought about 10 packs and 2
> starters of Sabbat War, but each pack is painful, knowing that I'm
> paying almost 3 bucks for like 1 or 2 cards
I hate buying Sabbat War packs, too -- I inevitably end up with my
rare being one of three cards (Changeling Skin Mask, Up Yours, or
Tithings, all of which I got more than enough of in Sabbat). But I
was able to snag 7 Darkness Withins in trade easily -- you just have
to know who to ask. I've managed to keep at least one, usually two,
manuevers in my hand with that selection -- and I'm only packing one
more Shadow Step than you.
Shadow Strike works well in conjunction with Black Metamorphosis, if
you're using it. Your first strike is small, but you can follow up
with Earth Swords or Shadow Parasite well enough.
Fanboy
ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) wrote in message news:<5287ede4.02010...@posting.google.com>...
> The problem with Darkness Within is that it's a Sabbat War uncommon,
> which might as well be a rare.
I was on extended Jyhad break during Sabbat war, and bought no Sabbat
War cards. (My wife won our local pre-release, the prize of which was
all the extra Starter decks. These had some SW specific cards like
Inner Essence, but alas not Darkness Within)
The judge of the Origins Qualifier (the Prince of Madison I think.. a
nice guy named Kevin) gave everyone a pack of Sabbat War just for
playing. My prey opened his and I saw the Darkness Within. A sweet
piece of art, which of course I had never seen (Since then I've come
to fear the card thanks to the Prince of Detroit and his Obtenebrate
Powered Signposts). My prey (a really nice guy who's name I forget, he
was playing an interesting Francois Villon chimistry deck with Zoe and
some other oddness) seemed surprised that I had never seen it before,
and without batting an eye handed it to me. "Well now you at least own
one!" he said to me.
Its still the only one I own.
I know this is an aside, but it is mildly on-topic concerning the
relative scarcity of Darkness Within, and I think an aside that
spotlights nice people doing nice things is always worthwhile.
Matt
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or has Dementation gotten more and more powerful lately? I don't
> mean to whine too much but:
>
> In Final Nights, Dementation got Deny, useful in combat or as stealth (so it's
> easily to cycle). Most importantly though, it's a press at inferior Dementation
> (something very few disciplines have at inferior). Not to mention all the new
> toys Dementation got in Sabbat War too.
Actually, the fact that Deny is a press at inferior is exactly what limits its
use as a card. I seldom ever find much use for presses in combat, particularly
for a clan that tends to specialize in avoiding combat (or combat defense cards)
rather than mauling opposing minions. In those kinds of decks, presses are next
to useless because you're either coming up against someone else who doesn't use
presses, in which case you're not going to use them either, or someone who loves
to press and has a hell of a lot more press cards in his deck than you do. Either
way, you're not going to get much mileage out of it.
Actually, the part of Deny that I like is the +1 stealth at superior, which gives
pure Dementation (without Obfuscate) another source of stealth besides Confusion.
Had the stealth been at inferior, it would have been a pretty impressive card.
Rules question: Can I use Confusion at superior as stealth for a non-bleed action?
If not, what's the rule that says I can't?
Fred
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> Powerful dementation cards are fine by me - I like the Malkavians.
> But both The Call and Madman's Quill are rare, right? And you'd want
> several copies of each in your deck, right? That makes them power
> rares, right? This is wrong, right?
Wrong.
I don't know, The Call just looks like a Dementation version of Govern
or Enchant Kindred. Would be strictly better were it not for the
double-discipline requirement. Madman's Quill looks like a Dementation
version of Dominate Kine at inferior, something reasonable enough for
a double-superior-discipline requirement at superior. They just don't
look all that powerful to me.
Fred
In message <3C37A391...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>Rules question: Can I use Confusion at superior as stealth for a non-bleed action?
No. This applies to Bonding as well, and has done since time
immemorial.
>If not, what's the rule that says I can't?
"No. Bleed modifiers can only be played during bleed actions."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B051CC3.A139C432%40white-wolf.com
is a recent ruling.
One might also read [6.2]'s "as appropriate" as regarding this, as well
as the general ruling that you cannot add to something which is non-
existent (e.g. pluses to damage during theft) and the similar fact that
you cannot play a card for half an effect (e.g. you cannot play a Dodge
plus Additional Strike card just for the Dodge if you are prohibited
from gaining additional strikes).
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3C37A391...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >Rules question: Can I use Confusion at superior as stealth for a non-bleed action?
>
> No. This applies to Bonding as well, and has done since time
> immemorial.
>
> >If not, what's the rule that says I can't?
>
> "No. Bleed modifiers can only be played during bleed actions."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B051CC3.A139C432%40white-wolf.com
> is a recent ruling.
>
> One might also read [6.2]'s "as appropriate" as regarding this, as well
> as the general ruling that you cannot add to something which is non-
> existent (e.g. pluses to damage during theft) and the similar fact that
> you cannot play a card for half an effect (e.g. you cannot play a Dodge
> plus Additional Strike card just for the Dodge if you are prohibited
> from gaining additional strikes).
Who was talking about playing the card for half an effect? Increase
the minion's bleed for the turn, that's fine. It's just that it's not
being used in this action. In fact, I thought the issue about plusses
to damage during theft just meant that such plusses were ignored, which
is what I might have expected to happen with "+1 bleed and +1 stealth"
effects when not bleeding. You still call your vote (or create your
Embraced or Haunt your location or whatever) at +1 stealth, you just
don't bleed anyone when the action succeeds.
Still, I'll take your word for it. This point ought to be in rules or
rulings somewhere. I'm not sure what your "as appropriate" comment
refers to and nothing in the rules I've found actually says there's a
problem using action modifiers that increase bleed ratings when you're
not bleeding. For that matter, one might otherwise wish to cycle a
Threats during a non-bleed action to get it out of his hand. Now that
I think about it, I'm actually surprised there isn't a very explicit
rule about this (if there isn't).
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Who was talking about playing the card for half an effect? Increase
James was pointing out one of the arguments possible, since you didn't
specify which angle you wanted.
Argument) Just us e the stealth part.
Response) Can't use just half the effect.
> the minion's bleed for the turn, that's fine. It's just that it's not
This is the other argument.
Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed.
Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with
citations)
Note: Confusion modifies the bleed, not the minion. The +bleed would carry
over through a Mask, for example.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > Who was talking about playing the card for half an effect? Increase
>
> James was pointing out one of the arguments possible, since you didn't
> specify which angle you wanted.
>> Argument) Just use the stealth part.> Response) Can't use just half the effect.
But I pointed at example where this was not true: one can strike with
Lucky Blow while using a Rowen Ring as melee weapon. (This example is
given in Damage rulings.) It's not disallowed to cycle Lucky Blow, you
simply don't get the extra point of damage added to the damageless strike.
My point was that "can't use just half the effect" is not actually a rule.
Please understand that I don't dislike this rule. Actually, it makes a
lot of sense that it exists, given the rules against adding stealth when
a minion doesn't need it nor intercept when a minion doesn't need it. I
just need to point at something when a new player says, "Hey, I want to
cycle this bleed modifier even though I'm not bleeding. Can I?" I need
to tell him that he cannot and then explain to him why that is. I
therefore need to know where it says that, myself.
> > the minion's bleed for the turn, that's fine. It's just that it's not
>
> This is the other argument.
>
> Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed.
> Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with
> citations)
And that's fine. But James cited a post, not a ruling nor rule. Actually,
though, the mention of Bonding at superior inspired me to go look at the rulings
associated with that card and there it is: a specific clarification to the
effect that it cannot be used on non-bleed actions. Apparently, no one thought
to do the same for Confusion. Really, I think the more appropriate thing is
just put a simple statement in the rules (assuming it's not already there) that
action modifiers which increase bleeds and reactions which reduce bleeds cannot
be used on non-bleed actions. Or at least a statement like that deserves to be
someplace in the C/R/E documents, possibly under the "Actions" heading. Then
the clarification about Bonding at superior could be removed.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > Who was talking about playing the card for half an effect? Increase
> >
> > James was pointing out one of the arguments possible, since you didn't
> > specify which angle you wanted.
> >
> > Argument) Just use the stealth part.
> > Response) Can't use just half the effect.
>
> But I pointed at example where this was not true: one can strike with
> Lucky Blow while using a Rowen Ring as melee weapon. (This example is
> given in Damage rulings.) It's not disallowed to cycle Lucky Blow, you
> simply don't get the extra point of damage added to the damageless strike.
You do. It just has no effect. Different.
You use all of Lucky Blow's effect - you're striking with a melee weapon.
> My point was that "can't use just half the effect" is not actually a rule.
It is.
> Please understand that I don't dislike this rule. Actually, it makes a
> lot of sense that it exists, given the rules against adding stealth when
> a minion doesn't need it nor intercept when a minion doesn't need it. I
> just need to point at something when a new player says, "Hey, I want to
> cycle this bleed modifier even though I'm not bleeding. Can I?" I need
> to tell him that he cannot and then explain to him why that is. I
> therefore need to know where it says that, myself.
See above. Print out this message, if you like.
> > > the minion's bleed for the turn, that's fine. It's just that it's not
> >
> > This is the other argument.
> >
> > Argument) Apply (and ignore) the +bleed.
> > Response) Can't modify a bleed that doesn't exist. (as James also said, with
> > citations)
>
> And that's fine. But James cited a post, not a ruling nor rule. Actually,
The post contained a ruling.
> though, the mention of Bonding at superior inspired me to go look at the rulings
> associated with that card and there it is: a specific clarification to the
> effect that it cannot be used on non-bleed actions. Apparently, no one thought
> to do the same for Confusion. Really, I think the more appropriate thing is
When was Confusion reprinted?
> just put a simple statement in the rules (assuming it's not already there) that
> action modifiers which increase bleeds and reactions which reduce bleeds cannot
> be used on non-bleed actions. Or at least a statement like that deserves to be
> someplace in the C/R/E documents, possibly under the "Actions" heading. Then
> the clarification about Bonding at superior could be removed.
It's part of Bonding's card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Argument) Just use the stealth part.
> > > Response) Can't use just half the effect.
> >
> > But I pointed at example where this was not true: one can strike with
> > Lucky Blow while using a Rowen Ring as melee weapon. (This example is
> > given in Damage rulings.) It's not disallowed to cycle Lucky Blow, you
> > simply don't get the extra point of damage added to the damageless strike.
>
> You do. It just has no effect. Different.
> You use all of Lucky Blow's effect - you're striking with a melee weapon.
But you're not using the increase to strength because the Rowen Ring strike
does not use strength. Likewise, you do not use the increase to bleed in an
action which is not a bleed, though you may be using the stealth. If this is
different, it's sure flying over my head what the difference is. The main
difference I can see is that one is a combat card and the other is an action
modifier - which is a different point than the one James raised.
> > My point was that "can't use just half the effect" is not actually a rule.
>
> It is.
(sigh)
> > I just need to point at something when a new player says, "Hey, I want to
> > cycle this bleed modifier even though I'm not bleeding. Can I?" I need
> > to tell him that he cannot and then explain to him why that is. I
> > therefore need to know where it says that, myself.
>
> See above. Print out this message, if you like.
I can see we're kind of getting into the issue (again) of when something like
this needs more documentation than what can be obtained on Google. If there's
a value to having rules and having an online C/R/E document as opposed to just
a series of unconnected posts by the lead designer in a Usenet newsgroup, it's
that between the two sources, one can get a good solid idea of how to play the
game without doing exhaustive searches of ancient newsgroup postings. I do
understand that you can't put everything including the kitchen sink into them.
However, this seems to me to be kind of a basic rule of the game, not some
superpedantic issue. Me printing out the message solves my problem, assuming
I carry it with me at all times and no one challenges its authenticity on the
spot. But I can't expect judges to have copies of every single post you and
Tom Wylie have ever posted. I *can* expect them to have a copy of the current
rules, the C/R/E, and the card text migrations on hand for a tournament. So
how are all the judges supposed to defend this rule, if some player wants
to use his Confusion for stealth on a non-bleed action? (Assuming their
tournament station is not wired or they're not prepared to go search Google
every time some player needs a ruling.)
> > Actually, though, the mention of Bonding at superior inspired me to go look> > at the rulings associated with that card and there it is: a specific
> > clarification to the effect that it cannot be used on non-bleed actions.
> > Apparently, no one thought to do the same for Confusion.
>> When was Confusion reprinted?
Never. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What point are you
trying to make?
...
> It's part of Bonding's card text.
You mean the _current_ version of Bonding's card text? Where someone (I don't
know who) thought it worthwhile to specifically place the words, "Only usable
during a bleed action." on the Sabbat War Bonding card? You're right, that
does obviate the need for any kind of a clarification of Bonding at superior
in the C/R/E. So I don't understand why *that* clarification is still there
and why there's no clarification about Confusion, which does not have any kind
of reprinting with such a clause. Nor how this makes it clear that one can't
use, say, a Conditioning on a non-bleed action.
Even if Bonding's card text is considered to be merely reminder text, between
that and the text of things like Bewitching Oration, which specifies that it
can only be used during a referendum, and of many other cards that make it
clear which types of actions they're restricted to, the expectation seems
pretty well set that one can use any action modifier on any action UNLESS
prohibited by card text. That's why I'm surprised that you would consign this
point to an isolated newsgroup posting.
Fred
>Actually, the part of Deny that I like is the +1 stealth at superior, which
>gives
>pure Dementation (without Obfuscate) another source of stealth besides
>Confusion.
>Had the stealth been at inferior, it would have been a pretty impressive
>card.
Sorta like Mind Tricks? (+1 stealth at inferior for a blood). Previously, James
mentioned how Dementation only has a slight edge over Dominate via stealth
(Mind Tricks, Deny, and Confusion vs. Bonding and Dominate Kine). But another
important point is that most of Domiate's stealth is only for bleeding. Whereas
Mind Tricks and Deny can provide +2 stealth for non-bleeding actions.
<< I don't know, The Call just looks like a Dementation version of Govern
or Enchant Kindred. Would be strictly better were it not for the
double-discipline requirement. Madman's Quill looks like a Dementation
version of Dominate Kine at inferior, something reasonable enough for
a double-superior-discipline requirement at superior. They just don't
look all that powerful to me. >>
As I said before, the doube-discipline shouldn't be too much of a problem. Most
vampires with Dementation already have Auspex (so the inferior part is easy to
get). And even if the both-superior is hard to get, you'd be getting 3 blood to
an uncontrolled for free (unlike the 1 blood for Govern).
Halcyan 2