The RTR's purpose

Is the rules team's purpose to change rules/cards to promote a certain playing segment's views on "balance" and "brokeness" or is it to report misprinted cards and to clarify card text? I always thought it was the latter. But to my horror, following 7/7, I found out I was mistaken. I used to post infrequently on this group - reserving my messages for questions on how certain cards are played. But following 7/7, I couldn't stay an outsider any longer. I felt so strongly that some of the changes have so fundamentally altered the game, that I nearly threw my computer across the room. Sure, that's exaggerating a bit, but I was pissed. How audacious could the RT be? Do they have such power that they could change things with such a heavy hand? If anything, the RT has the responsibility to maintain consistency within the game. The 7/7 rulings have done nothing more than fragment an already divided play group (ie CL vs NCL). The RT should stay out of gaming fundamentals and stick with issues that they can back as absolutely necessary (errata of misprinted cards, etc). Endless reprints and editions of rules is detrimental to redeveloping a solid core of players. Such changes are reminiscent of D&D over the past several years - and look what's happened to that game. I'm starting to wonder if WOTC purchased TSR's stupidity as well as the rights to their gaming system. Badger

badger wrote: > > Is the rules team's purpose to change rules/cards to promote a certain > playing segment's views on "balance" and "brokeness" or is it to report > misprinted cards and to clarify card text? The rules team has the power to make significant changes. Most of the time it corrects misprints and gives clarifications. That is probably why Scott has no plans to issue multiple rounds of rewrites > > I always thought it was the latter. But to my horror, following 7/7, I > found out I was mistaken. I used to post infrequently on this group - > reserving my messages for questions on how certain cards are played. > But following 7/7, I couldn't stay an outsider any longer. I felt so > strongly that some of the changes have so fundamentally altered the > game, that I nearly threw my computer across the room. > > Sure, that's exaggerating a bit, but I was pissed. How audacious could > the RT be? Do they have such power that they could change things with > such a heavy hand? > > If anything, the RT has the responsibility to maintain consistency > within the game. The 7/7 rulings have done nothing more than fragment > an already divided play group (ie CL vs NCL). The RT should stay out of > gaming fundamentals and stick with issues that they can back as > absolutely necessary (errata of misprinted cards, etc). The rules team got involved with fundementals when they changed the (D) bleed rules way back when. There is certainly precedent for such changes. Again, I think people got used to having the rules team ignore us > > Endless reprints and editions of rules is detrimental to redeveloping a > solid core of players. Such changes are reminiscent of D&D over the > past several years - and look what's happened to that game. I'm > starting to wonder if WOTC purchased TSR's stupidity as well as the > rights to their gaming system. The recent changes were a stored-up batch of rulings that the game has needed for a long time. This is not an endless cycle. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) badger <bad...@buffnet.net> writes: >Is the rules team's purpose to change rules/cards to promote a certain >playing segment's views on "balance" and "brokeness" or is it to report >misprinted cards and to clarify card text? I guess that's for the rules team to decide. >I always thought it was the latter. But to my horror, following 7/7, I >found out I was mistaken. I used to post infrequently on this group - >reserving my messages for questions on how certain cards are played. >But following 7/7, I couldn't stay an outsider any longer. I felt so >strongly that some of the changes have so fundamentally altered the >game, that I nearly threw my computer across the room. Wow. I'll never understand that. Why get so emotional about it? It's not attacking your body. It's just a modification to the rules of the game. >Sure, that's exaggerating a bit, but I was pissed. How audacious could >the RT be? Do they have such power that they could change things with >such a heavy hand? Of course they do, why not? On the other hand, all they're defining is the recommended way to play the game (hint: on the bottom line, play it however you like) and how it's played in DCI tournaments. And I disagree about it being audacious. Why is it "audacious" to change the rules of a game to play-balance it. It happens all the time. Board game companies release a new version of the rules to a game to eliminate overuse of some strategy or something. People don't things around because of it. >Endless reprints and editions of rules is detrimental to redeveloping a >solid core of players. No one said this was going to be an endless process. It should have been started years ago. Fred

In article <fred_sXYXY...@netcom.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I draw your attention to "Board game companies release a new version..." This is the point most people are making. Any respectable Board game Co, will release corrected PRINTED RULES. They will REPRINT counters if needed. WoTC on the otherhand, currently arguably the largest game company on the planet, cannot even contemplate reprinting the rules, let alone redoing the offending cards. Every other game co. in the world seems able to do reprints, why not WoTC?? Where are our reprinted cards like a workable Hawg? Where is our updated rules? Where is our SUPPORT!? Raille -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

rai...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > WoTC on the otherhand, currently arguably the largest game company on the > planet, cannot even contemplate reprinting the rules, let alone redoing the > offending cards. Every other game co. in the world seems able to do reprints, > why not WoTC?? Where are our reprinted cards like a workable Hawg? Where is > our updated rules? Where is our SUPPORT!? From conversations with Shawn Carnes at GenCon, it seems that all of this stuff would be Ryan Dancey's responsibility, and he's not willing to do anything about it. Many of the players at yesterday's tournament were not so much upset about the new rulings, but were upset that they had not been somehow informed ahead of time. In fact, the only complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: > Is the rules team's purpose to change rules/cards to promote a certain > playing segment's views on "balance" and "brokeness" or is it to report > misprinted cards and to clarify card text? > > I always thought it was the latter. Like the (D)-symbol-omnidirectability erratum? And the stealing-all-blood-doesn't-burn-a-vampire erratum? And the Rotschreck role-reversal erratum? And the Monocle of Clarity til-untap-only erratum? And Fame unique erratum? etc. These do not fix misprints nor are they "clarifications". For Fame and Monocle, errata were issued expressly for balance reasons. For steal blood, it was for correctness (but served balance as well). The others - ? > [...] How audacious could > the RT be? Do they have such power that they could change things with > such a heavy hand? Yes, as always. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

<rai...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > I draw your attention to "Board game companies release a new > version..." This is the point most people are making. Any > respectable Board game Co, will release corrected PRINTED RULES. > They will REPRINT counters if needed. No, they won't. That would make the company suicidal, not respectable (except perhaps posthumously). Hobby game companies issue errata and make it available, and reprint (with corrections) only as the market warrants. I handle the errata for Steve Jackson Games, and I assure that I update the lists of errata for products that I *know* will never see the light of day on a game store shelf again. Avalon Hill (R.I.P.) also has a long list of errata and clarifications for their game Up Front (among others) -- it includes changes to game components (Marsh card, French personality) that haven't been reprinted in the years since they've been know to be wrong. > Where is our updated rules? Being worked on, I thought. > Where is our SUPPORT!? Right here on the newsgroup, answering questions and compiling rulings. Hunter -- Hunter Johnson /\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ SJG Errata Guy /()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/ Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/

In article <35CDBBC3...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > rai...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > WoTC on the otherhand, currently arguably the largest game company on the > > planet, cannot even contemplate reprinting the rules, let alone redoing the > > offending cards. Every other game co. in the world seems able to do reprints, > > why not WoTC?? Where are our reprinted cards like a workable Hawg? Where is > > our updated rules? Where is our SUPPORT!? > > From conversations with Shawn Carnes at GenCon, it seems that all of > this stuff would be Ryan Dancey's responsibility, and he's not willing > to do anything about it. Many of the players at yesterday's tournament > were not so much upset about the new rulings, but were upset that they > had not been somehow informed ahead of time. In fact, the only > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > James > -- > James Hamblin > ham...@math.wisc.edu As far as I can tell, ALL MY VTES CARDS show a WOTC trademark. ALL MY MAGIC CARDS haave a WOTC Trade mark. I hold WOTC responsible, because as a concerned Company they would (Should) have fixed this 4 years ago. To say that they are no longer to blame because THEY dumped the game on Ryan is unfair to him. Besides He is still a subsidiary of WOTC. Most gaming companies would fix the corrections they sell the item at cost. If the correction was really small occasionaly the fix was free, and if it was gross negilgence on the game companies part, they again fixed it for free. I personnally would send the all my inccorrect cards for replacements today, and the couple dollars to cover their cost (not profit margin) for them. This will never happen, because the corporation responsible is unresponsive to the needs of the gaming community. Is it any wonder CCG's are declining in sales. Raille [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qmutr$kfb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: > > Is the rules team's purpose to change rules/cards to promote a certain > > playing segment's views on "balance" and "brokeness" or is it to report > > misprinted cards and to clarify card text? > > > > I always thought it was the latter. > > Like the (D)-symbol-omnidirectability erratum? > And the stealing-all-blood-doesn't-burn-a-vampire erratum? > And the Rotschreck role-reversal erratum? > And the Monocle of Clarity til-untap-only erratum? > And Fame unique erratum? > etc. > > These do not fix misprints nor are they "clarifications". > > For Fame and Monocle, errata were issued expressly for balance reasons. > For steal blood, it was for correctness (but served balance as well). > The others - ? > > > [...] How audacious could > > the RT be? Do they have such power that they could change things with > > such a heavy hand? > > Yes, as always. O.K., I don't question your authority, nor your ability. Are you aware of the -1 cap. fix for the ToR? Do you think that fix would still leave the tomb unbalanced? If not, than you should consider adopting that fix, as it leaves the overall intent of the card intact. RtI: allowing no action-modifiers would seem to make the card balanced (perhaps Concoction of Vitality is an arguable combo, but the only one!) Your comments? Fame: How much difference would it make to say: "controller of the minion opposing the vampire with this card loses 3 pool....."? That should cover all possibilities. Direct Intervention: I know that nothing has been done about that card yet, but I think the "counterspell" thing is not good for V:TES. If you are going to change it, consider "only one DI per game", like on Giants Blood. Simple, and balancing. LSJ, Thanks for listening, I hope you can use some of these ideas. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > [To LSJ] > Are you aware of the -1 cap. fix for the ToR? Do you think that fix would > still leave the tomb unbalanced? If not, than you should consider adopting > that fix, as it leaves the overall intent of the card intact. I don't see how I could not be aware of that suggested fix. :-) I don't think it would be unbalanced. Although the -1 cap. counters could present some problems (not balance-related) of their own. The overall intent was to get a large vampire out faster and with less pool expenditure - not to make a large vampire a small vampire. The current (~EcoTerrorist) fix maintains the ability to get a large vampire out faster and with less pool expenditure, and is balanced. The -1 cap. fix may be more asthetically pleasing, though. It's already on the list for RT review. Another drawback to issuing new errata is, of course, that it will be new errata. Having a "card text of the month" situation is even worse than having broken cards, in the long run. (Some people complained that errata were coming too frequently when they came a full year apart.) > RtI: allowing no action-modifiers would seem to make the card balanced > (perhaps Concoction of Vitality is an arguable combo, but the only one!) > Your comments? Have already been made regarding this fix. > Fame: How much difference would it make to say: "controller of the minion > opposing the vampire with this card loses 3 pool....."? five words > That should cover all possibilities. Except Charnas, Talbots, and other non-opposing-minion sources of damage (or other torporizing effects). > Direct Intervention: I know that nothing has been done about that card yet, > but I think the "counterspell" thing is not good for V:TES. If you are > going to change it, consider "only one DI per game", like on Giants Blood. > Simple, and balancing. And Sudden Reversal? Counterspells, while possibly annoying, aren't necessarily unbalanced. If they are shown to be unbalanced (in tournament play, for example), they will be reviewed by the RT. > LSJ, Thanks for listening, I hope you can use some of these ideas. The -1 cap. idea is very useful. At the very least as food for thought. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > WoTC on the otherhand, currently arguably the largest game company on the > > planet, cannot even contemplate reprinting the rules, let alone redoing the > > offending cards. Every other game co. in the world seems able to do reprints, > > why not WoTC?? Where are our reprinted cards like a workable Hawg? Where is > > our updated rules? Where is our SUPPORT!? > > From conversations with Shawn Carnes at GenCon, it seems that all of > this stuff would be Ryan Dancey's responsibility, and he's not willing > to do anything about it. Many of the players at yesterday's tournament > were not so much upset about the new rulings, but were upset that they > had not been somehow informed ahead of time. In fact, the only > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and the old way. At least 80% preferred that the counters be permanent, but would like it either way. This seems to be an almost entirely random sampling, since people came to the tournament to play V:TES, and most of them did not know about the 7/7 rulings beforehand. Granted, this is an infinitely small survey, but there *does* seem to be some evidence that this is the preferred fix. Now, I still maintain that LSJ need not do rulings by committee, and should still reject preferred fixes if they hurt the game, but I have not seen any evidence that this fix *would* hurt the game. LSJ, could you please comment on the reasons that the current Tomb fix is better than a "-1 capacity counter" (permanent or not) fix? Strangely enough, when I mentioned the fix, about 6 pairs of eyes suddenly lit up and looked at me like I was a genius. I almost admitted that it wasn't really *my* invention, and that I was simply smart enough to know a good idea when I spotted it, but I decided to accept the adoration anyway... 8) -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 > people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and > the old way. So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone use ToRIII in this case? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 > > people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and > > the old way. > > So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire > and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? > If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone > use ToRIII in this case? I suspect you have misunderstood. If Chris is referring to the same fix I'm familiar with (in fact I think I invented it), then it goes more or less as follows (with changes to the original text in Caps): "Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON this vampire. EACH TOMB COUNTER ON THIS VAMPIRE REDUCES HIS CAPACITY BY ONE. Burn this card AND ALL TOMB COUNTERS when this vampire comes into play." A similar fix that does more or less the same thing would be to say that the "Tomb Counters" count as influence, but are not otherwise treated as blood (thus dropping the reference to capacity reduction, which would tend to confuse people as to the intent of the fix). The latter would probably be more readily understood, but is less precise. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <6qqec2$dm9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes >So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire >and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? >If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone >use ToRIII in this case? You misunderstand. The suggested fixes of this nature run like this: Tomb, instead of adding blood, adds SOMETHING counters. Being as these are not blood counters, they cannot be transferred back so Tomb of Rameses III (note the correct spelling everyone ;) loses its pool machine aspect, to some extent. Now, some people say that the SOMETHING counters should add to a vampire's blood when it comes out. So, say I put ToRIII on Arika. I transfer four blood to her this turn and four SOMETHING counters. Next turn, I put two blood on her and two something counters. She has 12 counters on her now so she comes out. The SOMETHING counters become blood and she has 12 blood. The extra one drains off. Arika out, 11 blood, tomb burned. Alternatively, I could have pulled the extra blood back off her in transfer phase. Chris' fix works like this. The something counters reduce the capacity of the vampire in the inactive region by 1 each. So, it brings out the vampire just as quickly as with the outline given above. Now, depending on your school of thought, the following can each happen: 1) The vampire comes out. Burn all the -1 counters and give them full blood 2) The vampire comes out. Burn all the -1 counters and leave them with however much blood they have (net result, Arika with 6 blood, not 11) 3) The vampire comes out. LEAVE all the -1 counters on the vampire and leave them with the amount of blood they have (net result, Arika with only a 5 capacity). The problems with these fixes are as follows: A) Book-keeping - many people only have 1 type of counter, so how do you know which are blood and which are SOMETHING counters. Or do you remember? etc. B) When does the pool to a vampire get matched by a SOMETHING counter to the tomb? To all vampires (in which case, you can get 2 inner circle out for 14 pool - Tomb and 11 to the OTHER inner circle (ie one without tomb)) or just this one? C) Can you transfer back from the vampire with the Tomb on it? If you can, you could still get out a vampire very cheaply - I'd just put blood onto a vampire and transfer it back so that all that was bringing it out were something counters. If a something counter didn't carry over as blood, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. D) If you reduce the capacity of a vampire permanently, do you not reduce the utility of the big vampires? Bearing all this in mind, my preferred fix would change this Card Title: Tomb of Rameses III Pool: 3 Clan: n/a Card Type: Master Card Text: Master: unique location Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, move one counter from the blood bank to this vampire. Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. to this: Card Text: Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood transferred to this vampire in your influence phase, add a Tomb counter to that vampire. If you transfer a blood away from this vampire, remove a Tomb counter. Tomb counters count as blood for the purpose of moving the vampire to the controlled region. Burn this card and all Tomb counters when this vampire comes into play. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <6qq2fb$rsb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > > > > WoTC on the otherhand, currently arguably the largest game company on the > > > planet, cannot even contemplate reprinting the rules, let alone redoing the > > > offending cards. Every other game co. in the world seems able to do > reprints, > > > why not WoTC?? Where are our reprinted cards like a workable Hawg? Where > is > > > our updated rules? Where is our SUPPORT!? > > > > From conversations with Shawn Carnes at GenCon, it seems that all of > > this stuff would be Ryan Dancey's responsibility, and he's not willing > > to do anything about it. Many of the players at yesterday's tournament > > were not so much upset about the new rulings, but were upset that they > > had not been somehow informed ahead of time. In fact, the only > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > > > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 > people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and > the old way. At least 80% preferred that the counters be permanent, but > would like it either way. This seems to be an almost entirely random > sampling, since people came to the tournament to play V:TES, and most of them > did not know about the 7/7 rulings beforehand. Granted, this is an > infinitely small survey, but there *does* seem to be some evidence that this > is the preferred fix. Now, I still maintain that LSJ need not do rulings by > committee, and should still reject preferred fixes if they hurt the game, but > I have not seen any evidence that this fix *would* hurt the game. LSJ, could > you please comment on the reasons that the current Tomb fix is better than a > "-1 capacity counter" (permanent or not) fix? > > Strangely enough, when I mentioned the fix, about 6 pairs of eyes suddenly lit > up and looked at me like I was a genius. I almost admitted that it wasn't > really *my* invention, and that I was simply smart enough to know a good idea > when I spotted it, but I decided to accept the adoration anyway... 8) LSJ, could you please explain why this proposed ToR fix was not considered by the RT in the first place, and why the RT is not inclined to use this one instead of their first one. I think that the new fix (-1 cap) is balanced, and retains the original intent of the card. Can there be a better solution? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qqec2$dm9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 > > people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and > > the old way. > > So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire > and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? > If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone > use ToRIII in this case? > > a0 No, you didn't get the whole idea. The idea was: for each transfer _to_ the vamp with the Tomb on it, add a -1 cap. counter (or Tomb-counter or Pharaoh- counter, or whatever you like to call it). Do you see the usefulness? If you put ToR on a cap.8-vamp, then it takes you 1 turn (4 transfers) to bring the vamp out, but at the disadvantage, that it has a decreased capacity. (In this example you save 4 pool and 1 turn) The thing that's still undecided by the proponents of this fix is whether or not the counters should remain permanently on the vamp or not. I assume you can think of the difference this makes yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5WL9NTAP...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Card Title: Tomb of Rameses III > Pool: 3 > Clan: n/a > Card Type: Master Proposed New > Card Text: Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. > For each blood transferred to this vampire in your > influence phase, add a Tomb counter to that vampire. If > you transfer a blood away from this vampire, remove a > Tomb counter. Tomb counters count as blood for the > purpose of moving the vampire to the controlled region. > Burn this card and all Tomb counters when this vampire > comes into play. This has the best effect of following the intent of the card. Please consider this. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5WL9NTAP...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <6qqec2$dm9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com > writes > >So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire > >and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? > >If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone > >use ToRIII in this case? > > You misunderstand. The suggested fixes of this nature run like this: > > Tomb, instead of adding blood, adds SOMETHING counters. Being as these > are not blood counters, they cannot be transferred back so Tomb of > Rameses III (note the correct spelling everyone ;) loses its pool > machine aspect, to some extent. > > Now, some people say that the SOMETHING counters should add to a > vampire's blood when it comes out. So, say I put ToRIII on Arika. I > transfer four blood to her this turn and four SOMETHING counters. Next > turn, I put two blood on her and two something counters. She has 12 > counters on her now so she comes out. The SOMETHING counters become > blood and she has 12 blood. The extra one drains off. Arika out, 11 > blood, tomb burned. > > Alternatively, I could have pulled the extra blood back off her in > transfer phase. > > Chris' fix works like this. The something counters reduce the capacity > of the vampire in the inactive region by 1 each. So, it brings out the > vampire just as quickly as with the outline given above. Now, depending > on your school of thought, the following can each happen: > > 1) The vampire comes out. Burn all the -1 counters and give them full > blood Argh.... > > 2) The vampire comes out. Burn all the -1 counters and leave them with > however much blood they have (net result, Arika with 6 blood, not 11) Good. No immediate Minion Tap. > > 3) The vampire comes out. LEAVE all the -1 counters on the vampire and > leave them with the amount of blood they have (net result, Arika with > only a 5 capacity). I like this version best. Using Tomb _ought to be_ risky business. > > The problems with these fixes are as follows: > > A) Book-keeping - many people only have 1 type of counter, so how do you > know which are blood and which are SOMETHING counters. Or do you > remember? etc. That's up to the players. I assume that each playgroup has it's own ways to deal with that _minor_ problem. > > B) When does the pool to a vampire get matched by a SOMETHING counter to > the tomb? To all vampires (in which case, you can get 2 inner circle > out for 14 pool - Tomb and 11 to the OTHER inner circle (ie one without > tomb)) or just this one? I cannot follow you here. > > C) Can you transfer back from the vampire with the Tomb on it? If you > can, you could still get out a vampire very cheaply - I'd just put blood > onto a vampire and transfer it back so that all that was bringing it out > were something counters. If a something counter didn't carry over as > blood, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. I'd say you cannot transfer back. > > D) If you reduce the capacity of a vampire permanently, do you not > reduce the utility of the big vampires? IMO this is a good thing: a number of cards are affected by the generation (Mind Rape is one of the important cards). By using the "-1" Tomb, the effectiveness of such cards is reduced. Not a bad thing, taking into account that many complained about Mind Rape!!!!! > > Bearing all this in mind, my preferred fix would change this > > Card Title: Tomb of Rameses III > Pool: 3 > Clan: n/a > Card Type: Master > Card Text: Master: unique location > Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled > region. For each blood counter you transfer to an > uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, > move one counter from the blood bank to this vampire. > Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. > > to this: > > Card Text: Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. > For each blood transferred to this vampire in your > influence phase, add a Tomb counter to that vampire. If > you transfer a blood away from this vampire, remove a > Tomb counter. Tomb counters count as blood for the > purpose of moving the vampire to the controlled region. > Burn this card and all Tomb counters when this vampire > comes into play. Yes, only blood transferred to _this_ vampire should be matched by Tomb counters. Good. But I'd leave all counters on the vampire once in play. Yes, you bring the big guy in less time and pay less pool. But there should be a price to pay. :) -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> >So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire > >and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? > >If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone > >use ToRIII in this case? > You misunderstand. The suggested fixes of this nature run like this: Good to know. > Tomb, instead of adding blood, adds SOMETHING counters. Ok, I understand. > The problems with these fixes are as follows: > A) Book-keeping - many people only have 1 type of counter, so how do you > know which are blood and which are SOMETHING counters. Or do you > remember? etc. Easy solution: Have the ToRIII *target* an uncontrolled vamp (much like the Rack). That way, it's easy to see what is on the vamp and what is on the ToRIII without any kind of confusion. An added bonus of this change is that these counters can be stolen by, say, the Goth Band. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > > > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > > Oh yeah... I wanted to comment on this. In a very informal poll of about 10 > > > people, 100% preferred the -1 capacity counters to both the current way and > > > the old way. > > > > So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire > > and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? > > If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone > > use ToRIII in this case? > > I suspect you have misunderstood. > > If Chris is referring to the same fix I'm familiar with (in fact I think I > invented it), then it goes more or less as follows (with changes to the > original text in Caps): > > "Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood > counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence > phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON this vampire. EACH TOMB COUNTER ON THIS > VAMPIRE REDUCES HIS CAPACITY BY ONE. Burn this card AND ALL TOMB COUNTERS > when this vampire comes into play." > That's the one. My addendum to your fix, however, was to make the Tomb Counters permanent. Most people I have talked to feel that the version that loses the counters when the vampire is brought into play is still too powerful (although in all cases preferrable to both the current fix and the printed version). You bring in a vampire damn fast, but when you do so, he doesn't have as much power as he could have. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qs6kl$npq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes >> >> B) When does the pool to a vampire get matched by a SOMETHING counter to >> the tomb? To all vampires (in which case, you can get 2 inner circle >> out for 14 pool - Tomb and 11 to the OTHER inner circle (ie one without >> tomb)) or just this one? > >I cannot follow you here. If I put my ToR on vampire A, do transfers to vampire B put counters on the Tombed vampire? If yes, then I put 3 pool ToR on A, 11 transfers on B (Arika), matched by 11 counters on A (Etrius). Two inner circle, 14 pool. Just as with the current ToR. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qp21n$h5m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > Direct Intervention: I know that nothing has been done about that card yet, > but I think the "counterspell" thing is not good for V:TES. If you are > going to change it, consider "only one DI per game", like on Giants Blood. > Simple, and balancing. > > LSJ, Thanks for listening, I hope you can use some of these ideas. > > -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > How about this for a D.I. fix. Do not replace. period. ever. Raille. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > That's the one. My addendum to your fix, however, was to make the Tomb > > Counters permanent. Most people I have talked to feel that the version that > > loses the counters when the vampire is brought into play is still too > > powerful (although in all cases preferrable to both the current fix and the > > printed version). You bring in a vampire damn fast, but when you do so, he > > doesn't have as much power as he could have. > > Seconded. If it wouldn't add too much text to the card, I'd like to see : "This vampire may burn 1 blood to remove 1 SOMETHING counter." This allows the vampire to regain its lost capacity, but at the cost of blood. Alan (aj)

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote in message <6qu2ca$1ad$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6qsdr6$lho$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris >> > > > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. SNIP >> > If Chris is referring to the same fix I'm familiar with (in fact I think I >> > invented it), then it goes more or less as follows (with changes to the >> > original text in Caps): >> > >> > "Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood >> > counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence >> > phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON this vampire. EACH TOMB COUNTER ON THIS >> > VAMPIRE REDUCES HIS CAPACITY BY ONE. Burn this card AND ALL TOMB COUNTERS >> > when this vampire comes into play." >> > >> >> That's the one. My addendum to your fix, however, was to make the Tomb >> Counters permanent. Most people I have talked to feel that the version that >> loses the counters when the vampire is brought into play is still too >> powerful (although in all cases preferrable to both the current fix and the >> printed version). You bring in a vampire damn fast, but when you do so, he >> doesn't have as much power as he could have. > >Seconded. > >-Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum I can't agree. I think -1 cap counters hurt the intent of the card. I don't feel the card should turn big vampires into little ones. Here is my suggested version of the card. Original: Master: unique location Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, move one counter from the blood bank to this vampire. Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. Suggested fix: Master: unique location Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, move one counter from the blood bank to this vampire. Burn this card {and half the blood on the vampire} when this vampire comes into play. {No blood may be transferred from this vampire} I would prefer to stick with just the last sentence being added, but everyone feels that if you don't cut the capacity or blood level of the vampire the card is too powerful. I can go either way but prefer errata that make the fewest changes in card text. McEwen the Mad, Malkavian Elder of Toledo, Ohio (mcewen...@hotmail.com) P.S. you can round up or down depending on how much you want to weaken the card.

In article <35D358...@skat.usc.edu>, Alan Flesch <afl...@skat.usc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > That's the one. My addendum to your fix, however, was to make the Tomb > > > Counters permanent. Most people I have talked to feel that the version that > > > loses the counters when the vampire is brought into play is still too > > > powerful (although in all cases preferrable to both the current fix and the > > > printed version). You bring in a vampire damn fast, but when you do so, he > > > doesn't have as much power as he could have. > > > > Seconded. > > If it wouldn't add too much text to the card, I'd like to see : > > "This vampire may burn 1 blood to remove 1 SOMETHING counter." > > This allows the vampire to regain its lost capacity, but at the cost > of blood. Damn it! There are already so many addendums, that the card is too small to have them all on it. :) But, yes your general idea is good. To make it a bit better: "This vampire may take an action to remove 1 Tomb counter." What do you think? :o [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > If it wouldn't add too much text to the card, I'd like to see : > > "This vampire may burn 1 blood to remove 1 SOMETHING counter." > > This allows the vampire to regain its lost capacity, but at the cost > > of blood. > > Damn it! There are already so many addendums, that the card is too small > to have them all on it. :) > > But, yes your general idea is good. To make it a bit better: > "This vampire may take an action to remove 1 Tomb counter." > > What do you think? :o I actually think that the elegance of the "capacity" card fix was compromised by the attempt to make the capacity-reducing counters permanent. Fix is designed to completely eliminate any blood-generating potential of this card. It does that handily. To have it have the further effect of making big vampires small seems contrary to the cards whole intent, which was to bring out big vampires. LSJ's "Eco-Terrorist" style fix is then alot truer to the original intent of the card. A card that introduces 4-capacity IC members to the game seems silly to me. Some of you are now recognizing this as a problem and suggesting *more* card text to fix it. The permanent capacity-counters also create a potentially confusing situation of large numbers of non-blood counters on ready vampires. This creates the problem of physically distinguishing different types of counters. This is less of a problem in the inactive region, where it is much easier to remember which is which. Permanent capacity reduction seems favored by those who see big vampires as a enormous problem. However, I don't think it can be argued that big vampires have ever been a problem in and of themselves. If old RTI made big vampires broken, then that is an RTI problem, not a big vampire problem. If you feel that a complete elimiation of the card's blood-generating ability doesn't do enough to fix the card, then I would suggest one other alteration: The counters go on the tomb, not the vampire. Thus, if it is destroyed, all benefits are lost, and if stolen, are transfered to a new Methuselah. It also makes it seem more fitting when the counters are burned with the Tomb. Proposed card text (changes in CAPS): Tomb of Rameses III; Master: Unique Location; 3 pool. Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON THIS CARD. EACH TOMB COUNTER WILL REDUCE THE CAPACITY OF THE CHOSEN VAMPIRE BY ONE. Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. [The last sentence is identical to the original, but because the counters go on the Tomb, they are burnt when it comes into play]. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : Permanent capacity reduction seems favored by those who see big vampires : as a enormous problem. However, I don't think it can be argued that big : vampires have ever been a problem in and of themselves. If old RTI made : big vampires broken, then that is an RTI problem, not a big vampire : problem. Big vampires have not been a problem in and of themselves. Getting big vampires on the cheap has been a problem. The vampire costing system appears to give extra points to larger vampires, just because they're big and expensive. If you can get a price break on big vampires, the better ones may end up being more cost-effective than they ought to be. Having big vamps come out as small vamps may not be aesthetically appealing, but I can point to the allowability of Lupo the Brujah Justicar in support of it being acceptable. Better, in my opinion, than allowing someone to get two IC members for 14 pool and 11 transfers, even if one of them comes out empty. If you have Tomb get counters only when you transfer to the vamp it's on (which results in an IC for 9 pool and 6 transfers instead of 11 and 11, with 6 blood on it when it comes out - using the non-permanent cap-reducing counters), that's not as objectionable. (Two ICs are then 20 pool and 17 transfers, and come out with 17 blood on them, as compared to the proposed-below 14 pool, 11 transfers, come out with 11 blood.) : Proposed card text (changes in CAPS): : Tomb of Rameses III; Master: Unique Location; 3 pool. : Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each blood : counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence : phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON THIS CARD. EACH TOMB COUNTER WILL REDUCE : THE CAPACITY OF THE CHOSEN VAMPIRE BY ONE. Burn this card when this : vampire comes into play. : [The last sentence is identical to the original, but because the counters : go on the Tomb, they are burnt when it comes into play]. Just my take on the subject. Josh cut, cut, cut... once more, from the top...

In article <6r2314$3...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: >Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: > >Having big vamps come out as small vamps may not be aesthetically >appealing, but I can point to the allowability of Lupo the Brujah >Justicar in support of it being acceptable. Better, in my opinion, >than allowing someone to get two IC members for 14 pool and 11 transfers, >even if one of them comes out empty. > >If you have Tomb get counters only when you transfer to the vamp it's >on (which results in an IC for 9 pool and 6 transfers instead of 11 >and 11, with 6 blood on it when it comes out - using the non-permanent >cap-reducing counters), that's not as objectionable. (Two ICs are >then 20 pool and 17 transfers, and come out with 17 blood on them, >as compared to the proposed-below 14 pool, 11 transfers, come out >with 11 blood.) Is it really so bad? Compare to Minion Tap. Minion Tap doesn't cost anything, can't be destroyed part way through/contested, can be played more flexibly, can get you more than half the pool back, and can do much worse in conjunction with 5th Tradition. Personally I think paying 3 pool to get a large vampire out (half empty) more quickly is fine. You get some speed compared to Minion Tap, but pay more and lose all the flexibility. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

This is pretty much the version that my play group has been using for the last year. >Now, some people say that the SOMETHING counters should add to a >vampire's blood when it comes out. So, say I put ToRIII on Arika. I >transfer four blood to her this turn and four SOMETHING counters. Next >turn, I put two blood on her and two something counters. She has 12 >counters on her now so she comes out. The SOMETHING counters become >blood and she has 12 blood. The extra one drains off. Arika out, 11 >blood, tomb burned. > >Alternatively, I could have pulled the extra blood back off her in >transfer phase. > Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote in message <6qs6kl$npq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <5WL9NTAP...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <6qqec2$dm9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com >> writes >> >So using the above, you put a ToRIII (which costs 3 pool) on a vampire >> >and you only have to pay 1 less to get the vampire out? >> >If I understand correctly, then that is a 2 pool loss. Why would anyone [Big Snip] Hold it. KISS applies here. Just add the sentence: Immediately after this vampire comes into play, remove half of it's blood; round up/down. Any exess blood drains off first and then half is taken away. And you may want to add: No blood can be removed from this vampire in transfer phase. If they want to use it as a machine, then they will have to find another way. Easy! Replace nospam with red for a usable email address. =================================================== Get out of your own way. - Wicker ===================================================

Duncan McEwen wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote in message > <6qu2ca$1ad$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >In article <6qsdr6$lho$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > > ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > complaint about the new rulings I personally heard was that Chris > >> > > > > Berger's Tomb fix (the "-1/-1" counters) was better than LSJ's. > > SNIP > > >> > If Chris is referring to the same fix I'm familiar with (in fact I > think I > >> > invented it), then it goes more or less as follows (with changes to the > >> > original text in Caps): > >> > > >> > "Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled region. For each > blood > >> > counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence > >> > phase, PUT ONE TOMB COUNTER ON this vampire. EACH TOMB COUNTER ON THIS > >> > VAMPIRE REDUCES HIS CAPACITY BY ONE. Burn this card AND ALL TOMB > COUNTERS > >> > when this vampire comes into play." > >> > > >> > >> That's the one. My addendum to your fix, however, was to make the Tomb > >> Counters permanent. Most people I have talked to feel that the version > that > >> loses the counters when the vampire is brought into play is still too > >> powerful (although in all cases preferrable to both the current fix and > the > >> printed version). You bring in a vampire damn fast, but when you do so, > he > >> doesn't have as much power as he could have. > > > >Seconded. > > > >-Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > > I can't agree. I think -1 cap counters hurt the intent of the card. I > don't feel the card should turn big vampires into little ones. Here is my > suggested version of the card. > > Original: > Master: unique location Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled > region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire > during your influence phase, move one counter from the blood bank to this > vampire. Burn this card when this vampire comes into play. > > Suggested fix: > Master: unique location Put this card on a vampire in your uncontrolled > region. For each blood counter you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire > during your influence phase, move one counter from the blood bank to this > vampire. Burn this card {and half the blood on the vampire} when this > vampire comes into play. {No blood may be transferred from this vampire} > > I would prefer to stick with just the last sentence being added, but > everyone feels that if you don't cut the capacity or blood level of the > vampire the card is too powerful. I can go either way but prefer errata > that make the fewest changes in card text. > > McEwen the Mad, > Malkavian Elder of Toledo, Ohio > (mcewen...@hotmail.com) > > P.S. you can round up or down depending on how much you want to weaken the > card. I like this solution best of all. Changes to card text are simple, card is no longer a blood machine, and the vampire itself isn't changed - only the amount of blood it leaves the Tomb with. Note that I do like the idea of Tomb counters, adds a little thrill to someone who actually plays a Goth band. Round down on the blood the vamp has when activated. Investment: 3 (Tomb) + 6 (Xfers) = 11 cap IC with 5 blood. Still a good card considering, just not the automatic card it is now. Jaysen.

Jasper Phillips (phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: : In article <6r2314$3...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, : Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: : > : >If you have Tomb get counters only when you transfer to the vamp it's : >on (which results in an IC for 9 pool and 6 transfers instead of 11 : >and 11, with 6 blood on it when it comes out - using the non-permanent : >cap-reducing counters), that's not as objectionable. (Two ICs are : >then 20 pool and 17 transfers, and come out with 17 blood on them, : >as compared to the proposed-below 14 pool, 11 transfers, come out : >with 11 blood.) : Is it really so bad? Compare to Minion Tap. Minion Tap doesn't cost : anything, can't be destroyed part way through/contested, can be played more : flexibly, can get you more than half the pool back, and can do much : worse in conjunction with 5th Tradition. : Personally I think paying 3 pool to get a large vampire out : (half empty) more quickly is fine. You get some speed compared to : Minion Tap, but pay more and lose all the flexibility. I would find it somewhat acceptable to have Tomb use non-permanent capacity-reduction if it only gets the counters when you transfer blood to *that* vamp. In that case, the IC member does cost you 9 pool and 6 transfers, and comes out with 6 blood. I think it's excessive if it works when you transfer to *any* vamp, which gets you the IC member for 3 pool and 0 transfers, and it comes out empty. Minion Tap doesn't speed you up and doesn't make big vampires cheaper to buy - it only makes them cheaper after the fact. (They could be Rushed and lose lots of blood before they can be Minion Tapped, for example.) And even so, Minion Tap is (in my opinion) one of the best master cards in the game. Josh och! save me from the wee turtles!

On 17 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > I would find it somewhat acceptable to have Tomb use non-permanent > capacity-reduction if it only gets the counters when you transfer blood > to *that* vamp. In that case, the IC member does cost you 9 pool > and 6 transfers, and comes out with 6 blood. I think it's excessive > if it works when you transfer to *any* vamp, which gets you the IC > member for 3 pool and 0 transfers, and it comes out empty. One disadvantage of using it for for maximum benefit (ie...accumulating 11 counters to bring out an IC member by paying only the Tomb's 3 pool cost) is that you must leave the Tomb in play longer -- about 3 turns. This increases the chance that the Tomb will be contested, stolen, or burned. This tactic typically works only in the very beginning of the game, when you still have at least 2 minions on your uncontrolled region and can afford to spend 14 pool. The 14 pool cost of this tactic is overwhelming, and only makes sense when you were planning to spend most of it anyway. When it's later in the game, and you can only afford, say, to spend the initial 3 pool cost of the Tomb itself, then it will take you alot longer to bring out a vampire, as you will have to spend time juggling reverse transfers. The 3 pool loss in such circumstances can be an enormous risk, when the "blood generator" option is removed. > Minion Tap doesn't speed you up and doesn't make big vampires cheaper to > buy - it only makes them cheaper after the fact. But an empty IC member *should* be cheaper than an IC member filled to capacity, and by a significant amount. Getting an empty IC member in 3 turns for 3 extra pool in a "2 for the price of one" deal that actually costs you a total pool outlay of 14 does not seem unreasonable to me. > (They could be > Rushed and lose lots of blood before they can be Minion Tapped, for > example.) And even so, Minion Tap is (in my opinion) one of the > best master cards in the game. And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you leave it in play, the more likely this is to happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you > leave it in play, the more likely this is to happen. Just like any other master location! That isn't an excuse for it to be so powerful. Vampires coming out practically for free is a problem. There must be either more of a time delay (like the 7/7 fix), or some other drawback (like permananent -1/-1 counters). James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : On 17 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: : > I would find it somewhat acceptable to have Tomb use non-permanent : > capacity-reduction if it only gets the counters when you transfer blood : > to *that* vamp. In that case, the IC member does cost you 9 pool : > and 6 transfers, and comes out with 6 blood. I think it's excessive : > if it works when you transfer to *any* vamp, which gets you the IC : > member for 3 pool and 0 transfers, and it comes out empty. : One disadvantage of using it for for maximum benefit (ie...accumulating 11 : counters to bring out an IC member by paying only the Tomb's 3 pool cost) : is that you must leave the Tomb in play longer -- about 3 turns. This : increases the chance that the Tomb will be contested, stolen, or burned. Those chances have never been very large compared to the benefit of the Tomb. Sure, it's a disadvantage (it takes 3 turns instead of 2 to just get the one IC out by transferring only to it), but not a big one. : This tactic typically works only in the very beginning of the game, when : you still have at least 2 minions on your uncontrolled region and can : afford to spend 14 pool. The 14 pool cost of this tactic is overwhelming, : and only makes sense when you were planning to spend most of it anyway. : When it's later in the game, and you can only afford, say, to spend the : initial 3 pool cost of the Tomb itself, then it will take you alot longer : to bring out a vampire, as you will have to spend time juggling reverse : transfers. The 3 pool loss in such circumstances can be an enormous risk, : when the "blood generator" option is removed. In my opinion, no deck designed to make maximum use of Tomb with big vampires will likely reach a point where it wants to use the Tomb just to get out big vamps for 3 pool with no blood on them (the only case I can think of where you'd be doing reverse-transfer-juggling). If your deck thinks it's a good idea to bring out large vamps with very little blood on them, it probably also thinks it's a good idea to do Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap tricks with them, or at least have some other method of large quick blood gain. In that case, late-game Tombs will not be required to cost only 3 pool, because the deck counts on having plenty more than 3 pool to invest. The 14 pool cost is big, yes, but it gets you two IC members. Those would cost you 22 pool if you had to buy them the hard way. : > Minion Tap doesn't speed you up and doesn't make big vampires cheaper to : > buy - it only makes them cheaper after the fact. : But an empty IC member *should* be cheaper than an IC member filled to : capacity, and by a significant amount. Getting an empty IC member in 3 : turns for 3 extra pool in a "2 for the price of one" deal that actually : costs you a total pool outlay of 14 does not seem unreasonable to me. Blood on vampires is transient at best, and frequently ephemeral. It is not nearly as important as *having* the vampire. (This is why Minion Tapping big vampires is useful.) An empty IC member that costs 8 less than a full IC member is a serious bargain. The total pool outlay is large, but it's *always* been large when using Tomb. The problem has always been that the rewards of getting those IC members are greater than the costs, especially given the speed in getting them out that Tomb provides. : > (They could be : > Rushed and lose lots of blood before they can be Minion Tapped, for : > example.) And even so, Minion Tap is (in my opinion) one of the : > best master cards in the game. : And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you leave it : in play, the more likely this is to happen. Yeah, same for Information Highway, but does that make it less useful when you get it early? Josh

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, James Hamblin wrote: > Lupus Australis wrote: > > > > And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you > > leave it in play, the more likely this is to happen. > > Just like any other master location! Correct, except that this one self destructs. Not a point in its favor. > That isn't an excuse for it to be > so powerful. I don't believe it *is* "so powerful", once the blood-gain effect is removed. Info Highway becomes the better card, on balance. TOR is definitely overpowered as printed, but his is due almost exclusively to the blood gain effect. 11 blood on a vampire may not be the same as 11 pool, but there is an enormous difference between 11 blood and 0 blood on that IC member you bring out. I think you enormously underestimate the extent to which removing the blood-gain effect depowers the card. > Vampires coming out practically for free is a problem. Yes, but this statement does not characterize TOR once you remove the blood gain effect. Any vampire you get out costs at least 3 pool, and there are other costs and risks. Other cards, like Eco Terrorists, or Art Museum, or Minion Tap, or Blood Doll, come far closer to giving you vampires "pracically for free". > There must be either more of a time delay (like the 7/7 fix), ...which is a more powerful card than many realize. I think you underestimate the importance of the "blood-gain" effect. > or some > other drawback (like permananent -1/-1 counters). Too messy, I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: > : One disadvantage of using it for for maximum benefit (ie...accumulating 11 > : counters to bring out an IC member by paying only the Tomb's 3 pool cost) > : is that you must leave the Tomb in play longer -- about 3 turns. This > : increases the chance that the Tomb will be contested, stolen, or burned. > > Those chances have never been very large compared to the benefit of the > Tomb. But the benefit you are comparing it to comes largely from the blood-gain effect, which could be removed. Also, with the unfixed Tomb, benefits already gained are secure, so that there is no risk involved in leaving it in play as long as possible. > Sure, it's a disadvantage (it takes 3 turns instead of 2 to just > get the one IC out by transferring only to it), but not a big one. Actually, your opponents have 2 turns instead of 1 in which to destroy it, steal it, or contest it. The opportunity is doubled. > : This tactic typically works only in the very beginning of the game, when > : you still have at least 2 minions on your uncontrolled region and can > : afford to spend 14 pool. The 14 pool cost of this tactic is overwhelming, > : and only makes sense when you were planning to spend most of it anyway. > > : When it's later in the game, and you can only afford, say, to spend the > : initial 3 pool cost of the Tomb itself, then it will take you alot longer > : to bring out a vampire, as you will have to spend time juggling reverse > : transfers. The 3 pool loss in such circumstances can be an enormous risk, > : when the "blood generator" option is removed. > > In my opinion, no deck designed to make maximum use of Tomb with big > vampires will likely reach a point where it wants to use the Tomb > just to get out big vamps for 3 pool with no blood on them (the only > case I can think of where you'd be doing reverse-transfer-juggling). > If your deck thinks it's a good idea to bring out large vamps with > very little blood on them, it probably also thinks it's a good idea > to do Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap tricks with them, or at least have > some other method of large quick blood gain. In that case, late-game > Tombs will not be required to cost only 3 pool, because the deck counts > on having plenty more than 3 pool to invest. The sort of Decks you are describing would be considerably less effective without the blood-gain effect of the tomb. With 11 less blood to minion tap off your "practically free" IC member, you are far less likely to have "plenty more than 3 pool" to invest in subsequent Tombs. To assume that such pool supply is guaranteed is to assume that such decks are unbeatable, which they are not, even with old Tomb. Info Highway is more effective for such decks than is TOR-with-no-blood-gain. You could use both, of course, but Info Highway is still the better card. Besides, the problem with the old Tomb was that it was effective in pracically *any* deck, not just in specialized Big Minion Blood Generator Decks. For a card to be expecially useful in specialized decks is not unreasonable. > The 14 pool cost is big, yes, but it gets you two IC members. Those > would cost you 22 pool if you had to buy them the hard way. Doing it "The hard way" only costs you only 11 pool before you get an opportunity to replenish your supply with a Minion Tap (for up to 11 pool). Doing it with the no-blood-gain Tomb costs 14 before you get this chance, 3 of which goes to the blood bank and is unavailable to be Minion Tapped back. "The hard way" gives me 22 pool for minion taps, whereas the no-blood-gain Tomb only gives me 11. > : > Minion Tap doesn't speed you up and doesn't make big vampires cheaper to > : > buy - it only makes them cheaper after the fact. > > : But an empty IC member *should* be cheaper than an IC member filled to > : capacity, and by a significant amount. Getting an empty IC member in 3 > : turns for 3 extra pool in a "2 for the price of one" deal that actually > : costs you a total pool outlay of 14 does not seem unreasonable to me. > Blood on vampires is transient at best, and frequently ephemeral. It > is not nearly as important as *having* the vampire. OK, but if blood on vampires is transient and ephemeral, then empty IC members must also be transient and ephemeral. If one can easily cause a full vampire to burn blood, then how much harder is it to torporize or burn an empty one? > (This is why > Minion Tapping big vampires is useful.) I would counter that "Minion Tapping" is why blood on vampires is useful. there are other reasons, of course. > An empty IC member > that costs 8 less than a full IC member is a serious bargain. In certain circumstances he might be, IF you get the Tomb out on your first turn, etc. etc. He'll have to hunt before he can do anything, of course, which is a excellent opportunity for intercept or an out-of-turn, anti-hunting master card. And, I will say again, the "bargain" does not stand by itself, but is part of a buy-one-get-another-another-for-less deal that only works if you can afford the first one plus an additional 3 pool. > The > total pool outlay is large, but it's *always* been large when using Tomb. The total blood gain has *always* been large too. You seem to have minimal appreciation of the significance of this fact. > The problem has always been that the rewards of getting those IC members > are greater than the costs, Especially because of the (slightly significant) fact that they have *always* come out at full capacity instead of empty. > especially given the speed in getting them > out that Tomb provides. Some of this speed will be lost if he has to hunt on his first turn, fifth tradition on his second, and get minion tapped on his third, all to achieve the same effect of a simple minion tap on the first turn with the old tomb. > : And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you leave it > : in play, the more likely this is to happen. > > Yeah, same for Information Highway, but does that make it less useful > when you get it early? I am convinced, that, on balance, Info Highway is comparable to, and perhaps better than a no-blood-gain Tomb. Would you like a point by point comparison? In any event, the past benefits of Info Highway are not lost when it is burned. Nor were the past benefits of Old Tomb. Many versions of No-Blood-Gain Tomb allow all benefits to be lost or stolen with it, such that if you lose it before you get your vampire, you have nothing to show for it but 3 less pool. If such were the case you would take a risk by leaving it in play longer, which is not a factor with the likes of Info Highway. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : On 20 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Sure, it's a disadvantage (it takes 3 turns instead of 2 to just : > get the one IC out by transferring only to it), but not a big one. : Actually, your opponents have 2 turns instead of 1 in which to destroy : it, steal it, or contest it. The opportunity is doubled. Yes, it is. From almost zero, to slightly more than zero. ;-) It's still not a big disadvantage. : > In my opinion, no deck designed to make maximum use of Tomb with big : > vampires will likely reach a point where it wants to use the Tomb : > just to get out big vamps for 3 pool with no blood on them (the only : > case I can think of where you'd be doing reverse-transfer-juggling). : > If your deck thinks it's a good idea to bring out large vamps with : > very little blood on them, it probably also thinks it's a good idea : > to do Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap tricks with them, or at least have : > some other method of large quick blood gain. In that case, late-game : > Tombs will not be required to cost only 3 pool, because the deck counts : > on having plenty more than 3 pool to invest. : The sort of Decks you are describing would be considerably less effective : without the blood-gain effect of the tomb. With 11 less blood to minion : tap off your "practically free" IC member, you are far less likely to have : "plenty more than 3 pool" to invest in subsequent Tombs. To assume that : such pool supply is guaranteed is to assume that such decks are : unbeatable, which they are not, even with old Tomb. : Info Highway is more effective for such decks than is : TOR-with-no-blood-gain. You could use both, of course, but Info Highway : is still the better card. I'm skeptical of that. Info Highway gets you 2 extra transfers per turn, where ToR can get you 4. And ToR (although it costs 3 pool where Info Highway costs 0) does save pool costs on buying the vamps. These decks are *less* effective without the bloodgain part of Tomb, but not *that* much less. What makes them *far* less effective than they used to be is that they can no longer abuse RtI, Mind Rape, and Soul Gem like they used to (in the archetypal Meet the Inner Circle decks). All they get now from Tomb (with the -1 cap counters, non- permanent) is big vampires on the cheap. This is a Very Good Thing for a pool gain deck. And no, they're not unbeatable, but then, no deck is. : Besides, the problem with the old Tomb was that it was effective in : pracically *any* deck, not just in specialized Big Minion Blood Generator : Decks. For a card to be expecially useful in specialized decks is not : unreasonable. True, but it shouldn't be crazy useful. : > The 14 pool cost is big, yes, but it gets you two IC members. Those : > would cost you 22 pool if you had to buy them the hard way. : Doing it "The hard way" only costs you only 11 pool before you get an : opportunity to replenish your supply with a Minion Tap (for up to 11 : pool). Doing it with the no-blood-gain Tomb costs 14 before you get this : chance, 3 of which goes to the blood bank and is unavailable to be : Minion Tapped back. "The hard way" gives me 22 pool for minion taps, : whereas the no-blood-gain Tomb only gives me 11. It only gives you 11 up front. Because you have the big vampires in play, the opportunity is there to do more Minion Tap tricks later. Even without putting free blood on the vampire, Tomb still gets out big vampires at reduced cost. : > Blood on vampires is transient at best, and frequently ephemeral. It : > is not nearly as important as *having* the vampire. : OK, but if blood on vampires is transient and ephemeral, then empty IC : members must also be transient and ephemeral. If one can easily cause a : full vampire to burn blood, then how much harder is it to torporize or : burn an empty one? Well, to burn an empty vamp requires either additional aggravated damage, Decapitate, or diablerie, usually. Burning vampires was originally supposed to be difficult, and recently it's become fairly difficult again. Torporizing is easier, of course, but a torporous vamp is still in play and can still come back out. My point was that the amount of blood on a vampire tends to change frequently and sometimes drastically - not only as a result of getting beaten up, but due to use of Blood Dolls, actions or modifiers or reactions that cost blood, Minion Taps, Fifth Traditions, whatever. Having another vampire of capacity 11 with no blood on it is *so much* better than having another vampire of capacity 3 with 3 blood on it because blood is very much more mutable than other vampire attributes. : > (This is why : > Minion Tapping big vampires is useful.) : I would counter that "Minion Tapping" is why blood on vampires is useful. : there are other reasons, of course. I think this is dubious. Blood on vampires is a resource that can be used for any number of things. The reason Minion Tapping big vamps is useful is because it's a very easy way to gain large amounts of pool, and it's usually much easier to refill blood on vamps than it is to gain pool. : > An empty IC member : > that costs 8 less than a full IC member is a serious bargain. : In certain circumstances he might be, IF you get the Tomb out on your : first turn, etc. etc. He'll have to hunt before he can do anything, of : course, which is a excellent opportunity for intercept or an out-of-turn, : anti-hunting master card. : And, I will say again, the "bargain" does not stand by itself, but is part : of a buy-one-get-another-another-for-less deal that only works if you can : afford the first one plus an additional 3 pool. If 'it only works when you can afford to spend lots' is a valid argument that makes Tomb balanced, why wasn't it a valid argument before Tomb was fixed? You still had to spend 14 pool to get two IC members back then. The only difference is how much blood is on one of them when it comes into play. : > The : > total pool outlay is large, but it's *always* been large when using Tomb. : The total blood gain has *always* been large too. You seem to have : minimal appreciation of the significance of this fact. Making use of the blood gain always required support cards. If Tomb were to simply make vampires come out with less blood on them, all that does is make it require an extra support card (5th Tradition). : > The problem has always been that the rewards of getting those IC members : > are greater than the costs, : Especially because of the (slightly significant) fact that they have : *always* come out at full capacity instead of empty. Yes. So they were immediately fully useful. Now they need one support card to be played before they're that useful. (Giant's Blood will also work... once.) : > especially given the speed in getting them : > out that Tomb provides. : Some of this speed will be lost if he has to hunt on his first turn, fifth : tradition on his second, and get minion tapped on his third, all to : achieve the same effect of a simple minion tap on the first turn with the : old tomb. Of course, by spending 1 more pool, you can have 1 blood on the second IC when it comes out, so that it will never have to hunt. In this case, the IC can receive 5th tradition (but can't do it to himself, short of house rules) on his first minion phase, perform whatever action he wants, and get Minion Tapped on his second master phase. (One turn later than he can be Minion tapped if he comes out full. If you're worried about not using that master phase, why not Minion Tap the IC that *did* come out full?) : > : And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you leave it : > : in play, the more likely this is to happen. : > : > Yeah, same for Information Highway, but does that make it less useful : > when you get it early? : I am convinced, that, on balance, Info Highway is comparable to, and : perhaps better than a no-blood-gain Tomb. Would you like a point by point : comparison? Sure. It seems to me that the 3 pool cost of Tomb is clearly worthwhile given that it produces two extra transfers a turn and doesn't require you to spend pool equal to capacity of the vamps you bring out. : In any event, the past benefits of Info Highway are not lost when it is : burned. Nor were the past benefits of Old Tomb. Many versions of : No-Blood-Gain Tomb allow all benefits to be lost or stolen with it, such : that if you lose it before you get your vampire, you have nothing to show : for it but 3 less pool. If such were the case you would take a risk by : leaving it in play longer, which is not a factor with the likes of Info : Highway. This is the only drawback that Tomb has compared to Info Highway. And it seems to me that even if the card were only good in the early game, that doesn't excuse it being too good when you get it early. Risk is all well and good, but this isn't the stock market; excessive returns aren't justified by the possibility of losing it all. Josh god save the queen... we mean it, man

On 21 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: > : On 20 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > : > Sure, it's a disadvantage (it takes 3 turns instead of 2 to just > : > get the one IC out by transferring only to it), but not a big one. > > : Actually, your opponents have 2 turns instead of 1 in which to destroy > : it, steal it, or contest it. The opportunity is doubled. > > Yes, it is. From almost zero, to slightly more than zero. ;-) It's > still not a big disadvantage. I suspect you are thinking of "Old Tomb" precedent when you make this statement. A fixed tomb that allows benefits to be lost or stolen with the tomb provides a much greater incentive for this sort of tactic, and will tend to cause it to occur with greater frequency. This sort of loss becomes more damaging, as, unlike the old tomb, a lost fixed tomb will not repay its worth *at all*. Cards like Arson, Kine Dominance, and Disputed Territory may not be played frequently, but nonetheless they are readily available counters to a fixed tomb, that make playing the Tomb a significant risk, especially if done for maximum benefit. The ebb and flow of the metagame will make sure they come into play more frequently if you give them a good reason. Lets not forget that you are unlikely to afford the 14 pool needed beyond the beginning of your game, so if you are playing for maximum benefit (the 2 IC members that we seem to have settled on as the focus of this debate), then you are likely to have few, if any, minions in play to stop an Arson, or vote against a Disputed Territory against your initial tomb. > : > In my opinion, no deck designed to make maximum use of Tomb with big > : > vampires will likely reach a point where it wants to use the Tomb > : > just to get out big vamps for 3 pool with no blood on them (the only > : > case I can think of where you'd be doing reverse-transfer-juggling). > : > If your deck thinks it's a good idea to bring out large vamps with > : > very little blood on them, it probably also thinks it's a good idea > : > to do Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap tricks with them, or at least have > : > some other method of large quick blood gain. In that case, late-game > : > Tombs will not be required to cost only 3 pool, because the deck counts > : > on having plenty more than 3 pool to invest. > > : The sort of Decks you are describing would be considerably less effective > : without the blood-gain effect of the tomb. With 11 less blood to minion > : tap off your "practically free" IC member, you are far less likely to have > : "plenty more than 3 pool" to invest in subsequent Tombs. To assume that > : such pool supply is guaranteed is to assume that such decks are > : unbeatable, which they are not, even with old Tomb. > > : Info Highway is more effective for such decks than is > : TOR-with-no-blood-gain. You could use both, of course, but Info Highway > : is still the better card. > > I'm skeptical of that. Info Highway gets you 2 extra transfers > per turn, where ToR can get you 4. And ToR (although it costs 3 pool > where Info Highway costs 0) does save pool costs on buying the vamps. You continue to talk about buying vamps as though an empty vampire is equal in value to a full one. Perhaps I should ask you how much *you* think is the relative difference in value between a full and an empty IC member? A full one is clearly worth 11 pool in 2.75 turns. How much would you say an empty one is worth? But you were sceptical of my comparison with Info Highway. I'll include one at bottom of this post. > These decks are *less* effective without the bloodgain part of Tomb, > but not *that* much less. Yes, *that* much less, specifically, up to 11 blood per Tomb waiting to be minion tapped. What the heck are you talking about "not that much less"???? This is *especially* significant in a Minion Tap/Blood-Gain deck. Probably about 9 to 11 pool worth of significance!!! It makes to sense to say that it does not matter if a vampire is empty, because she can gain blood later by 5th Tradition or Giant's Blood. If Queen Anne has full blood when she comes out, you can Minion Tap her down to one on your following Master phase, and you can *still* play 5th Tradition that turn (and Minion Tap again next turn), with the difference that I am now 9 pool ahead of where I would have been if she had come out empty. > What makes them *far* less effective than > they used to be is that they can no longer abuse RtI, Mind Rape, and > Soul Gem like they used to (in the archetypal Meet the Inner Circle > decks). The Tomb was designed to lend a hand to big vampires. I see nothing wrong with this, since big vampires are rather underpowered compared to multiple weenies generally. Big vampire decks can be abusive, strictly because of the overpowered nature of a handful of cards, notably RTI and Mind Rape. Both these actions are costly in terms of blood, and a no-blood-gain tomb does not give you any extra blood to power these actions. If those actions are overpowered, it is those cards that need fixing. The Tomb itself is overpowered because of the blood-gain effect, not because, as intended, it really does help bring out big vampires. > All they get now from Tomb (with the -1 cap counters, non- > permanent) is big vampires on the cheap. This is a Very Good Thing > for a pool gain deck. And no, they're not unbeatable, but then, > no deck is. Empty vampires are not that useful for a Minion Tap. This is why Information Highway is so much more effective for such decks than a no-blood-gain Tomb. > : Besides, the problem with the old Tomb was that it was effective in > : pracically *any* deck, not just in specialized Big Minion Blood Generator > : Decks. For a card to be expecially useful in specialized decks is not > : unreasonable. > > True, but it shouldn't be crazy useful. And it is not, if you remove the blood-gain effect. > : > The 14 pool cost is big, yes, but it gets you two IC members. Those > : > would cost you 22 pool if you had to buy them the hard way. > > : Doing it "The hard way" only costs you only 11 pool before you get an > : opportunity to replenish your supply with a Minion Tap (for up to 11 > : pool). Doing it with the no-blood-gain Tomb costs 14 before you get this > : chance, 3 of which goes to the blood bank and is unavailable to be > : Minion Tapped back. "The hard way" gives me 22 pool for minion taps, > : whereas the no-blood-gain Tomb only gives me 11. > > It only gives you 11 up front. Because you have the big vampires in > play, the opportunity is there to do more Minion Tap tricks later. The more "Minion Tap" tricks later are not the result of the Tomb. They are the result of other cards, like Giant's Blood or 5th Tradition. If you think those cards are overpowered, perhaps we should be discussing that instead. A no-blood-gain Tomb does not grant you a Minion-Tap Ready minion, and that is a serious disadvantage in a Minion Tap/Blood Gain deck. I might also point out that, since one cannot typically do more than 1 Minion Tap per turn, having a large number of vampires available to be Minion Tapped does not offer the same benefit. > Even without putting free blood on the vampire, Tomb still gets out > big vampires at reduced cost. Yes, I agree that it does do that. Reduced cost *and* reduced value. > : > Blood on vampires is transient at best, and frequently ephemeral. It > : > is not nearly as important as *having* the vampire. > > : OK, but if blood on vampires is transient and ephemeral, then empty IC > : members must also be transient and ephemeral. If one can easily cause a > : full vampire to burn blood, then how much harder is it to torporize or > : burn an empty one? > > Well, to burn an empty vamp requires either additional aggravated > damage, Decapitate, or diablerie, usually. Burning vampires was > originally supposed to be difficult, and recently it's become fairly > difficult again. Torporizing is easier, of course, but a torporous > vamp is still in play and can still come back out. Rescuing Torporized Vampires normally requires that important resource: Blood. With a no-blood-gain TOR, you have much less of this important resource. I realize that empty vampires have value. This is why Minion Tapping (and Blood Dolls) are profitable. You can recover an amount of pool equal to a vampire's entire cost, yet still retain part of the vampires value in play. This does not change the fact that empty vampires are worth much less than full ones. [ quoted text not captured ] This alters the equation, because if you do this you are no longer bringing out 2 IC members for 14 pool. (Only 3 pool for the extra IC member, was I believe your argument). Now you appear to be conceding that this extreme example is not really worthwhile after all, and it is best to have one IC member come out with one pool. Perhaps its a minor point, but perhaps you should then stop arguing that 3 extra pool and no extra transfers is such a great bargain, if in fact 4 extra pool and 1 extra transfer gets you a better value for your cost. > In this > case, the IC can receive 5th tradition (but can't do it to himself, > short of house rules) I hope you don't play with such house rules :( IC members definitely should NOT have access to Prince/Justicar cards, especially 5th tradition. They are already overpowered without such benefits. In any event, we have deviated again from your original extreme example of 2 IC members for 14 pool. Clearly 10-capacity Princes and Justicars, not IC members, are the ideal vampires for a Minion-Tap/5th-Tradition Deck. So we are now talking of paying 14 pool for 2 minions that might have cost 20 (not 22). You save 6 blood, and return get 9 less blood on your vampires. In a deck that relies on Minion Taps for blood gain, that is hardly such a bargain. > on his first minion phase, perform > whatever action he wants, and get Minion Tapped on his second master > phase. (One turn later than he can be Minion tapped if he comes out > full. If you're worried about not using that master phase, why not > Minion Tap the IC that *did* come out full?) Well, again, we obviously should be talking Princes, not IC members. They cannot *both* be IC members now, can they? 5th tradition is a powerful card, but whoever is playing it better have serious stealth, else you will be blocked and your plans ruined. TOR, 5th tradition, stealth, Minion tap is alot more involved and risky than the more beneficial combo of Info Highway/Minion Tap, and also leaves your investement more vulnerable to rush and diablerie. > : > : And the Tomb can be stolen, burned, or contested. The longer you leave it > : > : in play, the more likely this is to happen. > : > > : > Yeah, same for Information Highway, but does that make it less useful > : > when you get it early? > > : I am convinced, that, on balance, Info Highway is comparable to, and > : perhaps better than a no-blood-gain Tomb. Would you like a point by point > : comparison? > > Sure. It seems to me that the 3 pool cost of Tomb is clearly worthwhile > given that it produces two extra transfers a turn and doesn't require > you to spend pool equal to capacity of the vamps you bring out. > > : In any event, the past benefits of Info Highway are not lost when it is > : burned. Nor were the past benefits of Old Tomb. Many versions of > : No-Blood-Gain Tomb allow all benefits to be lost or stolen with it, such > : that if you lose it before you get your vampire, you have nothing to show > : for it but 3 less pool. If such were the case you would take a risk by > : leaving it in play longer, which is not a factor with the likes of Info > : Highway. > > This is the only drawback that Tomb has compared to Info Highway. You ought to be able to think of a few other ways without me pointing it out to you. Come on, you're intelligent! Let's see what you can come up with. > And it seems to me that even if the card were only good in the early game, > that doesn't excuse it being too good when you get it early. If you look below, you will find that Info Highway does better. > Risk is all well and good, but this isn't the stock market; excessive > returns aren't justified by the possibility of losing it all. Here's my comparison of Info Highway to a No-Blood-Gain Tomb. I am assuming that in each case the deck is a simple blood-gain deck using 5th Tradition, Minion Tap and Stealth, with a crypt full of 10 capacity Princes and Justicars with Obfuscate. In each case, the Tomb or Info Highway is played on one's first turn. It is assumed that you are the second person playing, and so would normally get two transfers on your first turn Turn #1 A) Play IH. Transfer 4 blood to Queen Anne. Pool=26. B) Play TOR on Lucian. Transfer 2 blood to Queen Anne. Pool=25. Turn #2 A) Play Parthenon. Transfer 6 pool to Queen Anne. She comes out with 10. Pool=18. B) Play Parthenon. Transfer 4 pool to Queen Anne. Pool=19. Turn #3 A) Minion Tap Queen Anne for 9. She plays 5th Trad. Transfer 6 pool to Lucian. Pool=21. B) Transfer 1 blood to Lucian, 2 to Queen Anne, and 1 to Francois Villon. Queen Anne and Lucian come out simultaneously, Lucian with 1 blood, and Queen Anne with 10. Pool=15. Turn #4 A) Play Elesium; Minion Tap Queen Anne for 9. She plays 5th Tradition. Transfer 4 more pool to Lucian, and 2 to Francois Villon. Lucian enters play. Pool=24. B) Play another TOR on Harrod. Minion Tap Queen Anne for 9. Queen Anne plays 5th Tradition. Lucian plays 5th Tradition. Transfer 4 blood to Francois Villon. Pool=17. Turn #5 A) Minion Tap Queen Anne and Lucian for 9 each. Both play 5th Tradition. Transfer 6 blood to Francois Villon. Pool=36. B) Minion Tap Queen Anne and Lucian for 9 each. Both play 5th Tradition. transfer 4 more blood to Francois Villon. Pool=31. Well that's about as far as I want to go for now. I think the TOR may be catching up, but it's taking a while, and it has so far required that 2 of them be played. Performance is in some ways comparable, but the TOR deck fell as low as 12 pool before starting to climb (putting it dangerously close to an oust) whereas the Highway deck never went under 18. [ quoted text not captured ]

(I tried to post a reply to this yesterday, but my computer froze, the message was lost, and all my effort went to the big hard drive in the sky. Oh unhappy day. I hope this time it'll work better.) Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : On 21 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : > : > : Actually, your opponents have 2 turns instead of 1 in which to destroy : > : it, steal it, or contest it. The opportunity is doubled. : > : > Yes, it is. From almost zero, to slightly more than zero. ;-) It's : > still not a big disadvantage. : I suspect you are thinking of "Old Tomb" precedent when you make this : statement. A fixed tomb that allows benefits to be lost or stolen with : the tomb provides a much greater incentive for this sort of tactic, and : will tend to cause it to occur with greater frequency. This sort of loss : becomes more damaging, as, unlike the old tomb, a lost fixed tomb will not : repay its worth *at all*. True, it's worse when your Tomb gets blown up. But if you're using new Tomb the fast way, two turns of opportunity is still not a whole lot of time. : Cards like Arson, Kine Dominance, and Disputed Territory may not be played : frequently, but nonetheless they are readily available counters to a fixed : tomb, that make playing the Tomb a significant risk, especially if done : for maximum benefit. The ebb and flow of the metagame will make sure they : come into play more frequently if you give them a good reason. Lets not : forget that you are unlikely to afford the 14 pool needed beyond the : beginning of your game, so if you are playing for maximum benefit (the 2 : IC members that we seem to have settled on as the focus of this debate), : then you are likely to have few, if any, minions in play to stop an Arson, : or vote against a Disputed Territory against your initial tomb. These are card vs card answers. The only thing that makes these better than 'play Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection vs RtI' is that Arson is disciplineless. Sure, they're good if they happen to fit into your deck well, but they aren't a justification. Sure, they can punish Tomb players by using the metagame, but that doesn't balance the Tomb. : You continue to talk about buying vamps as though an empty vampire is : equal in value to a full one. Perhaps I should ask you how much *you* : think is the relative difference in value between a full and an empty IC : member? A full one is clearly worth 11 pool in 2.75 turns. How much : would you say an empty one is worth? I can't say for sure. Maybe 5-7 pool? I do think it's more than 3-4 pool. Do you have an exact figure you think they're worth? (I'm not so sure a full IC is 'worth' 11 pool in 2.75 turns, either. That's what it normally costs, but what a vampire is 'worth' is a pretty complicated question I think.) : > These decks are *less* effective without the bloodgain part of Tomb, : > but not *that* much less. : Yes, *that* much less, specifically, up to 11 blood per Tomb waiting to be : minion tapped. What the heck are you talking about "not that much : less"???? This is *especially* significant in a Minion Tap/Blood-Gain : deck. Probably about 9 to 11 pool worth of significance!!! Not having the blood on the vampire means you may not get the pool as quickly; it doesn't mean you don't get it at all. : > What makes [big vampire Tomb-using decks] *far* less effective than : > they used to be is that they can no longer abuse RtI, Mind Rape, and : > Soul Gem like they used to (in the archetypal Meet the Inner Circle : > decks). : The Tomb was designed to lend a hand to big vampires. I see nothing wrong : with this, since big vampires are rather underpowered compared to multiple : weenies generally. Big vampire decks can be abusive, strictly because of : the overpowered nature of a handful of cards, notably RTI and Mind Rape. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, I've never heard of the Tomb resulting in the use of the big vampires that are really underpowered. Nobody gets out Apollonius with a Tomb. What the Tomb did was make the *good* big vampires a bargain at half the price. : Both these actions are costly in terms of blood, and a no-blood-gain tomb : does not give you any extra blood to power these actions. : If those actions are overpowered, it is those cards that need fixing. The : Tomb itself is overpowered because of the blood-gain effect, not because, : as intended, it really does help bring out big vampires. Sure, any overpowered card needs fixing. These particular ones worked especially well with the big vampires that Tomb made cheaper. My argument is not that "Tomb with impermanent cap-reducing counters that works with transfers to other vampires" is grossly overpowered. I would just prefer that either the counters be permanent or that Tomb only produce counters when you transfer to the en-Tombed vampire. : Empty vampires are not that useful for a Minion Tap. This is why : Information Highway is so much more effective for such decks than a : no-blood-gain Tomb. Yeah, sure it is. ;-) : > It only gives you 11 up front. Because you have the big vampires in : > play, the opportunity is there to do more Minion Tap tricks later. : The more "Minion Tap" tricks later are not the result of the Tomb. They : are the result of other cards, like Giant's Blood or 5th Tradition. If : you think those cards are overpowered, perhaps we should be discussing : that instead. A no-blood-gain Tomb does not grant you a Minion-Tap Ready : minion, and that is a serious disadvantage in a Minion Tap/Blood Gain : deck. : I might also point out that, since one cannot typically do more than 1 : Minion Tap per turn, having a large number of vampires available to be : Minion Tapped does not offer the same benefit. Well, with only one big vamp, you can still do one minion tap a turn, yes. But even Minion Tap/5th Tradition decks have to do something to kill their prey, right? Having more than one big vampire allows you to take more useful actions, etc, etc. If one of your vampires gets beaten up or something and winds up out of blood, then another can 5th Trad it, instead of just being screwed. : Rescuing Torporized Vampires normally requires that important resource: : Blood. With a no-blood-gain TOR, you have much less of this important : resource. : I realize that empty vampires have value. This is why Minion Tapping (and : Blood Dolls) are profitable. You can recover an amount of pool equal to a : vampire's entire cost, yet still retain part of the vampires value in : play. This does not change the fact that empty vampires are worth much : less than full ones. See, I'm not so sure about the 'much' in 'much less'. I've played a lot of combat decks, and in my experience, it often doesn't matter whether Anvil has 1 blood on him or 6. He can still Bum Rush, Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Blur, Taste of Vitae and end up full. I've played some pool-gain decks, and Emerson Bridges can play Majesty, cast votes, and play Skin of Steel (once) just as well when he has 1 blood as when he has 8. Have you ever played against a vote deck using Banishment? Were you unconcerned about having your low-blood vampires Banished, because they weren't worth as much? Blood on vampires is a resource the vampires can use to play cards. It is very renewable. Vampires in play is a resource the methuselah can use to further his strategy. They are less renewable. This is why it's more important *whether* you have a vampire in play to use than *how much* blood they have on them. [a bunch of my points snipped - how come you didn't reply to these? ;-) ] : > Of course, by spending 1 more pool, you can have 1 blood on the second : > IC when it comes out, so that it will never have to hunt. : This alters the equation, because if you do this you are no longer : bringing out 2 IC members for 14 pool. (Only 3 pool for the extra IC : member, was I believe your argument). Now you appear to be conceding that : this extreme example is not really worthwhile after all, and it is best to : have one IC member come out with one pool. Perhaps its a minor point, but : perhaps you should then stop arguing that 3 extra pool and no extra : transfers is such a great bargain, if in fact 4 extra pool and 1 extra : transfer gets you a better value for your cost. It gets you more speed. Whether that's a better value will depend on the situation and your tactics. : > In this : > case, the IC can receive 5th tradition (but can't do it to himself, : > short of house rules) : I hope you don't play with such house rules :( IC members definitely : should NOT have access to Prince/Justicar cards, especially 5th tradition. : They are already overpowered without such benefits. No, I've never played like that. Your example seemed to imply IC members doing 5th Tradition for each other. : In any event, we have deviated again from your original extreme example of : 2 IC members for 14 pool. Clearly 10-capacity Princes and Justicars, not : IC members, are the ideal vampires for a Minion-Tap/5th-Tradition Deck. : So we are now talking of paying 14 pool for 2 minions that might have cost : 20 (not 22). You save 6 blood, and return get 9 less blood on your : vampires. In a deck that relies on Minion Taps for blood gain, that is : hardly such a bargain. It's pretty good. ;-) Getting out plentiful IC members is not as handy as it once was, since RtI and Mind Rape are no longer so useful. But they do still have plenty of good points - built in +2 bleed, 4 votes, can be Minion Tapped for 10, lots of disciplines, often have good special abilities... : 5th tradition is a powerful card, but whoever is playing it better have : serious stealth, else you will be blocked and your plans ruined. TOR, 5th : tradition, stealth, Minion tap is alot more involved and risky than the : more beneficial combo of Info Highway/Minion Tap, and also leaves your : investement more vulnerable to rush and diablerie. But Info Highway/Minion Tap will leave your vampires empty without 5th Tradition involved. In my metagame experience, intercept is rarely a winning strategy, so you don't see a lot of it. : > : In any event, the past benefits of Info Highway are not lost when it is : > : burned. Nor were the past benefits of Old Tomb. Many versions of : > : No-Blood-Gain Tomb allow all benefits to be lost or stolen with it, such : > : that if you lose it before you get your vampire, you have nothing to show : > : for it but 3 less pool. If such were the case you would take a risk by : > : leaving it in play longer, which is not a factor with the likes of Info : > : Highway. : > : > This is the only drawback that Tomb has compared to Info Highway. : You ought to be able to think of a few other ways without me pointing it : out to you. Come on, you're intelligent! Let's see what you can come up : with. Ummm... Tomb doesn't give you any actual extra transfers, only virtual transfers. (Tomb also costs 3 more than IH, which is kinda like a drawback.) : > And it seems to me that even if the card were only good in the early game, : > that doesn't excuse it being too good when you get it early. : If you look below, you will find that Info Highway does better. In one scenario, yeah... ;-) : > Risk is all well and good, but this isn't the stock market; excessive : > returns aren't justified by the possibility of losing it all. : Here's my comparison of Info Highway to a No-Blood-Gain Tomb. I am : assuming that in each case the deck is a simple blood-gain deck using 5th : Tradition, Minion Tap and Stealth, with a crypt full of 10 capacity : Princes and Justicars with Obfuscate. In each case, the Tomb or Info : Highway is played on one's first turn. It is assumed that you are the : second person playing, and so would normally get two transfers on your : first turn Note that IH's efficacy is greater the earlier in the game you play (ie it's even more good if you were the first person to play). Suppose we have both players go fourth, where Tomb's full benefit becomes available: Turn 1: A) Play Tomb on Queen Anne; transfer 4 to Queen Anne; pool=23. B) Play IH; transfer 6 to Queen Anne; pool=24. Turn 2: A) Play Parthenon; transfer 4 to Anson; Anne comes out with 4 blood; pool=17. B) Play Parthenon; transfer 4 to Anne, 2 to Anson; Anne comes out full; pool=16. Turn 3: A) Minion Tap Anne for 3, Tomb on Francois; Anne 5thTrads; transfer 4 to Anson; Anson comes out with 8; pool=13. B) Minion Tap Anne for 9; Anne 5thTrads; transfer 6 to Anson; Anson comes out with 8; pool=19. Turn 4: A) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7; both 5thTrad; transfer 2 to Francois, 2 to Anneke; Francois comes out with 2; pool=25. B) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7; both 5thTrad; transfer 6 to Francois; pool=29. Turn 5: A) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7, Tomb on Anneke; all three vamps 5thTrad; transfer 4 to Anneke; Anneke comes out with 6; pool=34. B) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7; both 5thTrad; transfer 4 to Francois, 2 to Anneke; Francois comes out with 10; pool=39. [Turn 6: A) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7, Francois for 9; all four 5thTrad; pay 1 for a new vampire to look at; pool=58. B) Minion Tap Anne for 9, Anson for 7, Francois for 9; all three 5thTrad; transfer 6 to Anneke; pool=58.] --- In this example, the Tomb user gets out Queen Anne on turn 2 (should be early enough to forestall any threat of early ousting), Anson on 3, Francois on 4, Anneke on 5. IH user gets Queen Anne on 2, Anson on 3, Francois on 5. IH user usually has more pool but fewer vampires to do other things with (some of the 5th Trad action ends up being superfluous when you can't Tap all your vampires every turn). : Well that's about as far as I want to go for now. I think the TOR may be : catching up, but it's taking a while, and it has so far required that 2 of : them be played. Performance is in some ways comparable, but the TOR deck : fell as low as 12 pool before starting to climb (putting it dangerously : close to an oust) whereas the Highway deck never went under 18. (Actually, in your scenario, the ToR deck never went below 15 at an end of turn, as far as I could tell.) As long as there are infinite Minion Taps available, why not also allow infinite Tombs? ;-) Seriously, these ideal scenarios probably don't tell us all that much about how the cards (and decks) perform in real life. (Also note that these decks would do even better if they used both Tomb and IH.) My impression is that Tomb is at least as good at getting out big vampires fast as Info Highway. It is (fixed version) probably useful in fewer decks. This may actually make it more useful to decks of the Minion Tap/5th Tradition variety, since Info Highway is more likely to be contested (since it's useful to weenie decks as well as big-vamp decks). Man, these posts have gotten long. See what happens when you argue with people who don't just post a few lines of unsupported assertions? (You get hundreds of lines of unsupported assertions instead! ha ha.) Josh guess there's something wrong with me, guess i don't fit in...