rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

JYHAD comments

13 messages from 10 participants · 25 October 1994 – 09 November 1994 · rec.games.deckmaster
source archive

Edo Mor

After playing JYHAD for several weeks and spending a large sum of money on it, I have yet only seen one kind of deck that is really superior over others. a Malkavian bleed deck. Over 50% of the people I've played use a deck like this, and frankly, it seems completely too pwerful in comparison to most other clans. The only other decks I saw that could compare were Gangrel aggro decks and Ventrue politics decks. However, 4 rotschrecks and some fortitude makes a gangrel deck helpless, while a ventrue politics deck is only really strong in a 4-6 player game. What other ideas do you guys have for decks? Any interesting combos? Edo Mor bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net -- Edo Mor (bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net)

Owen Reynolds

>The only other decks I saw that could >compare were Gangrel aggro decks and Ventrue politics decks. However, 4 >rotschrecks and some fortitude makes a gangrel deck helpless Arrrgggg!!!! Rotschreck is played on a vampire which is about to _receive_ aggravated damage. We've already had this discussion here. This is the story, as best I know it: The meaning of the word "Rotschreck" in the RPG and the wording on the card are universally agreed upon as suggesting the vampire who sees he is about to be hit by fearsome aggravated damage goes into torpor for 2 turns instead. A draft of a ruling was posted here saying Rotschreck affected the minion dealing the damage. Later, after a big discussion, it was revealed that there is no "official ruling" on Rotschreck and it is played as written. It's best use is when one of your Gangrels blocks someone. A recent, I think foolish, ruling on Majesty weakens Rotschreck somewhat, since Majesty now "beats" showing the other vampire your scary claws. Also, most people seem to disallow playing out-of-turn cards during your turn, meaning you can't use Rotschreck on your prey. Still, it's a pretty useful card for a Gangrel deck to stop a combat deck.

LANspeed systems

Edo Mor (bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net) wrote: : After playing JYHAD for several weeks and spending a large sum of money : on it, I have yet only seen one kind of deck that is really superior : over others. a Malkavian bleed deck. Over 50% of the people I've played : use a deck like this, and frankly, it seems completely too pwerful in : comparison to most other clans. The only other decks I saw that could : compare were Gangrel aggro decks and Ventrue politics decks. However, 4 : rotschrecks and some fortitude makes a gangrel deck helpless, while a : ventrue politics deck is only really strong in a 4-6 player game. : What other ideas do you guys have for decks? Any interesting combos? One deck that I could almost always beat a malkavian deck though it was always close was a Toreador-Brujah deck. With losta Auspex Skill cards and always close and only it two player games was a Toreador-Brujah deck. With lotsa Auspex Skill cards and ton of enhanced senses etc. plus some sports bikes, I would intercept any action (including govern the unaligned) and then send the vampire to torpor using potence/celerity combos. If he managed to escape all of my intercept with stealth I could just play bum rush or Haven Uncovered. During some games Smudge had his hands full every turn (of course he had the rowan ring). The game usually ended with either some last ditch super-stealth bleed that might finish me off or the Malkav deck having one vampire left only a little pool that I could finish off with a few guys. bikes, I would intercept any action (including govern the unaligned) and then send the vampire to torpor using potence/celerity combos. If he managed to escape all of my intercept with stealth I could just play bum rush or Haven Uncovered. During some games Smudge had his hands full every turn (of course he had the rowan ring). The game usually ended with either some last ditch super-stealth bleed that might finish me off or the Malkav deck having one vampire left only a little pool that I could finish off with a few guys. -- Corris Cook and Alex Robinson /\ .................../....\..................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /~~~~~~~;\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Rush is the ONLY way /___________ \;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Thomas Aldershof II

I would like to describe how all clans, or decks are even but that would be hard. I remember after the first three days I played, I thought that seemed to be the ticket. Try to play some four player five player games and then try to play with well constructed decks. The only thing that I can tell is that after all is said and done, Toreador seems to have the most options. The in the middle clan. In article <41VRuc1w165w@tsoft.net> bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net (Edo Mor) writes: >After playing JYHAD for several weeks and spending a large sum of money >on it, I have yet only seen one kind of deck that is really superior >over others. a Malkavian bleed deck. Over 50% of the people I've played >use a deck like this, and frankly, it seems completely too pwerful in >comparison to most other clans. The only other decks I saw that could >compare were Gangrel aggro decks and Ventrue politics decks. However, 4 >rotschrecks and some fortitude makes a gangrel deck helpless, while a >ventrue politics deck is only really strong in a 4-6 player game. > >What other ideas do you guys have for decks? Any interesting combos? > >Edo Mor >bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net > >-- >Edo Mor (bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net)

Brian Wilson

Before I could do anything to stop it, Owen Reynolds wrote: > Rotschreck is played on a vampire which is about to _receive_ aggravated > damage. We've already had this discussion here. Wish I'd been up on this card last night, 'cause I got screwed up while I was *dealing* aggravated damage with a Dawn Operation. Perhaps this evening I'll curl up by the fire with a good card... -- If he were opened, and you find so much blood in his | a-Henh! liver as will clog the foot of a flea, I'll eat the | Brian Wilson rest of the anatomy. | William Shakespeare |

Stingray

In article <41VRuc1w165w@tsoft.net>, bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net (Edo Mor) writes: >After playing JYHAD for several weeks and spending a large sum of money >on it, I have yet only seen one kind of deck that is really superior >over others. a Malkavian bleed deck. Over 50% of the people I've played >use a deck like this, and frankly, it seems completely too pwerful in >comparison to most other clans. The only other decks I saw that could >compare were Gangrel aggro decks and Ventrue politics decks. However, 4 >rotschrecks and some fortitude makes a gangrel deck helpless, while a >ventrue politics deck is only really strong in a 4-6 player game. > >What other ideas do you guys have for decks? Any interesting combos? > >Edo Mor >bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net > >-- >Edo Mor (bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net) A drawback for the Malkavian bleed deck is the 'Master' that lets you take control of an opponents Malkavian for one turn. Adding Tremeres to the Malkavians is very popular around here (Thamaturgy for fughting & mage allies). TRY THIS COMBO: Recently I played a voting deck (3-player, but works as well for any number of players), where I played this incredible combo: A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything.

Brian Wilson

Before I could do anything to stop it, Stingray wrote: > TRY THIS COMBO: > Recently I played a voting deck (3-player, but works as well for any > number of players), where I played this incredible combo: > A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action > modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote > passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in > the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making > a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. > In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to > survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. I don't have my cards at hand (and I only have one Business Pressure), but I can't help but wonder if you can really spend as much blood as you want on votes, or if the cards is just implying that you can get 3 votes for one pool and that's it. What's the actual text on the card? This sounds like a really abusive combo - I can't wait to try it! -- If he were opened, and you find so much blood in his | a-Henh! liver as will clog the foot of a flea, I'll eat the | Brian Wilson rest of the anatomy. | William Shakespeare |

Phuoc Huu Cao

I believe this would not work. "Voter captivation" in it's superior skill sez that you can only put up to 2 blood that you gain from playing this card into your blodd pool. Is this correct or am I misquoting the card? Otherwise, this would be a nasty card. - Thanatos

PELORAN

In article <39826v$n6e@anise.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, csuoc@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Stingray) writes: >In article <41VRuc1w165w@tsoft.net>, > bbs.geronimo@tsoft.net (Edo Mor) writes: >TRY THIS COMBO: >Recently I played a voting deck (3-player, but works as well for any >number of players), where I played this incredible combo: >A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action >modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote >passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in >the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making >a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. >In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to >survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. Umm. A very large hole in your reasoning.. I think you should re-read "Voter Captivation".. "Play when the acting vampire's vote succeeds. The _vampire_ gains blood from the blood bank equal to the amount the vote passed by." Having Superior Presecnse gives the following.. "As above, but _up to 2_ of the blood can go to your blood pool" So in your "great combo" you would spend 20 pool, gain 2 of that back.. and the acting vampire would get 63 blood, which, unless he has like 60 skill cards played on him (impossable BTW) you would waste a hell of a lot of blood. ^^^^^^^^^^^^John Buckingham (Buckingham_J@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas. Half | Peloran on a pack of cigarettes. It's dark. And we're wearing sunglasses" | FurryMUCK - Elwood Blues: The Blues Brothers | Apocalypse IV "Hit it" - Joliet Jake Blues: The Blues Brothers | UnderMUD ^-^-^-^-^-^-Naldern Silverthorn (naldern@mu.sans.vuw.ac.nz)^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-

Tom Wylie

Stingray <csuoc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote: >A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action >modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote >passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in >the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making >a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. >In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to >survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. You're misreading Voter Captivation. The superior version only allows you to put 2 of the blood from it into your pool rather than on the acting vampire, not all of the blood. While the Captivation/Pressure combo can be used as an overefficient Blood Doll, or to get you a net gain of 1 pool (spend 1 pool on BP, get 2 pool from VC), it doesn't let you spike in this minner. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Bob Ellison

> > A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action > > modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote > > passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in > > the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making > > a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. > > In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to > > survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. > I don't have my cards at hand (and I only have one Business Pressure), > but I can't help but wonder if you can really spend as much blood as you > want on votes, or if the cards is just implying that you can get 3 votes > for one pool and that's it. What's the actual text on the card? This > sounds like a really abusive combo - I can't wait to try it! If I remember correctly... Voter Captivation gains one blood for the *vampire using it* for every vote that the vote passed by. This effectively tops off the potential gain at 10 (plus more, if your acting vampire has a few discipline cards). With Superior presence, up to *two* of that can go to your pool, instead of to your vampire. No more. papillo the hornswaggled

Thomas Aldershof II

> A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action > modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote > passed by & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in > the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making > a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. > In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to > survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. Voter Captivation: NORMAL Play when the acting vampire's vote succeeds. The vampire gains blood from the blood bank equal to the amount the vote passed by. SUPERIOR As above, but up to 2 of the blood can go to your blood pool. bye...

Stingray

>Stingray <csuoc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote: >>A Vampire with superior Presence calls a vote. You play the action >>modifier 'Voter Captivation' (Gain one pool for every vote the vote >>passed by) & 'Business Pressure' (pay 1 pool for 3 votes). I was in >>the position to pay 20 pool and had some more votes besides, making >>a grand total of 65 votes more than the others = 65 pool. >>In this deck I use a lot of allies and embraces and if you manage to >>survive until you have a nice combo, then you can afford anything. This is what I have written and this is how we played it (nice for me), but I have re-read the card and agree with EVERYONE saying that only 2 of the blood can go to my bloog pool ... so I apologize for this grave (but funny) mistake I made and hope that nobody got into trouble by trying to pull this off. Sorry.