[KMW Spoiler] Black Annis

Black Annis 9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4 ani pro OBF POT Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth. Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions, but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any chainmail bikinis yet). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: : On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote: : I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots : of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any : chainmail bikinis yet). "What do we need group 4 for?" - "Look, there's a big Beast there, too" //T

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: : On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote: :> Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions, :> but even a basic bleed costs her a blood. : I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots : of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any : chainmail bikinis yet). Now I got to take a look at her. Horrible picture. Otherwise it's 2 pool over Beast, a lot less imaginative power discipline no-brainer combination of Protean and Potence and ability to use equipment and recycle unnecessary rush actions from your hand, also for an extra maneuvers or presses - at stealth. Still, the picture.. Between the very nice art work of the Beast and say, passable art work of Mateusz, the picture on Annis looks like nothing that'd justify the mean specialties. //T

On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnew...@difsol.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do cost a blood also. That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions". This restriction might prove more painful in practice than in theory, and I don't mind her being somewhat similar to Beast - now we can choose more restrictions/[cel]/no stealth/7-cap or less restrictions/[pro]/+1 stealth/9-cap. That's fine. There's only so much you can do with a given set of options. Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the grouping rule IS necessary indeed. Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it? best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil -------------------------------------- Now a "luminary", whatever it means: http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview > in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given > set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it? Not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no impropriety here, and if there was, it was all transacted in cash anyway, so there's no incriminating paper trail. So, uh, what's the friend's name? And address? And what route does he take to work? Just, y'know, asking. No special reason. Oh, and what's the going rate for a hit man in your country again? > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo -John Flournoy -the sometimes-!Nos-newsletter-writer

I guess that there's no useful discussion to be had over taste (to roughly translate the latin), but I like it - it fits what I imagine 'a' Black Annis to be. (Annis, pl. Anni, is a mythological creature; more or less a hag-witch-troll). Also, only her discipline combination makes her (almost) worth the 9 pool, and even then I'd be loath to use her without fortitude (for prevention and freak drives). Sure, she can use Flesh of Marble / Drawing Out the Beast, but aggro-poke is still a problem. At least she has an answer to Burst of Sunlight and Breath of the Dragon. Glad she was introduced though, it's an ok vampire for people who like ani/pot rush. Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it? > >Not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no >impropriety here, and if there was, it was all transacted in cash >anyway, so there's no incriminating paper trail. Ah, ok. Well... But let me pay you a beer. Here it is. [2 hours later and a big row of empty bottles/cans of ale] But now, maaate [hic] just between you and me: you DID arranged for the removal of a !Nos from the Anarchs preview just to cover for the noticeable pattern, don't you? (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra ones so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that) >So, uh, what's the friend's name? And address? And what route does he >take to work? Just, y'know, asking. No special reason. Oh, and what's >the going rate for a hit man in your country again? > >> Fabio "Sooner" Macedo > >-John Flournoy >-the sometimes-!Nos-newsletter-writer Don't ask, you'd be tempted ;) Or your hit man would, by the way; your target... *cough*, my friend understands too well about those Temptation feelings. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote: > On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnew...@difsol.com wrote: >>Black Annis >>9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4 >>ani pro OBF POT >>Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your >>predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an >>additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth. >> >>Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions, >>but even a basic bleed costs her a blood. > In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other > means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do > cost a blood also. > That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions". Nothing that Perfectionist can't patch...

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:O8-dnR7qpsT...@comcast.com... [ quoted text not captured ] (indeed, given the useful perm +1 stealth) or taste of vitae... George

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:29:13 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Is there something that Perfectionist can't patch? ;) (just to do a little overrating praise) [ quoted text not captured ]

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: > On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: > >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview > >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given > >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it? > (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next > expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra ones > so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that) Camarilla: Didn't really have standard previews (though Patagia did get a boost) Anarchs: Nothing Black Hand: Yong-Sun (Advanced) preview AND Teresita special preview Gehenna: Aeron preview AND Shahid preview KMW: Black Annis preview AND Echo promo card Seems like the current system of previews didn't start until Anarchs. And the Nos/!Nos surely have gotten more than their fair share already! I agree it's rather suspicious... IIRC, Teresita and Selena were special previews (they were in the Retailer section or some special web-page). They weren't in the offical count-down preview, but were previewed even before that.

On 3 Feb 2005 10:19:45 -0800, echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: >> On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote: >> >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set >peview >> >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that >given >> >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it? >> (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next >> expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra >ones >> so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that) > >Camarilla: Didn't really have standard previews (though Patagia did get >a boost) >Anarchs: Nothing >Black Hand: Yong-Sun (Advanced) preview AND Teresita special preview >Gehenna: Aeron preview AND Shahid preview >KMW: Black Annis preview AND Echo promo card > > >Seems like the current system of previews didn't start until Anarchs. >And the Nos/!Nos surely have gotten more than their fair share already! >I agree it's rather suspicious... Time for rampant conspirational theories! :) >IIRC, Teresita and Selena were special previews (they were in the >Retailer section or some special web-page). They weren't in the offical >count-down preview, but were previewed even before that. Right. At least Teresita was there before, my mind just filed it under another section. But back to the more "serious" issues. Maybe noticing this was just a consequence of bad divination skills - I was sure that the three vampires to show after Ossian were to be a !Gangrel, a Giovanni and the TBA one, for whatever reason it is TBA. It would round everything well: one vampire for each indie clan and for each starter (if Tatiana - Alastor, Kemintiri - Red List starters respectively) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the > grouping rule IS necessary indeed. Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite. Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates existing things with slight variations ?! -- Orpheus -------------------------------- "Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo" David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Orpheus wrote: >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed. > > Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite. > Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates > existing things with slight variations ?! We don't. We don't need anything beyond Jyhad to have a great game. I like having new expansions and new vampires and all that. If grouping is necessary to have new vampires all the time, then I'll take grouping. Matt Morgan

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 2005020312...@fnord.io.com... > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Orpheus wrote: > > >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the > >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed. > > > > Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite. > > Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates > > existing things with slight variations ?! > > We don't. We don't need anything beyond Jyhad to have a great game. > > I like having new expansions and new vampires and all that. Sure. And this could be done by creating really new vampires, with new discipline combos and / or abilities, that would allow for new strategies. Thousands of things haven't been done yet, and would be preferable to more Pot/Ani/Pro, !Ventrue OBT, etc etc. If grouping > is necessary to have new vampires all the time, then I'll take grouping. > > Matt Morgan It is now far too late to change anything, but I still believe it wasn't necessary, at least not at this point. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus <orphe...@eraserheadfree.fr> wrote: : It is now far too late to change anything, but I still believe it wasn't : necessary, at least not at this point. Well. If they are to revise the grouping rule, I'd very much like to see a rule that would allow enough backwards compatibility to allow using ol' Jyhad Vampires with the newest Group 4 Vampires. Can't wait. //T

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de news: cttvb1$nu6$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... [ quoted text not captured ] TBA : New ???

Orpheus <orphe...@eraserheadfree.fr> wrote: : "Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de news: : cttvb1$nu6$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... :> Well. If they are to revise the grouping rule, I'd very much like to see :> a rule that would allow enough backwards compatibility to allow using :> ol' Jyhad Vampires with the newest Group 4 Vampires. Can't wait. : TBA : New ??? Certainly hope so. //T

Getting back to Black Annis: She is obviously a combat oriented character. However, her drawback is fairly severe, especially context with her capacity. With this in mind, she is slightly under powered in my opinion due that she doesn't have animalism at superior. Animalism has proven itself a devastating combat discipline in the NYC circle in conjunction with the Nos/!Nos. We have a player named Corey who has a highly effective tournament winning !Nos deck using Combat with Superior Potence and Superior Animalism. This is due to environmental damage from Carrion Crows and Drawing out the Beast. Since the design has geared her so much towards combat, it would have been optimal for her to have superior animalism rather then obfuscate. In my opinion, this would still have made her balanced. She's still a great fighter, but I believe ultimately that environmental damage along with Trap is a more effective way with dealing damage prevention then her Protean offers. Still an effective minion. Especially when you couple the other !Nosferatu that has +2 strength. Eldacar

Eldacar351 <eldac...@aol.com> wrote: > Getting back to Black Annis: > > She is obviously a combat oriented character. However, her drawback is > fairly severe, especially context with her capacity. Drawback? You're looking at it the wrong way. She pays one blood for +1 stealth (even when it is not yet needed), but she doesn't actually have the choice to pay or not. ;) Rogar

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:40:18 +0100, "Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote: >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed. > >Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite. >Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates >existing things with slight variations ?! Because it's inevitable. In short, grouping allows both approaches: printing altered versions of older vampires, and trying something different. Both are valid and necessary. There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different without completely screwing up the power curve at some point. And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course. Since you can't avoid making a vampire with a special rush action here and there - remember, there are five sets and at least 6 years between the original release of Beast and this new Black Annis - and it's necessary to avoid the dial-a-crypt syndrome, go grouping. I've already posted something on this thread about Black Annis having significant differences from Beast, [pro] being a HUGE one (access to prevention, anyone?), so I won't dabble in it again. Go figure, necrobrother! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo <fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:40:18 +0100, "Orpheus" > <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote: > >>> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the >>> grouping rule IS necessary indeed. >> >> Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite. >> Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just >> duplicates >> existing things with slight variations ?! > > Because it's inevitable. > > In short, grouping allows both approaches: printing altered versions > of older vampires, and trying something different. Both are valid and > necessary. > > There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when > designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and > such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different > without completely screwing up the power curve at some point. > And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some > sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new > vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn > will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course. I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa, this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far. -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote: > I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their > creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa, > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far. Black Annis doesn't bother me. She's different enough from Beast for my tastes. Actually, I love all the +strength !Nosferatu. Can't be sad about another. But what really gets under my skin is yet *another* Camarilla Ravnos with PRE. I mean, how many of those do we have in g2? It's basically the theme of the group and now we're going to get another for g4? You're right. Nothing left to design. But what if there was nothing left to whine about? Matt Morgan

> If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far. > Haven't you ever looked at a vampire and said "Man, if only he had [insert discipline here]!"? That's what Grouping is all about! The merits of Vampire A versus Vampire A' can only be explored if you can't use them at the same time because of Play Balance. The only alternative to grouping is making all new vampires Advanced versions of exisiting vampires, and then CE would have been 99% reprints instead of 72%. Group 3 didn't look all that impressive when you only had 35 vampires (that would be after opening all the starters and about 10 booster packs).

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo ><fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote: > >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point. >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course. > >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their > creativity it is time to stop designing. I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales, ideas for library cards, strategies available. Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative? Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such... Wait, there are always new players who can't get their hands somehow in the old vampire cards (yeah, that happens). New vampires are necessary. V:TES suffers too much already from being a fairly complicated game for newbies to learn. I'm not talking about "whoa, > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far. I suspect that it is intended to be that way. Group 2 reshuffled or not, group 4 should not have Annekes or Arikas. So no utter ecstasy after a given special, I guess. But maybe this thread has derived too far from the original subject. Should we rename the topic and continue on? I'm afraid all these arguments about grouping have been out there before or I've been just too harsh on posting more and more now that I finally have a news account and an appropriate news reader program ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

i don´t think designers reached said point yet. one vampire out of 5 is a "g4 clone" (i don´t agree with this either). i agree it´s not the best ratio of novelty, but hey, how many vamps are we getting in the set? i don´t know, but already 37 are in the preview list, and we´re only in malkavian!!!! let´s see: tatiana has a quite different special, making her effectively - if you leave consanguineous boon and the summoning issue out - a vampire with three clans. kemintiri adv is nice as well, getting votes (well, jan did that too, but you needed to have someone playing gehenna events for that) and making up for the lame special of her base version - and keeping her faithful to her vtm story - by making use of everything ventrue (or almost). then we have the awesome - imho - maureen. first of all, a titled baali, something we lacked in bloodlines. and one that makes up for her infernal cost, if need be?? okay, i know saqqaf has a somewhat similar special, but i don´t see maureen as a clone of him. the gunbunny for the assamites, michael has a new approach at the set distance special, unlike the one you get from the sniper rifle and clearly different from cailean´s one.... black annis, then, is somewhat related to beast, but probably it´s ´cause they´re both from the same clan, and both have a heavier hand. but then, you have a difference in which you can only go spanking your prey´s and predator´s minions (and i´ve seen beast putting a cross-table good use for his special). also, she doesn´t seem to be as good an anarch as beast is, and so on....

In message <opsloeup...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their > creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa, > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far. It's rather hard to say that Group 4 is just Group 2 reshuffled. Certainly, for my money, the Camarilla aspects of Group 3 are interestingly quirky compared to Group 1 and 2/3 crypts tend to be quite different from 1/2 crypts. But a certain amount of "staple" vampires and "staple" abilities are inevitable. There's only so much you can do with a 2 cap, 1 discipline vampire without just being insane. And similarly, if you want to give the Malkavians a solid bleeder or the !Nosferatu a solid combat monster, there's only so much you can do. However, providing solid, staple abilities, vampires and disciplines is not the same as reaching the limits of creativity. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de news: hr5701d1tvai8cpps...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > > >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo > ><fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote: > > > >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when > >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and > >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different > >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point. > >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some > >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new > >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn > >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course. > > > >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their > > creativity it is time to stop designing. > > I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales, > ideas for library cards, strategies available. > Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative? > Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the > same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such... Or finding new alternatives. Examples : - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2 without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care - Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible. - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards. Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires. - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to a new group. This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way too early for a new group. Deadly Yours, Orpheus, Necromonger.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a...@news.free.fr... > Or finding new alternatives. > > Examples : > > - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an > interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2 > without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care > > - Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have > its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible. > > - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages > with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards. > Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires. > > - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but > still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to > a new group. > > This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way > too early for a new group. > > Deadly Yours, > > Orpheus, Necromonger. > > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c... with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff. I know that this would require a lot of designing care, but i believe that it can be sucessfuly done after some years... Please don't release any Kindred of the East, support the Bloodlines with a few more minions and cards, modify the grouping rule now or after some time, so that we can use more than two groups when building decks. I am not talking about complete freedom, but instead of allowing certain combinations of groups, you might as well prohibit certain combinations. e.g. instead of saying that G2 can be mixed with only G1 or with only G3, you can say that G2 cannot be mixed with G4 or G6, e.t.c. I know that the G rule will become slightly more complicated than it is now, but people will gain access to new type of decks and thus that'll help to keep them interested in the game. We are not stupid, i am sure that we can handle a new improved G rule, even if it is more complicated. Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2 years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8 months would be the ideal thing to do. We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us to having a ton of cards and play with just a few. We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the cards that we own does. That's bad... Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose interest and even quit the game... That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome... George

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c... > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff. Uh, no thanks. The NWOD is so different from the old (and I think the official policy is "it has nothing to do with the old WOD except for a couple of names here and there"), that they really wouldn't mix at all. Adding stuff like Covenants to VTES would be just plain absurd and insane. --CV

Orpheus snip: - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2 without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care --> this would be my choice. the thing with it is that Laibon legacies are not - at least not all of them - completely similar to Kindred clans. even though the Shango are pretty much assamite sorceres, the followers of set are still the same but then we have akunanse and abombwe, which are not exactly gangrel/protean (even though close enough to do some adaptation). the other option - using legacies as bloodlines, i.e.: new clans - would over crowd, imo - the game with clans, thus making things a bit harder. but then again, i can see that being done without much trouble in a setting kind of way, since laibon do not interact with kindred often. all in all, whenever this is done, i´ll be glad either way. - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards. Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires. --> this i strongly oppose. allies are not vampires, period. afaiu, the game is about vampires, not about magi, garou or changelings, etc. yes, they do happen to show up every now and then, but they´re sidekicks, not main stars. that´s how it should be. again, imo. - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to a new group. --> too much tweaking to be done there, but it´s feasible nonetheless. cheers luciano "baital" de sampaio vekn anarch baron de curitiba

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a...@news.free.fr... > Or finding new alternatives. > > Examples : > > - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an > interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2 > without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care ... > - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but > still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to > a new group. (Sidestepping the issue of whether grouping is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary.) I kind of like the idea of "different parts of the world kindred" done with some sort of other quasi-grouping world. As an example: African Kindred and Kindred-of-the-East based decks must be declared at the start of the game. Decks so declared must normally consist only of kindred with these respective designations (referring to AK or KotE designations on the crypt cards). Other vampires may be used in the crypts of these decks and these vampires may be used in normal decks, but in both cases, such vampires count as "scarce" vampires. In this case, the scarcity is calculated on all out-of-designation vampires together as a group. Any vampire which truly has the scarce designation must continue to pay its penalty on top of "designation scarcity". So, for instance, when bringing a scarce Nagaraja into play using a deck declared as an African Kindred deck which also has a non-scarce Kindred-of-the-East vampire and another Nagaraja vampire in the ready region, the penalty would be nine: six for the other non-African Kindred vampire in play and three for the other Nagaraja in play. Of course, African Kindred and Kindred of the East would either have to be above average vampires or a great many of them would have to be created in short order to make them competitive under such a rule. But it might make for some interesting possibilities in terms of what could be done with such vampires. Fred

> Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2 > years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8 > months would be the ideal thing to do. 9 months is the current schedule, and I can go with that if I keep on buying. > We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble > keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us > to having a ton of cards and play with just a few. > We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the > cards that we own does. That's bad... It is already the case for me and many persons I know. The 6 months schedule was very bad, even for small sets. There are too many things to try even when 10 new cards come out (Powerbase LA alone is a good reason to revisit many Anarch concepts, for instance), so 100+ new cards takes lots of time ; more with each coming expansion, as a matter of facts, because the options tend to multiply, many new cards bringing old ones under a new light. > Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed > because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many > new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose > interest and even quit the game... > > That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome... Done. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:28:40 +0200, tzimisce_dragon <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote: > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c... > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff. This is probably the WORST idea I've ever heard about the direction VTES should take. Grats, you suddenly swept the different odder-than-odd ideas from the top of my lemon list... -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opslrncg...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] :) thanks.... Anyway, as i have said, releasing such cards would have been after some years and would require an open mind from the players... Maybe it is a bad idea, ok, don't do it... BUT please NO KotEast... George

In message <4204d35b$0$17063$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> writes: <snip - various possible different sets that could be released> >This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way >too early for a new group. That seems to miss the point of what grouping exists for. It is not, so far as I can tell, in order to completely exhaust the creative possibilities of designers, who then start again from scratch. It prevents dial-a-vamp across the game as a whole, but also attempts to keep grouping pairs roughly power-equivalent amongst themselves. If, therefore, printing more group three vampires would make [2/3] (and a potential future [3/4]) more powerful than [1/2] in the view of the designer, they don't print any more. Sure, they could think up a thousand cool ideas with African kindred, kindred of the east, crypt-based allies, mages, demons, mummies. But if they think that that would significantly favour [2/3] over [1/2], they step back from it. Bear in mind that both [1/2] and [2/3] have access to Bloodlines (for random kookiness), and that giving [2/3] access to more random stuff could provide it with a potential edge. This is bad, because it pisses off old players who were told all their old decks were still usable - it doesn't matter if they're usable if they're made entirely obsolete.[0] Once they've got to a stage, however, where the [2/3] crypt possibilities are, in their opinion, roughly balanced with the [1/2] options (for a given clan, a given discipline combo, or whatever) printing more is a difficult choice. Whilst dial-a-crypt mitigates heavily against cross-clan combos getting out of control, if you start giving your group three Brujah a lot more vampires than group one had, you end up with a potential imbalance as your [2/3] Brujah decks outclass the [1/2] decks, leading to power escalation. Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers game of balance across grouping pairs. [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis here is on the word "mildly".) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options > of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers > game of balance across grouping pairs. Yeah, see, everyone is all like "when will there be group 5?!?!?!". Likely, the answer is, like, "when G4 is the same size as G2". As the whole thing is essentially numbers based, we are just trying to get equivelantly sized groups. G1 is big. G2 is small for matching G1 clans and big for non also G1 clans. G3 is big for G1 clans and small for G2 clans. G4 will likely, then, be small for G3 clans and big for G2 clans--we'll get, what, like, 7 or 8 various G4 Camarilla vampires, likely, but have room for about, what, 15-20 vampires for a given Sabbat clan (like in G2). And G4 has space for, essentially, a whole new, identically sized Bloodlines set of vampires. And a similarly sized set of independant vampires. So until G4 contains, say: ~8 each of the Camarilla vampires ~20 each of the Sabbat clans ~20 each of the Independant clans ~the exact same number of all the Bloodlines clans We don't need a G4. Once we hit that, we can go to G5. And probably will. > [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the > introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings > out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old > vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's > (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis > here is on the word "mildly".) Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires with abilities built for events. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

In message <BE2BA604.1D1C0%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the >> introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings >> out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old >> vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's >> (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis >> here is on the word "mildly".) > >Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is >certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires >with abilities built for events. Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out. The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards. Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually become more distant from current play if they want to dip in. The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters. One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept). More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced - as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with Advanced vampires would be really cool. Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan > was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out. Caveat...ACCEPTED! Oh, wait. I thought you meant gambit. Never mind... :-) > > The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks > need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power > escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright > better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards. > Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I > guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's > just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually > become more distant from current play if they want to dip in. Oh, yeah, sure. But like, for instance, the introduction of Events means that you either have to buy into the new set for any kind of defense (even ones that old decks can use, like, say, Emergency Preperations or The Bloodening/Black hand Ritual), or just not worry about it. I think that Gehenna had enough generic Event defense that can shuffle into completely unrefitted old decks well enough that if someone was really worried about Events in their, like, old school G1 Malk S+B deck, they could deal with a handfull of Emergency Preps. But even still, I don't think it is that big of a deal, overall--people were all sorts of worried about Events destroying the game when they came out, but really, at this point, I still see very few of them in play on a regular basis. A few gateway Events get regular play (Anthelios, obviously, and The Unmaskening in ally decks), but overall, I'm yet to see enough huge event play that I have ever worried about having to respond with anti-event tech. My pal Jay has one deck that is crazy with the events, but on the small number of occasions that I see it in play and it doesn't just get killed outright, it is just really funny when everyone is savaged by the 7 or 8 Events on the table. But that happens *really* rarely. So from my experience, Events aren't really something that old decks need to respond to all that much. But still, I see where you are coming from. Although I still would be happy with a bunch of cool, new, Adavanced G! vampires with some Gehenna tech special abilities. That'd be cool. > The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a > general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play > Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so > on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters. > One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific > counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in > general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept). Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it doesn't seem to really be necessary. > More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced > - as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over > bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with > Advanced vampires would be really cool. Agreed. > Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.) I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BE2BDAC6.1D1D7%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a >> general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play >> Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so >> on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters. >> One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific >> counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in >> general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept). > >Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as >Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to >untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The >Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it >then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it >doesn't seem to really be necessary. Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few. (Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day. And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to include, and possibly useful anyway. However, there are two things that mildly concern me. (Again, this is only mild concern, not THE END OF THE WORLD.) 1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into mild concern 2. 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types. Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions, etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full, so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your anti-vote tech? Now, of course, there are two obvious counters here: 1) The game gets shaken up a bit. It's not like you wouldn't have to re-orient your decks if the new cards had been some super-strong equipment cards. 2) As you say above, it may well be the case that anti-Event tech isn't actually worth all that much. There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say, Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with him in an arbitrary fashion. Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about. >> Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.) > >I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy... Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened. [ quoted text not captured ]

Oy Fabio, been trying to mail you, please send me your address by mail (remove the "eraserhead" part in my mail address). --------------------- Orpheus, Necromonger

James Coupe wrote: > Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford > had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a > good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few > real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you > get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few. > (Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for > the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to > include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day. Yeah, The Bloodening isn't, like, the best option for using Black Hand Ritual tech, but if, like, you were *really* set on using a G1/2 deck with sabbat vampires, and were afraid of Events, a handfull of The Bloodening and BHRs isn't going to hurt that much (as all the BH vampires are G3+). > And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to > include, and possibly useful anyway. I mean, like, if you are worried about events (say some specific, easy to play event *really* kills your deck, or you play in an event happy environment), then a few Emergency Preps can't hurt so much, and could possibly help a lot. > 1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion > that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority > shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be > countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event > types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into > mild concern 2. Ooh. Strong point I hadn't considered--Emergency Prep and BHR only get Gehenna cards, not Events, right? Huh. > 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types. > Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to > anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but > costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions, > etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you > need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full, > so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your > anti-vote tech? Also true. But again, now that they aren't so new anymore, they aren't seeing that much play. At least in my experience. > There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even > if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say, > Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm > concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of > the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna > tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there > necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a > bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it > can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with > him in an arbitrary fashion. I think that the hard Events (Recalled/Fall) are difficult enough to get into play that it is farily difficult to build a deck around them. Especially as their benefits are narrow enough to not always actually be useful--you could fill your deck with enough infrastructure to be able to play Fall or Recalled, but unless you are sitting next to someone who it will actually harm significantly, all that infrastructure isn't that useful, providing disincentive to actually play such a deck a lot. > Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE > WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about. And certainly reasonable things. > Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a > point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened. Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > 1) The card type is Event... > > 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types. This is true, although the effect of many of the Events isn't that remarkable. Take, "The Unmasking" (allies get +1 intercept), for example. An old-school Group 1 deck doesn't need to be changed to cope with this. Either the deck cares about intercept and thus already had stealth, or it doesn't. Many of the easier-to-play and thus more commonly played Events are similarly mostly new ways of doing old things. A pre-Event deck can't prevent these things happening, but the effects of the Events are not really unprecedented. > Similarly, I'm concerned by that possibility with Recalled > to the Founder and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't > include enough anti-Event/Gehenna tech in your deck? Bye bye > vampires. ... it's somewhat similar to a bad player sitting down > with a bad Anarch Revolt deck ... I agree. Although, I'd note that Recalled to the Founder is not generally a huge problem. It's the equivalent of having a PTO played on a largish mid-cap of your choice. Sure, if you aren't playing any mid-caps you're either going to lose a single large cap. vampire or many weenie vamps. Most decks, however, do have a 6-7 cap. vampire that it's irritating but not totally disastrous to lose - particularly if your pred/prey are also losing one. The point being that, a random PTO is not exactly unexpected for (post Ancient Hearts) decks. Therefore, neither is Recalled to the Founder. In some ways, a proliferation of anti-Event tech. (say as Group 1 advanced vampire card text) would _disadvantage_ old-school decks. Events would be designed assuming that they could be (more) easily countered/prevented, hence they would be designed to be more powerful, compelling old school decks to include the "new" advanced vampires. I could imagine this annoying players. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

In message <BE2C41F6.1D206%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a >> point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened. > >Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that? The film was destroyed, in order to preserve humanity's sense of taste and decency. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote: >"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de >news: hr5701d1tvai8cpps...@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo >> ><fa...@cohesp.com.br> wrote: >> > >> >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when >> >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and >> >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different >> >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point. >> >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some >> >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new >> >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn >> >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course. >> > >> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their >> > creativity it is time to stop designing. >> >> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales, >> ideas for library cards, strategies available. >> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative? >> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the >> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such... > >Or finding new alternatives. See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow reached. But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly. At the same time, the game needs continuing support for available strategies, including vampires who could help. That's what leads me to believe that there's only so much space for new alternatives. Not that there's none. There's plenty. But each 20 or 30 vamps or so, one will look like a reshuffled version of X vampire from group 1 or 2. That's inevitable. Not to mention that all these alternatives listed below are damn interesting, but don't fit with the KMW theme. best, >Examples : > >- African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an >interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2 >without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care > >- Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have >its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible. > >- Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages >with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards. >Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires. > >- Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but >still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to >a new group. > >This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way >too early for a new group. > >Deadly Yours, > >Orpheus, Necromonger. > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil ----------------------------------------------------- now a "luminary", whatever it means: http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:f7sf01tctlhhpuob3...@4ax.com... > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus" > <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote: > >>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fa...@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de >>news: hr5701d1tvai8cpps...@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >>> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their >>> > creativity it is time to stop designing. >>> >>> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales, >>> ideas for library cards, strategies available. >>> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative? >>> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the >>> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such... >> >>Or finding new alternatives. > > See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point > where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was > written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow > reached. > > But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new > card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time > ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added > has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is > based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed > toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly. Huh?!? OK: --DISCLAIMER-- The following is written as a response to the that comment that, "Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is based in,..." It may or may not have anything to do with grouping and I'm not trying to assert grouping is good or bad. I just think this comment misses the point about why library destruction, as a strategy, is bad to design into the game. --/DISCLAIMER-- First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up. I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption". That word has little relevance that I can think of when used in the context of what strategies or tactics should or should not be supported in VtES. To "disrupt" tends to suggest interference with another player's defense (means of remaining in the game) or offense (means of ousting prey and thus making progress towards winning the game). Rush combat, as an easy example, clearly does both. So a statement that begins, "Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting..." ignores the reality of the game since it was invented. Library destruction can not be deemed evil by any conceivable definition of the term "disruptive". If anything, it's LESS "disruptive" than many stratigies given that its victim has a completely free hand to operate normally until a specific point is reached when his library is exhausted. In fact, if the predator is expending most or all of his offensive resources on just library destruction, if anything, the problem caused is that the prey has TOO free a hand since he isn't getting otherwise attacked by his predator which would be normal by comparison. If anything, the problem with pursuing a library destruction offense is that it unbalances the board by being too UNdisruptive. (Bah. Enough. I think I've made my point.) The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work very well as a strategy, period. Most all strategies for winning, even the highly defensive ones, involve destroying the prey's pool directly or his resources for defending his pool (then destroying it directly by cruder means), and moving on. Once your prey's been ousted, you take over the job of ousting his prey, which should be already partially digested by that time so you don't start from scratch. But with library destruction, it doesn't work that way. You go through all your prey's library cards, run him out, then get him either with Brinksmanship or just by the disadvantage cause by his lack of library (which could still be quite difficult). In any event, however you get him you are then faced by the challenge of starting nearly from scratch on the next player. Presumedly, your grandprey has gone through some of his library but unless it's taken you a long time to oust your first prey, he should still have a pretty sizable chunk of his library left. If you have taken a long time, then he's had a lot of time to make progress on his position and may well have made some ousts (or be very near one) by now. This all causes two distinct problems for game balance: 1) It's not a very attractive strategy to the user. With the library destruction cards available to those pursuing the strategy, it's unlikely to get more than one oust in a game and even getting one is not very easy; and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the prey in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's predator (who may well find his grandprey near out of library about the time he starts in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may reap the rewards of having no pressure on him if the prey starts desparately attacking backwards to end the library destruction as soon as possible (and sometimes just out of spite). In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way out of kilter. Fred spoiling for a different debate - one that I find more intruiging

Frederick Scott wrote: > In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the > same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way > out of kilter. Wahhh! Fred! Your logic is flawed! And here is why for 8 pages! Bwaaaa!!! Oh. Wait. I completely agree with everything you wrote. Never mind. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: <snip> > In short <snip> This word...I do not think it means what you think it means. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:NdWdnVdWTfu...@speakeasy.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > <snip> >> In short > <snip> > > This word...I do not think it means what you think it means. Well, you gotta to admit, the part AFTER "in short" was actually short. Sigh. Some things, if you're brief, you're wrong. If you're right, it's too complicated to bother with. Oh, well. I had fun writing it. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, you gotta to admit, the part AFTER "in short" was actually short. > > Sigh. Some things, if you're brief, you're wrong. If you're right, it's > too complicated to bother with. > > Oh, well. I had fun writing it. I think you take me far, far too seriously. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:TeSdndRkpMF...@speakeasy.net... > I think you take me far, far too seriously. Perhaps. I'm sure I take myself far too seriously in this case. It's just that I really love game design issues. And the issue of why decking, as an alternate victory strategy, is so reviled in Jyhad is a really meaty one. Especially when it's kind of an interesting addition to the game in Magic. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] This has been a problem on this newsgroup before, as well as newsgroups in general. Perhaps an emoticon would help? :) > --Colin McGuigan Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

[ quoted text not captured ] To simplify, I was just pointing out that this strategy is not well accepted since it was introduced on V:TES. Anything new brought out during the design/playtesting process could be regarded a bad move as well, so this in itself limits the scope - the ideal is to release cards/strategy that should be acceptable for most players if not all. That's all what I'm saying about grouping in this thread: some limits must be considered, so once in a while we'll have options/sligthy altered versions for the same old ideas. About the word "disrupt", maybe it was just a bad choice of words. Myself, I've been there, done that in library destruction and find it boring. Never spent much time thinking about the strategy itself because its *boring*. I don't need any more disincentive to play it since V:TES is my main hobby, so I just want fun when playing it, even during tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ] best, [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Oh, well. I had fun writing it. > > I think you take me far, far too seriously. > > --Colin McGuigan I know I do. Ankur

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:s1VNd.5067$ds.417@okepread07... > Library destruction can not be deemed evil by any conceivable > definition of the term "disruptive". If anything, it's LESS > "disruptive" than many stratigies given that its victim has a > completely free hand to operate normally until a specific point is > reached when his library is exhausted. In fact, if the predator is > expending most or all of his offensive resources on just library > destruction, if anything, the problem caused is that the prey has > TOO free a hand since he isn't getting otherwise attacked by his > predator which would be normal by comparison. Both of those are basically true, yes. But when a person's library *is* exhausted, suddenly their game is *extremely* disrupted. > The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work > very well as a strategy, period. It's not the only problem. I think it's also a problem that it prevents the victim (once it takes effect) from playing the normal game. (This is also a problem with the lopsidedness of combat, yes.) > You go through all your prey's library cards, run him out, then get > him either with Brinksmanship or just by the disadvantage cause by > his lack of library (which could still be quite difficult). In > any event, however you get him you are then faced by the challenge > of starting nearly from scratch on the next player. This is true in theory, but probably the most common way to destroy someone's library is with Slaughterhouses. And if you have spent a while during a game building up a stack of Slaughterhouses, it takes *much* less time to destroy the second player's library than it did to destroy the first. And as you mentioned, your grandprey has already used a number of cards. > This all causes two distinct problems for game balance: > 1) It's not a very attractive strategy to the user. With the library > destruction cards available to those pursuing the strategy, it's > unlikely to get more than one oust in a game and even getting one is > not very easy; I think this is true only in that Brinksmanship is the only practical way to turn library destruction into VPs. And combining the ability to get Brinksmanship to referendum and pass the referendum and have strong library destruction and not get ousted in the meantime is a little tricky. > and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the prey > in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's predator (who > may well find his grandprey near out of library about the time he starts > in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may reap the rewards of having > no pressure on him if the prey starts desparately attacking backwards to > end the library destruction as soon as possible (and sometimes just out > of spite). This is one of the reasons that library destruction probably wasn't a good idea to add to VTES, yeah. Since it wasn't conceived as part of the game from the beginning - unlike Magic there was never an "if you're out of library you're ousted" rule - it starts out as a total nutpuncher of an effect. Tacking on a way for it to oust people (Brinksmanship) makes it operate mostly outside the normal methods of VTES interaction, which is (a) bad in that interactivity is (should be) central to the game design, and (b) bad in that it circumvents the basic mechanic of the game, that your pool is your life. > In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the > same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way > out of kilter. Yes. Josh an obliging fellow

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:kntg011f84ropqkfa...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:58:50 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:f7sf01tctlhhpuob3...@4ax.com... >>> But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new >>> card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time >>> ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added >>> has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is >>> based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed >>> toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly. >> >>Huh?!? OK: ... >>First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up. >>I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption". > > To simplify, I was just pointing out that this strategy is not well > accepted since it was introduced on V:TES. Anything new brought out > during the design/playtesting process could be regarded a bad move as > well, so this in itself limits the scope - Strange. When else might you bring anything 'new' out? > the ideal is to release > cards/strategy that should be acceptable for most players if not all. Sounds like you're saying, new cards and strategies should be liked by as many players and disliked by as few players as possible. I think we can all get behind that sentiment. One thing to be cautious of, however: often the first reaction people as a group have to something new is far more negative than it winds of being later on - at least, using this forum as a guide. My own reaction to certain things matches that, as well. Some things I hate at first, I continue to hate later on but often I find myself moderating and even growing to like certain things over time for reasons I just couldn't perceive when the change was first announced. > That's all what I'm saying about grouping in this thread: some limits > must be considered, so once in a while we'll have options/sligthy > altered versions for the same old ideas. If you mean, the designers just can't constantly think of wildly new ideas for new vampires and have them all be good - yea, agreed. A bit of cautiousness, especially in the face of limited playtesting time and resources, is probably a good thing. (Of course, I wasn't aiming to take sides in that matter.) > About the word "disrupt", maybe it was just a bad choice of words. > Myself, I've been there, done that in library destruction and find it > boring. Never spent much time thinking about the strategy itself > because its *boring*. I don't need any more disincentive to play it > since V:TES is my main hobby, so I just want fun when playing it, even > during tournaments. I think that's the whole point of the activity as far as I can see. If it's just a competitive activity people are needing, they can take up arm-wrestling. But as far library destruction is concerned, I agree, it is kind of boring, too. The way it works now, trying to work through a player's entire library from scratch is pretty challenging without him having much ability to resist it. If he can do things to resist it directly, it wouldn't be doable at the moment. This is not to say, it can't be made more fun. Perhaps a card that linked directed actions to burning library cards, which must be stealthed and risk interception and so forth, might allow for more real interaction in the course of carrying out the library destruction (as opposed to just tapping some Slaughterhouses). I suspect that for various reasons, the strategy is not salvagable, however. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > This has been a problem on this newsgroup before, as well as newsgroups in > general. > > Perhaps an emoticon would help? :) Are you Canadian? --Colin McGuigan

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:36s1neF...@individual.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:s1VNd.5067$ds.417@okepread07... >> and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the >> prey in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's >> predator (who may well find his grandprey near out of library about >> the time he starts in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may >> reap the rewards of having no pressure on him if the prey starts >> desparately attacking backwards to end the library destruction as >> soon as possible (and sometimes just out of spite). > > This is one of the reasons that library destruction probably wasn't a > good idea to add to VTES, yeah. Since it wasn't conceived as part of > the game from the beginning - unlike Magic there was never an "if you're > out of library you're ousted" rule - it starts out as a total nutpuncher > of an effect. Tacking on a way for it to oust people (Brinksmanship) > makes it operate mostly outside the normal methods of VTES interaction, > which is (a) bad in that interactivity is (should be) central to the > game design, and (b) bad in that it circumvents the basic mechanic of > the game, that your pool is your life. Notice, however, that these don't seem to matter in Magic. I don't think the issue has to do with the mechanic being designed into the game in the first place. I think you could modify a game to add a new means of ousting a player and have it be perfectly OK. In this case, however, I agree with you that this particular means of ousting is bad in terms of it circumventing the "pool is life" struggle which most all the rest of the cards are designed to address. But I think the reason has to do with the multiplayer nature of the game. In Magic, it doesn't matter how you "oust" your opponent - once you do, the game is over. In Jyhad, once your prey is ousted OR once you've failed and you're ousted, there is more game to play. And the state in which that game will wind up needs to be considered as well as how the success of the interim goal might be obtained. I think that's really the reason alternative victory conditions in this game are a tricky thing to add. Fred

Ankur Gupta wrote: >> I think you take me far, far too seriously. >> >> --Colin McGuigan > > I know I do. So then you're seriously considering that fifth column idea? I think you should do it. We could use more weekly players, and y'all are boasting about your new influx... --Colin McGuigan

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I think that the hard Events (Recalled/Fall) are difficult enough to get > into play that it is farily difficult to build a deck around them. > Especially as their benefits are narrow enough to not always actually be > useful--you could fill your deck with enough infrastructure to be able to > play Fall or Recalled, but unless you are sitting next to someone who it > will actually harm significantly, all that infrastructure isn't that useful, > providing disincentive to actually play such a deck a lot. > On the other hand, I have a blood denial/ally deck which throws out a lot of Events* and could really do with Fall of the Camarilla to protect me against votes. Sadly, I have two useless Fall of the Sabbats instead. Recalled to the Founder is a lot less powerful than it seems, IMO, and is only really useful for an endgame against someone with a lot of pool. * Or did. I've pared it down to The Unmasking, Restricted Vitae, Blood Weakens and The Slow Withering. Powerbase:LA made me drop Conquest of Humanity, Wormwood is ineffective, and The New Inquisition and Absimiliard's Army have a tendency to backfire.

> So then you're seriously considering that fifth column idea? I think > you should do it. We could use more weekly players, and y'all are > boasting about your new influx... You know I am. Ankur

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:56:48 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>>First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up. >>>I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption". >> >> To simplify, I was just pointing out that this strategy is not well >> accepted since it was introduced on V:TES. Anything new brought out >> during the design/playtesting process could be regarded a bad move as >> well, so this in itself limits the scope - > >Strange. When else might you bring anything 'new' out? Of course, during design/playtest. But that does not mean that *anything new* should be incorporated just because it's *new*. I could try to offer a random example, but I'm afraid it will be took as something feasible and the entire discussion derails even further. >> the ideal is to release >> cards/strategy that should be acceptable for most players if not all. > >Sounds like you're saying, new cards and strategies should be liked by >as many players and disliked by as few players as possible. I think we >can all get behind that sentiment. One thing to be cautious of, however: >often the first reaction people as a group have to something new is far >more negative than it winds of being later on - at least, using this forum >as a guide. My own reaction to certain things matches that, as well. >Some things I hate at first, I continue to hate later on but often I find >myself moderating and even growing to like certain things over time for >reasons I just couldn't perceive when the change was first announced. I agree in every line, but it does not preclude the caution needed when designing new things. I guess that's what playesting is for - getting past the initial reaction and trying the thing to see if it's as [insert whatever is that initial resentment here] as it seems to be when applied against existing material. >> That's all what I'm saying about grouping in this thread: some limits >> must be considered, so once in a while we'll have options/sligthy >> altered versions for the same old ideas. > >If you mean, the designers just can't constantly think of wildly new >ideas for new vampires and have them all be good - yea, agreed. A bit >of cautiousness, especially in the face of limited playtesting time >and resources, is probably a good thing. (Of course, I wasn't aiming >to take sides in that matter.) That's pretty much what I believe, yes. I see this as some kind of management savvy - one shouldn't place all bets on a new trend just because it seems profitable, careful analysis is needed and stuff - and it's just not in regard to vampire design, but library cards and new strategies as well. I don't believe that the idea of making vampires capable of playing cards "as a member of [X]" (be it clan, sect or title) was never lifted up before. It just seems that now the game can afford to have these, since it has so many clans and bloodlines and available effects to all of them that a Ravnos who can employ a Dog Pack is not a big issue. I waited for long before taking sides on the grouping issues for a number of reasons. I know you don't want to aim on that topic now, but rest assured that it was all I meant when I used library destruction as an example. >> About the word "disrupt", maybe it was just a bad choice of words. >> Myself, I've been there, done that in library destruction and find it >> boring. Never spent much time thinking about the strategy itself >> because its *boring*. I don't need any more disincentive to play it >> since V:TES is my main hobby, so I just want fun when playing it, even >> during tournaments. > >I think that's the whole point of the activity as far as I can see. >If it's just a competitive activity people are needing, they can take >up arm-wrestling. But as far library destruction is concerned, I >agree, it is kind of boring, too. The way it works now, trying to >work through a player's entire library from scratch is pretty challenging >without him having much ability to resist it. If he can do things to >resist it directly, it wouldn't be doable at the moment. This is not >to say, it can't be made more fun. Perhaps a card that linked directed >actions to burning library cards, which must be stealthed and risk >interception and so forth, might allow for more real interaction in the >course of carrying out the library destruction (as opposed to just tapping >some Slaughterhouses). I suspect that for various reasons, the strategy >is not salvagable, however. >Fred I never put that many thoughts on library destruction, as stated above, so I can not do more than wonder about your impressions and share the same feelings. But bad feelings against the strategy aside, I think we should remember that Slaughterhouse is no more a no-brainer than a lot of other strategies. I've heard about a "selective library destruction" strategy defended by a fellow player which used some tech to see what's in the top of it's prey's library before discarding/using it. If it's not a threat to him, he does not destroy it. I recall it used Le Dihn Tho, Agaitas, the Ercyies Fragments and I assume it uses Revelations also, but I need to check. Maybe it's a positive angle to library destruction, maybe not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Fabio \"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@nospamterra.com.br> wrote: : I agree in every line, but it does not preclude the caution needed : when designing new things. I guess that's what playesting is for - : getting past the initial reaction and trying the thing to see if it's : as [insert whatever is that initial resentment here] as it seems to be : when applied against existing material. Just a sidenote, library destruction/millstoning made it to Jyhad despite playtesting. This alone proves that playtesting is nowhere near a foolproof method of weeding out unwanted and thematically unacceptable "strategies". : strategy defended by a fellow player which used some tech to see : what's in the top of it's prey's library before discarding/using it. : If it's not a threat to him, he does not destroy it. I recall it used : Le Dihn Tho, Agaitas, the Ercyies Fragments and I assume it uses : Revelations also, but I need to check. Maybe it's a positive angle to : library destruction, maybe not. Not a new concept, for instance done after M:tG Ice Age expansion with Millstones and Elemental Auguries* and a number of times ever since. I see nothing redeeming in copying a tactic from M:tG to a strategy ripped from M:tG. //T

Teemu T Vilen wrote: > Just a sidenote, library destruction/millstoning made it to Jyhad > despite playtesting. This alone proves that playtesting is nowhere near > a foolproof method of weeding out unwanted and thematically unacceptable > "strategies". Well, really, that library destruction isn't real succesful as a strategy indicates that the playtesting probably works just fine--if deck destruction had been, like, really effective? Then, maybe, I'd see playtesting as the issue. That it exists as a strategy that is fringe, at best, is just fine--it is never (with the current card pool) going to dominate competetive play. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work >> very well as a strategy, period. > > It's not the only problem. I think it's also a problem that it prevents > the victim (once it takes effect) from playing the normal game. (This > is also a problem with the lopsidedness of combat, yes.) > As far as I see it, Library Destruction is just another resource denial aspect of the game. VTES, at its core away from the idea of vampires, is a game of resource management. Its just another varient of that. Personally I'd like to see it become a viable option in the game. -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman Cambridge UK http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: : Well, really, that library destruction isn't real succesful as a strategy : indicates that the playtesting probably works just fine--if deck destruction : had been, like, really effective? Then, maybe, I'd see playtesting as the : issue. That it exists as a strategy that is fringe, at best, is just : fine--it is never (with the current card pool) going to dominate competetive : play. What I meant was that I undoubtedly there were more people among the playtesters that were screaming out loud having seen the Slaughterhouses. But, you are right. When a designer has decided that there ought to be this new and fancy mechanic, playtester role is just to see how broken it can get. I just don't like the mechanic existing in the game. Didn't like it when I saw them the first time, don't like it now. They've never been so popular in the local games, and they certainly don't consistently win with the library destruction mechanic. It's just that as a "strategy" it's a cheap M:tG copy and simply doesn't fit Jyhad as it goes too much into realm of rules and meta mechanics. Looking at the later expansions I'm pretty relieved though that the design team hasn't gone much further with similar mechanics - which is nice. Now, we just need more toys to kill all of those all Masters decks. //T

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:DEcOd.2323$bc1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net... As far as I see it, Library Destruction is just another resource denial > aspect of the game. > > VTES, at its core away from the idea of vampires, is a game of resource management. Its just another varient of that. Sure. Except there's a couple of problems with just waving your hand over the broad concept of "resources" and declaring all things equal. All resources are not equal. Vampire resources allow you to take actions and defend your other resources. The game is full of things on which to spend your pool resources. But library resources are almost painless to lose until you hit a fixed point, only then are they pretty much fatal to lose. (And there's not much to spend them on; things like Liquidation are very rare.) And, as I pointed out elsewhere, there's little interaction around attacking vs. defending them given the cards printed up so far. If I put out a bunch of Slaughterhouses and you don't have any Arsons, the total amount of interaction we have is me tapping my Slaughterhouses and you dancing like a monkey, er, I mean burning your library cards. You might attack me with everything at your disposal, but this is all indirect interaction. I suppose this stuff could all be fixed. But how much other stuff would you have to break and repair to make it work first? Fred

Teemu T Vilen wrote: > What I meant was that I undoubtedly there were more people among the > playtesters that were screaming out loud having seen the Slaughterhouses. > But, you are right. When a designer has decided that there ought to be > this new and fancy mechanic, playtester role is just to see how broken > it can get. Sure. And apparently the playtesters kept the Slaughterhouses from being so broken--they aren't that useful. I mean, yeah, I totally agree with Fred's assessment on deck destruction as a whole (see some other thread somewhere now...), but I don't think in an absolute sense, the deck destruction we have currently is that disruptive to the game as a whole--I mean, it is disruptive to an individual game, 'cause of how it works (again, see Fred's disection of the subject), but overall, it doesn't have much effect on the game environment, 'cause it is so hard to actually win with. So while it is a particularly obnoxious bad strategy, it isn't actually any worse that other bad strategies that don't win. > I just don't like the mechanic existing in the game. Didn't like it when I > saw them the first time, don't like it now. I don't either so much. But that it is almost completely ineffective, in terms of winning games, let alone tournaments, means it isn't going to show up much. And is only very rarely going to show up in "serious" games (i.e. competeitve ones), 'cause their is considerable disincentive to play a milling deck in competition (as it is so unlikely to actually win anything). So yeah, it is really annoying, but lots of bad strategies are really annoying. Luckily, bad strategies don't show up that often. I mean, like, if the game was shifted such that it became much easier to oust people through deck destruction (say, a master card that said "Play this card during your master phase. If your prey has zero cards in their library, they are ousted." or something), I'd think that deck destruction was problematic. But currently, all their is is Brinksmanship which is difficult to pull off. > They've never been so popular in the local games, and they certainly > don't consistently win with the library destruction mechanic. It's just > that as a "strategy" it's a cheap M:tG copy and simply doesn't fit Jyhad > as it goes too much into realm of rules and meta mechanics. Eh. It is another aspect of the game that can be used to some effect. There are decks on the table--it makes perfect sense that there be cards that do things to those decks, and removing cards from them is a pretty obvious thing to do to them. As you note, again, it is so hard to win with such a strategy, that it doesn't come up that much. So while occasionally (rarely?) annoying, that describes a lot of strategies that don't show up that much, 'cause they don't actually win. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:OfdOd.5115$ds.3075@okepread07... > > Sure. Except there's a couple of problems with just waving your hand > over the broad concept of "resources" and declaring all things equal. > All resources are not equal. Vampire resources allow you to take > actions and defend your other resources. The game is full of things > on which to spend your pool resources. But library resources are almost > painless to lose until you hit a fixed point, only then are they pretty > much fatal to lose. (And there's not much to spend them on; things like > Liquidation are very rare.) And, as I pointed out elsewhere, there's > little interaction around attacking vs. defending them given the cards > printed up so far. If I put out a bunch of Slaughterhouses and you > don't have any Arsons, the total amount of interaction we have is me > tapping my Slaughterhouses and you dancing like a monkey, er, I mean > burning your library cards. You might attack me with everything at your > disposal, but this is all indirect interaction. > Quite frankly (and no offence intended here) I say tough. You can't build a deck to compensate for every possible action your opponent/s may come at you with, whether it be deck destruction, S&B, Intercept, or dedicated Agg combat. Its no different than me not having the right cards to combat your nasty flamethrower agg damage combat deck (if you had one). You build your deck and compensate where you think there is a weakness. > I suppose this stuff could all be fixed. But how much other stuff would > you have to break and repair to make it work first? > Now here we agree. Its too late into the game to start fiddling too much, otherwise it might have been worth finding other means of VP gain than bleeding. My first experience with CCG's was Magic, and I view that game (in its heyday) as one of the best out there. One reason for that view is that there are cards and means to do pretty much anything, and its all viable strategy. Cool cards and funky combo's that do X and Y are fun to play, but ultimately in VTES you only win by bleeding your prey out. Brinksmanship, deck destruction, ambush, red list etc, are all secondary and tertiary to bleeding a player out. My point (and long in coming I think, sorry) is that VTES could stand to do with new means of winning strategy. If deck destruction (as our dominate example here) is made viable, so could other means of expanding the game, which is the one thing VTES does lack because as I say bleeding is the only real means of VP gain. If this rambled its because its 3 am, but hopefully you see my point. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:OnfOd.1878$Dr....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:OfdOd.5115$ds.3075@okepread07... >> >> Sure. Except there's a couple of problems with just waving your hand >> over the broad concept of "resources" and declaring all things equal. >> All resources are not equal. Vampire resources allow you to take >> actions and defend your other resources. The game is full of things >> on which to spend your pool resources. But library resources are almost >> painless to lose until you hit a fixed point, only then are they pretty >> much fatal to lose. (And there's not much to spend them on; things like >> Liquidation are very rare.) And, as I pointed out elsewhere, there's >> little interaction around attacking vs. defending them given the cards >> printed up so far. If I put out a bunch of Slaughterhouses and you >> don't have any Arsons, the total amount of interaction we have is me >> tapping my Slaughterhouses and you dancing like a monkey, er, I mean >> burning your library cards. You might attack me with everything at your >> disposal, but this is all indirect interaction. > > Quite frankly (and no offence intended here) I say tough. You can't build a deck to compensate for every possible action your > opponent/s may come at you with, whether it be deck destruction, S&B, Intercept, or dedicated Agg combat. Its no different than me > not having the right cards to combat your nasty flamethrower agg damage combat deck (if you had one). You build your deck and > compensate where you think there is a weakness. I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people can't build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!") > My point (and long in coming I think, sorry) is that VTES could stand to do with new means of winning strategy. Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence much fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else can possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent didn't specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] What does my nationality have to do with anything? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you miss the point (assuming I understand it correctly): there are ways to interact with those alternative strategies, the problem only exists because the strategies are not common enough for people to include such defenses. You can use Arson to try to get rid of SH, forcing your predator to attempt to block. That's interaction. You can rush and send to torpor his HoS so he can't play the SH. Is that so much different from rushing a vote deck's titled minions? Imagine only 1 in 100 decks used rush combat: nobody would ever include combat defense, so a combat deck would not interact with other strategies, even if there are a thousand ways to do so available. That's essentially what happens with SH now. So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop interaction with those strategies. Flux

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:USgOd.5132$ds.2489@okepread07... > I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people > can't > build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence > the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're > taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS > SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!") > This whole interaction thing just seems like an excuse to me. I don't think it needs to apply to everything in the game. Sometimes change is good, and curve ball can enhance the game. You want a game thats not fun, two words, Intecept decks! But thats a debate for another time. :) Interaction. I don't understand why this is considered so important. I'd guess that approximately 90-95% of cards and strategy are covered under this, so why is it a problem when (as an example) deck destruction pops up? I have a Gio/Harbinger deck that while not focused on deck destruction does carry a several Slaughterhouses as an assist to weaken my prey. Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player out. Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do to what you came for, and bleed him out. The rest of the deck interacts as usual. Now true, its not a dedicated deck destructor but it still falls under the debate. Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had anyone complain about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group. >> My point (and long in coming I think, sorry) is that VTES could stand to >> do with new means of winning strategy. > > Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a > likely > opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence > much > fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else > can > possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's > defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent > didn't > specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be > said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing. > Yes, but Magic has more than one way to win so the cards and strategies can afford to make almost any defence viable in any deck/colour. VTES doesn't, so its become more tight as expansions progress. With all the odd combo's we can can now do that make "fun" decks, it doesn't change the fact that we only have one way to win. I'm just suggesting that perhaps if we got a few new cards that offered the table alternate victory conditions, this wouldn't be such a problem IMO. Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat everything, and you shouldn't. There is always going to be something that your deck doesn't react well to. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely > opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence much > fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else can > possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's > defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent didn't > specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be > said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing. I think you know that invoking "fun" generates more problems than it addresses. Personally, I find nothing "fun" in stealth bleed and swarm bleed, but that is strictly a matter of taste. But what I really wanted to reply to was that last bit, about speed. You yourself admitted that milling is a slow strategy, and any deck that chooses to ignore it and just lean left has a good chance of beating it. Not a certainty of outracing it, of course, but a chance. That seems sufficient to me. I also think it's worth mentioning that it's a barely-explored strategy. At a certain point in time, similiar criticisms have been leveled against wall decks and rush decks. This lasted until certain individuals sat down and put in the work to show that they can be viable. Do you play them like you would play a bleed deck? No, they require their own unique strategies, strategies which may seem counterintuitive when viewed from the perspective of "conventional wisdom". In the case of SH and Brinksmanship, there's a wealth of tools in Gehenna events that I haven't seen much discussion about, nor do the criticisms of it seem to take into account that letting one's prey get a lone VP prior to running out of gas may be exactly what you want to happen. Lots and lots of strategies play to collapse the table to a favorable three way and then come out on top. -- David Cherryholmes

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:36uau7F...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message >> news:OnfOd.1878$Dr....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net... >>>Quite frankly (and no offence intended here) I say tough. You can't >>>build a deck to compensate for every possible action your opponent/s >>>may come at you with, whether it be deck destruction, S&B, Intercept, >>>or dedicated Agg combat. Its no different than me not having the right >>>cards to combat your nasty flamethrower agg damage combat deck (if >>>you had one). You build your deck and compensate where you think >>>there is a weakness. >> >> I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people can't >> build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence >> the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're >> taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS >> SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!") > > I think you miss the point (assuming I understand it correctly): there are > ways to interact with those alternative strategies, the problem only exists > because the strategies are not common enough for people to include such > defenses. You can use Arson to try to get rid of SH, forcing your predator > to attempt to block. That's interaction. Sure. The point is that they're not common to use. It's not much different saying there's no defense against card X - and hence there's no interaction when card X is used - and there's only a very small number of things usable against card X which aren't normally used much. Either way, I don't care. There will be little interaction and that's what's important. My response above was intended to point out that I'm not objecting to library destruction because it will cause unprepared opponents to lose. I'm objecting to it because as it's pursued, there won't be much interaction going on. If the two results tend to coincide, I don't care about that, either > So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop > interaction with those strategies. Well, yea. I just think that would take more effort than it's worth. Fred

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:hUmOd.3573$xY1....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > Interaction. I don't understand why this is considered so important. I'd guess that approximately 90-95% of cards and strategy are > covered under this, so why is it a problem when (as an example) deck destruction pops up? I'm not sure what you mean by the "90-95% of cards and strategy" thing. "Are covered"? Covered how? Anyway, interaction is important so the whole game doesn't just deteriorate into "Rock, Paper, Siccors" - the outcome hinging on what decks players bring to the table and there not being much you can do about it, once begun. Metagame should be somewhat important, but not all important. > I have a Gio/Harbinger deck that while not focused on deck destruction does carry a several Slaughterhouses as an assist to weaken > my prey. They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch, which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to attack. > Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player out. > Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do to what you came for, and bleed him out. I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him out. > Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had anyone complain about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group. They're probably rolling their eyes because that strategy isn't actually doing anything to help you. It just affects the prey at the end of the game, if he's there that long - and having nothing to do with whether you're around that long or not. > Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it > won't be much interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat everything, and you shouldn't. There is always > going to be something that your deck doesn't react well to. Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about having _something_ to do at all so the card play is meaningful. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.58.05...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely >> opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence much >> fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else can >> possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's >> defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent didn't >> specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be >> said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing. ... > But what I really wanted to reply to was that last bit, about speed. You > yourself admitted that milling is a slow strategy, and any deck that > chooses to ignore it and just lean left has a good chance of beating it. > Not a certainty of outracing it, of course, but a chance. That seems > sufficient to me. Pet peeve: viewing a multiplayer game as a two-player game - if the prey doesn't get ousted by the predator, he's "won". Doesn't work that way. (This is my objection frequently to rush combat decks as well.) You might not get ousted by your predator and still be crippled because your library will STILL get exhausted much faster. And the interactions that take place over deck-exhaustions will be caused ONLY by the victim desparately trying to use whatever means he has of attacking to go upstream instead of the natural direction. Fred

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > (on library destruction strategy) > > I also think it's worth mentioning that it's a barely-explored strategy. It can stay that way as far as I'm concerned. G

Frederick Scott wrote: > Pet peeve: viewing a multiplayer game as a two-player game - if the > prey doesn't get ousted by the predator, he's "won". Doesn't work > that way. (This is my objection frequently to rush combat decks as > well.) You might not get ousted by your predator and still be > crippled because your library will STILL get exhausted much faster. > And the interactions that take place over deck-exhaustions will be > caused ONLY by the victim desparately trying to use whatever means he > has of attacking to go upstream instead of the natural direction. When my predator eagle sights me and torps my minion, I lost something. When I get bled for 6 and can't bring out another guy, I lost something. When I get SH'd and lose 20 cards out of my library, I lost something. Arbitrarily declaring that in this hypothetical game you tried to outrace the deck behind you, got your first prey but failed to win the table, and then pinning it on the fact that you have fewer cards is one *thin* counterargument. There are a gazillion ways that arbitrary predator "X" could have caused you to burn more or less cards by their deck type. You hit heavy intercept and don't have much stealth left at the end game. Or you ran into two heavy combat decks in a row and went through a lot of your Majesties, etc etc et al. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:DDpOd.5449$ds.167@okepread07... > > I'm not sure what you mean by the "90-95% of cards and strategy" thing. > "Are covered"? Covered how? > That they support this vaunted interaction of yours. Try to keep up. > They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to > your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch, > which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to > attack. Doesn't weaken my prey? Its removing his resources, making things easier for me. If I burn his intercept and wakes (for example) how is that not weakening my prey? If you mean by pool, then you are correct but it weakens his resources thus aiding me. if my prey doesn't have the cards to stop me thats a good thing. > >> Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player >> out. >> Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do >> to what you came for, and bleed him out. > > I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck > him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him > out. See my above comment. Its resource denial. > >> Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had anyone complain >> about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group. > > They're probably rolling their eyes because that strategy isn't actually > doing anything to help you. It just affects the prey at the end of the > game, if he's there that long - and having nothing to do with whether > you're > around that long or not. So resource denial doesn't affect my prey? Certainly seems to when I play it. > >> Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually >> found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much >> interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat >> everything, and you shouldn't. There is always going to be something that >> your deck doesn't react well to. > > Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about > having > _something_ to do at all so the card play is meaningful. See, this is where I get confused, because I don't understand what you mean. Meaningful? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:VupOd.5393$ds.3822@okepread07... > > > Sure. The point is that they're not common to use. It's not much > different > saying there's no defense against card X - and hence there's no > interaction > when card X is used - and there's only a very small number of things > usable > against card X which aren't normally used much. Either way, I don't care. > There will be little interaction and that's what's important. > > My response above was intended to point out that I'm not objecting to > library destruction because it will cause unprepared opponents to lose. > I'm > objecting to it because as it's pursued, there won't be much interaction > going on. If the two results tend to coincide, I don't care about that, > either So let me get this right. Your objection is that because other when the SH is played, or when you have Arson (or similar) you don't get to react to the card? > >> So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop >> interaction with those strategies. > > Well, yea. I just think that would take more effort than it's worth. > I don't agree. Its worth looking into IMO. Anything that expands the game is (for the most part) better. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin Goodman wrote: > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:DDpOd.5449$ds.167@okepread07... > > They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to > > your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch, > > which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to > > attack. > > Doesn't weaken my prey? Its removing his resources, making things easier for > me. If I burn his intercept and wakes (for example) how is that not > weakening my prey? If you mean by pool, then you are correct but it weakens > his resources thus aiding me. if my prey doesn't have the cards to stop me > thats a good thing. If I sit down at your table with a 90 card deck and at the start of the game were to just move the top 1/3 of the deck to my ash heap, my deck should play just the same. Fewer cards doesn't make me weaker (until I'm out of cards). If it did, we'd all play 90 card decks. :) If you were to burn half of your prey's deck, you could expect to burn half of his wakes and intercept as well. In the remaining half of the deck, the wakes and intercept should enter your prey's hand with the same frequency that is present with the full deck. Of course, we haven't covered variance yet. You *could* be harming them *if* variance strikes in a way that makes it so you whacked more than 50% of his wakes and intercept when you whacked 50% of his deck. However, I think variance is best ignored because it can also *help* your prey. If wakes and intercept are exactly what your prey needs to thwart you, your slaughterhouses are just as likely to speed him to them. It is just as likely that variance could cause you to whack a disproportionate number of master cards or combat cards when you destroy half your prey's library--leaving them with a remaining deck that is more rich with Wakes and intercept and you'll end up seeing them with *more* frequency. You could possibly argue that SH helps if only 1 copy of a card exists in the deck. If you whack one of those it is gone for good. However, if it is in the bottom half of deck, if may never enter play anyway and so the player doesn't count on such a card. And again, SH could just as easily speed your prey to getting that card...if it weren't going to be played because it was too deep in the deck and the SH makes it so that the card enters your prey's hand. What you really need are cards that allow you see the target card(s) first and then use SH to get rid of them. Then you are denying resources. > >> Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player > >> out. > >> Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do > >> to what you came for, and bleed him out. > > > > I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck > > him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him > > out. > > See my above comment. Its resource denial. Or it is resource admission. -Robert

Kevin M. wrote: > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: > >>Are you Canadian? > > What does my nationality have to do with anything? Just want to know if I need to include smilies when talking to you or not. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:74qOd.3054$Ya....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:DDpOd.5449$ds.167@okepread07... (about burning library cards) >> They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to >> your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch, >> which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to >> attack. > > Doesn't weaken my prey? Its removing his resources, making things easier for me. If I burn his intercept and wakes (for example) > how is that not weakening my prey? Huh?!? How IS it "weakening (your) prey"? Those intercepts and wakes were in his library, not his hand. I see what's going on here. People always used to freak out about this with Millstones in Magic, too. It's confusion over the meaning of moving a card from one's library to one's graveyard (or ashheap, as the case may be). It doesn't do a thing right away. The only time it makes a difference is in the future, when the library is exhausted. If you don't agree with that, then explain to me what's different between a random card in a player's library he can't use and a random card in his graveyard he can't use. You can't. There is NO difference - except in the future when the pile is totally gone. >> I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck >> him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him >> out. > > See my above comment. Its resource denial. But it's a resource that denying doesn't result in weakening. > So resource denial doesn't affect my prey? Certainly seems to when I play it. Then please explain how? >>> Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it >>> won't be much interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat everything, and you shouldn't. There is >>> always going to be something that your deck doesn't react well to. >> >> Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about having _something_ to do at all so the card play is >> meaningful. > > See, this is where I get confused, because I don't understand what you mean. Meaningful? "Meaningful" - as in, being able to do something that means something to attempt to resist the library exhaustion. Attacking is fun. Resisting being attacked (defending) is fun. Sitting around watching helplessly as your predator taps a card you can't do anything about is....nothing. Like sleeping. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:36uo5dF...@individual.net... > When my predator eagle sights me and torps my minion, I lost something. > When I get bled for 6 and can't > bring out another guy, I lost something. When I get SH'd and lose 20 > cards out of my library, I lost something. Arbitrarily declaring that > in this hypothetical game you tried to outrace the deck behind you, got > your first prey but failed to win the table, and then pinning it on the > fact that you have fewer cards is one *thin* counterargument. There are > a gazillion ways that arbitrary predator "X" could have caused you to > burn more or less cards by their deck type. You hit heavy intercept and > don't have much stealth left at the end game. Or you ran into two heavy > combat decks in a row and went through a lot of your Majesties, etc etc > et al. You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn with a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster? Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:ZQsOd.5702$ds.5024@okepread07... > I see what's going on here. People always used to freak out about this with > Millstones in Magic, too. It's confusion over the meaning of moving a card > from one's library to one's graveyard (or ashheap, as the case may be). It > doesn't do a thing right away. The only time it makes a difference is in > the future, when the library is exhausted. If you don't agree with that, > then explain to me what's different between a random card in a player's > library he can't use and a random card in his graveyard he can't use. > You can't. There is NO difference - except in the future when the pile > is totally gone. Yes. The only time it matters[0] is when it isn't random; that is, when you first look at the cards on the top of the library and then selectively apply the deck destruction based on what you see there. Or when someone else has looked and you want to remove (or at least decrease) the benefit that knowledge has gained them. [0] That is, when it is any different than taking X cards from the bottom of a randomized deck instead of from the top. Note that deck destruction even in the random sense has an effect on the effectiveness library-search abilities. So if your prey is using those (and not the library-and-ash-heap searchers), even random deck destruction is a form of immediate resource denial. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:h9qOd.3062$Ya....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:VupOd.5393$ds.3822@okepread07... > So let me get this right. Your objection is that because other when the SH > is played, or when you have Arson (or similar) you don't get to react to the > card? (Not my only objection but...) Yea. There's really only one way to library destruction that works - because it's so much more effective than any other form in existance. Or at least, that's my theory, by all means speak up it you disagree. That one method is entirely based on Slaughterhouse, a location card. The vast majority of location cards _help_ their owners. They don't just exist to attack one opposing player in the game like Slaughterhouse. So location-countering cards are basically toolbox cards, never carried in the numbers it would require to do anything about a guy pack a half dozen or more Slaughterhouses. So the whole interaction over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my library. I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses does zero to weaken my CURRENT position. Or I can attack backwards in whatever way I can (rush, politics, even Kindred Spirits bleeds if Malkavian) to cease the destruction that at some point may utterly kill me and just for being so stupid as to pursue such a strategy. But whatever I do, it's not based directly on the Slaughterhouses. I suppose a better card would have been to make Slaughterhouse a loquipment card that had to be played on minion and which allowed the minion to be rushed. THAT would be interaction. (I'd still think library destruction was a silly strategy to pursue but at least it would certainly be more interesting.) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn > with a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster? Apparently so. Anything to add, to that or any of the other points I've raised? And, BTW, as someone who's played SH decks (and won tournaments with them), getting three or four SH's on the table doesn't happen right away. I suppose it could, but as with many other strategies, throwing enough in the deck to make that reliable and quick just cuts too far into other necessary elements. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:36v4m2F...@individual.net... > Note that > deck destruction even in the random sense has an effect on the > effectiveness library-search abilities. So if your prey is > using those (and not the library-and-ash-heap searchers), even > random deck destruction is a form of immediate resource denial. Sure. Not necessarily a very effective form - depending on how much it's being relied on. If somehow the whole deck is based on a library(only) searcher, then maybe more so but that's too rare in the metagame (IMO) to matter much. A few other things, too: cards that allow you to pull stuff out of graveyards. For these purposes, allowing you to pull stuff out of your prey's graveyard (e.g. Filchware's Pawn Shop or The Ericyes Fragment) would be more interesting since you can combo these with Slaughterhouse to create a strategy based on something other than just waiting for him to run out of library. For the most part, though, these kinds of things have not been developed to the point of creating interesting strategies and counter- strategies (at least, at the moment). I don't know what the state of Magic looks like now, but the designers seemed to be in the process of developing that kind of stuff to a much larger degree just as I quit playing. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:36v5etF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn >> with a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster? > > Apparently so. Anything to add, to that or any of the other points I've > raised? I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well. I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal in how much library they force you to burn to counter them. The significance of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you. Library exhaustion just doesn't do much until the job is complete. > And, BTW, as someone who's played SH decks (and won tournaments with > them), getting three or four SH's on the table doesn't happen right > away. I suppose it could, but as with many other strategies, throwing > enough in the deck to make that reliable and quick just cuts too far > into other necessary elements. As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the context of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a Slaughterhouse deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or (as you seem to indicate) a deck that was built to win by other means but happens to use Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't managed to communicate effectively? Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in spite of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on including their decks. But I don't know without seeing and deciding for myself what useful (if any) role they would play in causing you to win. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well. > I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal > in how much library they force you to burn to counter them. The > significance of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you. > > > My point is very simple. As you progress around the table you usually have to burn cards to do so. Some games you burn more, some less. If a SH deck makes you burn *some* cards, I just don't see how that is any different than if you burned up comparable amounts of cards punching your way through active resistance. And just to make it explicit, my argument rests on two assumptions: 1) you've placed your deck in "floor it" mode, and 2) the SH deck behind you hasn't built up 3-4 slaughterhouses until around turn 6. > Library exhaustion just doesn't do much until the job is complete. I'm not arguing that. I agree with you. > As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the > context of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a > Slaughterhouse deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or > (as you seem to indicate) a deck that was built to win by other > means but happens to use Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't > managed to communicate effectively? No, it was a SH/Brinksmanship deck that included 10/80 SH's. I just think you are off base in estimating how fast SH's hit the table (think "cardflow"). > Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in > spite of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on > including their decks. But I don't know without seeing and deciding > for myself what useful (if any) role they would play in causing you > to win. If you want a decklist I can provide one, but I was trying to avoid having this turn into a discussion about a specific deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:36v7dgF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well. >> I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal in how much library they force you to burn to counter them. >> The significance of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you. > > My point is very simple. As you progress around the table you usually > have to burn cards to do so. Some games you burn more, some less. > If a SH deck makes you burn *some* cards, I just don't see how that is > any different than if you burned up comparable amounts of cards punching > your way through active resistance. It's much different in that Slaughterhouses cause you to burn MANY more cards than just normal reaction to the card play of others. If they didn't, they'd be entirely pointless. They only do one thing and that thing doesn't help you very much. So they damn well better do that one thing well. (And obviously, I think they do.) >> As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the context of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a >> Slaughterhouse deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or >> (as you seem to indicate) a deck that was built to win by other means but happens to use Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't >> managed to communicate effectively? > > No, it was a SH/Brinksmanship deck that included 10/80 SH's. I just > think you are off base in estimating how fast SH's hit the table (think > "cardflow"). I haven't explicitly estimated how fast Slaughterhouses hit the table. Acknowledged, your point that 3 or 4 of them usually take a while to build up is valid. >> Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in >> spite of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on including their decks. But I don't know without seeing and >> deciding for myself what useful (if any) role they would play in causing you to win. > > If you want a decklist I can provide one, but I was trying to avoid > having this turn into a discussion about a specific deck. Sure. Besides, it's not just a decklist. Many other factors are very relevant: how large the tournament was, how you got into the finals, how you manage to get the result in the final you needed to win the tournament - which in turn hinges on a lot other details like the types of decks the other players were playing, the turn order, and especially the sorts of politics that went on. I'm not saying, Slaughterhouses must have been pointless. I admit, I find it interesting news that someone has won more than one tournament using them (or even one). I just don't know what to make of it. Sometimes it means something, sometimes circumstances conspire to make it seem more significant than it really was. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:p8tOd.5704$ds.2558@okepread07... > > Yea. There's really only one way to library destruction that works - > because > it's so much more effective than any other form in existance. Or at > least, > that's my theory, by all means speak up it you disagree. I'll agree with that. > So the whole interaction > over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my library. > I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses does zero > to > weaken my CURRENT position. Ok, I'll give you that. It does nothing to weaken the current situation but it does affect future position as you lose access to cards. I understand the points raised in other posts in this thread that it is possible that a SH deck is assisting my prey by bringing other cards quicker to him, but I also disgaree with that because on the same hand its casting cards aside as well, thus reducing the opportunities my prey has to stop me. > > I suppose a better card would have been to make Slaughterhouse a > loquipment > card that had to be played on minion and which allowed the minion to be > rushed. > THAT would be interaction. (I'd still think library destruction was a > silly > strategy to pursue but at least it would certainly be more interesting.) > Actually I think that might have been a nice idea. Also my apologies Frederick for the tone of my previous post. I was getting a little frustrated (both with this thread and an unrelated non-VTES one on another board). [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin Goodman wrote: > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > > So the whole interaction > > over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my library. > > I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses does zero > > to > > weaken my CURRENT position. > > Ok, I'll give you that. It does nothing to weaken the current situation but > it does affect future position as you lose access to cards. > I understand the > points raised in other posts in this thread that it is possible that a SH > deck is assisting my prey by bringing other cards quicker to him, but I also > disgaree with that because on the same hand its casting cards aside as well, > thus reducing the opportunities my prey has to stop me. Well the point wasn't to say that SH helps your prey. :) The point is, as you note above, that there is an "on the other hand". Its immediate effect is random. An individual card sent to the ash heap may help or hurt your prey. Generally speaking, though, you'll be reducing the size of the library and leaving the proportions of cards the same. When the proportions aren't affected, the deck functions the same as if you had not tapped SH. This whole thing reminds me how they say smoking a cigarette takes 7 minutes off your life. As your smoker friends will surely remind you, you aren't losing 7 minutes of your life *today* (with all your youthful vitality). You are instead losing the *last* 7 minutes...the one's you'd otherwise be spending in the hospital hooked to a machine or something. :) -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine. Why break a longstanding tradition? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine. > > Why break a longstanding tradition? Whoa. It could have been a flamewar, but we're now brothers, there's so much love in the room. Peace out, brother Colin. =) > --Colin McGuigan --Brother KevinM

Frederick Scott wrote: > Sure. Besides, it's not just a decklist. Many other factors are > very relevant: how large the tournament was, how you got into the > finals, how you manage to get the result in the final you needed to > win the tournament - which in turn hinges on a lot other details like > the types of decks the other players were playing, the turn order, > and especially the sorts of politics that went on. I'm not saying, > Slaughterhouses must have been pointless. I admit, I find it > interesting news that someone has won more than one tournament using > them (or even one). I just don't know what to make of it. > Sometimes it means something, sometimes circumstances conspire to > make it seem more significant than it really was. I don't think one tournament win can settle much of anything, for any deck. As you pointed out, there are just too many factors that go into who wins *any* tournament with *any* deck. Still, when the dust settles, a win is a win. Pasted from The Path of Blood: Deck Name: Brinksmanship 2.0 Created By: David Cherryholmes Description: Won DC tournament Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 22, Max: 32, Avg: 6.83) ---------------------------------------------- 4 Bartholomew AUS dom MYT NEC obt 8, Kiasyd:2 3 Egothha AUS FOR NEC obf 7, Harbingers of Skulls:2 3 Gisela Harden aus dem FOR NEC 7, Harbingers of Skulls:2, Priscus 1 Le Dinh Tho aus dom NEC 5, Nagaraja:2 1 Juan Cali aus for 3, Ventrue Antitribu:2 Library: (82 cards) ------------------- Master (22 cards) 2 Blood Doll 1 Dia de los Muertos 1 Lazarene Inquisitor 2 Minion Tap 1 Parthenon, The 2 Secure Haven 8 Slaughterhouse, The 3 Storage Annex 2 Archon Investigation Action (4 cards) 2 Revelations 2 Summon Soul Action Modifier (9 cards) 4 Call of the Hungry Dead 3 Daring the Dawn 2 Telepathic Vote Counting Political Action (7 cards) 2 Brinksmanship 2 Cardinal Benediction 2 Dramatic Upheaval 1 Peace Treaty Reaction (22 cards) 2 Eagle's Sight 2 Enhanced Senses 8 Folderol 8 Telepathic Counter 2 Telepathic Misdirection Combat (16 cards) 8 Rolling with the Punches 8 Spiritual Intervention Combo (2 cards) 2 Spectral Divination The deck is not intended to sweep. As with all such decks, other people not only can get victory points.... you *need* for them to get victory points, so long as on one gets two. Your prey will probably be one of those who gets his VP. This is fine, since he probably will not have the resources to gain two, if he even gets that many. The deck takes exactly one action that really matters. As a result, there is room for large amounts of bleed and combat defense. Since so many slots are available, Telepathic Counter and Folderol stack to make pretty good bleed defense. Bart is brought out solely for this purpose, and to sit there and gain you pool. He should be Secure Havened since he lacks fortitude, but if you don't expect Grapple or Psyche, he can defend himself tolerably well with the free S:CE. Tap him down to one regardless; either they beat Spiritual Intervention or they don't, and whether he has one or four blood probably won't matter. There are also a disproportionate number of master cards in the deck. You won't really cycle unless people are bleeding you or rushing you, so it's important to have a few masters in hand to maintain deck flow. People tend to freak out when they see Slaughterhouses. I find it works to explain that of course you are trying to oust them this way, but it is *slow*, you won't touch their pool, and that's a better deal than then next guy in line will probably give them. If they don't buy it, hey, let them rush you. That's what all the comabt defense is there for. Aggressive voters are a little more of a problem, but you have a good shot at six table votes, and your bloat to fall back on. Combat decks, provided they aren't over-the-top trumpy, actually play into your strategy. Let them pound on your fortitude and grind their deck away. The challenge with this deck always lies in getting the win under the time limit. Earlier versions had Autarkis Persecution and Millicent Smith. These cards play perfectly into your strategy, but they add too much time to the table. Folderol is an acceptible means of controlling the oust, and Revelations and Le Din Tho can also be deployed to slow down other decks that might be positioning for the second VP. Dramatic Upheaval is also useful in several ways. If you think you can handle it, jump in front of the aggressive deck and let him help you cycle into your Slaughterhouses that much more quickly. It's also good to upheaval with your prey before he gets the oust. Leave him with a little deck, so your grandpredator doesn't get a free ride from your Brinksmanship; he won't have enough to oust you, and probably has plenty of pool to serve as a meatshield. On the plus side, you don't actually *do* anything on your turns, so they go very quickly. This adds roughly another 20% to the clock. Always wait to Slaughter until after your prey has taken his turn. This lets a whole table cycle expire before he gets slaughtered, and by that time something else has likely transpired that pisses him off more. Cuts down on the backstreaming, I've found. Another trick that bears pointing out: Telepathic Counter plus Folderol chops bleeds down for three. This creates an incentive to bleed for more than three. Then you Archon Investigate them. I assume the basics of the Brinksmanship/Slaughterhouse mechanic needs no explaining. I've recieved several comments to the effect that the deck doesn't have as many Slaughterhouses as it should. I think it's better to trickle them onto the table. Keeps your prey calmer, makes the aformentioned argument about not being that bad a predator to have easier to swallow, and lets your prey tear up the table and maybe get that lone VP. After you've ousted him, you've built up enough that the next prey, and possibly the one after that, go much more quickly. That's really about it. Not a turbo, power, crush-your-skull-in kind of deck, but a refreshing break from the three legs of the triangle. Oh yeah... play with two Dia's. I had to bum the one and couldn't scrape up another. [ quoted text not captured ]