Changing the Wallpaper

I've been busy cataloging my cards and building these really neat shelves to hold them all, and I've had the opportunity to look over a few cards which never see the light of day. Today's wallpaper card is Mummify. I think I've found the perfect errata/migration for it, and it has the added bonus of being somewhat "in theme" with the RPG. Here's how it reads now. MUMMIFY ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave torpor action. Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. Here's how it SHOULD read: MUMMIFY ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. Thoughts?

"Legendre" <mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message news:fb4469c.04061...@posting.google.com... > Here's how it SHOULD read: > > MUMMIFY > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. > Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. Maybe, finally a good way to use the infamous multiple Faithful servants + blood dolls combo ;)

i'd agree, doesn't seem too overwhelming right now that i'm thinking about it. you are losing use of a minion for such tricks, and other vampires can attempt to rescue this vampire and force you to pay for it ;) so far sounds like a good errata to me.

Legendre wrote: > MUMMIFY > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. > Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. > > SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. > > Thoughts? That is actually kinda clever, and sets up for the mad FOR/ser Regeneration/Minion Tap blood farm. In fact, that might be too good, really... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:18:40 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Legendre wrote: >> MUMMIFY >> ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; >> put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave >> torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. >> Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. >> SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. >> >> Thoughts? > > That is actually kinda clever, and sets up for the mad FOR/ser > Regeneration/Minion Tap blood farm. In fact, that might be too good, > really... Maybe it should read ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot perform actions, gain blood, or be burned while in torpor. Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. -- Powerbase: Turku http://www.tenerdo.org/

Azel expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Combine with Carver's Meat Packing :D (would limit the capacity and thus the number of Servants youcould usefully use though)

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCF790FF.17AE5%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Legendre wrote: > > > MUMMIFY > > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > > torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. > > Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. > > > > SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. > > > > Thoughts? > > That is actually kinda clever, and sets up for the mad FOR/ser > Regeneration/Minion Tap blood farm. In fact, that might be too good, > really... If my prey attempted such a blood farm, I would halt it simply by rescuing their "farmer", and making her pay for the rescue. Also, a deck based around such farming needs to devote quite a few slots to it - enough skill cards / Mummify to get started, and a lot of Regeneration / MT to keep it going. The extra copies of Mummify are less useful once the farmer is in torpor, the Regenerations are totally useless without the farmer in torpor, and once it is set up, the MT / Regen ratio has to flow just right, cos they don't work so well on their own. It also loses speed, because at least one moderate-to-large vampire is removed from active duty... so such a deck would make a soft (easy to live with) predator. Ditto for a "New Mummify" / Faithful Servant combo - it's a lot of (slow) set-up. I think "old-fashioned" FoS bloat is better - Summon the Serpent to fetch Hesha, scatter blood dolls all round, use Blood Dolls / Temptation / Heidelberg / Perfectionist so that Hesha can hunt for 6 a turn... (hunt with Hesha, transfer his blood to Nepata, untap via Temptation, hunt again). Like the "farming", it's a lot of set-up BUT 1) it's all with cards that you want in the deck anyway, not stuff that's only useful for that one trick 2) The cards are all good, no matter what order they come up in 3) it doesn't require cards to keep it going once it's set up 4) it doesn't remove any vampire from active duty Note that it's already possible to anyone with chimestry do the "invulnerable farmer" idea with the cards we already have: 1) set vampire A up with 2 or more Faithful Servants / Palatial Estate 2) vampire A plays Baltimore Purge 3) vampire B plays inferior Reality on vampire A Mix in some blood dolls, and you are set (meaning well set up, as opposed to suddenly becoming the guy that Hesha and his opium-smoking pals Follow). In theory, it works better than the Mummify scheme above, cos vamp A can't be aggressively rescued. In fact, I don't think they could take or be targeted by *any* action at all. Oddly, I haven't seen anyone win a tournament with this concept :-)

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.04061...@posting.google.com>... > I've been busy cataloging my cards and building these really neat > shelves to hold them all, and I've had the opportunity to look over a > few cards which never see the light of day. Today's wallpaper card is > Mummify. > _snip mummify_ > > Thoughts? I had a similar recent experience, buying part of an old collection, and sorting thru a lot of cards. On the positive, I noticed that: For every card that truly does blow unhygenic livestock (Channeling the Beast) there were several that made me go "yay", (Taste of Vitae, Carrion Crows). ...and a whole bunch that suck a *bit*, but not utterly - stuff that's on the same power level as Survivalist. He's pretty lame compared to other 2-pool allies (Nephandus, Anam, Gregory Winter are MUCH better), but not utterly awful... the sort of card you can include as a prayer in a normal deck (but you probably won't), or even make the basis of a kooky deck. So, there number of old cards that utterly suck, and you would never use in a deck is actually pretty low. ...but for some reason, the FoS got quite a few of them - Eyes of the Serpent, Mummify, Phobia, Realm of the Black Sun and Grand Temple are all on the lowest tier possible - so low that trying to come up with a situation where you would be glad to have one in your hand is REALLY hard work. THey are right down there with Eyes of the Dead. Other merely bad cards don't compare. For example: Twisting the Knife is garbage, but if you accidentally put two copies of TWK in your tournament potence deck, you could at least PLAY the sodding things... whereas if you accidentally included 2 Grand Temples in a FoS deck, you would have to discard them, because they are every bit as bad as TWK *and* mightily corner case as well. Most of the rest of the FoS cards are not *so* bad - they merely take more effort to make them work than they are actually worth. Ever seen someone use Canopic Jar, Mark of Damnation, Consignment to Duat, Dismemberment of Osiris or Heart of Darkness? Maybe. Has a tournament winning deck ever used these to achieve victory? Not to my knowledge.

Hollowboy <icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Most of the rest of the FoS cards are not *so* bad - they merely take > more effort to make them work than they are actually worth. Ever seen > someone use Canopic Jar, Mark of Damnation, Consignment to Duat, > Dismemberment of Osiris or Heart of Darkness? Maybe. Has a tournament > winning deck ever used these to achieve victory? Not to my knowledge. Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P 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

In message <614f2a39.04061...@posting.google.com>, icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) mumbled something about: >Most of the rest of the FoS cards are not *so* bad - they merely take >more effort to make them work than they are actually worth. Ever seen >someone use Canopic Jar, Mark of Damnation, Consignment to Duat, >Dismemberment of Osiris or Heart of Darkness? Maybe. Has a tournament >winning deck ever used these to achieve victory? Not to my knowledge. I've used both Mark of Damnation and Heart of Darkness to make quite solid decks, actually. Perhaps you should look more closely =) I seem to remember someone pulling off goofy tricks with Pier 13 and Canopic Jar, but I don't remember where. Consignment is too new; people are still trying to figure out what to do with it, so you won't see anything about it for a bit. Be patient. Not everything is as easy as "I play Govern, Lost in Crowds, Conditioning." -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<HExAc.25002$0z6.8608@fed1read07>... > Hollowboy <icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Most of the rest of the FoS cards are not *so* bad - they merely take > > more effort to make them work than they are actually worth. Ever seen > > someone use Canopic Jar, Mark of Damnation, Consignment to Duat, > > Dismemberment of Osiris or Heart of Darkness? Maybe. Has a tournament > > winning deck ever used these to achieve victory? Not to my knowledge. Realm of the Black Sun isn愒 as bad as the other ones mentioned. It just doesn愒 get used that much because I guess there are much better things to include, not because it is bad in and of itself. But since everyone uses Blood Dolls, Realm usually at least pays for itself. But much more though, since Setites are crappy blockers. And I use Dismemberment of Osiris to good effect in my POT+SER deck. Between Dismemberment, Samat and Amam, no one survives torpor. Mark of Damnation is also a good fit in this deck. It is one of the hundreds of Serpentis or FoS cards that can be burned, but it can only be nurned by the victim, at zero stealth, and as an undirected action, so it usually stays a bit hehe... Consignment is crappy after all. To much trouble for nothing. Canopic jar too cornercase and limited. Phobia and Mummify are in eternal arguments over who is the worst card, but none of them beat Eyes of the Serpent. Serpentis suffers from too many cards that require combos to work, can be burned or take a lot of time to give you any real benefit. > > Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck on the table uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... Suhailah should get smart and start using Elemental Stoicism. I惴 glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) > > 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 Daniel.

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.04061...@posting.google.com>... > MUMMIFY > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. > Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. > > SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. > > Thoughts? I like it. Would actually make it useful (instead of a dare) to include it. Bye, Daneel

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.04061...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] During playtesting, Mummify was actually useful. ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor and your prey burns one pool; put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave torpor action. Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. Maybe that was a bit over the top, but I really didn't think so. :) Carl

hmm, that's a pretty funny rendition. could have an intercept with FoS (which is a gas in the first place) while sending your vampires into torpor and pinging blood off of your prey. Since a few FoS have ani Crimson Fury could be played, which would be funny. and if you were smart you'd only intercept the last of your predator's minions. but it's so goofy and entertaining. i don't find this version overwhelming either, and just goofy and useful enough to be somewhat worthwhile even in a traditional FoS deck. not a strong card, but a funny and finally useful card. wonder why they changed it. it's not like FoS were that strong when they came out. crazy WotC. ;)

> I seem to remember someone pulling off goofy tricks with Pier 13 and > Canopic Jar, but I don't remember where. Brian Reed made one such deck in Austin. kelly

Daniel Figueiredo <om...@uol.com.br> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than >> any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > > Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck > on the table uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... I'm just fine with someone else trying to get into combat with me to get rid of my HoD. > Suhailah should get smart and start using Elemental Stoicism. Uhhhh no. Not when she gets a Serpentis Master, and can prevent one, no, ES isn't better. > Daniel. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Jun 2004 09:56:50 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) scrawled: >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<HExAc.25002$0z6.8608@fed1read07>... [snip] >> >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P >> > > >Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck on the table >uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... Suhailah should get smart and >start using Elemental Stoicism. erm. Elemental Stoicism only affects agg damage in combat. Heart of Darkness affects it outside of combat, too. such as, for instance, Force of Will/Daring the Dawn. Also, i hear nd Tradition is useful for blocking things, such as actions to burn Heart of Darkness. :D >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3g28d0pit4ilh9ic8...@4ax.com>... > On 18 Jun 2004 09:56:50 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) > scrawled: > > >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<HExAc.25002$0z6.8608@fed1read07>... > [snip] > >> > >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > >> > > > > > >Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck on the table > >uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... Suhailah should get smart and > >start using Elemental Stoicism. > > erm. Elemental Stoicism only affects agg damage in combat. Heart of > Darkness affects it outside of combat, too. such as, for instance, > Force of Will/Daring the Dawn. > Also, i hear nd Tradition is useful for blocking things, such as > actions to burn Heart of Darkness. :D True, but then you need a deck with serpentis and princes, or one centered on Suhailah. What happens most of the time is no one blocks the action to play Heart of Darkness, then on their turn they burn it with a simple ramdom +1stealth they have access to. Gangrel, Assamites and Tzimisce, the best aggrodeck customers have easy access to stealth, and Rotschreck monkeys don愒 even need bother since they can torporize your vampire with Heart of Darkness reagardless. All this effectively changes the text on the card to: Pay 2 blood and tap to give minions controlled by other methuselah愀 a D action against this vanmpire. Just not worth it. You don愒 even get to cycle your stealth most of the time. I realize this is all very metagame-dependant, but once you effectively use Heart of Darkness once or twice with any mildly strong combo like Force of Will, people get smart VERY fast. And the card gets very bad as fast. > > >I惴 glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) > > if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. > If Temptation had never been printed serpentis would be the most useless discipline of all. Period. Daniel. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<RIRAc.25292$0z6.22240@fed1read07>... > Daniel Figueiredo <om...@uol.com.br> wrote: > > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than > >> any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > > > > Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck > > on the table uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... > > I'm just fine with someone else trying to get into combat with me to get > rid of my HoD. > If they are trying to get into combat with you before trying to burn the Heart of Darkness they either don´t care about the Heart, or deserve to get pummeled. > > Suhailah should get smart and start using Elemental Stoicism. > > Uhhhh no. Not when she gets a Serpentis Master, and can prevent one, no, > ES isn't better. The damage prevention is icing on the cake. You can prevent damage in a thousand ways. Treating aggravated as normal can be done in far less ways. Most of the time the damage prevention on Heart will only give you an actual benefit from your 3rd combat on, since you paid 2blood to use it in the first place. Unless you are up against aggravated damage, in which case Elemental Stoicism will be better (Disarm and a few other tricks are ecxeptions to this). So the Heart will truly benefit you only if you use it soon, and manage to keep it. And let´s not foget that she needs a master card in the first place to even use the superior.... No... Elemental is MUCH better for her. And like I said in another reply, if you are using Heart for the out-of-combat tricks, people get smart and burn it in a jiff. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21 Jun 2004 05:46:35 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3g28d0pit4ilh9ic8...@4ax.com>... >> if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. >> > >If Temptation had never been printed serpentis would be the most >useless discipline of all. Period. i could live with that. stupid snakes. ;)~< [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > MUMMIFY > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > torpor action. Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. > > SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. > > Here's how it SHOULD read: > > MUMMIFY > ser: Strike: combat ends. This vampire untaps and goes into torpor; > put this card on the vampire. This vampire cannot attempt the leave > torpor action, and cannot be diablerized or burned while in torpor. > Burn this card if the vampire leaves torpor. > > SER: As above, but this vampire may attempt the leave torpor action. > > Thoughts? i agree with the sentiment that Mummify needs rehabilitation. [Just in case any new person does not know, it's in its current state because it was designed at a time when you could hurt your prey by putting your own famous vampires into torpor. Then the text of Fame was changed to help combat decks, and as a by-product Mummify became nearly impossible to use productively.] But i do not like your text change because i do not like ANY text change, on the grounds that it gets in the way of new players coming into the game. i suggest that the way to reintegrate Mummify is somehow to link it to existing mummies in the game. Probably there are several good ways to do this, but here are three ideas to illustrate the general philosophy. [1] Not being a Setite expert i cannot recall which vampire does this, but i have a vague feeling that there is a powerful Setite, possibly Sutekh himself, whose special includes you gaining pool if a recruit Mummy action is successful. Perhaps it could be a clarification that successfully playing Mummify would count as a recruit Mummy action for this purpose [i'm not wild about this specific idea]. [2] Alternatively and perhaps better, maybe the Setites could have another vampire with some such text as the following: Demosthenes of Trebizond, The Embalmer Setite, group 3 [or 4] Capacity 7 SER nec obf pre Whenever a vampire successfully plays Mummify, or a Mummy ally is successfully recruited, you gain one pool if Demosthenes is ready. [3] Alternatively and perhaps best of all, maybe the Setites could have a new location. Department of Egyptology, British Museum. Master. Unique Location, Cost 1 pool. Requires Setite. Whenever a vampire successfully plays Mummify, or a Mummy ally is successfully recruited, you gain one pool. The Prince of Cairo may take a +1 stealth D action to take control of this location. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<m9ufd0ture3c88cl9...@4ax.com>... > On 21 Jun 2004 05:46:35 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) > scrawled: > > >salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3g28d0pit4ilh9ic8...@4ax.com>... > > >> if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. > >> > > > >If Temptation had never been printed serpentis would be the most > >useless discipline of all. Period. > > i could live with that. stupid snakes. ;)~< > PLEASE!! Stupid "Almighty God of Storms, Desert Creatures, Fury, Egypt and all Outside of Egypt" worshipping snakes! (at least! hehe..) :) Daniel.

om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) wrote in message news:<b2fbf7ad.04062...@posting.google.com>... > salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3g28d0pit4ilh9ic8...@4ax.com>... > > On 18 Jun 2004 09:56:50 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) > > scrawled: > > > > >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<HExAc.25002$0z6.8608@fed1read07>... > [snip] > > >> > > >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > > >> > > > > > > > > >Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck on the table > > >uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... Suhailah should get smart and > > >start using Elemental Stoicism. > > > > erm. Elemental Stoicism only affects agg damage in combat. Heart of > > Darkness affects it outside of combat, too. such as, for instance, > > Force of Will/Daring the Dawn. > > Also, i hear nd Tradition is useful for blocking things, such as > > actions to burn Heart of Darkness. :D > > True, but then you need a deck with serpentis and princes, or one > centered on Suhailah. Indeed. a deck based on suhailah. > What happens most of the time is no one blocks > the action to play Heart of Darkness, then on their turn they burn it > with a simple ramdom +1stealth they have access to. They can't block that if you don't want them to. You are using daring the dawn, remember? >Gangrel, Assamites > and Tzimisce, the best aggrodeck customers have easy access to > stealth, and Rotschreck monkeys don愒 even need bother since they can > torporize your vampire with Heart of Darkness reagardless. And they block her how exactly? >All this > effectively changes the text on the card to: Pay 2 blood and tap to > give minions controlled by other methuselah愀 a D action against this > vanmpire. Just not worth it. You don愒 even get to cycle your stealth > most of the time. I realize this is all very metagame-dependant, but > once you effectively use Heart of Darkness once or twice with any > mildly strong combo like Force of Will, people get smart VERY fast. > And the card gets very bad as fast. > well, if someone wants the hearth of darkness removed, just let them and get a new one in you're own turn. add freak drive.

joen...@hotmail.com (Jeroen) wrote in message news:<5f0d2397.04062...@posting.google.com>... > om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) wrote in message news:<b2fbf7ad.04062...@posting.google.com>... > > salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3g28d0pit4ilh9ic8...@4ax.com>... > > > On 18 Jun 2004 09:56:50 -0700, om...@uol.com.br (Daniel Figueiredo) > > > scrawled: > > > > > > >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<HExAc.25002$0z6.8608@fed1read07>... > [snip] > > > >> > > > >> Suhilah uses Heart of Darkness more than any other Fos I've ever seen. :P > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >Heart of Darkness usually gets burned FAST if any deck on the table > > > >uses aggravated damage. Too fragile... Suhailah should get smart and > > > >start using Elemental Stoicism. > > > > > > erm. Elemental Stoicism only affects agg damage in combat. Heart of > > > Darkness affects it outside of combat, too. such as, for instance, > > > Force of Will/Daring the Dawn. > > > Also, i hear nd Tradition is useful for blocking things, such as > > > actions to burn Heart of Darkness. :D > > > > True, but then you need a deck with serpentis and princes, or one > > centered on Suhailah. > > Indeed. a deck based on suhailah. > Ok. > > What happens most of the time is no one blocks > > the action to play Heart of Darkness, then on their turn they burn it > > with a simple ramdom +1stealth they have access to. > > They can't block that if you don't want them to. You are using daring > the dawn, remember? Yes, i´m using Daring the Dawn. Hopefully for actions that have an effect on my prey, not just to get the deck started... how many Daring the Dawns would you put in such a deck? > > >Gangrel, Assamites > > and Tzimisce, the best aggrodeck customers have easy access to > > stealth, and Rotschreck monkeys don´t even need bother since they can > > torporize your vampire with Heart of Darkness reagardless. > > And they block her how exactly? Well, not counting the obvious DI on the Daring the Dawn, they can block her as soon as you are out of Daring the Dawns... not everyone has 12+ on their deck, or even in their collection, let´s not forget in their hand at the time.... And I prefer to use Daring the Dawn on my actions AFTER I have the Heart of Darkness. Having to use them with the Heart action would only mean a less effective deck. > > >All this > > effectively changes the text on the card to: Pay 2 blood and tap to > > give minions controlled by other methuselah´s a D action against this > > vanmpire. Just not worth it. You don´t even get to cycle your stealth > > most of the time. I realize this is all very metagame-dependant, but > > once you effectively use Heart of Darkness once or twice with any > > mildly strong combo like Force of Will, people get smart VERY fast. > > And the card gets very bad as fast. > > > well, if someone wants the hearth of darkness removed, just let them > and get a new one in you're own turn. add freak drive. Yes, and then you will need to waste another action, another Heart of Darkness, another 2 blood, (AND another Freak and +1blood if you untap). Suhailah isn´t a FoS to use the Path of Typhon that easily.... My prey is usually VERY happy to see me struggle the whole game trying to put the damn card on my vampires, wasting blood (4 on a successful Heart+Daring+Freak combo) and actions and doing nothing to oust them.... and for all that blood and cards I can easily remove pool from my prey with S+B using the same Suhailah. Burning it is far too easy. Let´s assume I just put it on Suhailah with the Freak Drive + Daring the Dawn combo, thus losing 4 blood on her. 2for the Heart of Darkness, 1 for the Freak Drive and 1 for the normal damage I take from Daring the Dawn at Superior. She then bled or did something useful successfully without having to use any other cards! Let´s further assume I already have a Second tradition in my hand. My Gangrel prey says: I´ll burn the Heart of Darkness. You use the second tradition to untap her with +2intercept, and he uses Form of Mist to end combat and burn the card.... :P 1 card and 1blood from my Gangrel prey would cause me to do the whole thing again.... If I had an Assamite prey the same thing would happen only with a Forgotten Labirynth... 1blood, 1card... boo hoo for me.. Pull off a good Heart of Darkness + Unblockable action combo more than once and pretty soon your cross-table "allies" will start trying to burn it. That´s another factor that weakens the card. Even good wall decks have a hard time blocking when cross table effort is used against them. Daniel.

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<f282bbe34bd644c46e4...@mygate.mailgate.org>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree that the less text changes and errata we have the better. Leave Mummify alone. Creating cards that help bad cards get better would be nice, but creating one just to make Mummify kind of useful seems limited. In the RPG, Mummify sucks ass as well. SO much that in the Dark Ages line it was incorporated into the level 5 power previously known as Heart of Darkness. Now you can either just pull your heart out a la Heart of Darkness, or do the whole ritual and become mummified. The solution was beautifully implemented, much more so than for the other discipline powers that got new versions due to total suckiness of old ones (like Obtenebration 4). So maybe they could just make a new card that mimics the complete ritual. Something like: Cheating Thoth愀 Scale (action, 2blood. req. Serpentis.) ser) Put this card on this acting vampire. When vampire with this card is sent to torpor, he or she cannot rescue him or herslef from torpor and cannot be diablerized or burned in any way while in torpor. Vampires rescuing the vampire with this card from torpor must pay the whole cost of the rescue action. SER) as above, and the vampire with this card treats aggavated damage as normal. Daniel.

<HUGE snip> > > > > [3] Alternatively and perhaps best of all, maybe the Setites could have > > a new location. > > > > Department of Egyptology, British Museum. > > Master. > > Unique Location, Cost 1 pool. > > Requires Setite. > > Whenever a vampire successfully plays Mummify, or a Mummy ally is > > successfully recruited, you gain one pool. The Prince of Cairo may take > > a +1 stealth D action to take control of this location. > > > I agree that the less text changes and errata we have the better. > Leave Mummify alone. Creating cards that help bad cards get better > would be nice, but creating one just to make Mummify kind of useful > seems limited. Right, which is why my favourite Mummify fix [quoted above] is linked in to fixing another problem, ie increasing the attractiveness of [certain] allies. However, i actually think Mummify is not *THAT* bad. It IS possible to build a trick bloat deck around it, and maybe the Mummified Sylvester Simms/Madness network deck is waiting to be constructed. Also, if you were playing in a AH draft you might well, if playing Setites, want to keep your mummifies and your catacombs [losing lots of blood off vampires due to weapons and potence combat being a BAAAD thing in sealed/draft, nearly as bad as losing pool]. i think we should distinguish between cards that used to be good but have become bad because of rules changes, and cards that were always bad. Mummify falls into the former category so it is worth thinking about whether it could be restored to usefulness, and whether the cost of doing so makes the overall effort worthwhile. Therefore i applaud the intention of the thread, because i think Mummify could be fixed cheaply and easily and reintegrated into the Mummy subtheme of the game, and all that WITHOUT tiresome errata, reprints and suchlike - YMMV, of course. Phobia is a card in the latter category [always bad]. The only way to fix Phobia back towards what i imagine was designer intent would be to make the counter addable during EACH Methuselah's master phase. Reading between the lines i imagine this was tried during playtesting and shown to be broken, whereupon instead of just ditching the card it was printed in nixed form. If my analysis is right then revisiting Phobia would just be a waste of time - any AH playtesters from way back then and working for another company like to comment? <snip another new card suggestion on which i'm not qualified to comment> [ quoted text not captured ]

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<56185c7e0ba36becd65...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > <HUGE snip> > > > > > > [3] Alternatively and perhaps best of all, maybe the Setites could have > > > a new location. > > > > > > Department of Egyptology, British Museum. > > > Master. > > > Unique Location, Cost 1 pool. > > > Requires Setite. > > > Whenever a vampire successfully plays Mummify, or a Mummy ally is > > > successfully recruited, you gain one pool. The Prince of Cairo may take > > > a +1 stealth D action to take control of this location. > > > > > > I agree that the less text changes and errata we have the better. > > Leave Mummify alone. Creating cards that help bad cards get better > > would be nice, but creating one just to make Mummify kind of useful > > seems limited. > > Right, which is why my favourite Mummify fix [quoted above] is linked in > to fixing another problem, ie increasing the attractiveness of [certain] > allies. > Most of the Bane Mummies are attractive enough. In fact, only Qetu sucks. > However, i actually think Mummify is not *THAT* bad. It IS possible to > build a trick bloat deck around it, and maybe the Mummified Sylvester > Simms/Madness network deck is waiting to be constructed. Also, if you > were playing in a AH draft you might well, if playing Setites, want to > keep your mummifies and your catacombs [losing lots of blood off > vampires due to weapons and potence combat being a BAAAD thing in > sealed/draft, nearly as bad as losing pool]. In draft it愀 a whole new game... but AH draft pretty much is impossible nowadays.. hehe... > > i think we should distinguish between cards that used to be good but > have become bad because of rules changes, and cards that were always > bad. Mummify falls into the former category so it is worth thinking > about whether it could be restored to usefulness, and whether the cost > of doing so makes the overall effort worthwhile. Therefore i applaud the > intention of the thread, because i think Mummify could be fixed cheaply > and easily and reintegrated into the Mummy subtheme of the game, and all > that WITHOUT tiresome errata, reprints and suchlike - YMMV, of course. Ummm... only Mummify has NOTHING to do with mummies... at all... you don愒 become a mummy when you use the power. And WoD mummies aren愒 wrapped and embalmed zombies that rest in sarcophagii. Only the name is similar... a new card that is based on the power in the RPG (as are 80% or more of all discipline cards, like it or not Vampire-RPG-haters), in this case the evolved and modified mummify would be nicer IMHO. :) > > Phobia is a card in the latter category [always bad]. The only way to > fix Phobia back towards what i imagine was designer intent would be to > make the counter addable during EACH Methuselah's master phase. Reading > between the lines i imagine this was tried during playtesting and shown > to be broken, whereupon instead of just ditching the card it was printed > in nixed form. If my analysis is right then revisiting Phobia would just > be a waste of time - any AH playtesters from way back then and working > for another company like to comment? > How would it be broken f it gained a counter during each methuselah愀 master phase? We愉e not talking about Temptation here... Let愀 not forget that Phobia would only work ONCE a turn against ONE minion protecting ONE of your BLOCKING FoS if the game has 5 players.... less than that and it starts getting impossible to rely on... > <snip another new card suggestion on which i'm not qualified to comment> Why are you not qualified to comment? :) Daniel.

<snip> > > > > > > > > [3] Alternatively and perhaps best of all, maybe the Setites could have > > > > a new location. > > > > > > > > Department of Egyptology, British Museum. > > > > Master. > > > > Unique Location, Cost 1 pool. > > > > Requires Setite. > > > > Whenever a vampire successfully plays Mummify, or a Mummy ally is > > > > successfully recruited, you gain one pool. The Prince of Cairo may take > > > > a +1 stealth D action to take control of this location. > > > > > > > > > I agree that the less text changes and errata we have the better. > > > Leave Mummify alone. Creating cards that help bad cards get better > > > would be nice, but creating one just to make Mummify kind of useful > > > seems limited. > > > > Right, which is why my favourite Mummify fix [quoted above] is linked in > > to fixing another problem, ie increasing the attractiveness of [certain] > > allies. > > > > Most of the Bane Mummies are attractive enough. In fact, only Qetu > sucks. Yet people do not play with them much, though i believe at one point David Tatu had an at least semi-serious Bane Mummy deck. However, i am aware that this is a feeble argument, and i will not press it. It reminds me of Porygon who was *THE* most powerful Pokemon, only the kids were too stupid to figure out how to use him. So in a later expansion he was made even *MORE* powerful [and completely neutered later on, IIRC]. And although i think there is little danger of Mummify turning out to be another ToGP, see the end of this message for one POSSIBLE way to make it work better. > > > However, i actually think Mummify is not *THAT* bad. It IS possible to > > build a trick bloat deck around it, and maybe the Mummified Sylvester > > Simms/Madness network deck is waiting to be constructed. Also, if you > > were playing in a AH draft you might well, if playing Setites, want to > > keep your mummifies and your catacombs [losing lots of blood off > > vampires due to weapons and potence combat being a BAAAD thing in > > sealed/draft, nearly as bad as losing pool]. > > In draft it´s a whole new game... but AH draft pretty much is > impossible nowadays.. hehe... Indeed, but i do think we should have in mind the different forms of the game when we make pronouncements about how this or that card sucks [i don't, personally, always adhere to this, but am aware that i should]. Come to that, there is a class of players who do not compete much and who probably do not read the NG but who DO buy and play with the cards, for whom the inclusion of mummify might be quite important: i refer, of course, to the role-players, who treat the game as really just an extension of VtM. Just because most of us do not like this approach much nor want to play with such people, does not mean that their angle is an invalid one. Furthermore, such people are potentially a recruiting ground for the game - our group has recently at least doubled in size, entirely because John Keech has a foot in both camps and has successfully persuaded many of his fellow role-players [Hi Steve!] to adopt the CCG. > > > > > i think we should distinguish between cards that used to be good but > > have become bad because of rules changes, and cards that were always > > bad. Mummify falls into the former category so it is worth thinking > > about whether it could be restored to usefulness, and whether the cost > > of doing so makes the overall effort worthwhile. Therefore i applaud the > > intention of the thread, because i think Mummify could be fixed cheaply > > and easily and reintegrated into the Mummy subtheme of the game, and all > > that WITHOUT tiresome errata, reprints and suchlike - YMMV, of course. > > Ummm... only Mummify has NOTHING to do with mummies... at all... you > don´t become a mummy when you use the power. And WoD mummies aren´t > wrapped and embalmed zombies that rest in sarcophagii. Only the name > is similar... a new card that is based on the power in the RPG (as are > 80% or more of all discipline cards, like it or not > Vampire-RPG-haters), in this case the evolved and modified mummify > would be nicer IMHO. :) i'm sure you are right from the RPG point of view, and i'm not against this approach to card design in general, nor your card in particular. i, however, come from the position that the RPG is only one angle on supernatural beastiekind, and that not everything vampires [especially vampires of a given clan] think is true, actually is. From my reading of various White Wolf games, even of different clan handbooks within the VtM game, this is also how the WoD game designers think. From this point of view i'd suggest that Mummify and Mummies ARE related, and that it would be perfectly proper to have "large-scale" effects that conflated the two. For example, the British Museum card i suggest as a fix for Mummify could be envisioned as tame Egyptologists who because of their general expertise would know that there was something odd about this ordinary mummy compared with that vampiric one, thereby giving you some arcane advantage, represented as pool. VtES i see as a large-scale RPG, in which such effects could be implemented. > > > > > Phobia is a card in the latter category [always bad]. The only way to > > fix Phobia back towards what i imagine was designer intent would be to > > make the counter addable during EACH Methuselah's master phase. Reading > > between the lines i imagine this was tried during playtesting and shown > > to be broken, whereupon instead of just ditching the card it was printed > > in nixed form. If my analysis is right then revisiting Phobia would just > > be a waste of time - any AH playtesters from way back then and working > > for another company like to comment? > > > > How would it be broken f it gained a counter during each methuselah´s > master phase? We´re not talking about Temptation here... Let´s not > forget that Phobia would only work ONCE a turn against ONE minion > protecting ONE of your BLOCKING FoS if the game has 5 players.... less > than that and it starts getting impossible to rely on... Not having playtested AH i don't KNOW why it would be broken. It just seems to me that designer intent must have been that it should acquire a counter every Methuselah's master phase, but now that is not what the card says. So somewhere along the line [my GUESS would be after playtesting, and that the change took place because some clever Methuselah figured out a way to break it] the card got nixed. But maybe i am being too subtle - it's clear that there were a number of cockups in the conception and execution of AH, and perhaps this is just another of those. In that case, Phobia MIGHT be worth a revisit - but i would like to know how it fared in original playtesting first, cos i hate reenacting other people's mistakes. > > > <snip another new card suggestion on which i'm not qualified to comment> > > Why are you not qualified to comment? :) Because i know next-to-nothing about the RPG and how it has developed. i only read the stuff, you see [i think VtM is VERY cleverly-written, and that second edition VtM and VtDA are worth reading in their own right]. i did try to play several of the RPGs but lost interest because [1] i don't like vampires, [2] i don't like mages, [3] i DEEPLY dislike treehugging Armageddon-merchants, even hairy ones, [4] my Changeling troupe quite literally died, [5] i never met ANYONE who wanted to play Wraith, and finally [6] i think the botches mechanic in the Storyteller games sucks, because the chance that something will go terribly wrong increases the better you become at doing it. Alright, finally finally [7] i'm an old-time DnDer and Lovecraft fan and [probably in direct consequence] i much prefer the d20 Call of Cthulhu game to any Storyteller game. > > Daniel. Not really a response to any point you are making but just because you [all] have been making me think about Mummify, i wonder if there is a good Julius/Mummify/Mark of the Damned/Dramatic Upheaval deck to be built. i was playing around with a Julius/Patrizia Giovanni/Death Pact deck for a while, based on rushing and aiming for the ability to play Burst of Sunlight and not care [not an especially new idea], but i never got anywhere with it. It seems to me the moving parts in the self-burn/vote/table-dance deck are fewer, so it might be better - it is really just a question of bolting on a module with the above cards to a weenie presence-vote deck, so it seems to me, with perhaps a few serpentis masters and a spot of snaky stealth to help the little beauties with their votes. Google does not reveal this idea as already having been publicly acknowledged as tried. Anyone care to 'fess up? [ quoted text not captured ]

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:e77b14b0eb149f2c4c9...@mygate.mailgate.org... > i think the botches mechanic in the Storyteller > games sucks, because the chance that something will go terribly wrong > increases the better you become at doing it. ? Not as I understand it. (I'm not well versed with the Storyteller mechanics, though. Corrections welcome.) As of revised, you only botch when you roll at least one 1 *and* don't roll any successes, so this is not true. You chances of rolling one or more successes increases "the better you become", and the chances of botching therefore go down. Difficulty:6 (for ease of calculation) Dice: 1 Chance of success: 1 - .5 = 50% Chance of simple failure: .4 = 40% Chance of botch: 10% Abbrev: [1] 50/40/10 Dice: 2 Chance of success*: 1 - (.5 * .5) = 75% Chance of simple failure: .4 * .4 = 16% Chance of botch: 9% *Actually, a roll of {7,1} would not be a success, since the 1 cancels the success, but that doesn't affect the calculations here for determining a botch, since a {7,1} isn't a botch It just means that the chance of simple failure is slightly higher than listed above and the chance of success is slightly lower. Dice: 3 Chance of success**: 1 - (.5 * .5 * .5) = 87.5% Chance of simple failure: .4 * .4 * .4 = 6.4% Chance of botch: 6.1% **As (*) above. A {7,1,1} is a failure, but still not a botch since there was a success rolled (even though you've got extra ones after canceling the successes). 4 dice: 3.69% botch 5 dice: 2.101% botch -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>> i think the botches mechanic in the Storyteller >> games sucks, because the chance that something will go terribly wrong >> increases the better you become at doing it. > >? >Not as I understand it. (I'm not well versed with the Storyteller >mechanics, though. Corrections welcome.) Whatever the math, the V:TM mechanics just aren't good. I designed a lot of characters before understanding the system. Love how the character sheet numbers give a sense of character - much better than numerous other systems. Hate how the variance in resolution undermines one's sense of character. Much too easy for someone who shouldn't suck at something will suck at something when it comes time to roll the dice. Possibly, my ranting relates in some way with the thrust of Legbiter's point. New WW d10, where 1's don't subtract from successes, is considered far better by people I know. Still, one hopes V:TR is even better.

LSJ wrote: > Not as I understand it. (I'm not well versed with the Storyteller > mechanics, though. Corrections welcome.) > > As of revised, you only botch when you roll at least one 1 *and* > don't roll any successes, so this is not true. You chances of rolling > one or more successes increases "the better you become", and the > chances of botching therefore go down. Even under the old system, where a botch was more 1s than successes, the more dice you roll, the greater the chance of success and the less chance of botching. The worst case scenario is difficulty ten, in which case your chance of success and botching are (were?) the same regardless of the number of dice. Which was dumb. But other than that, more dice == less chance of botching. --Colin McGuigan

Curevei wrote: > Whatever the math, the V:TM mechanics just aren't good. I designed a lot of > characters before understanding the system. Love how the character sheet > numbers give a sense of character - much better than numerous other systems. > Hate how the variance in resolution undermines one's sense of character. Much > too easy for someone who shouldn't suck at something will suck at something > when it comes time to roll the dice. Biggest problem with d10 is the probability curve of the difficulty numbers. Eg, the shift from difficulty 8 to difficulty 9 is much more difficult than the shift from difficulty 5 to 6. So effects that modify the difficulty can either be balanced, overpowered, or useless, depending upon the initial difficulty. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:ibedndGFxvJ...@speakeasy.net... > The worst case scenario is difficulty ten, in which case your chance of > success and botching are (were?) the same regardless of the number of > dice. Which was dumb. But other than that, more dice == less chance of > botching. Were, yes. Are, no. A {10,10,1} is a success, but the counterpart {10,1,1} is not a botch (any more). So you've still got a slightly better chance of success at difficulty 10 than a botch (and that's before spending willpower :-). As for "which is dumb", it could be argued that things that are that ridiculously difficult to do even passably right are also the easiest to really foul up. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > As for "which is dumb", it could be argued that things that are > that ridiculously difficult to do even passably right are also the > easiest to really foul up. :-) But the effect under the old system is that, no matter how many dice you rolled, your chance of success was the exact same as your chance of botching; it was just your chance of a normal failure that declined. New system seems better in this regard. --Colin McGuigan

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<e77b14b0eb149f2c4c9...@mygate.mailgate.org>... [ quoted text not captured ] A Bane Mummy deck would be more fun than competitive I guess... But I use Kherebutu to great efect in any Setite+Necromancy deck. And for 2pool, Amam works VERY well in SER+POT decks, since they torporize vamps more than most FoS or Serpentis decks hehe... Note also that Sutekh has both pot and NEC, so he fits well in both decks and Tutu is just AWESOME! Even War Ghouls can愒 kill him hehe!!! So even if they don愒 work well together, they each have their uses and help the FoS in a way. I DO want more cards to help them out hehe... maybe if they released the 3 missing Bane Mummies a Bane Mummy deck concept would flesh out. There are 7 of them in the RPG. Having the rest of them would make Sutekh a little better as well. Any help the indie 11caps can have is welcome. > > > However, i actually think Mummify is not *THAT* bad. It IS possible to > > > build a trick bloat deck around it, and maybe the Mummified Sylvester > > > Simms/Madness network deck is waiting to be constructed. Also, if you > > > were playing in a AH draft you might well, if playing Setites, want to > > > keep your mummifies and your catacombs [losing lots of blood off > > > vampires due to weapons and potence combat being a BAAAD thing in > > > sealed/draft, nearly as bad as losing pool]. > > > > In draft it愀 a whole new game... but AH draft pretty much is > > impossible nowadays.. hehe... > > Indeed, but i do think we should have in mind the different forms of the > game when we make pronouncements about how this or that card sucks [i > don't, personally, always adhere to this, but am aware that i should]. > Come to that, there is a class of players who do not compete much and > who probably do not read the NG but who DO buy and play with the cards, > for whom the inclusion of mummify might be quite important: i refer, of > course, to the role-players, who treat the game as really just an > extension of VtM. Just because most of us do not like this approach much > nor want to play with such people, does not mean that their angle is an > invalid one. Furthermore, such people are potentially a recruiting > ground for the game - our group has recently at least doubled in size, > entirely because John Keech has a foot in both camps and has > successfully persuaded many of his fellow role-players [Hi Steve!] to > adopt the CCG. > > Tell me about it! :) Around here more then 80% of the V:TES players are at least former, if not current V:TM players. Much easier to recriut from their ranks. And they absorb he game quicker than clueless players who have to grasp the whole of the Caine myth, Methuselah愀 etc.. when they first learn the card game. > > > > > > i think we should distinguish between cards that used to be good but > > > have become bad because of rules changes, and cards that were always > > > bad. Mummify falls into the former category so it is worth thinking > > > about whether it could be restored to usefulness, and whether the cost > > > of doing so makes the overall effort worthwhile. Therefore i applaud the > > > intention of the thread, because i think Mummify could be fixed cheaply > > > and easily and reintegrated into the Mummy subtheme of the game, and all > > > that WITHOUT tiresome errata, reprints and suchlike - YMMV, of course. > > > > Ummm... only Mummify has NOTHING to do with mummies... at all... you > > don愒 become a mummy when you use the power. And WoD mummies aren愒 > > wrapped and embalmed zombies that rest in sarcophagii. Only the name > > is similar... a new card that is based on the power in the RPG (as are > > 80% or more of all discipline cards, like it or not > > Vampire-RPG-haters), in this case the evolved and modified mummify > > would be nicer IMHO. :) > > i'm sure you are right from the RPG point of view, and i'm not against > this approach to card design in general, nor your card in particular. i, > however, come from the position that the RPG is only one angle on > supernatural beastiekind, and that not everything vampires [especially > vampires of a given clan] think is true, actually is. From my reading of > various White Wolf games, even of different clan handbooks within the > VtM game, this is also how the WoD game designers think. From this point > of view i'd suggest that Mummify and Mummies ARE related, and that it > would be perfectly proper to have "large-scale" effects that conflated > the two. For example, the British Museum card i suggest as a fix for > Mummify could be envisioned as tame Egyptologists who because of their > general expertise would know that there was something odd about this > ordinary mummy compared with that vampiric one, thereby giving you some > arcane advantage, represented as pool. VtES i see as a large-scale RPG, > in which such effects could be implemented. > > Well, now that the "canon" WoD is dead, they can make anything up. I do hope they use some, if not most of the ideas still waiting to be used from the RPG. And if they feel like it they can "link" any two cards in the game thematically, some just require a whole lot more effort than others hehe... But I can assure you that in the extinct WoD Mummify and mummies (bane or not) had VERy little to do with one another hehe... Not that this means anything now... > > > > > > Phobia is a card in the latter category [always bad]. The only way to > > > fix Phobia back towards what i imagine was designer intent would be to > > > make the counter addable during EACH Methuselah's master phase. Reading > > > between the lines i imagine this was tried during playtesting and shown > > > to be broken, whereupon instead of just ditching the card it was printed > > > in nixed form. If my analysis is right then revisiting Phobia would just > > > be a waste of time - any AH playtesters from way back then and working > > > for another company like to comment? > > > > > > > How would it be broken f it gained a counter during each methuselah愀 > > master phase? We愉e not talking about Temptation here... Let愀 not > > forget that Phobia would only work ONCE a turn against ONE minion > > protecting ONE of your BLOCKING FoS if the game has 5 players.... less > > than that and it starts getting impossible to rely on... > > Not having playtested AH i don't KNOW why it would be broken. It just > seems to me that designer intent must have been that it should acquire a > counter every Methuselah's master phase, but now that is not what the > card says. So somewhere along the line [my GUESS would be after > playtesting, and that the change took place because some clever > Methuselah figured out a way to break it] the card got nixed. But maybe > i am being too subtle - it's clear that there were a number of cockups > in the conception and execution of AH, and perhaps this is just another > of those. In that case, Phobia MIGHT be worth a revisit - but i would > like to know how it fared in original playtesting first, cos i hate > reenacting other people's mistakes. > > I haven愒 playtested anything (regrettably... I悲 love to try though!) but I have tried to make decks that use the FoS constantly for all this time, and Phobia was/is only better than Eyes of the Serpent when compared to other Serpentis or FoS cards. Even used it as gaining a counter each methuselah愀 master phase as the original text suggested. Never could get one to work more than twice in any game. From one-on-ones to 6 players tables... The card was bad already and got wallpapered to the Nth degree as it is. Pity... I love the art on it! As I love the art on the Grand Temple of Suck... hehe... Since CE came out, or even before, I gave up on Phobia though... so maybe there is some new, wierd, full-of-moving-parts combo using it that I don愒 even imagine. ;) > > > <snip another new card suggestion on which i'm not qualified to comment> > > > > Why are you not qualified to comment? :) > > Because i know next-to-nothing about the RPG and how it has developed. i > only read the stuff, you see [i think VtM is VERY cleverly-written, and > that second edition VtM and VtDA are worth reading in their own right]. > i did try to play several of the RPGs but lost interest because [1] i > don't like vampires, [2] i don't like mages, [3] i DEEPLY dislike > treehugging Armageddon-merchants, even hairy ones, [4] my Changeling > troupe quite literally died, [5] i never met ANYONE who wanted to play > Wraith, and finally [6] i think the botches mechanic in the Storyteller > games sucks, because the chance that something will go terribly wrong > increases the better you become at doing it. Alright, finally finally > [7] i'm an old-time DnDer and Lovecraft fan and [probably in direct > consequence] i much prefer the d20 Call of Cthulhu game to any > Storyteller game. > > Well, you could comment on what you think of the card based purely on V:TES. Scrap the theory behind it... does it seem viable for V:TES? Balanced? One thing I found out is that my WoD RPG knowledge makes it very easy for me to think up card concepts for V:TES. Lately i扉e been trying to drop this since the WoD now may not have anything to do with how the game pregresses. :) Daniel. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daniel Figueiredo expounded: > > > > >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) > > > > if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. > > > > If Temptation had never been printed serpentis would be the most > useless discipline of all. Period. Sounds good to me. then again it's just possible that they might have printed something else.. don' you think?

> >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) > > if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. > > salem Hmm... I remember you trading to get more Mind Rapes. So taking control of vamps with Dominate = good, but with Serpentis = bad. It must be cos Serpentis is overpowered in other ways. After all, the FoS get all that easy bleed bounce and vote defence, so they have no trouble staying alive while waiting for the Temptation effect to be triggered... whereas if you are playing with DOM, you can't really deal with bleed, so you just cross your fingers, and hope they don't have blasters :-)

On 26 Jun 2004 20:01:04 -0700, icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) scrawled: >> >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) >> >> if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. >> >> salem > >Hmm... I remember you trading to get more Mind Rapes. So taking >control of vamps with Dominate = good, but with Serpentis = bad. permanent repetative once-in-play stealing of my vampires of any age = bad. stealing for 1 turn my younger or specifically untapped vampire (mind rape, spirit marionette) = well, bad for me, too. but feels a lot more balanced. >It must be cos Serpentis is overpowered in other ways. After all, the >FoS get all that easy bleed bounce and vote defence, so they have no >trouble staying alive while waiting for the Temptation effect to be >triggered... whereas if you are playing with DOM, you can't really >deal with bleed, so you just cross your fingers, and hope they don't >have blasters :-) just because all their other cards are so crap doesn't mean it's ok for temptation to be so freaking good. and up until resilient mind and diamond thunderbolt there wasn't too much i could do to _prepare_ for it, without having to totally refocus a deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3lbtd09qisrglfjm8...@4ax.com>... > On 26 Jun 2004 20:01:04 -0700, > icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) scrawled: > > >> >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) > >> > >> if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. > >> > >> salem > > > >Hmm... I remember you trading to get more Mind Rapes. So taking > >control of vamps with Dominate = good, but with Serpentis = bad. > > permanent repetative once-in-play stealing of my vampires of any age = > bad. > stealing for 1 turn my younger or specifically untapped vampire (mind > rape, spirit marionette) = well, bad for me, too. but feels a lot more > balanced. > I forgot about the need-to-be-older thing. Still a relevant comparison, cos they do roughly the same thing, and MR is just one facet of the glory that is DOM, whereas Tremptation is one of the *very few* good reasons to play FoS. MR is the cream on the cake - Temptation is cream with no cake. > >It must be cos Serpentis is overpowered in other ways. After all, the > >FoS get all that easy bleed bounce and vote defence, so they have no > >trouble staying alive while waiting for the Temptation effect to be > >triggered... whereas if you are playing with DOM, you can't really > >deal with bleed, so you just cross your fingers, and hope they don't > >have blasters :-) > > just because all their other cards are so crap doesn't mean it's ok > for temptation to be so freaking good. I kinda beg to differ, but only kind of. That is, I agree that there is indeed such a thing as a card being too good, no matter what. IMO, if Temptation was instant, it would indeed too good... but cos it's kinda slow, and the FoS are kinda (very) frail, that makes it a gamble as to whether you will be in the game long enough to nick Etrius with Temptation, so I disagree with you thinking Temptation is TOO good. Remember that tournament round where Ben swept with big bleeds, and the whole game took 7 turns? You can't do that with Temptation. Remember when Dom won the final and made all those people most unhappy with his AR deck? Temptation ain't that rude. And so on. Soapbox: Rubbish disciplines need *something* to encourage people to play them. I'd be happy to see the jewels in the FoS crown (FoC and Temptation) be weakened, for example to to see Temptation get an "only younger" clause to bring it into line with Mind Rape (remember that Temptation already has the restriction of being slow, and being playable by relatively few vampires), but ONLY if a bunch of their other cards got a boost at the same time, to give you a reason to play the clan / discipline. Eg, if Summon the Serpent became cheap, multi-use and built-in stealthy like Govern, if Mummify became as useful as Obedience, Lure of the Serpent got stealth like Far Mastery, and so on... That is, if Temptation got cut back from it's current greatness to be "merely" good, like Mind Rape, it would be nice to see other FoS stuff get lifted, to be as good as all the other stuff that goes with MR. > and up until resilient mind and diamond thunderbolt there wasn't too > much i could do to _prepare_ for it, without having to totally refocus > a deck. You traded away every copy of Golconda you owned? That would be your own fault, not a card balance issue :-)

On 27 Jun 2004 21:25:14 -0700, icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3lbtd09qisrglfjm8...@4ax.com>... >> On 26 Jun 2004 20:01:04 -0700, >> icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) scrawled: >> >> >> >I´m glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) >> >> >> >> if Temptation had never been printed i'd be a happier chappie. >> >> >> >> salem >> > >> >Hmm... I remember you trading to get more Mind Rapes. So taking >> >control of vamps with Dominate = good, but with Serpentis = bad. >> >> permanent repetative once-in-play stealing of my vampires of any age = >> bad. >> stealing for 1 turn my younger or specifically untapped vampire (mind >> rape, spirit marionette) = well, bad for me, too. but feels a lot more >> balanced. >> >I forgot about the need-to-be-older thing. Still a relevant >comparison, cos they do roughly the same thing, and MR is just one >facet of the glory that is DOM, whereas Tremptation is one of the >*very few* good reasons to play FoS. roughly the same thing? Temptation just keeps on keeping on. Mind Rape does it's thing once. at twice the cost. in a discipline that doesn't have a native stealth card (ok, now i'm stretching, but still...) >MR is the cream on the cake - Temptation is cream with no cake. temptation is spooge in the eye. >> >It must be cos Serpentis is overpowered in other ways. After all, the >> >FoS get all that easy bleed bounce and vote defence, so they have no >> >trouble staying alive while waiting for the Temptation effect to be >> >triggered... whereas if you are playing with DOM, you can't really >> >deal with bleed, so you just cross your fingers, and hope they don't >> >have blasters :-) >> >> just because all their other cards are so crap doesn't mean it's ok >> for temptation to be so freaking good. > >I kinda beg to differ, but only kind of. That is, I agree that there >is indeed such a thing as a card being too good, no matter what. > >IMO, if Temptation was instant, it would indeed too good... but cos >it's kinda slow, it's only slow where the guy you're tempting has more than one blood. and then once it goes off, the tempter usually has ways and means of keeping your blood low. > and the FoS are kinda (very) frail, that makes it a >gamble as to whether you will be in the game long enough to nick >Etrius with Temptation, so I disagree with you thinking Temptation is >TOO good. you just had to bring up etrius, didn't you? once of my most bitter temptation moments was when my 'cross table buddy' (eugene C., sydney) rushed etrius (who had a temptation on him) cross table with theo to keep me in check. he slapped etrius just enough such that during my predator's turn (chris A., sydney) could activate the temptation. etrius was tooled up. ankara, pulse, rutor's, maybe a bleed retainer? i thought i might be ok. deflection in hand, an intercept card in hand, an untapped Justine with 3 blood. but _NO_. etrius action #1: steal 3 blood off justine using etrius's special. i try and block with my intercept, down comes a _free_ Forgotten Labyrinth, because he has obf, whih the setite pred was using, and ankara, so it was free. action #2 after untapping with my rutor's, bleed me out. at stealth. and i can't deflect because i had no blood left. see, that's why temptation is wrong. (ok, so i am very biased on this point. :D ) >Remember that tournament round where Ben swept with big bleeds, and >the whole game took 7 turns? You can't do that with Temptation. you probably could have slowed the game down by playing tempation on his guys, if you were his predator. or grand prey. >Remember when Dom won the final and made all those people most unhappy >with his AR deck? Temptation ain't that rude. And so on. correct. AR is broken too. ;P >Soapbox: > >Rubbish disciplines need *something* to encourage people to play them. > >I'd be happy to see the jewels in the FoS crown (FoC and Temptation) >be weakened, for example to to see Temptation get an "only younger" >clause to bring it into line with Mind Rape (remember that Temptation >already has the restriction of being slow, and being playable by >relatively few vampires), but ONLY if a bunch of their other cards got >a boost at the same time, to give you a reason to play the clan / >discipline. Eg, if Summon the Serpent became cheap, multi-use and >built-in stealthy like Govern, if Mummify became as useful as >Obedience, Lure of the Serpent got stealth like Far Mastery, and so >on... not sure i like you exact fixes, but i agree with your concept. 'fix' the disciple as a whole. bring it's crap up to speed, bring it's 'jewels' down a peg. >> and up until resilient mind and diamond thunderbolt there wasn't too >> much i could do to _prepare_ for it, without having to totally refocus >> a deck. > >You traded away every copy of Golconda you owned? That would be your >own fault, not a card balance issue :-) well, sometimes you don't get to golconda before they do the nasty. and sometimes, you play with vamps of cap 7 or less. just sometimes. (at least you weren't able to _use_ the razor bats you heidleburg'd off my Ferox....bi-atch) [ quoted text not captured ]

icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) wrote in message news:<614f2a39.04062...@posting.google.com>... > salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3lbtd09qisrglfjm8...@4ax.com>... > > On 26 Jun 2004 20:01:04 -0700, > > icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) scrawled: > > > > >> >I惴 glad that more people see how bad the FoS cards are though! :) [ quoted text not captured ] Couldn愒 have said it better myself! :) Agree 100% Serpentis is only MILDLY strong in a non-competitive, "for-fun" environment, where Dominate, Auspex and other tried-and-true strong tactics take a back seat to new ideas, deck testing and weird "can愒-die-without-seeing-this-work" tactics... And FoS aren愒 the worst clan simply because they have access to Stealth Bleed easily, albeit without any bleed defense. Daniel.

> >I forgot about the need-to-be-older thing. Still a relevant > >comparison, cos they do roughly the same thing, and MR is just one > >facet of the glory that is DOM, whereas Tremptation is one of the > >*very few* good reasons to play FoS. > > roughly the same thing? Temptation just keeps on keeping on. Mind Rape > does it's thing once. at twice the cost. in a discipline that doesn't > have a native stealth card (ok, now i'm stretching, but still...) > MR decks seize their victims fast - no waiting, compared to Temptation. MR decks hit their victims harder too - Ventrue in particular don't need to use many cardslots to stay alive, and have FOR in clan, so they can more easily devote more cards toward hammering their MR victims with stuff like Force of Will and Day Operation. Those differences makes MR and Temptation comparable, I think. Also, I note that on the TWD archive, the numbers of MR and Temptation are roughly similar (I didn't count them), even though Temptation is a *lot* easier to get multiples of. Re: native stealth on Dominate. You could make a Roman Polanski theme deck focusing on Dominate's stealth alternatives - use Toreador with dom, and key cards would be The Sleeping Mind, Seduction, Mind Rape, plus Vast Wealth, Lolita, Aching Beauty, Obsession, Kindred Society Games, Banishment, and a few key locations (The Louvre, Palatial Estate, US Powerbases etc). > >IMO, if Temptation was instant, it would indeed too good... but cos > >it's kinda slow, > > it's only slow where the guy you're tempting has more than one blood. > and then once it goes off, the tempter usually has ways and means of > keeping your blood low. If you get hammered cos you put a good vampire onto 1 blood with a Temptation deck next door, that's your own fault. > > and the FoS are kinda (very) frail, that makes it a > >gamble as to whether you will be in the game long enough to nick > >Etrius with Temptation, so I disagree with you thinking Temptation is > >TOO good. > > you just had to bring up etrius, didn't you? once of my most bitter > temptation moments was when<snip> I was there. I even cloned the deck that hosed you: In Melbourne, it didn't work, my vamps got torn up and went to torpor. I re-worked it to fetch a meat-shield of Shambling Hordes, and now it does quite well. But the Hordes and discardable allies, plus the 13 Blood Dolls for quick bloat, on top of the stealth and usual stuff, means I can only afford about 10 slots for offence. If those 10 slots were less good, this deck would bite monkeys. Little stinky ones. > >Remember that tournament round where Ben swept with big bleeds, and > >the whole game took 7 turns? You can't do that with Temptation. > > you probably could have slowed the game down by playing tempation on > his guys, if you were his predator. or grand prey. > Kind of. Temptation alone would be too slow. In a 7 turn game, if the tempt was played in turn 3, you could nick Chandler on turn 5 or 6, by which time Ben already has VP's in the bag. I did manage to outlive Ben (next round of that tournament) when he was my predator, but that's cos his predator put pressure on him, I was throwing all my Temptations and Free States Rants backwards, plus other players were collaboration to help my votes, *and* to torporise his vampires once I had control of them. So that wasn't about Temptation hosing a good deck, it was about 4 players ousting a single table-threatening player, who had no intercept *and* no vote defence. If he had been able to shut down just one FSR, he would have had me. As it was, I didn't outlive him by much :( > >> and up until resilient mind and diamond thunderbolt there wasn't too > >> much i could do to _prepare_ for it, without having to totally refocus > >> a deck. > > > >You traded away every copy of Golconda you owned? That would be your > >own fault, not a card balance issue :-) > > well, sometimes you don't get to golconda before they do the nasty. > and sometimes, you play with vamps of cap 7 or less. just sometimes. You can use Social Ladder with most vamps, and/or Golconda with the big ones. You can stick those in any deck, and they are generally useful, plus they defend against Temptation better than Archon Investigation defends against bleed - because you can get several turns warning before the Temptation goes off - enough time to cycle to a Golconda, fish it out of your Storage Annex, or whatever. > (at least you weren't able to _use_ the razor bats you heidleburg'd > off my Ferox....bi-atch) > Heh.