What's wrong with WwEF???

In article <3jf9of$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > 740926...@v9001.ntu.ac.sg writes: > > >What is this fascination with WwEF??? It's not as if not everyone can use > it. > >So it's an indispensable card... Too many of it won't help you that much. > You > >still have to strike a balance with the number of them you put into a > deck. > >Take Magic for example... How often would someone playing white NOT put > >disenchants into his/her deck? How often would someone with 40 > Disenchants in > >his deck win? > > Too many won't help, but 10 or 12 is almost always good. That's way too > many for players who haven't bought boxes and boxes of cards, and I don't > want the admission price too high. It also detract from deckbuilding to > have "always include" cards. Decks have maximum variety and interest when > every card is a choice. > > The analogy with Magic is exactly my point. Winning a Convention Magic > tourney requires a $500 to $1000 dollar deck. Said player cannot be > played against effectively without a similar deck. There is a very small > set of cards from which almost all powerful decks are drawn - Ancestral > Recall - Demonic Tutor - Fireball - Disenchant - Channell - Black Vise. > > I do not wish Jyhad to be a game playable only by rich folks and used card > salesmen [sic]. I also appreciate variety in deck design. Hence my > problem with WwEF. > > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) i dont' understand why there is all this talk about unbalanced cards. i really think jyhad is pretty good about that. sure, you'll get hit with a fame-day operation now and then, but you could always eat that fame guy alive first, or give him and XTC laced blood when he has to hunt. but not to get into a converstation of counters for combos.... basically, we made up a house rule that put a limit on cards to a max of 4 each and 1 unique (perdeck of course). we've found that this eliminates the abuse of WwEF and cards like majesty which are butt common and fairly powerfull. since i've played for nearly 8 months now (pretty heavily too) i've seen most all the decks you can make. granted our house rule eliminates degenerate decks, i think it is for the better, because our games are still fantastic but without the crap about card abuse. i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than that. cheers Harpua:)

In article <3jf9of$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >740926...@v9001.ntu.ac.sg writes: >Too many won't help, but 10 or 12 is almost always good. That's way too >many for players who haven't bought boxes and boxes of cards, and I don't Have you ever played with a deck with 10 or 12 WweF's in it? I would have a very hard time justifying that in any of my decks. More than 3 or 4, and you have to start pulling other pieces of strategy out of the deck. Nothing blows chunks more than churning through your celerity combat deck and filling your hand with WwEF's (add analagous situations for other clans. I'll provide them if necessary). This assumes a 4 or 5 player game. Yeah, they're not hard to get rid of, but in a deck that cycles quickly (and in some cases you *need* that ability), they can clog your deck up in a crucial combat/action/bleed or whatever. >I do not wish Jyhad to be a game playable only by rich folks and used card >salesmen [sic]. I also appreciate variety in deck design. Hence my >problem with WwEF. Agreed. The first concern is to make the game the best it can be. Personally, I think WwEF (and any other 1 card strategy except maybe Misdirection) is self limiting, and isn't a problem. Besides, when given the choice I'll use Rat's Warning and Cat's Guidance any day... | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) >Have you ever played with a deck with 10 or 12 WweF's in it? Oh yes indeedy. You switch to larger vampires using more equipment and retainers. You get to tap all your vampires out each turn, usually getting even MORE equipment and retainers. It gets pretty gruesome. They ARE a problem for fast-cycling decks, but most abilities can be achieved with permanent effects and the results get much more reliable. Pitch your Conditionings for Pulse of the Canaille and laptops, half your intercept for sports bikes, your Fortitude for Flak Jackets, half your "gain vote" cards for Praxis Siezures and such, etc. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

What is this fascination with WwEF??? It's not as if not everyone can use it. So it's an indispensable card... Too many of it won't help you that much. You still have to strike a balance with the number of them you put into a deck. Take Magic for example... How often would someone playing white NOT put disenchants into his/her deck? How often would someone with 40 Disenchants in his deck win? My point is: don't complain about the card. Put a couple into your deck. I think you'll find that a whole bunch of them in your deck won't help you that much in the end. The GOOD thing about WwEF is that everyone can use it, and that means really ANYONE. It's also relatively common, so I don't see anything unbalancing about it at all. If someone actually plays an intercept deck that stops you doing anything you want to, pull out your concealed (and therefore unblockable) weapons and kill him. (My gaming group has enthusiastically taken to the proposed removal of the Obfuscate symbol on said CW). Each WwEF in his deck is one less combat ,master or bleeding card. Too many cards in the deck means your Powerbase: Chicago will not be seen too often...

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : : Too many won't help, but 10 or 12 is almost always good. That's way too [snip] : : Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) 10 or 12 out of how many cards i use 2 in in my 60 card deck and at most would use 5 in a 120 card deck (can't really imagine a 9+ player game) i still say rather than fill your deck with this as a strategy just leave minions untapped or else you'll just get domain challanged to death. dan edelman

740926...@v9001.ntu.ac.sg writes: >What is this fascination with WwEF??? It's not as if not everyone can use it. >So it's an indispensable card... Too many of it won't help you that much. You >still have to strike a balance with the number of them you put into a deck. >Take Magic for example... How often would someone playing white NOT put >disenchants into his/her deck? How often would someone with 40 Disenchants in >his deck win? Too many won't help, but 10 or 12 is almost always good. That's way too many for players who haven't bought boxes and boxes of cards, and I don't want the admission price too high. It also detract from deckbuilding to have "always include" cards. Decks have maximum variety and interest when every card is a choice. The analogy with Magic is exactly my point. Winning a Convention Magic tourney requires a $500 to $1000 dollar deck. Said player cannot be played against effectively without a similar deck. There is a very small set of cards from which almost all powerful decks are drawn - Ancestral Recall - Demonic Tutor - Fireball - Disenchant - Channell - Black Vise. I do not wish Jyhad to be a game playable only by rich folks and used card salesmen [sic]. I also appreciate variety in deck design. Hence my problem with WwEF. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3jgnfi$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) > >>Have you ever played with a deck with 10 or 12 WweF's in it? > >Oh yes indeedy. You switch to larger vampires using more equipment and >retainers. You get to tap all your vampires out each turn, usually >getting even MORE equipment and retainers. It gets pretty gruesome. Eeew. Larger vampires? AND equipment? How in the world do you keep your blood pool afloat? I mean, if you go below 10 around here, you're in serious trouble if someone's S&B is out. They'll squit you on principle if nothing else... >They ARE a problem for fast-cycling decks, but most abilities can be >achieved with permanent effects and the results get much more reliable. >Pitch your Conditionings for Pulse of the Canaille and laptops, half your >intercept for sports bikes, your Fortitude for Flak Jackets, half your >"gain vote" cards for Praxis Siezures and such, etc. I suppose that this makes it a matter of taste, then. I've rarely seen a Pulse go unblocked, much less a Sport Bike or a Praxis Seizure. But personally, I prefer keeping my abilities as a surprise. Bluffing is such a big part of the game that it would be a shame to play without it. Especially things like Dom, Obfs, and Thau. [ quoted text not captured ]

rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) wrote: > > i dont' understand why there is all this talk about unbalanced cards. i > really think jyhad is pretty good about that. sure, you'll get hit with a > fame-day operation now and then, but you could always eat that fame guy > alive first, or give him and XTC laced blood when he has to hunt. but not > to get into a converstation of counters for combos.... basically, we made > up a house rule that put a limit on cards to a max of 4 each and 1 unique > (perdeck of course). we've found that this eliminates the abuse of WwEF > and cards like majesty which are butt common and fairly powerfull. since > i've played for nearly 8 months now (pretty heavily too) i've seen most > all the decks you can make. granted our house rule eliminates degenerate > decks, i think it is for the better, because our games are still fantastic > but without the crap about card abuse. Peace Harpua, The group I play with doesn't restrict cards and we don't have the problems that some people are siting. Maybe we're too busy playing for enjoyment instead of blood. 8^) > i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card > that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for > a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a > D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than > that. Fame is an easy fix: Change the word "Prey" to "Controller." *Poof!* A balanced card. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

[ quoted text not captured ] I have to say I agree completely. The point of building a good deck is balance. I play against people with too many agrassive cards in their deck. They get irritated when I stealth them, diablerize them, outvote them, dodge them, and bleed them +1 at + 1 stealth. It's their own fault - maybey if they wouldn't have had 25 WwEF in their deck, they could have stopped me from bleeding them like a stuck pig :-) Anyway, I don't see the need to polute Jyhad with the same type of broad, all-inclusive card limit as in Magic. However, if a group wants them in their house rules - like ours who use five as a base, and 1 extra for each additional player - then go for it. -tony

>From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> >> i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card >> that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for >> a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a >> D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than >> that. >Fame is an easy fix: Change the word "Prey" to "Controller." *Poof!* A >balanced card. > James R. McClure Jr. You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to protect them? Another fix is for the person sending the famous vampire to torpor to lose 3 pool. That stops day ops and zip gun usage while also providing defense against your predator.

Daniel Hoffman (Daniel.B....@nd.edu) wrote: : >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> [ quoted text not captured ] : > James R. McClure Jr. [ quoted text not captured ] Fame has been ruled non-cumulative.

Daniel.B....@nd.edu (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > > >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> > > >> i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card > >> that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for > >> a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a > >> D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than > >> that. > > >Fame is an easy fix: Change the word "Prey" to "Controller." *Poof!* A > >balanced card. > > > James R. McClure Jr. > > You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to > protect them? Peace Daniel, Yes, then it would be more like other anti-vampire Master cards, like: Vampiric Disease, Masquerade Endagered, Haven Uncovered, etc. Also, it is a simple fix. Just change one word on the card. > Another fix is for the person sending the famous vampire to torpor to lose 3 > pool. That stops day ops and zip gun usage while also providing defense > against your predator. That would probably work, but would require more effort (more of a card rewrite). [ quoted text not captured ]

What do you mean Fame is unremovable. Either burn the vampire with enough agrivated damage so that he bypasses torper alltogether, or diablerize him in torper. Problem solved.

Okay, now I can add fame to the list of "abused" cards. This would bring the list up to Fame, Misdirection, Monacle of Clarity, Wolf Claws, Amaranth, Vulnurability, or any other card that can be used in an intelligent way, with proper timing, and a carefully thought out plan to provide an advantage in a game. When one builds a deck, it is critical that they have the power to REACT to things like this(Sudden Reversal, perhaps, Aramanth, or Vulnurability, Majesty, Charnas the Imp, Grave Robbing, Elysium, etc.) If one's deck can't REACT to an agressive action, it is inneffective, no matter how much damage Crusher can deal in one round. There is nothing more satisfying than beating an oponent simply because he/she cannot react to your well thought out moves. When this happens, however, some people get angry, and yell RAT on these cards, trying to det them banned. I'm trying to build a list of combos. If anyone out therwe thinks they have a combo which is impossible to block, mail it to me. I don't think such thing exsists in Jyhad. tony Beg - the watcher

[ quoted text not captured ] First, several "balancers", if you will. Sudden reversal before the fame is placed. Second, use minor boon (prevents minion from going into torpor, and prevents minion from bleeding you). Third, send the famous vampire to torpor while in combat, and use amaranth. Next. I believe that Tom decalred that Fame is not cumulative. Oh, and how would changing fame from prey to controller change anything? I wouldn't put on my own vampire, and I could put it on a minion from my prey and send that minion into torpor. Actually that makes the card safer for me. Why send my own minion into torpot, when I could do it to my prey? It does not change the balance of the card at all.

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950311...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Intimate apperal <abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote: >Okay, now I can add fame to the list of "abused" cards. This would bring >the list up to Fame, Misdirection, Monacle of Clarity, Wolf Claws, >Amaranth, Vulnurability, or any other card that can be used in an >intelligent way, with proper timing, and a carefully thought out plan to >provide an advantage in a game. When one builds a deck, it is critical Wait a sec. Any card that can provide an advantage? That's practically every card in the game!!! Wolf Claws is no more abusive than Conditioning. If someone's got Dominate, expect the extra bleed. If they've got Protean, expect aggro damage. It's that simple. I'll agree with Fame, Misdirection and the Monocle, but if your definition is that broad, you'll have to list every card in every deck I own as abusive. For that matter, maybe you should just call people who can think of a good way to use Blur abusive players. Not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950311...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> Intimate apperal <abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes: > If one's deck can't REACT to an agressive >action, it is inneffective, no matter how much damage Crusher can deal >in one round. There is nothing more satisfying than beating an oponent >simply because he/she cannot react to your well thought out moves. > Here are two one-card spoilers (non-existent) that CAN be blocked: ---------------------------- Elastic Red-Hot Iron Arms Combat, Potence, no cost Strike: 6R, aggravated, first strike (Superior) Strike: 8R, aggravated, first strike ---------------------------- 3 EASY ways to stop that: (1) Dodge (2) Strike: combat ends (Majesty, etc.) (3) Stealth, so that you don't have to fight him --------------------------- Utter Disaster Master, 1 pool Burn any one controlled vampire and any one location of your choice. In addition, your prey loses 2 pool. Cannot be played if any of the above cannot be fulfilled. --------------------------- 3 ways (1 EASY, 2 less so) to stop this: (1) Sudden Reversal (2) Use a bunch of Unnatural Disasters and Arsons, try to burn every location as soon as it comes out. (3) always keep only 1 pool Here's one more, perfectly STOPPABLE: ------------------------- Ultimate Disaster Master, 3 pool If you're still in the game in your next untap phase, your prey is automatically ousted. In that case, Utimate Disaster is burned. ------------------------- 3 ways (2 EASY, 1 also EASY with (D) bleeds) to stop this: (1) just Sudden Reversal that, dumb (2) use Wheel of Fortune/Dramatic Upheavel combos so that he never gets a turn (3) gang-up and oust him Looking at the above three examples, I'm pretty SURE that there isn't a combo that can't be stopped, even if you're given the most powerful spoilers in the world. Right? -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3jtlsc$q...@bones.et.byu.edu> "Philip R. Brown" <bro...@chem.byu.edu> writes: >> You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to >> protect them? That can easily make Bum's Rush combat decks too powerful, IMO. >First, several "balancers", if you will. Sudden reversal before the fame is placed. >Second, use minor boon (prevents minion from going into torpor, and prevents minion from >bleeding you). Third, send the famous vampire to torpor while in combat, and use amaranth. Actually, Fame absolutely needs to be fixed, but /in the other direction/. When Famous vampire goes to torpor, your prey should lose 8 pool. This doesn't unbalance the game, because the above defenses still work perfectly. Sudden Reversal beats ALL! [ quoted text not captured ]

Fame was briefly ruled to be non-cumulative, in the wake of the Army of Rats hoopla. This was reversed shortly thereafter. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3jvphh$6...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: // // Fame was briefly ruled to be non-cumulative, in the wake of the Army of Rats // hoopla. This was reversed shortly thereafter. And there are still a good number of us that would like to see it re-reversed. Day operations with double-famed vampires are far too nasty. Cumulative on different vampires is fine... two vampires in torpor, everyone takes 2, I'll take 3 each when they go there. Additional fames on the same vampire should have no effect, or be lowered to a loss of 1 pool when the vampire goes to torpor. Still think there should be a way to strip it off of vampires anyways. -- Brent Ross // "Skuld is nicer than // "Skuld is nicer than bwr...@uwaterloo.ca // Medea." -- mlvanbie // mead." -- mtompset

In article <1995Mar12.0...@cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: // In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950311...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> Intimate apperal <abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes: [Three fake really sick cards removed] // Looking at the above three examples, I'm pretty SURE that // there isn't a combo that can't be stopped, even if you're // given the most powerful spoilers in the world. Right? Actually, the rules allow for combos that can't be stopped. Ever try and avoid a Nosferatu Putresence? Basically, all you need is combat cards that work regardless of strikes. Take this for a sick card: --------- Crispy Critters (Thaumaturgy) -- Combat Target vampire in current combat takes 11 agg. damgage at end of combat. Can be played even if you have no minions in combat. --------- Ways to avoid some bastard blasting everyone elses vampires into oblivion: (1) Kill him first. (2) Kill anyone who even thinks of playing Tremere. (3) Round up all copies of the card and burn them. (4) Avoid combat all together and die of huge dominate bleeds. None of these are suitable counters to the card. As for your examples... one card (Sudden Reversal) is never an argument that a sick card is balanced. You can't assume that ever master card is balanced because they can be sudden reversaled. No one should be forced to stock their decks full of sudden reversals and hold them waiting for fames. Especially, since they don't work retroactivly. Arguing player dynamics as a balancing factor is also weak. Most players are relatively insane, as compared to the way you'd expect them to interact. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Philip R. Brown" <bro...@chem.byu.edu> wrote: > > Daniel.B....@nd.edu (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > > > > >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> > > > > >> i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card > > >> that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for > > >> a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a > > >> D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than > > >> that. > > > > >Fame is an easy fix: Change the word "Prey" to "Controller." *Poof!* A > > >balanced card. > > > > > James R. McClure Jr. > > > > You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to > > protect them? Peace Philip, You are going to force me to agree with Alan Kwan, but the examples that you give below don't refute that Fame is abuseable (highly). > First, several "balancers", if you will. Sudden reversal before the fame is placed. > Second, use minor boon (prevents minion from going into torpor, and prevents minion from > bleeding you). Third, send the famous vampire to torpor while in combat, and use amaranth. As other people have said, you shouldn't be forced to load up on SRs and hold a pile of them "just in case" your predator plays Fame. Minor Booning the Famed vamp won't prevent further abusive behavior next turn. Your predator doesn't need to send the Famous vampire into combat with you to destroy you with it. He can damage him/herself with Talbot's Chainsaw and have another minion rescue him/her; or the Famous vampire can attempt to block everytime your predator's predator does something. Eventually, that vampire is going to torpor and you will have little to do with it. > Next. I believe that Tom decalred that Fame is not cumulative. Oh, and how would changing > fame from prey to controller change anything? I wouldn't put on my own vampire, and I could > put it on a minion from my prey and send that minion into torpor. Actually that makes the > card safer for me. Why send my own minion into torpot, when I could do it to my prey? It does > not change the balance of the card at all. Of course you wouldn't put my corrected version of Fame on your own minions! Yes, you are supposed to put my corrected version of Fame on your prey's vamps, just like Vampiric Disease, XTC Laced Blood, Milicent Smith, Charnas the Imp, Society of Leopold, Masquerade Endangered, Haven Uncovered, etc. I believe that this change would bring Fame more in line with most of the other 'nasty' Master cards (see previous list). They several are designed to 'remove' a vampire from play for several turns - XTC LB & Masq Endang being good examples. This change would 'prevent' the target Meth from using that vampire for fear of it going to torpor and the result- ant loss of pool. Also, players won't ask dumb questions like "Why can't my MVH torporize my Famous vamp?" [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article Daniel Hoffman wrote: > > >> You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to > >> protect them? > > That can easily make Bum's Rush combat decks too powerful, IMO. Peace Alan, See the list of cards I made a couple of posts back. I believe that changing Fame in the manner I have specified would bring it into line with most other 'aggressive' Master cards. Yes, Bum's Rushing a Famed vamp would be a nasty combo, but that is a +0 stealth action and could be blocked (maybe Nosferatu /are/ good for something, eh, Alan?). A Renegade Garou would be better. Don't forget MVH. This doen't prevent the target vamp from defending itself, don't forget - Majesty, Earth Meld, Skin of Steel, etc. I wouldn't have suggested the change if I didn't really believe that it would bring Fame back into balance. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] and the resultant loss of pool. Also, players won't ask dumb >questions like "Why can't my MVH torporize my >Famous vamp?" Well, Fame is intended to be a card that frightens your prey into leaving a vampire alone. It's an anti-rush (especially Gangrel) card. Your proposal produces an entirely different card with an entirely different effect (relative to the player of the card). The balance of your newly proposed card is unclear. It would create a fearsome bleed equivalent for a rush deck (especially Gangrel). Rush the Famed vampire, send him to torpor (bap, 3 pool), rescue the vampire yourself (on your turn; now it's a (D) action), repeat as necessary. You get a vampire out of commision to boot, although it's two actions and 2 vampire blood. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > Well, Fame is intended to be a card that frightens your prey into leaving > a vampire alone. It's an anti-rush (especially Gangrel) card. Your > proposal produces an entirely different card with an entirely different > effect (relative to the player of the card). Peace Curt, Yes, my revision is more in line with all the other 'aggresive' Master cards. Unfortunately, instead of being a defensive card, Fame has been turned into an offensive card (I club myself w/ Talbot's Chainsaw, my MVH attacks my Famed Caitiff, etc.). If it is going to be treated like an offensive card make it more like other offensive Masters. > The balance of your newly proposed card is unclear. It would create a > fearsome bleed equivalent for a rush deck (especially Gangrel). Rush the > Famed vampire, send him to torpor (bap, 3 pool), rescue the vampire > yourself (on your turn; now it's a (D) action), repeat as necessary. You > get a vampire out of commision to boot, although it's two actions and 2 > vampire blood. Yes, this is possible, but the Famed vamps controller can block both of those actions (they are both +0 stealth). The Famed vampire could use a Dodge, a Maneuver, a Fortitude card, whatever to save itself. The way Fame is now, people are trying to make ways to snuff their prey without anyone being able to interfere (see the Tremere/Chantry/Talbot's combo). My fix would eliminate this. Since several people have argued that Rush decks are "useless" in the face of (D) bleeds, maybe this would give them purpose again. Not that Brujah/Gangrel need help, mind you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D5DKz...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> bwr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brent Ross) writes: >None of these are suitable counters to the card. True. There really is no suitable counter to the card. Which is why it isnt in the game. >Arguing player dynamics as a balancing factor is also weak. Most players >are relatively insane, as compared to the way you'd expect them to >interact. Got around fame pretty easily recently. Gangrel w/ sup. Protean. wolf companion, murder of crows. Body of sun superior, sure, the retainers died (close range) but that vampire was totally removed from the game...period. Taste of Vitae, and destroying that only Famed vampire only cost me one blood. If they "Burst of Sunlight" I Disguised Weapon/Flamethrower their cheez butt, etc. I still think Jyhad is balanced. (and still dont know why you guys [read as "most players"] worry so much about Fame.) -Geo

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >The way Fame is >now, people are trying to make ways to snuff their prey without anyone >being able to interfere (see the Tremere/Chantry/Talbot's combo). My >fix would eliminate this. Certainly your proposal isn't nearly as bad as the current monstrosity, since the target CAN interfere. My point was that you've completely changed the nature of the card, so it's not a fix for Fame, it's a new card idea. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu (Geoff Coovert) wrote: > Got around fame pretty easily recently. Gangrel w/ sup. Protean. > wolf companion, murder of crows. Body of sun superior, sure, the > retainers died (close range) but that vampire was totally removed > from the game...period. Taste of Vitae, and destroying that only > Famed vampire only cost me one blood. If they "Burst of Sunlight" > I Disguised Weapon/Flamethrower their cheez butt, etc. > I still think Jyhad is balanced. (and still dont know why you guys > [read as "most players"] worry so much about Fame.) Peace Geoff, What would you do if your predator, who is playing Tremere, Fames a wimpy (2 or 3) Tremere, puts Chantry into play, (and) equips with Talbot's Chainsaw (we'll assume that cannot or did not intercept)? You are screwed. Your predator can do three damage to you and you can't interfere in any way. S/H/It never has to fight you. They just keep throwing that three damage on Famous Tremerous and bringing FT back with Chantry. This is just _one_ example of why Fame is broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Curt, Yes,the card is different - it has been fixed and brought into alignment with the other 'aggresive' Master cards. It isn't anymore of a new card than (D) actions being directed made dozens of new cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3k4n7k$o...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >What would you do if your predator, who is playing Tremere, Fames a >wimpy (2 or 3) Tremere, puts Chantry into play, (and) equips with Talbot's >Chainsaw (we'll assume that cannot or did not intercept)? You are Hmmmm...never had this problem as there's only 1 Talbot's Chainsaw out of 7 extremely hooked players around here, but, not having fully explored this, and due to some other extenuating circumstances, I'd diablerize the famed vamp with someone like vliam andor or smudge or (ooh!) uriah. Someone really useless, so if the bloodhunt goes through I couldnt care less. After all, in the beginning of the game, this means 1 less vampire usable, so I may lose 3 pool once, but they lose: (2 or 3, cost of vamp.) + (equip cost of TC) + (any action I do while they're one minion shoter than me) That stragedy is cheezy, but not really useful. ( just offhand, could Gypsies diablerize? Doesnt sound right, but I havent checked the torpor rules lately) That would almost wind up with them losing more than me...depends. I'll haveta think about that. -Geo

Geoff Coovert (CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote: : That stragedy is cheezy, but not really useful. ( just offhand, could : Gypsies diablerize? Doesnt sound right, but I havent checked the torpor : rules lately) Gypsies (and all minions) CAN encounter vampires in torpor (if they are attempting to leave torpor under their own steam, for example) - this is one of the major things that needed to be cleared up when L.Scott created his Complete Rules Guide. (He plays a house rule that Kine cannot affect anything in Torpor in any way, and it sounded good to me...) They CANNOT diablerize a vampire that they block coming from Torpor though - this action can only be performed by a vampire. Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort sht...@duke.usask.ca | when he has forgotten his aim. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Santayana

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >Yes,the card is different - it has been fixed and brought into alignment >with the other 'aggresive' Master cards. It isn't anymore of a new card >than (D) actions being directed made dozens of new cards. Directing actions doesn't make them stop doing what they did before. Fame as you define it has almost nothing to do with Fame as it is now. Changing the target of a 3 pool loss is a very big change. I hypothesized that Fame was a card against torporization decks. As you have it, it is a card FOR torporization decks. That's a big difference. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <17361F5C7S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, Geoff Coovert <CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu> wrote: >That stragedy is cheezy, but not really useful. ( just offhand, could >Gypsies diablerize? Doesnt sound right, but I havent checked the torpor >rules lately) Nope, only vampires can perform any of the encounter vampire in torpor actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Curt, Fame isn't a card against torporizing decks as it rarely affects the controller of the vampire doing the torp'ng (your self or your predator). It hoses your prey, who, usually, has NO say in the loss of three pool. Even against the worst S&B bleeds, you COULD have enough intercept to stop it or at least deflect it. Against Fame, you just bend over and prey for vasaline. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : In article <17361F5C7S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, : Geoff Coovert <CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu> wrote: : >That stragedy is cheezy, but not really useful. ( just offhand, could : >Gypsies diablerize? Doesnt sound right, but I havent checked the torpor : >rules lately) : Nope, only vampires can perform any of the encounter vampire in : torpor actions. This is what many people play, and what was originally written by L.Scott Johnson in his Complete Rules Summary (posted here about 2 weeks ago). After sending the whole thing to Tom Wylie, however, he ruled that this was not correct. As such: Any Kine can steal equipment from your own vampire in torpor. Any Kine can block a vampire leaving torpor under its own steam. It could _not_ then perform diablerie as that is limited to Vampires; the blocked vampire would simply sink back into torpor minus 2 blood for an unsuccessful self-rescue attempt. I doubt that a Minion could go into torpor to remove a stake from a Paralyzed vampire, however, as the rulebook clearly says that only Vampires can perform 'Encounter in Torpor' actions, but in the above two cases it uses the word Minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3k77or$p...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: >: Nope, only vampires can perform any of the encounter vampire in >: torpor actions. > >This is what many people play, and what was originally written by L.Scott >Johnson in his Complete Rules Summary (posted here about 2 weeks ago). >After sending the whole thing to Tom Wylie, however, he ruled that this >was not correct. As such: > >Any Kine can steal equipment from your own vampire in torpor. Which is not an encounter action, it's an equip minion action. >Any Kine can block a vampire leaving torpor under its own steam. It > could _not_ then perform diablerie as that is limited to Vampires; the > blocked vampire would simply sink back into torpor minus 2 blood for > an unsuccessful self-rescue attempt. Which is not an encounter action, it's a block. >I doubt that a Minion could go into torpor to remove a stake from a >Paralyzed vampire, however, as the rulebook clearly says that only >Vampires can perform 'Encounter in Torpor' actions, but in the above two >cases it uses the word Minion. Which is what I said. Maybe I should have capitalized the "Encounter" part. In other words, you and Tom and I all agree about this. [ quoted text not captured ]

Perhaps one way to fix fame would be to make it a unique master card. - Taric

In article <3k77or$p...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >I doubt that a Minion could go into torpor to remove a stake from a >Paralyzed vampire, however, as the rulebook clearly says that only >Vampires can perform 'Encounter in Torpor' actions, but in the above two >cases it uses the word Minion. `Realism' argument: Look at the Encounter in Torpor action. Both Rescue and Diabolorize are logically possible only by a vampire. It takes vampire blood to rescue, and it takes fangs to diabolorize. Torpor is not a physical place. It is a state of injury of a vampire. If a kine sees a vampire in torpor, he has no means to rescue him, nor any means to diabolorize it. Therefore the Encounter torpor action is kindred only. However, if a kine is permitted access (friendly control) to a vampire in torpor, he can logically take equipment from the vampire. A kine can also interrupt a vampire in its act of self-healing (blocking an exit Torpor action). [ quoted text not captured ]

CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu (Geoff Coovert) wrote: > > In article <3k4n7k$o...@hermes.louisville.edu> > "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >What would you do if your predator, who is playing Tremere, Fames a > >wimpy (2 or 3) Tremere, puts Chantry into play, (and) equips with Talbot's > >Chainsaw (we'll assume that cannot or did not intercept)? You are > > Hmmmm...never had this problem as there's only 1 Talbot's Chainsaw out > of 7 extremely hooked players around here, but, not having fully > explored this, and due to some other extenuating circumstances, I'd > diablerize the famed vamp with someone like vliam andor or smudge > or (ooh!) uriah. Someone really useless, so if the bloodhunt goes through > I couldnt care less. After all, in the beginning of the game, this means > 1 less vampire usable, so I may lose 3 pool once, but they lose: > (2 or 3, cost of vamp.) + (equip cost of TC) + (any action I do while they're > one minion shoter than me) Peace Geoff, That's the cheapest way to do it. If your predator wants to avoid your attack on the torpored vamp, s/h/it can rescue it during their turn at the cost of two blood and still come out ahead of you (3 to 2). Just another good reason why Fame should be changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

> ( just offhand, could > Gypsies diablerize? Doesnt sound right, but I havent checked the torpor > rules lately) Only a vampire can encounter another vampire in torpor. So gypsies can neither diablerize nor rescue torpored vampires. They *could* collect equipment from "willing" torpored vampires, though (as that is an Equip action). papillo the cardinal

:In article <3joidg$1...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>, cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: :> Daniel Hoffman (Daniel.B....@nd.edu) wrote: :> : >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> :> :> : >> i'd love to get some opinions on this one. BTW, i think the only card :> : >> that is unbalanced is fame: it's cumulative, and unremovable (except for :> : >> a sudden reversal when first "cast"). i think if it was removable with a :> : >> D action at +1 stealth, it would balance the card. nothing more than :> : >> that. :> :> : >Fame is an easy fix: Change the word "Prey" to "Controller." *Poof!* A :> : >balanced card. :> :> : > James R. McClure Jr. :> :> : You mean use fame to make someone else's vampire famous so they have to :> : protect them? :> :> : Another fix is for the person sending the famous vampire to torpor to lose 3 :> : pool. That stops day ops and zip gun usage while also providing defense :> : against your predator. No way! This would make combat decks useless. Imagine Gangrel players going "I can't claw him to pieces without dying!!!" Such a change would probably make Fame even more powerful than before. Perhaps the pool loss could be reduced to 2... :> Fame has been ruled non-cumulative. That's good... there wouldn't be any point playing Jyhad if it was. How about other cards? Camarilla Exemplary? Aching Beauty?

Is it really true that Fame has been ruled non-cumulative...or is this some house rule that some people play. I've been a victim of a Fame attack so I'd really like to know what defences are available against a slow and agonizing death....... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z Zhiquan Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Tze Chin Ong <zhi...@elaine40.Stanford.EDU> writes: > Is it really true that Fame has been ruled non-cumulative...or is >this some house rule that some people play. It's a house rule, but a common one. Officially, pile 'em on. >I've been a victim of a Fame >attack so I'd really like to know what defences are available against a >slow and agonizing death........ Gee, I find death by Fame agonizing ... but hardly slow. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> Is it really true that Fame has been ruled non-cumulative...or is >this some house rule that some people play. I've been a victim of a Fame >attack so I'd really like to know what defences are available against a >slow and agonizing death....... YOu can 1. Put a few vunerabilities in your deck. 2. Kill that thing in combat (either burn it or Amaranth (sp) the thing. Granted you might lose your vampire) 3. Encounter it in torpor and kill it (harder and the same problem as in two) Be sure to put enough stealth into the action so you can kill it. Those are my suggestions. -- Guy Swartwood ____________________________________________________________________ "I maybe an idiot, but indeed I am no fool." Men at Work "My skin is cold to the human touch" Pink FLoyd "You don't know feels it to be me" Tom Petty

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) scribbles: :Tze Chin Ong <zhi...@elaine40.Stanford.EDU> writes: :> Is it really true that Fame has been ruled non-cumulative...or is :>this some house rule that some people play. :It's a house rule, but a common one. Officially, pile 'em on. Actually, I think there is a misunderstanding of 'cumulative' here... Yes, fame is cumulative, it is not unique therefore many vampire's can be famous. But no vampire can be doublely famous...or more so, a single vampire with four fame on it will only do 3 pt's to Prey when toporized, and one point each untap to each meth's in game on their turn (card doesn't read 'additional' pool loss = same argument with Anson & Rumours of Gehenna). Four vampire's, each with one fame, will each do 3 pt's to prey(12 pt's) and cause a point each untap (4 more)... :>I've been a victim of a Fame :>attack so I'd really like to know what defences are available against a :>slow and agonizing death........ :Gee, I find death by Fame agonizing ... but hardly slow. Any vampire in Topor is asking to be diablerized... with a good political deck, one needed fear the Bloodhunt either. Of course some Vampire (read Catiffs) were made to be expendable... Seb.

In article <D5DLB...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, bwr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brent Ross) writes: |> In article <3jvphh$6...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, |> Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: |> // |> // Fame was briefly ruled to be non-cumulative, in the wake of the Army of Rats |> // hoopla. This was reversed shortly thereafter. |> |> And there are still a good number of us that would like to see it |> re-reversed. Day operations with double-famed vampires are far too |> nasty. Cumulative on different vampires is fine... two vampires in |> torpor, everyone takes 2, I'll take 3 each when they go there. Additional |> fames on the same vampire should have no effect, or be lowered to a loss |> of 1 pool when the vampire goes to torpor. Still think there should be |> a way to strip it off of vampires anyways. |> |> |> -- |> Brent Ross // "Skuld is nicer than // "Skuld is nicer than |> bwr...@uwaterloo.ca // Medea." -- mlvanbie // mead." -- mtompset I have a couple of ideas (not sure if others have come up with them or not): 1) When a Famed vampire is diablerized, the vampire that commits diablerie gets the Fame (you destroy someone famous, you become famous in the process) 2) Fame only deals the 3 damage if your prey inflicts the damage that sends it to torpor. Any opinions/comments would be appreciated. Thaks. Chetan Radia. Who said life is fair? cra...@pmms.cam.ac.uk Not Idi Amin.

In article <3ks4st$a...@knot.queensu.ca>, Romu Sebastian J B <3s...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote: >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) scribbles: >:> Is it really true that Fame has been ruled non-cumulative...or is >:>this some house rule that some people play. > >:It's a house rule, but a common one. Officially, pile 'em on. >Actually, I think there is a misunderstanding of 'cumulative' here... > >Yes, fame is cumulative, it is not unique therefore many vampire's can >be famous. > >But no vampire can be doublely famous...or more so, a single vampire with >four fame on it will only do 3 pt's to Prey when toporized, and one point >each untap to each meth's in game on their turn (card doesn't read >'additional' pool loss = same argument with Anson & Rumours of Gehenna). This is not what Tom ruled. Anson and Rumors are not additive because there already exists a rule that limits master card play. Those cards change that rule, and that rule cannot be additively changed without saying "an extra" or somesuch. No rule exists on taking damage at certain times, so each card that does so does it independantly. Thus multiple fames on one vampire will each trigger off of the torpor event, and voila! Army of Rats has errata to the card text to change this. I'm not in agreement with this one, so don't argue with me (you'll be preaching to the choir), but that is the official ruling as it was explained to me on this group by Tom a couple of months ago. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chetan Radia (cra...@pmms.cam.ac.uk) wrote: : :I have a couple of ideas (not sure if others have come up with them or not): :1) When a Famed vampire is diablerized, the vampire that commits diablerie : gets the Fame (you destroy someone famous, you become famous in the process) :2) Fame only deals the 3 damage if your prey inflicts the damage that sends it : to torpor. : Any opinions/comments would be appreciated. Thaks. : Chetan Radia. Who said life is fair? : cra...@pmms.cam.ac.uk Not Idi Amin. I'm sure i have seen this before but the i think the best way to fix fame would be to make it a UNIQUE card. This would stop the cumulative problem, and also give a way to counter the card. -- ______________________________________________________ |* \|/ Chaos is the way of the World! *| | --*-- Nik Olver. | |*___/|\_________...@uwe.ac.uk________________*|

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >What would you do if your predator, who is playing Tremere, Fames a >wimpy (2 or 3) Tremere, puts Chantry into play, (and) equips with Talbot's >Chainsaw (we'll assume that cannot or did not intercept)? You are Well, because Chantry only works during your predators master phase you should have a few Vulnerabilities in your deck. With the cost of two pool you can get rid of the Famed vamp before your predator has a chance to use Chantry. ))marko -- Never try to be amusing and order something like a "pint of dishwater". Judging by the state of some of our larger brewers' beers, you just might get it. The Surrey Pub Guide