Praxis Seizure: Kansas City Results

V:EKN Tournament Report Event: Praxis Seizure: Kansas City Date: June 10th 2000 Organizer: Shawn Harrison City: Kansas City Format: Constructed # of players: 8 # of rounds: 4 # First Last City VEKN-# old rounds new 1 Steve Wyatt Kansas City 2190002 2912 4 3086 2 Jeff Thompson Austin,Texas 2030005 3053 4 3095 3 Pamela Freese Kansas City 2190005 3000 4 3034 4 Austin Souder Omaha, Nebraska 2190004 3000 4 2995 5 Drew Freese Kansas City 2190006 3000 4 2941 6 Kevin Heflin Kansas City 2190010 3000 3 2939 6 Russ Merchant Kansas City 2190007 3000 3 2937 6 Jessica Reppert Kansas City 2190008 3000 3 2938 I just got back from Praxis Seizure: Kansas City which took place at ThunderCon in Overland Park, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City. The convention was held primarily by ThunderCastle Games, the makers of Highlander, and by the local role-playing groups. For most of Friday and Saturday, there were as many VTES players as there were Highlander players. We had eight players with Shawn Harrison acting as judge/coordinator. We had some confusion from players Russ & Jessica as they had only played it 1-on-1, and did not really have effective decks for multi-player games. At the last minute, they had to add cards to get up to the tourney minimum of 60 cards, and they had much confusion about card limits and/or the lack thereof. We played 3 rounds of 2 tables with 4 players per table. In the first round, Drew swept his table with a traditional Malkavian stealth bleed deck, but he failed to gain another victory point during the tournament. I (Jeff) swept my first table as well, with a Legacy of Pander deck that was able to take 1 victory point in every game in spite of deflected bleeds being pumped against me in every game after the first. There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will still do that as a house rule. In the second round, Steve managed to sweep his table once I was on a different table, with Toreador bleed / light intercept deck. On the other table, I took one victory point, and Austin took the other three with a Weenie Obfuscate Night Moves Spying Mission deck. In the third round, I took one victory point against a table with 3 decks with light intercept, and Pamela took the other 3 by using her Sudden Reversals against my Information Highway the first turn, and my Protected Resources about halfway through. Austin took one victory point, and Steve took the other three at the second table in the third round. Going into the finals, we had the following victory point distribution: Pamela 3 Drew 4 Austin 4 Jeff 6 Steve 7 Austin bled Pamela, who bled Drew, who bled Steve, who bled me, and I bled Austin. There was quite a bit of bleed bounce in the final round, and I took 3/4 point bleeds from Pamela, Drew, and my predator Steve before all was said and done. I had ousted Austin, and Pamela had ousted Drew. Steve managed to play a Misdirection on my three untapped Pander, and bled me for 6 (total) with all of his minions, to oust me. Steve was then able to wear Pamela down enough to finish her and take first place. Final victory points: Steve 3 Jeff 1 Pamela 1 Austin 0 Drew 0 The first three rounds were lightning quick with only 4 players per table, and we had finished them and taken an hour lunch break when we started the finals at 2 p.m. We started the first round about 9:30 - 9:45 after everyone finished cataloging their decks. Hopefully, Shawn will post the winning deck, and possibly the rest, soon. After the finals, we played 3-4 games so that Shawn could play, and then headed over to Pamela and Drew's place for a little barbeque and 3-4 more games. A good time was had by most, with the possible exception of Russ and Jessica, as they disappeared after the first three rounds, and were not heard from again. Hopefully, they will get in touch with Shawn and play with the others again. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Hi :)) I'm sorry if this doesn't really have anything to do with the tournament, but I'm a bit confusd by one particular remark in the report. ********** >There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to >target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their >way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned >in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and >the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it >did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will >still do that as a house rule. ********** In the VTES online rulebook I found this. ********** 6.1.1. Bleed Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however. ********** So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with a "computer hacking" ?? I realise this question must have been asked a thousand times before, but I just can't find a definite answer anywhere. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out !! Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn.

In article <8i3jg4$u8o$1...@news.univ-metz.fr>, "Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn" <Jan-Christoph...@supelec.fr> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] With Computer Hacking you can *bleed at +1*, and by default, you can only bleed your prey, so this makes you bleeding your prey for +1. If a card says "bleed your prey *or predator*" or "bleed any Methuselah" than you can do just that, otherwise, always bleed your prey. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn. > You can't bleed anyone except your prey unless a card text allows it - Night Moves, Kindred Spirits, Cat burglary, Donatien and Raphael Giovanni are examples of exceptions to the rule. The confusion arises because at one time you COULD use a D-action bleed to bleed ANYONE. This was a pre-LSJ RT ruling and i don't think i'm giving away any secrets when i say that LSJ himself argued long and hard against the ruling, and then reluctantly but loyally enforced it, until he got control of the RT when it was one of the first things he changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i3jg4$u8o$1...@news.univ-metz.fr>, "Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn" <Jan-Christoph...@supelec.fr> wrote: > I'm sorry if this doesn't really have anything to do with the > tournament, but I'm a bit confusd by one particular remark in > the report. > > ********** > >There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to > >target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their > >way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned > >in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and > >the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it > >did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will > >still do that as a house rule. > ********** > > In the VTES online rulebook I found this. > > ********** > 6.1.1. Bleed > Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is > the basic means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your > minion's bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards > or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than > your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however. > ********** > > So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any > player with a "computer hacking" ?? No, you may only bleed your prey unless the card specifies another Methuselah. A (D) in the card text is always, and only, reminder text. The (D) reminds the player of the card and the blocker that only the Methuselah at whom the card is directed may block. It does not change who the card may be directed towards. Specific card text is required to do anything other than the default, "Bleed your prey". From the 7-7-98 Rules Team Rulings: Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah, one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions. # # Yeah, I know - this is a direct quote from the VTES rulebook. But it # does change the way the (D) symbol currently works [back to the # correct way] by removing the long-standing errata. Specifically, the # "(D)" symbol merely identifies (redundantly) a directed action. The # symbol does *not* address who the action can be directed at - the # rest of the text on the card should make that clear. Some errata # is introduced for expansion cards that are dependent on the errata # - but these cards have caused confusion anyway. The card-specific # errata for (D) actions is limited to the expansion cards, and then # only when necessary. See: Darius Styx, Goth Band, and PB: Mexico # City. Another important place to look, is 6.2.2 as it is the only place in the online rulebook that discusses the (D) symbol: 6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts 1. Who May Attempt to Block: The Methuselah who is the target (or controls the target) of an action may use her ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action. If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected* and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block. If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is final. As a convenience, when a card describes an action that is typically directed at another Methuselah, the card's text will usually include an encircled D as a reminder that the action is typically directed. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn wrote: > ********** > 6.1.1. Bleed > Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic > means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions > can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force > you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed > yourself, however. > ********** > > So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with > a "computer hacking" ?? Since computer hacking does not "allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey" (card text), you bleed your prey. Night Moves is a good example of a card which allows you to bleed somone else. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."

Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn wrote: > In the VTES online rulebook I found this. > > ********** > 6.1.1. Bleed > Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic > means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions > can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force > you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed > yourself, however. > ********** > > So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with > a "computer hacking" ?? > I realise this question must have been asked a thousand times before, but I > just can't find a definite answer anywhere. 6.1.6. Action Card Unless otherwise noted on the card, these actions are at zero stealth (see Stealth and Intercept, sec. 6.2.2) and can be attempted by both vampires and allies. If the action card describes a special version of a basic action, then all the rules that apply to the basic action apply to the action card, except as otherwise noted on the action card. Example: If Lupo plays Computer Hacking (text: "Action. Bleed at +1"), then all the normal rules of bleed actions (only being able to target your prey, for example) apply, except that the bleed amount is increased by one. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

I have two comments. Well actually one comment and one doubt. 1. If I'm bleeding with Constaza Vinti (+2 in bleeding when your prey controls a Ventrue)a Methusalen who controls a Ventrue,and then I'm deflected to a Methusalen who doesn't, Do I bleed +2 or 1 to the second player? 2. Can anyone post the winner deck of that Praxis? Dr.José María Segura Izquierdo Primogen of Mexico City Line of Arikel [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to > target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their > way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned > in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and > the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it > did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will > still do that as a house rule. This is something we're still wresting with in the NJL Rules Team. The problem was that the crap that Tom Wylie churned out was issued so long ago that it became part of the collective subconscious of the community. People continue to grab for any rationalization to continue to implement it...in spite of the fact that it was never supported by the rulebook, it's abusable as all hell and it encourages poor sportsmanship. ("He's got a good deck! Let's all gang up on him!" *shakes head*) I can never, in good conscience, support a game mechanism that allows an entire table of players to punish someone because they built an effective deck. Regards, Noal McDonald -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i31rs$9tl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, not in any way meant personally, but i'm happy that this time a legacy of pander deck proved not to be supreme i was under the impression that this deck was dominating many tournaments lately, but tell me if i'm wrong [ quoted text not captured ] > There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to > target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their > way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned > in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and > the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it > did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will > still do that as a house rule. > [ quoted text not captured ] > Carpe Noctem. > > Lasombra > > http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i5tei$9pk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to > > target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their > > way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned > > in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and > > the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it > > did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will > > still do that as a house rule. > > This is something we're still wresting with in the NJL Rules Team. The > problem was that the crap that Tom Wylie churned out was issued so long > ago that it became part of the collective subconscious of the community. > People continue to grab for any rationalization to continue to implement > it...in spite of the fact that it was never supported by the rulebook, > it's abusable as all hell and it encourages poor sportsmanship. ("He's > got a good deck! Let's all gang up on him!" *shakes head*) I can never, > in good conscience, support a game mechanism that allows an entire table > of players to punish someone because they built an effective deck. > > Regards, > Noal McDonald > -- > "What you cannot enforce, do not command." > -- Socrates I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can bounced bleeds. The reason that it was attempted in the tournament was that,Jeff had just called a vote and gained 10-15 pool. Good for Jeff great idea,move on his part. Pam was one prey away and had no way to get to Jeff and she was a few rounds from taking out her prey. The reason why she did it was to slow his pool gain down. She also had seen his deck gain pool in double digits. Jeff's deck was very dominating the whole tournament, but to us this is part of the multi-player aspect of the game. We would never use a D bleed to oust someone but only add that threat to the table. I know that everyone will post something about how this is wrong, but this is something that we don't abuse so it works for us. [ quoted text not captured ]

take...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I have two comments. Well actually one comment and one doubt. > 1. If I'm bleeding with Constaza Vinti (+2 in bleeding when your prey > controls a Ventrue)a Methusalen who controls a Ventrue,and then I'm > deflected to a Methusalen who doesn't, Do I bleed +2 or 1 to the second > player? No. Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome: Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue]." The general ruling/errata is: Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region * A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY-1996] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:13:23 GMT, cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can >bounced bleeds. The reason that it was attempted in the tournament was Except that if your predator doesn't bleed you for more than 1, you can't bounce a bleed (well, you can bounce bleeds for 1, but you feel very silly doing it usually). Bleed bounce is a totally reactive strategy, and if your predator objects to you bouncing his bleeds to someone else, he can either not bleed you, or quit playing modifiers on his bleeds, ie. instead of bleeding with Govern + Condition for 6, bleed with Govern for 3, and then have another vampire bleed with Condition for 4. The Deflections run out pretty quickly that way. Bleed bounce isn't abusable in the sense that (D) bleeds were - you need someone else's cooperation to oust someone with bleed bounce. >that,Jeff had just called a vote and gained 10-15 pool. Good for Jeff >great idea,move on his part. Pam was one prey away and had no way to >get to Jeff and she was a few rounds from taking out her prey. The >reason why she did it was to slow his pool gain down. She also had seen >his deck gain pool in double digits. Jeff's deck was very dominating >the whole tournament, but to us this is part of the multi-player aspect >of the game. We would never use a D bleed to oust someone but only add >that threat to the table. I know that everyone will post something >about how this is wrong, but this is something that we don't abuse so >it works for us. That's great that you don't abuse it, but the rules must allow for the possibility that someone will, so bleeds may only be directed at your prey by default. We, and many other playgroups, have found that (D) bleeding of anyone by default, even when not abused, make it too difficult to defend against your predator - the game mechanics were set up for only ONE person to easily attack you, not two or three. When you have to stop your grandpredator or grandprey as well just because you "look dangerous", it becomes unbalanced. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can > bounced bleeds. This is the very old pro-active vs reactive debate. If my predator is playing a stealth bleed deck, sure, I can bounce to wherever. However, if my predator is playing a KRC vote deck, I'm screwed. More screwed than a very well screwed screw. Bleeding doesn't depend so heavily on what other people are playing, it being a strategy I can actively develop myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

> No. > > Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome: > Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready > Ventrue]." > > The general ruling/errata is: > > Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region > * A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a > certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he > bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY- 1996] > But my question is, what happens if she's deflected? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 take...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome: > > Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a > ready > > Ventrue]." > > But my question is, what happens if she's deflected? Okay, I'm bleeding you with Constanza. You control Rufina Soledad and Gloria Giovanni. So, I'm bleeding you with +2 bleed. (3 in total.) Gloria bounces it to Random Bob sitting over there. Bob is controlling Gitane St. Clair. Since Gitane is not Ventrue, the modifier of +2 bleed cannot be applied. So, I am bleeding Random Bob for 1. If Random Bob were controlling, instead, Sir Walter Nash, I would be bleeding him for 3. [ quoted text not captured ]

take...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > No. > > > > Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome: > > Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a > ready > > Ventrue]." > > > > The general ruling/errata is: > > > > Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region > > * A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire > of a > > certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the > Methuselah he > > bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY- > 1996] > > > > But my question is, what happens if she's deflected? That was the question being answered. If you are deflected, then you are bleeding a Methuselah chosen by the person playing Deflection (see Deflection card text). Constanza gets +2 bleed when she bleeds a Methuselah who controls a ready Ventrue (see cited text above). So if the Methuselah you are currently bleeding doesn't have a ready Ventrue, she doesn't get +2 bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

As the winner of the tournament, I will post my deck. Vampires-Toreador 3-Colin Flynn Isabel de Leon 4-Demeterious Slater Dorian Strack Mariana Gilbert 5-Ramiel Dupre Felicia Mostrom 6-Kallista, Master Sculptor Adrianne Sigrid Bekker 7-Elliott Sinclair Tatiana Romanov 8-Anson Master Cards Auspex Discipline-2 Presence Discipline-4 Blood Doll-2 Ascendance-2 Misdirection-2 Sudden Reversal-2 Short Term Investment Minion Tap Major Boon Aching Beauty Society Hunting Ground Art Museum Forced Awakening-2 Marijava Ghoul-2 Palatial Estate Auspex Cards Telepathic Counter-9 Telepahtic Misdirection-11 Read Intelligence-2 Spirits Touch-2 Precognition-2 Eagles Sight Enhanced Senses Pulse of the Canille Presence Cards Majesty-12 Enchant Kindred-8 Legal Manipulations-4 Entrancement Aire of Elation-2 Propaganda Media Influence-2 Staredown-2 Catatonic Fear Social Charm-3 As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion, bleeding across the table should be allowed. If someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it has to be done. In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006140332420.889- 100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can > > bounced bleeds. > > This is the very old pro-active vs reactive debate. > > If my predator is playing a stealth bleed deck, sure, I can bounce to > wherever. However, if my predator is playing a KRC vote deck, I'm > screwed. More screwed than a very well screwed screw. > > Bleeding doesn't depend so heavily on what other people are playing, it > being a strategy I can actively develop myself. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

>As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion, >bleeding across the table should be allowed. If >someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me >with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed >them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not >abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it >has to be done. > Your example, while compelling on the surface, suffers from a problem... Why is it that you should have two opportunities to axe the vote deck? (especially when the vote deck has _one_ opportunity against you, and a frail one at that...) You get one opportunity in the referendum, where the votes on your own vampires allow you to participate and react. You also feel the need for a way of going across and bleeding him afterwards??? Sounds like overkill to me. If someone is playing a vote deck, eliminate or alter his votes, or just play DT. They'll wither away with a little time. Cross table bleed as retribution is really analogous to fixing a cavity with a sledgehammer, in this instance... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

>> As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion, >> bleeding across the table should be allowed. If >> someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me >> with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed >> them. > > Why is it that you should have two opportunities to > axe the vote deck? (especially when the vote deck has > _one_ opportunity against you, and a frail one at > that...) Consider this. A vote deck can at most, on a 5 player table, do 5 pool worth of direct pool loss (with Ancient Influence and you having no ready vampires) and that card can be played only once per game. Usually the most they can hope for is a 3-4 pool loss with KRC/CA. Keep in mind that both predator and prey can block _and_ they have often have to deal with the possibility that the rest of the table has more collective votes than they can muster. On the other hand, a bleed using a generic vampire with superior Dominate can generate a 7 pool loss (GtU/Command the Beast/Conditioning) and can only be blocked by _one_ player...the target. There is a huge balance difference between attacking someone's pool across the table with a vote deck and a bleed deck. Regards, Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Oh no!! This across the table bleeding is sometimes the only way to save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair. This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun. Jeff Prince of Cleveland

In article <2954-395...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Why would your grandpredator want to hurt you? In most cases that's not a sensible thing, he would strengthen his prey with such a move. So, I guess you get only targetted by a vote, if you appear as a threat. Perhaps you'd be able to oust your prey in the next turn, so he tries to weaken your position. But, hey, you'd be able to oust your prey, *then* harrass the vote deck with your bleeds. It's practically the same, and even better, cause you'd get the benefit of your efforts to bleed the voter, and not your prey! If a grandpredator ousts you with a vote, he is just plain stupid. You cannot defend against "stupidity", but the player will learn perhaps from his mistake. If you are targetted, because you are a weenie deck wasting away tons of pool from your prey, threatening the vote deck in the next turn, it's a perfectly viable move of the vote deck to play either Domain Challange or Autarkis Persecution, breaking the neck of most weenie decks. Weenies deserve it! :) If you want to go cross table, do it via combat: Bums Rush, Haven Uncovered. Potence guys can do the job quite good. You have to anticipate the dangers for your deck when you construct it. If you don't put a single vote-defence card in, you're the one to blame for being unable to do anything against the voter. I myself put always at least 2 Delaying Tactics in a weenie bleed or rush deck, and let one minion always be untapped. That way, I can delay the critical vote which would kill me, and give me the time to oust my prey. :) Cross table bleeds allow for collusion, and if it *was* possible, someone *would* exploit that in a tournament, that's for sure. And IMO that's a Bad Thing(tm). Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8imd8u$8vf$1...@nnrp2.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] ? Do you mean Aura reading? > Spirits Touch-2 > Precognition-2 > Eagles Sight > Enhanced Senses > Pulse of the Canille > > Presence Cards > Majesty-12 > Enchant Kindred-8 > Legal Manipulations-4 > Entrancement > Aire of Elation-2 > Propaganda > Media Influence-2 > Staredown-2 > Catatonic Fear > Social Charm-3 Congratulations! > > As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion, > bleeding across the table should be allowed. If > someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me > with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed > them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not > abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it > has to be done. > In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't agree that we should go back to that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <2954-395...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Trut...@webtv.net (Jeffrey Moore) wrote: > Oh no!! This across the table bleeding is sometimes the only way to > save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched > against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're > vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair. > This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun. Personally, I think you would have to be insane to say that cross-table bleeds are a good thing. Rationally, I would have to say the same thing, only I would back it up with the reality that base manipulation is part of Jyhad. If I can convince a newbie who is playing in the tournament for the first time to bleed upstream against my prey and create a spite-driven adversarial relationship (you bleed me so I will bleed you back), then I can guarantee (99%) that I will walk out of that round of the tournament with 2 victory points with no problems. Is this in the spirit of Jyhad? No. Does it lead to collusion? Yes. Is it fun? No. Does it make people whom have been gangged up upon want to continue to play? No. Therefore, it is not in the best interest of all the players involved. Comments Welcome Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:02:40 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: >Cross table bleeds allow for collusion, and if it *was* possible, >someone *would* exploit that in a tournament, that's for sure. And IMO >that's a Bad Thing(tm). And more importantly, cross-table bleeds allow some child who doesn't like things not going his way to be an immature little idiot and oust someone cross-table while he himself gets ousted, thus ruining the table balance and effectively skewing the results. Vote decks can -try- to do this cross-table, but it's a LOT harder to get a cross-eyed vote off since you have two people who can intercept it and four others who can just plain vote it down once it gets to the table. Cross-table bleed can only be stopped by one person: the target. The target already has two other people to worry about, his predator and prey. Making him have to worry about a third is stupid. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeffrey Moore wrote in message <2954-395...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... >Oh no!! This across the table bleeding is sometimes the only way to >save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched >against anyone. Can you see how others might view it as a crutch for inadequate defense? (sp. against vote interaction from across the table...) >This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're >vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair. >This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun. And less tournament viable as a game. For the continued support of the game (ie new cards and more players) this has to be taken into account. A majority of the people I know wouldn't be (and weren't) happy playing in a tournament with cross table bleed, as it's too easy to axe _anyone_ at the table... Multiplayer games need to be limited in their level of interaction in order to reduce collusion and kingmaking strategies. I'd have no problem playing "D bleeds go anywhere" as a house rule in your hometown. In casual play, ganging up like that is seen (oddly enough) as a sort of compliment to the players deckbuilding skill. In a tournament environment, I'd rather you beat me with a good deck of your own, rather than just gang up with multiple mediocre players... See my meaning? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Jeffrey Moore wrote: > against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're > vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair. However, the players are human. > This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun. May I suggest that you make a drink for each Methuselah at the start of the game, with one over, and randomly put hemlock into one of them. Then deal out the drinks to everyone, with one left over. More dangerous, so it *must* be more fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Personally, I think you would have to be insane to say that cross-table > bleeds are a good thing. [snip] > Is this in the spirit of Jyhad? No. Does it lead to collusion? Yes. Is > it fun? No. Does it make people whom have been gangged up upon want > to continue to play? No. > Therefore, it is not in the best interest of all the players involved. You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live, understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to. So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Sorrow wrote: > You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live, > understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing > someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. Because > [..] a vote > deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, And if you find > it is made > practically non-existant with presence. Then your environment should shift to more voting. Portsmouth tourneys (which are, in essence, a once a month play group with prizes, a lot of the time) have had a *lot* of voting vampires around. Being able to control voting has been like trying to convince the Pope that contraception is actually a good idea, after all. > Whether or not it is good > strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to. > So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote > deck, Who can interact with it, cancel the vote outright (Delaying Tactics), and have lots of other people involved in the situation (i.e. the entire table) above and beyond the restrictions placed on bleeding. [ quoted text not captured ]

Cool! Look at all the inaccurate presumptions! Field day time! On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:55:29 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live, >understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing >someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote >deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made And a vote deck has to get around two different people possibly attempting to intercept the vote, which if you're using Presence makes it a little difficult to find stealth. >practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance. >strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to. OK, so if I get a vote to the table and manage to accumulate enough votes to let it pass, I can do 3 damage to someone across the table and one to my prey. Kinda complicated for 3 pool. >So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote >deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence >bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO. Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for 5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it. *THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but cross-table voting is ignored. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F55DA61B48D5EFCD.BB10652E...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > Cool! Look at all the inaccurate presumptions! Field day time! > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:55:29 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > >You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live, > >understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing > >someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote > >deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made > > And a vote deck has to get around two different people possibly > attempting to intercept the vote, which if you're using Presence makes > it a little difficult to find stealth. > > >practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good > > Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I > had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and > attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played > superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted > me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One > Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the > time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee > a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance. > If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't vote in a Cam. Vote. > >strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to. > > OK, so if I get a vote to the table and manage to accumulate enough > votes to let it pass, I can do 3 damage to someone across the table > and one to my prey. Kinda complicated for 3 pool. > > >So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote > >deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence > >bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO. > > Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may > attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any > sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's > very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually > sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for > 5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it. > > *THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but > cross-table voting is ignored. > > -- Derek > One thing everyone is pro's and con's on how it can be wrong or right. Me personally I hate vote decks so why should I be forced to play a deck that can get votes or be forced to D attacks against a vote deck. In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew out of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit back and take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at the vote deck. By deflecting is that collusion or ok? Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Also what if the vote deck pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to block? I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always come at the right time. Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and C.B. Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the final round. And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. How else do you keep the deck in check? If you can't block or cancel votes? This happens a lot with our group. > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

> In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and > regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't > agree that we should go back to that. > I think that deck is the reason for people not wanting cross table bleeding. You are ruining the game. I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away some of that pool? The only way I would go cross table was if the decks around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be ok cuz the card says so? All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8irldi$14r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't > vote in a Cam. Vote. No, actually, you are not right. Any vampire who has votes may vote in any referendum called by any vampire unless specifically prohibited by card text. ie Closed Session, Cardinal Benediction See [6.3] Politics in the online rulebook http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html > In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole > table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew > out of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit > back and take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at > the vote deck. My prey was the first person ousted at every table I played at. How was I not focussing on my prey? > By deflecting is that collusion or ok? Deflecting is fine. Collusion is deliberately losing so that someone else can win, and it is also collusion when you do not act towards your prey, but only against your friends prey. Drew wasn't colluding, all of his actions went towards his prey, he simply wasn't fast enough that particular round. > Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Also what if the vote deck > pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to block? > > I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always > come at the right time. > > Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and > C.B. Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the > final round. And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. > How else do you keep the deck in check? If you can't block or > cancel votes? This happens a lot with our group. Speed. If Drew's deck had worked in the final the way it had worked in the first round, he could have swept in the final as well. Seating is key, if he had been my predator, he would have wiped me off the table pretty quickly. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5s645.1845$Qb1.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live, > understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing > someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote > deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made > practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good > strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to. > So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote > deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence > bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO. > > Sorrow Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the obvious. Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn- unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow) replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>. What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be petty and vengeful. Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM to stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What silliness to cast morality's dark shadow on the argument. That I didn't win after the first round only proves that Malkavian- Stealth-Bleed decks are trite and cheesy despite their occassianal lucky streaks. This game is impossible to play without a thick skin. That's part of it's warm tasty goodness. Andrew Freese LordStrange [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:08:29 GMT, cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article ><F55DA61B48D5EFCD.BB10652E...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I >> had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and >> attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played >> superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted >> me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One >> Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the >> time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee >> a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance. >> > If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't >vote in a Cam. Vote. Not so... Closed Session will let you keep all non-Camarilla vampires out of a vote, but unless card text (Cardinal Benediction has text for it) specifies otherwise, any voter can vote in any vote. >> Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may >> attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any >> sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's >> very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually >> sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for >> 5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it. >> >> *THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but >> cross-table voting is ignored. >> > One thing everyone is pro's and con's on how it can be wrong or >right. Me personally I hate vote decks so why should I be forced to >play a deck that can get votes or be forced to D attacks against a vote >deck. In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole There are three main ways your predator can oust you. He can call votes to make you lose pool. He can bleed you to make you lose pool. And he can beat the hell out of all your vampires, forcing you to spend more pool to transfer out minions. You should be defending against all 3 of these to some degree with your deck anyway, or at least be aware that your deck has no defense and be hoping to not sit next to one of those types. If you choose not to defend against votes, that's fine, but if the Ventrue sit down as your predator, you may as well bend over and get ready to take it and smile. Some defenses work better than others. Sometimes, all that's necessary to defend yourself from votes is to use a few titled vampires yourself, or just include six Delaying Tactics in your deck. >table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew out >of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit back and >take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at the vote deck. How was it doing so much to the table as opposed to its prey? And why? It doesn't make sense to me - a good Legacy of Pander deck should just drop KRC after KRC after KRC to kill its prey, once it gets enough votes on the table. It doesn't make sense to do it any other way, UNLESS there are some factors that you haven't mentioned. > By deflecting is that collusion or ok? Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Deflection requires someone else to bleed you first. It's nowhere near as abusable as (D) cross table bleeds are. > Also what if the vote deck pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to >block? Then the vote deck gets away with a lot of its votes. Its predator should be putting a lot of pressure on it anyway, but sometimes the seating position just comes good for a deck. It still has to get its votes passed, which is no picnic these days. > I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always >come at the right time. Luck of the draw happens. > Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and C.B. >Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the final round. >And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. How else do you keep >the deck in check? If you can't block or cancel votes? This happens a >lot with our group. I recommend using a lot more light intercept in your decks, then. We don't see many vote decks around here at ALL because of that - we carry a lot of light intercept, and a good chunk of combat. This is the metagame of V:TES. Vote decks will win for awhile, so people will start using more intercept and more titled vamps, then combat decks will do well, so people will start using more fortitude, then bleed decks will do well, so people will put the Deflections back in and take out the intercept... Things will change back and forth a lot. The trick is to adapt, and of course a certain amount of luck in predicting what a tournament will play like. =) -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:32:23 GMT, cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and >> regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't >> agree that we should go back to that. > > I think that deck is the reason for people not wanting cross table >bleeding. You are ruining the game. Actually, the reason is that the Malkavians and other big-bleed clans can easily spare a minion to go and bleed for 6 at heavy stealth without hurting their own chances at all. A vote deck that starts doing damage cross-table is using up its valuable votes for no reason and hurting its position - KRC's do a maximum of 3 points of damage to someone, so you need a lot more actions to oust your prey. Combat decks have a HELL of a time ousting their prey to begin with - it normally benefits them not at all to come cross-table and start casually mugging people, so you usually don't have to worry about a combat deck doing this. But big-bleed decks can hand the stuff out much too easily, and with fewer counters. It unbalances the game in favor of the bleed deck - why would anyone play anything else? And why bother to include intercept or combat in your bleed deck? Anyone threatens you, bleed them heavily and let their predator oust them. That's just too strong. > I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if >a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC But childish people will, and losing 6 pool or being ousted to a temper tantrum is crap. Someone said once, in this argument (a long time ago) "Why shouldn't I bleed him for 6 for his insolence?" This is exactly the mentality we are trying to get rid of here, and bleed decks are generally so powerful that they can TAKE the action to bleed crosstable for 6 without hurting their own position any. >that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that >wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to >a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that >just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several >times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away >some of that pool? The only way I would go cross table was if the decks Because bleed decks already have too many advantages - they win more tournaments than vote decks do, hands down. Why should they get another advantage by being able to control the WHOLE table? >around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so >everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to >go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be >ok cuz the card says so? If there was a benefit to you from doing it, sure. Combat decks are even more fragile - they NEED that freedom of action to even have a hope of survival and/or winning. If the LOP deck is a combat deck's grand-predator, it's not difficult to look at your predator and say "You'll be ousted soon and that deck will be on MY ass", and then make a deal with your predator to go kill some of the voting vampires so that you have a few extra turns to oust your own prey. > All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was >judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person. And you would probably be wrong. Cross-table bleeding isn't gone because of collusion, it's gone because it's just too damn powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:15:15 GMT, andrew...@my-deja.com wrote: >Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the >obvious. Except that it's obviously inaccurate. The contrary is also obvious. >Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they >help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn- >unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow) Legacy of Pander being broken is entirely possible. But you deal with broken cards by fixing the broken card, not making an entire class of broken deck. >replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to >play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>. Of course, you could always pack +1 intercept in your deck (KRCG, Rumor Mill), and stop the first few Legacy of Pander votes. Or play a combat deck and beat the hell out of his vampires. Or play your own vote deck and vote him down. Or play Delaying Tactics on the first LoP. Notice how all of these options bring an important balance to the game that does NOT involve making bleed decks overpowered! >What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck Sounds like he guessed the metagame right, and nobody brought any sort of vote defence or vote deck themselves. >with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to >face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not >want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be >petty and vengeful. Balls to that. It may be frustrating, but if a deck is well-built, it doesn't deserve to be just hosed by weak cross-table bleed crud. >Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round >with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM to >stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What Which you ought to have bloody well done, once you realized it was an LoP deck. If you didn't have the resources to affect an LoP deck, then you probably just didn't have the resources to affect ANY vote deck, and the LoP deck was the one that happened to show up. Again, +1 intercept. A little combat. Some titled vamps of your own. We've beaten up Todd's Legacy of Pander deck several times here in Atlanta,... it's powerful, but it's NOT foolproof. =) Much like weenie dominate bleeders. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8irmqn$20r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and > > regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't > > agree that we should go back to that. Cyrus replies: > > I think that deck is the reason for people not wanting cross table > bleeding. You are ruining the game. Yes, exactly my point. To my shame, this deck was too much for an EXCELLENT bash/burn combat deck designed by Sorrow who was my predator in an on-line game. > > I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if > a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC > that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that > wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to > a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that > just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several > times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away > some of that pool? Well, if you've got the cards for it, no problem. Kindred Spirits is good for this. The only way I would go cross table was if the decks > around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so > everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to > go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be > ok cuz the card says so? Yes, and strategically the reason combat works cross-table is because the initial effect of a good combat deck is to screw up its predator and prey. Unless it has the ability to go cross-table all this will mean is that its grand-predator or grand-prey will sweep. > > All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was > judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person. > Sorry, i'm not following your argument here. Are you saying you're in favour of cross-table bleeds but only under some circumstances? Or has some horrible hybridisation of your thoughts and somebody else's occurred? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 andrew...@my-deja.com wrote: > What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck > with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to > face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not > want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be > petty and vengeful. If you play a hard and fast mono stealth/bleed deck, you realise this and know that you will not be able to do this, should circumstances require it (in many games, it may not). If you play a vote deck, say, you know that you do have cross-table recourse, but a slightly more tricky route to victory. Similarly, if I play a bleed deck, I know that I will never be able to cross-table rush a vampire or Banish them or whatever. You know what you have when you build a deck. If you prevent yourself taking advantage of all resources, then you create your own problems. It is another of the old arguments about focus over flexibility. The 90 card deck limit in tournaments forces this constraint on you heavily, and does it very nicely, IME. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Legacy of Pander being broken is entirely possible. But you deal with > broken cards by fixing the broken card, not making an entire class of > broken deck. Indeed. I don't think it is broken, though I do feel that it is powerful. The deck is clearly beatable, but a skilled player can work wonders with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the > obvious. > > Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they > help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn- > unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow) > replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to > play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>. Whined about?!! I merely stated that which you cannot comprehend, the fact that collusion is a real danger in Jyhad especially at tournaments. I myself witnessed the dissolution of a 12 person playgroup that had formed here in Lafayette becuase of three of the members constantly colluding together. > What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck > with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to > face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not > want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be > petty and vengeful. Now who sounds like they are whining? > Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round > with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM to > stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What > silliness to cast morality's dark shadow on the argument. I would think that one would cast a little intercent on the arguement, or is that out of fashion? > That I didn't win after the first round only proves that Malkavian- > Stealth-Bleed decks are trite and cheesy despite their occassianal > lucky streaks. Sometimes no trite comment seems appropriate > This game is impossible to play without a thick skin. That's part of > it's warm tasty goodness. YUM, YUM. oh I thought you were describing a cheese (mmm, warm brie, smoked gouda...) Comments Welcome Norman S, Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8isja3$lpk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, in certain circumstances.But I understand how it can be abused. If used in the right time or situation it doesn't create a problem. We play 1-3 times a week since the game has come out barring any breaks from the game and I bet that it's only been done 20-30 times. At no time has anyone been ousted because of it. Here are the way that I use cross table bleeding: 1) If someone has just gained 10 or more pool through master phases. 2) If it is gained through 10 or more through minion stage. 3) If my pred. is tapping out every turn and not concerned with his pred. (Say his pred. is only bleeding for 1-2 around.)and the pool lose isn't affecting his game play. I WILL NOT DO IT IF THE TABLE IS BALANCED. By that I mean if everyone is hurting everyone. If Pred. and Prey are doing there job there os NO REASON TO GO CROSS TABLE OR OUT OF CYCLE. All the examples people have mentioned I all ready new about and have tried. My point has been if at the table you don't have intercept around a vote deck and one person controls the votes *and can pass them majority of the time*.(D) bleeds are a way to slow down or affect the person. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8irudj$74t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In article <8irldi$14r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > cyru...@my-deja.com wrote: > > If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't > > vote in a Cam. Vote. > > No, actually, you are not right. > > Any vampire who has votes may vote in any referendum called by any > vampire unless specifically prohibited by card text. > > ie Closed Session, Cardinal Benediction > > See [6.3] Politics in the online rulebook > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html > Good to hear that all can vote. > > In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole > > table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew > > out of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit > > back and take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at > > the vote deck. > > My prey was the first person ousted at every table I played at. > How was I not focussing on my prey? > I never said that your deck wasn't focused. I was just stating from what I saw. I was moving from table to table and back so I don't think I was watching when you ousted your prey. > > By deflecting is that collusion or ok? > > Deflecting is fine. Collusion is deliberately losing so that > someone else can win, and it is also collusion when you do not > act towards your prey, but only against your friends prey. > You also made the joke or statement about collusion. When both Drew and Steve were sending their bounced bleeds on you. > Drew wasn't colluding, all of his actions went towards his > prey, he simply wasn't fast enough that particular round. > > > Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Also what if the vote deck > > pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to block? > > > > I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always > > come at the right time. > > > > Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and > > C.B. Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the > > final round. And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. > > How else do you keep the deck in check? If you can't block or > > cancel votes? This happens a lot with our group. > > Speed. If Drew's deck had worked in the final the way it > had worked in the first round, he could have swept in the > final as well. Seating is key, if he had been my predator, > he would have wiped me off the table pretty quickly. > > Carpe Noctem. > > Lasombra > > http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra > [ quoted text not captured ]

> Yes, in certain circumstances.But I understand how it can be abused. cool, because it really, really can. we only tried it once, but yuck.. how the malk went to town > If used in the right time or situation it doesn't create a problem. We > play 1-3 times a week since the game has come out barring any breaks > from the game and I bet that it's only been done 20-30 times. At no > time has anyone been ousted because of it. > Here are the way that I use cross table bleeding: > 1) If someone has just gained 10 or more pool through master phases. > 2) If it is gained through 10 or more through minion stage. > 3) If my pred. is tapping out every turn and not concerned with his > pred. (Say his pred. is only bleeding for 1-2 around.)and the pool lose > isn't affecting his game play. > > I WILL NOT DO IT IF THE TABLE IS BALANCED. By that I mean if everyone > is hurting everyone. If Pred. and Prey are doing there job there os NO > REASON TO GO CROSS TABLE OR OUT OF CYCLE. > > All the examples people have mentioned I all ready new about and have > tried. My point has been if at the table you don't have intercept > around a vote deck and one person controls the votes *and can pass them > majority of the time*.(D) bleeds are a way to slow down or affect the > person. I'm glad you wont, but the rest of the world may not be as rational and level headed as yourself, so instead of powering up bleed decks how about these other (IMHO) valid options: 1)use the bleed anyone cards to slow them down, 2)play an intercept deck and use the ocasional eagles sight, 3a)if you really want to play a bleed deck, may i suggest Brujah Presence Bleed, , Stick a few strikes into the Brujah deck (makes sense anyway) and a few bums rushes and if they gain 10 life, kill one of their vampires (not to mention, all those tiny tiny Brujah Princes [why cant the Ventrue get a Prince at cap 5!!!???] and the tons of primogen in the clan} 3b)or Ventrue Presenc.Dominate, the Ventrue for the votes, plus you get Elder Kindred Network, for added fun and wicked fortitude unblockable bleed. These are all valid ways to stop a vote deck, i know, mine has been stopped by some, i have used others. My deck is no longer just a vote deck as a direct consiquence. If you really want something to complain about though, how about a restructurance and bleed to really piss off those Malk types. <Huge Grin> that worked a few times in my meta-game </Huge Grin> Cameron When we crucify a man, he should confounded stay crucified..." [ quoted text not captured ]

andrew...@my-deja.com wrote: > Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be > petty and vengeful. Wow. I think you just convinced me right there why cross-table bleeds should be disallowed. If I ever find myself in a group where the players express sentiments like yours, it will probably be the last time I play in that group. -David