The new concealed weapon

If one peers at the new preview of "concealed weapon" long enough one may begin to suspect that the long time coaster is missing a certain obfuscate symbol on the new "icon bar". Now at the time of the original set, concealed weapon would have been a well-balanced card without a discipline requirement. It was miss-printed as an obfuscate card and the rest is history... . >Now< however the change to a disciplinless card will probably impact combat and gameplay in general more then the entire bloodlines set put together. This obviosly assumes that there wuill be no changes to .44 magnum and white wolf will not do evil, uspeakable things to the second tradition (at this point I would begin to support the latter). Beetween the jyhad set and present time the following crypt cards alone change fundamentally the power of CW: Sarah Brando Antoinette de Chapp (sp) Victor tolliver Jimmy Dunn And by far the biggest one: Volker I am not even going into the ally/non CEL uses, since IMO the CEL is what will have the most impact. BTW, Drawing out the beast is >not< a good counter to a a CEL/.44 magnum deck. Blurring for 6 is just as good as blurring for 6... Naram

On 1 Jul 2002, Naram wrote: > I am not even going into the ally/non CEL uses, since IMO the CEL is > what will have the most impact. No. Weenies with .44's are going to be the biggest impact. The decks that are already doing combat will get better; no big deal, since the only combat deck that reliably wins tournaments does so by virtue of being a weenie deck itself. Decks that were previously "fightless" could now hit back if the player wants to throw about 8-12 cards at it, plus the pool you are still paying for the weapon. But weenie decks can afford to pay the pool. These decks don't have many weak points, but two of them have always been: 1) They are, more or less, ablative, and 2) they tend to be offensively weak. Slapping 2R and a maneuver on them goes a long way to negating those weaknesses. I'm glad I'll get to finally play in the nationals before this card goes into effect. Anyone seen a new weenie balancer laying around anywhere? David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, David Cherryholmes wrote: I mean the individual vampires are weak, mainly in terms of "hit back," but also by the amount of pool damage each one is capable of inflicting. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Beetween the jyhad set and present time the following crypt cards > alone change fundamentally the power of CW: > > Sarah Brando > Antoinette de Chapp (sp) > Victor tolliver > Jimmy Dunn > And by far the biggest one: Volker Hey, don't forget Nik! LSJ: Is this preview an official announcement of Concealed Weapon's new discipline requirement, allowing us use of it in tournament play on August 1st as a disciplineless card? Or, must we wait one month from the release of the Cam set (barring an official announcement before that)? In Georgia, it is a felony to abandon a corpse. --Brian

[ quoted text not captured ] well weapon hoosers: DotB Terror Frenzy Cannine Horde Fast Hand Shatter Fractured Armament Immortal Grapple Blood Rage another one in THA there is one in CHI also... WELL, DO NOT PANIC, weapons is not that strong > > Naram -- TzimisceLord http://myvtes.free.fr http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr

Brian wrote: > LSJ: Is this preview an official announcement of Concealed Weapon's > new discipline requirement, allowing us use of it in tournament play > on August 1st as a disciplineless card? Or, must we wait one month > from the release of the Cam set (barring an official announcement > before that)? As I said in the CW thread, the new card text isn't official until the set is legal for play. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Naram" <stor...@msn.com> wrote in message news:cbc63db8.02070...@posting.google.com... (snip) > BTW, Drawing out the beast is >not< a good counter to a a CEL/.44 > magnum deck. Blurring for 6 is just as good as blurring for 6... Yaaaay time to use all those dusty far faatus =)

In message <3d218c6b$0$4290$afc3...@news.easynet.fr>, The Tzimisce Lord <Tzimis...@NOSPAM.seclogd.org> mumbled something about: >Naram wrote: >> >> BTW, Drawing out the beast is >not< a good counter to a a CEL/.44 >> magnum deck. Blurring for 6 is just as good as blurring for 6... > >well weapon hoosers: >DotB As above, all this gets you is Blurred for 6 hands instead of Blurred for 6 at range. >Terror Frenzy About to start seeing play again, but very expensive >Cannine Horde The only one that's been viable from the word "go", although most Celerity decks pack enough Dodges to avoid it. >Fast Hand >Shatter Both still suck, since they're close-range only. You can steal a Poker, sure, but you won't be able to deal with the gun. >Fractured Armament Oops, forgot to include this in the above. >Immortal Grapple non-CEL IG decks don't have enough maneuvers to catch Celerity. >Blood Rage only successful at close range; again, you'll still get shot for 6. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.02070...@petunia.mc.duke.edu... > On 1 Jul 2002, Naram wrote: > > > I am not even going into the ally/non CEL uses, since IMO the CEL is > > what will have the most impact. > > No. Weenies with .44's are going to be the biggest impact. Could be. > But weenie decks can afford to pay the pool. These decks don't have many > weak points, but two of them have always been: 1) They are, more or less, > ablative, and 2) they tend to be offensively weak. Slapping 2R and a > maneuver on them goes a long way to negating those weaknesses. Sure. But at the cost of making them not cheap anymore! 4 pool for a vampire - even with survivability - is much less of a bargain than 2 pool for a vampire. > I'm glad I'll get to finally play in the nationals before this card goes > into effect. It'll almost certainly have a big weapon-effect on the metagame. But there are plenty of weapon-hosers lying around already; to me it looks like those will just become more useful (and more often used). > Anyone seen a new weenie balancer laying around anywhere? Not yet... maybe in the next five weeks? :-) Josh waitin' for the man

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Joshua Duffin wrote: > It'll almost certainly have a big weapon-effect on the metagame. > But there are plenty of weapon-hosers lying around already; to > me it looks like those will just become more useful (and more > often used). But the broken little munchkins will have an element in their deck that is generally useful.... say a .44. People trying to counter it will have to take up deck slots with specific anti-weapon cards and hope that they sit next to a deck that uses weapons. Proactive vs. reactive. The weenie deck comes out on top. The extra pool cost means, I think, that it will bring the weenie deck back down to the level of pool-investment that average decks use. That's good. They will still break the curve on minion actions, and be more individually robust. That's bad. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020702...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > But the broken little munchkins will have an element in their deck that is > generally useful.... say a .44. People trying to counter it will have to > take up deck slots with specific anti-weapon cards and hope that they sit > next to a deck that uses weapons. Proactive vs. reactive. The weenie > deck comes out on top. Sorta. The "weapon metagame" I think will take effect more at the "combat philosophy" level than the "weenie vs others" level. That is, easier usability of weapons will make weapon combat decks much more popular/effective, which non-weapon combat decks will have to react to in one way or another. It's true that generally proactive is better than reactive, but "you spent 2 pool to make that weapon and I spent 0 to break it" may be somewhat different. > The extra pool cost means, I think, that it will bring the weenie deck > back down to the level of pool-investment that average decks use. That's > good. They will still break the curve on minion actions, and be more > individually robust. That's bad. "But it comes with a free frogurt!" "That's good!" "The frogurt is also cursed." "That's bad." Ahem. But, don't weenie decks "break the curve" on minion actions by paying only (eg) 2 pool per minion? If they're paying 4 pool per minion, they can't afford nearly as many minions, and so will not have so many actions. Sure, if they don't buy .44s for all of them, they can still afford more vampires than mid-cap/large-cap decks. But they would then not be getting the benefits of .44s on all their minions. Josh "but you get your choice of toppings!"

> >well weapon hoosers: > >DotB > >Terror Frenzy > >Cannine Horde > >Fast Hand > >Shatter > >Fractured Armament > >Immortal Grapple > >Blood Rage ...isn't someone going to mention... Darkling Trickery? It's so good. No one expects Darkling Trickery. It does a point of damage. Their strike fails. Heck, you could play three of them if your opponent Blurred! Bring it on, Concealed Weapon! --love me some Kiasyd, heslin

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6ge3iugrp1n8upc7j...@4ax.com>... > In message <3d218c6b$0$4290$afc3...@news.easynet.fr>, > The Tzimisce Lord <Tzimis...@NOSPAM.seclogd.org> mumbled something > about: > > >Naram wrote: > >> > >> BTW, Drawing out the beast is >not< a good counter to a a CEL/.44 > >> magnum deck. Blurring for 6 is just as good as blurring for 6... > > > >well weapon hoosers: > >DotB > > As above, all this gets you is Blurred for 6 hands instead of Blurred > for 6 at range. > Ravnos could care less: I block you, play DotB, we're in close I play Blessing of Durga Syn and Skin of Steel, my gun. Of course I could just take it with Fleecing The Gaje in the first place. > >Terror Frenzy > > About to start seeing play again, but very expensive > > >Cannine Horde > > The only one that's been viable from the word "go", although most > Celerity decks pack enough Dodges to avoid it. > > >Fast Hand > >Shatter > > Both still suck, since they're close-range only. You can steal a Poker, > sure, but you won't be able to deal with the gun. > > >Fractured Armament > > Oops, forgot to include this in the above. > > >Immortal Grapple > > non-CEL IG decks don't have enough maneuvers to catch Celerity. > > >Blood Rage > > only successful at close range; again, you'll still get shot for 6. If your using thaumaturgy then Soul Burn is the only way to go!

In message <66e41881.02070...@posting.google.com>, robert...@hotmail.com (Robert Scythe) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6ge3iugrp1n8upc7j...@4ax.com>... >> In message <3d218c6b$0$4290$afc3...@news.easynet.fr>, >> The Tzimisce Lord <Tzimis...@NOSPAM.seclogd.org> mumbled something >> about: >> >> >well weapon hoosers: >> >DotB >> >> As above, all this gets you is Blurred for 6 hands instead of Blurred >> for 6 at range. >> >Ravnos could care less: I block you, play DotB, we're in close I play >Blessing of Durga Syn and Skin of Steel, my gun. Of course I could >just take it with Fleecing The Gaje in the first place. The odds of a Ravnos deck playing with BDS and Skin of Steel sort of makes me laugh. Ravnos are far, far more all about the Apparition thing, and the occasional Rolling with the Punches to cover big strikers. They'll run out. Fleecing the Gaje is neat. Toreador have Auspex, so good luck getting it through. >> >Blood Rage >> >> only successful at close range; again, you'll still get shot for 6. > >If your using thaumaturgy then Soul Burn is the only way to go! Soul Burn doesn't even make it into the discard list of my decks. Theft, Theft, Theft, and if you're not playing Theft, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It probably hasn't been mentioned because some people take issue with calling DT an anti-weapon card. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Derek Ray wrote: > Fleecing the Gaje is neat. Toreador have Auspex, so good luck getting > it through. "Deck X vs Deck Y" discussions are pretty pointless, but this comment leads to something a little more general: don't you think the Ravnos stealth is solid? From the above, it loos like you think intercept will trump it. Obviously, enough of it will trump any stealth, since that's what it does; but I gather you think, you know, run of the mill Ravnos will not be able to get through run of the mill interecept. I know we both like Ravnos, so I thought I'd ask what your reasoning is. The stealth package for my current Ravnos deck looks like this (I've included the Freaks and Red Herrings under stealth since running people out of untapped minions is part of the strategy): 6 Fata Morgana 6 Mirror Image 6 Freak Drive 6 Red Herring 2 Fortune Teller Shop [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.020703...@petunia.mc.duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> mumbled something about: >On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Derek Ray wrote: > >> Fleecing the Gaje is neat. Toreador have Auspex, so good luck getting >> it through. > >"Deck X vs Deck Y" discussions are pretty pointless, but this comment (Well, yeah. I'm pointing at the Toreador specifically because someone chose to point at the Ravnos. =) >leads to something a little more general: don't you think the Ravnos >stealth is solid? From the above, it loos like you think intercept will Not without backup from OBF. >trump it. Obviously, enough of it will trump any stealth, since that's >what it does; but I gather you think, you know, run of the mill Ravnos >will not be able to get through run of the mill interecept. I know we >both like Ravnos, so I thought I'd ask what your reasoning is. Mirror Image + Fata Morgana is only a bonus +2 stealth, and if you're being forced to burn Fata Morgana as pure-stealth, then you're not getting to use them to bleed people. =/ MI's superior looks neat, but if you burn MI as stealth, you can't use its superior in the resulting combat because of the same-action-modifier rule. The Ravnos will beat light (+1) intercept consistently. But if people step beyond light intercept, then they generally prepare to deal with OBF, and that preparation will overwhelm a Ravnos stealth deck. >The stealth package for my current Ravnos deck looks like this (I've >included the Freaks and Red Herrings under stealth since running people >out of untapped minions is part of the strategy): > >6 Fata Morgana >6 Mirror Image >6 Freak Drive >6 Red Herring >2 Fortune Teller Shop Problem: When you play Fata, Mirror, and Red Herring, then you've used up a huge chunk of your cards for the inability to take the same action that turn. If you don't play the Red Herring, then you're OK, but intercept generally means leaving a minion untapped, so you're still faced with the non-tapped minion. Freak Drive isn't so much about getting around intercept as it is about just taking a buttload of actions per turn, and who cares if anyone blocks you? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 16:14:04 +0200, Derek Ray wrote: > MI's superior looks neat, but > if you burn MI as stealth, you can't use its superior in the resulting > combat because of the same-action-modifier rule. Really ? When you play its superior, it's played as a combat card, so it's not bound by the same-action-modifier rule. Or am I missing something ? Francois

> Mirror Image + Fata Morgana is only a bonus +2 stealth, and if you're > being forced to burn Fata Morgana as pure-stealth, then you're not > getting to use them to bleed people. =/ MI's superior looks neat, but > if you burn MI as stealth, you can't use its superior in the resulting > combat because of the same-action-modifier rule. Why not? Relavent Card Text: This card can be used as an action modifier or a combat card. Inf +1 stealth Sup Strike: combat end. If this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. You are using it as an combat card. It has no effect on the action itself at superior. Please Explain Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>>> >Blood Rage >>> >>> only successful at close range; again, you'll still get shot for 6. >> >>If your using thaumaturgy then Soul Burn is the only way to go! > >Soul Burn doesn't even make it into the discard list of my decks. >Theft, Theft, Theft, and if you're not playing Theft, then you're >shooting yourself in the foot. I disagree. Soul Burn *is* a good card. Theft is great and should make up *most* of your Thaumaturgy combat, but Thefts do squat against empty vampires. Soul Burn is ranged (which is why I like it more than Blood Rage/Fury), occasionally protects you from nasty weapons (guns, Sengir Dagger, Ivory Bow, Muddled with a Meat Hook), does damage (can send empty vampires to torpor), *and* if hoses Fortitude prevention to boot! As I said, you should usually have a lot more Thefts, but Thaumaturgy combat cans some more flexibility with a Soul Burn or two... Halcyan 2

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Derek Ray wrote: > David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> mumbled something about: > Mirror Image + Fata Morgana is only a bonus +2 stealth, and if you're > being forced to burn Fata Morgana as pure-stealth, then you're not > getting to use them to bleed people. =/ Well, it's more flexible than Bonding. If the FM is what pushed the Free States Rant, or Sensory Deprivation, or equipping with the Samedji through, then it was worth it. > MI's superior looks neat, but > if you burn MI as stealth, you can't use its superior in the resulting > combat because of the same-action-modifier rule. That's the way I've been playing it, based on what FoM does, but now I'm not sure. Even if it's not more powerful, as some people downthread are asserting, it's still a versatile card. > The Ravnos will beat light (+1) intercept consistently. But if people > step beyond light intercept, then they generally prepare to deal with > OBF, and that preparation will overwhelm a Ravnos stealth deck. OK. I think I can agree with you, that heavy intercept will stop Ravnos stealth. Well designed, it should stop most stealth, so that puts the Ravnos in the same box with the other stealth platforms. IME, heavy intercept is rare, while light intercept seems to be a more and more consistent feature of the metagame. So say Ravnos beats light intercept, and I think the extra actions from freak drives, the FoM effect of MI, and Red Herring will give a heavy intercept deck a run for it's money. On a side note, it's appealing to me that the same deck can have the degree of stealth I think this one does, and also be formidable in the blocking department. 4 Cats Guidance, 6 Drabas, and 2 Raven Spies is nice, tight, and effective, and makes untapping off the Herring or Freak not so dependent on having another good action to do next. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <LgFU8.27580$wj4.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] When used to continue the action, it is an action modifier. I was referring not to its combat-endsiness, but to its ability to get an action to succeed after tapping a vampire -- you can either play MI for +1 stealth up front, or let yourself be blocked and play its superior to force a Wake out of them. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cgm6iu0cvqbo2kcfs...@4ax.com... > In message <LgFU8.27580$wj4.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, > "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: > > >Why not? > > > >Relavent Card Text: > > > >This card can be used as an action modifier or a combat card. > >Inf +1 stealth > >Sup Strike: combat end. If this vampire was blocked while performing an > >action other than bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. > > > >You are using it as an combat card. It has no effect on the action itself at > >superior. Please Explain > > When used to continue the action, it is an action modifier. > > I was referring not to its combat-endsiness, but to its ability to get > an action to succeed after tapping a vampire -- you can either play MI > for +1 stealth up front, or let yourself be blocked and play its > superior to force a Wake out of them. Not so. [LSJ 25-Jun-2001] groups.google.com/groups?selm=9h7uus%24ojq%241%40taliesin.netcom.net.uk "Form of Mist is the only combat card that is also an action modifier (that is, is both at the same time)." Josh misty

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. MI for stealth is an action modifier and not a combat card. MI to end combat and continue is a combat card and not an action mod. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D22E342...@white-wolf.com... > Matthew Heslin wrote: > > > > ...isn't someone going to mention... Darkling Trickery? > > It's so good. No one expects Darkling Trickery. It does a point > > of damage. Their strike fails. Heck, you could play three of > > them if your opponent Blurred! Bring it on, Concealed Weapon! > > It probably hasn't been mentioned because some people take issue > with calling DT an anti-weapon card. :-) > =P ;) I also take exception to dismissing Pulse of Canaille as just a card that lets you look at people's hands. Go figure...

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vd15iuotrf6phujal...@4ax.com... > > Soul Burn doesn't even make it into the discard list of my decks. > Theft, Theft, Theft, and if you're not playing Theft, then you're > shooting yourself in the foot. > Here's a thought... it might be possible that a new set will make you re-evaluate your tactics. All those anti-weapon cards you've been pissing on for the past 8 years might need to be dried off and looked at again.

In message <M10V8.238599$R61....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] They're still sort of smelly, though. Soul Burn isn't a dreadful, horrible mistake, no -- but equating disciplineless CW with a rush of weaponry that Must Be Avoided isn't so good. The vast majority of stuff we'll see will be .44s, Pokers, Meat Hooks, etc. Pokers and Meat Hooks can be avoided by simply not being caught at close range -- something a THA deck is already doing if it's worth its cookies at all, because theft-for-2 v. punch-for-6 is a lousy trade. The .44 is only a threat if it's coupled with Celerity, in which case Soul Burn won't save you because the strike actually has to connect for the "no weapon" clauses to take effect, and Celerity is good at doing "dodge" things. And above all, SB costs a blood. =/ If it were free, it'd be an excellent card. But right now, again, it doesn't even make it into my discard lists... and I don't see too much reason for that to change in the future. If I'm carrying enough Soul Burn to save myself against a CEL/.44 deck, then I'm not carrying enough Theft to refill my vampires and get blood gain moving. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0059iukl16n4ji387...@4ax.com... > In message <M10V8.238599$R61....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > > The .44 is only a threat if it's coupled with Celerity, in which case > Soul Burn won't save you because the strike actually has to connect for > the "no weapon" clauses to take effect, and Celerity is good at doing > "dodge" things. And above all, SB costs a blood. =/ If it were free, > it'd be an excellent card. But right now, again, it doesn't even make > it into my discard lists... and I don't see too much reason for that to > change in the future. If I'm carrying enough Soul Burn to save myself > against a CEL/.44 deck, then I'm not carrying enough Theft to refill my > vampires and get blood gain moving. > Okay, okay, much as I hate to admit it, you do have a point. If it were me (which it probably will never be, since I don't like thaumaturgy and haven't played it in quite a while), I would probably still go with a couple of Soul Burns. But hey, how about Machine Blitz instead? 8) 8) 8)

On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 23:05:10 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> Not so. [LSJ 25-Jun-2001] >> >> groups.google.com/groups?selm=9h7uus%24ojq%241%40taliesin.netcom.net.uk >> >> "Form of Mist is the only combat card that is also an action modifier >> (that is, is both at the same time)." > >Correct. MI for stealth is an action modifier and not a combat card. >MI to end combat and continue is a combat card and not an action mod. > Inconsistent wouldn't you say? Same effect for each card and yet one is not a combat/action mod card? T

In message <3d2baf93.145687059@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] No, not especially. I actually do remember where this is coming from now... the reason MI's superior isn't an action modifier is because it doesn't actually modify the action, unlike Form of Mist which adds stealth. I spent some time arguing/supporting that half of the viewpoint; you think i'd actually bother to remember when I'm right. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. FoM adds stealth (i.e.: not the same effect). Moreover FoM has errata stating that it is an action modifier when it is used to add stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

<M'sieu Cherryholmes said:> > On a side note, it's appealing to me that the same deck can have the > degree of stealth I think this one does, and also be formidable in the > blocking department. 4 Cats Guidance, 6 Drabas, and 2 Raven Spies is > nice, tight, and effective, and makes untapping off the Herring or Freak > not so dependent on having another good action to do next. I don't have anything pertinent to add here, I just wanted to say that I want to give a shout out to the CCG that lets you say things like "untapping off the Herring or Freak," and it makes sense. Bravo! --heslin, nosferatu performance artist

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<oN0V8.282805> Okay, okay, much as I hate to admit it, you do have a point. If it were me > (which it probably will never be, since I don't like thaumaturgy and haven't > played it in quite a while), I would probably still go with a couple of Soul > Burns. But hey, how about Machine Blitz instead? 8) 8) 8) For not liking Thaumaturgy, have you ever tried a THA/CEL deck? A friend of mine has constructed one, using Tremere, Assamites and some other vamps from other Clans, and it this deck gets going, it´s fearsome to behold. He tries to cram in as much maneuvers as possible, too, so he´s almost always at long-range, and normally opposing vampires are empty before they can twitch. My Brujah close-combat fighing deck was more than often hosed by it, because it just hadn´t the capability to get to close range against this deck, and I ended up looking on as my Vampires got sucked dry. I tried to buy something along the lines of THA/FOR, with Traps to get around the whole "usable in the second round" problem with some of the best THA cards, but it hasn´t functioned yet as well as the THA/CEL deck. Magnus

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D2192C4...@white-wolf.com>... > Brian wrote: > > LSJ: Is this preview an official announcement of Concealed Weapon's > > new discipline requirement, allowing us use of it in tournament play > > on August 1st as a disciplineless card? Or, must we wait one month > > from the release of the Cam set (barring an official announcement > > before that)? > > As I said in the CW thread, the new card text isn't official until > the set is legal for play. I assume that goes for the new rules, as well? If so, "Camarilla Edition introduces a new attribute, a number, on each vampire for grouping...Crypts must be built using only vampires from a single group or using only vampires from two consecutive groups." This rule would not be legal at Gencon. The official White-Wolf V:TES webpage states that: "The official release date for [Marcus Vitel] is July 4, 2002. That means he'll be legal for tournament play on August 3, 2002. Note that he is Group 3,...so he cannot be in a crypt that also contains group 1 vampires." Not legal, that is, under the new grouping rule, which should not be in effect until 30 days after the Cam set's release, or...? I think playing Marcus and Emerson in the same crypt violates the spirit of what is written on the webpage, but it seems Marcus Vitel's release date allows him to be played before the rule is in effect. -- Brian

Brian wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Depends. It might be thought of less as a "new rule" than as a new item of shorthand card text. Presumably, Marcus Vitel's card text will become legal when he becomes legal for play, precisely as the new Concealed Weapon text will become legal when that reprinted card becomes legal. Presumably, everything about the card text will go into effect when the card does, including that pesky #3, and all that it implies.

>I think playing Marcus and Emerson in the same crypt violates the >spirit of what is written on the webpage, but it seems Marcus Vitel's >release date allows him to be played before the rule is in effect. ::sigh:: I wish people would bother to read some of the older posts before blathering on about something already asked and answered before... I mean really. Would it kill you to try a little *searching* before making a comment, asking a question, or offering a "clever suggestion" that many of us have seen countless times before? (And this also applies to the 7/27: 2nd Tradition/Madness Network question on this newsgroup and the 7/27: Falcon's Eye on the White Wolf forum - both of which are answered in The Lasombra's FAQ). In any case: From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: When are the new rules Tournament legal? Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad View this article only Date: 2002-07-25 04:44:13 PST Andy Brown wrote: > > Hi, > > I was reading the text with Marcu Vitel. It mentions that he will > be legal for tournament play on August 3rd, but also note that he > is group 3 and can't be used with group 1 vampires. Does this mean > that this ruling will be effective in tournaments as of August 3rd > as well. It means Marcus Vitel carries that restriction with him. > If so, what about the new NRA, Allies and Miscellaneous rules. Will > they be effective then, or one month after the release of the new > rulebook? When the CE is legal for play. That's 30 days after CE is released for VEKN constructed tournaments. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Halcyan 2 grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

> I wish people would bother to read some of the older posts before blathering on > about something already asked and answered before... > > I mean really. Would it kill you to try a little *searching* before making a > comment, asking a question, or offering a "clever suggestion" that many of us > have seen countless times before? (And this also applies to the 7/27: 2nd > Tradition/Madness Network question on this newsgroup and the 7/27: Falcon's Eye > on the White Wolf forum - both of which are answered in The Lasombra's FAQ). Since I can only get online at the library anymore, and there is a one-hour time limit, yes, I can do a _little_ searching. And I did. I checked about five posts that looked like they may have contained this sort of information, including one which asked but was not answered. I did not do a _lot_ of searching, because I don't have the time for that. In fact, I had to go to Ahren's house to finish posting, because just before I added my sig and was about to press "Post message - No preview", the computer kicked me off for using my full hour. Thank you for posting the information, but please--just because you have the time to search for anything you want to online, as thoroughly as you wish, does not mean we all do. I can't spend hours at a time online anymore, but I can't help it and I don't like it, and I certainly don't want to be chided for something I can't help. -- Brian