Why we are against card fixes

We always seem to be reacting to other peoples' posts and doubtless that makes us look reactionary. So I thought it might be helpful if I just summarised what our views are about card fixes, and the philosophy from which they spring. "Us" means me, Jason and Chris that I know of, also possibly Michael Beer's evil twin, but this posting is personal and I haven't consulted the other guys about it. Still, I think they will agree with most of this post. My view is that Jyhad is a beautiful and balanced game. Where lack of clarity exists, it can often be resolved by reference to the role-playing game. I believe that Jyhad has a great future because it is, objectively, the best TCG technically, and it has the coolest background [everyone wants to live forever and have passionate physical relations with attractive members of the individually-desired but usually opposite gender]. Currently, these facts are under-appreciated by the license holders, but this will change as Wizards' cash-flow improves [buying TSR can't have been cheap]. In the meantime it should be the overriding concern of all of us to bring in new players and to maintain the game as best we can. Given that Jyhad is a complex game, this will usually mean simplifying and streamlining the rules, and CERTAINLY NOT introducing new rules unsupportable by card text. I am against card fixes IN GENERAL, UNLESS there is an overwhelmingly good reason for instituting one. Overwhelmingly good should include a return [where appropriate] to the literal wording of the card, and should NEVER involve a rewording of the card. Or, there should be clear proof that a particular card is so seriously unbalanced that it threatens the integrity of the game. This DOES NOT mean that a card hosing a particular deck style is a candidate for banning. Nor does it mean that powerful cards in general should be banned. Actually, we all agree with this, if we think about it .... no-one agonises about the desirability of WWEF or Blood Doll, though I doubt there's a deck on the planet that doesn't contain these ..... And lest this general opposition seem a tad reactionary, I beg you to believe that it springs from observation of the effects of card-fixes/bans on Magic, and fear that the same process is already encroaching upon Jyhad. I am also against certain card fixes IN PARTICULAR, on the grounds that I think the past fix is wrong, or that the proposed fix is unnecessary. Examples of bad fixes I'm against: Rutor's hand damage as preventable by combat cards, Merril's ability and indeed anything except Tears of Kephran. This is a classic example of a bad fix. The card text is absolutely clear, and it means that you can't prevent the damage except with the blood tears. It's also bad from the role-playing point of view. You rip out an eye, rip off your hand and then expect to prevent it with a combat manoeuver or your nice new leather jacket???? Pur-lease!!! In fact, how on Caine's EARTH did this fix ever happen??? Presumably because somebody playing a Tremere deck moaned and whined enough so that the rules team acted. It should be an example to us all to be REAL careful about future fixes. Return to Innocence: We've been round the houses on this one. It is a big bleed card, with a big cost. It potentially gives ANY deck, and not just the [spit!] Ventrue, Brujah, Malkavians, Toreadors and Tremere the potential to be decks of maximum bleedy harm. Contrary to what others have written, it is NOT a sure-fire oust. I actually believe that, if anything, this card REBALANCES the game, because it makes it worthwhile to bring out big vampires, and it gives a bleed dimension to the otherwise bleed-challenged Gangrel and Nosferatu. Those reluctant to accept this might like to check out Robert Goudie's wise words on cycles of RtI-ness and weenie decks in LA, reachable through Rulemonger's page. Tomb of Rameses III: We're not achieving consensus on this one at all. I think some of the arguments against it are unworthy of this group - that it's a something-for-nothing card [so is Art Scam, Ascendance, etc] just doesn't fly. But once again, the good thing about this card is that it gives you the chance to get out big vamps. And there ARE defenses against it .... which we've talked about, without so far once mentioning Memory's Fading Glimpse. One of the main ones of course is that being such a good card it is likely that at least one other person at your table wants to play it. Think about this one, guys 'n' gals .. those of you who responded when I made this point before didn't always see the difference between how good it is to be the ONLY person with Tomb in play, and how bad it is to realise that everyone including you, but not your predator, has stacked up their hands with this card .... Thoughts Betrayed: Once again, I think people are not seeing how this card instantly puts extra value on Allies, Retainers and Weapons, which in other posts we are all agreeing need a boost. "Hah! Foul fiend of Darkness! You think to use your Eldritch powers of the Mind on me???? Well meet the renowned debating team of Smith and Wesson! <BLAM! BLAM!>" And I must admit, as this debate has progressed my opposition to card fixes has hardened. For example, I WAS in favour of the CW change, till James Coupe launched his [for me] absolutely devastating counter-argument. Even the Dragos fix now seems to me OTT ... after all, it only affects a coupla combat cards [Lightning reflexes and Eldritch Glimmer], you have to play TWO master cards on him before it becomes a problem, even then he is vulnerable to Thoughts Betrayed, and it's not like combat decks are sweeping the tournament board under the current dispensation, is it??? Alright, well that was the manifesto of the Marinus van der Lubbe International Fireboming Society, posted in the interests of Increased Brotherly Love and general fuzzy-feelingness by Legbiter*, BSc [Edin: Summa Cum Laude], PhD, MRPPBHSIWM [Most Ridiculous Post Peter Bajika Has Seen in Weeks Medal... and I hope to get a bar and oak-leaves on that before the year is out .... hehehe ....]. *In Reality an Ancient Malkavian, but my daylight hours are spent in the pursuit of a complex role-playing game in which i'm a human research scientist active in the field of genetic disease. This fantasy character can be reached at: james.m...@port.ac.uk.

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> writes >Even the Dragos fix now seems to me OTT ... after all, it only affects a >coupla combat cards [Lightning reflexes and Eldritch Glimmer], you have to >play TWO master cards on him before it becomes a problem, Not a fix. The intention of Dragos is to avoid the COST of playing a combat card ie that little thing in the blood drop. The fact that Lightning Reflexes and Eldritch Glimmer don't work with it is therefore no problem - that is bringing it back to card text. Indeed, it never violates card text - it was just meant to clear it up for people who didn't realise that the X didn't count as a cost (in most cases, the distinction is unnecessary). -- James Coupe (Prince of England) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Legbiter wrote: "My view is that Jyhad is a beautiful and balanced game. Where lack of clarity exists, it can often be resolved by reference to the role-playing game." But those of us who hold no stock in the RPG and play Jyhad simply because it is a well designed and strategically interesting game have no wish to rely on such sketchy sources. If this were the case, then my Nosferatu certainly couldn't use WWEF, now could they... "Given that Jyhad is a complex game, this will usually mean simplifying and streamlining the rules, and CERTAINLY NOT introducing new rules unsupportable by card text." While a noble thought, the fact that the three expansions (one might notice that there are no cards in the original basic set that people complain about as busted, just wallpapery) introduced overpowered and poorly playtested cards to the mix necessitate the need for such fixes. Add to this the fact that there will never actually be any new cards added to the mix to change things, this is all we have. "I am against card fixes IN GENERAL, UNLESS there is an overwhelmingly good reason for instituting one." For most of us around here, an overwhelmingly good reason is extremely negative effect on the game enviornment as typified by Tomb of Ramses III and Return to Innocence. "I am also against certain card fixes IN PARTICULAR, on the grounds that I think the past fix is wrong, or that the proposed fix is unnecessary." Most exisiting fixes were made due to either a misprint on the card (making them necessary) or ambiguious card text (also making them necessary). Very few, if any, cards have been officially fixed due to balance problems. "Tomb of Rameses III: We're not achieving consensus on this one at all. I think some of the arguments against it are unworthy of this group - that it's a something-for-nothing card [so is Art Scam, Ascendance, etc] just doesn't fly." But yes, it does. The cards you mentioned (Art Scam and Ascendance) give you an advantage based on a cost in comparison to all the other cards in the game. Art Scam, for example, gives you one pool for an action. There are many other compareable cards that have a very similar effect for a very similar cost. Tomb, however, gives you advantages far greater than any compareable card (in terms of speed, pool gain, and risk in use). Tomb is not a game destroying card. It is, however, certainly overpowered (in terms of cost/effect) and easily leeds to a great deal of abuse that was not prevelant before its existance, and consequently has a much greater effect on the game enviornement than justified. "Thoughts Betrayed: Once again, I think people are not seeing how this card instantly puts extra value on Allies, Retainers and Weapons, which in other posts we are all agreeing need a boost." But having to build a deck that relies on useless Allies and weapons just to (hopefully) combat TB is simply asking to be killed. The real problem with TB is not that it is completely overpowered, just that it is a completely unwarranted and unacceptable effect for _any_ card of _any_ cost. "[Edin:Summa Cum Laude], PhD, MRPPBHSIWM [Most Ridiculous Post Peter Bajika Has Seen in Weeks Medal... and I hope to get a bar and oak-leaves on that before the year is out .... hehehe ....]." Just keep on working hard, and one day your dreams will be realized (Man, can't _anyone_ spell my name right?). Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "They come at night. Mostly." -Newt

In article <199803240006...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote: >Legbiter wrote: [snip] >"Thoughts Betrayed: >Once again, I think people are not seeing how this card instantly puts extra >value on Allies, Retainers and Weapons, which in other posts we are all >agreeing need a boost." > >But having to build a deck that relies on useless Allies and weapons just to >(hopefully) combat TB is simply asking to be killed. Not to mention that a decent TB deck will probably beat the snot out of an allies, retainers, or weapons deck anyway. The one I'm working on uses Arms of the Abyss, which serves quite nicely to do this. [snip] >PD...@aol.com -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <6fc9s4$6v2$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> wrote: >I think you're overlooking Freak Drive, Majesty, and Fame. All are fairly >busted as printed. Only with DCI rules and/or errata do they come into >line. I'm vaguely confoozled. How are Freak Drive and Majesty busted as printed? Do you mean the repeat-actions thing? gomi -- kono sora wo daite kagayaku, shounen yo shinwa ni nare.

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > "Given that Jyhad is a complex game, this will usually mean simplifying and > streamlining the rules, and CERTAINLY NOT introducing new rules unsupportable > by card text." > > While a noble thought, the fact that the three expansions (one might notice > that there are no cards in the original basic set that people complain about as > busted, just wallpapery) introduced overpowered and poorly playtested cards to > the mix necessitate the need for such fixes. I think you're overlooking Freak Drive, Majesty, and Fame. All are fairly busted as printed. Only with DCI rules and/or errata do they come into line. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Pettersen wrote: "I think you're overlooking Freak Drive, Majesty, and Fame. All are fairly busted as printed. Only with DCI rules and/or errata do they come into line." I did overlook Fame, which was fixed (made unique) as a point of balance. Freak Drive and Majesty weren't changed in any way, however, the rules were (in a sense-the DCI Tourney rules/Golden Tenents). I really can't think of any other cards that were officially changed for balance purposes, only changes due to mis-print or ambiguity. Anyone? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199803260301...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote: >Eric Pettersen wrote: >"I think you're overlooking Freak Drive, Majesty, and Fame. All are fairly >busted as printed. Only with DCI rules and/or errata do they come into line." > >I did overlook Fame, which was fixed (made unique) as a point of balance. >Freak Drive and Majesty weren't changed in any way,however, the rules were (in >a sense-the DCI Tourney rules/Golden Tenents). > >I really can't think of any other cards that were officially changed for >balance purposes, only changes due to mis-print or ambiguity. Anyone? Rotschrek? For some reason I thought there were more... [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > I really can't think of any other cards that were officially changed for > balance purposes, only changes due to mis-print or ambiguity. Anyone? Monocle of Clarity. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

go...@shell3.ba.best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > In article <6fc9s4$6v2$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > >I think you're overlooking Freak Drive, Majesty, and Fame. All are > >fairly busted as printed. Only with DCI rules and/or errata do they > >come into line. > > I'm vaguely confoozled. How are Freak Drive and Majesty busted as > printed? > > Do you mean the repeat-actions thing? > > gomi Yep. A Ventrue prince Freak Drive / Majesty deck with 5th Tradition and Conditioning was very hard to stop in original Jyhad, especially with Immortal Grapple being rare. A very limited number of deck types could stop it (e.g. intercept combat using Fast Reaction). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: "Monocle of Clarity." Ahh. I forgot that one too. And a silly one, at that. What is the actual current state of the card (wording or rulings or whatever wise)? Thanks, Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "They mostly come at night. Mostly." -Newt

Jasper Philips wrote: "Rotschrek? For some reason I thought there were more..." I don't think that Rotshreck was changed as it was due to play balance issues, I think it was due to the ambiguousness of the card text. It is possible that the original purpose of the card was to screw the guy about to _take_ the aggro damage, but in reality, this seems kind of unlikely and pointless (or incredibly subtle and brilliant on the part of the game designers, but I just don't see it...) and they probably would not have made the card to do this in the first place. As it is, it seems likely that the original intention was as anti-aggro damage hoser (although this does not make any sense in terms of the game world, it fits the logic of the Masters as hosers scheme that was a part of the basic set, much like Frenzy and Masquerade Endangered) and the card was very poorly worded. In the final evaluation, it seemed that the original intention of the card was to hose aggro-damage use, and thus the ruling. I agree that the card pretty much says the exact opposite and that it being an aggro-hoser is pretty non sensical (Basillia yelling "My Hands!" and freaking out and all), but again I maintain that it seems very unlikely that the card's original intent was as a Master Out Of Turn aggro user bonus ("here look at my mighty claws...NOW GO DIRECTLY TO TORPOR!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!") and that it was intended to be an aggro-hoser but was worded extremely poorly. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > "Monocle of Clarity." > > Ahh. I forgot that one too. And a silly one, at that. > > What is the actual current state of the card (wording or rulings or whatever > wise)? Monocle of Clarity - Unique Equipment * Questions about questions may not be asked. [RTR 950530] * Question about the future are only binding until your next untap. [RTR 950530] The first inspired by Alan Kwan's indecent proposition of 1995/04/26 The next in general response to the variations of Kwan's proposition. Interested parties with sufficient desire and perserverance to read the extremely twisted question are directed to the rest of this post. ---- Otherwise, stop reading now ---- I'm not answering any questions about why this would've worked, since it is an illegal question now. On April 26, 1995, Alan Kwan wrote: > [setup - control Dollface] > Untap. Question to prey: > "Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, > from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play > any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform > any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth > value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of > the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will > be attempted by Dollface?" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199803270004...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think the original intention of this card was to save the bacon of a vampire who was about to get burned in combat. This is essentially what Rotschreck does in the RPG - the vamp bottles out completely and runs as far as its undead legs will carry it. So it puts a vamp [usually yours] in torpor, 'stead of it being chewed up.

Legbiter wrote: > PDB6 wrote: > > > > Jasper Philips wrote: > > > "Rotschrek? For some reason I thought there were more..." > > > > I agree that the card pretty much says the exact opposite and that it being an > > aggro-hoser is pretty non sensical (Basillia yelling "My Hands!" and freaking > > out and all), but again I maintain that it seems very unlikely that the card's > > original intent was as a Master Out Of Turn aggro user bonus ("here look at my > > mighty claws...NOW GO DIRECTLY TO TORPOR!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!") and that it was > > intended to be an aggro-hoser but was worded extremely poorly. > > > > Peter D Bakija > > PD...@aol.com > > > > "They mostly come at night. > > Mostly." > > -Newt > > I think the original intention of this card was to save the bacon of a > vampire who was about to get burned in combat. This is essentially what > Rotschreck does in the RPG - the vamp bottles out completely and runs as > far as its undead legs will carry it. So it puts a vamp [usually yours] in > torpor, 'stead of it being chewed up. Also of some use for Gangrel against S:CE (but only when blocking). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199803260301...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, PDB6 wrote: > >I really can't think of any other cards that were officially changed for >balance purposes, only changes due to mis-print or ambiguity. Anyone? How about Army of Rats? Of course, I do not know exactly *why* it was fixed, but if not for balance purposes, why fix it at all? I imagine a cumulative Army of Rats deck could be pretty nasty. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Legbiter wrote: "I think the original intention of this card was to save the bacon of a vampire who was about to get burned in combat. This is essentially what Rotschreck does in the RPG - the vamp bottles out completely and runs as far as its undead legs will carry it. So it puts a vamp [usually yours] in torpor, 'stead of it being chewed up." I the original Jyhad set, it was _very_ difficult to burn someone (due to the old aggro rules), and I find it hard to fathom that they designed such an obscure single use card to deal with being burned. In the original set, pretty much the only ways to get burned were Flamethrower, Dragonsbreath rounds, Sengir Dagger/Pot, and the ever sketchy Pot/Pro combat, and even those were a hard way to burn someone. and Eric Petterson wrote: "Also of some use for Gangrel against S:CE (but only when blocking)." Yes, if Rotchreck is used as written (sends the guy about to _take_ aggro to torpor), it is a good anti S:CE card for a gangrel intercept deck, but again, it seems unlikely that the original designers of the game had this though, as if they had, then why not make a less obscure way for the Gangrel to deal with it? Why not an offensive use anti-S:CE card for the Gangrel, as they originally were envisioned as the premeire combat clan (which turned out to simply not be the case)? I suspect that the impact that S:CE has had upon the game was probably not fully understood at the time of the original release, and thus anti-S:CE cards were really not a design focus. In the original set, the only really specific anti-S:CE card there was was Immortal Grapple, and that was Rare(notice how in Sabbat there is much less S:CE and Immortal Grapple is Uncommon--I suspect by the time of Sabbat they had figured out their error...). Both of these are good points, but still I suspect that when designed, Rotschreck was probably meant to be a aggro hoser (like Frenzy is a MOOT weapon hoser and Masquerade Endangered is a MOOT Hunting hoser) and they just woorded it very poorly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199803282136...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > "I think the original intention of this card was to save the bacon of a vampire > who was about to get burned in combat. This is essentially what Rotschreck does > in the RPG - the vamp bottles out completely and runs as far as its undead legs > will carry it. So it puts a vamp [usually yours] in torpor, 'stead of it being > chewed up." > > I the original Jyhad set, it was _very_ difficult to burn someone (due to the > old aggro rules), and I find it hard to fathom that they designed such an > obscure single use card to deal with being burned. In the original set, pretty > much the only ways to get burned were Flamethrower, Dragonsbreath rounds, > Sengir Dagger/Pot, and the ever sketchy Pot/Pro combat, and even those were a > hard way to burn someone. Right, but wasn't that intentional? In original Jyhad vampires were deliberately made pretty much indestructible, except by diablerie ... in THEORY you could burn them in combat, but in PRACTICE it almost never happened. I actually remember the first time it DID happen in our playgroup - Wolf Claws on a hunting 0/1 Caitiff - and how we sat around for ages talking about it, and checking out that we'd read the rules correctly. > > > and Eric Petterson wrote: > "Also of some use for Gangrel against S:CE (but only when blocking)." > > Yes, if Rotchreck is used as written (sends the guy about to _take_ aggro to > torpor), it is a good anti S:CE card for a gangrel intercept deck, but again, > it seems unlikely that the original designers of the game had this though, as > if they had, then why not make a less obscure way for the Gangrel to deal with > it? Why not an offensive use anti-S:CE card for the Gangrel, as they > originally were envisioned as the premeire combat clan (which turned out to > simply not be the case)? I suspect that the impact that S:CE has had upon the > game was probably not fully understood at the time of the original release, and > thus anti-S:CE cards were really not a design focus. In the original set, the > only really specific anti-S:CE card there was was Immortal Grapple, and that > was Rare(notice how in Sabbat there is much less S:CE and Immortal Grapple is > Uncommon--I suspect by the time of Sabbat they had figured out their error...). > > Both of these are good points, but still I suspect that when designed, > Rotschreck was probably meant to be a aggro hoser (like Frenzy is a MOOT weapon > hoser and Masquerade Endangered is a MOOT Hunting hoser) and they just woorded > it very poorly. > Actually I think we both agree with you completely, Peter ..... my post was about the link to the RPG, and Eric's [i think] was just to point out a smart way of using the card, rather than a reason for designing it. On this subject, has anyone got any idea what Mercy for the Weak [AH] is about? The only possible uses I can think of for it are [1] a not-very-good defence against Fame decks [2] a card that allows a Big combat deck to feed weak minions of a friendly Methuselah. Like, you would do that REALLY often wouncha?

[ quoted text not captured ] You mean "Lucky Blow + Wolf Claws on an empty vampire", right? The first point of agg under the old rules couldn't burn a vampire. (Under the VTES rules it can) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No, it was the gangrel guy with +1 hand damage .. Zach North? Angus? I no longer remember .......

>On this subject, has anyone got any idea what Mercy for the Weak [AH] is >about? The only possible uses I can think of for it are [1] a >not-very-good defence against Fame decks [2] a card that allows a Big >combat deck to feed weak minions of a friendly Methuselah. Like, you would >do that REALLY often wouncha? I had a friend that used it in his Malkavian stealth-bleed deck in case he actually was targetted in combat say by an ambush/bum's rush...he found it easier than adding presence to the dom/obf mix...since they're disciplineless, and his vamps were usually had more blood than the rest of the vamps out on the table... Xian