BL Rarity Sucks (Opened 2 boxes)

Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes IMNSHO. U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8. C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1 cards per box? doesn't seem common to me. C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes. The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting. IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1), but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3 Initally, by the end 8. What's up with that?

>The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the >cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the >cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very >little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into >the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily >starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting. >IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1), >but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3 >Initally, by the end 8. > >What's up with that? Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards seemed to be clumped (alphabetically) so you'd have all the cards for some part of the alphabet (say A-G) but would have like nothing from some other parts (N-U). Halcyan 2

"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com... > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. > snip the details > > What's up with that? there is a good strategy against this phenomenon. open a lot of boxes. i don't mean buy a lot of boxes. just pool yours with those of one, two or three friends. open all the boxes and split up the cards as evenly as possible. in this way you'll get a near perfect distribution of cards. if you want to be on the safe side make sure that the boxes come from more than on case. i'm not sure it really makes a difference but it is fairly easy to do. we openened 10 boxes in this way. after that we had 144 R1 cards which is exactly 40% of the rares. the number of R1 per box was a steady 14 or 15. there were usually 10 or so of each U1 and about twice that number of each U2. of course this method won't deliver you a number of rares that is divisible through any number of participants. but it works well for commons and uncommons, and gives you a good starting position for the rares. there will be some leftover rares but i'm sure everyone can devise a strategy to split up those cards. last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..." regards pallando

On 04 Dec 2001 05:49:55 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards I'll tell you one thing I already saw in BL that reminds me of SW: I've seen a couple of boosters with only 10 cards, at least one with 12, and one with one of the commons replaced by what appears to be a Rumble Robots promo misprint... Flux

PeterM wrote: > > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. > I opened only 1 box and i was surprised that i got all commons and uncommons as well as 30 different rares, so I think that there isn't so much clumping. It seems the cards are distributed well ( or I had good luck :) ). One has to see if the distribution is really a problem by the time when a lot of displays have been opened.

I went to the pre-release in Sydney, which was lots o fun. I found that it seemed that some boxes were predisposed towards some bloodlines and their cards than others. apart from that the mix of cards is much better than DS. "PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011204004955...@mb-dh.aol.com>... > > Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards > seemed to be clumped (alphabetically) so you'd have all the cards for some part > of the alphabet (say A-G) but would have like nothing from some other parts > (N-U). That's pretty much what I noticed. Though I'm not sure if it was alphabetically related, I still find it unbelievable I'm missing 5 uncommon vamps after 2-plus boxes. That's just not cool.

"pallando" <pall...@gmx.at> wrote: > last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if > done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..." Opening boxes in a group also can have a very good cost/effect for all people involved, as we found out at gencon. After playing a sealed event, we had 1 box of VTES and 4 people. At first we thought there were going to be problems dividing them up(all drafts should be re-drafted if time allows. That keeps people from drafting out all the rares. When you are done, gather all the rares and re-draft them for fairness) After we pulled out all the rares, we put it to who had the most VP in the tournament. The 3 of us then pulled 1 rare at a time. Well since different people wanted different cards it ended up being a great deal. If possible I will open boxes in a group again. Imagine you get 3 people together, and buy 3 boxes of bloodlines. Open one and take out the rares. I go first and we rotate till they are all gone. Now I have 1/3 of a box. But the real great thing is, I'm trying to get Blood brothers and gargoyles, while someone else is trying to draft samedi and Trujah, and the other guy wants baali and Kiasid. After 3 boxes, you all have strong decks, and not as much junk. Works well for collectors trying to get 3-4 cards from a set or new players. Usually they can trade 1-2 of their rare picks for double their regular uncommons/commons. Giving them more to play with, and me less to carry around. Look for friends with different agendas, and it will work out well. Aaron

In message <7ab27d37.01120...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes: >"pallando" <pall...@gmx.at> wrote: >> last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if >> done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..." > >Opening boxes in a group also can have a very good cost/effect for all >people involved, as we found out at gencon. After playing a sealed >event, we had 1 box of VTES and 4 people. What has long been a useful way of combating the fact that all mechanical randomisation processes have some inadequacies is to go along and buy your box with friends. If you're each buying a box, buy three boxes between the three of you (say). Then dole out roughly one third of the boosters from each box, so you each get the right amount in the end. -- James Coupe When correctly viewed PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan 13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man

> What has long been a useful way of combating the fact that all > mechanical randomisation processes have some inadequacies is to go along > and buy your box with friends. If you're each buying a box, buy three > boxes between the three of you (say). Then dole out roughly one third > of the boosters from each box, so you each get the right amount in the > end. Except that this problem has cropped up in Sabbat War, was still evident in Final Nights and we're starting to hear about the same thing happening in Bloodlines. While I will admit that there can be mechanical failure some times, you would think that measures would have been taken to reduce the probability of this happening. I don't know about you, but when I opened the boxes of Final Nights I purchased (2 boosters, 1 starter), I ended up with roughly the following: 15 each of 8 or 9 different, distinct, commons 8 each of 4 or 5 different, distinct, commons 4 each of 5 or 6 different, distinct, uncommons 2 each of 1 or 2 different, distinct, uncommons 1 each of 6 or 7 different, distinct, uncommons wtf? With such crappy distribution, there was no way in hell that I was going to go out and buy more boosters. I ended up filling out my collection and getting the cards (common through rare) from secondary markets. It was surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of *commons*. It wasn't _that_ large of an expansion. If this continues, it won't be worth it for me to get even a box for future expansions and just get *all* the cards I need from the secondary market. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. In the end, this is only going to hurt WW. They *really* need to get this rectified... Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

How's this: Peter (Prince of Toronto) and I bought 4 boxes between us - (144 rares) fine... between us we're still missing 5 cards. that's pretty insane... jds [ quoted text not captured ]

>15 each of 8 or 9 different, distinct, commons >8 each of 4 or 5 different, distinct, commons >4 each of 5 or 6 different, distinct, uncommons >2 each of 1 or 2 different, distinct, uncommons >1 each of 6 or 7 different, distinct, uncommons > >wtf? >With such crappy distribution, there was no way in hell that I was going to >go out and buy more boosters. I ended up filling out my collection and >getting the cards (common through rare) from secondary markets. It was >surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of *commons*. It wasn't >_that_ large of an expansion. If this continues, it won't be worth it for me >to get even a box for future expansions and just get *all* the cards I need >from the secondary market. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels >this way. In the end, this is only going to hurt WW. They *really* need >to get this rectified... Really? I thought Final Nights was pretty good. I bought a single box of boosters and ended up with an entire set of all the common and uncommon cards so that was pretty cool. Now as for the rares... =P Halcyan 2

>Peter (Prince of Toronto) and I bought 4 boxes between us - (144 rares) >fine... > >between us we're still missing 5 cards. that's pretty insane... No, it isn't. Putting aside the actual probability calculations and just approximating, 4 boxes is about right (rounding off to the nearest box) for a set like FN that had 46/8 to get close to or to complete a set with no trading. Bloodlines bears little resemblance to FN. Anyone completing a set just by opening up 4 boxes got lucky. "He's a ... he's a reverse vampire. They ... they crave the Sun."

pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote in message news:<5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com>... > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. > > U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf > Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes > IMNSHO. <snip> > What's up with that? That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS* to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah. Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3 boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and you're 1 blood better, without an untapped pre vamp). You can use The Stranger Among Us to reduce the need for Scarce vamps in the crypt, but this means playing multiple copies of card (to ensure you see it) that isn't useful the second time you draw it. It would be like playing 5 of a particular HG. Your deck might need that first one but 2-5 rather suck. Alternatively you can play 4-5 of the scarce vampires, which gives you a good chance of seeing one in the opening crypt. The scarce mechanic keeps you from playing more, but that's fine. That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with, would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either: A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce clans. B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before you read their text. Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It reminds me a lot of the early runs of the 1st Star Wars CCG. There were many cards in that game that required Darth Vader, Luke, Obi Wan, (aka the "mains"). People who weren't interested in plunking down more than $200 didn't stand the slightest of chances of being able to play decks based on those cards, because the mains were of course rare. Thankfully, BLs avoided one of the pitfalls of Star Wars in that the BL cards aren't way more powerful than those of the other sets. I do hope there is improvement in the Camarilla set.

but opening 164 boosters and still missing 10 R1 cards, and having some u1 cards only 3 times is a sign of a bad distributed set and a rarity scheme that was created to rip people off. stefan "Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20011204142246...@mb-ft.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters and got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. My numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of boosters. "PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: >That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS* >to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah. This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be curious to see what sort of distribution I hit. >Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone. Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =) Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly" override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need at the right time. >all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3 Currently, I'm delighted with the idea. I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill. I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) -- and I will probably do fairly well with only 2 copies of each, as I can plug Blanche and Matthias in to avoid duplication (just in case I want to bring a second scarce vamp out, or get mine burned via Force of Will or something). >boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using >Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are >going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards >requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind >time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and Serves you right for trying to make a Rewind Time deck in the first place, doesn't it? Lesson: overfocussing your deck is not always the correct approach. And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never BAD. Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also is never bad. Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can always be freely cycled. Of course, I just listed a bunch of Obeah cards, didn't I? Oops. Anyway, the point still holds, as the Salubri are ALSO scarce. I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available. >you're 1 blood better, without an untapped pre vamp). You can use The >Stranger Among Us to reduce the need for Scarce vamps in the crypt, I wouldn't go THAT far, although one or two copies included in a deck is probably a good idea. >but this means playing multiple copies of card (to ensure you see it) >that isn't useful the second time you draw it. It would be like >playing 5 of a particular HG. Your deck might need that first one but >2-5 rather suck. Alternatively you can play 4-5 of the scarce >vampires, which gives you a good chance of seeing one in the opening >crypt. The scarce mechanic keeps you from playing more, but that's >fine. This is the approach I will/would use, and it works rather effectively (4/12 works out to about 86% chance of getting one in your opening crypt; well out of the reach of anything except astonishing bad luck). >That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with, >would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a >single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either: >A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce >clans. Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have obnoxiously lots of disposable income. >B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before >you read their text. I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release had an inferior-out that was either: A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor, inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind, inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge") This doesn't strike me as "useless" by a long shot. >Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here. These are intended as "support" for existing clans. One would expect that one would have some of the existing clans FIRST. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

> Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the > starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have > obnoxiously lots of disposable income. Don't know about that, they just tend to be obsessive I think. You know, buying boxes of bloodlines and then having to live off pot noodles for a month :) > >B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before > >you read their text. > > I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release > had an inferior-out that was either: > > A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor, > inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or > > B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind, > inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge") > > This doesn't strike me as "useless" by a long shot. Most of them have inferiors of "normal" disciplines that either give them something they don't have ( like a Dominate dodge ) or isn't quite as good as an existing card that you would use but is still useful. Psychomacia at pre does the same as, but isn't as good as Change of Target. The BL discipline versions also seem to be geared towards not needing a lot of them either or at least enabling you to reduce the number of cards required to support it. Nose of the Hound being a good example. If you use it's spi or SPI you need fewer manuver cards. > >Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It > > Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go > spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final > Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here. > > These are intended as "support" for existing clans. One would expect > that one would have some of the existing clans FIRST. A few of the BL are playable on their own, but yes, generally they are meant to support other clans, which I think it does well.

> B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before > you read their text. I love this comment. Not only have you hit the nail on the head, but I think you have sold yourself short. I think that all the cards from VTES in all the expansions are 100% useless before you read their text. In fact, if you are illiterate, then you can't play VTES. This would probably explain why there is such a high play ratio of European players to American players. Please for heaven sake, Read the Cards!! This might be the reason you are having such a hard time with bloodlines. I hope this helps. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:6ViP7.88636$8n4.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You implying that a lot of Americans are illiterate, I'll agree with that :) Hmm, I might try getting foreign language versions of cards ( do they make em? ) just to confuse everyone :)

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<1103_10...@news.netc.pt>... [ quoted text not captured ] I bought 5 boosters yesterday, one of them had 14 cards (5 vampires), another one 8 cards (no vampire) and one 10 cards (missing an unco), the last two boosters had 11 cards !!!!!!!! Bad luck or what ?!? It sucks

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com... > In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, > smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: <snip> > Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about > money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone > isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone. > Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =) One thing is to have a "real" CCG. The other is to open boosters and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters. That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and some of the uncommons). So you would do better believing and put more care about all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things don't happen, usually. Or, at least, don't happen more than once. But, as i read from other players on this thread, with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in booster again.. And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH the % of rarities in the whole sets. > Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills > you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly" > override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need > at the right time. This is not the point. You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with senseless children's cry. This is not a good approach, i think. Just my thought Emiliano Ps: and I play Unreal Tournament only, Quake sucks...;) <snip>

So what if you get a skewed distribution? That's what trading is for. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Now that I've finally opened my BL box, I can comment on this: I agree that the distribution really sucks! It's rather annoying when you open a booster pack, and among the 7 common cards, you end up with 3 copies of the same card! And even within my box of BL, I ended up with many duplicate rares. I never had that problem with SW or FN (I guess the R2's are really R2's then). I am glad I ended up with a decent amount of the scarce vampires though. 1 Nagaraja, 2 Trujah, and 2 copies each of 2 Salubri (2 x Matthias, 2 x Miriam). Besides the Salubri duplicates, I did end up with quite a handful of duplicate rares, which was rather annoying. 2 Basilisk's Touch, 2 Echo of Harmonies, 2 Herald of Topheth, etc. BTW: #1. Does superior Echo of Harmonies bypass any title restrictions that vote card may have? #2. I'm a little confused about Falcon's Eye and the whole "normal prey, predator, or target restrictions" thingy. Is it just like Eagle's Sight?

Halcyan 2 wrote: > BTW: #1. Does superior Echo of Harmonies bypass any title restrictions that > vote card may have? No. You have to meet the requirements (clan, title, sect, whatever). And you pay the cost (if any). And you get the inherent vote (which counts as your 1 PA vote). > #2. I'm a little confused about Falcon's Eye and the whole "normal prey, > predator, or target restrictions" thingy. Is it just like Eagle's Sight? Yes, except that blocking is non-optional. -- 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/

"Mark Allen" <alle...@home.com> wrote in message news:2wgP7.1210$iO6.9...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com... > Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters and > got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the > bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. My > numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of > boosters. > I have to agree. I opened two boxes yesterday. While I did not get all the rares (and didn't expect to), I did get one each of the Trujah, Nagaraja, and was only one short for a complete Salubri run. In fact, I'm really only a few rares away from a complete set (about 10 shy). Granted, I only got 5 Slaughterhouses, but still...how many do I really need. (Here's the comment that will undoubtedly get me in a lot of trouble here) (Some of) You people b!+ch too much...just enjoy the game (and trade, trade, TRADE!!!).

In message <nmmP7.242298$sq5.11...@news.infostrada.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com... >> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, >> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: ><snip> > >> Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about >> money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone >> isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone. >> Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =) > >One thing is to have a "real" CCG. The other is to open boosters >and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters. >That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened >a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and >some of the uncommons). That is the fault of the printer, not the fault of WW. I'm sure that issue has long since been resolved (by WW either finding another printer, or bitching to the current printer such that those errors do not happen again). I'm sorry that you got screwed by the printer, but I'm sure it came as a surprise to WW as well. Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as dumb as it gets. >So you would do better believing and put more care about >all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things >don't happen, usually. Horseshit. >Or, at least, don't happen more than once. Unbelievable Horseshit. >But, as i read from other players on this thread, >with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in >booster again.. It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right now. >And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of >all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted >by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH the >% of rarities >in the whole sets. There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art, unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the same then becomes an additional marketing tool. I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and "texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the minority. >> Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills >> you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly" >> override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need >> at the right time. > >This is not the point. Really? I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!" If it were that easy, what would be the point? >You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with >senseless children's cry. >This is not a good approach, i think. You can be sincerely senseless as well as just sincere, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > You implying that a lot of Americans are illiterate, I'll agree with that :) > I wish this was a joke, believe me; it is not. XZ

In message <klhs0u0hmlk8sujnj...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>But, as i read from other players on this thread, >>with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in >>booster again.. > >It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange >distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I >whine? I've just been out and bought my first boxes. I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's bothered. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <HddlcNxF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >I've just been out and bought my first boxes. > >I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's >bothered. Please do. gomi pronounces it 'CHEE-squared' just to annoy the wife -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:9ulkpf$17v$1...@panix1.panix.com... > In article <HddlcNxF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >I've just been out and bought my first boxes. > > > >I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's > >bothered. > > Please do. > > gomi > pronounces it 'CHEE-squared' just to annoy the wife It amuses me to think that your wife can be annoyed by that. :-) You're going to do a chi-squared test on your own distribution too, right gomi? Josh and what if it doesn't look random from the test? we already know it's not, truly...

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <klhs0u0hmlk8sujnj...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>But, as i read from other players on this thread, > >>with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in > >>booster again.. > > > >It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange > >distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I > >whine? > > I've just been out and bought my first boxes. > > I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's > bothered. Sheesh, I got my degree too long ago. I can't even begin to remember what this is. But if it's a way of testing randomness of events/distribution (as the context suggests), please do. I'd love to see how the Bloodlines distribution stacks up. I think the expectations and preferences of most players is that the distribution actually be non-random - in terms of being biased towards having as few copies of each type of card within each box as possible for the rarity level of that card. Players might be seeing real clumping but I wouldn't be totally surprised if they were just seeing true randomness and are disappointed with it. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com>... > In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, > smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: > > >That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS* > >to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah. > > This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be > curious to see what sort of distribution I hit. GL > >Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made ><flames deleted> Yah, fuck you too. > >all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3 > Currently, I'm delighted with the idea. > > I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be > uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill. > I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) -- When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight" copies of one vampire? Or even five? > >boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using > >Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are > >going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards > >requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind > >time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and > Serves you right for trying to make a Rewind Time deck in the first It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost 2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain (though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat cards. I think I should be able to use them. > place, doesn't it? Lesson: overfocussing your deck is not always the > correct approach. Who's said anything about focusing? I'm not going to include even 1 copy of a card I can't play. Packing in cards you consistently can not use isn't toolboxing, it's bad deck design. > And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's > inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never > BAD. Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as there is with the leave torpor action. > Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also > is never bad. Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen. > Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can > always be freely cycled. Which pre clan was short on manuevers? > Of course, I just listed a bunch of Obeah cards, didn't I? Oops. > Anyway, the point still holds, as the Salubri are ALSO scarce. > I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available. I do, however I have no intention of going over more than that. > >That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with, > >would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a > >single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either: > >A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce > >clans. > > Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the > starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have > obnoxiously lots of disposable income. A) In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession going on. B) Of the few dozen regulars in our area, the majority are college students -- 96% of all college students know how to stretch $4.37 into 5 meals -- you figure it out. C) When you go to truly large tournament (minimum 200 players), you still don't see an overwhelming number of people with cash falling out of their wallets. D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people into the game. > >B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before > >you read their text. > > I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release > had an inferior-out that was either: > > A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor, > inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or Which means that they are *still useless* if you can't use the BL discipline, because the cards they mimic do have a superior that you can use for another, potentially greater, effect. Spirit Marionette is orders of magnitude weaker than Scouting Mission if you have at least some DOM and no obeah. > B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind, > inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge") There's already a S:D for dom minions. It's called dodge. The "do not replace" line is largely unimportant. There are a few truly new effects, and even less you'd want to play for just the off clan inferior. > >Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It > Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go > spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final > Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here. *mumbles something about portal and starter* Well this is a wonderful attitude if you want to keep the game relegated to a relatively tiny market with no more than a few 100 players worldwide. I for one wouldn't mind seeing tournaments that draw more than 32 players on a regular basis. I also wouldn't mind it if people would drop the elitist attitude, but I'm not holding my breath.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Really? I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and > make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!" > > If it were that easy, what would be the point? Wow. That's as crushing an indictment of V:tES and CCG's in general as I've ever heard. - Jason Bell

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote > > Just my thought > > Emiliano > > Ps: and I play Unreal Tournament only, Quake sucks...;) Ha, I think I've seen you on UT as Tetragrammaton. I'm mere mortal, in case you remember seeing me. - Jason Bell

In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com>... >> This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be >> curious to see what sort of distribution I hit. >GL > >> >Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made >><flames deleted> > >Yah, fuck you too. I'll offer you a deal. You don't whine and I won't flame. >> Currently, I'm delighted with the idea. >> I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be >> uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill. >> I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) -- > >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight" >copies of one vampire? Or even five? Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare, instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill, because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most. Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I? >It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost >2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain >(though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being >able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat >cards. I think I should be able to use them. I think you'll be perfectly able to use them. Consider trading? If you didn't get the Trujah, you certainly got some OTHER cards in those rare slots. I bet you can find someone with some Trujah pretty easily. >> And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's >> inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never >> BAD. > >Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're >pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so I'm not sure what world you play in, but being able to put two blood on a vampire is certainly useful. Superior Restoration is even better; Minion Tap a big-ass vampire, play superior Restoration, and now you have plenty of blood to spend on actions next turn. Maybe Restoration isn't as mind-numbingly good like 5th Tradition or Govern the Unaligned. But it ain't black or white; cards aren't either "awesome" or "sucky". The whole idea behind the inferior-out disciplines is so that if you don't draw your BL vamps, or if your BL vamps get hosed, you'll actually be able to PLAY the cards in your hand. With only about 5 different vamps per BL clan, this is pretty much necessary, as it will be very difficult to play some of these clans all by themselves. NO, you don't put Renewed Vigor in with the intent to play it and gain two blood. You put it in your deck so that your Salubri can play it and refill someone. But if your Salubri gets his head blown off and diablerized, you can at least PLAY the damn card, instead of just sitting there and looking at hand jam. >is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only >saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as >there is with the leave torpor action. However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it, you can still eat the vampire. >> Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also >> is never bad. > >Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement >over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably >better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen. Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want, the inferiors to all read "I win"? >> Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can >> always be freely cycled. > >Which pre clan was short on manuevers? Oh, you mean the Ventrue, who only have one maneuver card available, that card only at superior, and who would be much better off sticking in another Skin of Steel anyway? I guess you must have been talking about THAT clan. Not to mention that many people believe in mono-PRE decks... you have heard of weenie PRE bleed, right? >> I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available. > >I do, however I have no intention of going over more than that. I am not surprised. >> Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the >> starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have >> obnoxiously lots of disposable income. > >A) In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession going on. Yep. I bet WW has noticed too. Did you know that production costs for a CCG do not mysteriously diminish when there is a recession? >B) Of the few dozen regulars in our area, the majority are college >students -- 96% of all college students know how to stretch $4.37 into >5 meals -- you figure it out. Then those same college students can get jobs. I know a lot of college students. I've noticed that the broke ones don't have jobs, and the ones with money DO. Occasionally the broke ones also have jobs, but those are the ones who are helping put themselves through college, usually. For them, I sympathise, but frankly, not everyone is entitled to everything. >C) When you go to truly large tournament (minimum 200 players), you >still don't see an overwhelming number of people with cash falling out >of their wallets. Perhaps you just don't know what to look for. >D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people >into the game. I don't care if the sets cost $5 per box. If I am introducing new people to the game, I will point them at the Sabbat War/Final Nights starter decks, or the discount V:TES/Jyhad boxes. BLOODLINES IS NOT A GOOD SET TO START A NEWBIE ON. Sheesh. >> I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release >> had an inferior-out that was either: >> >> A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor, >> inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or > >Which means that they are *still useless* if you can't use the BL >discipline, because the cards they mimic do have a superior that you >can use for another, potentially greater, effect. Spirit Marionette Which would cost you a SECOND card slot *or* would deny you the use of the BL discipline entirely, as you replaced Renewed Vigor with Restoration. Hardly useless. >is orders of magnitude weaker than Scouting Mission if you have at >least some DOM and no obeah. Fortunately, you didn't put it in for the +1 bleed, you put it in to rip off someone's minion at +1 stealth and bleed with that minion. It's a good thing you can bleed with it when someone comes and burns the guy who just stole their minion though, isn't it? And let's see, the Salubri disciplines are AUS/FOR/OBE... hmm.. that fits with.. AUS/FOR/DOM... hmm.. hey, look! A whole clan full of yellow guys who will probably be able to use this card and also be in my crypt! Gosh! How CLEVER! >> B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind, >> inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge") > >There's already a S:D for dom minions. It's called dodge. The "do >not replace" line is largely unimportant. There are a few truly new >effects, and even less you'd want to play for just the off clan >inferior. So what's your point? This is a set focussed on the BLOODLINES, not the existing uber-powerful Dominate discipline. You want a Dodge? Put in a dodge. You want a steal-one-blood and steal-one-master effect that your Lasombra can use too if they need to? Put in Absorb the Mind. Are you following me here? Do you have the picture? Is the transmission clear, Houston? >*mumbles something about portal and starter* Mumble, mumble, whatever. Speak up if you want to be heard; I don't understand vague allusions to "portal" or "starter", I don't play Magic. >draw more than 32 players on a regular basis. I also wouldn't mind it >if people would drop the elitist attitude, but I'm not holding my >breath. I wouldn't mind if people didn't spend their whole time pissing and moaning. I can't afford more than two boxes of Bloodlines, myself, but I intend to make the best of what I can manage. And I'll do pretty damn well, because I'm a bright lad. I COULD waste all my time bitching on the newsgroup about random distribution, instead, and never actually get anything done. Wow, that's a GREAT idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and > make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!" > > If it were that easy, what would be the point? ??? Um, PLAYING THE GAME would be the point, obviously! If we could get rid of the silly collectible aspect of the game and just make it a constructed deck card with reasonable prices (production value plus fair profit) for whatever cards we felt like owning, it would be a *much* better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would suck. Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not for business aspect of this kind of game. Fred

In message <oUvP7.154838$fm5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] V:TES, and all CCGs, are luxury items. Complaining about the costs of luxury items is, frankly, a waste of time. Trying to determine whether the price is "fair" is even more a waste of time, since there's nothing really to compare it TO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C0E964B...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >??? Um, PLAYING THE GAME would be the point, obviously! If we could >get rid of the silly collectible aspect of the game and just make it >a constructed deck card with reasonable prices (production value plus >fair profit) for whatever cards we felt like owning, it would be a *much* >better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes >out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or >just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would >suck. Spot on. Full marks, that man. >Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not >for business aspect of this kind of game. My point exactly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3C0E964B...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > >Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not > >for business aspect of this kind of game. > > My point exactly. Oh, OK, sorry. Didn't realize that's what you were angling at. Thought you might have been advocating the joy of collectability for collectability's sake, which always seemed pretty mindless and annoying to me. Rumor has it that certain parties actually like that. Fred

In message <3C0E6016...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: >> I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's >> bothered. > >Sheesh, I got my degree too long ago. I can't even begin to remember >what this is. My A levels were only a few years ago... >But if it's a way of testing randomness of events/distribution (as the >context suggests), please do. I'd love to see how the Bloodlines >distribution stacks up. Basically, a chi-squared test takes every possibility and calculates how often it should occur if the distribution occurs *exactly*. e.g. over 100 cards, you have should 1 copy of this R1, 2 copies of that R2 etc. It then calculates the difference - in a complex mathematical way - between the perfect distribution and the actual distribution. If it goes outside a certain tolerance, you can reject the null hypothesis (that is, most usually, that the distribution you were using for the test was appropriate for this circumstance). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes > out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or > just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would > suck. I don't know if I buy that. I can't imagine that white wolf would go out of business if the game was not collectable. I can't see them changing that, seeing as how it already is collectable. But I don't see how making the ratio of "rare" to "common" cards a little less dramatic would ruin the profitability of the game? I can't imagine that I would buy any less cards if the makeup of the packs were: 5 commons, 4 uncommons, 2 rares. And I can't think of anyone that would? Who is going to cheap out? Most people I know have gotten maybe 2 boxes of each set. Myself I like 4 boxes. I would still get 4. I don't think that changing that would break the white wolf company. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

>It was surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of *commons*. It >wasn't _that_ large of an expansion. After buying 4 boxes of Jyhad, not counting various boosters bought individually over that timespan -- I did not have ANY Enhanced Senses or Telepathic Misdirections. I didn't get any until I was only missing two rares from a set! It happens. Based on my results from buying/winning Sabbat War boosters, odds are about %80 that I'll get one of the following cards: Hand of Conrad Changeling Skin Mask Up Yours Occassionaly I'll get a different rare, but not very often. I have 15 copies of Up Yours from the Sabbat War expansion. It happens. Most people I've talked to have not had the problems you report with Final Nights -- I didn't buy any boxes, but from buying individual boosters, I've had no trouble at all getting enough commons from across the board for my purposes, and a complete set of vamps w/adequate duplicates (not counting the 4 rare vamps). Fanboy

> One thing is to have a "real" CCG. The other is to open boosters > and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters. > That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened > a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and > some of the uncommons). Two words: Fallen Empires. For those of you not in the know, Fallen Empires was notorious about poor distribution. Packs with only six cards were abundant -- there was a display in a local store in Houston that you could TELL had been shorted cards. Hold a "full" booster next to these, and they were about half the thickness -- obviously missing cards. An entire box. Some boxes were miscut throughout, so that the top half of the card would be the text of White Card A, and the bottom half would be the picture of Black Card B. Some had this on the backs, but perfectly functional fronts -- unplayable because the card is "marked" when placed face down. > So you would do better believing and put more care about > all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things > don't happen, usually. Except they do -- probably to all games that make it past the first expansion. Jyhad, back in the day, had cases that had 4 rares instead of 1 rare and three uncommons. THat's also a distribution error -- a massive one -- but one that works out to the purchasers favor. Fanboy

"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<aErP7.308$tg4....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>... > "Mark Allen" <alle...@home.com> wrote in message > news:2wgP7.1210$iO6.9...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com... > > Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters > and > > got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the > > bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. > My > > numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of > > boosters. > > > I have to agree. I opened two boxes yesterday. While I did not get all the > rares (and didn't expect to), I did get one each of the Trujah, Nagaraja, > and was only one short for a complete Salubri run. In fact, I'm really only > a few rares away from a complete set (about 10 shy). > I opened three boxes yesterday, and completed the set opening the penultimate booster of the 3rd box. Distribution seemed perfect, with 2 of most of the R2s and 1 of the most of the R1s.

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nmmP7.242298$sq5.11...@news.infostrada.it>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, Quake really SUCKS!! Unreal Tournament is the Best!!! CTF ALWAYS!!!

"Mark Allen" <alle...@home.com> wrote in message news:<2wgP7.1210$iO6.9...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>... > Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters and > got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the > bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. My > numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of > boosters. i agree with mark. After 3 boxes i am missing only: Call the Great Beast Iron Heart [both are R1s] and i shouldn't have much trouble trading for those, since i have doubles of the following R1s: Armor of Terra Condemnation: Betrayal Defender of the Haven Engling Fury* Erebus Mask High Top* Sight Beyond Sight The Wildebeest* Obviously it follows that i got all the R2s, Us and Cs in my three boxes, including all the vampires. *indicates Ahrimanes/Spiritus cards - i seem to have been quite lucky with these, for some non-reason. > > > "PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message > news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com... > > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, > > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the > > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. > > > > U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf > > Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes > > IMNSHO. > > > > U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8. > > > > C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1 > > cards per box? doesn't seem common to me. > > > > C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes. > > > > The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the > > cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the > > cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very > > little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into > > the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily > > starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting. > > IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1), > > but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3 > > Initally, by the end 8. > > > > What's up with that? Overall it's just random bad luck, but as Derek says, from another point of view it is GOOD luck since you will have PILES of cards that other people desperately want. Go out and TRADE!!!!!

> I don't know if I buy that. I can't imagine that white wolf would go out of > business if the game was not collectable. I can't see them changing that, > seeing as how it already is collectable. There are, in France out least, some pretty good card games out there which are not collectible. So they're not "trading games", but you can buy a few different starters if you want to play certain factions, and eventually they can put more out. As it is, VTES or any other TCG (what does "CCG" mean ?) can't change back to "non-collectible", but these games have proven the liability of other types of functionning. Of course, they will have to get more different games out, but well, there could have been one starter per clan, with the possibility to mix the decks (or not...), and eventually some extensions for each (or global). As I don't know if they exist in other countries, naming these games would be useless, but they usually descend from the old (and excellent) Family Business card game. Other ressemble more Illuminati ; others are much funnier. The point is : TCG bring in a lot of money. We, players, are always suckers in that type of games. But we love to PLAY, and some love to collect, so we buy anyway. That's how it works, and that's why I never played Magic and came very lately to VTES. If we play, we have to accept these "rules". But : that is not the only way to put out a card game. -- Orpheus, Prince of Nowhere (and suburbs) http://no.exit.free.fr http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com... > >> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, > >> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: > ><snip> > Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as > dumb as it gets. I'm not blaming the game. I'm blaming the company that produces the game (actually the WW), for trusting a printer that has done "some" mistakes with the SW set, and, from what i read, had done them again with BL. > >So you would do better believing and put more care about > >all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things > >don't happen, usually. > > Horseshit. ? > > >Or, at least, don't happen more than once. > > Unbelievable Horseshit. > ?? > >But, as i read from other players on this thread, > >with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in > >booster again.. > > It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange > distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I > whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right > now. > I'm not speaking about random-eness, just about actual defective boosters a-gain, back with BL. > >And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of > >all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted > >by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH the > >% of rarities > >in the whole sets. > > There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art, > unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and > he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the > same then becomes an additional marketing tool. > > I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and > "texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the > minority. The only logic for that is the financial one. Sparing money. Just that. > If it were that easy, what would be the point? > To believe in what other people says about the game, even when they think differently from you, and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children. That could help you at getting people close to your point of view, or at least in making your point of view easier to understand. > >You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with > >senseless children's cry. > >This is not a good approach, i think. > > You can be sincerely senseless as well as just sincere, too. I don't think they were sensless. If you think so, you're sensless as well, dealing with and aswering to sensless statements from others. You seem clever enough to not do such a sensless thing, however. Ciao Emiliano, prince of Rome > --

First, I'd like to say I'm new here. Hey, everybody. Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.) 1. You don't want more than one. If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not. Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than Condemnation: Languid. 2. Their effects are indeed exotic. I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot. And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. Personally, I'd need a REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. But if all you want is NEC DOM, there's plenty of other vamps out there. And about the Salubri: How often do you say, "Gee, this vampire doesn't have any bleed or fight disciplines, but he can hunt and then untap"? I don't foresee many decks using him, he's not exactly the next Jimmy Dunn. 3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans. If they were, they'd have more than three vampires each, and they'd be made widely available. They're NOT. They're for a lark, like making a seven-discipline deck (aus dom for obf pot pro tha) or a deck with a card limit of 1. Tough to pull off, but rewarding. Or in tournament play, maybe to catch one's opposition off guard. Who knows, maybe Rewind Time will make Brujah POT PRE the next staple deck, or Obeah will bring rush Vicissitude combat or Ventrue Antitribu (who lack 5th Tradition) to the forefront. I wouldn't put any money on it. I don't think these vamps were made for tourneys. I think they were made for the same reasons Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool. There probably will be a rare or two that I feel I simply MUST have. I know I've opened two boxes of Sabbat War and still don't have a Powerbase: Montreal, which is the only rare I really care about from the set. But all in all, I think White Wolf deserves a little credit. I'm going to play Baali. I'm going to recruit as many as I can, and then race the pool loss with blood dolls and social charms. And you know what? Their best cards--Sense the Sin, Conflagration, and Psychomachia--are all common.

In message <NNKP7.44$bt5...@twister1.libero.it>, "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com... > >> Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as >> dumb as it gets. > >I'm not blaming the game. >I'm blaming the company that produces the game (actually the WW), >for trusting a printer that has done "some" mistakes with the SW set, and, >from what i read, had done them again with BL. What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes? I'm sure they used whoever they used for the FN expansion, and I don't recall the FN expansion having any "defective" boosters. Were they supposed to change printers after a company did a GOOD job? >> >So you would do better believing and put more care about >> >all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things >> >don't happen, usually. >> >> Horseshit. > >? Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and complete horseshit. >> It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange >> distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I >> whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right >> now. > >I'm not speaking about random-eness, just about actual defective boosters >a-gain, back with BL. Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide. However, also consider this: with the amount of cards that must be printed at one time, screwups like this are quite possible, especially considering that machines are sorting them. While I'm sure a few boxes are opened for "quality testing" purposes, if those boxes happen to not catch a buggered-up one, then shit happens. Life is not always pretty. >> There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art, >> unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and >> he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the >> same then becomes an additional marketing tool. >> >> I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and >> "texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the >> minority. > >The only logic for that is the financial one. >Sparing money. >Just that. Paranoid and wrong, but you've got your whiner-blinders on and can't see it. So get you some Kleenex, wipe away the tears, and read the stuff above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would be stupid for them to NOT do it. >> If it were that easy, what would be the point? > >To believe in what other people says about the game, >even when they think differently from you, >and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children. Then they shouldn't act like squabbling children. My god, man, look at how people are acting! Just LOOK at them! Making declarations like "WW is out to screw us" and the like are NOT going to help advance any rational argument. If you have a problem, try stating it CLEARLY, without all the hyperbole attached, and try to back it up with some kind of evidence. Then try to listen to other people when they back THEIRS up; you totally ignored my Shy explanation above, despite it making an awful lot of sense. Game companies are not here to cater to our whims. They're here to make money. Understanding the way a CCG must operate in order to make money is vital to understanding why some things end up they way they do (why a rarity scheme even exists, for example). [ quoted text not captured ]

As I don't agree with any of these, ... >1. You don't want more than one. I think four is about right. If I really want to use one, I'd think about three copies for that deck. Fourth copy is for another deck where I throw it in because it has the right disciplines. > If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka >rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in >conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not. > Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay >another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have >more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I >consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different >versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as >many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many >as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than >Condemnation: Languid. Except, they are all different in terms of specials and discipline spreads. >2. Their effects are indeed exotic. > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does >something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot. Are vampires ever hard to use when you've already factored them into how you build a deck? >And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand >size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. Personally, I'd need a >REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do >anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you >can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. But >if all you want is NEC DOM, there's plenty of other vamps out there. >And about the Salubri: How often do you say, "Gee, this vampire >doesn't have any bleed or fight disciplines, but he can hunt and then >untap"? I don't foresee many decks using him, he's not exactly the >next Jimmy Dunn. Being exotic means that you are more likely to want to build an entire deck around using a vampire. The Stranger Among Us by itself just doesn't cut it for facilitating this. Also, their disciplines aren't necessarily exotic. Synesios has presence and two votes. Nagaraja don't have a new discipline. They just recombine the old. >3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans. > If they were, they'd have more than three vampires each, and >they'd be made widely available. They're NOT. They're for a lark, >like making a seven-discipline deck (aus dom for obf pot pro tha) or a >deck with a card limit of 1. Tough to pull off, but rewarding. Or in >tournament play, maybe to catch one's opposition off guard. Who >knows, maybe Rewind Time will make Brujah POT PRE the next staple >deck, or Obeah will bring rush Vicissitude combat or Ventrue Antitribu >(who lack 5th Tradition) to the forefront. > I wouldn't put any money on it. I don't think these vamps were >made for tourneys. I think they were made for the same reasons >Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You >know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool. All cards should attempt to be equally desirable to play. If rare vampires are just for lark decks, should never have been made in the first place. Every card made could have been a different card. I have no tolerance anymore for poorly conceived cards. It doesn't take much effort to try and design only good cards. Specifically with B, the idea of introducing 12 bloodlines rather than a more managable number, like 6, was a mistake. Also, there are 10 cards AFAICT that are nonvampire uncommons. I believe there are slightly more than 10 rare vampires. Not really a fix to just switch the two groups as there would still be too many rares in the set, but I found it sort of interesting.

> >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com... > > > What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to > KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes? > About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life, i don't expect nothing in particular. To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in the set. This is just what happened with BL. <snip> > >? > > Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying > that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and > complete horseshit. > I was just para-phrasating your boast about "welcome back to the *real* V :tES". <snip> > Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as > a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide. > I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with SW. Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to WW for any defective booster(s) i may get. . > However, also consider this: with the amount of cards that must be > printed at one time, screwups like this are quite possible, especially > considering that machines are sorting them. While I'm sure a few boxes > are opened for "quality testing" purposes, if those boxes happen to not > catch a buggered-up one, then shit happens. > > Life is not always pretty. I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening bad boosters. <snip> > >The only logic for that is the financial one. > >Sparing money. > >Just that. > > Paranoid and wrong, but you've got your whiner-blinders on and can't see > it. So get you some Kleenex, wipe away the tears, and read the stuff > above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw > for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an > effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would > be stupid for them to NOT do it. So, tell me, why we already got two sets full of all-looking-the-same-vampires ? I don't mind too much about it, since i like both Snelly and Shy works, but speaking of graphic variety, a *true* card game like ours should deserve it. > >> If it were that easy, what would be the point? > > > >To believe in what other people says about the game, > >even when they think differently from you, > >and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children. > > Then they shouldn't act like squabbling children. My god, man, look at > how people are acting! Just LOOK at them! > > Making declarations like "WW is out to screw us" and the like are NOT > going to help advance any rational argument. If you have a problem, try > stating it CLEARLY, without all the hyperbole attached, and try to back > it up with some kind of evidence I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with cards distribution in boosters. And some others reported their good time with BL distribution. That's evidence for me. For those who got "good" boxes, no problem, the game is OK. For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside them, so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do that in a less teasing way. >. Then try to listen to other people > when they back THEIRS up; you totally ignored my Shy explanation above, > despite it making an awful lot of sense. > I'm not sure to have got your Shy explanation, then. You just pointed that he has done lot of artworks for the V:tM before (and i know that, since i got so many books of V:tM), so that he somewhat "have to" paint all the vamps cards for the future expansions, since that becomes a marketing tool.... I don't know if you're one of the employed at the WW, dealing with that marketing stuff. If you are, explain me better about that. If you are not, tell me how you can tell for sure all that stuff about marketing tools. Ciao Emiliano <snip> > --

Hindsight is always (well mostly) 20/20. I'm wishing that the ultra rare Bloodlines vampires had at least one of their number in an uncommon slot. That way all those Temporis cards (for instance) are more likely to see play in sealed/draft formats. BernieTime

[ quoted text not captured ] A U1 vampire appears with only 50% more frequency than an R2. Having 3 R2 means you have a 71% chance of seeing one (or more) of the vampires in 20 boosters (4 boosters per player at a 5-player drafting pod). Having 2 R2 and 1 U1 only boosts that to 76%. -- 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/

In message <sVPP7.176$7v6....@twister1.libero.it>, "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >> >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to >> KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes? > >About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life, >i don't expect nothing in particular. So you were just posting to make noise. Got it. >To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in >the set. This is just what happened with BL. This is a completely different issue than complaining about defective boosters in BL. I do not see how they are related, unless by chance some boosters get packaged without the rare card. I don't recall any such reports. Why have you latched onto this number "1/3"? Does it actually have any significance at all? Where did it come from? Why should it matter if 1/3, 1/5, or 1/2 of the set is "rare" ... OTHER than how difficult it will be to complete a "set", something which matters only to collectors? >> Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying >> that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and >> complete horseshit. > >I was just para-phrasating your boast about "welcome back to the *real* V >:tES". This is an incomprehensible statement, and a very obvious misquote of me. I'm going to chalk it up to language differences. I made a statement welcoming V:TES back to the "big time", and noting that I can tell V:TES has made it back because of all the bitching and complaining. Why, you ask? Because "no complaining" can be directly translated into "no interest". The more complainers there are, the more happy players there are -- and complainers are always in the minority. ><snip> >> Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as >> a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide. > >I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with SW. >Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to WW >for any defective booster(s) i may get. Doesn't that seem like a more effective thing to do than ranting on the newsgroup BEFORE you even open your Bloodlines boosters? Won't you feel a bit foolish if you don't get any defective boosters? >> Life is not always pretty. > >I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do >with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening >bad boosters. If someone got a truly defective booster, I feel sorry for them. Contacting WW directly seems like the best option -- posting about it here isn't going to help matters at all. However, if someone is just pissy because they didn't get all the rares by purchasing only 1 box of Bloodlines..., I couldn't care less. If someone is going to rant about how terrible BL is because of this, I'll treat them they way they deserve: as a spoiled child. >> above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw >> for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an >> effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would >> be stupid for them to NOT do it. > >So, tell me, why we already got two sets full of >all-looking-the-same-vampires ? Because reusing familiar artwork (along with existing V:tM characters) is an excellent way to draw in players who haven't ever played the game before? "Hey, look! It's (name)! I always thought he was really cool..." >I don't mind too much about it, since i like both Snelly and Shy works, but >speaking of graphic variety, a *true* card game like ours should deserve it. I don't like Snelly's OR Shy's work. But I can at least understand why. Fortunately, the library cards are all done by a BUNCH of different artists. Hurrah for graphic variety! >I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with >cards distribution in boosters. If the boosters weren't defective, then it's simply a function of random distribution. I will post my own booster distribution below, and you can see. Note that randomness of distribution will be exaggerated in smaller samples of that distribution. If you buy half a box, you're more likely to get weird distributions than if you buy 2 boxes. >And some others reported their good time with BL distribution. >That's evidence for me. >For those who got "good" boxes, no problem, the game is OK. The only "bad" boxes are the ones with defective boosters. >For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside them, >so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do >in a less teasing way. I have to get their attention first; case in point, look at you. If I hadn't ripped your head off with that last post, you would never have even considered what I'm about to say in this post. You still might not, but I figure I have a better chance, at least. It's equvalent to slapping someone who's having hysterics. >I'm not sure to have got your Shy explanation, then. >You just pointed that he has done lot of artworks for the V:tM before (and i >know that, since i got so many books of V:tM), so that he somewhat "have to" >paint all the vamps cards for the future expansions, since that becomes a >marketing tool.... Correct. People are more likely to buy stuff if it can be directly connected to stuff they already like. This is why "Britney Spears" action figures sell out like hotcakes, and why "Susie - Blonde Pop Star" action figures would not. If people like Shy's artwork, they're more likely to buy the game when they see that Shy has done the artwork. When you have figures from your V:tM sales that tell you "we have a bunch of people here who like Shy's artwork", then it becomes even EASIER to make the decision to reuse it. >I don't know if you're one of the employed at the WW, dealing with that >marketing stuff. I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by White Wolf. >If you are not, tell me how you can tell for sure all that stuff about >marketing tools. Because I'm 29 years old, I've worked in several different major corporations for approximately 12 years now, I'm quite intelligent, and I paid attention to what was happening around me -- NOT just what was related to my own job. You can learn a lot this way, if you try. Marketing is a common theme in capitalistic America -- it's something most people learn the basics of in high school, if not sooner. When exposed to it at close range, you can learn a whole lot more. After a certain point, it's just common sense. I mean, if the ONLY concern were money, they could use some bum off the street corner drawing stick figures, right? Or more realistically, some "starving artist" type at a convention desperate for a chance -- pay him half market rate, endure the comparatively horrible quality he produces, and never use him again. THAT is what "only money" looks like. -------------------- (rarity distribution, as promised above) Out of 2 boxes, I received approximately: 5 of each C1 10 of each C2 2 of each U1 (mostly vampires) 5 of each U2 (mostly vampires) 2 of most R2s, EXCEPT for: Le Dinh Tho (none) True Faith (none) 1 of each R1, EXCEPT: Call the Great Beast Darkling Trickery Defender of the Haven Draught of the Soul Erebus Mask High Top Nightmare Curse Shroud of Absence Sight Beyond Sight The Wildebeest Some variance was in there, but never more than 1-off for any given card (for example, I picked up 11 Stone Quills), and very little at ALL for the rares. I would expect the variance to increase somewhat for 1 box, and nearly level out at 3 boxes. For the scarce-vamp panickers, I currently have 3 Nagaraja, 6 Trujah, and 7 Salubri. I am more than capable of making a deck using Temporis/Obeah cards, and especially so after I do a little trading. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Le Dinh Tho (none) > True Faith (none) Strangely, I ended up with a few extras of both. Contact me and we'll do some trades :) Cheers, WES

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only > >saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as > >there is with the leave torpor action. > > However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it, > you can still eat the vampire. I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out for only 1 blood? Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance to diab him. > Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want, > the inferiors to all read "I win"? I playtested that card! It's okay because it's going to be R1. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > > I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was > it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and > play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't > that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out > for only 1 blood? Humanitas is used for 'rescue' actions and *not* for 'leave torpor' actions. They are similar but different actions... In V:tM terms, 'Humanitas' would actually be better for leaving torpor than for rescuing. Vampires with high Humanity scores must spend less time in torpor than those who are closer to the Beast. On the other hand, when one vampire rescues another from torpor, the rescuing vampire has to be at least two generations (maybe three?) than the rescued vampire... a concept that did not make it into V:tES. Cheers, WES

> >> >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to > >> KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes? > > > >About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life, > >i don't expect nothing in particular. > > So you were just posting to make noise. Got it. > No, i'm posting to support people that dislike to find bad boosters (either due to distribution or for defective ones). And you're pointing that people should not "whining", since that is a thing that *sometimes* happens. I can't see how this is a good point. > >To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in > >the set. This is just what happened with BL. > > This is a completely different issue than complaining about defective > boosters in BL. I do not see how they are related, unless by chance > some boosters get packaged without the rare card. I don't recall any > such reports. > > Why have you latched onto this number "1/3"? Does it actually have any > significance at all? Where did it come from? Why should it matter if > 1/3, 1/5, or 1/2 of the set is "rare" ... OTHER than how difficult it > will be to complete a "set", something which matters only to collectors? Significance...? This is just plain matemathics, my friend. For collectors, having more than 33 % of the rares in a set means more money to spend finding those rares. Maybe they don't mind, since this CCG is a luxury thing, ok. For players, that's just crap since (giving possibilities here): A) Most of the rares in the set are unuseful for playing terms (eg: twisting the knife) OR B)Most of the rares are useful for playing the game and/or for setting up a strategy (eg: pulled fangs) Say, if we got A, then having more than 33% of rares is crap, becuse players got a set with many not-so-useful cards, and that rare slot in the booster could have been spared for something better... If B, then is anyway crap for players, that will have an hard time looking for so many rares cards to play with. Having a set with a more balanced proportion of common-uncommon-rare make things easier for players, i think. And, since the community supporting the game is made mostly of players, a general not-good feeling is in the background when such a "high % rare set" comes out (say, oh my! so many rewind time to find to build a deck with....). > This is an incomprehensible statement, and a very obvious misquote of > me. I'm going to chalk it up to language differences. > > I made a statement welcoming V:TES back to the "big time", and noting > that I can tell V:TES has made it back because of all the bitching and > complaining. Why, you ask? Because "no complaining" can be directly > translated into "no interest". The more complainers there are, the more > happy players there are -- and complainers are always in the minority. > Ok > ><snip> <snip> > >I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with SW. > >Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to WW > >for any defective booster(s) i may get. > > Doesn't that seem like a more effective thing to do than ranting on the > newsgroup BEFORE you even open your Bloodlines boosters? Won't you feel > a bit foolish if you don't get any defective boosters? I'm not ranting, i just pointed that. > >> Life is not always pretty. > > > >I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do > >with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening > >bad boosters. > > If someone got a truly defective booster, I feel sorry for them. > Contacting WW directly seems like the best option -- posting about it > here isn't going to help matters at all. Why not ? If you don't like, you don't read and don't answer to such posts, then. Let those "whining" players "cry" just between themselves. Just report (as you're doing below) your experience with boosters opening. > > However, if someone is just pissy because they didn't get all the rares > by purchasing only 1 box of Bloodlines..., I couldn't care less. If > someone is going to rant about how terrible BL is because of this, I'll > treat them they way they deserve: as a spoiled child. > <snip all the stuff about shy, point taken> > >I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with > >cards distribution in boosters. > > If the boosters weren't defective, then it's simply a function of random > distribution. I will post my own booster distribution below, and you > can see. > > Note that randomness of distribution will be exaggerated in smaller > samples of that distribution. If you buy half a box, you're more likely > to get weird distributions than if you buy 2 boxes. > This is not always true, me & a friend of mine opened in common 7 boxes of SW, and we don't even collected a single whole collection, still missing a fair number of rares (10) (apart getting as many as 7 defectives boosters with no rares). > The only "bad" boxes are the ones with defective boosters. > > >For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside them, > >so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do > >in a less teasing way. > > I have to get their attention first; case in point, look at you. If I > hadn't ripped your head off with that last post, you would never have > even considered what I'm about to say in this post. You still might > not, but I figure I have a better chance, at least. You can get attention even without that, i think. Else, you're dealing the same way you don't like about those "whining" players: with hyperboles and over-talked statements. > > It's equvalent to slapping someone who's having hysterics. > <snip again the shy rasoning, seeying your point> Ciao Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only > > >saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as > > >there is with the leave torpor action. > > > > However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it, > > you can still eat the vampire. > > I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was > it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and > play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't Yes, unless you are useing the No Repeat Actions rule, since they are both "leave torpor" types. > that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out > for only 1 blood? No. Humanitas's card text does that. "Rescue" is not "Leave". > Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance to > diab him. Not unless the rules or card text says so. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:n1YP7.13640$g96.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net... > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it, > > you can still eat the vampire. > > I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was > it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and > play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't > that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out > for only 1 blood? > > Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance to > diab him. You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize. Also, he can take an action to diablerize a vampire in torpor. But "rescue a vampire from torpor", "leave torpor", and "diablerize a vampire in torpor" are all different action types, now. In case you didn't already know that. ;-) Josh repeating readily available information

Joshua Duffin wrote: > You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used > anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action > of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize. Only in the instances where the rules allow it. If, for example, Rapid Healing failed to extend the diablerie opportunity to the blocker, then the blocker would have no diablerie opportunity. > Also, > he can take an action to diablerize a vampire in torpor. But > "rescue a vampire from torpor", "leave torpor", and "diablerize > a vampire in torpor" are all different action types, now. Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C10E227...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used > > anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action > > of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize. > > Only in the instances where the rules allow it. > If, for example, Rapid Healing failed to extend the diablerie opportunity > to the blocker, then the blocker would have no diablerie opportunity. That would be kind of cool. I eagerly await the day that an action usable by a vampire in torpor is printed which does not allow a blocking vampire to diablerize. :-) As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type? Josh not healing too rapidly right now

Joshua Duffin wrote: > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type? It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type" is defined). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C10E67C...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your > > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type? > > It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type" > is defined). So it's because the text uses the key words "leaves torpor"? The text of the NRA rule doesn't use it as an example, and the card is clearly not a "standard" "leave torpor" action since it doesn't cost 2 blood. OTOH, Scouting Mission is not a standard bleed action since it's a bleed at +1, so maybe this makes sense after all. :-) Josh the word is the key

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C10E67C...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your > > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type? > > It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type" > is defined). Okay, you got me thinking now. By type, what that that mean if this happens: Noals full Lolita is hanging around in torpor from Bernie's (typical sunday game) I drop a spare fortitude master card on her I graverob her at inferior with Cardano, who of course freak drives. Lolita rapid heals out of torpor and gains a blood(shes at 4 now) She force of wills, bleeds Bernie for a meger 3 which he takes. She is back in torpor with 3 blood. At this point I get confused. 1) Lolita freak drives, she can't rescue herself, at least under NRA right? Because they are both "leave torpor" 'types' of actions? 2) If the graverobbing had been at superior putting Lolita into the ready region instead of torpor, could Cardano attempt to rescue Lolita? Since he has already taken a "pull your ass out of torpor" 'type' of action?(see graverobbing) Since the normal rescuse is also a "pull your ass out of torpor" 'type' of action? [ quoted text not captured ]

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your > > > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type? > > > > It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type" > > is defined). > > Okay, you got me thinking now. By type, what that that mean if this > happens: > Noals full Lolita is hanging around in torpor from Bernie's (typical sunday > game) > I drop a spare fortitude master card on her > I graverob her at inferior with Cardano, who of course freak drives. > Lolita rapid heals out of torpor and gains a blood(shes at 4 now) > She force of wills, bleeds Bernie for a meger 3 which he takes. > She is back in torpor with 3 blood. > > At this point I get confused. > > 1) Lolita freak drives, she can't rescue herself, at least under NRA right? > Because they are both "leave torpor" 'types' of actions? She can't take the "leave torpor" action, right, since she has already take a "leave torpor" type action this turn. > 2) If the graverobbing had been at superior putting Lolita into the ready > region instead of torpor, could Cardano attempt to rescue Lolita? Since he > has already taken a "pull your ass out of torpor" 'type' of action?(see > graverobbing) Since the normal rescuse is also a "pull your ass out of > torpor" 'type' of action? Graverobbing isn't a "rescue a vampire from torpor" action type, no. (card text). [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qb2t0uks6j4v5t3e1...@4ax.com>... > In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, > smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about: > >> Currently, I'm delighted with the idea. > >> I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be > >> uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill. > >> I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) -- > > > >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight" > >copies of one vampire? Or even five? > > Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that > maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare, > instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill, > because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most. > Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I? More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing to do with it. > >It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost > >2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain > >(though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being > >able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat > >cards. I think I should be able to use them. > I think you'll be perfectly able to use them. Consider trading? Zero sum gain. Unless you get a screwy distribution (which ended up happening), or you have someone you trade with buy a *lot* BLs, trading wouldn't help as it would simply mean that you can play XYZ and they can't. > >> And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's > >> inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never > >> BAD. > >Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're > >pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so > I'm not sure what world you play in, but being able to put two blood on > a vampire is certainly useful. Since this only nets you 1 more blood than hunting, I refer you again to the ascendance. Cards that only mean the loss or gain of one blood are generally pretty weak. 1 pt of pool loss to your prey is ok. > >> Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also > >> is never bad. > >Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement > >over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably > >better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen. > Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want, > the inferiors to all read "I win"? Ah, I see. There is no middle ground between ascendance and a "Die Button." > >> Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can > >> always be freely cycled. > >Which pre clan was short on manuevers? > Oh, you mean the Ventrue, who only have one maneuver card available, > that card only at superior, and who would be much better off sticking in > another Skin of Steel anyway? Fake Out, Unflinching Persistence, Zip Gun if you want it. That's without bothering to get generic equipment, or the 7 of them with some amount of celerity. <snip money> Sorry, I must be alone in that I don't want CCGs to turn into Golf. > >D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people > >into the game. > I don't care if the sets cost $5 per box. If I am introducing new > people to the game, I will point them at the Sabbat War/Final Nights > starter decks, or the discount V:TES/Jyhad boxes. > BLOODLINES IS NOT A GOOD SET TO START A NEWBIE ON. Sheesh. Again, making sets that aren't newbie friendly is fine, so long as you don't want any more players. Otherwise they will be put off by it. > Gosh! How CLEVER! Indeed.

firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message news:<80bafd85.01120...@posting.google.com>... > First, I'd like to say I'm new here. > Hey, everybody. > > Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires > should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my > reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.) > > 1. You don't want more than one. > If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka > rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in > conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not. > Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay > another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have > more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I > consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different > versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as > many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many > as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than > Condemnation: Languid. You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another annoyance). > 2. Their effects are indeed exotic. > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does > something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot. > And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand > size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. Really? Increased hand size is a pretty nice thing. For that matter, all the Nagaraja seem solid as long as you're using their disciplines. > Personally, I'd need a > REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do > anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you > can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =) > 3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans. Not on their own, but I sincerely hope they were supposed to be something you could mix with another clan and win with. > There probably will be a rare or two that I feel I simply MUST have. > I know I've opened two boxes of Sabbat War and still don't have a > Powerbase: Montreal, which is the only rare I really care about from > the set. But all in all, I think White Wolf deserves a little credit. The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them. There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind (dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot, Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, Shaun McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: >> >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight" >> >copies of one vampire? Or even five? >> >> Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that >> maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare, >> instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill, >> because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most. >> Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I? > >More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing >to do with it. True if you're playing a "usual" deck where you might want one vampire a lot, but also want to get out three or four vampires. Good decks have been done with lots of copies of one vampire, however. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

Shaun McIsaac wrote: 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 > firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message > news:80bafd85.01120...@posting.google.com>... > >>First, I'd like to say I'm new here. >>Hey, everybody. >> >>Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires >>should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my >>reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.) >> >>1. You don't want more than one. >> > > You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using > enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to > ensure you get 1. You may want 12 in the crypt to get only the 1 every single time you draw it - then play the Soul-Gem-add-one-discipline-card game. I'm imagining a Huitzy-and-the-Beast deck, for instance. >>2. Their effects are indeed exotic. Be careful! Just because vampires have "exotic" specials and exotic discipline cards available to them doesn't make them exotic. They may turn out to have a very useful discipline combination which fits into a very common type of deck to great advantage, and their exotic specials and discipline cards become frosting on the cake. That is not the kind of a card you want as a rare. Fred

This is a long-a$$ thread, but I will just say that I opened 2 boxes and 7 boosters, and I had all C1 & 2, all U1 & 2, and I was missing just 14 rares. However, after a third box, I was still missing 11 rares. Diminishing returns I guess. I am not really disappointed. Any one want Iron Heart - I now own 4. best- chris PeterM wrote: > > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares, > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got. > > U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf > Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes > IMNSHO. > > U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8. > > C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1 > cards per box? doesn't seem common to me. > > C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes. > > The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the > cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the > cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very > little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into > the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily > starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting. > IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1), > but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3 > Initally, by the end 8. > > What's up with that? -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

> >1. You don't want more than one. > > I think four is about right. If I really want to use one, I'd think about > three copies for that deck. Fourth copy is for another deck where I throw it > in because it has the right disciplines. "You don't want more than one" was intended as a title for the following paragraph, and not as a separate argument. I should also have specified "in play", as that's what the following paragraph was all about. If just any 3 True Brujah won't work in your deck, if you NEED 3 Synesios, trade your Nu and your Krassimir. Most boxes seem to come with about 6 scarce vampires in them. > >I consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different > >versions for versatility > Except, they are all different in terms of specials and discipline spreads. I was assuming people would be using True Brujah for their Temporis, or Salubri for their Obeah. The off-disciplines are nice, and help them fit in other decks, but without their signatures it's like using Emerson Bridges for his Potence. With the Nagaraja, however, they are too easily meshed with Giovanni bleed, so I agree with you in that perhaps THEY shouldn't have been rare. > >2. Their effects are indeed exotic. > > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does > >something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot. > > Are vampires ever hard to use when you've already factored them into how you > build a deck? Sure. I factored Spiridonas into lots of decks he didn't belong in as "my bleeder". He was real hard to use, cause one discipline was often all he had in common with the rest of the deck. More to the point, I intended "hard to use" to mean "unlikely to see play in great quantity". Just because you CAN build a deck around a vamp doesn't mean it will work, or that everyone will build a similar deck, so it doesn't necessitate the card as a common or even an uncommon. > Being exotic means that you are more likely to want to build an entire deck > around using a vampire. I disagree. Ezmerelda has a VERY exotic ability, and yet I've never seen her in play. To have a deck based around a vampire, it has only to be powerful on its own. Take Rob Treasure's Lazverinus deck, for example. +2 strength and a title: no X+2 blood for +X bleed, no prey-burns-all-his-locations, nothing too out of the ordinary. Just a lot of strength and five powerful disciplines. Besides, building your entire deck around one vampire is in the minority among competitive deckbuilding strategies. One Rob Treasure doesn't mean all Lazverini should be commons. (Check out www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob to see the deck I'm talking about.) > The Stranger Among Us by itself just doesn't cut it > for facilitating this. Also, their disciplines aren't necessarily exotic. > Synesios has presence and two votes. Nagaraja don't have a new discipline. > They just recombine the old. Again, Nagaraja may be the exception. As for Synesios, is 2 votes + PRE worth 8, on its own? Don't you use any other disciplines? If you want, say, Aus, For, or Dom, or need a Camarilla title, I can assure you there are quite a few better buys than him. > >I think they were made for the same reasons > >Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You > >know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool. > All cards should attempt to be equally desirable to play. If rare vampires are > just for lark decks, should never have been made in the first place. Every > card made could have been a different card. I have no tolerance anymore for > poorly conceived cards. It doesn't take much effort to try and design only > good cards. Equally desirable to play, in the same numbers as each other? Some cards must be printed copiously; others, not so much. Ur-Shulgi is probably quite desirable to play, in one deck, somewhere. Out of thousands. So he gets to be R1, and Govern the Unaligned is "more desirable to play"...unless you're that Provision of the Silsila/Minion Tap deck that uses the big guy. A poorly conceived card is subjective: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Earlier, I saw a lament posted about how badly Gift of Bellona sucked. To me, after making a !Salubri combat deck with plenty of weapons, it's gold. Since it's rare, I'm counting on about 5 guys like him for every 1 like me, so I can get as many as would be effective. Perhaps the playtesters, after much playtesting, found the True Brujah to be of very limited use, and so the supply was lessened accordingly. I also put forth that it DOES take much effort to try and design only good cards, because you have to take a large number of other factors into account. But why don't you ask LSJ? He writes in frequently, and I'll bet he knows SOMEBODY who desigs the cards, if he doesn't himself. > Specifically with B, the idea of introducing 12 bloodlines rather than a more > managable number, like 6, was a mistake. Also, there are 10 cards AFAICT that > are nonvampire uncommons. I believe there are slightly more than 10 rare > vampires. Not really a fix to just switch the two groups as there would still > be too many rares in the set, but I found it sort of interesting. No Gargoyle deck would want Create Gargoyle or Patrol to be moved to a rare slot. At the same time, 2 Blanche Hill, a rare, proved too many for me. The uncommon Read the Winds requires ani and aus (so it shouldn't be common), but it is very desirable in large quantity in the right Tzimisce deck (so it shouldn't be rare). I wouldn't want the vampires moved to those uncommon slots, or them to the vamps' rare ones. I find the rarity in the set to have worked out very well. I bought a box, and got almost everything I could have wanted from it. For vampires, I believe I got all the uncommon ones, with 2 copies of most of them. I got Synesios, 2 Blanche Hill (I traded one to a guy who opened 2 Matthias) and 3 Nagaraga. All I need now is one more Contagion, one more Wolf Valentine (VAL for), some Sense the Sin, some Gift of Bellona, and a bunch of Swords of Righteousness. I expect to have acquired all of these by the end of the week. I'll have 2 working decks almost entirely from my box, and the potential for many more. Then, I'll probably use my two Salubri (which is all I need) in a !Ventrue deck for their Obeah 5th Tradition-equivalent. There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too. Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to believe that the packs aren't exactly random.

> > 1. You don't want more than one. > > If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka > > rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in > > conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not. > > Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay > > another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have > > more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I > > consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different > > versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as > > many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many > > as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than > > Condemnation: Languid. > > You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using > enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to > ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a > particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the > crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always > the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another > annoyance). If you've got ten or more cards requiring Temporis, then they're probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for that circumstance. Same goes for Obeah, except it mixes with different things. Remember, you're not supposed to be dependent upon a scarce clan. They are the crackers, not the soup. Say, a Setite bleed deck can use Synesios (PRE obf ser TEM POT) very easily due to his matching disciplines. Then, their Domain of Evernight becomes either a basic +1 stealth (usually of use) or occasionally a Freak Drive. Their Clotho's Gift is sometimes a Kindred Intelligence, other times an overpowered Rutor's Hand. And if one of the 2 Synesios or 2 Stranger Among Us doesn't come up, no biggie. > > 2. Their effects are indeed exotic. > > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does > > something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot. > > And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand > > size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. > > Really? Increased hand size is a pretty nice thing. For that matter, > all the Nagaraja seem solid as long as you're using their disciplines. Yes, they are. In the previous post, I renig on the Nagaraja: I could use a few of these guys. Their rarity didn't seem misplaced, however, as I got three in my box. As for increased hand size, sure, it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of. I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do. > > Personally, I'd need a > > REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do > > anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you > > can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. > > Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =) Good point. However, I used to (over)play Spiridonas, and I used Revelations in about 2/3 of the decks with him in it. I found that Rev at basic usually cleared either 1) Nothing of importance or 2) One of my Ventrue prey's 3 deflections. Archon Investigation was the only card it really shined against, when my prey had one. Discard is underrated--just not much. > > 3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans. > > Not on their own, but I sincerely hope they were supposed to be > something you could mix with another clan and win with. Oh, probably. I have some ideas. > The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them. > There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind > (dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot, > Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a Leather Jacket. And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected. Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine.

Brian wrote: > Most boxes seem to come > with about 6 scarce vampires in them. Yep: 1 pack out of every 5 should contain an R2 vampire (one of the scarce ones or Huitzilopochtli). 9 out of 10 of those (9 of 50, or about 1 of 6) should contain a scarce vampire. > There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the > distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought > another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for > card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too. > > Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to > believe that the packs aren't exactly random. "Exactly Random" is impossible with current technology. Still, it is a fairly large coincidence that two boxes (picked "at random") would contain exactly the same set of rares. The uncommons are not tied to the rares in any way, so that would only add to the coincidence factor. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <80bafd85.01121...@posting.google.com>, Brian <firstco...@aol.com> writes: >Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the >playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something >else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a >Leather Jacket. Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back. > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic regardless of rarity. But a Dominate deck might as well include Dodge! anyway, since it's unlikely that it's going to draw anything else for combat. (And if it is, using dodges isn't likely to be the best option anyway.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <80bafd85.01121...@posting.google.com>, Brian <firstco...@aol.com> writes: >Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the >playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something >else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a >Leather Jacket. Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back. > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic [ quoted text not captured ]

> >At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a > >Leather Jacket. > > Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood > Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it > fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back. Certainly, the cards have different uses. But their similarity is strong: You get a cool but small effect which helps your vampire stay ready, and then you untap at the end of the turn. > > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the > >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). > > Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic > regardless of rarity. This string of posts is about Bloodlines' rarity, and whether they are appropriate, so it is not the time to ignore the rarity. I don't believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be used widely, justifying a commons slot. > But a Dominate deck might as well include Dodge! anyway, since it's > unlikely that it's going to draw anything else for combat. (And if it > is, using dodges isn't likely to be the best option anyway.) Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the second-round carnage begins :)

In message <80bafd85.0112...@posting.google.com>, firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about: >> > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the >> >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). >> >> Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic >> regardless of rarity. > >This string of posts is about Bloodlines' rarity, and whether they are >appropriate, so it is not the time to ignore the rarity. I don't >believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be >used widely, justifying a commons slot. Why would you steal one blood at close range only when you can play Earth Swords instead and do 2R or 3R damage? Absorb the Mind belongs right where it is. >Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a >combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and >Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the They should be using Arms of the Abyss at superior, where they get to hit back as well as dodge. ;) (And they have lots more superior OBT than DOM =) >second-round carnage begins :) ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is it? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I don't > >believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be > >used widely, justifying a commons slot. > > Why would you steal one blood at close range only when you can play > Earth Swords instead and do 2R or 3R damage? I wouldn't, I'd dodge. > Absorb the Mind belongs right where it is. You know it's a common? It seems like there's some confusion here, cause you say it belongs right where it is (which is what I said) except you say it like you're disagreeing. > >Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a > >combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and > >Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the > > They should be using Arms of the Abyss at superior, where they get to > hit back as well as dodge. ;) (And they have lots more superior OBT > than DOM =) You're right, Arms is probably better cause the myt/MYT ability blows. It's just that I hate it when a basic thing like a dodge or a maneuver for zero isn't common. I still have but one copy of Shadow Step. > >second-round carnage begins :) > > ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long > range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is > it? ;) Actually, there is the occasional 2 Increased Strength + Sewer Lid for 7R, or Gangrel that stays close, or now Conflagration...I think I'll drop 1 Apportation and 1 Theft of Vitae, and add 2 Absorb the Mind, until they make a Bond with the Mountain that's free (it costs Maggie Schaefer all her blood!) Sometimes a dodge is important to have when your clan doesn't have S:CE. Blythe and Maggie, no dominate, but they're not as important as like Bryan VD or Justine. I love her. "Magdelena Schaefer, Caitiff of Doom."

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long > range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is > it? ;) That would be fine, if there were a card that gives a maneuver and a press, but since there's not, Dodge plus press into the payoff round looks like the best available card (assuming you want to send your opponent to torpor instead of just making him thirsty). Rare, unfortunately. - Jason Bell

>A poorly conceived card is subjective: Beauty is in the eye of the >beholder. Earlier, I saw a lament posted about how badly Gift of >Bellona sucked. To me, after making a !Salubri combat deck with >plenty of weapons, it's gold. Since it's rare, I'm counting on about >5 guys like him for every 1 like me, so I can get as many as would be >effective. Perhaps the playtesters, after much playtesting, found the >True Brujah to be of very limited use, and so the supply was lessened >accordingly. Ha ha! I think Gift of Bellona *does* suck. I'd be more than happy to trade away my copy... >I find the rarity in the set to have worked out very well. I bought a >box, and got almost everything I could have wanted from it. For >vampires, I believe I got all the uncommon ones, with 2 copies of most >of them. I got Synesios, 2 Blanche Hill (I traded one to a guy who >opened 2 Matthias) and 3 Nagaraga. All I need now is one more >Contagion, one more Wolf Valentine (VAL for), some Sense the Sin, some >Gift of Bellona, and a bunch of Swords of Righteousness. I expect to >have acquired all of these by the end of the week. I'll have 2 >working decks almost entirely from my box, and the potential for many >more. Then, I'll probably use my two Salubri (which is all I need) in >a !Ventrue deck for their Obeah 5th Tradition-equivalent. I agree. Just like with Final Nights (where I got a set of all the commons and uncommons in a single box), in my single box of Bloodlines, I managed to get a set of all the commons and uncommons as well. Quite handy IMO. (Though I did annoyingly get some duplicate rares in the one box. But I guess it's okay). Ended up with 2 Matthias, 2 Miriam, 1 Krassimir, 1 Nu, and 1 Nagaraja reseacher lady. >There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the >distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought >another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for >card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too. By looking at other people's haves and needs list, it seems that a lot of people ended up with very similar rares as I did, or drastically different ones. >Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to >believe that the packs aren't exactly random. Seems that way. Halcyan 2

In message <20011211181629...@mb-fc.aol.com>, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) mumbled something about: >Ha ha! I think Gift of Bellona *does* suck. I'd be more than happy to trade >away my copy... Dibs! Let me find you a Shotgun Ritual... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <QPvR7.238968$HA6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Sending opponents to torpor full just means they come back, though. I'd much rather move a little blood off them first for my own Blood Dolls, and to make it that much more of a nuisance. Actually, I've had quite a bit more success by combining Weather Control's inferior with nothing but Thefts -- vamps go to torpor empty, I end up about 3/4 capacity or down only 1 blood. If my only defense against someone's strike is a Dodge (at close range no less), that makes me cringe even more... additional strikes, environmental damage, and the like aren't all that uncommon. And a number of strikes (the !Salubri have one themselves, in Vengeance of Samiel) these days are coming with "This strike cannot be Dodged." attached to them. Besides, then you go to the second round, and you're STILL at close range. Yes, you can Blood to Water first, but now you've spent 3 blood off your vampire and gotten no guarantee of torpor or vamps burning from it -- and you HAD to stay at close range to do it, meaning you still have to survive their strike in round 2. Now, if it were like Flash, it would be excellent (as you note above). Or even a THA version of Circle wouldn't be that bad -- press, with an optional maneuver? Yes, certainly! Theft at close, Walk at long, and I can include some Apportations if I want to be at long both rounds. >Rare, unfortunately. I can't see any good reason to have this card NOT be rare. It's S:CE for the Gargoyles, which is a very rare thing for them to be doing, considering they're all about combat. And while it's a good defensive card for the Tremere (much like Vampiric Speed is an excellent defensive card for the PRE/CEL bleed crowd), it really doesn't do much to help their offense at all. I built a Gargoyle deck over the weekend to play, and I looked at that card briefly, and deliberately left it out. Totally at cross-purposes to what you want these guys to be doing. [ quoted text not captured ]

firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message news:<80bafd85.01121...@posting.google.com>... > > > 1. You don't want more than one. > > You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using > > enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to > > ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a > > particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the > > crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always > > the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another > > annoyance). > > If you've got ten or more cards requiring Temporis, then they're > probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for > that circumstance. Yes, but you might not want those effects (especially when the off clan level is categorically different from the in clan one; compare domain of evernight vs engling fury). > Same goes for Obeah, except it mixes with > different things. Remember, you're not supposed to be dependent upon > a scarce clan. They are the crackers, not the soup. Say, a Setite > bleed deck can use Synesios (PRE obf ser TEM POT) very easily due to > his matching disciplines. Then, their Domain of Evernight becomes > either a basic +1 stealth (usually of use) or occasionally a Freak > Drive. Their Clotho's Gift is sometimes a Kindred Intelligence, other > times an overpowered Rutor's Hand. And if one of the 2 Synesios or 2 > Stranger Among Us doesn't come up, no biggie. Rutor's Hand only cost blood once though, so I don't see it being inferior to TEM version of CG. > As for increased hand size, sure, > it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like > near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of. How? > I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just > for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do. Carlotta - or the SF - recycling 5ths, PTOs, and so forth is usually worthwhile, if you're bothering to include her in the first place. Carlotta's a 7 cap with only dom; there are plenty of minions at 7 or below with DOM (and at least one stealth discipline). > > > Personally, I'd need a > > > REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do > > > anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you > > > can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. > > Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =) > Good point. However, I used to (over)play Spiridonas, and I used > Revelations in about 2/3 of the decks with him in it. I found that > Rev at basic usually cleared either 1) Nothing of importance or 2) > One of my Ventrue prey's 3 deflections. Archon Investigation was the > only card it really shined against, when my prey had one. Discard is > underrated--just not much. With the built in Rev, you can get all 3 of the deflections. I'm not saying to do that instead of bleeding, but when your prey has Dom it may be worth checking out. > > The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them. > > There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind > > (dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot, > > Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc > Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the > playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something > else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a > Leather Jacket. > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the > Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). Just play "Dodge". The Ventrue have S:CE or inf Staredown. The malks have read intentions. The Lasombra have arms of the abyss. The tremere could use this if they can't trade for enough apportations.. but even then, I'd rather theft most of the time (and blood fury the rest of the time, if my combat is purely Tha). > Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive > in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and > another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected. > Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine. RT isn't something you'd want to build a deck over. Domain of Evernight + Clotho's Gift is possible though. If Nu had DOM or dom (giving him a skill card as needed), Trujah "bloat" with superior GtU, superior EK, tem Clotho's Gift, and superior Scouting Mission would be rather nasty. Give Nu a CG, play one DoE on one of the first 3 actions and use the other untaps for the rest. 3 blood off of Nu to bring out Sheldon for no pool (to protect that Tabriz Assembly :)). Unfortunately only the lowest cap Trujah has dom, so you have to settle for 4 blood back and doing 1-2 other actions. Each turn. Why do I want Rewind Time again? No decision yet on what to do with the Salubri. Renewed Vigor is nice, but For/Aus wasn't really lacking for 5th trads (3 princes and 3 justicars, and five of them have DOM thrown in for free). I suspect Neutral Guard and Repulsion might end up being a key for them, though I'll admit to not looking into it too deeply.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C0FD14E...@white-wolf.com>... > BernieTime wrote: > > Hindsight is always (well mostly) 20/20. > > I'm wishing that the ultra rare Bloodlines vampires had at least > > one of their number in an uncommon slot. > > That way all those Temporis cards (for instance) are more likely > > to see play in sealed/draft formats. > A U1 vampire appears with only 50% more frequency than an R2. > Having 3 R2 means you have a 71% chance of seeing one (or more) > of the vampires in 20 boosters (4 boosters per player at a 5-player > drafting pod). > Having 2 R2 and 1 U1 only boosts that to 76%. Perhaps, but you wouldn't want to draft BL anyways. The slave mechanic would royally screw the gargoyles, and there would still be a vampire shortage beyond that if you're only drafting 4 boosters. If you were doing, say, 5-7 packs of BLs, 4 of vtes/jyhad, and 3 of sabbat, then maybe you could do it.

> > If you've got ten or more cards requiring Temporis, then they're > > probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for > > that circumstance. > > Yes, but you might not want those effects (especially when the off > clan level is categorically different from the in clan one; compare > domain of evernight vs engling fury). Don't want the effect? Guess that makes it not such a great card. Worked into the playtesting, most likely, was how useful the basic-out should be; whether it will be a similar effect for something not so astounding like gaining a couple blood, or whether the effect will be totally different or even awful and neutered just to get it out of your hand. Perhaps, we can generalize the Temporis and Obeah decks into two types: 1) Splash decks, using only 1-2 vamps with the discipline "in case it comes up", as I suggested with Synesios. 2) Plunge decks, using Temporis or Obeah as a major function of the deck. If you're leaning toward number 2), then yeah, the vamps should have been easier to get--unless White Wolf didn't think that the latter would (or should) be viable. Ah, well, it's all speculation, from this end. I don't know what WW does to playtest. All I know is that the roleplaying books are fun to read, and that they made 3 new sets after I thought my hobby was going to keel over, so I love 'em. > > As for increased hand size, sure, > > it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like > > near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of. > > How? She has DOM NEC, so she plays Govern + Seduction + Conditioning. If a second vampire tries to block, she plays Spectral Divination for +1 stealth. If that vampire adds intercept, she plays Call of the Hungry Dead at superior. You are now bleeding your prey at 6 bleed/1 stealth, and his two best (only?) blockers can't do jack about it. And if he plays Deflection, your grandprey isn't restricted by the Seduction or the CotHD. Unless your prey has 3 minions who are all intercept-capable and two ways to add that intercept, you're going through. Easier with Ex Nihilo, but then, there goes your blood. My Baali are thinking about Legal Manipulations + Lost in Crowds + Sense the Sin (superior) + Elder Impersonation + Psychomachia for something very similar. > > I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just > > for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do. > > Carlotta - or the SF - recycling 5ths, PTOs, and so forth is usually > worthwhile, if you're bothering to include her in the first place. > Carlotta's a 7 cap with only dom; there are plenty of minions at 7 or > below with DOM (and at least one stealth discipline). I stand my ground on the Nagaraja chick, but I think you have me on Carlotta. I didn't think about using her with Protect Thine Own. > With the built in Rev, you can get all 3 of the deflections. If you don't bleed with anyone for 3 turns, forcing him to hold the deflections, you'll have that option. I'd rather go knock on the wrong door a few times. > I'm not > saying to do that instead of bleeding, but when your prey has Dom it > may be worth checking out. Hey...maybe I SHOULD do it instead of bleeding! I mean, if I'm pretty confident they have a deflection, I conserve cards and possibly blood to drop a deflection without hitting my grandprey. Discarding "to run them out" is what I'm against, cause if their deck is built right, it won't run out. Discarding on a toolbox deck also could be very potent. > > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the > > Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box). > > Just play "Dodge". The Ventrue have S:CE or inf Staredown. The malks > have read intentions. The Lasombra have arms of the abyss. The > tremere could use this if they can't trade for enough apportations.. > but even then, I'd rather theft most of the time (and blood fury the > rest of the time, if my combat is purely Tha). Check the rest of this thread, it was brought to my attention earlier how much better Arms of the Abyss is than Absorb the Mind. I also wrote about those Tremere buggers--how occasionally, something REAL BAD comes your way, and a dodge becomes lots better than a theft. Mainly I don't like a Dodge or a Maneuver or a +1 Bleed etc. to be more than common, if it costs 0 and works at basic, on principle. > > Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive > > in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and > > another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected. > > Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine. > > RT isn't something you'd want to build a deck over. Domain of > Evernight + Clotho's Gift is possible though. If Nu had DOM or dom > (giving him a skill card as needed), Trujah "bloat" with superior GtU, > superior EK, tem Clotho's Gift, and superior Scouting Mission would be > rather nasty. Give Nu a CG, play one DoE on one of the first 3 > actions and use the other untaps for the rest. 3 blood off of Nu to > bring out Sheldon for no pool (to protect that Tabriz Assembly :)). > Unfortunately only the lowest cap Trujah has dom, so you have to > settle for 4 blood back and doing 1-2 other actions. Each turn. Don't overdo it and get a hand full of Dominate masters and Temporis Freak Drives, but if you can make it consistent, it sounds powerful, original, and fun. How would you get 4 blood a turn, though? Don't you play No Repeat Actions? > Why do I want Rewind Time again? You'd want Rewind Time to stop Hostile Takeovers without wasting your master phase actions, or while still allowing for Direct Intervention/Rotschreck/Archon Investigation. I'd play with 2 or 3. > No decision yet on what to do with the Salubri. Renewed Vigor is > nice, but For/Aus wasn't really lacking for 5th trads (3 princes and 3 > justicars, and five of them have DOM thrown in for free). I suspect > Neutral Guard and Repulsion might end up being a key for them, though > I'll admit to not looking into it too deeply. Hey, Neutral Guard! I forgot about that! Maybe I can use them with !Ventrue, after all. Thanks.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<aECyqeAk...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, Shaun > McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: > >> >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight" > >> >copies of one vampire? Or even five? > >> Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that > >> maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare, > >> instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill, > >> because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most. > >> Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I? > >More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing > >to do with it. > True if you're playing a "usual" deck where you might want one vampire a > lot, but also want to get out three or four vampires. > Good decks have been done with lots of copies of one vampire, however. There are a few winning decks with 5+ copies of a single vampire.. usually they become 1, 2, or 3 vampire decks at that point. However those are a pretty substantial minority, and even if they're more common than I think they are, that would just reinforce my position that vamps shouldn't be rare as getting 3 copies of a particular R2 vampire is a minor pain, and 12 is nightmarish.

I usually buy my Vampire cards by a handful of boosters a time. (I live around the corner from the local store here and every other day I get myself some boosters.) Up till now I got myself just five boosters of the Bloodlines set. Curiously enough booster 1 and 3 contained the same 11 cards. To make it even stranger booster 2 and 5 also were identical. (Booster 1 and 2 were from a different box as the other 3.) So now I have 33 different cards instead of 55. In a few weeks from now , after buying booster after booster, of course I won't regret having a lot of cool cards more than once. But right now I'm a bit annoyed about the seeming total lack of card-randomness in the packs I bought. It is as if there are maybe fifty -or-so (one for every rare?) different BL-boosters out there all containing EXACTLY the same cards as opposed to an infinite number of randomly composed boosters. Anyway, I guess after buying just five boosters it would be a little early to jump to any such conclusion, so I'll just wait and see. Andrew.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long > >> range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is > >> it? ;) > > > >That would be fine, if there were a card that gives a maneuver > >and a press, but since there's not, Dodge plus press into the > >payoff round looks like the best available card (assuming you > >want to send your opponent to torpor instead of just making > >him thirsty). > > Sending opponents to torpor full just means they come back, though. I'd > much rather move a little blood off them first for my own Blood Dolls, > and to make it that much more of a nuisance. Actually, I've had quite a > bit more success by combining Weather Control's inferior with nothing > but Thefts -- vamps go to torpor empty, I end up about 3/4 capacity or > down only 1 blood. [snip yet more stuff about how Derek runs Thaumaturgy] Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like more choices on how to do it. - Jason Bell

In message <H2_R7.252847$HA6.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round >are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games). There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic from working the way it was intended: - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat was largely pointless. Telepathic Tracking is a great card, and gets around S:CE just wonderfully... if you have superior Auspex. Hannigan and Aisling were a much-needed addition (only two vamps with AUS/THA less than 8-cap), but they can only make up so much of your crypt. And once you start leaning towards AUS/THA, you start leaning towards intercept. I'm still not sure that a pure Eagle's Sight/etc. intercept deck based around these two can't work, but intercept decks just took a beating with the Table Wins rule, so it may not matter. Thoughts Betrayed is also a great card, and handles S:CE and most other combat decks. However, it is expensive, and the vamps you need to play it with are either very large, or have inferior THA (meaning they won't be able to make up the blood cost of TB, much less handle being punched for 1 in two rounds). From my experience, the large vamps with DOM/THA just work better for this sort of thing ... but then you add in all the issues with playing large vampires and being at an action deficiency. Rutor's Hand would solve everything if it weren't only a +1 stealth action that people will sacrifice a vampire to block. So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere. Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very unlikely. Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy. Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed -- Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ... the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2. Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for dealing with S:CE just got a little messier. This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade. >didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy >the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and >the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult >to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat >the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like >more choices on how to do it. Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already. What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include second-round cards: [A] Thoughts Betrayed + Theft at close + Press + Walk of Flame Pros: Opposing minion in torpor with 3 blood missing Opposing minions with 2 or less blood burned Proof against S:CE Proof against most combat Only requires 4 cards Adding Blood to Water almost guarantees burn Cons: Opposing minion may not be empty -- rescue viable Potence Signpost and Gangrel/Tzimisce agg still beat it Adding in maneuvers makes combo too many cards Requires DOM/THA -- expensive vamps Expensive -- still leaves you down 2 blood Adding in Blood to Water leaves you down 4 blood! Weak against Fortitude Assessment: Not cost-effective. Solution: Play Trap instead of press cards. Replace all Walks with Thefts, play one per round. Strike-hands for 1 to put opposing minion in torpor at end. Still end up down blood against minions with less than 6 blood, but less vulnerable to clumping and minions no longer able to rescue self. Alternatively, play with big minions and 5th Tradition to make up for the Blood to Water. [B] maneuver, Theft, press, maneuver, Walk of Flame Pros: All cards are free Only requires one superior discipline Single card (Apportation) serves as maneuver/press Burns minions with 2 or less blood Requires only 3 distinct cards Proof against close-range combat Cons: EXTREMELY vulnerable to S:CE Somewhat vulnerable to Dodge Requires enormous amount of Apportation Takes up lots of deck space -- little room for "oust prey" Weak against long-range combat Weak against Fortitude Opposing minion may not be empty -- rescue viable Assessment: Not effective at killing minions. Solution: Use weenies with THA skill cards and Haven Uncovered to "run them out" of S:CE. Use Trap/Weather Control, throw out Apportation entirely as too many card slots, replace all Walk with Theft. Play with Chantry and Humanitas to help offset vampire loss to opposing combat and your own Weather Controls. Still difficult to win games, but will make a lot of minions dead AND empty. [C] Spirit's Touch intercept, maneuver with ST, Theft, press with Telepathic Tracking, maneuver with TT, Walk of Flame Pros: Proof against S:CE Proof against close-range combat Only 1 card isn't free Burns minions with 2 or less blood Requires only 4 cards Is inherently reactive, can save strike cards Gleefully stops "rescue" actions Works with only AUS/tha Cons: Requires intercept deck -- hard to win games Weak against counter-maneuvers and Dodge Weak against zero-stealth decks Weak against Giovanni (Seduction/Call) Weak against long-range combat Weak against Fortitude Requires enormous amount of Telepathic Tracking Assessment: Possibly the most effective combat available to the Tremere, but suffers from the inherent weakness all intercept decks face when their prey takes nothing but (D) actions. Difficult to win games with this style. Solution: Add in a splash of Apportation for emergency maneuvers and/or free presses. Play with Anarch Revolt, Smiling Jack, and lots of Blood Dolls -- your only card that costs blood comes AFTER the Theft, so you should always have 1 blood available to pay for it. [D] Bond with the Mountain, maneuver w/Apportation, Walk of Flame Pros: Requires only 3 cards -- very reliable Only costs 1 blood total Burns empty minions Works with only superior THA Cons: Vulnerable to S:CE Vulnerable to Dodge Vulnerable to Fortitude Vulnerable to most close-range combat Vulnerable to long-range combat Constant blood drain off minions Opposing minion will not be empty Adding in Blood to Water leaves you down 4 blood! Assessment: Only potentially viable in bruise-and-bleed format, and realistically, not even then. Deflection is still common, and Perfect Clarity would mean a 3-blood cost per action. Most decks that block will be carrying either S:CE, Fortitude, or nasty combat. Solution: Use weenies with THA/dom (or tha/dom and skill cards) and take NOTHING but bleed actions. Pack lots of Conditioning for when the bleeds do get through, and hope that they run out of defense and Deflections before your predator ousts you. ---------- Anyway. I haven't touched on Thelerity yet, or any of a number of other options and deck variants. But you see the problem -- the whole reliance-on-a-second-round thing is the Tremere's weak point, and while everyone fixates on "get to a second round!"... it's just not the most effective way to play them. Splashing 2-4 Walk of Flame in a deck just for surprise value is functional... trying to consistently get to round 2 isn't. I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <H2_R7.252847$HA6.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round >are screwed for the second time. Lying low may well be unhelpful for such a deck, whereas being able to advance in a semi-serious manner (that is, not as seriously as the second round) in the first round is going to help matters. Combat deviated from fairly obvious designer intent - the Tremere, from the looks of the card set, should have had the ability to compete well in combat, but in the second round. The obvious power of first round combat, as is seen now, seems unlikely to have been wanted. A few avenues do exist to slightly level the playing field in the first round - combat defence loses out to Telepathic Tracking, Soul Burn etc.; combat offence has some not insignificant problems coping with Apportation, and various useful ranged first round strikes (and long range combat has the perennial problem of Dodges - save for additional strikes in most instances - which could be supplemented now with Absorb the Mind, potentially). These can then be usefully combined with second round combat, having had some chance to weaken them in the first round. Save for Mages on Speed deck styles (that is, combined with additional strikes), it's relatively hard for a Tremere deck to do serious damage, along the lines of a Nosferatu deck throwing down Increased Strength, Torn Signpost, Fists of Death and Undead Strength, or a Brujah deck throwing down Torn Signpost and Blur, or whatever. Utilising *both* first and later rounds effectively is necessary in a battle of combative oneupmanship. (Not, of course, that the Tremere have to be played exclusively combatively.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:d0$z2RCYE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <H2_R7.252847$HA6.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason > Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: > >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play > >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who > >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round > >are screwed for the second time. > > Lying low may well be unhelpful for such a deck, whereas being able to > advance in a semi-serious manner (that is, not as seriously as the > second round) in the first round is going to help matters. Sure. But the traditional banes of the Tremere combat deck (one based on a LR Theft or Soul burn or such in the first round and then maybe Blood to Water and Walk of Flames in round 2) are the simple "poke for 1" agg damage blast from Gangrel, or really any agg first round strike. Coma and Entombment are problematic as well. Sure, we can maneuver around it, but Gangrel for certain have Quick meld as a powerful Tremere killer, and my local metagame for certain uses them. Both OBT and OBF have maneuvers available for the "go to torpor" strike people. S:CE used to be troublesome but Telepathic Tracking at superior helps mitigate that. Tremere combat decks are card heavy, and can rarely expect to have access to two maneuvers in the same round. An effect like the dominate Strike:Dodge, and even better the Thaumaturgy Dodge with an optional press, is a great option to have. Most certainly, play to your metagame, but in mine, I know I will throw a few of those dodge with a press cards in my deck for that time when you just dont wanna die in round 1. I know when I saw the card I instantly found it intriguing. Amazing, no. But intriguing to see the flexability given to the Tremere. Matt "Dominate got a friggin Dodge? That's it... I want a potence bleed modifier now!"

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: > > >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play > >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who > >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round > >are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation > > Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily > WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any > other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games). Right, after all, what could I possibly do to an opposing vampire in torpor when all I have is this clan with Dominate as an in-clan discipline? I can assure you that my Gangrel poke Graverobbing deck has many times wreaked havok on a table, and I was hoping to try the model without needing to equip with Dominate masters. > There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic > from working the way it was intended: > > - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude > - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted. The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all. > And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent > problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue > themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat > was largely pointless. Ah, but I have a plan. ... > So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere. So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!. > Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of > Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two > blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that > they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very > unlikely. YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in. I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie trap deck. > Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that > punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy. > Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed -- > Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ... > the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now > you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the > stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2. > Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that > you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for > dealing with S:CE just got a little messier. None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I have an extra back door. > This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat > strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with > all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and > a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with > since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the > occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade. This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly? You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it. I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you. And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated damage, actually. > >didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy > >the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and > >the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult > >to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat > >the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like > >more choices on how to do it. > > Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying > to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already. > What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be > effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include > second-round cards: Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting to the second round, where I can use Thaumaturgy's scarier aggravated strikes. I like dodge+press, I like it a lot, but I won't be able to play it because it's inexplicably rare. [enormous snip] I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the > weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case. You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen enough to entertain them as something I've really got to consider when building my combat strategy. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:n_vS7.268748$HA6.50...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" >> mechanic from working the way it was intended: >> >> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude - the prevalence >> of other, far more effective first-round combat > > That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant > regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted. Not quite. Many times the 'bigger stick' is the either the same strategy, but more focused/with better card draw _OR_ some other strategy that kills you but has a different set of flaws (ie, POT vs Claws & FOR - POT is beaten by Claws, but Claws can't deal with S:CE and sending a full vampire to torpor isn't as effective as sending him empty). In this case there are many other strategies that can beat the Tremere and will have the same or less weak points as they do, so they're always a better choice. > The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no > reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may > as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against > bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat > defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against > any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all. But if the counter to your strategy has a negligible cost most decks will include it, so you won't have a chance most of the time, as opposed to other decks which will be nullified only some of the time. >> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere. > > So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!. ... but most of those have other advantages. >> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of >> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two >> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that >> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very >> unlikely. > > YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either > around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in. > I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie > trap deck. I've been seeing lots of damage prevention around here lately. OTOH, I can only remember two recent decks that use S:CE, and one of those is my Ventrue+Samedi deck that includes tons of FOR too. >> Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that >> punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable >> strategy. Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you >> killed -- Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional >> strikes, ... the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out >> there. So now you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH >> rounds, because the stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as >> well in round 2. Apportation comes to the rescue here... >> unfortunately, this means that you now MUST have superior THA, so some >> of your options above for dealing with S:CE just got a little messier. > > None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle > dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since ...and Scorpion Sting, Skin Trap, Veil of Silence, Carrion Crows, Arms of the Abyss... > celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press > is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I > have an extra back door. > >> This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat >> strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with >> all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, >> and a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle >> with since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to >> mention the occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards >> of the trade. > > This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this > way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly? > You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't > make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it. > I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you. > > And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated > damage, actually. ...if you survive to the second round. > [enormous snip] > I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the >> weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case. > > You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses > to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen > enough to entertain them as something I've really got to > consider when building my combat strategy. Against Tremere? Quite a few... Most combat decks will include several press cards, and many non-combat decks have ways of pressing to end too. If they know they're dealing with a 2nd round deck and can't send you to torpor on the 1st round, they'll surely use those presses to stop combat from continuing... Flux

In message <n_vS7.268748$HA6.50...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily >> WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any >> other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games). > >Right, after all, what could I possibly do to an opposing vampire in >torpor when all I have is this clan with Dominate as an in-clan discipline? Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth? This is assuming you can even put the vampire in torpor in the first place -- see the first objection reading "doesn't even kill things". >I can assure you that my Gangrel poke Graverobbing deck has many >times wreaked havok on a table, and I was hoping to try the model >without needing to equip with Dominate masters. Gangrel have Protean, which provides the absolutely-necessary stealth required for such an action, and first round aggravated hand damage, which trumps large quantities of the most "common" combat (Potence IG being the big one). The Tremere have neither. Besides, you don't need Dominate masters for that trick. You just need 4 copies of Iliana in the crypt. >> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic >> from working the way it was intended: >> >> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude >> - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat > >That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant >regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted. No, I'm sorry, it cannot be discounted. It is much, much easier to find a bigger stick against the Tremere than against, say, weenie Potence IG. The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to deal with, either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it up first. Potence trumps almost all close-range combat because of IG, and the fact that non-hand strikes are not even -playable-. There are only two ways to "hit back" against Potence IG; poke it with agg hand damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's in the way IG does. >The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no >reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may ...unless that combat defense is most likely going to render all your combat worthless, in which case you have built a bad deck. >as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against >bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat >defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against >any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all. Bleed defense can be countered very easily, if you take the time to build the deck properly. Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother to put more than one vote card in your deck. And combat defense can be countered if you build the combat deck properly. You, however, advocate building the combat deck in question without taking into account combat defenses and opposing combat. This will produce a sucky deck, and is indeed a VERY compelling argument. >> And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent >> problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue >> themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat >> was largely pointless. > >Ah, but I have a plan. Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better idea. >> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere. > >So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!. And every combat deck without Grapple, Psyche!, or an effective way around S:CE tends to lose, too. >> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of >> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two >> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that >> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very >> unlikely. > >YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either >around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in. >I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie >trap deck. And there were what, four or five different Ventrue decks there? Also Horrid Form was around in Joe's deck, and I know there were two !Ventrue decks in the tournament. That's 7 decks that would completely shrug off your Walk of Flame. We aren't even going to go into the multiple Potence IG-based decks that I saw, which would have killed you in round 1, or the piles of S:CE that would have turned your Walk into wallpaper. Locally, I usually see either a lot of prevention, a lot of "hit back", and the occasional S:CE. But the "hit back" seems to work best. >> Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that >> punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy. >> Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed -- >> Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ... >> the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now >> you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the >> stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2. >> Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that >> you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for >> dealing with S:CE just got a little messier. > >None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle >dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since Unfortunately, all of it is true. Combat decks that do not prepare for plain old Dodge lose, so you'll always see combat that can handle Dodge. >celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press Celerity doesn't have to come with Fortitude -- it will kill you in round 1, and will never have to worry about your 2nd round agg. >is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I >have an extra back door. Gangrel play DotB/Scorpion Sting -- forget dodging. Assamites have additional strikes -- dead in round 1. !Gangrel will be using Shadow Feint (no Dodge). Potence IG is -the- most common combat, in many forms. POT/CEL is close by -- additional strikes. Tzimisce just play two Horrid Forms and will get you in round 2. Lasombra play Arms of the Abyss/Entombment. Splat. !Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge. Thoughts Betrayed has made a bit of a resurgence itself. Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats will cost you 2 extra blood and cancel your press. OR, it'll go ahead and sacrifice a vampire to let you die. You won't get to use the back door. You'll be dead in round 1. >> This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat >> strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with >> all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and >> a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with >> since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the >> occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade. > >This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this >way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly? No, I'm actually mentioning the types of EFFECTIVE combat I've seen played in tournaments. I could go through the wack-ass shit that I see locally, but I wouldn't expect to see it in a tournament, so I haven't listed it. But all of the above are definitely likely to be present. I certainly expect to see a LOT of Disguised Imp. Flamethrowers these days -- it's non-unique permanent agg damage for only 2 pool, a great dropin for any OBF bleed deck. What you also don't seem to understand is that if your vampire goes to torpor while sending theirs to torpor, you lose. An Ivory Bow is very common in many decks -- it will miss you in round 1, and then you'll both be in torpor in round 2. This is not good. >You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't >make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it. >I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you. > >And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated >damage, actually. Theft of Vitae doesn't do damage, though, so you'd better be Dodging. And I'm going to be naturally dubious of ANY combat strategy that involves sending yourself to torpor as well (barring the !Salubri who have that neat "rescue vampire for free and it gains 1 blood" card). >> Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying >> to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already. >> What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be >> effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include >> second-round cards: > >Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for >an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting Perhaps I've just had a lot of experience trying to make the Tremere actually be able to both kill things and oust people. >to the second round, where I can use Thaumaturgy's scarier >aggravated strikes. I like dodge+press, I like it a lot, but I won't >be able to play it because it's inexplicably rare. You could always proxy it. You could also trade for it. Of course, it was made rare not because of its THA effect, but because of its VIS effect -- S:CE for that particular clan is simply not going to be the most effective thing to do with them. What we'd like to do isn't always the most effective thing to do. >[enormous snip] >I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the >> weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case. > >You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses >to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen SHITLOADS. Read Intentions is a press to end. Aid from Bats is a press to end. Flash and Psyche! are both presses to end. Rat's Warning is a press to end. Amria is a press to end. Hidden Strength is a press to end. Immortal Grapple is a press to end. Rigor Mortis is a press to end. Sewer Lid can be a press. Strength of the Bear can be a press. Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction are presses in case you somehow survive round 1 of that combat. Chameleon's Colors is a press. And with the prevalence of Trap combat anymore, a couple of Boxed In are finding their way back into decks. It's amazing how those little "optional presses" that are commonly overlooked can come into play when you least expect them. They're not as common as "hit back in round 1 and kill your vampire" or "S:CE", by a long shot, but an awful lot of cards give an optional press. >enough to entertain them as something I've really got to >consider when building my combat strategy. In a clan with a card reading "press/maneuver", I would certainly recognize that someone is going to find a way to press to end combat against me, and maybe include a few more of those than normal. -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

This thread should have had its subject changed long ago. I think it may be too late to change it now, even though my comments are even further off topic (B rarity). >The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to >deal with, The reason weenie Potence works as a deck is that it's a weenie deck. It can conserve enough pool to survive long enough to destroy all of its predator's vampires. >either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it >up first. Pure Pot/IG is beaten by wake-Zip Gun as well as numerous other simple defenses. This is why you see variations of weenie Pot with Sacrament of Carnage. Pot/Cel or Pot/Obf are harder to deal with. There's no reason that pure Pot/IG deck should be effective. BTW, for much the same reason - lack of maneuvers - we've yet to see the Blood Brothers do anything in close combat. >Potence trumps almost all close-range combat because of IG, >and the fact that non-hand strikes are not even -playable-. There are >only two ways to "hit back" against Potence IG; poke it with agg hand >damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the >Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's >in the way IG does. I assume by "combat" you mean offensive combat. >!Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge. Why will they see play a lot? A dedicated !Salubri deck has one trick - beat the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the like, but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel. BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking Doris equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice.

>Why will they see play a lot? A dedicated !Salubri deck has one trick - beat >the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I >would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first >experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the >like, >but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel. > >BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon >deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer >Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking >Doris >equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice. Aha! Finally Blood Fury will regain its position for usefulness! And Soul Burns will be good at avoiding weapon damage from non-guns! Halcyan 2

In message <20011216153753...@mb-ft.aol.com>, cur...@aol.com (Curevei) mumbled something about: >This thread should have had its subject changed long ago. I think it may be >too late to change it now, even though my comments are even further off topic >(B rarity). (shrug) I'd agree, but i'm not too worried. At least it stays within the same thread, so previous messages can be chased down. >>The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to >>deal with, > >The reason weenie Potence works as a deck is that it's a weenie deck. It can >conserve enough pool to survive long enough to destroy all of its predator's >vampires. Most POT decks can do that as well. But weenie POT has the advantage in that it can be killing its prey's vampires at the same time as its predator's, losing little to no speed in the process. >>either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it >>up first. > >Pure Pot/IG is beaten by wake-Zip Gun as well as numerous other simple >defenses. This is why you see variations of weenie Pot with Sacrament of Weenie POT generally includes 6-8 Fake Out for just this reason -- and I've always recommended including at least 6 Traps instead of the Fake Outs, because it hoses all defensive maneuvers, as well as most Fortitude decks. Which numerous other simple defenses were you thinking of? >Carnage. Pot/Cel or Pot/Obf are harder to deal with. There's no reason that >pure Pot/IG deck should be effective. Besides Fake Out and Trap, you mean. POT/CEL is the most difficult to deal with, but also more difficult to win games with because it requires larger vamps and falls further behind in the action tree. >BTW, for much the same reason - lack of maneuvers - we've yet to see the Blood >Brothers do anything in close combat. Which seems odd, as Trap would be even better here when combined with Superior Mettle. Most of what trouble I'd expect the Blood Brothers to have would be from losing blood at an insane rate -- their SAN cards can get awful expensive. >>damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the >>Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's >>in the way IG does. > >I assume by "combat" you mean offensive combat. Right. S:CE/Dodge/run-away/Zip Gun are "combat defense", not combat. >>!Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge. > >Why will they see play a lot? A dedicated !Salubri deck has one trick - beat Because people look at them and shout "OH COOL!" and then load up ten Brass Knuckles, twelve Rush actions, four Haven Uncovereds, and a ton of VAL cards into a deck. That, and just judging from the general reaction I've seen in the various forums, apparently they're quite popular in the RPG. So you'll always see them, whether or not the deck they're in is terribly effective. >the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I It is if you can get the melee weapons equipped. But that's the obvious weak point in any deck built around them -- getting the equip action through. Gift of Bellona's superior helps, as does Creepshow Casino. >would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first >experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the like, >but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel. I would. They've got to have SOMETHING to defend themselves when they get blocked, and Vengeance of Samiel is also a +2 damage hand strike that can't be dodged. (+2 only at superior, yes, but if I'm splashing someone in for Sense Vitality, it's going to be Wolf Valentine.) >BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon >deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer >Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking Doris >equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice. Doris has the weenie advantage, of course. The first game I played with my !Salubri deck, Wolf had his Bang Nakh out before my prey had a vampire on the table. I'm currently debating if scattering OBF skill cards onto them and playing them as an intercept deck is a safer way to go or not. Disguised Weapon/Poker/Aura Reading, and only THEN Sword of the Righteous if your opponent doesn't have S:CE in hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >Right, after all, what could I possibly do to an opposing vampire in > >torpor when all I have is this clan with Dominate as an in-clan discipline? > > Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth? Blocked? He's in friggin torpor, toss me a bone here ($1 to Dr. Evil). > This is assuming you can even put the vampire in torpor in the first > place -- see the first objection reading "doesn't even kill things". Too late to use this assumption, since you had already moved on to the ~will get himself out of torpor next turn~ point. > >I can assure you that my Gangrel poke Graverobbing deck has many > >times wreaked havok on a table, and I was hoping to try the model > >without needing to equip with Dominate masters. > > Gangrel have Protean, which provides the absolutely-necessary stealth > required for such an action, and first round aggravated hand damage, > which trumps large quantities of the most "common" combat (Potence IG > being the big one). The Tremere have neither. I just don't understand this at all. Once a combat deck has done something to send a guy into torpor, only the worst players then get another minion in the way of that deck before getting at least a few new cards in hand. If the next minion down the pike blocks the graverobber, that's more likely than not going to be the end of the blocking player's game, as he likely will have lost two minions to torpor in a single turn, with nothing but the kindness of strangers to save his butt. > Besides, you don't need Dominate masters for that trick. You just need > 4 copies of Iliana in the crypt. Not this Gangrel deck, sister ($1 to Hahn Solo). > >> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic > >> from working the way it was intended: > >> > >> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude > >> - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat > > > >That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant > >regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted. > > No, I'm sorry, it cannot be discounted. It is much, much easier to find > a bigger stick against the Tremere than against, say, weenie Potence IG. Huh? I just don't see that at all. I'll take the dodging stealing aggravated Tremere before the one-trick pony. > >The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no > >reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may > > ...unless that combat defense is most likely going to render all your > combat worthless, in which case you have built a bad deck. Which is why I really wanted better access to cards that bring together two useful things that Tremere need in the same card, like Apportation which can be maneuver or press on but is very hard to get a hold of; like Bond With the Mountain which gives a dodge and a press, but is rare. With such combo cards in one and versatility, my combat doesn't overwhelm my library, and I can get my deck's groove on. > >as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against > >bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat > >defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against > >any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all. > > Bleed defense can be countered very easily, if you take the time to > build the deck properly. Heh. Good one. Oh crap, you're being serious, aren't you? > Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother > to put more than one vote card in your deck. Are you sure we're talking about the same card? Under NRA floor rule, the acting minion may not call any other vote that turn after Delaying Tactics is played, as far as I know. > And combat defense can be > countered if you build the combat deck properly. No, it cannot. A particular combat defense, perhaps, but there are too many ways to run combat defense to effectively answer them all and still get any sort of progress in your actual game (even if your actual game is pure combat). > You, however, advocate building the combat deck in question without > taking into account combat defenses and opposing combat. This will > produce a sucky deck, and is indeed a VERY compelling argument. No, indeed it is not. Hey, this is fun. Or should I have capitalized one of those words? > >> And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent > >> problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue > >> themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat > >> was largely pointless. > > > >Ah, but I have a plan. > > Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave > Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and > maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better > idea. No, I very much like utterly dismantling the opposing player's game (most likely my predator or prey) for doing something that stupid. Especially when they likely did something stupid in the first place for me to put them in the ground and then come knocking. > >> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere. > > > >So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!. > > And every combat deck without Grapple, Psyche!, or an effective way > around S:CE tends to lose, too. We seem to have a disagreement over reality. I'm not hoping to put together a Tremere deck that only gets into combats, what I want is a Tremere deck whose combat package doesn't need to be utterly flooded by all the stupid cards that you have to put there because you don't own enough Apportation or the new Bond. > >> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of > >> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two > >> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that > >> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very > >> unlikely. > > > >YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either > >around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in. > >I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie > >trap deck. > > And there were what, four or five different Ventrue decks there? Also > Horrid Form was around in Joe's deck, and I know there were two !Ventrue > decks in the tournament. That's 7 decks that would completely shrug off > your Walk of Flame. Yeah, but that Horrid Form would have been a total waste of time against dodge plus press. As it was, the only game I played against it, It gave me a VP, and only did anything at all by getting into bed with his predator. I'll not consider that deck concept when building anything. I could shrug that thing off with one Zip Gun, from what I saw. > Locally, I usually see either a lot of prevention, a lot of "hit back", > and the occasional S:CE. But the "hit back" seems to work best. Odd. In my experience, S:CE beats everything but the swimming-in- combat-cards decks, and those can't get enough momentum to do anything but get 2 VP's, since there is no collusion in friendly games as there is in tournament Jyhad (hopefully fixed by the new table win rule, but I'll not hold my breath). > >None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle > >dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since > > Unfortunately, all of it is true. Combat decks that do not prepare for > plain old Dodge lose, so you'll always see combat that can handle Dodge. Again, we may not be talking about the same thing. I do not plan to make an all-combat Tremere deck. The only thing that would be more of a waste of time for Tremere would be a Cryptic Mission deck (conceptually, the most profound failure to understand the value of a minion action that I have ever seen played). > >celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press > > Celerity doesn't have to come with Fortitude -- it will kill you in > round 1, and will never have to worry about your 2nd round agg. Sigh. > >is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I > >have an extra back door. > > Gangrel play DotB/Scorpion Sting -- forget dodging. > Assamites have additional strikes -- dead in round 1. > !Gangrel will be using Shadow Feint (no Dodge). > Potence IG is -the- most common combat, in many forms. > POT/CEL is close by -- additional strikes. > Tzimisce just play two Horrid Forms and will get you in round 2. > Lasombra play Arms of the Abyss/Entombment. Splat. > !Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge. > Thoughts Betrayed has made a bit of a resurgence itself. > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats will cost you 2 extra blood and cancel your > press. OR, it'll go ahead and sacrifice a vampire to let you die. > > You won't get to use the back door. You'll be dead in round 1. Not to even half of this mess you've described, much of which is merely a list of strikes that can't be dodged. I'm assuming that as the acting vampire who plays Bond, I still get the press despite being unable to use the dodge? > What you also don't seem to understand is that if your vampire goes to > torpor while sending theirs to torpor, you lose. An Ivory Bow is very > common in many decks -- it will miss you in round 1, and then you'll > both be in torpor in round 2. This is not good. What do you think an optional press does? > >You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't > >make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it. > >I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you. > > > >And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated > >damage, actually. > > Theft of Vitae doesn't do damage, though, so you'd better be Dodging. > And I'm going to be naturally dubious of ANY combat strategy that > involves sending yourself to torpor as well (barring the !Salubri who > have that neat "rescue vampire for free and it gains 1 blood" card). Ok, you win, I have no idea what you're trying to say. > >Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for > >an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting > > Perhaps I've just had a lot of experience trying to make the Tremere > actually be able to both kill things and oust people. Nah, more likely that you've had a lot of experience trying to make decks that are able to oust people *by* killing things. The only deck I have ever made that tries to do anything like that at least produces enough minions to weenie bleed you out before it comes to that. > >to the second round, where I can use Thaumaturgy's scarier > >aggravated strikes. I like dodge+press, I like it a lot, but I won't > >be able to play it because it's inexplicably rare. > > You could always proxy it. You could also trade for it. Right, good one. You've mistaken Jyhad for a game that is widely played, collected, or bought. I will have to proxy it, though, if I ever want to make the deck. Unfortunately, it will never be a tournament deck, as there is no way for me to accumulate the number of actual Bond's that would be required for tournament play. Around here, I know of maybe 4 boxes that have been bought among my 10+ size playgroup. And it's unlikely more will be forthcoming, considering the problems with the set I've described in other threads. > Of course, it was made rare not because of its THA effect, but because > of its VIS effect -- S:CE for that particular clan is simply not going > to be the most effective thing to do with them. > > What we'd like to do isn't always the most effective thing to do. Yeah, that S:CE, untap this vampire was never very popular with another effective combat clan, the Gangrel. Hey, wait... - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > cur...@aol.com (Curevei) mumbled something about: > > >This thread should have had its subject changed long ago. I think it may be > >too late to change it now, even though my comments are even further off topic > >(B rarity). > > (shrug) I'd agree, but i'm not too worried. At least it stays within > the same thread, so previous messages can be chased down. Double shrug. I think it's the same thread. Derek and I are arguing because my point is that Bloolines rarity sucks because, for example, I would like to actually play with Bond with the Mountain, while Derek takes the position that I wouldn't like that at all. - Jason Bell

In message <V4XT7.25299$RE3.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: >Derek and I are arguing >because my point is that Bloolines rarity sucks because, for example, >I would like to actually play with Bond with the Mountain, while >Derek takes the position that I wouldn't like that at all. There are lots of cards that individual players would like to play with lots of but which aren't generally useful. For instance, Betrayer is needed in large quantities for a Betrayer deck but, outside of that, it's pretty much useless. (Though it had some potential use in a small, highly contesting environment such as base-set Jyhad.) Since it will be - so far as the Rules Team decided - of less general use - since the Gargoyles are most likely to going on the offensive and the most problematic first round combats for the Tremere generally prohibit Dodges from working, in my experience (Bum's Rush, Flash, IG etc.; Quick Meld, Scorpion Sting, Claw), it seems not unreasonable to place it at a fairly high rarity. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth? > Blocked? He's in friggin torpor, toss me a bone here ($1 to Dr. Evil). You indicate an implicit assumption that your opponent only had one minion available to block, which you just sent to torpor. Or, perhaps more weakly, that he has minions, they are just *all* unavailable by virtue of him being unwilling to block you. You may sell me on the latter, but you haven't made the argument. > I just don't understand this at all. Once a combat deck has done > something to send a guy into torpor, only the worst players then > get another minion in the way of that deck before getting at least a > few new cards in hand. If the next minion down the pike blocks > the graverobber, that's more likely than not going to be the end > of the blocking player's game, as he likely will have lost two minions > to torpor in a single turn, with nothing but the kindness of strangers > to save his butt. Pah. Maybe I'm warped by the belief in the wisdom of the "hit back" strategy, or the inclusion of some form of at-least-light intercept in every deck I have that does not rush heavily. Even if not, think about the prevelance of weenies in your own metagame; I'll postulate that the Law of Mediocrity holds. They may not be all that attached to one of their twelve goobers, and would risk the loss of another one to ensure denying you the gaining of one. > Huh? I just don't see that at all. I'll take the dodging stealing > aggravated Tremere before the one-trick pony. That one trick pony being mono-potence grapple? I'm no fan of it either, but each moving part you add to your combo makes it that much more likely you'll lack the cards in hand to make it happen. Most all of it folds to Majesty, making the magnitude for card waste to increase. In this case, your spread does lose to it while the one-trick pony does not. And I believe you said yourself that combat ends is the most common combat defense down-message? I'll correct myself if I'm wrong when I get there... > > Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave > > Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and > > maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better > > idea. > > No, I very much like utterly dismantling the opposing player's > game (most likely my predator or prey) for doing something > that stupid. Especially when they likely did something stupid > in the first place for me to put them in the ground and then > come knocking. Snortle. Spewing this crap around the table in the middle of a game might, maybe, to a moron, be sellable as "agitation." Using it as a building point in an abstract debate is... arrogant and unpursuasive. To answer the point of substance: for people *not* playing (yawn) weenies, minions aren't interchangeable, so the one you're about to graverob might be worth more than the minion who's getting in the way of the graverobbing minion. Or maybe he's just the clone with the sportbike. Use you grey-matter, the examples are boundless. > We seem to have a disagreement over reality. I'm not hoping to > put together a Tremere deck that only gets into combats, > what I want is a Tremere deck whose combat package doesn't > need to be utterly flooded by all the stupid cards that you > have to put there because you don't own enough Apportation > or the new Bond. Where is it written that thaumaturgy must be able to do everything you could dream of it doing all by itself? How well does mono-dominate do with bleeding out it's prey? This has been written about at greater length, and with more authority, than I will muster, but you have to examine the balance of the game *as a whole*. I was sold on this in the last Great Spat about combat ends (the one you participated in). The Tremere have access to Dominate, the greatest discipline in the game (the reason you're looking at them). They have Auspex, which gives them the option of stopping that which they care to stop. Do the Tremere really need access to super-efficient combat all wrapped up in that last discipline? I don't think so. I think, if you want to run the combat package you are describing, you raise the "four cap and under ceiling" and play with Celerity. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.01121...@petite.mc.duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> writes: >Where is it written that thaumaturgy must be able to do everything you >could dream of it doing all by itself? Indeed, the general flow of disciplines is that it takes two to get somewhere in a relatively assured fashion - e.g. Toreador Auspex/Celerity for Intercept Combat; Potence/Celerity for Brujah Rush; Obfuscate/Potence for Nosferatu Rush; Obfuscate/Presence for Setite Vote; Obfuscate/Dominate for Malkie Stealth/Bleed; Dominate/Thaumaturgy for Bruise/Bleed; Auspex/Animalism+Vicissitude for Intercept Combat; Auspex/Vicissitude for Bruise and Bleed; Celerity/Quietus for Assamite annihilation; Dominate/Necromancy for Giovanni "stealth" bleed; and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <50XT7.25174$RE3.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth? > >Blocked? He's in friggin torpor, toss me a bone here ($1 to Dr. Evil). If you have a spare minion to take the Grave Robbing action, then I have a spare minion to block. You can't assume that you'll have twice as many minions out as I do -- and in fact, if you're playing THA/DOM then you'll have FEWER minions than most people, because it doesn't lend itself well to weenifying. >> This is assuming you can even put the vampire in torpor in the first >> place -- see the first objection reading "doesn't even kill things". > >Too late to use this assumption, since you had already moved on >to the ~will get himself out of torpor next turn~ point. Sorry, all the assumptions are valid. To make this theoretical deck work, you will need to: 1) Put a vampire in torpor... a) by overcoming their combat defense OR b) by being better than their combat and then... 2) Get a zero-stealth action through Both 1a and 1b are very difficult to do with Tremere. 2 has quite a few difficulties as well. Now, even assuming you manage 1a or 1b, but fail on 2, then: 3) they can rescue themselves immediately, negating your work. >> Gangrel have Protean, which provides the absolutely-necessary stealth >> required for such an action, and first round aggravated hand damage, >> which trumps large quantities of the most "common" combat (Potence IG >> being the big one). The Tremere have neither. > >I just don't understand this at all. Once a combat deck has done >something to send a guy into torpor, only the worst players then >get another minion in the way of that deck before getting at least a If you were only bleeding them, then yeah, they probably won't block the next bleed. However, Grave Robbing is an entirely different story -- it's an action that should always be blocked unless you have plenty of minions to spare, and if you have plenty of minions to spare, you can certainly spare another to block it anyway. Most decks cannot afford to lose minions permanently. Two minions in torpor with blood on them is generally always going to be a better situation than only one minion out of torpor -- rescue self OR rescue from cross-table, and presto, your game has suffered only minimal damage. Losing a minion permanently is generally a major problem for decks, however. This is why Temptation of Greater Power and Hostile Takeover work so damn well -- the minion is just GONE. Grave Robbing requires a bit more work, costs a lot less pool, and produces the same effect -- meaning that Grave Robbings will always get blocked if possible. >few new cards in hand. If the next minion down the pike blocks >the graverobber, that's more likely than not going to be the end >of the blocking player's game, as he likely will have lost two minions >to torpor in a single turn, with nothing but the kindness of strangers >to save his butt. Do not underestimate the kindness of strangers... or specifically, the kindness of your predator, who will be perfectly happy to take "I rescue my grandprey's vampires from torpor, making him pay it all" actions. Sure, those aren't bleeds for 6, but they keep you from getting a VP and 6 extra pool. >> Besides, you don't need Dominate masters for that trick. You just need >> 4 copies of Iliana in the crypt. > >Not this Gangrel deck, sister ($1 to Hahn Solo). (shrug) I'd be using Iliana and a bunch of computer-hacking PRO weenies, myself. Anyone who blocks, gets poked if possible. Anyone who ends up in torpor, gets stolen at stealth. Add four Foreshadowing Destruction for flavor. Add plenty of Deflection and a few Delaying Tactics (Iliana shouldn't ever tap unless she's 'borrowing' a minion), and you're good to go. >> No, I'm sorry, it cannot be discounted. It is much, much easier to find >> a bigger stick against the Tremere than against, say, weenie Potence IG. > >Huh? I just don't see that at all. I'll take the dodging stealing >aggravated Tremere before the one-trick pony. The one-trick pony can beat the hell out of almost everything it runs across, though, including S:CE and your dodging Tremere. Sure, you say "Zip Gun", but finding room for Zip Guns in your deck is a bit tricky -- and good weenie POT will use Traps. So much for Zip Gun (or any other "run away" strategy). >> ...unless that combat defense is most likely going to render all your >> combat worthless, in which case you have built a bad deck. > >Which is why I really wanted better access to cards that bring >together two useful things that Tremere need in the same >card, like Apportation which can be maneuver or press on but >is very hard to get a hold of; like Bond With the Mountain Apportation is very much a required card for the Tremere. I'd expect to see it as a common in the Camarilla set, and if Tremere starters are printed, as a fixed number of slots in that as well. I believe the only reason it was not reprinted in Sabbat War was because NO Thaumaturgy cards or !Tremere were reprinted in that set. >which gives a dodge and a press, but is rare. With such >combo cards in one and versatility, my combat doesn't >overwhelm my library, and I can get my deck's groove on. Tell you what. Grab a copy of ELDB and use its deckbuilder to build a deck "in theory". Post it. We can then have a look at this fabulous versatility and what it will get you. However, bleeds at zero stealth backed by weak combat tend to get both blocked AND deflected with impunity, and your deck's groove starts to look like Al Bundy in a grass skirt. >> Bleed defense can be countered very easily, if you take the time to >> build the deck properly. > >Heh. Good one. Oh crap, you're being serious, aren't you? You think? If you're worried about Deflection, play with Change of Target, and quit trying to bleed for 5-7 at a time. Bleed him for 2 and 3 lots, and he'll run out of Deflections real quick, even if he has 12 in the deck. Four minions each bleeding for 3 is a far superior strategy to 2 minions each bleeding for 6. Sorry, it's quite possible to deal with the most common bleed defenses. >> Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother >> to put more than one vote card in your deck. > >Are you sure we're talking about the same card? >Under NRA floor rule, the acting minion may not call >any other vote that turn after Delaying Tactics is played, >as far as I know. Correct. However, a vote deck that relies on having only one minion is going to be in sad, sad shape. A vote deck that relies too heavily on "cute", timing-critical votes like Parity Shift is also going to be in sad shape. And Delaying Tactics is excellent to stop obnoxious Dramatic Upheavals/etc. A vote deck that simply tosses in a bunch of KRC, Con Ag, Domain Challenge, and Anarchist Uprising, however, is going to laugh openly at Delaying Tactics, as the next vampire down calmly calls a different damage vote. >> And combat defense can be >> countered if you build the combat deck properly. > >No, it cannot. A particular combat defense, perhaps, >but there are too many ways to run combat defense >to effectively answer them all and still get any sort >of progress in your actual game (even if your actual >game is pure combat). Right. This is why you select the most common combat defenses, and counter those. OR, you select the combat defenses that will cause the most disruption for your deck, and counter THOSE. Fortitude, for example, is a problem for some combat decks, but one even those can live with as at least they get to cycle their hand. S:CE, on the other hand, stops most decks cold as they don't get to play any of their "after combat" or "second round" cards... jamming up on them. >> You, however, advocate building the combat deck in question without >> taking into account combat defenses and opposing combat. This will >> produce a sucky deck, and is indeed a VERY compelling argument. > >No, indeed it is not. Hey, this is fun. Or should I have capitalized >one of those words? What, you think you should just walk in blind and pray you don't sit next to S:CE, Dodge, press-to-end, or any of the other stuff I listed? Yeah, THAT'LL work great. Zero VP, here we come. >> Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave >> Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and >> maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better >> idea. > >No, I very much like utterly dismantling the opposing player's >game (most likely my predator or prey) for doing something >that stupid. Especially when they likely did something stupid >in the first place for me to put them in the ground and then >come knocking. As David said, that makes great table talk, but it won't get the Grave Robbing action through. All it gets you is, at its absolute best, someone else in torpor who promptly rescues himself (or gets rescued from cross-table). Not to mention that Grave Robbing isn't going to be THAT common a feature of your deck -- when you get one blocked, you probably won't have a second one available to make use of that second minion in torpor. >> And every combat deck without Grapple, Psyche!, or an effective way >> around S:CE tends to lose, too. > >We seem to have a disagreement over reality. I'm not hoping to You don't agree with the above statement? I sure do. >put together a Tremere deck that only gets into combats, >what I want is a Tremere deck whose combat package doesn't >need to be utterly flooded by all the stupid cards that you >have to put there because you don't own enough Apportation >or the new Bond. Bruise-and-bleed with the Tremere is a good way to go, and looks like a GREAT idea, except that they have no stealth to get the action through when they need to, and their combat isn't reliable enough to actually make things dead if someone has the temerity to block them. Bond with the Mountain certainly would trim down the card slots, but it suffers from a reliance on second-round syndrome, and a weakness against first-round combat. Intercept-and-burn is a better way to go, because you have access to cards like Spirit's Touch. In theory: Spirit's Touch intercept superior Bond with the Mountain (cost 1 blood) Maneuver with Spirit's Touch in round 2 Walk of Flame is only 3 cards, and you don't have to play the Bond or Walk if someone plays S:CE. Looks great, but low forward momentum (as with all intercept decks) and is STILL vulnerable to first-round combat. Splash in Apportations as necessary, and you can run away from close-range decks, but even after all this, you have to constantly intercept the "rescue self" actions. =/ Lots of work for little forward pressure. Great for ousting your predator, though. >> And there were what, four or five different Ventrue decks there? Also >> Horrid Form was around in Joe's deck, and I know there were two !Ventrue >> decks in the tournament. That's 7 decks that would completely shrug off >> your Walk of Flame. > >Yeah, but that Horrid Form would have been a total waste of time >against dodge plus press. As it was, the only game I played against It would've shut down your combat completely, actually. Horrid Form reads 'prevent one each ROUND', so if he drops 2, you can forget about ever playing a Walk. You could press to end, sure, and get away unhurt, but that's a big loss for you as your action didn't happen, and your combat didn't kill anything. >it, It gave me a VP, and only did anything at all by getting into >bed with his predator. I'll not consider that deck concept when >building anything. I could shrug that thing off with one Zip Gun, >from what I saw. It has plenty of Trap, Chiropteran Marauders and Spirit's Touch -- so Zip Gun will lose to it. Besides, weren't we talking about a Tremere deck? I don't think you'll be putting any Zip Guns in that deck. >> Locally, I usually see either a lot of prevention, a lot of "hit back", >> and the occasional S:CE. But the "hit back" seems to work best. > >Odd. In my experience, S:CE beats everything but the swimming-in- >combat-cards decks, and those can't get enough momentum to >do anything but get 2 VP's, since there is no collusion in friendly >games as there is in tournament Jyhad (hopefully fixed by the >new table win rule, but I'll not hold my breath). If you're going to play combat, you need to either design the deck to be able to defeat S:CE, or to not rely so much on the combat itself (so that S:CE is simply a "oh well" instead of an "oh shit"). Maybe that's why we see a lot of "hit back" instead. >> Unfortunately, all of it is true. Combat decks that do not prepare for >> plain old Dodge lose, so you'll always see combat that can handle Dodge. > >Again, we may not be talking about the same thing. I do not plan >to make an all-combat Tremere deck. The only thing that would Right. That's fine. But there will be other all-combat decks around you. Failing to prepare for those is going to get you splattered across creation when you sit by one. More accurately stated: if you see combat, it's going to be of the hideously-effective kind, and plain old Dodge doesn't work against that kind of combat. >be more of a waste of time for Tremere would be a Cryptic >Mission deck (conceptually, the most profound failure to understand >the value of a minion action that I have ever seen played). well, not if you get Blood Dolls on all your weenies. Bloating off other people's minions is fun. A few Society of Leopold make it even more fun, and Strained Vitae Supply means having an empty minion is no fun anymore. Not a tournament-winner (lack of stealth on the bleeds is the big killer), but quite entertaining. >> >celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press >> >> Celerity doesn't have to come with Fortitude -- it will kill you in >> round 1, and will never have to worry about your 2nd round agg. > >Sigh. (shrug) Additional strikes are very common if you've got Celerity. >> Gangrel play DotB/Scorpion Sting -- forget dodging. >> Assamites have additional strikes -- dead in round 1. >> !Gangrel will be using Shadow Feint (no Dodge). >> Potence IG is -the- most common combat, in many forms. >> POT/CEL is close by -- additional strikes. >> Tzimisce just play two Horrid Forms and will get you in round 2. >> Lasombra play Arms of the Abyss/Entombment. Splat. >> !Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge. >> Thoughts Betrayed has made a bit of a resurgence itself. >> Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats will cost you 2 extra blood and cancel your >> press. OR, it'll go ahead and sacrifice a vampire to let you die. >> >> You won't get to use the back door. You'll be dead in round 1. > >Not to even half of this mess you've described, much of which >is merely a list of strikes that can't be dodged. I'm assuming >that as the acting vampire who plays Bond, I still get the press >despite being unable to use the dodge? I'm sorry, what exactly are you thinking here? - The Gangrel will be doing agg hand damage. (torpor) - The Assamites will be doing agg ranged. (torpor) - The !Gangrel will be doing agg hand damage. (torpor) - Potence IG will knock all the blood off you or Disarm. (torpor) - POT/CEL will do the same, but with less cards. (torpor) - Trap/Horrid Form means you'll be pressing to end. They can use Scorpion Sting too, but I rarely see it. (draw) - Entombment reads: "Go to torpor". (torpor) - !Salubri have access to first-round aggravated, although it takes a lot of setup. Vengeance of Samiel can be played for a +2 hand strike though if they have no weapon. (torpor, or 3/4 blood lost if they only strike-hands) - Thoughts Betrayed is always combined with other nastiness that ends up with -- you guessed it, you in torpor. (torpor) - Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats mean you won't ever get your Walk off, and you'll be down 3 blood after each combat. You also risk someone being willing to go to round 2 and take 2 agg to send your vamp to torpor as well. (losing battle, and combat under control of other player) So, out of all the most common "effective" combat seen, your deck ends up in torpor 75% of the time, ends up down blood with no damage done to the other vampire 15% of the time, and manages to squeak out a draw with no damage done either way 10% of the time. Against the IG decks, you can't even play the Dodge, so you won't be able to get the press. Against the other decks, you can play the card and therefore will get the press. I've allowed for the option to press where appropriate, but as I've shown, it doesn't really matter. This doesn't even take into account S:CE, Dodge, and presses to end, where your combat simply fails completely and your opponent escapes unscathed. >> What you also don't seem to understand is that if your vampire goes to >> torpor while sending theirs to torpor, you lose. An Ivory Bow is very >> common in many decks -- it will miss you in round 1, and then you'll >> both be in torpor in round 2. This is not good. > >What do you think an optional press does? So you both get out of combat with no damage done, except you've spent a blood? Why did you even bother putting combat in the deck, then? >> Theft of Vitae doesn't do damage, though, so you'd better be Dodging. >> And I'm going to be naturally dubious of ANY combat strategy that >> involves sending yourself to torpor as well (barring the !Salubri who >> have that neat "rescue vampire for free and it gains 1 blood" card). > >Ok, you win, I have no idea what you're trying to say. A minion who has an Improvised Flamethrower can block you all day long. If you play Theft, you aren't Dodging, and you go to torpor. Since you aren't doing damage at range, his Flamethrower doesn't explode. If you play Bond with the Mountain, he still has the Flamethrower -- if you try to press and play Walk of Flame, you'll both be going to torpor. You get rid of his Flamethrower in the process, but again, I am naturally dubious of ANY strategy that involves blowing up your own vamp. >> >Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for >> >an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting >> >> Perhaps I've just had a lot of experience trying to make the Tremere >> actually be able to both kill things and oust people. > >Nah, more likely that you've had a lot of experience trying to make >decks that are able to oust people *by* killing things. The only I've had a lot of experience with that, too. It doesn't work. Even weenie POT bleeds for 5 or more per turn once its prey is out of vampires -- that is usually enough to oust. To oust someone with combat, you have to pursue a strategy that will actually oust someone, and have the combat in your deck in case you're blocked. Bruise and bleed is a good strategy if you don't try to bleed for too much (Deflection guard), if you use action modifiers (so your prey has to worry about every bleed for 1), and if you can manage to have reasonably effective combat backing up the bleeds (so your prey loses resources if he blocks the bleed). Without the reasonably effective combat, your prey simply blocks your bleeds and shrugs you off, and you go nowhere. >deck I have ever made that tries to do anything like that at least >produces enough minions to weenie bleed you out before it comes >to that. This is why weenie PRO + Computer Hacking is so strong. When five minions are bleeding for 2 each turn, I can guarantee that you will not have enough Deflections, Telepathic Counters, and S:CE cards in your hand to deal with them all. So you'll either end up with a minion in torpor from blocking, or you'll take a bleed of 2. That is a good thing. And once you run out of defenses and have to start taking bleeds, you won't draw into your defenses quickly enough, and you'll have to either start losing minions or taking lots MORE bleeds. And when you finally get down to that last 4 pool, those weenies can pull an Earth Control out to at least have a CHANCE of getting the ousting bleeds through. This is also why "hit back" has become so popular around here. You have a lot better chance of surviving in front of this type of deck if you can remove minions each time you block (Sniper Rifle is favourite). >> You could always proxy it. You could also trade for it. > >Right, good one. You've mistaken Jyhad for a game that is >widely played, collected, or bought. I will have to proxy it, >though, if I ever want to make the deck. Unfortunately, >it will never be a tournament deck, as there is no way for >me to accumulate the number of actual Bond's that would >be required for tournament play. Of course there is. I doubt there are that many people who want the card. I've got one copy, and I'll probably hang onto it just for the sake of having the one copy. But I won't ever try to accumulate more, as it's really a corner-case card. >Around here, I know of maybe 4 boxes that have been >bought among my 10+ size playgroup. And it's unlikely >more will be forthcoming, considering the problems with >the set I've described in other threads. I personally bought two boxes of BL via pre-order for about $100. I don't consider this much of an expenditure, as the cards will easily give me $100 worth of entertainment over their lifetime -- and I don't feel the need to rush out and buy any more boxes. Your playgroup being unwilling to spend money will make it a lot harder for you to trade locally, yes, but to this all I can say is "shit happens", as I cannot change your playgroup's spending habits, jobs, or disposable income. I can point out (as I did before) that V:TES is a luxury item. If V:TES comes before rent, food, bills, your car, your girlfriend, or anything else, then you have major priority issues and need to either re-examine them or dump her. Nobody ever HAS to buy boxes of V:TES, and it will never, EVER matter over the long run that someone was unable to buy those boxes. I sympathise with them, of course -- I would prefer that they WERE able to buy the boxes, as that would mean more players and a growing base for the game. But if they can't afford the boxes, they will just have to content themselves with a different form of fun. >> Of course, it was made rare not because of its THA effect, but because >> of its VIS effect -- S:CE for that particular clan is simply not going >> to be the most effective thing to do with them. >> >> What we'd like to do isn't always the most effective thing to do. > >Yeah, that S:CE, untap this vampire was never very popular with >another effective combat clan, the Gangrel. Hey, wait... 24 vampires have superior Protean. Earth Meld is free. Contrast: 4 vampires have superior Visceratika. Bond with the Mountain costs 1 blood. If you can't see the obvious, glaring difference in effectiveness, look again. Inferior VIS untaps BOTH vampires, which is not really a Good Thing, overall. -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

On 12 Dec 2001 14:13:20 -0800, pa...@pandora.be (Andrew Paris) wrote: > >But right now I'm a bit annoyed about the seeming total lack of >card-randomness in the packs I bought. > FN was the same. I kept getting 2 denys at a time it was really mindboggling. I for one would appreciate more randomness too, and a return to 3 traditional commonalities. Im tired of getting multiple sucky rares in the quest for the few r1s I dont have. T

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth? > > > Blocked? He's in friggin torpor, toss me a bone here ($1 to Dr. Evil). > > You indicate an implicit assumption that your opponent only had one minion > available to block, which you just sent to torpor. Or, perhaps more > weakly, that he has minions, they are just *all* unavailable by virtue of > him being unwilling to block you. You may sell me on the latter, but you > haven't made the argument. Follow the thread, David. This example was conjured during a broader discussion whereby an opponent had already lost one minion to aggrivated damage and was facing a graverobbing action on that minion. Either minions are unavailable because the only minion is in torpor or the other minions face the same own hand that allowed torpor of the last minion. In broader context, weenies are inappropriate for this discussion, as we were discussing the problems associated with putting vampires in torpor with some amount of blood on them. This is not a reasonable scenario for weenies. > > I just don't understand this at all. Once a combat deck has done > > something to send a guy into torpor, only the worst players then > > get another minion in the way of that deck before getting at least a > > few new cards in hand. If the next minion down the pike blocks > > the graverobber, that's more likely than not going to be the end > > of the blocking player's game, as he likely will have lost two minions > > to torpor in a single turn, with nothing but the kindness of strangers > > to save his butt. > > Pah. Maybe I'm warped by the belief in the wisdom of the "hit > back" strategy, or the inclusion of some form of at-least-light intercept > in every deck I have that does not rush heavily. Even if not, think about > the prevelance of weenies in your own metagame; I'll postulate that the > Law of Mediocrity holds. They may not be all that attached to one of > their twelve goobers, and would risk the loss of another one to ensure > denying you the gaining of one. If you wish to conjure a further example whereby the player with the minion in torpor is a weenie deck, feel free, but be prepared for the consequences of that position. The math is the same, the threat is another minion in torpor, with the alternative the already torpored minion (weenie) lost from one torpor to another, except that the weenie player most likely wouldn't have rescued it anyway, and the power swing from an opponent gaining a weenie is actually less than the presumed regular-strength vampire assumption. Sounds like you're just swinging wildly to be part of the fun, instead of thinking out your positions, David. Things slow at work? > > > Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave > > > Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and > > > maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better > > > idea. > > > > No, I very much like utterly dismantling the opposing player's > > game (most likely my predator or prey) for doing something > > that stupid. Especially when they likely did something stupid > > in the first place for me to put them in the ground and then > > come knocking. > > Snortle. Spewing this crap around the table in the middle of a game > might, maybe, to a moron, be sellable as "agitation." Using it as a > building point in an abstract debate is... arrogant and unpursuasive. Don't snortle at me, David. When a deck has taken one of your minions away without your being able to do anything about it (in this example, having no defense in hand against agg damage), the best play is almost always to remain very still until your hand improves or your opponent can be distracted by something more important than you. I would have figured your round 3 loss at Dragon*Con would have taught you that lesson well. > To > answer the point of substance: for people *not* playing (yawn) weenies, > minions aren't interchangeable, so the one you're about to graverob might > be worth more than the minion who's getting in the way of the graverobbing > minion. Or maybe he's just the clone with the sportbike. Use you > grey-matter, the examples are boundless. There are very few non-weenie decks that can afford to lose two minions, to say nothing of losing them in the same turn. Of course, if they aren't playing weenies, it's quite possible that the minion in torpor is the only minion, making all this moot. > > We seem to have a disagreement over reality. I'm not hoping to > > put together a Tremere deck that only gets into combats, > > what I want is a Tremere deck whose combat package doesn't > > need to be utterly flooded by all the stupid cards that you > > have to put there because you don't own enough Apportation > > or the new Bond. > > Where is it written that thaumaturgy must be able to do everything you > could dream of it doing all by itself? Right there, in small print, where thaumaturgy self-limits many of its own best strikes. The cards exist in-discipline to make those cards pay off, but they are maddeningly rare or pointlessly unavailable. Thus my original criticism, and the point behind the title of this thread. This isn't like stealth bleed, where two disciplines bring different strengths together to form something stronger (what any deck using discipline combinations should do), I'm talking about one discipline that has strike after strike, with so few ways of actually getting combat to the point where the strikes are possible. In my mind, that's inexcusable, moreso if the methods of making those strikes available are rare or gone. > How well does mono-dominate do > with bleeding out it's prey? Amazingly well, except for the blocking and bouncing. Hey, it even has an in-discipline common for giving the bleed a stealth, another to prevent a named vampire from blocking. Think of it, in-discipline cards that help one of the discipline's strengths. But to suggest the same for thaumaturgy, I suppose that would be unfair. > This has been written about at greater > length, and with more authority, than I will muster, but you have to > examine the balance of the game *as a whole*. I refer to this, and general arguments like "must look at the game as a whole" as a punt. I will spend very little time addressing them, except perhaps to poke them with a stick, hoping the hot air will leak out. > I was sold on this in the > last Great Spat about combat ends (the one you participated in). The > Tremere have access to Dominate, the greatest discipline in the game (the > reason you're looking at them). They have Auspex, which gives them the > option of stopping that which they care to stop. Do the Tremere really > need access to super-efficient combat all wrapped up in that last > discipline? I don't think so. You've thrown away your own argument, David. If you allow (and there's no reason to do so) that the cards I'd like access to make combat "super-efficient," that's the most powerful possible argument for making them common, or the propaganda about rarity being related to utility will have to be scrapped. If I can get agreement that the propaganda is bunk, I'll happily forego every subsequent skirmish this thread has produced, as my original point would have been won. > I think, if you want to run the combat > package you are describing, you raise the "four cap and under ceiling" and > play with Celerity. Why should I have to do that? The cards I want exist, just in a bone-headed rarity scheme. It's a dodge+press for a discipline that has tons of second round strikes. Why rare? If you can honestly answer that in a way that is consistent to what the consensus seems to be about how rarity works in this game, you'll than face the uphill battle about why so many of the second round strikes are common. I refuse to accept Derek's honest answer, that I shouldn't be allowed to run thaumaturgy combat in a way other than that which he finds most effective. I'll save myself the trouble of responding to Coupe's response down the thread with an observation that anyone willing to compare Betrayer with a card that gives a dodge+press to thaumaturgy cannot possibly be arguing thoughtfully. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> Besides, you don't need Dominate masters for that trick. You just need > >> 4 copies of Iliana in the crypt. > > > >Not this Gangrel deck, sister ($1 to Hahn Solo). > > (shrug) I'd be using Iliana and a bunch of computer-hacking PRO > weenies, myself. Anyone who blocks, gets poked if possible. Anyone who > ends up in torpor, gets stolen at stealth. Add four Foreshadowing > Destruction for flavor. Add plenty of Deflection and a few Delaying > Tactics (Iliana shouldn't ever tap unless she's 'borrowing' a minion), > and you're good to go. My non-hypothetical Gangrel deck is better than this concept, I'd wager. It's really quite good, it uses only vampires with PRO, and adds Dominate as necessary (it can actually teach it too, now that I've added my Instructions). > >> No, I'm sorry, it cannot be discounted. It is much, much easier to find > >> a bigger stick against the Tremere than against, say, weenie Potence IG. > > > >Huh? I just don't see that at all. I'll take the dodging stealing > >aggravated Tremere before the one-trick pony. > > The one-trick pony can beat the hell out of almost everything it runs > across, though, including S:CE and your dodging Tremere. Sure, you say > "Zip Gun", but finding room for Zip Guns in your deck is a bit tricky -- > and good weenie POT will use Traps. So much for Zip Gun (or any other > "run away" strategy). I can't see Trap in weenie-IG, it's too duplicate of what IG gives, and you lose out on space you need for other stuff, especially the Signs and the Undead Strength. Too, if it gets into anything more than a round or two without hitting hard, it goes to torpor instead or also, which is not the goal. And nobody takes pity on the little potency guy in torpor, he's stuck there. > Tell you what. Grab a copy of ELDB and use its deckbuilder to build a > deck "in theory". Post it. We can then have a look at this fabulous > versatility and what it will get you. There's just no way that's going to happen. This discussion has already gotten so dissipated into pointless side points that the original point is all but lost. I'll certainly not put up for debate every other one of my deck building peculiarities to add useless tangents to this monstrosity of a conversation. > >> Bleed defense can be countered very easily, if you take the time to > >> build the deck properly. > > > >Heh. Good one. Oh crap, you're being serious, aren't you? > > You think? If you're worried about Deflection, play with Change of > Target, and quit trying to bleed for 5-7 at a time. Bleed him for 2 and > 3 lots, and he'll run out of Deflections real quick, even if he has 12 > in the deck. That has not been my experience. I find that to do so leads to a really bad bleed deck that can't beat much of anything, and still puts its grand-prey's breeches in the wind when I'm forced to show my stealth. I'm not just idly gainsaying your idea, I switched my Gangrel bleed deck to do this and to combat Archon Investigation, and it made the deck just terrible. > Four minions each bleeding for 3 is a far superior strategy to 2 minions > each bleeding for 6. Sorry, it's quite possible to deal with the most > common bleed defenses. Just think how effective 12 minions bleeding for 2 would be. I think you've stumbled onto somthing, Derek. More minions taking more actions makes a deck more effective. > >> Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother > >> to put more than one vote card in your deck. > > > >Are you sure we're talking about the same card? > >Under NRA floor rule, the acting minion may not call > >any other vote that turn after Delaying Tactics is played, > >as far as I know. > > Correct. However, a vote deck that relies on having only one minion is > going to be in sad, sad shape. A vote deck that relies too heavily on > "cute", timing-critical votes like Parity Shift is also going to be in > sad shape. And Delaying Tactics is excellent to stop obnoxious Dramatic > Upheavals/etc. Now wait a second, I thought they could be ignored. > A vote deck that simply tosses in a bunch of KRC, Con Ag, Domain > Challenge, and Anarchist Uprising, however, is going to laugh openly at > Delaying Tactics, as the next vampire down calmly calls a different > damage vote. This just hasn't been my experience. Where I play, even the idea that one player is packing Delays means that he gets consulted on all sorts of votes. > >No, I very much like utterly dismantling the opposing player's > >game (most likely my predator or prey) for doing something > >that stupid. Especially when they likely did something stupid > >in the first place for me to put them in the ground and then > >come knocking. > > As David said, that makes great table talk, but it won't get the Grave > Robbing action through. All it gets you is, at its absolute best, > someone else in torpor who promptly rescues himself (or gets rescued > from cross-table). You've missed the point (as did Dave). If another minion signs up for torpor, that's fine by me, as it puts my target (predator or prey) in a terrible position. > A minion who has an Improvised Flamethrower can block you all day long. > If you play Theft, you aren't Dodging, and you go to torpor. Since you > aren't doing damage at range, his Flamethrower doesn't explode. If you > play Bond with the Mountain, he still has the Flamethrower -- if you try > to press and play Walk of Flame, you'll both be going to torpor. You > get rid of his Flamethrower in the process, but again, I am naturally > dubious of ANY strategy that involves blowing up your own vamp. Then how can you possibly advise anyone to use the Improvised Flamethrower? > This is why weenie PRO + Computer Hacking is so strong. When five > minions are bleeding for 2 each turn, I can guarantee that you will not > have enough Deflections, Telepathic Counters, and S:CE cards in your > hand to deal with them all. So you'll either end up with a minion in > torpor from blocking, or you'll take a bleed of 2. You've ignored the soft underbelly, where any weenie protean will send itself to torpor by sending me there. I don't think your idea would work very well at all. And to use your own argument from earlier, yours goes there with no blood, and mine has blood, making your own strategy out of bounds by your own preferences. > >> You could always proxy it. You could also trade for it. > > > >Right, good one. You've mistaken Jyhad for a game that is > >widely played, collected, or bought. I will have to proxy it, > >though, if I ever want to make the deck. Unfortunately, > >it will never be a tournament deck, as there is no way for > >me to accumulate the number of actual Bond's that would > >be required for tournament play. > > Of course there is. I doubt there are that many people who want the > card. I've got one copy, and I'll probably hang onto it just for the > sake of having the one copy. But I won't ever try to accumulate more, > as it's really a corner-case card. Yeah, who would ever want to dodge with an optional press? I suppose combat itself is a corner-case event? Or perhaps thaumaturgy is a corner-case discipline? You can say "corner-case" when you mean "I don't think I'll play it," but please do try to understand the distinction. > >> What we'd like to do isn't always the most effective thing to do. > > > >Yeah, that S:CE, untap this vampire was never very popular with > >another effective combat clan, the Gangrel. Hey, wait... > > 24 vampires have superior Protean. > Earth Meld is free. > > Contrast: > > 4 vampires have superior Visceratika. > Bond with the Mountain costs 1 blood. This argument is out of bounds. The problem is that the same can be said for all the cards in the new set, because there are so few vampires with superior versions of the new disciplines. You'll have to do better to make a convincing point, considering the prevalence of common cards for disciplines only available to vampires that are scarce. > If you can't see the obvious, glaring difference in effectiveness, look > again. Inferior VIS untaps BOTH vampires, which is not really a Good > Thing, overall. Man, you really haven't been paying attention. S:CE, untap this vampire really, really, really is a Good Thing. Am I wrong that it makes VIS the only discipline that can have that power at inferior? - Jason Bell

I'm going to point out, first off, that you snipped over half the message that you apparently didn't have answers for. Also, some of what you snipped contained statements/points that were relevant to the contents of your reply. I'll snip back in where appropriate. In message <xZxV7.91979$RE3.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> (shrug) I'd be using Iliana and a bunch of computer-hacking PRO >> weenies, myself. Anyone who blocks, gets poked if possible. Anyone who >> ends up in torpor, gets stolen at stealth. Add four Foreshadowing >> Destruction for flavor. Add plenty of Deflection and a few Delaying >> Tactics (Iliana shouldn't ever tap unless she's 'borrowing' a minion), >> and you're good to go. > >My non-hypothetical Gangrel deck is better than this concept, >I'd wager. It's really quite good, it uses only vampires with >PRO, and adds Dominate as necessary (it can actually teach >it too, now that I've added my Instructions). Yes, that was one of the first few decks I made -- use PRO guys, slap DOM skill cards on them, do bleed things at stealth. I found that it gets inferior DOM pretty well, but is working overtime to manage superior DOM on anyone. And I also got screwed in two rounds because I didn't draw either of my single copies of Caitlin or Iliana, and didn't get any skill cards in hand early despite having 9 in the deck. With 2 of each in the deck, I would have been at least able to transfer out ONE minion who could do "effective" things while waiting for skill cards. To make intensive use of Grave Robbing, you really want to have superior DOM, so you immediately get an extra, functional minion. Making the minions rescue themselves on your next turn is much slower, although it does still take it away from the previous owner. >> The one-trick pony can beat the hell out of almost everything it runs >> across, though, including S:CE and your dodging Tremere. Sure, you say >> "Zip Gun", but finding room for Zip Guns in your deck is a bit tricky -- >> and good weenie POT will use Traps. So much for Zip Gun (or any other >> "run away" strategy). > >I can't see Trap in weenie-IG, it's too duplicate of what IG gives, >and you lose out on space you need for other stuff, especially >the Signs and the Undead Strength. Too, if it gets into anything >more than a round or two without hitting hard, it goes to torpor >instead or also, which is not the goal. And nobody takes pity on >the little potency guy in torpor, he's stuck there. Hmm. Perhaps I haven't made myself entirely clear here. Most weenie (and non-weenie) POT Rush decks include a certain number of maneuver cards, because people have learned that IG does not work at range and have taken to blocking Rushes and putting Zip Guns and Fake Outs in their deck. I recommend using Traps in place of these transient maneuvers for three reasons: 1) It beats ALL defensive maneuvers, hands down. No matter what, eventually they get stuck at close, and you beat them senseless. 2) It can be cycled freely if you are facing decks that are NOT trying to run away, unlike Fake Outs or other maneuver cards. 3) If you're facing offensive maneuvers (such as those employed by long-range first-round combat like the Assamites, any gun/CEL deck, Tremere 20-Apportation decks, etc), you are screwed anyway, as the other deck has way more maneuvers in its deck than you do. Your few Fake Outs aren't going to catch those decks. (Oh, and you can't press with IG if you couldn't play it.) >> Tell you what. Grab a copy of ELDB and use its deckbuilder to build a >> deck "in theory". Post it. We can then have a look at this fabulous >> versatility and what it will get you. > >There's just no way that's going to happen. Well, now come on. You're giving up before you've even started. >This discussion has already gotten so dissipated into pointless >side points that the original point is all but lost. I'll Actually, you snipped all the side points. The original discussion was whether or not dodge-with-an-optional-press was a strong card for the Tremere. You contend that it is. I contend that it isn't, due to S:CE and all the other effective combat pissing around out there. I listed a whole snotload of reasons, and they got lost in the previous message. I'll un-snip one of them: >>So, out of all the most common "effective" combat seen, your deck ends >>up in torpor 75% of the time, ends up down blood with no damage done to >>the other vampire 15% of the time, and manages to squeak out a draw with >>no damage done either way 10% of the time. Where it says "your deck", it refers to a deck whose combat is based around Dodge/Press/Walk. I maintain that a deck that can't even beat up ten of the most commonly seen combat decks and can't easily get around S:CE is not effective, especially when it intends to rely on that same combat followed up with Grave Robbing as an incentive to not block it. >certainly not put up for debate every other one of my deck >building peculiarities to add useless tangents to this monstrosity >of a conversation. Why not? I do it every month. >> You think? If you're worried about Deflection, play with Change of >> Target, and quit trying to bleed for 5-7 at a time. Bleed him for 2 and >> 3 lots, and he'll run out of Deflections real quick, even if he has 12 >> in the deck. > >That has not been my experience. I find that to do so leads to >a really bad bleed deck that can't beat much of anything, and >still puts its grand-prey's breeches in the wind when I'm forced >to show my stealth. I'm not just idly gainsaying your idea, >I switched my Gangrel bleed deck to do this and to combat >Archon Investigation, and it made the deck just terrible. I will admit to being somewhat surprised. I cannot see how a bunch of PRO/dom minions bleeding for 1 each, and then dropping a Conditioning after blocks are declined, is actually going to end up in any kind of bad shape. You bleed for 3/4 per action, and your prey must worry about every single bleed for 1 that comes by. Having Raven, Chandler, Daliyah, and Ricki all with some form of pro/dom is not unreasonable to believe of such a deck -- so what's the problem? That's 12 points of pool damage every turn (if you have enough Conditionings). The only thing I can think of is that you have so few DOM skill cards in the deck that you can't get at least inferior DOM on each of your minions relatively rapidly, but from your previous description I don't think that's the case. >> Four minions each bleeding for 3 is a far superior strategy to 2 minions >> each bleeding for 6. Sorry, it's quite possible to deal with the most >> common bleed defenses. > >Just think how effective 12 minions bleeding for 2 would be. >I think you've stumbled onto somthing, Derek. >More minions taking more actions makes a deck more effective. Correct. But 6 minions each bleeding for 2 (let's keep the math equivalent) is slightly more difficult to achieve than 4 minions each bleeding for 3. Specifically, you've got to get 2 more minions into your uncontrolled region and then out on the table. Weenie decks do this relatively easily, but you then have to play OBF weenies to get any stealth on your bleeds. >> >> Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother >> >> to put more than one vote card in your deck. >> Correct. However, a vote deck that relies on having only one minion is >> going to be in sad, sad shape. A vote deck that relies too heavily on >> "cute", timing-critical votes like Parity Shift is also going to be in >> sad shape. And Delaying Tactics is excellent to stop obnoxious Dramatic >> Upheavals/etc. > >Now wait a second, I thought they could be ignored. If your deck relies on Dramatic Upheaval to win, you've fucked up your deck design -- back to the drawing board. >> A vote deck that simply tosses in a bunch of KRC, Con Ag, Domain >> Challenge, and Anarchist Uprising, however, is going to laugh openly at >> Delaying Tactics, as the next vampire down calmly calls a different >> damage vote. > >This just hasn't been my experience. Where I play, even the idea >that one player is packing Delays means that he gets consulted >on all sorts of votes. Yes, it was obvious at DragonCon that you and David A. both expected the threat of a DT to immediately make me cower and begin negotiations. Instead, I challenged you both to "play 'em if you got 'em," and got 2VP despite both my predator AND prey packing DTs in their decks. Any minions who got Delayed were conveniently untapped and available to play bleed bounce -- and there are only so many DTs in anyone's deck. That deck contained four different types of damage votes (and three different non-damage votes) for a very good reason -- I wanted to be able to shrug off anyone who didn't have 8+ Delaying Tactics in their deck. If someone is holding a DT, you must force them to play it, or you will piss around in fear of it forever until they DO play it. If you put nothing but KRC in your deck and get your whole turn shut down by a DT, then you fucked up your deck design -- you deserve it. >> As David said, that makes great table talk, but it won't get the Grave >> Robbing action through. All it gets you is, at its absolute best, >> someone else in torpor who promptly rescues himself (or gets rescued >> from cross-table). > >You've missed the point (as did Dave). If another minion signs up >for torpor, that's fine by me, as it puts my target (predator or >prey) in a terrible position. Actually, I countered the point in the whole chunk you snipped. The relevant conclusion has been unsnipped below: >>Most decks cannot afford to lose minions permanently. Two minions in >>torpor with blood on them is generally always going to be a better >>situation than only one minion out of torpor -- rescue self OR rescue >>from cross-table, and presto, your game has suffered only minimal >>damage. And this statement STILL holds true. If, at the start of my turn, I have Donal and Constanza both in torpor with 5 blood each on them, I am in much better shape than if I had Donal ready with 6 blood, and my predator has Constanza ready with 5 blood. I can do a lot more things with a minion in torpor than I can with a minion who isn't even MINE anymore. >> A minion who has an Improvised Flamethrower can block you all day long. >> If you play Theft, you aren't Dodging, and you go to torpor. Since you >> aren't doing damage at range, his Flamethrower doesn't explode. If you >> play Bond with the Mountain, he still has the Flamethrower -- if you try >> to press and play Walk of Flame, you'll both be going to torpor. You >> get rid of his Flamethrower in the process, but again, I am naturally >> dubious of ANY strategy that involves blowing up your own vamp. > >Then how can you possibly advise anyone to use the Improvised >Flamethrower? Oh, that's easy. It does really well against decks who can't get to long range or can't do damage at long range -- which is still most decks these days. And OBF has this neat "Behind You" card that is either a Dodge or a maneuver, depending on what you need -- so Disguised Weapon/Improvised Flamethrower looks like a lot of fun for Malks, Nossies, etc. If the pesky Tremere happen to come around, well, that's fine -- you can always use those maneuvers to run back to close range, where the Flamethrower won't blow up. It'll be about as much deterrent as an Ivory Bow -- except it's not unique. Oops. >> This is why weenie PRO + Computer Hacking is so strong. When five >> minions are bleeding for 2 each turn, I can guarantee that you will not >> have enough Deflections, Telepathic Counters, and S:CE cards in your >> hand to deal with them all. So you'll either end up with a minion in >> torpor from blocking, or you'll take a bleed of 2. > >You've ignored the soft underbelly, where any weenie protean will >send itself to torpor by sending me there. I don't think your Flesh of Marble, spend 1 on claws, get punched for 1 -- he'll only go to torpor if he only had 1 blood to start with. And unless you're a weenie deck too, trading minions can ONLY work in his favor. >idea would work very well at all. And to use your own argument >from earlier, yours goes there with no blood, and mine has blood, >making your own strategy out of bounds by your own preferences. Weenie PRO computer-hack has worked EXTREMELY well in many different environments, actually, because it's based around -- you guessed it, weenies. Occasionally one of your weenies WILL get bashed into torpor, yes. Fortunately, you have lots of other weenies who will take the "Rescue Poor Bastard" action. In the meantime, even if your deck is chock-full of combat, you have to figure out how to untap often enough to deal with 6+ bleeds of 2, at possible stealth. Yep, you can sure rescue yourself. That's what makes it balanced -- weenie PRO can't keep you in torpor without diablerie, which costs you a weenie as well. Against decks with enough untap/combat, weenie PRO generally gets 1VP and dies. >> >though, if I ever want to make the deck. Unfortunately, >> >it will never be a tournament deck, as there is no way for >> >me to accumulate the number of actual Bond's that would >> >be required for tournament play. >> >> Of course there is. I doubt there are that many people who want the >> card. I've got one copy, and I'll probably hang onto it just for the >> sake of having the one copy. But I won't ever try to accumulate more, >> as it's really a corner-case card. > >Yeah, who would ever want to dodge with an optional press? How often do you see Vampiric Speed played? ...As compared to the OTHER Celerity cards? Amria's getting a lot of play, but that's a press to END. Now THAT makes a lot of sense -- dodge this round, press to avoid any more rounds. Still kind of shaky as combat defense by itself, but its other half is a maneuver -- include twice as many Amria, and just play them until you either get to dodge at long range, or run out of Amria and get dead. >I suppose combat itself is a corner-case event? Combat doesn't oust people. Lots of combat around these days, but not much of it winning without stuff BESIDES the combat. >Or perhaps thaumaturgy is a corner-case discipline? It is, actually. How often do you see it played? ...As compared to, say, Fortitude, Auspex, or Obfuscate? ...Or other combat disciplines like Potence and Protean? >You can say "corner-case" when you mean "I don't think >I'll play it," but please do try to understand the distinction. Oh, I understand it very well. Again, you are welcome to design a deck that attempts to demonstrate that it ISN'T corner-case (either the THA or VIS parts). >You'll have to do better to make a convincing point, >considering the prevalence of common cards for >disciplines only available to vampires that are scarce. Fine. Look at it this way, then: The Gangrel can make good use of Earth Meld because they have easy access to significant intercept via Raven Spies/Raptors, ANI intercepty discipline cards and untap cards ... not to mention that a number of Gangrel also have Auspex for additional support, and a lot of decks have made great strides by using 2nd Tradition/Earth Meld. And Earth Meld is free, meaning you can do it five times in one turn and never be adversely affected. The Gargoyles have Razor Bat, Defender of the Haven, and Patrol. That's it. Add in the fact that their S:CE/untap costs a blood, and it's just not worth your time to try to play "wall" with them -- you would have been better served to use their POT/FOR/VIS/Flight and kick someone's ass with it. You are, of course, welcome to shovel two Razor Bats and a Defender of the Haven onto your favourite Gargoyle and try to use him as a "backwards wall", playing lots of Bond with the Mountain, while your Tremere go forward with Dominate. Here's what'll happen: 1) He'll be Seduced, hit with Call of the Grateful Dead, or any of a number of other "That vampire doesn't block...ever." effects, all of which are extremely common to see right now. 2) He'll fall afoul of a deck that has counters to S:CE, and die. 3) If nothing else, he'll run out of blood, because he'll be blowing it off himself at a ridiculous rate. "Ah! But he has FOR! He can play Restoration!" That sounds like a really neat idea until you try it and discover that getting a Restoration in hand JUST at the time he starts to get down to 1-2 blood is a lot harder than it looks. >> If you can't see the obvious, glaring difference in effectiveness, look >> again. Inferior VIS untaps BOTH vampires, which is not really a Good >> Thing, overall. > >Man, you really haven't been paying attention. >S:CE, untap this vampire really, really, really is a Good Thing. however, if you untap the other vampire as well, it turns into just an Average Thing. >Am I wrong that it makes VIS the only discipline that can >have that power at inferior? who cares? It untaps the other vampire, meaning you have to deal with ANOTHER action or ANOTHER blocker. Only case I can think of where I'd like to do that is if I had Dominate skill cards on my Gargoyles, and someone Deflected one of them while bleeding at zero stealth. Then I could untap both myself and my grandprey's vampire. Convenient, but if I'm adding stealth with VIS, it'll be a bit tricky to get my grandprey to block. Earth Meld is so great because it completely negates either an action or a block, for free. Majesty is inferior to Earth Meld because of the blood cost, but this is balanced out by the fact that Majesty is much more useful offensively (bleed, majesty, untap, vote) than Earth Meld -- but Majesty still basically negates an action or block. Inferior Bond with the Mountain is a weak Change of Target -- at least Change of Target ruins Wakes. Defensively, inferior BwtM is a little better but still not all that -- your predator can generally come up with something useful to do with his extra action. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > I'm going to point out, first off, that you snipped over half the > message that you apparently didn't have answers for. Also, some of what > you snipped contained statements/points that were relevant to the > contents of your reply. I'll snip back in where appropriate. And I'll point out in response that I just don't have time to respond to every paragraph in every novel you pen. If I agree with one of your responses, I'll take the time to retract a previous point. Otherwise, consider it a symptom of messages that run for hundreds of lines. > >My non-hypothetical Gangrel deck is better than this concept, > >I'd wager. It's really quite good, it uses only vampires with > >PRO, and adds Dominate as necessary (it can actually teach > >it too, now that I've added my Instructions). > > Yes, that was one of the first few decks I made -- use PRO guys, slap > DOM skill cards on them, do bleed things at stealth. I found that it > gets inferior DOM pretty well, but is working overtime to manage > superior DOM on anyone. And I also got screwed in two rounds because I > didn't draw either of my single copies of Caitlin or Iliana, and didn't > get any skill cards in hand early despite having 9 in the deck. With 2 > of each in the deck, I would have been at least able to transfer out ONE > minion who could do "effective" things while waiting for skill cards. Ya, mine has 2 Iliana and 2 Caitlin, and runs a number of Computer Hacking to pass the time if a minion without Dominate gets bored. > To make intensive use of Grave Robbing, you really want to have superior > DOM, so you immediately get an extra, functional minion. Making the > minions rescue themselves on your next turn is much slower, although it > does still take it away from the previous owner. Na, if the minion is worth stealing, it's worth stealing to your own torpor. > >There's just no way that's going to happen. > > Well, now come on. You're giving up before you've even started. You misunderstand me, I may still make the deck, I just won't post it for minutiae-minded carrion crows to peck at (relax, not talking about you). > >This discussion has already gotten so dissipated into pointless > >side points that the original point is all but lost. I'll > > Actually, you snipped all the side points. The original discussion was > whether or not dodge-with-an-optional-press was a strong card for the > Tremere. You contend that it is. I contend that it isn't, due to S:CE > and all the other effective combat pissing around out there. You've slightly forgotten the original discussion, which was whether a dodge+press for inferior thaumaturgy, plus S:CE untap effects for the gargoyles was so useless as to warrant only two rare slots. > I listed a > whole snotload of reasons, and they got lost in the previous message. > I'll un-snip one of them: And I'll snip it right back out. Most of your reasoning seems to rely on the idea that thaumaturgy's second round strikes are inherently inferior, flawed, useless, whatever. If that's true, it should be borne out in the next Cam set with those strikes migrating to uncommon or rare slots. I'll wager that they will not, and therefore the argument is not valid for a rarity discussion. I say that in-discipline cards that facilitate commons should be common (see Seduction and Bonding). > >> You think? If you're worried about Deflection, play with Change of > >> Target, and quit trying to bleed for 5-7 at a time. Bleed him for 2 and > >> 3 lots, and he'll run out of Deflections real quick, even if he has 12 > >> in the deck. > > > >That has not been my experience. I find that to do so leads to > >a really bad bleed deck that can't beat much of anything, and > >still puts its grand-prey's breeches in the wind when I'm forced > >to show my stealth. I'm not just idly gainsaying your idea, > >I switched my Gangrel bleed deck to do this and to combat > >Archon Investigation, and it made the deck just terrible. > > I will admit to being somewhat surprised. I cannot see how a bunch of > PRO/dom minions bleeding for 1 each, and then dropping a Conditioning > after blocks are declined, is actually going to end up in any kind of > bad shape. You bleed for 3/4 per action, and your prey must worry about > every single bleed for 1 that comes by. Having Raven, Chandler, > Daliyah, and Ricki all with some form of pro/dom is not unreasonable to > believe of such a deck -- so what's the problem? That's 12 points of > pool damage every turn (if you have enough Conditionings). Read Conditioning, read Earth Control. If you try to play them every turn for light bleeds, you'll have no blood on your minions, which are somehow supposed to simultaneously be weenies and have superior Protean (Chandler at 3, Daliyah at 4, then up up up), then get Dominate. The deck has to hit for 5 or 6, maybe killing some time early with Computer Hacking. And before you say Form of Mist, keep in mind that you have to have Earth Control as well for the light intercept wake guys. > >Just think how effective 12 minions bleeding for 2 would be. > >I think you've stumbled onto somthing, Derek. > >More minions taking more actions makes a deck more effective. > > Correct. But 6 minions each bleeding for 2 (let's keep the math > equivalent) is slightly more difficult to achieve than 4 minions each > bleeding for 3. Specifically, you've got to get 2 more minions into > your uncontrolled region and then out on the table. Weenie decks do > this relatively easily, but you then have to play OBF weenies to get any > stealth on your bleeds. Which brings us to my Night Moves deck, which has transformed itself into a Computer Hacking deck with several Night Moves, to make my prey despair about ever blocking at all. That's the only deck I have ever played which could have 12 minions bleeding for 2. > >> >> Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother > >> >> to put more than one vote card in your deck. > >> Correct. However, a vote deck that relies on having only one minion is > >> going to be in sad, sad shape. A vote deck that relies too heavily on > >> "cute", timing-critical votes like Parity Shift is also going to be in > >> sad shape. And Delaying Tactics is excellent to stop obnoxious Dramatic > >> Upheavals/etc. > > > >Now wait a second, I thought they could be ignored. > > If your deck relies on Dramatic Upheaval to win, you've f*cked up your > deck design -- back to the drawing board. Straw Man Alert. > >> A vote deck that simply tosses in a bunch of KRC, Con Ag, Domain > >> Challenge, and Anarchist Uprising, however, is going to laugh openly at > >> Delaying Tactics, as the next vampire down calmly calls a different > >> damage vote. > > > >This just hasn't been my experience. Where I play, even the idea > >that one player is packing Delays means that he gets consulted > >on all sorts of votes. > > Yes, it was obvious at DragonCon that you and David A. both expected the > threat of a DT to immediately make me cower and begin negotiations. > > Instead, I challenged you both to "play 'em if you got 'em," and got 2VP > despite both my predator AND prey packing DTs in their decks. Any > minions who got Delayed were conveniently untapped and available to play > bleed bounce -- and there are only so many DTs in anyone's deck. DT's always work for delay, and almost always make you a political force despite having no votes. You would have had no VP that game if I hadn't been playing very loose and nice, reminding my prey not to make dumn blocks on two subsequent turns. Add to that your luck at having your prey and predator playing similar crypts to slow us both down, and voila, 2 VP. > >> As David said, that makes great table talk, but it won't get the Grave > >> Robbing action through. All it gets you is, at its absolute best, > >> someone else in torpor who promptly rescues himself (or gets rescued > >> from cross-table). > > > >You've missed the point (as did Dave). If another minion signs up > >for torpor, that's fine by me, as it puts my target (predator or > >prey) in a terrible position. > > Actually, I countered the point in the whole chunk you snipped. The > relevant conclusion has been unsnipped below: No you didn't, and I'll snip it right out again. > >> A minion who has an Improvised Flamethrower can block you all day long. > >> If you play Theft, you aren't Dodging, and you go to torpor. Since you > >> aren't doing damage at range, his Flamethrower doesn't explode. If you > >> play Bond with the Mountain, he still has the Flamethrower -- if you try > >> to press and play Walk of Flame, you'll both be going to torpor. You > >> get rid of his Flamethrower in the process, but again, I am naturally > >> dubious of ANY strategy that involves blowing up your own vamp. > > > >Then how can you possibly advise anyone to use the Improvised > >Flamethrower? > > Oh, that's easy. It does really well against decks who can't get to > long range or can't do damage at long range -- which is still most decks > these days. And OBF has this neat "Behind You" card that is either a > Dodge or a maneuver, depending on what you need -- so Disguised > Weapon/Improvised Flamethrower looks like a lot of fun for Malks, > Nossies, etc. But it can get sent to torpor by a Zip Gun. That's a terrible piece of equipment. And it costs 2 pool? Oh my God I'm going to vomit. > >You've ignored the soft underbelly, where any weenie protean will > >send itself to torpor by sending me there. I don't think your > > Flesh of Marble, spend 1 on claws, get punched for 1 -- he'll only go to > torpor if he only had 1 blood to start with. And unless you're a weenie > deck too, trading minions can ONLY work in his favor. You have to be kidding. You are presuming 5 minions, presuming that they are using superior Protean, and also assuming that they have enough blood to keep them out of trouble. I can't argue against this wet-dream fantasy world you live in. > >idea would work very well at all. And to use your own argument > >from earlier, yours goes there with no blood, and mine has blood, > >making your own strategy out of bounds by your own preferences. > > Weenie PRO computer-hack has worked EXTREMELY well in many different > environments, actually, because it's based around -- you guessed it, > weenies. Occasionally one of your weenies WILL get bashed into torpor, > yes. Fortunately, you have lots of other weenies who will take the > "Rescue Poor Bastard" action. In the meantime, even if your deck is > chock-full of combat, you have to figure out how to untap often enough > to deal with 6+ bleeds of 2, at possible stealth. Protean, stealth, weenies. Pick two. Pick no more than two. > >> Of course there is. I doubt there are that many people who want the > >> card. I've got one copy, and I'll probably hang onto it just for the > >> sake of having the one copy. But I won't ever try to accumulate more, > >> as it's really a corner-case card. > > > >Yeah, who would ever want to dodge with an optional press? > > How often do you see Vampiric Speed played? Wow, I must have missed all the great second round strikes that Celerity has. How many of them do aggravated damage? Holy Moly, Vampiric Speed doesn't even give the press until superior Celerity. Shame on you for comparing these cards. And for a final flourish, Vampiric Speed is a, gasp, Common. What should the rarity be for a Thaumaturgy card that does the same thing at inferior for a discipline with much better second round strikes? Perhaps... Common? > >Or perhaps thaumaturgy is a corner-case discipline? > > It is, actually. How often do you see it played? About as much as Protean, give or take my Gangrel infatuation. Do you advise that all Thaumaturgy cards be uncommon or rare? Please advise the team that's constructing the new Cam set. Personally, I'm not for that. I'm beginning to suspect that your definition of corner case is different from the standard. > The Gargoyles have Razor Bat, Defender of the Haven, and Patrol. That's > it. Add in the fact that their S:CE/untap costs a blood, and it's just > not worth your time to try to play "wall" with them -- you would have > been better served to use their POT/FOR/VIS/Flight and kick someone's > ass with it. Wow, you still don't understand the power of S:CE/untap. Here's a hint: I've never seen a wall Ventrue deck, yet they often have S:CE/untap coming out their wazoo. > >Man, you really haven't been paying attention. > >S:CE, untap this vampire really, really, really is a Good Thing. > > however, if you untap the other vampire as well, it turns into just an > Average Thing. Come on, Derek. It's S:CE/untap. You've recovered your minion action, and moved at least one card. Very many minion actions are inherently at stealth, meaning even if the minion is untapped, he has to catch you again. This is so basic I can't believe we're discussing it. S:CE/untap "Average Thing." Pfffffft. > >Am I wrong that it makes VIS the only discipline that can > >have that power at inferior? > > who cares? You can't be serious. It untaps the other vampire, meaning you have to deal with > ANOTHER action or ANOTHER blocker. Doubling back on yourself again, Derek? You mentioned in a previous thread about S:CE/untap that blocking was meant to stop problem actions, not to tap the acting vampire. You're not being consistent. - Jason Bell

In message <hB7X7.5270$mp3.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> you snipped contained statements/points that were relevant to the >> contents of your reply. I'll snip back in where appropriate. > >And I'll point out in response that I just don't have time >to respond to every paragraph in every novel you pen. That's fine, and I don't blame you. But when you refer to something I addressed in a previous post, I like saving some time myself and just re-quoting it. And when you go on to argue points that were countered in a previous post, I wish you had been more careful with your snips. >Ya, mine has 2 Iliana and 2 Caitlin, and runs a number of Computer >Hacking to pass the time if a minion without Dominate gets bored. It's entirely probable that this deck (which, oddly enough, we seem to be relatively on the same page as far as design goes) would do best with a mix of Computer Hacking/Threats, for consistent bleeds of 2-4, averaging probably around 3.25 or 3.5, depending on how fast you could get superior Dominate moving around. >You misunderstand me, I may still make the deck, I just won't >post it for minutiae-minded carrion crows to peck at (relax, >not talking about you). Carrion Crows wouldn't go in this deck. Neither Chandler, Daliyah, nor Iliana have ANI, and Mirembe, Raven, and Camille only have inferior. *cough* Sorry. =) Couldn't resist. >> Actually, you snipped all the side points. The original discussion was >> whether or not dodge-with-an-optional-press was a strong card for the >> Tremere. You contend that it is. I contend that it isn't, due to S:CE >> and all the other effective combat pissing around out there. > >You've slightly forgotten the original discussion, which was whether >a dodge+press for inferior thaumaturgy, plus S:CE untap effects >for the gargoyles was so useless as to warrant only two rare slots. ...to which discussion the question of whether dodge+press is even effective for the Tremere is actually quite relevant. However, I'm willing to guess that any given card's rarity in Bloodlines was based directly on the Bloodlines effect, as opposed to any inferior-out-of-discipline effects. As such, I certainly believe that S:CE plus untap for the Gargoyles is an effect that, while not completely useless, something they're simply not going to want to do very often. They have much better things they can be doing in combat. (more at the bottom, where the rest of this is). >And I'll snip it right back out. Most of your reasoning seems >to rely on the idea that thaumaturgy's second round >strikes are inherently inferior, flawed, useless, whatever. They are, and what you snipped demonstrated that quite well by illustrating how difficult it actually is to get to round 2. Walk of Flame is worthwhile because it's (in order) aggravated, free, and ranged. The fact that the Tremere have a first-round card (Theft of Vitae) to set this strike up for a burn helps lots. Drain Essence is crap. Very few vamps will have 4 blood on them to steal by the midgame, and if you don't successfully steal 4 blood, then you would have done better to have played a Theft of Vitae, since Drain Essence won't torporize a vamp. Eldritch Glimmer is cute, as theoretically a maneuver/Theft/press, maneuver/EG will torporize, empty, a full 6-cap while costing you no blood. Of course, trying to do this leaves you vulnerable to all sorts of things, not the least of which is trying to actually get the 5-card combo off. So while I get a tickle out of playing it (and saying "Kermit zaps you for 7"), it's still just not very good. Cauldron of Blood is EXTREMELY likely to empty and torporize anyone who's hit with the superior, but since it's only a close-range strike, it effectively costs 2 blood, and leaves you vulnerable in return to anyone's close-range combat. Better than Drain Essence as at least it sends someone to torpor, but still basically crap. >If that's true, it should be borne out in the next Cam set >with those strikes migrating to uncommon or rare slots. From the rarity lists: Walk of Flame was a Jyhad U2, and a Sabbat U1. I would not expect it to change. Cauldron of Blood was a Jyhad and Sabbat C1. I would expect it to at least move to an uncommon slot, if not a rare. Drain Essence was a Jyhad U1. I expect to see it gone from the set. Eldritch Glimmer was a Sabbat U1, and therefore possibly not up for reprints at all. If it is reprinted, I do not expect it to change. Blood to Water was an Ancient Hearts C2. I would expect this to move to an uncommon slot simply because of its cost, as the Ancient Hearts designers were clearly on crack and unable to accurately judge the state of the game. It's also not a strike, meaning that it is of far more utility than any of the 2nd round strikes -- if you can even play the card in the first place, the effect happens, and only DI will stop it. >I'll wager that they will not, and therefore the argument And you'd have lost, since the only 2nd-round strike that isn't uncommon is Cauldron of Blood -- and I can't recall ever seeing Cauldron of Blood actually played. Do you believe it will stay common? >is not valid for a rarity discussion. I say that in-discipline >cards that facilitate commons should be common (see >Seduction and Bonding). And I would expect Apportation to be reprinted as a common, as it is one of THA's ridiculously-useful cards. It was, in fact, a Sabbat common... the reason it's so hard to get hold of is directly because of the difficulty obtaining the Sabbat set itself. >> every single bleed for 1 that comes by. Having Raven, Chandler, >> Daliyah, and Ricki all with some form of pro/dom is not unreasonable to >> believe of such a deck -- so what's the problem? That's 12 points of >> pool damage every turn (if you have enough Conditionings). > >Read Conditioning, read Earth Control. If you try to play them >every turn for light bleeds, you'll have no blood on your minions, >which are somehow supposed to simultaneously be weenies and >have superior Protean (Chandler at 3, Daliyah at 4, then up up up), ...up to Mirembe, Camille, and Raven at 5. With 2x Caitlin (6) and 2x Iliana (7), I see 2x Chandler, 2x Daliyah, 1x each of the 5-caps, and 1x Sadie. There's 12, 11 of which have PRO. Odds say you should get one of the PRO/dom vamps, one of Chandler or Daliyah, and then a third unique vamp. So more realistically, you start with 3 minions who can bleed for 3 per turn with Conditioning. This isn't terrible, but it could be better, yes. Slapping 8 Dominate skill cards in the deck and running a 60-card library gives you a 79% chance of having one in your first 10 cards, which is good enough for me. With 8 DOM cards, you can get everyone up to superior rapidly. It would probably be better overall to go all CH/Threats/Foreshadowing Destruction, use Blood Dolls for extra pool gain (whenever you find time to play them), and Form of Mist/Earth Control for the stealth. That results in 3 minions bleeding for about 3.25 per action, which is enough to topple most decks rapidly while not blowing all the blood off your guys -- even heavy-duty MT/5th has trouble standing up to 9-10 pool loss per turn. If you're forced to go up to 70 cards, you still have a 73% chance of an early skill card. You can include Governs for Iliana or Caitlin to fetch new minions on the cheap, if you want, but that's a tradeoff of "speed now" for "pool gain and more speed later". >then get Dominate. The deck has to hit for 5 or 6, maybe killing >some time early with Computer Hacking. And before you say If you insist on bleeding for 5 and 6 at stealth, you will always be hosed by Deflection. Sometimes you must make sacrifices -- in this case, you sacrifice a bit of your speed for a lot less chance of screwing yourself by accidentally ousting your grandprey. >Form of Mist, keep in mind that you have to have Earth Control >as well for the light intercept wake guys. Seduction is not such a bad option here, either, especially if there are minions floating around with permanent intercept. I would include quite a few in the deck, myself. >> Correct. But 6 minions each bleeding for 2 (let's keep the math >> equivalent) is slightly more difficult to achieve than 4 minions each >> bleeding for 3. Specifically, you've got to get 2 more minions into >> your uncontrolled region and then out on the table. Weenie decks do >> this relatively easily, but you then have to play OBF weenies to get any >> stealth on your bleeds. > >Which brings us to my Night Moves deck, which has transformed >itself into a Computer Hacking deck with several Night Moves, >to make my prey despair about ever blocking at all. That's the >only deck I have ever played which could have 12 minions bleeding >for 2. And we've also wandered a long way away from a Grave Robbing deck, and into stealth/bleed territory -- which was why I pointed out that you would be restricted to OBF weenies, who don't have any natural way to torporize vamps. >> >> >> Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother >> >> >> to put more than one vote card in your deck. >> >> Correct. However, a vote deck that relies on having only one minion is >> >> going to be in sad, sad shape. A vote deck that relies too heavily on >> >> "cute", timing-critical votes like Parity Shift is also going to be in >> >> sad shape. And Delaying Tactics is excellent to stop obnoxious >Dramatic >> >> Upheavals/etc. >> > >> >Now wait a second, I thought they could be ignored. >> >> If your deck relies on Dramatic Upheaval to win, you've f*cked up your >> deck design -- back to the drawing board. > >Straw Man Alert. Hardly. Most vote decks pack Dramatic Upheavals or Kindred Restructures in order to either bail out of a poor seating position, or opportunistically "steal" a VP. Generally, they rarely pack more than one. A good vote deck should not rely on being able to steal VPs -- it should be built to do its own work, and not count on someone else getting their deck pushed to the borderline, ripe for the stealing. And as such, it should also be built to ignore DTs. This doesn't mean that DTs are not worth including -- it's just that they aren't sufficient defense by themselves. >> Instead, I challenged you both to "play 'em if you got 'em," and got 2VP >> despite both my predator AND prey packing DTs in their decks. Any >> minions who got Delayed were conveniently untapped and available to play >> bleed bounce -- and there are only so many DTs in anyone's deck. > >DT's always work for delay, and almost always make you a political >force despite having no votes. You would have had no VP that game >if I hadn't been playing very loose and nice, reminding my prey >not to make dumn blocks on two subsequent turns. Add to that >your luck at having your prey and predator playing similar crypts >to slow us both down, and voila, 2 VP. Frankly, Jason, this is just a bunch of excuses and you know it. Luck happens -- it's what you make of it that matters. I also had a spot of BAD luck in the previous round, with my prey contesting my only vampire and then my predator bleeding me for 11 while I had 2 Telepathic Misdirections and a Wake in hand. It all evens out. You argue that you weren't really trying -- well, considering I was taking an intercept/combat clan and making a vote deck out of them, I could make that same claim and we're back to square one. So, with that out of the way, about the effectiveness of the DTs... The DTs didn't significantly slow me down. I ousted you with two bleeds modified by Changeling, because I didn't have any more damage votes in hand -- I'd played them all. When one of you played a DT, I simply used that minion to bleed with Changeling, or left him untapped to bounce a bleed. It balances out, as untapping someone else's vampire is never actually a GOOD thing if it's your predator/prey's. DTs do not make one a political force against good players. Good players simply say "fine, play it", and move on. If you're my prey or predator, you're going to play it on me ANYWAY, unless there's another vote deck sitting to your other side. I will amend my original statement somewhat, however: The THREAT of a DT can be completely ignored if the vote deck is built properly. David thought that threatening me with DT would make me not hand the extra points of damage off KRCs and Con Ags to him. He was sadly wrong. Not only was there nowhere else logical to place it (Rob was in no shape to take extra points of damage from me, as he was getting plenty from you), all it would have gotten me was a DT still in his hand for when I tried to oust with a vote. If he had saved it to stop my Consanguineous Boons, he might have had a chance to get me -- although if I had ever felt in danger from David, I would have thrown lots more damage backwards on him, let Mike oust him while you ousted Rob, and then put you in a sandwich between Mike's upstream Potence and my damage votes -- and I was long overdue to see another Domain Challenge or one of my Anarchist Uprisings, both of which would have killed you instantly. It possibly would have only netted me 1VP total, but I'm not sure -- if Mike had needed to spend some of his intercept and combat on you, I might have been able to solidify my position with an extra vamp and get 3VP by ousting you, then Mike. As it was, Mike still had plenty of combat left when the table got down to just the 2 of us -- 3-2 his way, though it was really touch-and-go for awhile. I don't really think that you believed that threatening a DT would make me open negotations, but I'm not entirely sure. You certainly should have saved them for when you were in danger of being ousted, though, instead of wasting it early in the game when you knew I'd definitely be around to call the vote again next turn. It was pretty obvious by turn 4 that I wouldn't be needing vote modifiers to pass anything. >> >> As David said, that makes great table talk, but it won't get the Grave >> >> Robbing action through. All it gets you is, at its absolute best, >> >> someone else in torpor who promptly rescues himself (or gets rescued >> >> from cross-table). >> > >> >You've missed the point (as did Dave). If another minion signs up >> >for torpor, that's fine by me, as it puts my target (predator or >> >prey) in a terrible position. >> >> Actually, I countered the point in the whole chunk you snipped. The >> relevant conclusion has been unsnipped below: > >No you didn't, and I'll snip it right out again. Unfortunately, yes, I did. Your position is based on the assumption that people will just let your prey go hang, and ignore his position. This simply isn't true, however -- your predator and grand-predator BOTH have a vested interest in your prey remaining alive, and your prey and grand-prey BOTH have that same interest where it concerns your predator. Rest assured that the cross-table rescue of at least ONE of those vampires in torpor will be happening. Again, two minions in torpor with blood on them are far more valuable than one minion out of torpor, and one minion stolen by your predator/prey. Stolen minions don't ever come back. Torporized minions can rescue themselves or be rescued by an ally. If you're playing a deck where your minions don't matter (ie, a weenie deck), then there's no difference at all between one and two minions in torpor. >> >Then how can you possibly advise anyone to use the Improvised >> >Flamethrower? >> >> Oh, that's easy. It does really well against decks who can't get to >> long range or can't do damage at long range -- which is still most decks >> these days. And OBF has this neat "Behind You" card that is either a >> Dodge or a maneuver, depending on what you need -- so Disguised >> Weapon/Improvised Flamethrower looks like a lot of fun for Malks, >> Nossies, etc. > >But it can get sent to torpor by a Zip Gun. That's a terrible piece >of equipment. And it costs 2 pool? Oh my God I'm going to vomit. Expect to be torporized by it a lot in the future, then. The delusion that Zip Guns solve all range problems is, well, delusional. A deck using Improvised Flamethrowers will certainly make every effort to not have damage done to it at long range by including plenty of maneuvers, and a Zip Gun's single maneuver certainly isn't going to be enough. The Nosferatu Law Firm, for example, can have a field day with it. Drawing out the Beast, DW/IF, Skin of Steel inferior, splat. Once you've got the Flamethrower out, DotB/SoS is all that's necessary. In fact, it only loses against a deck which can manage multiple damaging strikes and a Dodge as the first one -- meaning POT/CEL, or the Lasombra with Arms of the Abyss/Entombment (which can't be prevented). Guns/CEL lose to DotB, unfortunately for them. I like it. It's got a lot of potential. My Malkavian bleed/Hidden Lurker/Disguised Flamethrower deck certainly got a lot meaner, too, now that it no longer has to blow 4 pool out its ears to start with. >> >You've ignored the soft underbelly, where any weenie protean will >> >send itself to torpor by sending me there. I don't think your >> >> Flesh of Marble, spend 1 on claws, get punched for 1 -- he'll only go to >> torpor if he only had 1 blood to start with. And unless you're a weenie >> deck too, trading minions can ONLY work in his favor. > >You have to be kidding. You are presuming 5 minions, presuming >that they are using superior Protean, and also assuming that they You only need inferior Protean to play Flesh of Marble, Claws, and Quick Meld. To clarify: I'm talking about a bunch of weenie pro/PRO vamps, all bleeding for 2 and threatening to poke your eye out if you block them. I would also include about 6 Earth Control in the deck so some stealth was at least AVAILABLE for a crucial ousting bleed. >have enough blood to keep them out of trouble. I can't argue against >this wet-dream fantasy world you live in. There are 10 vampires with at least inferior Protean who are either 3-caps or 4-caps. One of them (Rex) sucks, so that's actually 9. Including Huang, Igo, and Sadie makes a crypt of 12. What's so difficult about that? Sure, Huang goes to torpor if he pokes someone's eye out. Who cares? He's a 1-cap. Stick a couple Humanitas in, and your weenies can rescue used vamps for only 1 blood. Stick an Inbase Discotek and Hunting Ground (or two) in, and you'll keep getting blood back onto your vamps. Add a Coven, of course, as blood on your own vamps is critical and blood on other people's vamps is largely irrelevant. Add Protean skill cards if you want, but they aren't really necessary in this style. Want a deck list? I know quite a few people have played this type of deck before, and it works well -- especially if you don't have any defense against being poked in the eye for 1. I would probably stick about 4 Earth Melds in it as well, just for a surprise against people who think they've "got me", or someone who found some aggravated damage of their own. It's not even remotely a wet dream -- it's quite effective unless it runs up against a deck that can untap, block, and survive being poked for 1 repeatedly. >> "Rescue Poor Bastard" action. In the meantime, even if your deck is >> chock-full of combat, you have to figure out how to untap often enough >> to deal with 6+ bleeds of 2, at possible stealth. > >Protean, stealth, weenies. Pick two. Pick no more than two. Adjective: possible. Of course, the Backways is always convenient. >> >Yeah, who would ever want to dodge with an optional press? >> >> How often do you see Vampiric Speed played? > >Wow, I must have missed all the great second round strikes >that Celerity has. How many of them do aggravated damage? >Holy Moly, Vampiric Speed doesn't even give the press >until superior Celerity. Shame on you for comparing these >cards. And for a final flourish, Vampiric Speed is a, gasp, >Common. What should the rarity be for a Thaumaturgy >card that does the same thing at inferior for a discipline >with much better second round strikes? Perhaps... >Common? Congratulations; you have totally avoided my point. Now, I repeat: How often do you see Vampiric Speed played? I'll even answer for you: Almost never. Vampiric Speed itself should be at LEAST uncommon, possibly rare. Why? There are TONS of vampires with CEL/pre in some form -- wouldn't you think that would make a great bleed-and-dodge deck? There are also tons of vamps with CEL/aus -- that sounds like a great intercept-and-survive deck. And hey, wait, there's this whole CLAN with CEL/pre/aus all over the damn place! Theory: bleed forward with PRE, intercept with AUS, and any time you get into combat, survive with Vampiric Speed! It's a one-card free combo, how can it be bad? It's time for reality to come crashing in here. Flash does more to help a vampire with CEL survive than Vampiric Speed ever will, and even Flash isn't enough -- you need to use both. Same for THA -- you will get a lot more mileage out of simply including tons of Apportation in your deck and playing 2 per turn to get to round 2 than you EVER will by playing a 1-blood dodge+press. Of course, you keep snipping the cold, hard facts that I listed out so carefully, so it's no wonder you can't see this. >> >Or perhaps thaumaturgy is a corner-case discipline? >> >> It is, actually. How often do you see it played? > >About as much as Protean, give or take my Gangrel You are incorrect. There are always several Protean-based decks in any tournament, because Protean is a very powerful discipline. There are very RARELY Thaumaturgy-based decks -- frequently the Tremere decks that are seen aren't even using THA combat at all, or are using cards like Burst of Sunlight, Weather Control, and Theft of Vitae... all first-round. >infatuation. Do you advise that all Thaumaturgy >cards be uncommon or rare? Please advise the >team that's constructing the new Cam set. Just the second-round cards. Of course, they already were. >Personally, I'm not for that. That's fine. But it doesn't make the 2nd-round cards any better, nor the 2nd-round mechanic any more viable. >I'm beginning to suspect that your definition >of corner case is different from the standard. It is not. It is based on an awful lot of experience playing against players from multiple playgroups, in multiple cities, and having players from different cities (and occasionally, from different countries) come to this city and play against us. How many Protean decks do you remember seeing at DragonCon? And how many THA combat decks? There were tons of PRO decks, and I only recall seeing one THA combat deck -- Rob Grau's, which you played against in round 2. Wait, that's not true -- I played my Cryptic Mission/Seeds of Corruption deck in the third tournament. So that makes 2, although mine didn't have a single second-round card in it. I don't remember even seeing any Perfect Clarity decks. >> The Gargoyles have Razor Bat, Defender of the Haven, and Patrol. That's >> it. Add in the fact that their S:CE/untap costs a blood, and it's just >> not worth your time to try to play "wall" with them -- you would have >> been better served to use their POT/FOR/VIS/Flight and kick someone's >> ass with it. > >Wow, you still don't understand the power of S:CE/untap. Nor do you, it seems. >Here's a hint: I've never seen a wall Ventrue deck, yet >they often have S:CE/untap coming out their wazoo. That's because they have worthwhile actions to take if they untap. Presence provides "bleed" and "vote", and even "Mind Numb" if you want to go that way. Also, their untap does not untap the blocking vampire, meaning that a Mind Numb action to lead off every turn can be a very nasty thing. And finally, even remaining untapped works well for them, because that pesky DOM lets them play Deflection, always a good thing. Tell me again what a Gargoyle can do once he's bled, been blocked, and S:CE/untapped? (as if anyone will bother blocking the bleed for 1 from him in the first place) Let's see... FOR/VIS/POT/Flight. Hmm... nothing to pass votes with... no inherent "screw up a minion" actions like Sense Dep or Mind Numb... could play Restoration, but I'm only down 1 blood, kind of silly... wait, let's see, I've got a lot of nifty combat disciplines, I could... BEAT UP A VAMPIRE! Wait, ...I was just in combat. Why didn't I beat up a vampire then? So far, about the only logical use I can find for this is to leave a Gargoyle untapped so he can constantly be tapping to save your Tremere when they get blocked. Of course, he'll run out of blood in 2 turns doing this, so maybe it's a good thing that he can play Restoration as one of those "untapped" actions. Realistically, this is lousy deck design, as you give people no incentive whatsoever to stop blocking your actions -- in fact, it's to their benefit to block as many as possible, so either your S:CE will run out or your Gargoyle will run out of blood. This will be pretty easy, as the Tremere have no natural stealth. It is a much better design decision to use the FOUR, count them, FOUR combat disciplines provided on your Gargoyle, and beat the living hell out of anything that blocks you. While this limits you to one beating per turn per Gargoyle, it also will be a lot more effective, as eventually people will run out of minions to block with. >> >Man, you really haven't been paying attention. >> >S:CE, untap this vampire really, really, really is a Good Thing. >> >> however, if you untap the other vampire as well, it turns into just an >> Average Thing. > >Come on, Derek. It's S:CE/untap. You've recovered your >minion action, and moved at least one card. Very many What action are you planning to take with these Gargoyles that makes it so worthwhile to end combat and untap instead of killing someone? They can't even Deflect until you stick a skill card on them, for godsake. And if you stick a skill card on them, why aren't you just using that neat "+2 stealth and a maneuver or press" card instead to help you oust your prey, or the "S:CE, continue this action" card? Wait, I've got it. Bleed with the Tremere, get blocked, tap Gargoyle, untap Tremere and Gargoyle with S:CE/untap, bleed with Gargoyle w/skill card, add stealth, play bleed modifier that Tremere could have played if he weren't blocked. Oh, wait a minute, that's a stupid idea. If I make him burn all his untap with the Tremere, then I won't ever get to play my stealth with the Gargoyle and I'll jam up on it. If he's got enough untap to attempt to block both, why am I even wasting time taking actions with the Tremere and cycling his hand for him? NEXT! >minion actions are inherently at stealth, meaning even if Really? What ones are you thinking of that the Gargoyles can take that matter so much? Let's see. Three different recruit actions... Rock Cats are nice, but you'll run out of pool if you try to get too many of them. Stone Dog... hmm... Stone Dog gives a built-in Rush action. Why would a deck playing lots of S:CE need one of these? Razor Bats are nice, but now we're leaning towards the "wall" concept again. The Armor of Terra action, which is only good once per Gargoyle and is superfluous anyway since you're already ending combat. And Restoration, which is always nice, but isn't going to frighten anyone or oust your prey. >the minion is untapped, he has to catch you again. >This is so basic I can't believe we're discussing it. >S:CE/untap "Average Thing." Pfffffft. For inferior VIS: Average Thing. Note that the two most effective forms of S:CE/untap DO NOT untap the opposing minion, and are based around clans with something useful to do with all those actions (big-ass Gangrel decks get a lot of mileage out of bleed/5th Tradition/vote with both Freak Drive and Earth Meld when blocked). It's cute, and will surprise the heck out of people, but frankly, you still haven't shown me any good reason why I should be running away and untapping instead of beating the snot out of someone. >> >Am I wrong that it makes VIS the only discipline that can >> >have that power at inferior? >> >> who cares? > >You can't be serious. Of course I'm serious. Look, you think it's so good, build a deck, proxy the card in, play it locally (if your group will go for it -- don't see why they wouldn't), and post it up. Use as many as you like. I think you're wasting your time, and I've already got a deck I'm willing to post that uses the Gargoyles to beat hell out of blockers. >It untaps the other vampire, meaning you have to deal with >> ANOTHER action or ANOTHER blocker. > >Doubling back on yourself again, Derek? >You mentioned in a previous thread about S:CE/untap >that blocking was meant to stop problem actions, not >to tap the acting vampire. You're not being consistent. Sorry, I most certainly AM being consistent. Mind telling me how the Gargoyles intend to come up with some problem actions that DON'T involve vaporizing someone's vampire? As far as the Gargoyles blocking and untapping the vampire they just blocked -- that's just plain stupid, since it gives your opponent's deck (which you do not know the composition of) another opportunity to take a "problem action". If you try this in front of the wrong deck, then you are going to get splattered all over the concrete as people take advantage of the free untap you'll give them to bleed you constantly as WELL as take all their other actions. [ quoted text not captured ]