How to Fix Protect Thine Own

Protect Thine Own Political Action Cost: 1 blood Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What changes would be required to "unbreak" it? How about this (changes in <>): Protect Thine Own Political Action Cost: <X> blood Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below <X>. Justicars may only choose Non-Camarilla vampires with capacity below 6. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire.

On 27 Dec 2003 10:51:21 -0800, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote: >Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What >changes would be required to "unbreak" it? >Protect Thine Own >Political Action >Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 >stealth. Burn this acting vampire to burn a non-Camarilla vampire controlled by your predator or prey with a capacity equal to or less than the capacity of the acting vampire.

> Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: 1 blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting > vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any > Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn > that vampire. > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? Assuming it is broken (which I firmly believe), your suggestion could be good ; other possibility : > Choose a non-titled Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. (etc.) It would prevent Arika from burning Monçada or Thetmes (how in Caine's name could she do that ???), and the card would still stay powerful. Orpheus

>> Choose a non-titled Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. (etc.) > >It would prevent Arika from burning Monçada or Thetmes (how in Caine's name >could she do that ???), and the card would still stay powerful. > It would prevent the burning of Moncada or Thetmes, but not Goratrix, Nahir, or Nefertiti. Halcyan 2

In message <621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) mumbled something about: >Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What >changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > >How about this (changes in <>): >Protect Thine Own >Political Action >Cost: <X> blood >Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 >stealth. >Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below <X>. Justicars >may only choose Non-Camarilla vampires with capacity below 6. If this >referendum is successful, burn that vampire. the oft-suggested fix reads like this: Protect Thine Own Political Action, cost: 1 blood [typical PA text] Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity below 7. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, choose any non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 7. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. This stops the obvious problems with the card, while still retaining the utility of the card in the decks it's currently played in. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

> the oft-suggested fix reads like this: > > Protect Thine Own > Political Action, cost: 1 blood > [typical PA text] > > Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity below 7. If the acting vampire > is a member of the Inner Circle, choose any non-Camarilla vampire with a > capacity below 7. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. This is nice too, although it would seem logical to me to replace "Sabbat" by "Independent" (as much as it would hurt my decks...) : the Sabbat are the direct enemy of the Camarilla, but therefore also are harder to catch then for example the Setites or Giovanni who get stuck inbetween... Orpheus

Derek Ray wrote: [...] > the oft-suggested fix reads like this: > > Protect Thine Own > Political Action, cost: 1 blood > [typical PA text] > > Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity below 7. If the acting vampire > is a member of the Inner Circle, choose any non-Camarilla vampire with a > capacity below 7. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. > > This stops the obvious problems with the card, while still retaining the > utility of the card in the decks it's currently played in. I think this card should not affect infernal vampires, regardless of their capacity >:-) Greetings, Damnans

>>Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What >>changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > >>Protect Thine Own >>Political Action >>Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 >>stealth. >Burn this acting vampire to burn a non-Camarilla vampire controlled by >your predator or prey with a capacity equal to or less than the >capacity of the acting vampire. There's some combo potential to this which is kind of interesting. I wonder about dropping the non-Camarilla part to make it more reliable. I wonder if that makes it too good. Instead of burning the acting minion, could have something like "If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire and two vampires you control." Could have it temporarily remove from game the chosen vampire rather than burn it. Of course, I'd ban it as it comprises two really bad features - should never have take an action to burn a vampire and the limitations on sect make it a hoser.

I think that it loses a lot of its power if you make it once per game, but not so much that it would become unplayable.

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:3FEDF008...@ono.com... [ quoted text not captured ] and please, it should not affect the !salubri either ;)))

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031227143736...@mb-m04.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] what if the card cost 3 pool instead of the mere 1 blood ?

In message <3feed146$0$25738$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >what if the card cost 3 pool instead of the mere 1 blood ? That just means I save up until I have the Voter Cap in hand. Easy enough in a Ventrue vote deck with Arika calling the vote. Besides, if the vampire I burn is key enough, it'll be worth three pool. Getting rid of Goratrix cross-table with a Drum and two Raven Spies, while he can't block and before he knows to Rush me? Totally worth it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <7a53200d.03122...@posting.google.com>, Zag...@hotmail.com (Chuck Arnett) mumbled something about: >I think that it loses a lot of its power if you make it once per game, >but not so much that it would become unplayable. I think that if you make a broken effect only happen once per game, it's still broken and now it's just a race to see who gets to the broken effect first. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:16:07 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >That just means I save up until I have the Voter Cap in hand. Easy >enough in a Ventrue vote deck with Arika calling the vote. > >Besides, if the vampire I burn is key enough, it'll be worth three pool. >Getting rid of Goratrix cross-table with a Drum and two Raven Spies, >while he can't block and before he knows to Rush me? Totally worth it. Agreed. In my opinion, there is no fix for this card. Ban it. David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com... <sniped> > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? Rather than address the mechanics of the fix the more useful option for those seeking to have it fixed would be to figure out how to get the VEKN/White Wolf to agree to change and or ban the card. I think once WW decides to change the card they would be able to come up with the "how" on their own. (good thing/bad thing?) The philosophy in the past appears to have been that a card is not dealt with until it's "brokeness" is prevalent in the tournament scene. However with PTO demonstrating its "brokeness" in the tournament scene is difficult for one main reason: Its effectiveness depends on what vampires opponents are playing and given that PTO seems to becoming more common more people may be playing camarilla decks to avoid its effects. Thus the "brokeness" of PTO hides in people countering the card by avoiding vulnerability (playing cammies). But a sign of PTOs brokeness should then be the diversity that decreases in decks. Tracing this however back to PTO would be difficult at best. So we are left with a couple of options (and this is by no means a complete list and sugestions are encouraged: 1) go through our local princes to have them make requests for change (could combine with #2 with prince's conducting polls of their players) 2) some type of petition or poll to demonstrate concern or lack thereof to White Wolf/VEKN (would need some for of prevention for fraud) 3) Continue as is with random beseechings/rants on newsgroups/forums/boards in the hope that change occurs. Does anybody have any indication from the appropriate people that WW/VEKN is concerned about the card? Or are they just amused by our ravings and don't see the problem. The problem is not in how to fix the problem caused by the card, but how to attract notice to the problem so that it will be fixed, and I'm not entirely certain that posts to this newsgroup will get the job done. And for the record I would like to see the card banned or severely restricted in use. -JTP

Curevei wrote: > Of course, I'd ban it as it comprises two really bad features - should never > have take an action to burn a vampire and the limitations on sect make it a > hoser. Definite agreement on the first part. How about: Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, place this card on that vampire. Any Camarilla vampire can enter combat with this vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action. All damage this minion takes while in combat with a Camarilla vampire is aggravated. Way I see it, the +1 stealth rush is on par with Blood Hunt, which has looser restrictions on who can play and who can be targetted, and is just an action, not a vote. The agg damage is kind of in the theme of the Camarilla banding together to destroy the non-Cam, but isn't anywhere near as bad as outright burning. 'Course, this isn't so much a "fix" as a new card, but... --Colin McGuigan

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:34:10 -0600, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote: >'Course, this isn't so much a "fix" as a new card, but... Right. IMO, any sufficient fix leaves us with an entirely different card. Hence my preferrence for banning it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > the oft-suggested fix reads like this: > > Protect Thine Own > Political Action, cost: 1 blood > [typical PA text] > > Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity below 7. If the acting vampire > is a member of the Inner Circle, choose any non-Camarilla vampire with a > capacity below 7. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. > > This stops the obvious problems with the card, while still retaining the > utility of the card in the decks it's currently played in. Ah. My favorite hated card. I would be happy if the PTO would go even like this: Justicar: Like before, IC Member: Non-cam vampire below 9. It would not limit the PTO too much, but at least one could trust that a vampire that takes 3 turns to influence out, would be safe from it. -Antero

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:40:35 GMT, "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Does anybody have any indication from the appropriate people that WW/VEKN >is concerned about the card? Or are they just amused by our ravings and don't see >the problem. The problem is not in how to fix the problem caused by the card, but >how to attract notice to the problem so that it will be fixed, and I'm not entirely >certain that posts to this newsgroup will get the job done. Your guess is as good as mine as to Scott's take on the card. I do think that there is more of a consensus regarding this card than there ever was over weenie decks, and those have been getting steady treatment over several sets. [ quoted text not captured ]

Protect Thine Own Political Action Cost: 1 pool Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Cards may not be played during the referandum. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire controlled by your predator or prey with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire controlled by your predator or prey instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire, and its controller gains pool equal to half the capacity of that vampire (rounded down). 1) This eliminates cross-table "because I can" unbalancing. 2) It reduces the drastic impact it has on the table -- instead of being potentially an 11-pool slam (making it as unbalancing as Return to Innocence), it hits your prey or predator for a variable pool-equivalent resource drain, putting it on par with other vote cards. 3) It's harder to pass, as it cannot be pushed through normal means, and non-Cam vampires can't be shut out of the referendum. But it's still passable if you have vote lock or negotiate with allies for their votes. 4) The cost is more relevant. I would still use the card with this text. It would still have a considerable effect if used offensively. But it won't ruin my entire game like the current version does if used against me. Fanboy

In message <f99d61c5.03122...@posting.google.com>, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: >Protect Thine Own >Political Action >Cost: 1 pool >Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 >stealth. >Cards may not be played during the referandum. Choose a Non-Camarilla It's still easy to have vote lock with an IC member and a Justicar. And now you can't even play Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion, or any anti-vote cards to help vote this down. >vampire controlled by your predator or prey with a capacity below 6. >If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose >any >Non-Camarilla vampire controlled by your predator or prey instead. If >this referendum is successful, burn that vampire, and its controller >gains pool equal to half the capacity of that vampire (rounded down). I don't care if my predator or prey gains 5 pool for Lazverinus, Thetmes, Goratrix, or Cailean. That vampire is off the table and staying there, and THAT effect is all I'm really after. I can bleed through the extra 5 pool, I'm Arika. >1) This eliminates cross-table "because I can" unbalancing. True -- you now at least force someone to have the stealth or Daring the Dawn in hand. >2) It reduces the drastic impact it has on the table -- instead of >being potentially an 11-pool slam (making it as unbalancing as Return >to Innocence), it hits your prey or predator for a variable >pool-equivalent resource drain, putting it on par with other vote >cards. There's no vote card that provides this effect. Your minion and all the kit-ups on him are gone forever, and pool gain just isn't much of an offset -- the 10-caps this gets used on are lynchpin vampires. 3 turns later without your key vampire, you're dead. Compare to Banishment -- it's possible to get the minion back same as it was before, and you can usually get it back much faster since it was often half full. >3) It's harder to pass, as it cannot be pushed through normal means, >and non-Cam vampires can't be shut out of the referendum. But it's >still passable if you have vote lock or negotiate with allies for >their votes. Sure, you can't force it through with Awe, but vote lock shouldn't be THAT hard to gain. >4) The cost is more relevant. 1 pool and 1 blood are equivalent in this context. 3 pool and +5 to my prey would be worth it to get his Cailean off the table and gone for good. >I would still use the card with this text. It would still have a >considerable effect if used offensively. But it won't ruin my entire >game like the current version does if used against me. Why not? So you get 5 pool for your Cailean with 2 Raven Spies and a Mark V. Big deal -- that's 5 pool slower that you'll be ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

D > I think that if you make a broken effect only happen once per game, it's > still broken and now it's just a race to see who gets to the broken > effect first. > > -- Derek A race? Nonono... there is a race to play Giant's Blood. There is a race to get out Information Highway. There is even a race to play Ancient Influence before your prey gets out a big cap. But these are cards that any deck can play. Not every deck has Justicars and Inner Circle in them. Not every deck can effectively fit them in. I still don't see this card as broken. One of the most powerful, yes. Cheesiest, yes. But not broken. Not when you still need the pool to get out an 11-cap, the stealth to get past blockers, the prayers answered that your prey or predator has a worthy non-Cam target, the votes to get the vote called, and the prayers to be answered that some schmuck doesn't have the cheesiest of reaction cards, Delaying Tactics, in their hand. Hell, if it's so broken, why didn't I even see one at the last Aussie Nationals. I have 3 of them, I could have built a deck with them easily, but I didn't. Because having a PTO deck does NOT guarentee victory. It does NOT make it sure thang. Not even close. If there is an average possibility that a PTO deck can lose, then it's not broken. Dented, comes loose, files down, threads wear down, but not broken. ugh, of all the whining done on this group posting, I swear the ones that hurt my ears the most are the ones complaining about this card and that card. Jamie The Seppo

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: : On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:16:07 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> : wrote: : Agreed. In my opinion, there is no fix for this card. Ban it. It's not broken. //T

[ quoted text not captured ] Still would be weird if Gratiano was burnt by Leandro...

"Teemu T Vilen" <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> schreef in bericht news:bsp1oo$se0$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi... [ quoted text not captured ] This sets a new level for eloquent arguing :-)

> > Not every deck has Justicars and Inner Circle in them. Not every deck > can effectively fit them in. > > I still don't see this card as broken. One of the most powerful, yes. > Cheesiest, yes. But not broken. Not when you still need the pool to > get out an 11-cap, the stealth to get past blockers, the prayers > answered that your prey or predator has a worthy non-Cam target, the > votes to get the vote called, and the prayers to be answered that some > schmuck doesn't have the cheesiest of reaction cards, Delaying > Tactics, in their hand. In other words: there's only one requirement when playing a vote deck with IC members? There has to be a target non-cam on the table. Burn it if usefull, discard 1 card if not. Doesn't sound like a wasted card slot to me. Besides,沌TO is the reason all of my non-cam decks have 3-4 delaying tactics in them. And I, too, think Delaying Tactics is the cheesiest of all reaction cards. But the IC can try again next turn..... > > Hell, if it's so broken, why didn't I even see one at the last Aussie > Nationals. I have 3 of them, I could have built a deck with them > easily, but I didn't. Because having a PTO deck does NOT guarentee > victory. It does NOT make it sure thang. Not even close. If there > is an average possibility that a PTO deck can lose, then it's not > broken. Dented, comes loose, files down, threads wear down, but not > broken. Broken effect is not the same as "this card will win you the game if played" By that definition RtI wasn't broken either, and the last fix to Hostile Takeover and Temptation of Greater Power wasn't necessary. The effect is way above the power curve, and that's what makes this card broken, IMO. Problem is that it is hard to prove. A lot of people don't play Sabbat decks or indy decks because of this one card. > > ugh, of all the whining done on this group posting, I swear the ones > that hurt my ears the most are the ones complaining about this card > and that card. > Instead of complaining, stop reading the threads you don't like. makes sense, no?

Hiya, Finally someone I (partialy) agree with!! > Not every deck has Justicars and Inner Circle in them. Not every deck > can effectively fit them in. agree > I still don't see this card as broken. agree One of the most powerful, yes. hardly > Cheesiest, yes. depends on your personal point of view. But not broken. agree 2000% Not when you still need the pool to > get out an 11-cap, the stealth to get past blockers, the prayers > answered that your prey or predator has a worthy non-Cam target, the > votes to get the vote called, and the prayers to be answered that some > schmuck doesn't have the cheesiest of reaction cards, Delaying > Tactics, in their hand. agree > > Hell, if it's so broken, why didn't I even see one at the last Aussie > Nationals. bcause it isn't? I have 3 of them, I could have built a deck with them > easily, but I didn't. Because having a PTO deck does NOT guarentee > victory. It does NOT make it sure thang. Not even close. If there > is an average possibility that a PTO deck can lose, then it's not > broken. Dented, comes loose, files down, threads wear down, but not > broken. Indeed. Moreover, I find it rather funny to start a statement by "let's presume this card is broken". In my opinion, it's not broken, just frustrating. How many people complaining about their Goratrix/Thetmes/Nefertiti/Lazverinus/..being burnt by PTO also complain about Delaying Tactics being a cheesy card?About not wanting to be forced to play DI in every deck?About being bled by a regular good old S&B? > ugh, of all the whining done on this group posting, I swear the ones > that hurt my ears the most are the ones complaining about this card > and that card. Agreed, yet here we both are giving in to them. But hey, as only the strong opposition of this card is yelling their displeasure about it, somebody has got to stand up for it, right? Let's just hope WW has some very clear and more or less realistic view on what a broken card realy is, and then realise that there is no real need to change it, apart from preventing a lot of whining about this card.. Greetz Jo

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> schreef in bericht news:88f9561d.03122...@posting.google.com... > > Indeed. > Moreover, I find it rather funny to start a statement by "let's > presume this card is broken". > In my opinion, it's not broken, just frustrating. How many people > complaining about their Goratrix/Thetmes/Nefertiti/Lazverinus/..being > burnt by PTO also complain about Delaying Tactics being a cheesy > card?About not wanting to be forced to play DI in every deck?About > being bled by a regular good old S&B? > > And this comming from a guy who didn't even consider original Tomb and Return to Innocence broken :-) What you are saying is effectively why I would consider it broken. It forces people to play with cards they don't want to play. It's not because there are limitations to a card and defences to a card that it can not be a broken card. By that reasoning it would be impossible to have a broken card, purely because Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention exist.

Jamie The Seppo wrote: > Hell, if it's so broken, why didn't I even see one at the last Aussie > Nationals. Because the Aussie Nationals were a gore-fest, compared to most any other tournament metagame. You guys *seem* to be the most combat-heavy environment around. That does things to the game. Things I like, like making PTO vanish, and making stealth bleed decks not such a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it also encourages weenie decks and master-heavy decks, but what are you going to do? > ugh, of all the whining done on this group posting, I swear the ones > that hurt my ears the most are the ones complaining about this card > and that card. And yet, here you are. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com... > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: 1 blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting > vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any > Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn > that vampire. > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > Imho it's not an easy assumption to do. So far, it's the only wild card to see the reason for playing the other inner circle members, all-powerful Arika apart. Maybe would be better to change to "unbreak" Arika :D > How about this (changes in <>): > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: <X> blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below <X>. Justicars > may only choose Non-Camarilla vampires with capacity below 6. If this > referendum is successful, burn that vampire. Anyway, if a change would be needed at all the cost, it should cost 2 or 3 blood, but *not* the X cost you're suggesting. Please remember that it's still a political action, and that with the recent "Vox" black hand addenda, key political actions such a PTO are even more difficult to bring to success. greets Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > > Still would be weird if Gratiano was burnt by Leandro... I always thought that while Archbishops/Cardinals basically sit on their fat asses in their strongholds (like Moncada) Prisci use time travelling and bossing around. Who knows what accident may happen during a trip in a casket? -Antero

> It's still easy to have vote lock with an IC member and a Justicar. And > now you can't even play Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion, or any > anti-vote cards to help vote this down. Part of the problem is, that the current metagame relies on small and midcap vampires, which tend not to have votes. That's why vote lock is so easy to get. And a IC *and* a Justicar? How often do you see someone have both in play and ready? > I don't care if my predator or prey gains 5 pool for Lazverinus, > Thetmes, Goratrix, or Cailean. That vampire is off the table and > staying there, and THAT effect is all I'm really after. I can bleed > through the extra 5 pool, I'm Arika. How is this different from, say, a 4 cap POT dude rushing your precious Cailean, doing the typical Signpost/IG/Pushing the Limit/Disarm thing? Sure it requires more cards and a combat so you can defend yourself. That's because you include combat defense cards in your deck. You DO play with defense vs politics right? Losing your only guy is a inherent weakness of playing with big vampires. There should be rewards as well. Is there ANY reason to play with an IC member AT ALL if PtO didn't exist? If HE loses his Arika to, say, not having an Obedience in hand and getting wasted in a rush, that deck ends right there. Pentex Subversion? All this can happen to your Cailean too. Not a problem, I'd say. > >1) This eliminates cross-table "because I can" unbalancing. > > True -- you now at least force someone to have the stealth or Daring the > Dawn in hand. I fully agree on the predator/prey part; the crosstable "because I can" shit is out of control. > Sure, you can't force it through with Awe, but vote lock shouldn't be > THAT hard to gain. Again, that's because everyone plays with small midcaps. > Why not? So you get 5 pool for your Cailean with 2 Raven Spies and a > Mark V. Big deal -- that's 5 pool slower that you'll be ousted. So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even gain 5 pool. You go equip that Raven spy, you get blocked by some stinking Tzim, who play BotD and Rotschrek. In his turn he eats him with Horatio. No 5 pool either. The reason people don't use big vampires is because they are too easy to kill. PtO is just another way.

In article <bspr05$u$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... > Part of the problem is, that the current metagame relies on small and > midcap vampires, which tend not to have votes. Depends where your metagame is. > That's why vote lock is so easy to get. And a IC *and* a Justicar? How > often do you see someone have both in play and ready? IC is often a vote lock to begin with. That's 5 votes every time you play a vote card, and nothing else. And the justicar usually comes out because the IC member governs down to it. > How is this different from, say, a 4 cap POT dude rushing your precious > Cailean, doing the typical Signpost/IG/Pushing the Limit/Disarm thing? Cailean sets range, laughs at POT dude, hits him with some crows and bats and continues on his merry way. > Sure it requires more cards and a combat so you can defend yourself. > That's because you include combat defense cards in your deck. You DO > play with defense vs politics right? What are the options of vote defense? 1. Delaying Tactics. They'll call it next turn, and just bleed you for a shitload this turn. Or govern out the aforementioned justicar. 2. Vox Domini. May make a decent sized splash, but can only play 1 per game. Basically it's DI for a single vote. 3. Reactive/out of turn vote gaining cards. These generally suck, and can be countered by playing action modifier vote gaining cards (which will probably occur anyway). 4. Blocking. Undoubtedly the best option, although all 4 of the IC members I see regularly have a stealth discipline. Obfuscate has access to "your block fails" and protean has access to "combat ends, continue as if unblocked". 5. Smacking down the vampires taking the political actions. Oops. Can't do that. Lazverinus got burned. > Losing your only guy is a inherent weakness of playing with big > vampires. There should be rewards as well. Is there ANY reason to play > with an IC member AT ALL if PtO didn't exist? Let's see. Lots of disciplines. 4 sitting votes. +2 sitting bleed. Useful special abilities (Leandro/Arika). Looks solid to me... > If HE loses his Arika to, say, not having an Obedience in hand and getting > wasted in a rush, that > deck ends right there. Pentex Subversion? All this can happen to your > Cailean too. Not a problem, I'd say. Arika can kill Cailean with a PtO. There is no easily usable equivalent card to kill Arika that doesn't kill Cailean. Fear of Mekhet is neat. It also affects a grand total of 21 vampires as opposed to the 699 that can be burned by PTO. Bit of a disparity in opportunity cost. Hell, Fear isn't even a sure burn. > > Sure, you can't force it through with Awe, but vote lock shouldn't be > > THAT hard to gain. > > Again, that's because everyone plays with small midcaps. If everyone was playing with small to midcaps, nobody would be complaining about PTO. > So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent > play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even > gain 5 pool. Elder Impersonation. Oops. Your block fails. > You go equip that Raven spy, you get blocked by some stinking Tzim, who > play BotD and Rotschrek. In his turn he eats him with Horatio. No 5 pool > either. Or you could play stealth. They do have obfuscate, you know. > The reason people don't use big vampires is because they are too easy to > kill. PtO is just another way. PtO also has the fewest counters, and early on only requires a single card or a two card combination. -- -Snapcase

In article <88f9561d.03122...@posting.google.com>, jo.her...@sca.com says... > In my opinion, it's not broken, just frustrating. How many people > complaining about their Goratrix/Thetmes/Nefertiti/Lazverinus/..being > burnt by PTO also complain about Delaying Tactics being a cheesy > card? From what I've seen, not many at all. DT is generally the only "good" anti-vote card to use (exception given to Vox Domini, which imo will be proven to be pretty good). > About not wanting to be forced to play DI in every deck? Separate issue > About being bled by a regular good old S&B? I don't see anyone complaining about this; generally the complaints are about the relative power of Dominate. > Let's just hope WW has some very clear and more or less realistic view > on what a broken card realy is, and then realise that there is no real > need to change it, apart from preventing a lot of whining about this > card.. Do you feel that there have been any broken cards in the history of this game? -- -Snapcase

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Part of the problem is, that the current metagame relies on small and > midcap vampires, which tend not to have votes. > That's why vote lock is so easy to get. And a IC *and* a Justicar? How > often do you see someone have both in play and ready? All the time. Locally, it's usually Alexandra and Anneke, and Anson, too. Please don't ask me to explain how he can afford all those minions. It's called "Unblockable Voter Cap". The other guy plays Arika and Democritus about one game out of four. Yes, I know Democritus is ass, and I've told him so, but it's the answer to your question. In any case, most vote decks build a solid base of table votes, and *then* push off that. Often, the push is gratuitous. > How is this different from, say, a 4 cap POT dude rushing your precious > Cailean, doing the typical Signpost/IG/Pushing the Limit/Disarm thing? > Sure it requires more cards and a combat so you can defend yourself. > That's because you include combat defense cards in your deck. You DO > play with defense vs politics right? Well, for one thing, Cailean sets range to long and laughs at them, at the very least. Cailean is just about impossible to put down with straight combat. That's why he's a ten cap with no title and no bounce. Oh, but you're playing PTO. Right. > Losing your only guy is a inherent weakness of playing with big > vampires. There should be rewards as well. Is there ANY reason to play > with an IC member AT ALL if PtO didn't exist? This can *not* be a serious fucking question. More disciplines than god? 4 votes? 3 bleed? If you can stomach playing a nine cap, you can play an 11. There's no functional difference beyond the two extra pool, and you get a step-increase in power. > If HE loses his Arika to, > say, not having an Obedience in hand and getting wasted in a rush, that > deck ends right there. Pentex Subversion? All this can happen to your > Cailean too. Not a problem, I'd say. Show me "wasted" in the rule book. It's not there. There's "burned" which is what PTO does. It burns you. Not kinda, not for a little while, not until someone comes and yanks you out of it. Toast. Combat may, if they can climb up that hill, result in burning. It takes a pile of cards and a lot of luck, something that Arika and a PTO need far less of. Most often, even on a kick-ass day, it lands your vampire in torpor. From which you can rescue him. Or your friend can rescue him. And if neither of those happen, then the offender can take his *second* minion action and risk *burning himself* to finish the job. You can do that much more easily with PTO, and even top off your vampire from the Minion Tap and gain two more pool while you are at it. Comparing PTO to combat is the most retarded thing in the world. I wish people would stop. > Again, that's because everyone plays with small midcaps. No, it's because very few people can risk participating in such a huge swing in table balance. I've seen it. I was sitting at a table with some of the best players in the world not one month ago, the threat of a cross-table PTO on my Fatima comes out, and suddenly everyone is scrabbling for one-upsmanship to either make it happen or send it somewhere else. It is not simply a matter of there being a derth of table votes. > So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent > play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even > gain 5 pool. OK, you are looking ridiculous. This is clearly devolved down into a "well, I play *this*". Sure, the Chimestry-having vampire gets to do some serious damage at range. And then he burns himself. Maybe good, maybe dumb. You have just shown how good PTO is, be not requiring one to play with CHI, or burn oneself, or play with combat cards you are only marginally likely to use (barring clever exploitation of a range-strike-heavy metagame). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, David Cherryholmes wrote: > No, it's because very few people can risk participating in such a huge Sorry about the self-reply, but I meant to say "resist participating", in case it wasn't obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Well, for one thing, Cailean sets range to long and laughs at them, at the >very least. Cailean is just about impossible to put down with straight >combat. That's why he's a ten cap with no title and no bounce. Oh, but >you're playing PTO. Right. You mean Archbishop of Detroit doesn't count as a title? And having inferior Dominate doesn't give him access to bounce? =P Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031229155047...@mb-m18.aol.com... [David wrote] [ quoted text not captured ] Obviously not. I mean really, *votes* for controlling Detroit? That's not how it works at all. Built-in rush, that's what Detroit is all about. ;-) And anyone who would bounce with Cailean's Dominate is clearly missing out on the correct use Cailean, which is to give him seven Raptors, a Flamethrower, and Eternal Vigilance. I mean, duh. Josh in... detroit... first you get the mighty fist, then you get the power, then you get the women!

On 29 Dec 2003, Halcyan 2 wrote: > You mean Archbishop of Detroit doesn't count as a title? And having inferior > Dominate doesn't give him access to bounce? =P Yeah, dumb of me. You can see it's been a while since I've done anything with Cailean. Anyway, point still stands. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > in... detroit... first you get the mighty fist, then you get the power, > then you get the women! I'm going to archive your .sigs one day, I swear. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > If everyone was playing with small to midcaps, nobody would be > complaining about PTO. Apparently the only people here complaining about PtO are the ones that like to play with a huge vamp in a one trick deck. Do you REALLY want you ronly vampire totally immortal? Just to go back to Cailean, HOW ELSE am I supposed to get rid of him. HOW for the love of god do you expect me to disable Fatima in the aforementioned Fatima multirush? Oh wait, you don't want me to... Everyone here keeps forgetting that the almighty PtO requires an Inner Circle member and can't target a rough 1/3 of the vampires in existance. Next is the definition of broken. A card is broken if you can consistently and repeatedly win games with it at the highest level of play. That means, tournaments; big tournaments. *Takes a look at the latest EC metagame* Oh look! All weenies and midcaps! They couldn't care less about PtO. Heck, they'd probably laugh when you influence your Arika out. They'll laugh even more when you start using her for Governing a Justicar into play. You guys ARE moving forward no? I mean, we're looking at 4-5 turns of influencing and doing Govern actions (which are, btw quite easily blocked) before the deck even becomes a threat. I'm pretty much dead by then if I'm playing a serious game (aka, not with a built-to-try-out-a-card fun deck or something). Last time I checked there aren't an awful lot of tournament winners that used PtO. To put it simply, decks with big vampires (that can be burned with PtO, yes) tend not to do very well. I'm sure you can throw up a couple of examples agianst this, but 4-5-6-7 caps ARE the standard. PtO is JUST another vulnerability for them. Whether it's really needed or not isn't the point. I'm all for removing the cross table part, as THAT's the thing people are complaining about. If you can't stop an action that kills you, it's your own fault. I can make bleeds for 8 unblockable as well; haven't seen anyone complain about that. I wouldn't mind if bigger vampires were more difficult to burn, but as long as we have to accept the fact that vampires, regardless of their capacity, all have the same chance of being burned, I don't want to see PtO changed EXCEPT for the prey-predator clause. Mr Cherryholmes, before you reply, I'm kinda bored with your unfriendly immature and generally biased replies, so IF you decide to reply (the chance of which I guess at around 90%), try to be a little less biased and look at it from the other side for once. We ALL hate our vampires being burned and we ALL hate powerful cards being used against us. Just because you lost a game or two to PtO doesn't mean it's broken. Powerful, yes, but so is Conditioning and so is DI. Broken? Nah. The closest thing to a broken card atm is DI if you ask me. > > So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent > > play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even > > gain 5 pool. > > Elder Impersonation. Oops. Your block fails. You're obviously missing the point here. > > You go equip that Raven spy, you get blocked by some stinking Tzim, who > > play BotD and Rotschrek. In his turn he eats him with Horatio. No 5 pool > > either. > Or you could play stealth. They do have obfuscate, you know. Tzims have Animalism and Auspex, you know.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031229...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > in... detroit... first you get the mighty fist, then you get the power, > > then you get the women! > > I'm going to archive your .sigs one day, I swear. Not if I archive your .sigs first! I mean... uh... Josh silly rabbit, trix are for your mom!

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Apparently the only people here complaining about PtO are the ones that > like to play with a huge vamp in a one trick deck. What the hell is the relationship between one vampire and only being about one trick? If anything, if I'm building a deck around multiple copies of a large vampire, I will avail myself of all the disciplines. Further, if it is a one vampire, multi-action affair, it leads one to the question of "just what do I do with these actions under NRA" and, hence, diversity. The people who are complaining about PTO are, IMO, the ones who can count to eleven with their fly zipped. > Do you REALLY want you ronly vampire totally immortal? No. Beat him up. Send him to torpor. Banish him. *Oust me*. Taking a free +1 stealth action that can target cross table is beyond the scope of what one card should accomplish. > Just to go back > to Cailean, HOW ELSE am I supposed to get rid of him. See above. > HOW for the love of god do you expect me to disable Fatima in the > aforementioned Fatima multirush? Oh wait, you don't want me to... Judging by the number of times Fatima has been punked, by things other than PTO, either I suck or you need to get a clue. I'll leave it to you to decide. > Everyone here keeps forgetting that the almighty PtO requires an Inner > Circle member and can't target a rough 1/3 of the vampires in existance. And the fact that it can't target that third somehow mitigates it in your eyes? Laughable. Inner Circle members rock on toast. As I said, there's no difference between them and a nine cap. Same three turns, barring cards played. > Next is the definition of broken. A card is broken if you can > consistently and repeatedly win games with it at the highest level of > play. That means, tournaments; big tournaments. You are wrong. I happen to know because I emailed LSJ specifically about the criteria for "brokeness". For one thing, an element that reduces the game to a shambles would be a valid candidate for broken, even if it loses, or totally randomizes the winner. I am not prepared to offer the final word on the definition of broken, but the one you offer is most certainly not it. Every argument you make that follows from that premise is, therefore, utterly ignorable. > Oh look! All weenies and midcaps! They couldn't care less about PtO. To the degree that losing a vampire isn't a big concern, you are right. Yay for weenies. As to midcaps, it's still too good an effect, regardless of the capacity of the target, and losing a midcap like *snap* that will put a dent in your game. So I disagree that no one would care. > Heck, they'd probably laugh when you influence your Arika out. They'll > laugh even more when you start using her for Governing a Justicar into > play. You guys ARE moving forward no? I mean, we're looking at 4-5 turns > of influencing and doing Govern actions (which are, btw quite easily > blocked) before the deck even becomes a threat. I'm pretty much dead by > then if I'm playing a serious game (aka, not with a > built-to-try-out-a-card fun deck or something). You should just go ahead and tell me my metagame isn't competitive. Less typing. > Last time I checked > there aren't an awful lot of tournament winners that used PtO. That's begging the question. I would say not many people play them in tournaments because the potential players know the potential targets will be few, because people are (rightly) concerned about wasting their time being a tool to a broken card. > To put it simply, decks with big vampires (that can be burned with PtO, > yes) tend not to do very well. I'm sure you can throw up a couple of > examples agianst this, but 4-5-6-7 caps ARE the standard. PtO is JUST > another vulnerability for them. Whether it's really needed or not isn't > the point. I'm all for removing the cross table part, as THAT's the > thing people are complaining about. If you can't stop an action that > kills you, it's your own fault. I can make bleeds for 8 unblockable as > well; haven't seen anyone complain about that. So. You agree that the card needs changing. But it isn't broken. Cute. > I wouldn't mind if bigger vampires were more difficult to burn, but as > long as we have to accept the fact that vampires, regardless of their > capacity, all have the same chance of being burned, I don't want to see > PtO changed EXCEPT for the prey-predator clause. They don't have the same chance. Cam vampires, the kings of the hill, are perfectly safe. > Mr Cherryholmes, before you reply, I'm kinda bored with your unfriendly > immature and generally biased replies And I suppose it was your maturity that drove you to point this out? I disagree with you. This doesn't equate to bias. > so IF you decide to reply (the > chance of which I guess at around 90%), try to be a little less biased > and look at it from the other side for once. What makes you think I haven't? Because I've come to a different conclusion than you? Did you miss my reasons why? > We ALL hate our vampires > being burned and we ALL hate powerful cards being used against us. Just > because you lost a game or two to PtO doesn't mean it's broken. Look, get over the fact that this has something to do with me crying in my beer over lost games. I don't really care about that. I care that there is a card floating around out there that is making the game as a whole worse than it needs to be. Stick to the actual interaction of the card and stop guessing my motives. It's veiled ad hominem crap, and you were just whining about me getting personal. > Powerful, yes, but so is Conditioning and so is DI. Broken? Nah. The > closest thing to a broken card atm is DI if you ask me. The ways in which PTO differs from Conditioning or DI have been gone over, and are obvious by inspection. Either you get it by now, or you don't. I'm not wasting time typing the same crap for the millionth time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bspr05$u$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, "Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> mumbled something about: >> It's still easy to have vote lock with an IC member and a Justicar. >And >> now you can't even play Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion, or any >> anti-vote cards to help vote this down. > >Part of the problem is, that the current metagame relies on small and >midcap vampires, which tend not to have votes. That's quite unrelated to the problem, I'm afraid. >That's why vote lock is so easy to get. And a IC *and* a Justicar? How >often do you see someone have both in play and ready? In most decks that are going to launch an IC, the next vampire out will be a Justicar or Prince. No real difference there -- 7 votes for or 8 votes for. Most often, I see Arika Governing out Queen Anne. >> I don't care if my predator or prey gains 5 pool for Lazverinus, >> Thetmes, Goratrix, or Cailean. That vampire is off the table and >> staying there, and THAT effect is all I'm really after. I can bleed >> through the extra 5 pool, I'm Arika. > >How is this different from, say, a 4 cap POT dude rushing your precious >Cailean, doing the typical Signpost/IG/Pushing the Limit/Disarm thing? You mean besides the fact that Cailean can set range and so this won't ever happen to him? Yes, I know it's picking on the specific example and not the general case. But in this case, it serves to point something up -- combat is where vampires get burned, NOT actions. >Sure it requires more cards and a combat so you can defend yourself. What, you mean that doesn't prove my point to you right there? >That's because you include combat defense cards in your deck. You DO >play with defense vs politics right? There are only two adequate defenses against a PRE-based political deck which has been built to pass its votes. 1) Block the action. 2) Have more votes. Daring the Dawn handles the first. If I must rely on #2, then I am limited to playing ONLY great big vampires with lots of votes. What if I want to make a Christopher Houghton Anarch deck? The Anarch makes him vulnerable to PTO, but he's a superb Firebrand... >Losing your only guy is a inherent weakness of playing with big >vampires. There should be rewards as well. Is there ANY reason to play >with an IC member AT ALL if PtO didn't exist? If HE loses his Arika to, You mean the +2 bleed, shedloads of disciplines, and 4 votes isn't good enough for you? You can't figure out what to do with that to win? I have yet to have played a PTO in a game. I have played a number of Inner Circle decks, and won with them. Even Harrod can be pretty damn good in the right deck. >say, not having an Obedience in hand and getting wasted in a rush, that >deck ends right there. Pentex Subversion? All this can happen to your >Cailean too. Not a problem, I'd say. See above: More cards and I get a chance to defend myself. Pentex can and will be removed. The example from the EC where nobody removed Pentex was a sequence of horrible misplays on the table's part. >> Sure, you can't force it through with Awe, but vote lock shouldn't be >> THAT hard to gain. > >Again, that's because everyone plays with small midcaps. Again, this has no bearing on the issue. I shouldn't have to be forced to play with big vampires with votes. >> Why not? So you get 5 pool for your Cailean with 2 Raven Spies and a >> Mark V. Big deal -- that's 5 pool slower that you'll be ousted. > >So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent >play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even >gain 5 pool. But here, I could have set range to close. I could have set range to long and played Majesty instead, because I am the blocking minion and don't have to go first. And yes, I DO have Majesty in that deck, for just those occasions. I have many options, not the least of which is NOT TO BLOCK. >You go equip that Raven spy, you get blocked by some stinking Tzim, who >play BotD and Rotschrek. In his turn he eats him with Horatio. No 5 pool >either. Combat is where vampires get burned. Putting big guys in combat is risky enough without having to go nuts keeping them from getting burned OUTSIDE of combat as well. >The reason people don't use big vampires is because they are too easy to >kill. PtO is just another way. So we start by fixing it where big vampires only get burned from combat. Easy enough, huh? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bsq5a3$9oit$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >in... detroit... first you get the mighty fist, then you get the power, >then you get the women! and then... you get a visit to the free clinic to find out why all your hair fell out. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:<okVHb.102545$Ht1.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>... > > > > Not every deck has Justicars and Inner Circle in them. Not every deck > > can effectively fit them in. > > > > I still don't see this card as broken. One of the most powerful, yes. > > Cheesiest, yes. But not broken. Not when you still need the pool to > > get out an 11-cap, the stealth to get past blockers, the prayers > > answered that your prey or predator has a worthy non-Cam target, the > > votes to get the vote called, and the prayers to be answered that some > > schmuck doesn't have the cheesiest of reaction cards, Delaying > > Tactics, in their hand. > > In other words: there's only one requirement when playing a vote deck with > IC members? There has to be a target non-cam on the table. Burn it if > usefull, discard 1 card if not. Doesn't sound like a wasted card slot to > me. You have to have an IC or Justicar. It has to be alive. Then you need a valid target. Then you need to call the vote successfully. Then you need to pass the vote (over Vox X, DT, other votes, etc.) All of the above is doable, if you design the deck to call PTO's. If you don't then one in a vote deck might be useless (if you don't see the IC/Justicar in the crypt draw.) So a specifically designed PTO deck can create havoc on non-Camarilla vampires if the deck is fuctioning correctly and in the right place. Just like a pot rush deck can destroy it if it's sitting as its pred/prey. > > > > Hell, if it's so broken, why didn't I even see one at the last Aussie > > Nationals. I have 3 of them, I could have built a deck with them > > easily, but I didn't. Because having a PTO deck does NOT guarentee > > victory. It does NOT make it sure thang. Not even close. If there > > is an average possibility that a PTO deck can lose, then it's not > > broken. Dented, comes loose, files down, threads wear down, but not > > broken. > > Broken effect is not the same as "this card will win you the game if played" > By that definition RtI wasn't broken either, and the last fix to Hostile > Takeover and Temptation of Greater Power wasn't necessary. The effect is > way above the power curve, and that's what makes this card broken, IMO. Where are the winning PTO decks? (plural) Lots of decks use one or two (so they didn't see it as useful enough to be more than a prayer card.) one deck uses 4. One uses 14. That would be a PTO deck. (coincidentally that's my deck.) It's good but reliant on the metagame and seating to get much of anywhere. > Problem is that it is hard to prove. A lot of people don't play Sabbat > decks or indy decks because of this one card. Who are these people? I play this card a lot (both splashed in IC decks, and as a specifically PTO deck) and my playgroup still plays Indepentants and Sabbat. Lots of cards mess with lots of strategies, just because caitiff Computer Hack exists doesn't mean I never play huge vampires. It's simply a risk I take choosing the deck I play. Cameron

In message <1fb48054.03122...@posting.google.com>, moon...@useoz.com (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> I think that if you make a broken effect only happen once per game, it's >> still broken and now it's just a race to see who gets to the broken >> effect first. >> >A race? Nonono... there is a race to play Giant's Blood. There is a >race to get out Information Highway. There is even a race to play >Ancient Influence before your prey gets out a big cap. But these are >cards that any deck can play. And none of them are broken effects, and as such none of this paragraph is relevant to the conversation. >Not every deck has Justicars and Inner Circle in them. Not every deck >can effectively fit them in. That's fine. If you make me only able to call PTO once per game, then it's a race to see if I get to my PTO *after* you kit up your big Sabbat vampire, and *before* you oust me. This still doesn't change the effect of the card, it just makes the card happen more randomly. >I still don't see this card as broken. One of the most powerful, yes. > Cheesiest, yes. But not broken. Not when you still need the pool to Thanks for proving my point -- you feel forced to call it "cheesy", which means you actually agree with me and are just being your usual arbitrarily contrary self; not to mention that being the Ventrue fan you are, I'm sure you'd HATE to have to actually play some real decks instead of hucking around PTO casually. Not that YOU would ever have a shamelessly biased opinion, oh no. >get out an 11-cap, the stealth to get past blockers, the prayers >answered that your prey or predator has a worthy non-Cam target, the >votes to get the vote called, and the prayers to be answered that some >schmuck doesn't have the cheesiest of reaction cards, Delaying >Tactics, in their hand. 1) Everyone starts with 30 pool, and Arika sees play an awful lot. I guess it's pretty darn easy to get the 11-cap, huh? 2) Oh look! Arika has superior Obfuscate and Fortitude! Forgotten Labyrinth and Elder Impersonation, here we come. And those are even good on OTHER actions too! Of course there's always the plain old ordinary Daring the Dawn, Freak Drive, rescue-self with all those stealth cards... which is darned easy when the guy with +3 intercept just got burned unblockably. 3) Doesn't have to be prey or predator, and since you only have to put 2-4 in a deck, you can casually discard them if you don't need them. It is a VERY common "look-ahead" vote -- call it on your grandprey right before you actually oust your prey, while they don't have the ability to block, and reassure your predator or prey that it won't go on them. You'd be amazed how easy it is to convince people to not block the vote, if they think they can get it out of your hand and aimed at someone else. 4) Arika has 4 votes, making it 5 in favor before anyone else ever CONSIDERS voting. Bewitching Oration is another 4 -- not to mention you surely at least have another Prince or Justicar lying around. Yep, that was easy enough -- those pesky Ventrue again, it's almost like they were DESIGNED to be voters! 5) Delaying Tactics makes me laugh. Go on, DT it -- I play it again next turn. Better have 10 DTs. >easily, but I didn't. Because having a PTO deck does NOT guarentee >victory. It does NOT make it sure thang. Not even close. If there The definition of "broken" can include, but is not solely limited to, guaranteeing victory. >ugh, of all the whining done on this group posting, I swear the ones >that hurt my ears the most are the ones complaining about this card >and that card. You, of all people, have NO room to talk about whining. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The reason people don't use big vampires is because they are too easy to >kill. PtO is just another way. Not that I agree with this, but wouldn't this be bad for the game and in need of correction? Wouldn't banning PTO be a step towards making (certain) big vampires less fragile?

>> If everyone was playing with small to midcaps, nobody would be >> complaining about PTO. > >Apparently the only people here complaining about PtO are the ones that >like to play with a huge vamp in a one trick deck. I don't recall ever doing this in a tournament and I think it's obvious that PTO has no place in the game. >Do you REALLY want you ronly vampire totally immortal? Just to go back >to Cailean, HOW ELSE am I supposed to get rid of him. >HOW for the love of god do you expect me to disable Fatima in the >aforementioned Fatima multirush? Oh wait, you don't want me to... Cailean still burns when his controller's pool is reduced to zero. Having played against Cailean decks, including in the finals of a tournament, I find such decks only threatening when left alone for a long time. >Next is the definition of broken. A card is broken if you can >consistently and repeatedly win games with it at the highest level of >play. That means, tournaments; big tournaments. I like to use the term "breaks the game" when something determines victory as it preserves broken for other instances. In a multiplayer CCG, anything that only screws one player at a time isn't going to determine victory. Yet, there have been many a card badly designed that only screwed one player at a time. Anyway, rather than argue over the definition of broken, since it's an argument with no end in sight, maybe you could agree that PTO is unfair and that unfair cards make CCGs suboptimal. >Powerful, yes, but so is Conditioning and so is DI. Broken? Nah. I'd be happy to see Conditioning banned. As said in the other thread, I wouldn't miss DI.

In message <a1e26d99.03122...@posting.google.com>, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) mumbled something about: >"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:<okVHb.102545$Ht1.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>... >> >> In other words: there's only one requirement when playing a vote deck with >> IC members? There has to be a target non-cam on the table. Burn it if >> usefull, discard 1 card if not. Doesn't sound like a wasted card slot to >> me. > >You have to have an IC or Justicar. It has to be alive. Then you >need a valid target. Then you need to call the vote successfully. >Then you need to pass the vote (over Vox X, DT, other votes, etc.) >All of the above is doable, if you design the deck to call PTO's. If Or if you just design the deck to call votes. You know, people generally try to make votes fail unless they're getting a specific benefit out of it... Who's ever heard of that, though! Designing a deck that just calls votes. That's crazy talk, there. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bsq7h2$6u7$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... > Apparently the only people here complaining about PtO are the ones that > like to play with a huge vamp in a one trick deck. > Do you REALLY want you ronly vampire totally immortal? Just to go back > to Cailean, HOW ELSE am I supposed to get rid of him. Hit him with the ranged agg you talked about in your last post? > HOW for the love of god do you expect me to disable Fatima in the > aforementioned Fatima multirush? Learn to work around harsh combat decks? > Everyone here keeps forgetting that the almighty PtO requires an Inner > Circle member and can't target a rough 1/3 of the vampires in existance. Inner Circle members are extremely good vampires on their own. What other card can burn 2/3 the vampires in existence? > Next is the definition of broken. A card is broken if you can > consistently and repeatedly win games with it at the highest level of > play. That means, tournaments; big tournaments. That is *your* definition of broken. I would think it could also include any effect from a single card that would automatically force another deck to lose immediately. PtO does that. > Oh look! All weenies and midcaps! They couldn't care less about PtO. That's nice. It's taking up 2-4 cardslots in the deck. They'll get pitched on other votes or discarded with minimal impact to cardflow. > Heck, they'd probably laugh when you influence your Arika out. They'll > laugh even more when you start using her for Governing a Justicar into > play. You guys ARE moving forward no? So you've never seen Arika play a Freak Drive? > I mean, we're looking at 4-5 turns > of influencing and doing Govern actions (which are, btw quite easily > blocked) before the deck even becomes a threat. So vampires with OBF are easy to block? > I'm pretty much dead by > then if I'm playing a serious game (aka, not with a > built-to-try-out-a-card fun deck or something). Last time I checked > there aren't an awful lot of tournament winners that used PtO. I count 22 decks using some number of Protect Thine Own in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive on Lasombra's site. > If you can't stop an action that > kills you, it's your own fault. I can make bleeds for 8 unblockable as > well; haven't seen anyone complain about that. Because unblockable bleeds can be: 1. retargeted 2. AI'd 3. reduced All of which are common tactics using good cards with fairly low opportunity costs (AI's opportunity cost is debatable). > I wouldn't mind if bigger vampires were more difficult to burn, but as > long as we have to accept the fact that vampires, regardless of their > capacity, all have the same chance of being burned, I don't want to see > PtO changed EXCEPT for the prey-predator clause. And yet, all vampires do not have the same chance of being burned. Non- camarilla vampires have PTO to worry about. Camarilla vampires do not. > > So you block with your Cailean, go to long, fire the Mark V, opponent > > play Mayapayatewyrfhewu and Amaranth. He's gone as well. You won't even > > gain 5 pool. I misread the initial example. Yes, the amaranth can work there. This also assumes the vampire in question isn't going to torpor itself. Here's a nifty one to try- if you're using Cailean, and you're blocking a guy who uses Maya-whatever, "set range to close". > > Or you could play stealth. They do have obfuscate, you know. > > Tzims have Animalism and Auspex, you know. Sure. You also have the option of "your block fails", or setting range to close and using grapple. Or you could not go for raven spies when your prey's showing untapped tzimisce and the ability to throw rotshreck. We can one-up each other all day with ever increasing numbers of cards thrown. This doesn't change the facts of: -PtO requires 1 vampire and often no other cards thrown to burn any of 699 vampires in the game. -Vote defense is, as a whole, unreliable. -The two above facts can pretty much end someone's game if they happen to make a deck around a large non-cam vampire. Which leads us to making decks around smaller vampires or sticking with the Camarilla. -- -Snapcase

In article <MPG.1a5a52202...@news.optonline.net>, Snapcase wrote: >> Losing your only guy is a inherent weakness of playing with big >> vampires. There should be rewards as well. Is there ANY reason to play >> with an IC member AT ALL if PtO didn't exist? > > Let's see. Lots of disciplines. 4 sitting votes. +2 sitting bleed. > Useful special abilities (Leandro/Arika). Looks solid to me... > And the most terrible weakness ever, in our metagame (the +2 bleed) > Arika can kill Cailean with a PtO. There is no easily usable equivalent > card to kill Arika that doesn't kill Cailean. Justicar Retribution. Kills Alexandra, Arika, Etrius, Gwendolyn, Harrod, Leandro and Stanislava at the same time. and all those pesky AUS midcaps with pulse. (humm, cailean can not play JR but atleast here every vote deck has atleast one JR in it. Just to burn IC's.) So if you ask me IC's suck a lot more than sabbat vampires. Seeing your IC burn for that weenie princes unblockable vote, with 4 of his prince buddies saying GO GO and that crosstable Cailean going yeah yeah is kind of lame. > Fear of Mekhet is neat. > It also affects a grand total of 21 vampires as opposed to the 699 that > can be burned by PTO. Bit of a disparity in opportunity cost. Hell, > Fear isn't even a sure burn. > PtO also has the fewest counters, and early on only requires a single > card or a two card combination. > so does JR. But instead of hatred JR brings out this sudden look of desperation to the eyes of the ic player. -- Sator Ukko 333=11 Occu Rotas

I wonder if the people defending PTO would be comfortable with a card that duplicates its effects, but replaces "Justicar" and "IC" with 10 and 11 cap, respectively? If not, it's tantamount to arguing that the Camarilla *deserve* this effect, and no one else does. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > Apparently the only people here complaining about PtO are the ones that > > like to play with a huge vamp in a one trick deck. > > What the hell is the relationship between one vampire and only being about > one trick? If anything, if I'm building a deck around multiple copies of > a large vampire, I will avail myself of all the disciplines. Further, if > it is a one vampire, multi-action affair, it leads one to the question of > "just what do I do with these actions under NRA" and, hence, diversity. I don't see any problem with the concept of individual vampire-based decks. In fact, some of the most interesting decks I have seen in the past few years have been based on only one vampire. The various multi-rush, turbo decks, Omaya walls etc. Ulugh appears to have some bias against such decks, which I don't fully understand. It's true that a PTO will significantly hurt that type of deck much moreso than a weenie-midcap deck, but is there a reason why this should be the case? If anything, I'd like to see the opposite effect with weenies and midcaps being the ones targeted, as they start out with a significant advantage. Therefore, as another possible change to the card text for PTO. How about allowing IC members to burn two non-Camarilla vampires below capacity 6? (ie rather than *any* vampire). I would also add the condition "once per game". It's still painful, but the selection of targets becomes much more limited. And one Delaying Tactics will make the card useless, just like it does for Political Stranglehold etc. It's not a perfect solution, and I think there may not be a perfect solution... but this may be preferrable to simply banning the card altogether. > The people who are complaining about PTO are, IMO, the ones who can count > to eleven with their fly zipped. Heheh... gotta remember that one. > > Do you REALLY want you ronly vampire totally immortal? > > No. Beat him up. Send him to torpor. Banish him. *Oust me*. Taking a > free +1 stealth action that can target cross table is beyond the scope of > what one card should accomplish. I would also like to add to this that PTO seems very wrong *thematically* to me. I don't think anyone else has mentioned this. What does PTO represent thematically exactly? A bunch of Cammie vampires teaming up to lynch and burn a non-Cammie vampire. Fair enough, but can't this already be done using say Haven Uncovered and Burning Wraths (or whatever) ? A vote like Anathema seems much more realistic in its relationship to combat/burning. It doesn't actually do the deed; it just sets up conditions for other vampires to do it. That seems more appropriate somehow. Vampires with lots of influence using said influence to arrange a vampire's death. But PTO is like making a combat card that says "Strike: Bleed your prey for 5". It's just wrong. > You are wrong. I happen to know because I emailed LSJ specifically about > the criteria for "brokeness". For one thing, an element that reduces the > game to a shambles would be a valid candidate for broken, even if it > loses, or totally randomizes the winner. According to this logic (which is correct I think), this thread should be broadened to include other cards than just PTO... Although I will use all of the cards that the general consensus says are broken, I do agree that some of them are problematic and should be changed or banned. Or something anyway. When someone rushes and kills my vampire, it hurts my game but ultimately I am still having fun. When someone bleeds me out, I have no problem offering a handshake in congratulations. When someone PTO's my vampire, I feel robbed. Maybe not a definition of broken, but still. > > Last time I checked > > there aren't an awful lot of tournament winners that used PtO. > > That's begging the question. I would say not many people play them in > tournaments because the potential players know the potential targets > will be few, because people are (rightly) concerned about wasting their > time being a tool to a broken card. I would also say that a lot of the also-rans in said tournaments may have been using PTO. Whether it wins or not is immaterial to whether it is an unfair card or not. I've seen plenty of times when a PTO has destablized a table but not actually garnered a win for the PTO'er. Same thing with Baltimore Purge and Anarch Revolt by the way. I personally do not equate winning with broken. While not synonymous, they are often very much related. Semantics I guess. > > I wouldn't mind if bigger vampires were more difficult to burn, but as > > long as we have to accept the fact that vampires, regardless of their > > capacity, all have the same chance of being burned, I don't want to see > > PtO changed EXCEPT for the prey-predator clause. > > They don't have the same chance. Cam vampires, the kings of the hill, are > perfectly safe. Which is also thematically weird really. I mean why would the IC be able to burn vampires who don't even belong in the same sect or clan? I can see a Toreador IC member burning a lowly Tremere for insubordination or whatever, but how exactly would they have any influence over a Sabbat vampire? I'm sure an argument could be made for this, but it still seems weird to me. I mean, for those who don't follow the backstory... the Sabbat and to a lesser degree the Anarchs *left* the general vampire society because they were sick of being abused by elders with too much power (more or less). With PTO, I guess they'd be better off staying in the same club as the big boys. > Look, get over the fact that this has something to do with me crying in my > beer over lost games. I don't really care about that. I care that there > is a card floating around out there that is making the game as a whole > worse than it needs to be. I've been bled out hundreds of times. Is bleeding broken? No. I've had vampires burned in combat hundreds of times. Is combat broken? No. I've had my one-trick-pony Howler burned by a single cross-table PTO. Is PTO broken? I think so, yeah. Cheers, WES

<snip> > Do you feel that there have been any broken cards in the history of this > game? Most definitely:Monocle of Clarity in its original version. In my experience many people tend to find cards are broken if: * they get ousted because of it once too often, and get frustrated. *they see what a certain card can do when played well by a good player *they see what a certain card can do in certain circumstances, but fail to grasp the specific factors that enabled it being played that way, and how small the odds were of it actually doing that. *they fail to understand how to play against this specific card *fail to anticipate it being played frequently. *do not grasp it's weaknesses *fail to see the difference between a "broken card", and the supremacy of the player/deckbuilder handling it IMHO, none of the above reasons make a card broken. Also IMPO, the closest things this game even has to a broken card are Deflection/Tel. Misdirection, and even then only by virtue of the impact they have on tournament play,which I believe to be due to the lack of (something that remotely resembles)an equivalent in the whole range of other disciplines or disciplineless cards.So not strictly because of what the cards do, as I find their specific use an absolutely necessary factor in the game. Greetz Jo There's only 10 kinds of people: those that understand binary, and the ones that don't.

Jeff Kuta expounded: > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: 1 blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting > vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any > Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn > that vampire. > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? Send to torpor instead of burning and deal X dmg where X is the number of votes it passes by -burn if more votes than blood. (I have suggested this before)

Derek Ray wrote: [...] > >> I don't care if my predator or prey gains 5 pool for Lazverinus, > >> Thetmes, Goratrix, or Cailean. That vampire is off the table and > >> staying there, and THAT effect is all I'm really after. I can bleed > >> through the extra 5 pool, I'm Arika. > > > >How is this different from, say, a 4 cap POT dude rushing your precious > >Cailean, doing the typical Signpost/IG/Pushing the Limit/Disarm thing? > > You mean besides the fact that Cailean can set range and so this won't > ever happen to him? > > Yes, I know it's picking on the specific example and not the general > case. But in this case, it serves to point something up -- combat is > where vampires get burned, NOT actions. There are several actions (or cards) that burn vampires: (D) ACTIONS: Diablerie (in torpor + drawback -blood hunt). Sacrificial Lamb (in torpor). Gregory Winter (in torpor). Nephandus (in torpor). Dismemberment of Osiris (in torpor). POLITICAL ACTIONS: Sacrifice. Protect Thine Own. MASTER: Society of Leopold. And there are other non-combat ways to send vampires to torpor: Baltimore Purge Kiss of Ra Legacy of Power Nosferatu Performance Art ... or by inflicting damage to them outside combat (Shadow Twin, Abyssal Hunter, etc.) [...] > >That's because you include combat defense cards in your deck. You DO > >play with defense vs politics right? > > There are only two adequate defenses against a PRE-based political deck > which has been built to pass its votes. What do you mean with "adequate"? >:) > 1) Block the action. > 2) Have more votes. There are other "adequate" defenses such as: Kindred Coercion Pulling Strings Dread Gaze Delaying Tactics (yes it is very adequate, although it "just" delays PTO one turn). Etc. > Daring the Dawn handles the first. If I must rely on #2, then I am > limited to playing ONLY great big vampires with lots of votes. What if > I want to make a Christopher Houghton Anarch deck? The Anarch makes him > vulnerable to PTO, but he's a superb Firebrand... Then you'd better play with Heralds of Topheth to block any PTO :-) [...] In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy combat in my decks? Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. There are several strategies to win in V:TES. One of them is politics, so why not should you include vote defense in your deck? Because you prefer to deal with combat, or bleed? ;-) Political decks are not only defeated via combat or intercept, but by making their votes fail via other cards. > >say, not having an Obedience in hand and getting wasted in a rush, that > >deck ends right there. Pentex Subversion? All this can happen to your > >Cailean too. Not a problem, I'd say. > > See above: More cards and I get a chance to defend myself. > > Pentex can and will be removed. The example from the EC where nobody > removed Pentex was a sequence of horrible misplays on the table's part. If any of the players had removed the Pentex on Arika, Arika's controller would have surely ousted Jay (at least). [...] > >You go equip that Raven spy, you get blocked by some stinking Tzim, who > >play BotD and Rotschrek. In his turn he eats him with Horatio. No 5 pool > >either. > > Combat is where vampires get burned. False :) Vampires get burned in torpor or via PTO. Vampires are not usually burned in combat. > Putting big guys in combat is > risky enough without having to go nuts keeping them from getting burned > OUTSIDE of combat as well. [...] Greetings, Damnans

"> > Imho it's not an easy assumption to do. > So far, it's the only wild card to see the reason for playing > the other inner circle members, all-powerful Arika apart. > Maybe would be better to change to "unbreak" Arika :D On this matter: if Arika is soo all-powerfull, can anybody tel me why Arika based decks do not (or extremely rarely) show up as winning decks? And I'd say there's lots of reasons for playing some other IC's (granted, some more than others, but nevertheless). As there are lots of reasons for not playing them.The fact that it might be a tiebreaker in a decision whether or not to play IC's is IMHO not a reason to call it a broken card.. anyways.. /Jo

In article <3FF174FA...@ono.com>, damna...@ono.com says... > There are several actions (or cards) that burn vampires: > > (D) ACTIONS: > Diablerie (in torpor + drawback -blood hunt). > Sacrificial Lamb (in torpor). > Gregory Winter (in torpor). > Nephandus (in torpor). > Dismemberment of Osiris (in torpor). All require you to get the vampire in torpor first. And most of the above actions start at 0 stealth. > POLITICAL ACTIONS: > Sacrifice. Only works on Sabbat vampires with capacity below 7 belonging to the same clan as the vampire that's calling the vote. That's a hell of a lot more restrictions. > MASTER: > Society of Leopold. Great card; but require more than just this to burn a full, large non- cam vampire. > And there are other non-combat ways to send vampires to torpor: > > Baltimore Purge > Kiss of Ra > Legacy of Power > Nosferatu Performance Art Torpor != burned. > ... or by inflicting damage to them outside combat (Shadow Twin, > Abyssal Hunter, etc.) Requires more than a single action. > > 1) Block the action. > > 2) Have more votes. > > There are other "adequate" defenses such as: > > Kindred Coercion Which sucks. > Pulling Strings Also sucks. Irregular Protocol is far better. > Dread Gaze Sucks. > Delaying Tactics (yes it is very adequate, although it "just" delays PTO > one turn). The only one of two good vote defense cards. Vox Domini is the other. > In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy > combat in my decks? Because combat is a fairly common archetype. And combat != PtO. Combat may or may not burn a vampire (some decks don't care if you burn, they just want you in torpor), but they REQUIRE MORE THAN A SINGLE CARD TO DO IT. And the defenses are much more robust. > Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to > defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not > use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, > but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. Because they (for the most part) suck. Dread Gaze is countered by playing a Bewitching Oration. Kindred Coercion doesn't work on Inner Circle members (or large vampires in general) unless you're playing one of your own. Pulling Strings is weaker than Irregular Protocol (and requires DOM to be remotely useful). And the opportunity cost for all of them is surprisingly high. Bleed defense is almost always good because you're almost guaranteed to be bled over the course of a game, even if no "bleed" decks are on the table (even if it's just for 1). Combat defense is good because you can almost always get into combat over the course of a game, even if there are no combat decks on the table (get blocked or block an action). Vote defense isn't good because you may not get hit with any votes worth stopping. And even if you do and have the proper cards, they may not _work_. Pulling Strings and Irregular protocol can stop a single vampire's votes, but they may have more voters or Ventrue Headquarters, etc. Or they can just let that vote fail and call another one. I have yet to see a Kindred Coercion actually work. > There are several strategies to win in V:TES. One of them is politics, > so why not should you include vote defense in your deck? Because > you prefer to deal with combat, or bleed? ;-) How often do you actually put Pulling Strings in a deck? -- -Snapcase

In article <88f9561d.03123...@posting.google.com>, jo.her...@sca.com says... > > Do you feel that there have been any broken cards in the history of this > > game? > > Most definitely:Monocle of Clarity in its original version. That's the only one? > *they see what a certain card can do when played well by a good player PtO's uses are pretty obvious. Doesn't require a good player to play Arika and call a single vote. > *they see what a certain card can do in certain circumstances, but > fail to grasp the specific factors that enabled it being played that > way, and how small the odds were of it actually doing that. Just because the odds of a broken card being played are small in a given game doesn't make it less broken. > *they fail to understand how to play against this specific card The defenses against the card in question are either poor or easily trumped. > *fail to anticipate it being played frequently. Anticipating a broken card being played frequently doesn't make it less broken. > *do not grasp it's weaknesses What's the weakness in burning any non-cam vampire of your choice? > *fail to see the difference between a "broken card", and the supremacy > of the player/deckbuilder handling it Any idiot can throw Arika and PtO in a deck and have it ruin someone's game. This isn't difficult tech we're talking about here. > IMHO, none of the above reasons make a card broken. The card's effects make it broken, regardless of someone's preparation for it. All of the reasons you give above could be applied to the original Monocle of Clarity. <snip deflection argument> I somewhat agree here. It would be nice to see useable bleed defense spread out a bit more. -- -Snapcase

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031230...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > I wonder if the people defending PTO would be comfortable with a card that > duplicates its effects, but replaces "Justicar" and "IC" with 10 and 11 > cap, respectively? I'd further tweak this suggestion by replacing "titled 9-cap" for Justicar and replace non-Camarilla with "vampire of a different sect." Ur-Shulgi Bribes the table to burn Arika. That would be SWEET! :)

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031230...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds ok to me.. Giw the Sabbat and Independent the same things.. wouldent care less.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031230...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > I wonder if the people defending PTO would be comfortable with a card that > duplicates its effects, but replaces "Justicar" and "IC" with 10 and 11 > cap, respectively? If not, it's tantamount to arguing that the Camarilla > *deserve* this effect, and no one else does. Just a note, those vampires do (in theory) pay for those titles. So a better example would allow vampires with some title play this type of card (keeping in mind that justicars go down to 8 these days.) Cameron, still unable to prove PTO is broken, not for lack of trying.

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1e26d99.03123...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You did win a tournament with a 14-PTO deck once, didn't you? If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any vampire" without regard to sect? Josh politician, protect thyself!

> > > I wonder if the people defending PTO would be comfortable with a > card that > > > duplicates its effects, but replaces "Justicar" and "IC" with 10 and > 11 > > > cap, respectively? If not, it's tantamount to arguing that the > Camarilla > > > *deserve* this effect, and no one else does. I wonder if making a broken card more widely available would be a good thing. Any "burn a vampire" effect (including Goratrix Advanced) should be avoided IMO. I'd rather see a reduction of PTO's power rather than the possibility of using it with a Cardinal or even a 11-Cap independant. But of course, making such a weapon and making it available only for Camarilla is an aberration. -- Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia

Joshua Duffin wrote: > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > vampire" without regard to sect? Just to jump in: 1) I don't think that a single card, by itself, should be enough to burn a vamp. I also don't like Justicar Retribution. =P 2) With that out of the way, I think that making PTO non-Cam specific isn't that great of an idea. I mean, _if_ PTO is broken, then it should be removed, not open to anyone -- that would just increase the brokenness aspect. If it's not broken, then...why? I'd really rather the sects keep their own special power cards than give everyone access to everything. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:fdednb4uVYc...@speakeasy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > > vampire" without regard to sect? > > Just to jump in: > > 1) I don't think that a single card, by itself, should be enough to burn > a vamp. I also don't like Justicar Retribution. =P Oh, I agree. I think all the ways to burn a ready vampire outside of combat - in fact, even a good number of the ones *in* combat - were probably a bad idea. At least as bad for the game as original Temptation of Greater Power or Hostile Takeover. > 2) With that out of the way, I think that making PTO non-Cam specific > isn't that great of an idea. I mean, _if_ PTO is broken, then it should > be removed, not open to anyone -- that would just increase the > brokenness aspect. If it's not broken, then...why? I'd really rather > the sects keep their own special power cards than give everyone access > to everything. What I meant here by "interesting" was "to use as a thought experiment" or "to playtest", as an argument that might be convincing to those who think PTO-for-Cam-only (ie as-is) is just fine and dandy. :-) Josh inflammable

<snip> > > In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy > > combat in my decks? > > Because combat is a fairly common archetype. And combat != PtO. Combat > may or may not burn a vampire (some decks don't care if you burn, they > just want you in torpor), but they REQUIRE MORE THAN A SINGLE CARD TO DO > IT. And the defenses are much more robust. I'm repeatedly seeing people mention that it's very easy to pass a PtO with help from Forgotten Labyrinth, Elder Impersonation and a Bewitching Oration. Is it just me or is that also more than a single card? I count a total of 4 (3, if you want) and that excludes the vote itself. I surely can burn a vampire in combat with 3 cards, barring the actual rush. > > Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to > > defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not > > use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, > > but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. > > Because they (for the most part) suck. Dread Gaze is countered by > playing a Bewitching Oration. Kindred Coercion doesn't work on Inner > Circle members (or large vampires in general) unless you're playing one <snip breakdown of why vote defense cards suck> If I have a bunch of Obediences and Majesties in my deck and happen to have non combat predators and preys, those cards are also useless. Of course people pack combat defense according to the metagame, and I can't see why you can't do that with politics. For weenie politics, a single Suprise Influence early on can totally ruin their deck. Dread Gaze comes a far way to stop many votes, especially if there's multiple titles on the table. Sure, if it's done to you crosstable and nobody votes in your favor, you're pretty much fucked, which is why I'd like it top be prey/pred only. I know that tournies tend to be pretty light on combat, so you see decks that pack like 3-4 majesties and 2 obediences. If they happen to be prey of a potence rush, they're fucked. If you can't deal with PtO, you also can't deal with Parity Shify, KRC, Cons Agi, Domain Challenge and every other vote that screws you. What do you do when you have a Nos Prince Zillah/Parity deck sitting behind you? Correct. Nothing except maybe hope your grandprey eases your pain. With not way to stop his votes, you'll be dead pretty soon. PtO just happens to be a very powerful vote card, given the correct circumstances, just like Mayapayaterfhdi is a very strong combat card IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. To many decks, PtO isn't THAT much different from Sensory Deprivation and yet that card has NO restrictions. I'm sure you can give me like 10 examples where still having the vampire, be it unable to act is better than losing it. I agree, which is why Sens Dep has no restrictions at all and is Directed. Making PtO only able to target prey and predator would put it, IMO, on par with Sens Dep. > How often do you actually put Pulling Strings in a deck? Never. Because I couldn't care less about that PtO in a friendly game. If they keep abusing it, they'll get ganged up upon pretty quick. In tournaments being able to bounce that bleed for 5 is more important that the remote chance my vamp will be burned by PtO. That, plus tournies tend to be bleed heavy, so bleed defense is far far more important that vote defense if you intend to at least reach the finals. Maybe we DO need a more adequate vote defense card. Or at least one that's more versatile (much like that new card from Black Hand that gives 2 votes or +2 bleed). Banning or ruining PtO is not a solution.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Orpheus wrote: > I wonder if making a broken card more widely available would be a good > thing. Any "burn a vampire" effect (including Goratrix Advanced) should be > avoided IMO. I'd rather see a reduction of PTO's power rather than the > possibility of using it with a Cardinal or even a 11-Cap independant. But of > course, making such a weapon and making it available only for Camarilla is > an aberration. No, I wasn't suggesting that the card would actually be a good thing, only that the people who argue that it's not that bad really should have no argument against the same effect being available to everyone. And *if* you would dislike seeing a card like that in the game, then it seems to me you must admit PTO has no place in the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3FF174FA...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: > >> Yes, I know it's picking on the specific example and not the general >> case. But in this case, it serves to point something up -- combat is >> where vampires get burned, NOT actions. > >There are several actions (or cards) that burn vampires: After the vampires have been sent to torpor in combat, you mean. OR through an elaborate setup of numerous other cards such as 238797 Shadow Twins, Free States Rant + Foul Blood, etc. >(D) ACTIONS: >Diablerie (in torpor + drawback -blood hunt). >Sacrificial Lamb (in torpor). >Gregory Winter (in torpor). >Nephandus (in torpor). >Dismemberment of Osiris (in torpor). See above. 95% of vampires reach torpor during combat. 4% send themselves there in some fashion. >POLITICAL ACTIONS: >Sacrifice. I'm not a real fan of this card either, although it is very difficult to use properly due to the clan limitation. !Malk decks with Derange can make excellent use of it. >MASTER: >Society of Leopold. Which must be played on an empty vampire to burn them -- otherwise the vamp will be locked down forever, or will move it himself. AND requires a Master phase action, which are typically stronger than action cards. >And there are other non-combat ways to send vampires to torpor: > >Baltimore Purge Which is just as broken/disruptive as PTO. >Kiss of Ra If you're that worried about it, don't block. >Legacy of Power >Nosferatu Performance Art The limitations on these are HUGE in comparison to PTO. >> There are only two adequate defenses against a PRE-based political deck >> which has been built to pass its votes. > >What do you mean with "adequate"? >:) Everything else is ass. >> 1) Block the action. >> 2) Have more votes. > >There are other "adequate" defenses such as: > >Kindred Coercion This does not work against Arika and Queen Anne unless you are also playing with 10-caps who have superior Dominate. See "not older than" text on the card. >Pulling Strings Requires superior Dominate and needs help from table votes in order to make a vote fail -- often is just pissing in the wind. >Dread Gaze Not even as good as Pulling Strings. >Delaying Tactics (yes it is very adequate, although it "just" delays PTO >one turn). DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have you seen stopped by a single DT? When I build a political deck, my only thought of DT's existence is to make sure I put a wide variety of votes in, not just 16 KRC's. Of course, that's good strategy ANYWAY, even if DT didn't exist. Either you can play one every turn, or you only DELAY the process. >> Daring the Dawn handles the first. If I must rely on #2, then I am >> limited to playing ONLY great big vampires with lots of votes. What if >> I want to make a Christopher Houghton Anarch deck? The Anarch makes him >> vulnerable to PTO, but he's a superb Firebrand... > >In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy >combat in my decks? Cards which are useful defense against Immortal Grapple (maneuvers, say) are also useful defense against many other combat strategies, not just a single card. There are no cards which are useful against political decks, other than blocking the action or having more votes. Or beating up the vampires before they can call the votes. >Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to >defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not >use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, >but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. See above. I don't underestimate the defense, I just recognize that the current means to defend are inadequate. Either you have the table votes, or the table votes are friendly to you, or you block the action, or you take it up the ass from a *REAL* political deck. >There are several strategies to win in V:TES. One of them is politics, >so why not should you include vote defense in your deck? Because >you prefer to deal with combat, or bleed? ;-) Because there is no adequate defense other than blocking the action or having more table votes yourself. >Political decks are not only defeated via combat or intercept, but by >making their votes fail via other cards. You mean those inadequate cards that we discussed earlier? >> Pentex can and will be removed. The example from the EC where nobody >> removed Pentex was a sequence of horrible misplays on the table's part. > >If any of the players had removed the Pentex on Arika, Arika's controller >would have surely ousted Jay (at least). There WAS a correct time to remove the Pentex -- handing ANYONE a VP like that is pretty shoddy play, especially an Auspex intercept deck that can get the last 2 VPs easily, but will have trouble getting the first. Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an intercept wall? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bsstd4$2is$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... > I'm repeatedly seeing people mention that it's very easy to pass a PtO > with help from Forgotten Labyrinth, Elder Impersonation and a Bewitching > Oration. Is it just me or is that also more than a single card? That assumes that people have the cards to block (thus cards played on their side) and/or that the people who want the votes to fail can actually muster the 5 votes required to do so. These are all additional cards. It's not that hard to pass a PtO early game on a vampire when you've got 4 votes sitting + the PtO itself. > I count a total of 4 (3, if you want) and that excludes the vote itself. I > surely can burn a vampire in combat with 3 cards, barring the actual > rush. There is no "sure" burning a vampire in combat. > <snip breakdown of why vote defense cards suck> > > If I have a bunch of Obediences and Majesties in my deck and happen to > have non combat predators and preys, those cards are also useless. Are they? Bleed at 0 stealth. Someone blocks. You majesty and untap. Or they deflect, your grandprey blocks and you majesty and untap. I use obedience all the time against non combat decks. Block a hunt action, block a bleed, etc. > Of course people pack combat defense according to the metagame, and I can't > see why you can't do that with politics. For weenie politics, a single > Suprise Influence early on can totally ruin their deck. Assuming they don't have the edge, and you have a vampire already out to play surprise influence. > Dread Gaze comes > a far way to stop many votes, especially if there's multiple titles on > the table. Sure, if it's done to you crosstable and nobody votes in your > favor, you're pretty much fucked, which is why I'd like it top be > prey/pred only. Even if it's not done crosstable. Say you PtO your predator's Lazverinus. Your grandpredator's probably going to be fairly happy, no? Why would he vote against, unless it was obvious you were about to get a a sweep? > If you can't deal with PtO, you also > can't deal with Parity Shify, KRC, Cons Agi, Domain Challenge and every > other vote that screws you. Those cause pool loss. Your vampire resources are unaffected and can attempt to block/rush/vote against these votes. You take 1 hit from a KRC and then put the sucker in torpor who called it. Take a hit in PtO, your vampire is burned. No torpor. > PtO just happens to be a very powerful vote > card, given the correct circumstances, just like Mayapayaterfhdi is a > very strong combat card IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. Where correct circumstances for PtO = "having an inner circle member in play and a target for it". Mayawhatever requires you to get in to combat, get to long range, successfully hit with it, etc. Much more setup involved. Not to mention going to torpor != burned. > To many decks, PtO isn't > THAT much different from Sensory Deprivation and yet that card has NO > restrictions. I'm sure you can give me like 10 examples where still > having the vampire, be it unable to act is better than losing it. The first and foremost being that if you kill the vamp who sense depped you, you get your vampire back. > I agree, which is why Sens Dep has no restrictions at all and is Directed. > Making PtO only able to target prey and predator would put it, IMO, on > par with Sens Dep. Sense Dep doesn't have inherent stealth, costs 3, doesn't outright burn the vamp. They're really completely different cards. Yes, Sense Dep can really hose your game. But you also have a chance to get your vampire back. You have no such chance with PtO. > > How often do you actually put Pulling Strings in a deck? > > Never. Case closed. > Maybe we DO need a more adequate vote defense card. Or at least one > that's more versatile (much like that new card from Black Hand that > gives 2 votes or +2 bleed). Banning or ruining PtO is not a solution. We've gotten an excellent vote defense card in the last set. But you can only play 1 per game. Some more versatile vote defense probably couldn't hurt. But it may or may not stop PtO consistently. They only have to get 1 through. -- -Snapcase

In message <bssnv0$133t9$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a >vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 >votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that >requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were >done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect >of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, >any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any >vampire" without regard to sect? It's hardly any more fair for Matteus with a Fortitude skill card to burn Arika than vice versa. All making the existing effect more widely available does is increase the number of times it's seen in a game... which is not really an improvement. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bssnv0$133t9$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:a1e26d99.03123...@posting.google.com... > > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031230...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > > > I wonder if the people defending PTO would be comfortable with a > card that > > > duplicates its effects, but replaces "Justicar" and "IC" with 10 and > 11 > > > cap, respectively? If not, it's tantamount to arguing that the > Camarilla > > > *deserve* this effect, and no one else does. > > > > Just a note, those vampires do (in theory) pay for those titles. So a > > better example would allow vampires with some title play this type of > > card (keeping in mind that justicars go down to 8 these days.) > > > > Cameron, still unable to prove PTO is broken, not for lack of trying. > > You did win a tournament with a 14-PTO deck once, didn't you? Yeah, but for every time I've won (twice now I think, once was to small to be reported) there are also times I've choked with the deck. (camarilla weenie PRE as a predator, pot rush combat, preying on nossies, etc.) > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > vampire" without regard to sect? I'd say that something along the lines of Cardinal: burn 5 or below non-sabbat, Regent burn an non-sabbat. Not sure how the indy clans would get it (and it would only be a settite card anyway, as I still haven't managed Ravnos vote.) Keeping in mind however, that the Camarilla (when PTO was printed) relied upon the titles and politics to keep parity with the sabbat, which had all the good vampires. That's why we see Parity Shift v. Transfer of Power. 5th v. Blood Feast. PTO v. Sacrifice. etc. I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful than I am willing to admit.) > Josh > > politician, protect thyself! Cameron nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<bsr89...@enews1.newsguy.com>... > Ulugh appears to have some bias against such decks, which I don't fully > understand. Yes, it seems he would have us all play weenie/mid cap decks. If fact, why not just stop printing 6+ cap vamps as they suck anyway and no one uses them. But seriously, he illustrates the point that weenie decks are the deck of choice atm, and that something (more) can be done to even up the disparity between weenies/fatties. See below for relevance. > It's true that a PTO will significantly hurt that type of > deck much moreso than a weenie-midcap deck, but is there a reason why > this should be the case? No. Good point. > If anything, I'd like to see the opposite > effect with weenies and midcaps being the ones targeted, as they start > out with a significant advantage. Yes. > Therefore, as another possible change to the card text for PTO. How > about allowing IC members to burn two non-Camarilla vampires below > capacity 6? (ie rather than *any* vampire). The best suggestion I have heard so far. Or something like burn up to 6 points in capacity worth of vampires (eg. two 3 caps, three 2 caps etc). > I would also add the > condition "once per game". It's still painful, but the selection of > targets becomes much more limited. And one Delaying Tactics will make > the card useless, just like it does for Political Stranglehold etc. A nice cavaet. > It's not a perfect solution, and I think there may not be a perfect > solution... but this may be preferrable to simply banning the card > altogether. I agree.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > >MASTER: > >Society of Leopold. > > Which must be played on an empty vampire to burn them -- otherwise the > vamp will be locked down forever, or will move it himself. AND requires > a Master phase action, which are typically stronger than action cards. I also think that this card has become less strong with the most recent expansions. Life in the City, Corporal Reservoir, and maybe The Coven, since it is now more common than it was. I suspect also that Hunting Grounds are more commonly played than in the past. All these cards will let a vampire escape the burning effect of Society of Leopold and possibly transfer it to someone else, which makes SoL a risky proposition. I still play with it, but I'm a lot more nervous about it than I used to be. > There are no cards which are useful against political decks, other than > blocking the action or having more votes. Or beating up the vampires > before they can call the votes. Which seems fair to me, since most vote decks do require a lot of setup. Most vote decks seem to me to have a potent ousting method but also tend to be very fragile. So their strength is appropriately balanced by their weakness. I play a lot of vote decks, and the card I am always most afraid of is Immortal Grapple. Much moreso than Delaying Tactics. In fact, I would say that for most vote decks, Immortal Grapple may be the best anti-vote card available :) > Because there is no adequate defense other than blocking the action or > having more table votes yourself. Do you feel that there should be better ways available to counter votes? It seems the designers agree judging by Black Hand, but I'm not sure how effective the new cards are for this. Vox Senis is interesting, but inferior to Direct Intervention. And putting it into play (rather than discarding it) is putting far more trust in the competency of the other players than I am often prepared to do. There are plenty of methods to stop votes, but most of them require so much focus that they are simply not worth it. I mean, having an Irregular Protocol, Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion and Vox Senis in your hand will stop even the most determined vote decks. But if you have 4 cards in your hand to stop a vote, that's 4 cards that you're not using to oust someone. This is much less cost-effective than stopping a bleed with a single Deflection or stopping a rush with a single Obedience. Cheers, WES

"Jim Parker" <jack...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > It's true that a PTO will significantly hurt that type of > > deck much moreso than a weenie-midcap deck, but is there a reason why > > this should be the case? > > No. Good point. > > > If anything, I'd like to see the opposite > > effect with weenies and midcaps being the ones targeted, as they start > > out with a significant advantage. > > Yes. One thing I don't really understand about a lot of the older vote cards is that they seem to favour weenie votes. For example, why are we limited to playing one Ancient Influence per game when a weenie vote deck can play multiple Autarkis Persecution? How is a fattie vote deck gaining 5 pool per turn is any more problematic than a weenie vote deck gaining 15 pool per turn? I am not so much wishing that Ancient Influence was not "once per turn" as I am thinking that many other vote cards maybe *should* have been. Obviously, these problems (if they are indeed problems) are due more to flaws/oversights in the initial game design. I suspect a lot of the original playtesters did not conceive of a weenie vote deck, if the 7/7 rulings were any indication. Political Stranglehold came later, and that was also once per game... and now we have Reins of Power. Maybe a few more that I am forgetting. While I am whining... what a different game this would be if vampires under 5 capacity couldn't become princes/justicars/etc... The capacity condition for Fee Stakes make a certain amount of sense really. How I wish that Praxis Seizure and Justicar cards had been made with similar conditions. Granted, these have not been serious problems, at least not since ye olde vote-push days, but they still kinda bug me. Legbiter is currently about to run right over me in a JOL game with an Autarkis Persecution based weenie vote deck. And ironically, I am playing Arika PTO sleaze, so I can't say that I have lost any respect for him :) Cheers, WES

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... > Protect Thine Own > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > Only playable once per game. I think I could live with that. G

>One thing I don't really understand about a lot of the older vote cards >is that they seem to favour weenie votes. For example, why are we >limited to playing one Ancient Influence per game when a weenie vote >deck can play multiple Autarkis Persecution? Um...IC deck banishes or PTO's all of its prey's vampires. *Each* Ancient Influence nets it +6 pool and its prey loses 5 pool. That's an 11 pool swing *each time* you call it. Halcyan 2

>Oh, I agree. I think all the ways to burn a ready vampire outside of >combat - in fact, even a good number of the ones *in* combat - were >probably a bad idea. At least as bad for the game as original >Temptation of Greater Power or Hostile Takeover. Hey Josh! Don't forget the awesome power of Tradition Upheld. Die Caitiff, die! Halcyan 2

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote > While I am whining... what a different game this would be if vampires > under 5 capacity couldn't become princes/justicars/etc... The capacity > condition for Fee Stakes make a certain amount of sense really. How I > wish that Praxis Seizure and Justicar cards had been made with similar > conditions. For some reason, I really like your analysis about game designers unable to see what weenies could do to the games if they manage to get the vote lock. That's what a capacity limitation to become prince/justicar would have been a good thing. But the capacity condition for Fee Stake is a bit harsh since it represents a young 'rebel' vampire seizing a city : I don't see the benefit for a 8 or 9 cap of becoming an Anarch baron (removable title) instead of a prince/justicar/cardinal depending on his sect. I don't think it's too late to impose that rule, but it should have been done in Camarilla Edition, with something like : -titles : vamp of capacity less than 4 cannot bear a title, or something along those lines. > Granted, these have not been serious problems, at least not since ye > olde vote-push days, but they still kinda bug me. They are still doing well in tournaments, especially against decks full of fatties.

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Um... that's hardly as easy as it sounds is it? You are assuming an investment of at least one 11-cap vampire who takes an action to Banish/PTO each vampire controlled by its prey, and then other vampires to call each Ancient Influence. This also assumes that you have sufficient stealth/vote control to pass all these votes and are not rushed into the ground or what-have-you before you call all of these votes. Surely this scenario doesn't happen too often where you play? I've seen it happen occasionally, but not often enough that your comments make any sense within the context of the point I raised. You will note that I also mentioned that it would make more sense if *both* Ancient Influence and Autarkis Persecution (and similar cards) had the same "once per game" condition. You seem to have missed that part. I am asking why the elder votes get screwed when the weenie votes do not. You can take a look at the JOL game I was referring to if it helps you see what I mean... Cheers, WES

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote > We've gotten an excellent vote defense card in the last set. But you > can only play 1 per game. Some more versatile vote defense probably > couldn't hurt. But it may or may not stop PtO consistently. They only > have to get 1 through. you're talking about the Vox Thingumajig ? Come on, it's crap. Better put another Direct Intervention in your deck . It will not sit there as a wasted slot.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >Delaying Tactics (yes it is very adequate, although it "just" delays PTO > >one turn). > > DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have > you seen stopped by a single DT? When I build a political deck, my only > thought of DT's existence is to make sure I put a wide variety of votes > in, not just 16 KRC's. Of course, that's good strategy ANYWAY, even if > DT didn't exist. > > Either you can play one every turn, or you only DELAY the process. Delaying Tactics is very good, and i'm sure you know why. A lot of votes require a good timing to be effective (kindred restructure, Parity Shift) or can be called once a game (reins of power, political stranglehold). If you delay the stuff, then it will never happen again. Or everyone will know there is a Kindred restructure about to go and will play accordingly -try to oust his prey right away or rush the voter to stop him... It's also good when you are about to be hit by the same vote (KRC) thrice in a turn. A few delaying tactics can make you have a nice game (not being robbed of your prey, pto-ed cross table for a deal, ruined by a stranglehold that gives you 6 to your prey and nothing to you...). You can't regret having DT's in your deck, ever. Don't forget what the discard phase is for. =)

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote > But the capacity condition for Fee Stake is a bit harsh since > it represents a young 'rebel' vampire seizing a city : I don't see the > benefit for a 8 or 9 cap of becoming an Anarch baron (removable title) > instead of a prince/justicar/cardinal depending on his sect. Yeah, it's rather ironic that the *Anarchs* of all sects have an age restriction on their titles, whereas the other sects don't seem to care. If anything, the Anarchs would be the ones who wouldn't care. The Camarilla would actively *stop* young vampires from becoming too powerful politically, unless perhaps they were pulling a "Volker". Isn't it one of the signs of Gehenna that a Caitiff becomes a Prince... or something like that. Fanboy, are you listening? If so, I defer to you :) The Sabbat could have powerful but relatively young vampires (and Ezekiel is one of them in the books), but the sect also tends to be made up of mostly young vampires anyway, with a smattering of older powerful vampires... in other words, there isn't much of a middle class. Most Sabbat vampires wouldn't live long enough to become anything more than a Bishop. (I realize most people don't care about the theme of the game, but it is interesting for some...) Cheers, WES

> Keeping in mind however, that the Camarilla (when PTO was printed) > relied upon the titles and politics to keep parity with the sabbat, > which had all the good vampires. That's why we see Parity Shift v. > Transfer of Power. 5th v. Blood Feast. PTO v. Sacrifice. etc. FYI, Protect Thine Own was printed in Ancient Hearts which was before the Sabbat went into print. So the arguement that PTO was used to keep Cam=Sabbat doesn't hold water as PTO was printed before the Sabbat > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > than I am willing to admit.) I would have to agree with the arguement that if PTO was widely availible to all 10 caps then it would be vastly broken. As it is now there are only 7 vampires in the game that can use it at full power. In fact, if it was widely availible to 10+ caps, I don't think that a reasonable cost could be placed on it. Could you imagine the havoc that would occur if Augustus Giovanni could use it and then Daemonically Possess the burnt vampire back under control. No pool cost would be appropriate as you could just blast vampires out of existance and then bring them back under your control. The real problem as I see it probably isn't that an IC member can blast 60% of the vampires out of existance, but rather that Dimple, a 2-cap Nosferatu, can declare himself Nosferatu Justicar and then start tossing these around the table at the understrength version. That is where PTO truely makes its mark. It grossly defies the bleed/bleed defence, combat/combat defence, politics/political defences that the game is based upon. Even if you bleed me for 8, if I have managed my pool properly I will survive, or if you enter combat with me and knock myself into torpor then I can rescue myself, and political cards which have a high opportunity cost tend to be more powerful even with Political Flux, or Kindred Restructure (which I have problems with) you still don't actually lose "purchased" resources. PTO on the other hand infact denies you the basics that separate this game from Magic. Specifically, I am talking about land denial. In Magic, if you are not able to play a land on your first turn, then in effect you lose. VTES on the other hand does not have lands. VTES has transfers. PTO can effectively deny you your first three turns of transfers which is in effect putting you three turns behind the rest of the table. You lose. It is a one card trump. It is broken. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:607fd93.03123...@posting.google.com... <snip> > PTO on the other hand infact denies you the basics that separate this > game from Magic. Specifically, I am talking about land denial. In > Magic, if you are not able to play a land on your first turn, then in > effect you lose. VTES on the other hand does not have lands. VTES > has transfers. PTO can effectively deny you your first three turns of > transfers which is in effect putting you three turns behind the rest > of the table. You lose. It is a one card trump. It is broken. > It is not, just because many times it happens to faces cammies - only decks. That is, almost one - third of those times you'll find no effective use for a PTO, or, at least, no so effective to deem it broken. Still not counting all the politic-hosers around (above all, the recent very powerful Vox Domini). regards Emiliano

Joshua Duffin wrote: > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > vampire" without regard to sect? Don't forget that doing so would increase the power of the card by removing the main opportunity cost - a single card for all sects (as suggested above) would allow a player to play Arika with Sutekh and burn any vampire on the table. If you really want to do a fair taste test for the other sects, you'd have to make separate cards, one for the Independents and one for the Sabbat, that mimic PTO's effect for the Camarilla. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> It is not, just because many times it happens to faces cammies - only decks. > That is, almost one - third of those times you'll find no effective use for > a PTO, > or, at least, no so effective to deem it broken. > Still not counting all the politic-hosers around (above all, the recent very > powerful Vox Domini). I fail to see why I would stick in this Master Out of Turn in favor of a Direct Intervention. Now of course if you want to talk about cards that may be broken, DI is on top of my list, while PtO is somewhere at the bottom. I personally think the fact that there are 7 vamps in the game that can play it at full power is limited enough. I kinda like the alternative that allows you to burn X point of capacity, but that would make it yet another weenie hoser, while in fact all this card does is shut down one trick decks that rely on a single big vampire. It would change the whole nature of the card. It might be worth looking at a "any player may pay X pool to make this referendum fail". Or what about: "PtO can only be called once against every vampire". That would make DT a solid defense against it and wouldn't turn PtO into wallpaper. Do you have problems with a Justicar playing the card and burning your 5 cap? Sure, it sucks, but then again, so does a bleed for 6, for which you don't even need a justicar. As long as I don't see decks with this card win table after table and screw deck after deck after deck, I don't see it as broken. As long as I see people play with Deflection, Conditioning and Govern the Unaligned (one of the best cards in this whole game; talk about broken....) instead of it, I won't whine about PtO. I'll say, again, using it crosstable to fuck someone else up just because you can, is a sign of poor play IMO and it should stop. So, I can burn my Predator's Lazverinus with it. Sounds ok to me. I mean, that dude is a serious threat to your deck as he'll probably torporize both your Arika and Queen Anna every turn without you being able to do a lot about it except load your deck with Obediences and even then Queen Anne is toast. Oh no, wait, I'm supposed to leave him there and let him have a good time with my Vampires. Don't think so. If he's so afraid of PtO, he'd better pack some intercept. He has superior Auspex, no? Hell, I think fat guy politics is a very viable deck, BECAUSE OF the very existance of PtO. How would your Lazverinus multirusher look at a fattie politics deck if PtO was banned? It would be like a speedbump....

Wes wrote: > Obviously, these problems (if they are indeed problems) are due more to > flaws/oversights in the initial game design. I suspect a lot of the > original playtesters did not conceive of a weenie vote deck, if the 7/7 > rulings were any indication. If you refer to the vote push problem, perhaps they did. The original Jyhad rulebook was vague at best and possibly restrictive on vote pushing. > While I am whining... what a different game this would be if vampires > under 5 capacity couldn't become princes/justicars/etc... The capacity > condition for Fee Stakes make a certain amount of sense really. How I > wish that Praxis Seizure and Justicar cards had been made with similar > conditions. Note also that Of Noble Blood has a capacity restriction (as do the Sabbat title-bestowers, except for the Priscus one (which requires a Cardinal) and the Crusades (probably for parity with the Praxes)). [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes <gh...@nyetspammnsi.net> wrote: : "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote : to call each Ancient Influence. This also assumes that you have : sufficient stealth/vote control to pass all these votes and are not : rushed into the ground or what-have-you before you call all of these : votes. PTOs tend also to sit in your hand when your influenced Arika is put rushed and put into torpor by a 4-cap POT before she can say "How about a Prot..". And promptly eaten by any weenie in the table while rest of the table cheers. It's also fun to get intercepted by a Tzim and put into torpor hugging a Rotschreck. And for a second time after attempting to Freak and crawl up from torpor. Delaying Tactics is also awfully funny after an Awe. Calling a PTO takes a great initial investment, which may very well go down the drain if something nasty happens. And when it does, you've just wasted at worst 11 pool and three rounds worth of transfers. Of course, when things dont suck for the IC deck and Grationos and Caileans go down in flames, it's awfully fun but so is passing KRC and ousting your prey. //T

> Ulugh appears to have some bias against such decks, which I don't fully > understand. It's true that a PTO will significantly hurt that type of > deck much moreso than a weenie-midcap deck, but is there a reason why > this should be the case? If anything, I'd like to see the opposite > effect with weenies and midcaps being the ones targeted, as they start > out with a significant advantage. I don't think you read that right. I was merely stating the fact that decks that rely on a fattie are simply to vulnerable to vampire hosers. All multirushers are shut down by a single Sens Dep and Seeds of Corruption also shuts them down pretty much. Not even mentioning Pentex Subversion. > But PTO is like making a combat card that says "Strike: Bleed your prey > for 5". It's just wrong. Not even close. You can't compare the setups. Contrary to what people believe, getting out Arika, having enough stealth and votes to pass the PtO AND having a viable target that ALSO puts YOU in a better situation than before is not that easy. Usually the best target is your predator as he's had 3-4 turns of free reign on you while you were getting Arika out. > > You are wrong. I happen to know because I emailed LSJ specifically > about > > the criteria for "brokeness". For one thing, an element that reduces > the > > game to a shambles would be a valid candidate for broken, even if it > > loses, or totally randomizes the winner. If that are the criteria for a card to be broken, then why isn't Anarch Revolt fixed yet? There's many cards that can reduce a game to shambles. AR is the most prevalent, but Deflection can accomplish the same at times. I'm not buying it. > When someone rushes and kills my vampire, it hurts my game but > ultimately I am still having fun. When someone bleeds me out, I have no > problem offering a handshake in congratulations. When someone PTO's my > vampire, I feel robbed. Maybe not a definition of broken, but still. When some Gangrel weenie rusher aggrevates my only vampire to torpor in turn 3 and amaranths it just because I didn't have a Majesty in my opening hand I feel robbed as well. Definately not a defination of broken, even though in the above example my game is over. > > That's begging the question. I would say not many people play them in > > tournaments because the potential players know the potential targets > > will be few, because people are (rightly) concerned about wasting > their > > time being a tool to a broken card. That's why the Giovanni and Lasombra too first places in the last storylines of course. Non Cammies are so underplayed and weak because of the existance of PtO. I'm sure. By the way, Ravnos took second in the Eye of Hazimel. They are right that targets are few. Who plays with 8-9-10 caps anyway? Maybe in some fun-game, where powerbleed, weenie rush and PtO are out of place anyway, but in competitive environments? > I would also say that a lot of the also-rans in said tournaments may > have been using PTO. Whether it wins or not is immaterial to whether it > is an unfair card or not. I've seen plenty of times when a PTO has > destablized a table but not actually garnered a win for the PTO'er. Same > thing with Baltimore Purge and Anarch Revolt by the way. And bounce, just to add another. Do you people realize (I'm sure you do), how extremely bad someones whole game can get fucked up JUST BECAUSE some dom guy decided to bounce that bleed for 7 at 3 stealth to you? > > They don't have the same chance. Cam vampires, the kings of the hill, > are > > perfectly safe. Aside from better titles and options beloning to that, I fail to see how Cams are "kings of the hill". Anything non-political is better played with non-cammies because of the better discipline spread. Barring 2nd/3rd tradition decks. Rush decks are almost always Sabbat or a mix. Bleeders? Gogo Sabbat. They have DOM obf more often and in smaller caps than the cams. > I've been bled out hundreds of times. Is bleeding broken? No. Bleeding is the core of the game. The fact that bounce exists and that intercept is still too reactive and has a high opportunity cost, combined with the fact that stealth is easier to generate than intercept, bleeding is somewhat screwed up atm. > I've had vampires burned in combat hundreds of times. Is combat broken? > No. Combat actually is quite strong and combat defenses are less than adequate to say the least. The only thing rushers lack is ousting power, which is why it's relatively uncommon in competitive games. > I've had my one-trick-pony Howler burned by a single cross-table PTO. Is > PTO broken? I think so, yeah. Of all vampires, howler could have blocked it, no?

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:j414vvgh0kn835ue7...@4ax.com... > In message <3FF174FA...@ono.com>, > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> mumbled something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > > > >> Yes, I know it's picking on the specific example and not the general > >> case. But in this case, it serves to point something up -- combat is > >> where vampires get burned, NOT actions. > > > >There are several actions (or cards) that burn vampires: > > After the vampires have been sent to torpor in combat, you mean. > > OR through an elaborate setup of numerous other cards such as 238797 > Shadow Twins, There is no 238797 capacity vampire :-P > Free States Rant + Foul Blood, etc. Or Daring the Dawn, Day Operation. [...] > See above. 95% of vampires reach torpor during combat. 4% send > themselves there in some fashion. Probably :-) But I think Daring the Dawn and Day Operation would increase the "in some fashion" 4%. [...] > >And there are other non-combat ways to send vampires to torpor: > > > >Baltimore Purge > > Which is just as broken/disruptive as PTO. Do you really think so? Do you think that Baltimore Purge's effect is comparable to Protect Thine Own's? Do you think both cards are at the same level of "brokenness"? > >Kiss of Ra > > If you're that worried about it, don't block. Well, if you are that worried about PTO, don't play non-Camarilla clans. >:-P [...] > >> There are only two adequate defenses against a PRE-based political deck > >> which has been built to pass its votes. > > > >What do you mean with "adequate"? >:) > > Everything else is ass. Why? How to deal with political decks is your decision to make. There are currently many ways for you to defend against politics, among which you can choose. > >There are other "adequate" defenses such as: > > > >Kindred Coercion > > This does not work against Arika and Queen Anne unless you are also > playing with 10-caps who have superior Dominate. See "not older than" > text on the card. I know, and I have successfully played this card against PTO (both with Huitzilopochtli and with Nefertiti). I needn't change Alexandra's votes, but the votes of other vampires voting in that referendum. > >Pulling Strings > > Requires superior Dominate and needs help from table votes in order to > make a vote fail -- often is just pissing in the wind. It depends on how many votes there are on the table, of course. > >Dread Gaze > > Not even as good as Pulling Strings. Yep, but this card is not to be underestimated when no one has the vote lock and referenda pass by 1 vote or 2 (when they do). > >Delaying Tactics (yes it is very adequate, although it "just" delays PTO > >one turn). > > DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have > you seen stopped by a single DT? Many. Specially when they are my prey and rely on Consanguineous Boon for pool gain, or when they are my predator and rely on Kine Resources Contested as offensive stuff (i.e, no political actions variety). Delaying a political action may save you if your deck has means to avoid that critical political action to be called again (e.g., via combat, other poltical actions, Sensory Deprivation, Pentex Subversion, etc.) > When I build a political deck, my only > thought of DT's existence is to make sure I put a wide variety of votes > in, not just 16 KRC's. Of course, that's good strategy ANYWAY, even if > DT didn't exist. Agreed. But DT still works anyway. Nobody has always the perfect hand at the perfect table. > Either you can play one every turn, or you only DELAY the process. Or your deck does something else in addition to playing Delaying Tactics, as I mentioned above. > >> Daring the Dawn handles the first. If I must rely on #2, then I am > >> limited to playing ONLY great big vampires with lots of votes. What if > >> I want to make a Christopher Houghton Anarch deck? The Anarch makes him > >> vulnerable to PTO, but he's a superb Firebrand... > > > >In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy > >combat in my decks? > > Cards which are useful defense against Immortal Grapple (maneuvers, say) > are also useful defense against many other combat strategies, not just a > single card. But what if I don't like having to include maneuvers in my Ventrue political deck to deal with Immortal Grapple? I prefer relying on Majesty, which is a far better card >:-) So you mean that I have to include maneuvers or prevention cards in my deck to deal with a single card: Immortal Grapple? That card is therefore overpowered. :-P > There are no cards which are useful against political decks, other than > blocking the action or having more votes. Or beating up the vampires > before they can call the votes. Or playing Vox Domini (once per game on a critical vote), or Direct Intervention, or ousting the political Methuselah... And what other new means against political decks do you suggest? > >Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to > >defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not > >use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, > >but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. > > See above. I don't underestimate the defense, I just recognize that the > current means to defend are inadequate. Either you have the table > votes, or the table votes are friendly to you, or you block the action, > or you take it up the ass from a *REAL* political deck. If they can be effective often, they are adequate. The problem is that people prefer to defend against bleed and not against politics (as I already said). [...] > >> Pentex can and will be removed. The example from the EC where nobody > >> removed Pentex was a sequence of horrible misplays on the table's part. > > > >If any of the players had removed the Pentex on Arika, Arika's controller > >would have surely ousted Jay (at least). > > There WAS a correct time to remove the Pentex -- handing ANYONE a VP > like that is pretty shoddy play, especially an Auspex intercept deck > that can get the last 2 VPs easily, but will have trouble getting the > first. > > Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not > read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an > intercept wall? No, I did not read it, but I have just read it now. Very interesting indeed. ;-) Greetings, Damnans

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:MPG.1a5b6ec51...@news.optonline.net... > In article <3FF174FA...@ono.com>, damna...@ono.com says... [...] > > There are other "adequate" defenses such as: > > > > Kindred Coercion > > Which sucks. Prove it sucks :-) Have you ever tried to play with it?. [...] > > In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or heavy > > combat in my decks? > > Because combat is a fairly common archetype. That's subjective, since it depends on metagames. > And combat != PtO. Combat > may or may not burn a vampire (some decks don't care if you burn, they > just want you in torpor), but they REQUIRE MORE THAN A SINGLE CARD TO DO > IT. And the defenses are much more robust. You mean that you don't need more than a single card to burn a vampire via PTO? I heard someone saying something about Awe, Daring the Dawn, and IC member, the vote lock... >:-) > > Why do people underestimate defense against political decks). The cards to > > defend you against such decks are there for you to use. If you do not > > use them, it's your problem. Note that they are not only useful against PTO, > > but against Banishment, KRC, Parity Shift, etc. as well. > > Because they (for the most part) suck. Dread Gaze is countered by > playing a Bewitching Oration. Kindred Coercion doesn't work on Inner > Circle members (or large vampires in general) unless you're playing one > of your own. Or unless you are playing Augustus Giovanni, Ur-Shulgi, or Ezmerelda ;-) Note that you do not always need to force the IC member to abstain or vote as you choose. You could force other voting vampires to do so. [...] > Bleed defense is almost always good > because you're almost guaranteed to be bled over the course of a game, > even if no "bleed" decks are on the table (even if it's just for 1). Agreed. > Combat defense is good because you can almost always get into combat > over the course of a game, even if there are no combat decks on the > table (get blocked or block an action). Vote defense isn't good because > you may not get hit with any votes worth stopping. And even if you do > and have the proper cards, they may not _work_. As Derek as already pointed out, blocking is a good defense against political decks. > Pulling Strings and > Irregular protocol can stop a single vampire's votes, but they may have > more voters or Ventrue Headquarters, etc. Or they can just let that > vote fail and call another one. I have yet to see a Kindred Coercion > actually work. Orpheus could tell you if it works >:-) During the EC or the Spanish Qualifier (can't remember now), he got ousted when he called a vote and someone played Elder Kindred Network + Kindred Coercion. > > There are several strategies to win in V:TES. One of them is politics, > > so why not should you include vote defense in your deck? Because > > you prefer to deal with combat, or bleed? ;-) > > How often do you actually put Pulling Strings in a deck? I prefer Kindred Coercion and Direct Intervention and/or Delaying Tactics (depending on the deck I play). Greetings, Damnans

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:MPG.1a5be5dae...@news.optonline.net... > In article <bsstd4$2is$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... [...] > > I count a total of 4 (3, if you want) and that excludes the vote itself. I > > surely can burn a vampire in combat with 3 cards, barring the actual > > rush. > > There is no "sure" burning a vampire in combat. As well as there is no sure burning a vampire via Protect Thine Own. [...] > > If you can't deal with PtO, you also > > can't deal with Parity Shify, KRC, Cons Agi, Domain Challenge and every > > other vote that screws you. > > Those cause pool loss. Pool loss is what ousts you. > Your vampire resources are unaffected and can > attempt to block/rush/vote against these votes. They cannot do anything you have no pool left. [...] > > PtO just happens to be a very powerful vote > > card, given the correct circumstances, just like Mayapayaterfhdi is a > > very strong combat card IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. > > Where correct circumstances for PtO = "having an inner circle member in > play and a target for it". Mayawhatever requires you to get in to > combat, get to long range, successfully hit with it, etc. Much more > setup involved. Not to mention going to torpor != burned. Not to mention PTO is a political action that can only be effectively called by 7 vampires in the game. It must be voted (after no one has blocked it). [...] > > I agree, which is why Sens Dep has no restrictions at all and is Directed. > > Making PtO only able to target prey and predator would put it, IMO, on > > par with Sens Dep. > > Sense Dep doesn't have inherent stealth, costs 3, doesn't outright burn > the vamp. As does not PTO, since it must be voted. [...] Greetings, Damnans

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: 1 blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting > vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any > Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn > that vampire. > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? An IC is vampire Sarah Brando, Jimmy Dunn and Victor Tolliver are a vampire An IC can hunt, block, bleed So can the gang of three. But the gang of three can block or hunt thrice (and probably for 6 blood) An IC can play an action a turn, the gang can play three An IC can be burnt easily in one combat (if some bugger whines about combat defence, he's welcome to have his vote deck properly rushed in Paris), the gang needs three combats to burn . Apart from the fact that they can help themselves out of torpor and be somewhat moredangerous in combat than the IC. Both cost 11 pool. So why on earh would you play the 11_cap ? Perhaps because he has the option to make actions at least as efficient as three actions by the gang. The gang can easily torporize three vamps with three actions, so I don't see any problem with an IC burning one instead. The only fix I could approve would be, for an IC : burn up to two vampires non camarilla with capacity less than 6. And nothing else, certainly no stupid "once per game". As if embrace or thin-blood seer could be played only once per game. Once again, show me thenumerous PtO winning decks.

On 30 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > > > Cameron, still unable to prove PTO is broken, not for lack of trying. > > > > You did win a tournament with a 14-PTO deck once, didn't you? > > Yeah, but for every time I've won (twice now I think, once was to > small to be reported) there are also times I've choked with the deck. > (camarilla weenie PRE as a predator, pot rush combat, preying on > nossies, etc.) No deck works every time. That's not surprising. Ever seen weenie dom fall flat? It happens to the worst of us. :) > > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > > vampire" without regard to sect? > > I'd say that something along the lines of Cardinal: burn 5 or below > non-sabbat, Regent burn an non-sabbat. Not sure how the indy clans > would get it (and it would only be a settite card anyway, as I still > haven't managed Ravnos vote.) It's a lot harder to get a Regent (Sabbat War rare) in play than it is to get an Inner Circle member in play. I used to have this Goratrix gets Regent deck...well, best not to bring that disaster up. > Keeping in mind however, that the Camarilla (when PTO was printed) > relied upon the titles and politics to keep parity with the sabbat, > which had all the good vampires. That's why we see Parity Shift v. > Transfer of Power. 5th v. Blood Feast. PTO v. Sacrifice. etc. Protect Thine Own was printed in Ancient Hearts, before any Sabbat vampires were in print (and while independents were still mostly crap, especially the larger ones). Seems like at the time it was printed it was a lot less disruptive. Anyone influencing Patrizia Giovanni into play is going to lose, PTO or no. :) By the way, in my estimation Parity Shift is a LOT stronger than Transfer of Power. I do agree that the Sabbat often have better vampires, but that doesn't necessarily make up for the strength of Protect Thine Own vs. the trick-deck-only Sacrifice or all-powerful Parity Shift vs. virtually unplayed Transfer of Power. But back to the point I was making, it doesn't seem like the designers of Protect Thine Own intended for the card to be able to burn 2/3 of all printed vampires since only a small minority of vampires (many of them quite bad) were vulnerable to it at the time of original printing. That suggests brokenness, I think. > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > than I am willing to admit.) Agreed that PTO isn't a sure game winner. What it is though, and the reason I think people dislike it so much, is a sure game loser for anyone basing a deck on a large non-Cam vampire. Adding a pool cost to PTO wouldn't make much difference, IMO, although it would be harder to run a deck with 14 of them. The DC playgroup doesn't toss around much PTO. I think that's because we're all somewhat fond of running large non-Cam vampires (Lazverinus, Sascha Vykos, Spider Killer, Ankla Hotep, Nu, Synesios and many others have made appearances in recent games). Let that genie out of the bottle and we'll all suffer a bit. That also suggests brokenness. Matt Morgan

In article <bsus89$1ikds$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>, bel...@ono.com says... > > > Kindred Coercion > > > > Which sucks. > > Prove it sucks :-) Have you ever tried to play with it?. Yep. > > > In addition, why should I include cards against Immortal Grapple, or > > > heavy combat in my decks? > > > > Because combat is a fairly common archetype. > > That's subjective, since it depends on metagames. Fair enough. > You mean that you don't need more than a single card to burn a vampire via > PTO? > > I heard someone saying something about Awe, Daring the Dawn, and IC member, > the vote lock... >:-) Well, IC member's a given, since they're the ones that can call it. But no, in its purest form, if nobody manages to block, PtO will burn a vampire with a a single card. It has +1 stealth and you start with 5 votes on it. > > Because they (for the most part) suck. Dread Gaze is countered by > > playing a Bewitching Oration. Kindred Coercion doesn't work on Inner > > Circle members (or large vampires in general) unless you're playing one > > of your own. > > Or unless you are playing Augustus Giovanni, Ur-Shulgi, or Ezmerelda ;-) How often does this actually occur? > Note that you do not always need to force the IC member to abstain or > vote as you choose. You could force other voting vampires to do so. If they're of the proper age and they're actually voting. And if there's enough votes to even make it worthwhile. > As Derek as already pointed out, blocking is a good defense against > political decks. Yep. But blocking's a good defense against just about any kind of deck. > Orpheus could tell you if it works >:-) During the EC or the Spanish > Qualifier (can't remember now), he got ousted when he called a vote > and someone played Elder Kindred Network + Kindred Coercion. Ha! Amusing, but unfathomably rare. > I prefer Kindred Coercion and Direct Intervention and/or Delaying > Tactics (depending on the deck I play). I absolutely adore Delaying Tactics, but I find it's best used in decks with more, smaller vamps than ones with fewer larger vamps. DI's not really a good answer to anything, since its the universal answer. And I really have yet to see a KC actually work. -- -Snapcase

In message <3ff2c13e$0$3086$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have >> you seen stopped by a single DT? When I build a political deck, my only >> thought of DT's existence is to make sure I put a wide variety of votes >> in, not just 16 KRC's. Of course, that's good strategy ANYWAY, even if >> DT didn't exist. >> >> Either you can play one every turn, or you only DELAY the process. > >Delaying Tactics is very good, and i'm sure you know why. It DELAYS things. It's not an effective counter by itself, though. >A lot of votes require a good timing to be effective (kindred restructure, >Parity Shift) or can be called once a game (reins of power, political >stranglehold). If you delay the stuff, then it will never happen again. Or While I do put those votes in my deck, I never build the deck to rely on them. It's a situation where "If this PS comes up around mid- to late- game, I will gain 9 pool. If not, oh well". The actual ousting portion of my deck doesn't rely on timing and won't be stopped by DT. It might not even be delayed for a turn... just an action. >him... It's also good when you are about to be hit by the same vote (KRC) >thrice in a turn. A few delaying tactics can make you have a nice game (not Careless deckbuilding? Again, multiple damage votes are easy enough to put in the deck -- KRC, Con. Ag, Domain Challenge, Anarchist Uprising, Ancilla Empowerment, etc. Failure to do so leaves one open to this sort of thing. Even without DT's existence there's a good reason to do so -- KRC is the baseline. Con Ag is more damage and more vulnerable to game position. Domain Challenge can "protect" weak players since you can warn them off after your prey's discard phase. Anarchist Uprising kicks weenie decks in the nuts and can often be 5 pool damage even to a NON-weenie deck, ...never a bad thing. mmm... flexibility. >being robbed of your prey, pto-ed cross table for a deal, ruined by a >stranglehold that gives you 6 to your prey and nothing to you...). You can't >regret having DT's in your deck, ever. Don't forget what the discard phase >is for. =) I always regret having more than 2 DTs in a deck. And with only 2 DT in a deck, you can't rely on having it in hand to stop a political deck, even at the few key junctures a political deck will HAVE -- therefore it's no defense. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.03123...@posting.google.com>... > > Keeping in mind however, that the Camarilla (when PTO was printed) > > relied upon the titles and politics to keep parity with the sabbat, > > which had all the good vampires. That's why we see Parity Shift v. > > Transfer of Power. 5th v. Blood Feast. PTO v. Sacrifice. etc. > > FYI, Protect Thine Own was printed in Ancient Hearts which was before > the Sabbat went into print. So the arguement that PTO was used to > keep Cam=Sabbat doesn't hold water as PTO was printed before the > Sabbat Yeah I realized that about 15 min. to late. D'oh. Will now backtrack and say it wasn't printed to keep them in check, but it was given a similiar sabbat card, representing the less profound nature of sabbat politics. Further, when it was printed the targeting restrictions were really really small, so the metagame considerations on its use would have been even greater. Since that time as more non-cam's have been printed it becomes a better card. > > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > > than I am willing to admit.) > > I would have to agree with the arguement that if PTO was widely > availible to all 10 caps then it would be vastly broken. As it is now > there are only 7 vampires in the game that can use it at full power. > In fact, if it was widely availible to 10+ caps, I don't think that a > reasonable cost could be placed on it. Could you imagine the havoc > that would occur if Augustus Giovanni could use it and then > Daemonically Possess the burnt vampire back under control. No pool > cost would be appropriate as you could just blast vampires out of > existance and then bring them back under your control. The idea that it should be open to all vamps is to say "how'd you like it if you got yours?" on the part of the pto-able. I agree NEC PTO is annoying, having made it. > The real problem as I see it probably isn't that an IC member can > blast 60% of the vampires out of existance, but rather that Dimple, a > 2-cap Nosferatu, can declare himself Nosferatu Justicar and then start > tossing these around the table at the understrength version. That is > where PTO truely makes its mark. I'd disagree, the blood cost, and need to pass a vote that the table truely abhores usually reqires (IME) more and larger titles. > It grossly defies the bleed/bleed defence, combat/combat defence, > politics/political defences that the game is based upon. Even if you > bleed me for 8, if I have managed my pool properly I will survive, or > if you enter combat with me and knock myself into torpor then I can > rescue myself, and political cards which have a high opportunity cost > tend to be more powerful even with Political Flux, or Kindred > Restructure (which I have problems with) you still don't actually lose > "purchased" resources. Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things prevent me from using my vampire. True PTO is a vote, but it's not the only way to burn a vampire in the game, and it has restrictions on its use that bleed/combat don't have. Just like they have restrictions that it doesn't have. > PTO on the other hand infact denies you the basics that separate this > game from Magic. Specifically, I am talking about land denial. In > Magic, if you are not able to play a land on your first turn, then in > effect you lose. VTES on the other hand does not have lands. VTES > has transfers. PTO can effectively deny you your first three turns of > transfers which is in effect putting you three turns behind the rest > of the table. So does brainwash, (after the fact) Pentex Subversion, the HoS who can burn uncontrolled, combat that burns the new vampire... am I missing anything? vampires are a strong resourse but they are destroyable. That's why so much of decks is centered around keeping them alive. Worried about PTO? pack ways to defeat votes, just like you pack ways to deal with combat, bleed, intercept, etc. > You lose. It is a one card trump. It is broken. It isn't a one card trump. It kills some but not all of the vamps in the game. It requires an 8-11 cap to play out of the gate or set up to call a justicar vote. It requires ways to pass the vote to burn, ways to call the vote sucessfully, ways to protect your vampire, and ways to oust after you've called it. You can deal with the table if you see it. You can deal with the caller if they'll let you (let me oust this camarilla deck in front of me and I'll roll to you.) You can make sure you can't be targeted. It is strong. Likely undercosted. Hard to play well. But not broken. Cameron

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<bsuouj$1d9i4$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Your use of "effective" is entirely subjective. I find that the odds of sitting at a five-player table where there is not a single non-Cam vampire in play to be miniscule. In fact, as entirely allegorical data, I have not been on one of those tables in several years. I can't even remember the last time I was. The facts are that there are just too many good non-Cam vampires to not see any in play. Players will play PTO crosstable as a "look-ahead" vote against their grandprey when they have their prey on the ropes. All that aside, the fact that PTO eliminates the vampire, the remaining pool invested, and the amount of transfers equal to its capacity overpowers the card to the point of brokenness. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > There are plenty of methods to stop votes, but most of them require so > much focus that they are simply not worth it. I mean, having an > Irregular Protocol, Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion and Vox Senis in > your hand will stop even the most determined vote decks. But if you have > 4 cards in your hand to stop a vote, that's 4 cards that you're not > using to oust someone. This is much less cost-effective than stopping a > bleed with a single Deflection or stopping a rush with a single > Obedience. Wes, I fail to see the meaning of that comparision. just flip this around to read: But if you have 4 cards in your hand to stop a bleed, that's 4 cards that you're not using to oust someone. This is much less cost-effective than stopping a Vote with a single Vote trump card or stopping a rush with a single Obedience. Any time you have 4 dupliate cards in your hand that your not using, is simply bad. To prevent the PTO one only needs a single card in hand, the others can and should be discarded. The effectiveness of IP'ing a PTO is greater than defelecting a big bleed, so you want to hang onto that sort of card until you have determined the Threat level of your opponents. Raille

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Um...IC deck banishes or PTO's all of its prey's vampires. *Each* Ancient > Influence nets it +6 pool and its prey loses 5 pool. That's an 11 pool swing > *each time* you call it. You mean the *One* time you call it. Ancient Influence has a 1 per game clause. Raille

In message <bsurah$1lock$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje >news:j414vvgh0kn835ue7...@4ax.com... >> See above. 95% of vampires reach torpor during combat. 4% send >> themselves there in some fashion. > >Probably :-) But I think Daring the Dawn and Day Operation would >increase the "in some fashion" 4%. I think it's probably close to that, actually. Lots of vamps go to torpor in the course of a game; usually more closer to the end, from strike-hands-for-1 off a hunt, etc. >> >Baltimore Purge >> >> Which is just as broken/disruptive as PTO. > >Do you really think so? Do you think that Baltimore Purge's effect >is comparable to Protect Thine Own's? Do you think both cards >are at the same level of "brokenness"? Absolutely. As stated elsewhere, Baltimore Purge means "Don't play with 10-caps that are any good", because when that deck sits down with you, they will be GONE. Cross table, take your pick. Not to mention that BP disrupts a table horribly, as everyone immediately begins focusing on diablerizing everyone else or rescuing their own guys. It FORCES you to play the BP deck's game, because your guys are in torpor and can't do anything else. >> >Kiss of Ra >> >> If you're that worried about it, don't block. > >Well, if you are that worried about PTO, don't play non-Camarilla clans. Not even in the same ballpark, as you are WELL aware. >> >> There are only two adequate defenses against a PRE-based political deck >> >> which has been built to pass its votes. >> > >> >What do you mean with "adequate"? >:) >> >> Everything else is ass. > >Why? How to deal with political decks is your decision to make. There are >currently many ways for you to defend against politics, among which you >can choose. And they are all ass. >> >There are other "adequate" defenses such as: >> > >> >Kindred Coercion >> >> This does not work against Arika and Queen Anne unless you are also >> playing with 10-caps who have superior Dominate. See "not older than" >> text on the card. > >I know, and I have successfully played this card against PTO (both with >Huitzilopochtli and with Nefertiti). I needn't change Alexandra's votes, >but the votes of other vampires voting in that referendum. And you were playing 10-caps with superior Dominate, as I pointed out in the first place. Maybe I don't WANT to play with 10-caps with superior Dominate? Should all those vampires who don't have it just be garbage then? You had damn well better change Alexandra's votes, because she'll have 9 after she plays Bewitching Oration on it. There aren't going to be 10 votes on the table for you to grab in most games. The card is great if you are playing your OWN IC deck. But then, if you have your own IC deck out, you probably don't NEED vote defense from a card -- you've got a ton of votes yourself. >> >Pulling Strings >> >> Requires superior Dominate and needs help from table votes in order to >> make a vote fail -- often is just pissing in the wind. > >It depends on how many votes there are on the table, of course. Way too unreliable and, as a result, ass. >> >Dread Gaze >> >> Not even as good as Pulling Strings. > >Yep, but this card is not to be underestimated when no one has the vote >lock and referenda pass by 1 vote or 2 (when they do). But this doesn't make it any less unreliable and ass. >> DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have >> you seen stopped by a single DT? > >Many. Specially when they are my prey and rely on Consanguineous Boon >for pool gain, or when they are my predator and rely on Kine Resources >Contested as offensive stuff (i.e, no political actions variety). In other words, if they have built a shit deck. >Delaying a political action may save you if your deck has means to avoid >that critical political action to be called again (e.g., via combat, other >poltical actions, Sensory Deprivation, Pentex Subversion, etc.) And your opponent's deck surely has the means to defend against that, too. Hoping things turn out OK in the future is really an assy way to go, honestly. >> When I build a political deck, my only >> thought of DT's existence is to make sure I put a wide variety of votes >> in, not just 16 KRC's. Of course, that's good strategy ANYWAY, even if >> DT didn't exist. > >Agreed. But DT still works anyway. Nobody has always the perfect hand >at the perfect table. But I see DT fail a lot more often than it works. It has more usefulness in killing critical modifiers (Awe, etc) than it does in getting rid of the vote -- someone who was hoping to Voter Cap -that turn-, for example. Besides, if I'm sticking enough DT in my deck to reliably have it when I need it, I'm clogging up space that I might want to use for other prayer cards that could actually help my offense. >> Cards which are useful defense against Immortal Grapple (maneuvers, say) >> are also useful defense against many other combat strategies, not just a >> single card. > >But what if I don't like having to include maneuvers in my Ventrue political >deck >to deal with Immortal Grapple? I prefer relying on Majesty, which is a far >better >card >:-) So you want to be able to just play one card for ALL your combat defense and win. I see. >So you mean that I have to include maneuvers or prevention cards in my deck >to deal with a single card: Immortal Grapple? That card is therefore >overpowered. :-P So you mean that I have to include Immortal Grapple, Psyche!, or multiple Rush actions in my deck in order to deal with a single card: Majesty? That card is therefore overpowered :P This door swings both ways and has no bearing on the original issue, which is that there IS no adequate vote defense card. >> There are no cards which are useful against political decks, other than >> blocking the action or having more votes. Or beating up the vampires >> before they can call the votes. > >Or playing Vox Domini (once per game on a critical vote), or Direct >Intervention, or ousting the political Methuselah... Attempting to use the "Because Direct Intervention exists, Protect Thine Own isn't broken" argument just proves my point even more. >And what other new means against political decks do you suggest? That's a subject for a different thread. I have some ideas. >> See above. I don't underestimate the defense, I just recognize that the >> current means to defend are inadequate. Either you have the table >> votes, or the table votes are friendly to you, or you block the action, >> or you take it up the ass from a *REAL* political deck. > >If they can be effective often, they are adequate. The problem is that >people prefer to defend against bleed and not against politics (as I >already said). They are not effective often. On the contrary, they are almost never effective in stopping the political deck; the only one which even sees a minimal amount of success is Delaying Tactics, and that just DELAYS it. People choose to defend against bleed because bleed is a no-brainer: you will see bleed decks 100% of the time. Some deck at your table will have "bleed my prey" as its means of ousting. There is no such guarantee with vote or combat; in fact, I think seeing each is equally likely at this point, with combat slightly higher. >> Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not >> read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an >> intercept wall? > >No, I did not read it, but I have just read it now. Very interesting indeed. >;-) I found it highly amusing as well, personally. =) -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

>Subject: Re: How to Fix Protect Thine Own >From: Raille rai...@mich.com >Date: 12/31/03 1:32 PM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <0fa07b7c76e6848d...@news.teranews.com> [ quoted text not captured ] I am well aware of that. If you look carefully, you will note that I was responding to a post which suggested allowing Ancient Influence to be called more than once per game. Halcyan 2

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Wes wrote: > Yeah, it's rather ironic that the *Anarchs* of all sects have an age > restriction on their titles, whereas the other sects don't seem to care. I think this follows from Fee Stake being an action, as opposed to a political action, moreso than from thematic reasons. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.031231...@fnord.io.com>... > On 30 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > > > > > Cameron, still unable to prove PTO is broken, not for lack of trying. > > > > > > You did win a tournament with a 14-PTO deck once, didn't you? > > > > Yeah, but for every time I've won (twice now I think, once was to > > small to be reported) there are also times I've choked with the deck. > > (camarilla weenie PRE as a predator, pot rush combat, preying on > > nossies, etc.) > > No deck works every time. That's not surprising. Ever seen weenie dom > fall flat? It happens to the worst of us. :) Yeah, but a totally broken combo (like RTI) didn't have this problem. Hence the "I've actually played a deck based in most part upon PTO. It didn't work all the time." > > > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > > > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > > > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > > > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. If that were > > > done, should "new PTO" burn "a vampire not of the acting vampire's sect > > > of capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire's capacity is above 10, > > > any vampire not of the acting vampire's sect", or just "any below 6, any > > > vampire" without regard to sect? > > > > I'd say that something along the lines of Cardinal: burn 5 or below > > non-sabbat, Regent burn an non-sabbat. Not sure how the indy clans > > would get it (and it would only be a settite card anyway, as I still > > haven't managed Ravnos vote.) > > It's a lot harder to get a Regent (Sabbat War rare) in play than it is to > get an Inner Circle member in play. I used to have this Goratrix gets > Regent deck...well, best not to bring that disaster up. I'm just looking for a costing mechanism that would work with Justicar/IC, Cardinal/Regent is the closest thing the Sabbat has AFAIK. Sure regent isn't great, and hard to get. But PTO was for a long time too. > > Keeping in mind however, that the Camarilla (when PTO was printed) > > relied upon the titles and politics to keep parity with the sabbat, > > which had all the good vampires. That's why we see Parity Shift v. > > Transfer of Power. 5th v. Blood Feast. PTO v. Sacrifice. etc. > > Protect Thine Own was printed in Ancient Hearts, before any Sabbat > vampires were in print (and while independents were still mostly crap, > especially the larger ones). Seems like at the time it was printed it was > a lot less disruptive. Anyone influencing Patrizia Giovanni into play is > going to lose, PTO or no. :) Yeah I saw this in Norms post. > By the way, in my estimation Parity Shift is a LOT stronger than Transfer > of Power. I do agree that the Sabbat often have better vampires, but that > doesn't necessarily make up for the strength of Protect Thine Own vs. the > trick-deck-only Sacrifice or all-powerful Parity Shift vs. virtually > unplayed Transfer of Power. This is my point. In general the Camarilla only votes/actions are better than the sabbat only votes/actions. I'm not surprised that PTO is better than Sacrifice in this circumstance. It's just like Parity shift is better than ToP. > But back to the point I was making, it doesn't seem like the designers of > Protect Thine Own intended for the card to be able to burn 2/3 of all > printed vampires since only a small minority of vampires (many of them > quite bad) were vulnerable to it at the time of original printing. That > suggests brokenness, I think. It was poorly costed at the time. Although when they designed everything sense, PTO existed so it had to be considered when making the power of the vampires. And its power had to be considered when it was chosen for reprint in the Ventrue starter. That would have been the time to fix it if it was so broken. > > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > > than I am willing to admit.) > > Agreed that PTO isn't a sure game winner. What it is though, and the > reason I think people dislike it so much, is a sure game loser for anyone > basing a deck on a large non-Cam vampire. Adding a pool cost to PTO > wouldn't make much difference, IMO, although it would be harder to run a > deck with 14 of them. Again, it sucks, but it's no more a game loser than 11 cap of pot weenies and a haven uncovered. One of them will get through, disarm you and eat you. 7 vampires, 3 of which are good, and one of which is unplayable can call this vote to burn any non-camarilla. and its not a sure game loser. Ask dave b. he sits next to me with his assamites all the time (so to speak) when I'm playing this deck and while he rarely gets game wins, he does get VP's a lot. If you meet your foil, and you can offer it something, a good player will except that. > The DC playgroup doesn't toss around much PTO. I think that's because > we're all somewhat fond of running large non-Cam vampires (Lazverinus, > Sascha Vykos, Spider Killer, Ankla Hotep, Nu, Synesios and many others > have made appearances in recent games). Let that genie out of the bottle > and we'll all suffer a bit. That also suggests brokenness. I play a lot of non-cam's that are big (viva the lasombra), PTO hasn't stopped that. I see Assamite decks every freaking time I play. The Giovanni are everywhere, and yet PTO exists. Why do these decks continue to be played? Because PTO hurts them but a smart player can get through the adversity. Life is suffering. If PTO is broken, play it and prove it. Saying to me that we don't play it, b/c we think its broken is the same as telling me that no one plays malk S+B because its cheese. Fine, but you lose the right to comment on how playable and powerful it is. I know several players that hate PTO, and feel that it's overpowered, wrong, and evil. They've played against it, lost vampires to it, and still have this feeling. I can accept that, it's their informed opinion. I disagree that it's broken, but I can't fault them for their feelings in the matter. But if you want to have a horse in this race, play PTO and find out if its broken. ok, the end of that came off a bit over the top on the anger scale. But i'm not rewriting it as i must now go to newyears. Cameron "Fucking PTO" - Dave B. (aramis)

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I'm repeatedly seeing people mention that it's very easy to pass a PtO > with help from Forgotten Labyrinth, Elder Impersonation and a Bewitching > Oration. Is it just me or is that also more than a single card? I count > a total of 4 (3, if you want) and that excludes the vote itself. I > surely can burn a vampire in combat with 3 cards, barring the actual > rush. It is relevant that PTO only *requires* itself. +1 stealth action, five votes for it. It only requires extra cards to the degree that those inherent properties are countered. Really, the best argument to my mind against PTO is that there is a limit to how much of a swing in the game state one card should generate, which PTO exceeds. In any case, asserting that you can *surely* burn a vampire with 3 cards is naive. > If I have a bunch of Obediences and Majesties in my deck and happen to > have non combat predators and preys, those cards are also useless. Of Snapcase already addressed this, so I'll just add that I agree. Combat happens with every block, and blocks happen in every game. The opportunity cost for those cards is basement-level. > I know that tournies tend to be pretty light on combat, so you see decks > that pack like 3-4 majesties and 2 obediences. Which decks are those? I'm more familiar with 8 Majesties being the staple, and far many more copies of Obedience than you could sanely play with any other card, specifically *because* the opportunity cost is low i.e. they are quite playable to good effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I personally think the fact that there are 7 vamps in the game that can > play it at full power is limited enough. But they are commonly played vampires, with a slew of benefits completely beside the ability to play PTO. Still large vampires, still riskier than playing weenies or even mid-caps, but obviously good *enough* given their proclivity compared to other vampires of even lesser capacity. > As long as I don't see decks with this card win table after table and > screw deck after deck after deck, I don't see it as broken. That's because you've demonstrated that you don't understand what broken is. Of course you don't see a problem. > As long as I > see people play with Deflection, Conditioning and Govern the Unaligned > (one of the best cards in this whole game; talk about broken....) > instead of it, I won't whine about PtO. Deflection is a problem, dominate is a problem, but they are problems for other threads. The fact that they are directed, zero stealth actions that don't preferentially target two sects out of three (and yes, there are of course many cards that target some -- not all -- vampires, but the effect is the distinction) make them less of a problem. > I'll say, again, using it crosstable to fuck someone else up just > because you can, is a sign of poor play IMO and it should stop. No, taking cross-table actions is not inherently poor play, but it can be. Often, sophomoric players make poor decisions with the right intentions, and even the best players can have their plans go south due to unforseen changes in the game state. The problem is with the magnitude of the effect, aggrivated by its undirected nature. > So, I > can burn my Predator's Lazverinus with it. Sounds ok to me. This sums up the problem nicely. > I mean, that > dude is a serious threat to your deck as he'll probably torporize both > your Arika and Queen Anna every turn without you being able to do a lot > about it except load your deck with Obediences and even then Queen Anne > is toast. Without devolving down into specifics, there are many more options available to QA and Arika to avoid getting their head ripped off by Laz than a target of PTO, nevermind getting it lobbed at you cross-table. > Oh no, wait, I'm supposed to leave him there and let him have > a good time with my Vampires. Don't think so. If he's so afraid of PtO, > he'd better pack some intercept. He has superior Auspex, no? Sure he does. And we all know transient intercept trumps transient stealth, and that votes start at -1 stealth. I conceed. > Hell, I think fat guy politics is a very viable deck, BECAUSE OF the > very existance of PtO. How would your Lazverinus multirusher look at a > fattie politics deck if PtO was banned? It would be like a speedbump.... By "Fat Guy Politics" you of course mean "IC", since you avail yourself of the PTO argument. IC's are quite viable without the vote, as I'm sure an inspection of the TWD would show. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > All multirushers are shut down by a single Sens Dep and Seeds of > Corruption also shuts them down pretty much. Not even mentioning Pentex > Subversion. But they have the option of playing Secure Haven, which is luckily more than a trump against one card, cloggin your hand otherwise. There is no card that compares to PTO; it is in a class by itself. Appealing to PTO-like effects is simply demonstrating that you either do not understand the card, or (more likely) wish to ignore elements that are inconvenient to your argument. > Not even close. You can't compare the setups. Contrary to what people > believe, getting out Arika, having enough stealth and votes to pass the > PtO AND having a viable target that ALSO puts YOU in a better situation > than before is not that easy. We can only speak to our own experiences. In mine, meeting each of these criteria is easy, and luckily each element you satisfy buttresses other unrelated effects i.e stealth for other actions, votes for other votes. > Usually the best target is your predator > as he's had 3-4 turns of free reign on you while you were getting Arika > out. I don't know of anyone who intends to field several large vampires that doesn't also intend to enhance their influences with Zillah's, Info, and (unrelated to your example, I know), govern down-like effects. Sometimes they suffer from a poor draw, but it is disengenuous to assume the deck will be so slow in the setup. Even so, the magnitude of effects such a deck is likely to generate tend to make up for lost time. > If that are the criteria for a card to be broken, then why isn't Anarch > Revolt fixed yet? There's many cards that can reduce a game to shambles. > AR is the most prevalent, but Deflection can accomplish the same at > times. You'd have to ask Scot. Were it up to me, both AR and Deflection would be *banned*. Yes, I know banning is bad, and I know it's extreme. Nonetheless, it is what I would do. > I'm not buying it. Then you are being obstinate. It is a *fact*, barring some malicious spoofer messing around with my or Scott's email. Auto-stomping tables is not the criteria for brokenness; it is too restrictive a definition. As I said before, I don't know what the real definition is, in all its nuances, but that one, sir, most certainly is not it. > That's why the Giovanni and Lasombra too first places in the last > storylines of course. Non Cammies are so underplayed and weak because of > the existance of PtO. I'm sure. By the way, Ravnos took second in the > Eye of Hazimel. Storylines are limited format, and a poor source upon which to draw analogies to the regular tournament game. They also have a definite emphasis on fun play, and a larger tournaout of casual players IME. Therefore, I disregard any argument you make wrt PTO based upon storyline results. > They are right that targets are few. Who plays with 8-9-10 caps anyway? > Maybe in some fun-game, where powerbleed, weenie rush and PtO are out of > place anyway, but in competitive environments? Perhaps someone less lazy than I will pull the data from the TWD to refute this. I think you will find the majority of those 8-10 caps end up being Camarilla vampires, but I could be wrong about that. If people *do* play with vampires of those capacities, but *don't* play with the non-Cam ones, that should say something about imbalance in the game, of which the existence of PTO is one part. > And bounce, just to add another. Do you people realize (I'm sure you > do), how extremely bad someones whole game can get fucked up JUST > BECAUSE some dom guy decided to bounce that bleed for 7 at 3 stealth to > you? Yes, Dominate possessing both mega-bleed, bounce, and Obedience, is a problem. Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:58 +0100, "Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote: >Do you have problems with a Justicar playing the card and burning your 5 >cap? Yes. Closed Session. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Halcyan was responding to someone who said that AI should be once per turn, because its effect is comparable to weenie-Autarkis-Persecution. --Colin McGuigan

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] What I mean is that when you compare the three different legs of the V:tES table, votes are the hardest to stop of the three. A bleed is effectively stopped with a Deflection (stopped for *you* anyway) and a rush is countered by Obedience among other cards. But a vote deck is to my mind harder to stop and requires more resources available to do so. It's true that the same could be said for some defenses against bleed or combat also. I could be hoarding intercept and wakes for bleeds or maneuvers, FOR prevention cards for combat etc. But it's much easier to keep a Deflection ready than it is enough cards to *stop* a PTO. Delaying Tactics, as has been mentioned, only delays the inevitable. And yet DT is still considered the best vote defense by most people. If a vote deck is stopped by a single Irregular Protocol, than I have to ask how good that vote deck really is. Now, keep in mind that I don't play a very reactive game generally. I want all *seven* of the cards in my hand to be ousters, directly or indirectly. The best counter against most types of decks IMO is to oust them before they get their engine going. Cheers, WES

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote > > I am well aware of that. If you look carefully, you will note that I was > responding to a post which suggested allowing Ancient Influence to be called > more than once per game. No, you were not. You may want to reread my post. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, I missed that, its a rather long thread. ;) sheesh, to think some one would actually want to allow AI to be unlimited. Raille

> Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my > vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things > prevent me from using my vampire. At a cost of cosiderable card usage. Looking at PTO purely in terms of pool swing -- burning Ezmerelda or Sutekh would be a 11-pool bleed equivalent. How do you do that in a single action as a bleed? Inner Circle w/Pulse plays conditioning, modified by Command of the Beast and Conditioning? Two actions, four cards. Compared to one for PTO. Cost to pull off above combo: five blood. Cost to pull of PTO, 1 blood. Yes, but there's a vote involved, you say? Bear in mind that the IC member calling the vote can also play a modifier that shuts all potential targets of PTO from the referendum (Closed Session). >True PTO is a vote, but it's not the only way to burn a vampire in the game, It's the only way to do so to a vampire with a significant capacity with only one card. Other effects (Out of Control, Toy Chest Test) have a maximum capacity that the card can effect. > So does brainwash, (after the fact) Which you get back if you convince an ally to remove it for you, or if you get out another minion to do it yourself. And if you look like an easy VP for your predator, your grandpredator may be easily convinced to help you stand up afterwards just to avoid dealing with the six extra pool. >Pentex Subversion, Burnable. You get the time back once it's removed. It also costs considerably more to play than PTO (2 pool vs 1 blood). A subverted minion you can get back. A Brainwashed minion, you can get back. You can't get PTO back short of Necromancy. >the HoS who can burn uncontrolled, If Gisela empties herself to burn a minion, you're out 2 turns of transfers. You get the pool back, you lose no buildups, unless the minion had been banished, and if it has more than 8 pool on it, it's untouchable. Not NEARLY an equivalent. >combat that burns the new vampire... Card intensive, likely blood intensive as well. Even the hand strike for one, prevent your damage, disarm, decapitate combo costs two blood and four cards. Compare to one card, one blood for PTO. >am I missing anything? Toy Chest Test, Anisa Lopez both burn weenies. Out of Control (burns low-capacity Brujah) Sensory Deprivatioin (expensive, you get the minion back if the acting minion goes away) Reality (the target can get rid of it) Summary: All the effects are either temporary, require many cards, expensive, or unrealistic, or some combination thereof. PTO is none of these. > vampires are a strong resourse but they are destroyable. > That's why so much of decks is centered around keeping them alive. > Worried about PTO? pack ways to defeat votes, just like you pack ways > to deal with combat, bleed, intercept, etc. Pack X card or anti-X card. Thank you for verifying that PTO needs to be changed by stripping it down to this very-accurate statement. > It requires ways to pass the vote to burn, If you're playing it to full effect, you already have four votes. If you're playing politics (and if you're packing PTO, you probably are), then you have the push in your hand. That you can shut the target -- all targets, actually, from the referendum via Closed Session actually makes this a non-issue. One card, and now, it only effects 2/3 of the table, but only the other 1/3 can vote. > ways to call the vote sucessfully, Forbidden Labyrinth can be played by at least three of teh vampire who can call it. Several cards can make the action unblockable. Stealth exists in great quantities for most of the IC members. Not an issue. >ways to protect your vampire, and Not an issue if you've just burned the threat. > ways to oust after you've called it. Very easy if you've burned their key minion with a single card. >You can deal with the table if you see it. Not if Closed Session has been played and only the caller has Cam votes. >You can deal with the caller if they'll let you (let me > oust this camarilla deck in front of me and I'll roll to you.) "Nah, you'll be an easy VP, so I'll get him myself. After all, I'm burning you main vamp, there's not much you can do." >You can make sure you can't be targeted. You have just admitted that as long as PTO exists as it is, 2/3 of the vampires printed are unplayable in a tournament environment. >Hard to play well. If you only have one IC member in your crypt, sure. Most decks that use IC members pack multiple copies, though (usually 3 or 4) to make sure they come up. Once that requirement is met, it's a cakewalk, usually. Fanboy

"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> wrote > >You can make sure you can't be targeted. > > You have just admitted that as long as PTO exists as it is, 2/3 of the > vampires printed are unplayable in a tournament environment. Yeah, sure. Read your statement again ! Why not try to quit V:tes and play another card or board game then ??

On 31 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > > No deck works every time. That's not surprising. Ever seen weenie dom > > fall flat? It happens to the worst of us. :) > > Yeah, but a totally broken combo (like RTI) didn't have this problem. > Hence the "I've actually played a deck based in most part upon PTO. > It didn't work all the time." RTI was long gone when I started playing VTES. It sure looks like it was broken, but did it win every single game? Didn't people play with Deflections or Archon Investigations back then? Seems like bouncing a bleed of 14 to one's prey is a sure ticket to VPsville. > I'm just looking for a costing mechanism that would work with > Justicar/IC, Cardinal/Regent is the closest thing the Sabbat has > AFAIK. Sure regent isn't great, and hard to get. But PTO was for a > long time too. I think that in this hypothetical "PTO for the rest of us" scenario going based on capacity is probably the best plan, even though that means you'd have to put skill cards on your Sabbat 10-caps as they don't go to 11. I also think PTO wouldn't be printed by the current design team and there's no way indies & Sabbat are getting one. > > By the way, in my estimation Parity Shift is a LOT stronger than Transfer > > of Power. I do agree that the Sabbat often have better vampires, but that > > doesn't necessarily make up for the strength of Protect Thine Own vs. the > > trick-deck-only Sacrifice or all-powerful Parity Shift vs. virtually > > unplayed Transfer of Power. > > This is my point. In general the Camarilla only votes/actions are > better than the sabbat only votes/actions. I'm not surprised that PTO > is better than Sacrifice in this circumstance. It's just like Parity > shift is better than ToP. And Archon is better than Templar. Camarilla have much better votes than Sabbat. I'm not sure if that justifies the strength of PTO especially when it means you also get to have Arika in play. :) > > But back to the point I was making, it doesn't seem like the designers of > > Protect Thine Own intended for the card to be able to burn 2/3 of all > > printed vampires since only a small minority of vampires (many of them > > quite bad) were vulnerable to it at the time of original printing. That > > suggests brokenness, I think. > > It was poorly costed at the time. Although when they designed > everything sense, PTO existed so it had to be considered when making > the power of the vampires. Maybe. Was it around/played much before the reprint? Seems like not so much since you thought it had been first printed in CE. > And its power had to be considered when it > was chosen for reprint in the Ventrue starter. That would have been > the time to fix it if it was so broken. Or the time to not reprint it if it hadn't been available enough to really be disruptive. Yes, that's a strong argument that the design team feels the card isn't a problem. > > Agreed that PTO isn't a sure game winner. What it is though, and the > > reason I think people dislike it so much, is a sure game loser for anyone > > basing a deck on a large non-Cam vampire. Adding a pool cost to PTO > > wouldn't make much difference, IMO, although it would be harder to run a > > deck with 14 of them. > > Again, it sucks, but it's no more a game loser than 11 cap of pot > weenies and a haven uncovered. One of them will get through, disarm > you and eat you. So it's not any worse than weenies, you say? Weenies aren't broken? > 7 vampires, 3 of which are good, and one of which is > unplayable can call this vote to burn any non-camarilla. Out of curiousity, which IC member do you consider to be unplayable? Gwen? > and its not > a sure game loser. Ask dave b. he sits next to me with his assamites > all the time (so to speak) when I'm playing this deck and while he > rarely gets game wins, he does get VP's a lot. If you meet your foil, > and you can offer it something, a good player will except that. So Dave B. usually loses when this card that doesn't make him lose is played? Granted there's almost always a way to accomplish something in VTES. That's one of the reasons it's such a good game. Even sitting ahead of a RTI deck wouldn't necessarily mean there's no way to score any VPs. That doesn't mean RTI isn't broken. > > The DC playgroup doesn't toss around much PTO. I think that's because > > we're all somewhat fond of running large non-Cam vampires (Lazverinus, > > Sascha Vykos, Spider Killer, Ankla Hotep, Nu, Synesios and many others > > have made appearances in recent games). Let that genie out of the bottle > > and we'll all suffer a bit. That also suggests brokenness. > > I play a lot of non-cam's that are big (viva the lasombra), PTO hasn't > stopped that. I see Assamite decks every freaking time I play. The > Giovanni are everywhere, and yet PTO exists. Why do these decks > continue to be played? Because most of us try to play something interesting and innovative a lot of the time. We don't want to play the same old stealth bleed or Ventrue law firm or EuroBrujah or whatever. At least that's true of most of the players I've met, especially the ones who have been around for a while. We want to win and be congratulated on our ingenuity. > Because PTO hurts them but a smart player can > get through the adversity. Also this. This is one of the reasons VTES is such a good game. It doesn't mean that a card isn't broken. I'm sure players occasionally survived RTI decks when that was around. > Life is suffering. Don't I know it! > If PTO is broken, play > it and prove it. How can I prove something that's that subjective? > Saying to me that we don't play it, b/c we think its > broken is the same as telling me that no one plays malk S+B because > its cheese. I didn't say we don't play it because we think it's broken. I said that I thought it was something of a Pandora's Box (or genie in a bottle or something) for us. That's just my take on why it isn't played around here (an environment in which it would probably be quite good). Other players in the area can speak up with their own opinions on the matter, of course. Example: we didn't use to play much Direct Intervention. Recently it's become popular and is now in most decks. That was another Pandora's Box. We opened it and now DI is something which must be considered when making a critical move. That's not necessarily bad, but it has changed the way we play. I think that an introduction (or not) of PTO into our regular games would be similar in a lot of ways (and probably make us play even more DI). Or maybe I've got it all wrong and the reason people don't play PTO is because it actually wouldn't be very good here. Yeah, we have our share of weenie decks. Most everyone runs at least one. > Fine, but you lose the right to comment on how playable > and powerful it is. Heh. I'm afraid I know my rights better than that, friend. > I know several players that hate PTO, and feel that it's overpowered, > wrong, and evil. They've played against it, lost vampires to it, and > still have this feeling. I can accept that, it's their informed > opinion. I disagree that it's broken, but I can't fault them for > their feelings in the matter. But if you want to have a horse in this > race, play PTO and find out if its broken. I don't really care to play a string of PTO decks as there are many other kinds of decks I'd like to try and not enough games to play them in. The real purpose of my initial post was to point out that PTO was first printed in a very different game environment than we have now. I don't think that point had been made. I haven't actually argued the card needs banning or errata. Honestly, I don't care for any of the errata suggested so far, so I guess I'm against that at least. > ok, the end of that came off a bit over the top on the anger scale. > But i'm not rewriting it as i must now go to newyears. Hope you had a good one. I'm soon off to my first VTES games of 2004! Matt Morgan

In message <3ff43b77$0$23563$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] If I really want to maximize my chances of winning ... in other words, SERIOUSLY play to win, not play to win with a cool deck that uses a new idea ... then I must remove as much variance as possible from my deck, and then tune it for consistent offensive performance. Most defense is unreliable -- the game is balanced so that offense will always beat out defense, and that is a good thing, as the game must end at some point. Though the chances of it happening to me are low by virtue of players' deck choices, the card will cause me to lose if it is played -- a huge variance swing. Since I can be sure that at least one deck in any serious tournament will include PTO (and probably more), to MAXIMIZE my chances, I must not even give it the opportunity to affect me. This rules out any non-Cam vampires above 7. Baltimore Purge's existence adds more fuel to this, though now I need to include all vampires above 7 as well; while my smaller guys could well get Grave Robbed, the odds of my having another vampire up to defend against this are high, as well as just plain having other vampires to use in case one goes away. Note that combat hasn't even entered into the equation yet. There are plenty of ways for big guys to defend themselves in combat, and some big guys (Lazverinus, Cailean, Goratrix) are much nastier in combat than any little wannabe Rusher could ever be. But I can't possibly build enough combat defense AND enough PTO/BP defense into my deck, even if we remove the possibility that someone will use it cross-table. Many people choose to simply include only the combat defense, banking on the fact that combat will be more likely seen than PTO/BP. However, the only logical answer to maximise one's winning chances is simply to not allow those cards to affect your game in a significant way, by not constructing your deck in such a fashion. I'm not talking about "win every game". I'm talking about maximizing your chances. Sure, big-vamp decks have won in the past and will do so in the future. But way, WAY more well-built big-vamp decks have lost than won... something I believe everyone on the newsgroup tends to forget when discussing what archetypes do well and what don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.040101...@eris.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@eris.io.com> mumbled something about: >On 31 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > >> > No deck works every time. That's not surprising. Ever seen weenie dom >> > fall flat? It happens to the worst of us. :) >> >> Yeah, but a totally broken combo (like RTI) didn't have this problem. >> Hence the "I've actually played a deck based in most part upon PTO. >> It didn't work all the time." > >RTI was long gone when I started playing VTES. It sure looks like it was >broken, but did it win every single game? Didn't people play with >Deflections or Archon Investigations back then? Seems like bouncing a >bleed of 14 to one's prey is a sure ticket to VPsville. That was the problem with the card. You either played Deflection or AI or both, or you died. And AI was a difficult-to-get rare card. So you had to include 12x Deflection and hope like hell you always had one in hand, because SOMEONE was going to be using the Big Kaboom. RTI is where the core "X or anti-X means the card is broken" argument was first proven. Either you played RTI, you played a means to defeat RTI, or you were GOING to lose because either the RTI deck would get you, or the anti-RTI deck would bounce the bleed to you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > RTI was long gone when I started playing VTES. It sure looks like it was > broken, but did it win every single game? Didn't people play with > Deflections or Archon Investigations back then? Seems like bouncing a > bleed of 14 to one's prey is a sure ticket to VPsville. The damage from RtI isn't a bleed, so Archon Investigation doesn't help unless they pump their bleed. You could bounce the bleed action, but RtI only takes effect if your prey was bled, so deflecting it isn't any worse than deflecting any other bleed. --Colin McGuigan

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bsvtb...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Excuse me, but even with english as my second language, i completely understood Halcyan's demonstration of the brutal force of Ancient Influence *if it could be called more than once in a game*. I think it was perfectly clear to anyone who bothered to read the thread from beginning to the end.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Colin McGuigan wrote: > The damage from RtI isn't a bleed, so Archon Investigation doesn't help > unless they pump their bleed. You could bounce the bleed action, but > RtI only takes effect if your prey was bled, so deflecting it isn't any > worse than deflecting any other bleed. The original text on RtI was a bleed. It was changed, and then even the watered-down version was banned. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Reyda wrote: > Yeah, sure. Read your statement again ! > Why not try to quit V:tes and play another card or board game then ?? You don't learn, do you? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:MPG.1a5cca44f...@news.optonline.net... > In article <bsus89$1ikds$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>, > bel...@ono.com says... [...] > > I heard someone saying something about Awe, Daring the Dawn, and IC member, > > the vote lock... >:-) > > Well, IC member's a given, since they're the ones that can call it. But > no, in its purest form, if nobody manages to block, And if the referendum is successful (i.e., if there are more votes for than, against), and if there is a non-Camarilla vampire in the game... > PtO will burn a > vampire with a a single card. It has +1 stealth and you start with 5 > votes on it. [...] Greetings, Damnans

texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my > > vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things > > prevent me from using my vampire. > > At a cost of cosiderable card usage. err. yeah. bums rush, undead strength, disarm, amaranth. 4 cards, used by a one cap vampire. Burns any vampire in the game without +1 strength or a built in additional or prevent. > Looking at PTO purely in terms of pool swing -- burning Ezmerelda or > Sutekh would be a 11-pool bleed equivalent. How do you do that in a > single action as a bleed? keeping in mind that your prey happened to have the 11 cap non-camarilla, and no one does anything to stand up to the vote, yes this can happen. > Inner Circle w/Pulse plays conditioning, modified by Command of the > Beast and Conditioning? Two actions, four cards. Compared to one for > PTO. > > Cost to pull off above combo: five blood. Cost to pull of PTO, 1 > blood. the combo works against ANY deck in the game. It is playable if your prey is all camarilla, all sabbat, or all pokemon cards. It gives you a permenant 5 bleed on a vampire, mitigating some of the blood cost. > Yes, but there's a vote involved, you say? Bear in mind that the IC > member calling the vote can also play a modifier that shuts all > potential targets of PTO from the referendum (Closed Session). I do bear in mind that its an IC. But your arguement that the IC shouldn't have good votes b/c they have access to votes is specious at best. Further, Closed Session? It stops the target from voting, but not any other camarilla decks at the table. Two princes and a primogen, a Justicar and a Prince, these things make closed session worthless. (As a note the PTO combo is now at two cards.) > >True PTO is a vote, but it's not the only way to burn a vampire in > the game, > > It's the only way to do so to a vampire with a significant capacity > with only one card. Other effects (Out of Control, Toy Chest Test) > have a maximum capacity that the card can effect. You're not using one card. We'll look at the count at the end of the thread. > > So does brainwash, (after the fact) > > Which you get back if you convince an ally to remove it for you, or if > you get out another minion to do it yourself. And if you look like an > easy VP for your predator, your grandpredator may be easily convinced > to help you stand up afterwards just to avoid dealing with the six > extra pool. Which should help you after losing 16 pool to weenie computer hacks... or not. > >Pentex Subversion, > > Burnable. You get the time back once it's removed. It also costs > considerably more to play than PTO (2 pool vs 1 blood). A subverted > minion you can get back. A Brainwashed minion, you can get back. You > can't get PTO back short of Necromancy. Again, you lose the minion at an important time, and are ousted, the minion may as well have been burned. > >the HoS who can burn uncontrolled, > > If Gisela empties herself to burn a minion, you're out 2 turns of > transfers. You get the pool back, you lose no buildups, unless the > minion had been banished, and if it has more than 8 pool on it, it's > untouchable. Not NEARLY an equivalent. but the vamp is gone. We're working in similiarities here. this type of action exists (like sacrifice. It's not PTO, but it does a similiar thing.) > >combat that burns the new vampire... > > Card intensive, likely blood intensive as well. Even the hand strike > for one, prevent your damage, disarm, decapitate combo costs two blood > and four cards. Compare to one card, one blood for PTO. I'm thinking amaranth with a weenie. since no one seems to be around to vote against the PTO you'll probably survive the blood hunt. > > vampires are a strong resourse but they are destroyable. > > That's why so much of decks is centered around keeping them alive. > > Worried about PTO? pack ways to defeat votes, just like you pack ways > > to deal with combat, bleed, intercept, etc. > > Pack X card or anti-X card. Thank you for verifying that PTO needs to > be changed by stripping it down to this very-accurate statement. I'm suggesting that if you don't pack vote defence it will bite you in the ass. I'm not suggesting the you pack an anti-PTO card. What is the anti-PTO card that it only works against PTO and not all other votes? When people design a deck do they totally and completely ignore vote defense? If I say you should worry about bleed and have a strategy in your deck to deal with it am I stating that you need ANTI-X to survive and thus bleed should be stripped down? No, I'm saying that you need to pull your head out of your ass, realize that this game includes cards that harm you via votes, and deal with that fact. > > It requires ways to pass the vote to burn, > > If you're playing it to full effect, you already have four votes. If > you're playing politics (and if you're packing PTO, you probably are), > then you have the push in your hand. That you can shut the target -- > all targets, actually, from the referendum via Closed Session actually > makes this a non-issue. One card, and now, it only effects 2/3 of the > table, but only the other 1/3 can vote. but that 1/3 has lots of votes, so how about a BO? (3 cards) > > ways to call the vote sucessfully, > > Forbidden Labyrinth can be played by at least three of teh vampire who > can call it. Several cards can make the action unblockable. Stealth > exists in great quantities for most of the IC members. Not an issue. (four cards) > >ways to protect your vampire, and > > Not an issue if you've just burned the threat. Cause arika can burn every threat to her in one turn? Heard of NRA? 2 vamps with pot behind me and one of them is living to see another turn. If they're both Camarilla both are. > > ways to oust after you've called it. > > Very easy if you've burned their key minion with a single card. um, with a combo of around 4 cards. they can still have more minions, table support, etc. > >You can deal with the table if you see it. > > Not if Closed Session has been played and only the caller has Cam > votes. And if you're the only player who has a turtle in your backpack, the game is taking place on the dark of the moon, and.... Your strawman becomes more and more blatent. Only the PTO deck can have camarilla votes, it's prey always only has non-camarilla vampires. No one at the table can do anything to prevent this card. > >You can deal with the caller if they'll let you (let me > > oust this camarilla deck in front of me and I'll roll to you.) > > "Nah, you'll be an easy VP, so I'll get him myself. After all, I'm > burning you main vamp, there's not much you can do." Proof you've never played the deck. <ad hominem attack here> > >You can make sure you can't be targeted. > > You have just admitted that as long as PTO exists as it is, 2/3 of the > vampires printed are unplayable in a tournament environment. I'm offering strategies if it appears in your metagame. Just like you do things if your metagame has lots of intercept. I'll just mosey on over to the winning deck archives and... Oh my god! It's full of non-camarilla decks. > >Hard to play well. > > If you only have one IC member in your crypt, sure. Most decks that > use IC members pack multiple copies, though (usually 3 or 4) to make > sure they come up. Once that requirement is met, it's a cakewalk, > usually. NO. Hard to play well to keep balance from slipping against you, to keep from stalling against a camarilla deck, to keep your vampires alive and well. See your statement above about dealing. Cameron PS. Oh, I'm sorry I just reread the Text on PTO. I must have missed the line there that says tap your 11 cap vamire to win, no vamires may block, vote against, or play reaction cards. Yep you're all right. It's broken.

> I'm not talking about "win every game". I'm talking about maximizing > your chances. Sure, big-vamp decks have won in the past and will do so > in the future. But way, WAY more well-built big-vamp decks have lost > than won... something I believe everyone on the newsgroup tends to > forget when discussing what archetypes do well and what don't. I think that the newsgroup is very aware of this. I do however, also believe, that PtO is not the reason for it. I'm also quite sure it isn't even a factor.

In message <bt221c$rmp$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, "Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> mumbled something about: >> I'm not talking about "win every game". I'm talking about maximizing >> your chances. Sure, big-vamp decks have won in the past and will do >so >> in the future. But way, WAY more well-built big-vamp decks have lost >> than won... something I believe everyone on the newsgroup tends to >> forget when discussing what archetypes do well and what don't. > >I think that the newsgroup is very aware of this. I don't. >I do however, also believe, that PtO is not the reason for it. I'm also >quite sure it isn't even a factor. Demonstrating my point excellently, whether or not this statement is true -- something which is QUITE up for debate. I guarantee you that nearly every PtO that has been successfully played on a big-vamp deck has caused it to lose -- with almost 100% of PtOs causing losses, it's a dead certainty that your statement is false, now, isn't it? However, this is a side issue to the original point: when it's so hard to play big vamp decks anyway, why give people a 100% logical reason not to play them? Better to throw out PtO and make big non-Cam vamps viable, increasing the variety of potential decks played. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:aj96vv8klg3cac32b...@4ax.com... > In message <bsurah$1lock$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>, > "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> mumbled something about: [...] > >Do you really think so? Do you think that Baltimore Purge's effect > >is comparable to Protect Thine Own's? Do you think both cards > >are at the same level of "brokenness"? > > Absolutely. As stated elsewhere, Baltimore Purge means "Don't play with > 10-caps that are any good", because when that deck sits down with you, > they will be GONE. Cross table, take your pick. > > Not to mention that BP disrupts a table horribly, Which PTO does not, because PTO's affects ONE non-Camarilla vampire, while Baltimore Purge affects 1 vampire per Methuselah. So both cards are not at the same level of "brokenness". > as everyone > immediately begins focusing on diablerizing everyone else or rescuing > their own guys. It FORCES you to play the BP deck's game, because your > guys are in torpor and can't do anything else. Which PTO does not. [...] > >I know, and I have successfully played this Kindred Coercion against > > PTO (both with Huitzilopochtli and with Nefertiti). I needn't change > > Alexandra's votes, but the votes of other vampires voting in that referendum. > > And you were playing 10-caps with superior Dominate, as I pointed out in > the first place. Maybe I don't WANT to play with 10-caps with superior > Dominate? Should all those vampires who don't have it just be garbage > then? They can block, for instance, or play Irregular Protocol instead. There are several valid choices available. > You had damn well better change Alexandra's votes, because she'll have 9 > after she plays Bewitching Oration on it. There aren't going to be 10 > votes on the table for you to grab in most games. There are other options such as Iron Heart. [...] > >> DT is really just a laugher, I'm sorry. How many political decks have > >> you seen stopped by a single DT? > > > >Many. Specially when they are my prey and rely on Consanguineous Boon > >for pool gain, or when they are my predator and rely on Kine Resources > >Contested as offensive stuff (i.e, no political actions variety). > > In other words, if they have built a shit deck. Shit is not a strategy in V:TES... so far >:-) What other pool gaining political action would you include in a deck based on controlling lots of vampires of the same clan? > >Delaying a political action may save you if your deck has means to avoid > >that critical political action to be called again (e.g., via combat, other > >poltical actions, Sensory Deprivation, Pentex Subversion, etc.) > > And your opponent's deck surely has the means to defend against that, > too. Hoping things turn out OK in the future is really an assy way to > go, honestly. But the acting vampire might have "wasted" an Awe (for instance), which he or she will not have on his or her next turn. [...] > >So you mean that I have to include maneuvers or prevention cards in my deck > >to deal with a single card: Immortal Grapple? That card is therefore > >overpowered. :-P > > So you mean that I have to include Immortal Grapple, Psyche!, or > multiple Rush actions in my deck in order to deal with a single card: > Majesty? That card is therefore overpowered :P Nope. I would rather say that Immortal Grapple works against: Majesty, Staredown, Catatonic Fear, Meld with the Land, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, Shadow Body, Preternatural Evasion, etc. as well as against any other strike: dodge or strike: combat ends (among other non-hand strikes). [...] > >And what other new means against political decks do you suggest? > > That's a subject for a different thread. I have some ideas. Would you mind posting them? >:-) I have also some ideas of my own. > >> See above. I don't underestimate the defense, I just recognize that the > >> current means to defend are inadequate. Either you have the table > >> votes, or the table votes are friendly to you, or you block the action, > >> or you take it up the ass from a *REAL* political deck. > > > >If they can be effective often, they are adequate. The problem is that > >people prefer to defend against bleed and not against politics (as I > >already said). > > They are not effective often. On the contrary, they are almost never > effective in stopping the political deck; the only one which even sees a > minimal amount of success is Delaying Tactics, and that just DELAYS it. BTW, Tzimisce (and other vampires with Vicissitude) can pretty deal with PTO, if blocking fails, since they can play Reform Body if they are being burned. Weenies don't care much about PTO, and decks with mid capacity vampires in their crypts (and which do not focus on a single vampire) don't suffer much from PTO (a card that a deck with IC members will not pack many of). > People choose to defend against bleed because bleed is a no-brainer: you > will see bleed decks 100% of the time. Some deck at your table will > have "bleed my prey" as its means of ousting. There is no such > guarantee with vote or combat; in fact, I think seeing each is equally > likely at this point, with combat slightly higher. Right. But the default bleed action has no inherent stealth. So you can just block it instead of bouncing it. > >> Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not > >> read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an > >> intercept wall? > > > >No, I did not read it, but I have just read it now. Very interesting indeed. > >;-) > > I found it highly amusing as well, personally. =) I will test an ANI + AUS wall deck tomorrow following the guidelines in your article, and see what happens >:-) Greetings, Damnans

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.040101...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Reyda wrote: > > > Yeah, sure. Read your statement again ! > > Why not try to quit V:tes and play another card or board game then ?? > > You don't learn, do you? two words : fuck off.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Reyda wrote: > two words : fuck off. Your language is appalling. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Better to throw out PtO and make big non-Cam vamps viable, increasing > the variety of potential decks played. More needs to be done than just throwing out PtO if big vamps have to be more viable. The newer vamps are a good start with their awesome specials, but it's not enough yet.

> > You have just admitted that as long as PTO exists as it is, 2/3 of the > > vampires printed are unplayable in a tournament environment. > > Yeah, sure. Read your statement again ! > Why not try to quit V:tes and play another card or board game then ?? That is a really silly statement. Apparently there are just too many VTES players in Paris. Do you really chase off players? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>RTI was long gone when I started playing VTES. It sure looks like it was >broken, but did it win every single game? Didn't people play with >Deflections or Archon Investigations back then? Seems like bouncing a >bleed of 14 to one's prey is a sure ticket to VPsville. One round of a tournament, in a 5 player, every player at my table was ousted with The Return to Innocence. Wasn't always the prey of the person bleeding with it. I vaguely recall having double digit pool, maybe as much as 14, when I was ousted with one or two bleeds. Responding to something else in this thread, namely the reason for playing bleed defense and/or combat defense in much greater proportion to vote defense, I looked at the 2003 winners in the TWDA recently and I don't want to go through every deck again to make sure about the precise numbers, but roughly: There are 114 decks. I count 25 that vote. I believe around 2 of the decks can reasonably oust without calling votes and without bleeding. That would leave 87 decks that will definitely bleed and some more that will bleed as well as vote. One in four and a half decks sounds low. Because these are only winning decks, the actual play environment may see a lot more vote decks. Bottom line: vote defense has a much higher opportunity cost than bleed defense. This is, BTW, why I'm likely to run DIs for vote defense over DT; they can always be used for something besides vote defense.

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote > > Excuse me, but even with english as my second language, i completely > understood Halcyan's demonstration of the brutal force of Ancient Influence > *if it could be called more than once in a game*. > I think it was perfectly clear to anyone who bothered to read the thread > from beginning to the end. From my post: "I am not so much wishing that Ancient Influence was not "once per turn" as I am thinking that many other vote cards maybe *should* have been." In retrospect, probably not the clearest sentence in the world... but it was there. I was really more curious as to why cards like Autarkis Persecution were *not* made playable once per game, and also lamenting the (likely unintentional) bias towards weenie vote decks. For the record, I do not want Ancient Influence to be made unlimited. Once per game is fine with me. I apologize for not being more clear about this. Cheers, WES

> > > Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my > > > vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things > > > prevent me from using my vampire. > > > > At a cost of cosiderable card usage. > > err. yeah. bums rush, undead strength, disarm, amaranth. 4 cards, > used by a one cap vampire. Burns any vampire in the game without +1 > strength or a built in additional or prevent. If I have a dodge or strike combat ends or if I block and have a manuever, then I still beat your 4 card combo. > > Looking at PTO purely in terms of pool swing -- burning Ezmerelda or > > Sutekh would be a 11-pool bleed equivalent. How do you do that in a > > single action as a bleed? > > keeping in mind that your prey happened to have the 11 cap > non-camarilla, and no one does anything to stand up to the vote, yes > this can happen. Ezmerelda 2 votes< Arika's 4 votes Does this make sense? > > Yes, but there's a vote involved, you say? Bear in mind that the IC > > member calling the vote can also play a modifier that shuts all > > potential targets of PTO from the referendum (Closed Session). > > I do bear in mind that its an IC. But your arguement that the IC > shouldn't have good votes b/c they have access to votes is specious at > best. Further, Closed Session? It stops the target from voting, but > not any other camarilla decks at the table. Two princes and a > primogen, a Justicar and a Prince, these things make closed session > worthless. (As a note the PTO combo is now at two cards.) An IC deck with Bewitching oration outvotes 4 princes or 2 justicars and a prince. That is alot of political power. > > > So does brainwash, (after the fact) > > > > Which you get back if you convince an ally to remove it for you, or if > > you get out another minion to do it yourself. And if you look like an > > easy VP for your predator, your grandpredator may be easily convinced > > to help you stand up afterwards just to avoid dealing with the six > > extra pool. > > Which should help you after losing 16 pool to weenie computer hacks... > or not. That is not addressing the issue. Weenie computer hack!= PTO > > >Pentex Subversion, > > > > Burnable. You get the time back once it's removed. It also costs > > considerably more to play than PTO (2 pool vs 1 blood). A subverted > > minion you can get back. A Brainwashed minion, you can get back. You > > can't get PTO back short of Necromancy. > > Again, you lose the minion at an important time, and are ousted, the > minion may as well have been burned. The timing of a Master card is limited by the number of master phases a player sees in a game. If 11 turns is average then the average player sees 11 master phase actions. > > >the HoS who can burn uncontrolled, > > > > If Gisela empties herself to burn a minion, you're out 2 turns of > > transfers. You get the pool back, you lose no buildups, unless the > > minion had been banished, and if it has more than 8 pool on it, it's > > untouchable. Not NEARLY an equivalent. > > but the vamp is gone. We're working in similiarities here. this type > of action exists (like sacrifice. It's not PTO, but it does a > similiar thing.) The vampire was never in play. Yes, it makes you waste transfers, but you don't lose any pool. > > >combat that burns the new vampire... > > > > Card intensive, likely blood intensive as well. Even the hand strike > > for one, prevent your damage, disarm, decapitate combo costs two blood > > and four cards. Compare to one card, one blood for PTO. > > I'm thinking amaranth with a weenie. since no one seems to be around > to vote against the PTO you'll probably survive the blood hunt. amaranth with a weenie is alot more card intensive to pull off than 4 cards. Minimum 5 cards with a manuever ruining your day. > > > vampires are a strong resourse but they are destroyable. > > > That's why so much of decks is centered around keeping them alive. > > > Worried about PTO? pack ways to defeat votes, just like you pack ways > > > to deal with combat, bleed, intercept, etc. > > > > Pack X card or anti-X card. Thank you for verifying that PTO needs to > > be changed by stripping it down to this very-accurate statement. > > I'm suggesting that if you don't pack vote defence it will bite you in > the ass. I'm not suggesting the you pack an anti-PTO card. What is > the anti-PTO card that it only works against PTO and not all other > votes? When people design a deck do they totally and completely > ignore vote defense? If I say you should worry about bleed and have a > strategy in your deck to deal with it am I stating that you need > ANTI-X to survive and thus bleed should be stripped down? No, I'm > saying that you need to pull your head out of your ass, realize that > this game includes cards that harm you via votes, and deal with that > fact. But none of those other votes are on the order of magnitude as PTO. > > > It requires ways to pass the vote to burn, > > > > If you're playing it to full effect, you already have four votes. If > > you're playing politics (and if you're packing PTO, you probably are), > > then you have the push in your hand. That you can shut the target -- > > all targets, actually, from the referendum via Closed Session actually > > makes this a non-issue. One card, and now, it only effects 2/3 of the > > table, but only the other 1/3 can vote. > > but that 1/3 has lots of votes, so how about a BO? (3 cards) Bewitching Oration is quite powerful and only nessary if there are either more than 2 princes in play or more than 1 justicar. > > > ways to call the vote sucessfully, > > > > Forbidden Labyrinth can be played by at least three of teh vampire who > > can call it. Several cards can make the action unblockable. Stealth > > exists in great quantities for most of the IC members. Not an issue. > > (four cards) > > > >ways to protect your vampire, and > > > > Not an issue if you've just burned the threat. > > Cause arika can burn every threat to her in one turn? Heard of NRA? > 2 vamps with pot behind me and one of them is living to see another > turn. If they're both Camarilla both are. Far more card intensive than PTO and definately shut down by obedience > > > ways to oust after you've called it. > > > > Very easy if you've burned their key minion with a single card. > > um, with a combo of around 4 cards. they can still have more minions, > table support, etc. > > >You can deal with the table if you see it. > > > > Not if Closed Session has been played and only the caller has Cam > > votes. > > And if you're the only player who has a turtle in your backpack, the > game is taking place on the dark of the moon, and.... Your strawman > becomes more and more blatent. Only the PTO deck can have camarilla > votes, it's prey always only has non-camarilla vampires. No one at > the table can do anything to prevent this card. That is not an uncommon metagame actually. You would be suprised at how popular Non-Cams are. <snip subjective arguement> Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The Old RTI was a bleed +X Raille

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Reyda wrote: > > >>two words : fuck off. > > > Your language is appalling. > Or it could be french. Raille

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:bsurbp$h2d$1...@reader10.wxs.nl... [David Cherryholmes wrote] > > > You are wrong. I happen to know because I emailed LSJ specifically > > about > > > the criteria for "brokeness". For one thing, an element that > reduces > > the > > > game to a shambles would be a valid candidate for broken, even if it > > > loses, or totally randomizes the winner. > > If that are the criteria for a card to be broken, then why isn't Anarch > Revolt fixed yet? There's many cards that can reduce a game to shambles. > AR is the most prevalent, but Deflection can accomplish the same at > times. I'm not buying it. Funny you should mention Anarch Revolt... When I was in Atlanta this past May and talked to LSJ about Anarch Revolt (at the Anarchs prerelease weekend, for extra thematicness), I told him I wanted to play a Rapid Thought-format game with him with my Anarch Revolts + Dominate deck to "prove" that Anarch Revolt was broken in the Rapid Thought format and ought to be banned there. But he was skeptical, see, he was all like "But Anarch Revolt's not any more broken in Rapid Thought than it is in the standard game." And then I was all like, "Dude, Anarch Revolt is totally broken in the standard game, just even more so in Rapid Thought! But then why didn't you give it some kind of fix in Camarilla Edition or at least in Anarchs?!" (since again it would have been thematically appropriate.) He was all like "What do you mean, it needs fixing, why didn't you tell me that before?" And I was all like "Dude, everybody's been saying Anarch Revolt is broken for years! Were you not listening?!" And he was all like "Well why didn't you make a case for it on the newsgroup before these last two sets came out?" And I was all like "Dude, I didn't know you needed reminding! Doesn't anyone ever play broken Anarch Revolt decks around Columbia?" (The above quotes may not be verbatim, this conversation took place a while ago. ;-) But Derek Ray can bear witness to the substance of it, he was my other victim in that Rapid Thought game (which I did indeed sweep with Anarch Revolts and weenies with Dominate) and totally had my back on telling Scott that we thought for sure he was going to fix Anarch Revolt in Anarchs if not Camarilla Edition.) > Aside from better titles and options beloning to that, I fail to see how > Cams are "kings of the hill". Anything non-political is better played > with non-cammies because of the better discipline spread. Barring > 2nd/3rd tradition decks. > Rush decks are almost always Sabbat or a mix. Bleeders? Gogo Sabbat. > They have DOM obf more often and in smaller caps than the cams. I really don't think you're right about this, though. Sure, the Sabbat has some good vampires. But they are not consistently better on disciplines than the Camarilla anymore, if they ever truly were. Besides which, no one (that I know) makes discipline-based decks and leaves out Cammies: the ones that have good discipline spreads for the deck go in, the Sabbat and Indies with good discipline spreads for the deck go in, and the Sabbat doesn't provide a significantly higher proportion of those vamps than the Camarilla does. Especially, could you point me to these alleged Dom/Obf cheapos in the Sabbat that are somehow better than group 1 + 2 Malkavians + friends? Cause I'm not seeing 'em in my Monger search. Josh revolting, you say? why yes they are! (and they cause much more of a shambles than even the hordes can)

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > > > Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my > > > > vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things > > > > prevent me from using my vampire. > > > > > > At a cost of cosiderable card usage. > > > > err. yeah. bums rush, undead strength, disarm, amaranth. 4 cards, > > used by a one cap vampire. Burns any vampire in the game without +1 > > strength or a built in additional or prevent. > > If I have a dodge or strike combat ends or if I block and have a > manuever, then I still beat your 4 card combo. Why is the prey of the pot deck allowed to play cards to stop the combo when the prey of the PTO deck isn't allowed to play cards to stop the PTO combo? Both combos are four cards. Both burn a vampire if they are sucessful. The pot angle is available to more vampires and has less restricitons than the PTO angle. Both can be defended against, and you should have ways of dealing with both combat and votes in your decks. > > > Looking at PTO purely in terms of pool swing -- burning Ezmerelda or > > > Sutekh would be a 11-pool bleed equivalent. How do you do that in a > > > single action as a bleed? > > > > keeping in mind that your prey happened to have the 11 cap > > non-camarilla, and no one does anything to stand up to the vote, yes > > this can happen. > > Ezmerelda 2 votes< Arika's 4 votes > Does this make sense? <sigh> look, the whole table is going to try to maintain table balance, and they'll likely try to prevent Ez from going bye bye. If no one else has votes, like I said, then this can happen. IF the table seating is perfect and no one else can or will do anything. But a lot of deck effectiveness is seating. Any counter sitting next to the ideal prey will be in the same type of situation. > > > Yes, but there's a vote involved, you say? Bear in mind that the IC > > > member calling the vote can also play a modifier that shuts all > > > potential targets of PTO from the referendum (Closed Session). > > > > I do bear in mind that its an IC. But your arguement that the IC > > shouldn't have good votes b/c they have access to votes is specious at > > best. Further, Closed Session? It stops the target from voting, but > > not any other camarilla decks at the table. Two princes and a > > primogen, a Justicar and a Prince, these things make closed session > > worthless. (As a note the PTO combo is now at two cards.) > > An IC deck with Bewitching oration outvotes 4 princes or 2 justicars > and a prince. That is alot of political power. Yep it is. Why you shouldn't rely on table votes to get you out of political jams. Same thing applies on a KRC. > > > > So does brainwash, (after the fact) > > > > > > Which you get back if you convince an ally to remove it for you, or if > > > you get out another minion to do it yourself. And if you look like an > > > easy VP for your predator, your grandpredator may be easily convinced > > > to help you stand up afterwards just to avoid dealing with the six > > > extra pool. > > > > Which should help you after losing 16 pool to weenie computer hacks... > > or not. > > That is not addressing the issue. Weenie computer hack!= PTO > > > > >Pentex Subversion, > > > > > > Burnable. You get the time back once it's removed. It also costs > > > considerably more to play than PTO (2 pool vs 1 blood). A subverted > > > minion you can get back. A Brainwashed minion, you can get back. You > > > can't get PTO back short of Necromancy. > > > > Again, you lose the minion at an important time, and are ousted, the > > minion may as well have been burned. > > The timing of a Master card is limited by the number of master phases > a player sees in a game. If 11 turns is average then the average > player sees 11 master phase actions. Brainwash and Pentex have oppertunity costs that are significantly lower than PTO. They target anything. They prevent you from having a minion, in the interim a properly designed deck will deal you a body blow and move to oust you. Just like PTO. Except that these to dandies are playable by anyone at any time, and aren't blockable (except by two other master cards.) They both also punish you for using large vampires, and encourage the use of weenies, both to protect from them and to gain more benefit from them. And if the average play has 11 turns he or she can on average play 12 PTO's in a game. (one/turn after getting Arika out = 8, then four more in three turns when you get out etrius) Of course a properly built deck will speed this up in either case. > > > >the HoS who can burn uncontrolled, > > > > > > If Gisela empties herself to burn a minion, you're out 2 turns of > > > transfers. You get the pool back, you lose no buildups, unless the > > > minion had been banished, and if it has more than 8 pool on it, it's > > > untouchable. Not NEARLY an equivalent. > > > > but the vamp is gone. We're working in similiarities here. this type > > of action exists (like sacrifice. It's not PTO, but it does a > > similiar thing.) > > The vampire was never in play. Yes, it makes you waste transfers, but > you don't lose any pool. But you don't have a blocker, someone to generate more pool, someone to take offensive actions with, etc. etc. Again, this is what people complain about about PTO. They don't seem to mind the pool damage (after all votes can do that), it's the loss of the vampire. > > > >combat that burns the new vampire... > > > > > > Card intensive, likely blood intensive as well. Even the hand strike > > > for one, prevent your damage, disarm, decapitate combo costs two blood > > > and four cards. Compare to one card, one blood for PTO. > > > > I'm thinking amaranth with a weenie. since no one seems to be around > > to vote against the PTO you'll probably survive the blood hunt. > > amaranth with a weenie is alot more card intensive to pull off than 4 > cards. Minimum 5 cards with a manuever ruining your day. Again, when people start allowing their vampires to play cards to defend against votes, then examples using rush defense will have some merit in my world view. if they have a manuver, a DT messes with me. S:CE? how about a pulled strings? blocker with a sniper rifle? blocker with a sniper rifle? Beast sitting there laughing? Quentin and ditto? > > > > vampires are a strong resourse but they are destroyable. > > > > That's why so much of decks is centered around keeping them alive. > > > > Worried about PTO? pack ways to defeat votes, just like you pack ways > > > > to deal with combat, bleed, intercept, etc. > > > > > > Pack X card or anti-X card. Thank you for verifying that PTO needs to > > > be changed by stripping it down to this very-accurate statement. > > > > I'm suggesting that if you don't pack vote defence it will bite you in > > the ass. I'm not suggesting the you pack an anti-PTO card. What is > > the anti-PTO card that it only works against PTO and not all other > > votes? When people design a deck do they totally and completely > > ignore vote defense? If I say you should worry about bleed and have a > > strategy in your deck to deal with it am I stating that you need > > ANTI-X to survive and thus bleed should be stripped down? No, I'm > > saying that you need to pull your head out of your ass, realize that > > this game includes cards that harm you via votes, and deal with that > > fact. > > But none of those other votes are on the order of magnitude as PTO. I disagree. Votes do powerful things in general. Votes that have title restrictions do really powerful things. (10 pool swings with your prey, playable by a 5 cap, etc.) To say that PTO is an order of magnitude above other votes is wrong in my experiance (which includes a lot of freaking voting.) To not defend against these things is to make them stronger. Just like no bringing bleed defense will make bleed look horriably powerful to you. But prepare to see a strategy and its power goes away. At the very least you've got bargaining power. > > > > It requires ways to pass the vote to burn, > > > > > > If you're playing it to full effect, you already have four votes. If > > > you're playing politics (and if you're packing PTO, you probably are), > > > then you have the push in your hand. That you can shut the target -- > > > all targets, actually, from the referendum via Closed Session actually > > > makes this a non-issue. One card, and now, it only effects 2/3 of the > > > table, but only the other 1/3 can vote. > > > > but that 1/3 has lots of votes, so how about a BO? (3 cards) > > Bewitching Oration is quite powerful and only nessary if there are > either more than 2 princes in play or more than 1 justicar. > > > > > ways to call the vote sucessfully, > > > > > > Forbidden Labyrinth can be played by at least three of teh vampire who > > > can call it. Several cards can make the action unblockable. Stealth > > > exists in great quantities for most of the IC members. Not an issue. > > > > (four cards) > > > > > >ways to protect your vampire, and > > > > > > Not an issue if you've just burned the threat. > > > > Cause arika can burn every threat to her in one turn? Heard of NRA? > > 2 vamps with pot behind me and one of them is living to see another > > turn. If they're both Camarilla both are. > > Far more card intensive than PTO and definately shut down by obedience obediance? that's a bit card intensive now too. Which is my point. If you're playing this PTO deck it needs to be a well rounded deck. It needs to include obediance, pool gain, bleed defense, and more so than most because the table is unlikely to like it very much. So the combo that I need to get off the pto is less likely to be seen, which make everyone elses defenses to it that much stronger. the previous poster was saying that PTO was able to simply defend itself, that it was all you needed and was broken because of that. > > > > ways to oust after you've called it. > > > > > > Very easy if you've burned their key minion with a single card. > > > > um, with a combo of around 4 cards. they can still have more minions, > > table support, etc. > > > > >You can deal with the table if you see it. > > > > > > Not if Closed Session has been played and only the caller has Cam > > > votes. > > > > And if you're the only player who has a turtle in your backpack, the > > game is taking place on the dark of the moon, and.... Your strawman > > becomes more and more blatent. Only the PTO deck can have camarilla > > votes, it's prey always only has non-camarilla vampires. No one at > > the table can do anything to prevent this card. > > That is not an uncommon metagame actually. You would be suprised at > how popular Non-Cams are. No, I wouldn't. I play a lot of them, as does the rest of my group. And they don't say PTO is broken: strong, undercosted, but not broken. (actually I say it's strong and undercosted) Odd that the non-cam's are so popular despite having PTO hanging over them just waiting to strike without the possiablilty for defense. Cameron

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:vv9js6d...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > You have just admitted that as long as PTO exists as it is, 2/3 of the > > > vampires printed are unplayable in a tournament environment. > > > > Yeah, sure. Read your statement again ! > > Why not try to quit V:tes and play another card or board game then ?? > > That is a really silly statement. Apparently there are just too many VTES > players in Paris. > > Do you really chase off players? Misunderstanding. I'm not chasing players : if the game is broken, it will itself chase players away. Let's rephrase it. If PtO is the broken card everybody says and totally disrupts the way tournament handles, why is there more players in tournaments ? If something is extremely boring or becomes a "bugged" archetype, players will just quit. Me and a bunch of other players, tired by some very simple and broken combos in Netrunner just left the tournament scene since half of the decks you met were the same -at least the core were relying combos with Joan of Arc/scaldan or Tycho Extension or Code viral cache. It was a matter of "play this for a quick win, or play something else and struggle". Years after this player's hemorragia, An errata or ban hit those cards and now the tournament decks show more variety. Since we're not to the point that players leave v:tes because of a single card, that means the game can live with it.

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040101...@eris.io.com... > On 31 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > > Yeah, but a totally broken combo (like RTI) didn't have this problem. > > Hence the "I've actually played a deck based in most part upon PTO. > > It didn't work all the time." > > RTI was long gone when I started playing VTES. It sure looks like it was > broken, but did it win every single game? Didn't people play with > Deflections or Archon Investigations back then? Seems like bouncing a > bleed of 14 to one's prey is a sure ticket to VPsville. It was sometimes. When I played in Ithaca back then, no one in the group owned copies of Return to Innocence as far as I know, and we didn't play with proxies back then. (we truly were Innocent. :-) In the first tournament I ever won, not long after we had converted to the Path of No Card Limits I think (ah, the days when I was even stupider and younger than I am now), I was the prey of a RTI deck in the finals (somebody from another group, this was a tournament at a convention in Buffalo) and survived by Archon Investigating the bleed of 13 or so... twice, I think. He was nearly able to oust me anyway, I think, but despite him getting some free IC member when I AIed his Basilia with two skill cards and Soul Gem of Etrius who RTIed me early, I got to live long enough to AI some other unblockable-RTIing fattie later and Peter Bakija ousted the RTI player before I ousted Peter. End of mostly pointless anecdote. Yeah, I didn't have very much experience with actually playing with original RTI either; against Deflection, unblockable RTI sure would suck though. Which doesn't make it less broken, just more random in its broken effects. > > It was poorly costed at the time. Although when they designed > > everything sense, PTO existed so it had to be considered when making > > the power of the vampires. > > Maybe. Was it around/played much before the reprint? Seems like not so > much since you thought it had been first printed in CE. I never owned a single PTO before the CE reprint. I think I now own five. I hadn't bothered to try to make any decks with it when I didn't own physical copies; Cameron I'm pretty sure has mostly AH printing PTOs and probably just forgot it was from AH. Might've been thinking it was from original Sabbat, or something. No one ever really played them around DC that I can recall; for a lot of that time we didn't play with proxies here either, so it was probably partly because no one owned any (or enough) before the CE reprint. > > And its power had to be considered when it > > was chosen for reprint in the Ventrue starter. That would have been > > the time to fix it if it was so broken. > > Or the time to not reprint it if it hadn't been available enough to really > be disruptive. Yes, that's a strong argument that the design team feels > the card isn't a problem. It is, but I truly can't account for it. I really would have thought that in a set where Fifth Tradition and Second Tradition got substantially cut down in power, Protect Thine Own would have as well. Perhaps LSJ would comment on why PTO was considered acceptable as written while the others weren't? I think every new card except *maybe* Baltimore Purge from the last three expansions (Black Hand, Anarchs, Camarilla) points to the current design team being unwilling to create things like Protect Thine Own. > Because most of us try to play something interesting and innovative a lot > of the time. We don't want to play the same old stealth bleed or Ventrue > law firm or EuroBrujah or whatever. At least that's true of most of the > players I've met, especially the ones who have been around for a while. > > We want to win and be congratulated on our ingenuity. Yes, we're arrogant like that. We like to think we're such brilliant deckbuilders and excellent players that we don't need to play the decks that everyone already knows are the strongest ones around. We can make up our own wacky new deck concepts and win anyway. Also we are old and jaded, and get bored with "the well known archetypes" easily. (I'm partly kidding here, but not *totally* kidding. :-) > I didn't say we don't play it because we think it's broken. I said that I > thought it was something of a Pandora's Box (or genie in a bottle or > something) for us. That's just my take on why it isn't played around here > (an environment in which it would probably be quite good). Other players > in the area can speak up with their own opinions on the matter, of course. I haven't been playing it much mainly because there have been other new deck ideas I've wanted to try out, and as you said, there aren't enough games in the week to do everything that can be imagined. I do have an IC/Prince/Justicar deck that contains copies of PTO; it's not *based* around PTO but it does get to abuse it when it comes up, as there is almost always a good target to zap, and enough votes and stealth to make it happen. But I've played that deck a *lot* over the past couple years, and while I'm not so sick of it as to never play it again, it hasn't been calling to me very compellingly for a while. :-) > I think that an introduction (or not) of PTO into our regular > games would be similar in a lot of ways (and probably make us play even > more DI). I know, right? Even though I have gotten myself ousted more than once by playing my own Direct Interventions (on the wrong thing or while not having enough pool), I would not want to be without them with PTO showing up regularly. Josh

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Or the time to not reprint it if it hadn't been available enough to > really > > be disruptive. Yes, that's a strong argument that the design team > feels > > the card isn't a problem. > > It is, but I truly can't account for it. I really would have thought > that in a set where Fifth Tradition and Second Tradition got > substantially cut down in power, Protect Thine Own would have as well. > Perhaps LSJ would comment on why PTO was considered acceptable as > written while the others weren't? Would be interesting, but I can't blame him if he doesn't want to offer extensive explanations (and/or apologies?) for every decision he's ever made. Why yellow shoelaces? Why sesame bagles? Why, why, why? :) > I think every new card except *maybe* > Baltimore Purge from the last three expansions (Black Hand, Anarchs, > Camarilla) points to the current design team being unwilling to create > things like Protect Thine Own. Baltimore Purge is another card we haven't abused yet. I keep wanting to, but somehow I still only have like three copies. Isn't it uncommon? That's just weird. > > We want to win and be congratulated on our ingenuity. > > Yes, we're arrogant like that. We like to think we're such brilliant > deckbuilders and excellent players that we don't need to play the decks > that everyone already knows are the strongest ones around. We can make > up our own wacky new deck concepts and win anyway. Also we are old and > jaded, and get bored with "the well known archetypes" easily. (I'm > partly kidding here, but not *totally* kidding. :-) I see nothing wrong with that mentality, to tell you the truth. I mean, how long have you been playing this game? Tell me you'd still be having fun if you'd built three decks in 1994 and never tried anything else. I've only been at it for a couple years now and I get bored with a deck if I win with it two weeks in a row. > I haven't been playing it much mainly because there have been other new > deck ideas I've wanted to try out, and as you said, there aren't enough > games in the week to do everything that can be imagined. I do have an > IC/Prince/Justicar deck that contains copies of PTO; it's not *based* > around PTO but it does get to abuse it when it comes up, as there is > almost always a good target to zap, and enough votes and stealth to make > it happen. But I've played that deck a *lot* over the past couple > years, and while I'm not so sick of it as to never play it again, it > hasn't been calling to me very compellingly for a while. :-) I guess I was mostly surprised it wasn't in Colin's Alexandra deck he's been playing a lot lately. Maybe he doesn't have any or didn't think of it or something. Or maybe he just wants it off our collective radar so all his Samedi and Trujah decks aren't screwed by it. :) > > I think that an introduction (or not) of PTO into our regular > > games would be similar in a lot of ways (and probably make us play > even > > more DI). > > I know, right? Even though I have gotten myself ousted more than once > by playing my own Direct Interventions (on the wrong thing or while not > having enough pool), I would not want to be without them with PTO > showing up regularly. Absolutely. I'm actually kind of glad we play all that DI, even though I've been screwed by it a few times. I might be a little afraid of it if I didn't see it all the time. Most uses we have for it are like when I played one against an Aire of Elation yesterday - a bleed of 4 became a bleed of 2. Big deal. In many cases, a Blood Doll could be better. Matt

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FF2EAF0...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > If a "really close" analogy to PTO is desired, perhaps "requires a > > vampire with at least 3 votes, or above 10 capacity and at least 2 > > votes"? It would be "interesting" to actually errata PTO to have that > > requirement instead of Justicar/IC and see what happened. > > Don't forget that doing so would increase the power of the card by removing > the main opportunity cost - a single card for all sects (as suggested > above) would allow a player to play Arika with Sutekh and burn any vampire > on the table. > > If you really want to do a fair taste test for the other sects, you'd have > to make separate cards, one for the Independents and one for the Sabbat, > that mimic PTO's effect for the Camarilla. Very true, yes. My off the cuff suggested wording was more for a thought experiment to consider what a "universal" PTO would be like and how scary it would be than for a suggestion for cards people would want to actually try (or see printed). Even making one for the Independents and one for the Sabbat would be some very powerful vote cards - even given that the independent and Sabbat clans don't have as much vote support as the Camarilla clans do, and that their 10-11 cap vampires aren't as strong as (many of) the Inner Circle. Josh protect thine own destroy thine enemies ignore thine self-important neighbors?

In message <678de5b5.04010...@posting.google.com>, kim...@hotmail.com (Kimbal) mumbled something about: >> There WAS a correct time to remove the Pentex -- handing ANYONE a VP >> like that is pretty shoddy play, especially an Auspex intercept deck >> that can get the last 2 VPs easily, but will have trouble getting the >> first. >> >> Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not >> read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an >> intercept wall? >> >I would have loved someone to remove that Pentex and i would have most >likely ousted jay in the following turn, but who was in a position to >do it? Anyone who wasn't Jay or your predator. >Jay surely not, Stephan neither, and the other two had a feud going on >among them, so unless they stopped and declared a stand down for one >turn the pentex would stay there as it did :( Well, you mention the obvious solution in this paragraph, but I'm also going to add one final recommendation: Which deck would you rather give a free VP to? The one that can defend very well and has a slow offense, or the one with a strong offense that doesn't defend anywhere near as well? If you're going to concede something to someone no matter what you do, be sure you concede to someone's strength, not their weakness... [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:607fd93.03123...@posting.google.com... > "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<bsuouj$1d9i4$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:607fd93.03123...@posting.google.com... > > > > <snip> > > > PTO on the other hand infact denies you the basics that separate this > > > game from Magic. Specifically, I am talking about land denial. In > > > Magic, if you are not able to play a land on your first turn, then in > > > effect you lose. VTES on the other hand does not have lands. VTES > > > has transfers. PTO can effectively deny you your first three turns of > > > transfers which is in effect putting you three turns behind the rest > > > of the table. You lose. It is a one card trump. It is broken. > > > > > > > It is not, just because many times it happens to faces cammies - only decks. > > That is, almost one - third of those times you'll find no effective use for > > a PTO, > > or, at least, no so effective to deem it broken. > > Still not counting all the politic-hosers around (above all, the recent very > > powerful Vox Domini). > > Your use of "effective" is entirely subjective. As the use of "broken", here and there, is :-) > I find that the odds > of sitting at a five-player table where there is not a single non-Cam > vampire in play to be miniscule. In fact, as entirely allegorical > data, I have not been on one of those tables in several years. I > can't even remember the last time I was. > > The facts are that there are just too many good non-Cam vampires to > not see any in play. Players will play PTO crosstable as a > "look-ahead" vote against their grandprey when they have their prey on > the ropes. > This is just too much speculation: there are too many cases to cover and figure out. PTO affects just non-cammies; if you face another arika-like vote deck at your table, then you're not going to see any easy use for yours PTO. Still, as pointed many times here, votes have too much hosers around to be considered a real threat, at least not to the point of considering a PTO broken. Consideringthat PTO can be played just by an handful of vampires, on the other side we should have to consider broken too many bloodlines card and vampires right now (above all, the baali now backed with path of evil revelation). Direct intervention, delaying tactics and vox domini are all too much around the corner to destroy any single PTO in any IC based deck. Personally, when i play a non-vote deck, 3 o 4 slot are *always* left for those cards, and, PTO or not, i'm reasonably sure to cover any "key-single-vote" emergency at the table. > All that aside, the fact that PTO eliminates the vampire, the > remaining pool invested, and the amount of transfers equal to its > capacity overpowers the card to the point of brokenness. > Many rush strategies does almost the same or, as damnans pointed out, baltimore based ones do. regards Emiliano

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ff5ce5a$0$6535$79c14f64@nan-> If PtO is the broken card everybody says and totally disrupts the way > tournament handles, why is there more players in tournaments ? If something > is extremely boring or becomes a "bugged" archetype, players will just quit. > Me and a bunch of other players, tired by some very simple and broken combos > in Netrunner just left the tournament scene since half of the decks you met > were the same -at least the core were relying combos with Joan of > Arc/scaldan or Tycho Extension or Code viral cache. It was a matter of "play > this for a quick win, or play something else and struggle". Years after this > player's hemorragia, An errata or ban hit those cards and now the > tournament decks show more variety. > > Since we're not to the point that players leave v:tes because of a single > card, that means the game can live with it. Are you sure? Watching PTO abuse around here you don't see a lot of happy victims. While its a strech to assume that PTO is the only reason a player abandons the game (at this point in time) the level of frustration in players victimized by it who then take a break from the tournament scene suggests that cards of this type and power may be the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back" Maybe they should pack more vote defense or whatever, but the point is that the players have come to expect great things from this game. Having a card that say "goodby you're screwed for playing non-cams" is an unbalanced effect that never should have made it into this game IMO. Regardless of wether or not you've experienced the problem first hand, its still a problem. -JTP Winnipeg

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.040101...@eris.io.com>... > On 31 Dec 2003, Cameron wrote: > > > > By the way, in my estimation Parity Shift is a LOT stronger than Transfer > > > of Power. I do agree that the Sabbat often have better vampires, but that > > > doesn't necessarily make up for the strength of Protect Thine Own vs. the > > > trick-deck-only Sacrifice or all-powerful Parity Shift vs. virtually > > > unplayed Transfer of Power. > > > > This is my point. In general the Camarilla only votes/actions are > > better than the sabbat only votes/actions. I'm not surprised that PTO > > is better than Sacrifice in this circumstance. It's just like Parity > > shift is better than ToP. > > And Archon is better than Templar. Camarilla have much better votes than > Sabbat. I'm not sure if that justifies the strength of PTO especially > when it means you also get to have Arika in play. :) eh, Arika is a house no matter what. Sitting there she's a house. PTO isn't broken b/c Arika is a house. > > > But back to the point I was making, it doesn't seem like the designers of > > > Protect Thine Own intended for the card to be able to burn 2/3 of all > > > printed vampires since only a small minority of vampires (many of them > > > quite bad) were vulnerable to it at the time of original printing. That > > > suggests brokenness, I think. > > > > It was poorly costed at the time. Although when they designed > > everything sense, PTO existed so it had to be considered when making > > the power of the vampires. > > Maybe. Was it around/played much before the reprint? Seems like not so > much since you thought it had been first printed in CE. No, I got AH/Sabbat mixed up... as ~12 of my PTO's are AH, and the deck has been around before Camarilla this wasn't the mixup. What I meant was that those non-camarilla vampires were designed in a setting that included PTO. So they could be costed for it. (or whatever.) > > And its power had to be considered when it > > was chosen for reprint in the Ventrue starter. That would have been > > the time to fix it if it was so broken. > > Or the time to not reprint it if it hadn't been available enough to really > be disruptive. Yes, that's a strong argument that the design team feels > the card isn't a problem. eh, or that by putting it into higher circulation they could find out if it was really broken (as I'm the only person I knew beforehand who had enough to really try to abuse it.) > > > Agreed that PTO isn't a sure game winner. What it is though, and the > > > reason I think people dislike it so much, is a sure game loser for anyone > > > basing a deck on a large non-Cam vampire. Adding a pool cost to PTO > > > wouldn't make much difference, IMO, although it would be harder to run a > > > deck with 14 of them. > > > > Again, it sucks, but it's no more a game loser than 11 cap of pot > > weenies and a haven uncovered. One of them will get through, disarm > > you and eat you. > > So it's not any worse than weenies, you say? Weenies aren't broken? no, they're a costing choice and bring things that other vampires can't, but they have their own drawbacks. > > 7 vampires, 3 of which are good, and one of which is > > unplayable can call this vote to burn any non-camarilla. > > Out of curiousity, which IC member do you consider to be unplayable? > Gwen? Yep. she sucks. > > and its not > > a sure game loser. Ask dave b. he sits next to me with his assamites > > all the time (so to speak) when I'm playing this deck and while he > > rarely gets game wins, he does get VP's a lot. If you meet your foil, > > and you can offer it something, a good player will except that. > > So Dave B. usually loses when this card that doesn't make him lose is > played? Granted there's almost always a way to accomplish something in > VTES. That's one of the reasons it's such a good game. Even sitting > ahead of a RTI deck wouldn't necessarily mean there's no way to score any > VPs. That doesn't mean RTI isn't broken. No, he sits down next to the deck that should simply roll over him and manages to get VP's by being useful. His deck would have similiar problems with weenie bleed PRE mind numb. Is Mind Numb broken? > > > The DC playgroup doesn't toss around much PTO. I think that's because > > > we're all somewhat fond of running large non-Cam vampires (Lazverinus, > > > Sascha Vykos, Spider Killer, Ankla Hotep, Nu, Synesios and many others > > > have made appearances in recent games). Let that genie out of the bottle > > > and we'll all suffer a bit. That also suggests brokenness. > > > > I play a lot of non-cam's that are big (viva the lasombra), PTO hasn't > > stopped that. I see Assamite decks every freaking time I play. The > > Giovanni are everywhere, and yet PTO exists. Why do these decks > > continue to be played? > > Because most of us try to play something interesting and innovative a lot > of the time. We don't want to play the same old stealth bleed or Ventrue > law firm or EuroBrujah or whatever. At least that's true of most of the > players I've met, especially the ones who have been around for a while. > > We want to win and be congratulated on our ingenuity. A) Giovanni power bleed is now dull. B) PTO hasn't prevented these decks from being played. The chilling effect of this card hasn't seemed to manifest itself in my group. So despite PTO's existance, people are playing non-camarilla vampires. And winning with non-camarilla vampires. you said that you don't play PTO b/c you worry that you'll have to stop playing big non-camarilla vamps. I offered this as an example where that didn't happen. > > Life is suffering. > > Don't I know it! > > Saying to me that we don't play it, b/c we think its > > broken is the same as telling me that no one plays malk S+B because > > its cheese. > > I didn't say we don't play it because we think it's broken. I said that I > thought it was something of a Pandora's Box (or genie in a bottle or > something) for us. That's just my take on why it isn't played around here > (an environment in which it would probably be quite good). Other players > in the area can speak up with their own opinions on the matter, of course. > > Example: we didn't use to play much Direct Intervention. Recently it's > become popular and is now in most decks. That was another Pandora's Box. > We opened it and now DI is something which must be considered when making > a critical move. That's not necessarily bad, but it has changed the way > we play. I think that an introduction (or not) of PTO into our regular > games would be similar in a lot of ways (and probably make us play even > more DI). > > Or maybe I've got it all wrong and the reason people don't play PTO is > because it actually wouldn't be very good here. Yeah, we have our share > of weenie decks. Most everyone runs at least one. > > > Fine, but you lose the right to comment on how playable > > and powerful it is. > > Heh. I'm afraid I know my rights better than that, friend. I'm just saying is all. Look, you can argue until you're blue in the face but if you don't play the card, or play against the card with any regularity I'm filing your posts under OPINION instead of OBSERVATION. Some things are so bad that opinion shows them to be so. I'd not say PTO is in that category. > > I know several players that hate PTO, and feel that it's overpowered, > > wrong, and evil. They've played against it, lost vampires to it, and > > still have this feeling. I can accept that, it's their informed > > opinion. I disagree that it's broken, but I can't fault them for > > their feelings in the matter. But if you want to have a horse in this > > race, play PTO and find out if its broken. > > I don't really care to play a string of PTO decks as there are many other > kinds of decks I'd like to try and not enough games to play them in. The > real purpose of my initial post was to point out that PTO was first > printed in a very different game environment than we have now. I don't > think that point had been made. I haven't actually argued the card needs > banning or errata. Honestly, I don't care for any of the errata suggested > so far, so I guess I'm against that at least. Ok. Thank you for the observation, and I'm sorry that I took your post incorrectly. I'd like to say in general that if this card is broken, break it. Play it and win with it and show me how it's broken. Because I play it more than anyone I know of, and I can't get it to break, although I'll say its undercosted in a heartbeat. > > ok, the end of that came off a bit over the top on the anger scale. > > But i'm not rewriting it as i must now go to newyears. > > Hope you had a good one. I'm soon off to my first VTES games of 2004! Mmm... new years VTES. The !Toreador starter still sucks. Cameron

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:lfk8vvobn9p7cknqn...@4ax.com... > In message <3ff43b77$0$23563$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: > > > > >"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> wrote > > <snip> > Note that combat hasn't even entered into the equation yet. There are > plenty of ways for big guys to defend themselves in combat, and some big > guys (Lazverinus, Cailean, Goratrix) are much nastier in combat than any > little wannabe Rusher could ever be. But I can't possibly build enough > combat defense AND enough PTO/BP defense into my deck, even if we remove > the possibility that someone will use it cross-table. Many people > choose to simply include only the combat defense, banking on the fact > that combat will be more likely seen than PTO/BP. However, the only > logical answer to maximise one's winning chances is simply to not allow > those cards to affect your game in a significant way, by not > constructing your deck in such a fashion. > That is: you have to build any decks that can face table shift politics (imho THAT is really nasty, nor the PTO), table rush, table bleeds. In a word, there is not 100% safety against *all* the deck archetypes for any kind of strategy, much like worring when building up our deck about sensory deprivation, mind rape, prevention+disarm..... If you just think that a PTO could destroy your non-cam deck, then put in it a direct intervention and a vox domini, i'm pretty sure no-one will be able to use his / her pair of PTO succesfully against you. Those are cards anyway so good in any evenience, that there's so much use for them even if you'll not face PTO "based" (uh ?) decks... Really, i see not the scope for all of this ranting against PTO... The sabbat already overcome Camarilla decks in politics, so it's good to have a pair of singles *powerful* (but still not broken) cards cam-only that still makes some scope for playing the cammies (i'm speaking of camarilla segregation and PTO). greets Emiliano

> > > > > Cameron, still unable to prove PTO is broken, not for lack of trying. > > > > > > > > You did win a tournament with a 14-PTO deck once, didn't you? > > > > > > Yeah, but for every time I've won (twice now I think, once was to > > > small to be reported) there are also times I've choked with the deck. > > > (camarilla weenie PRE as a predator, pot rush combat, preying on > > > nossies, etc.) Not trying to boost your ego Cameron, but the failure rate is probably linked to the fact that you've whomped the playgroup with that deck several times now and we are likely guilty of a little metagaming to stop the PTO-madness. I know if I didn't love the Assamites so damn much I would have stopped playing them by now and just switched to Gangrel or Brujah combat. > It was poorly costed at the time. Although when they designed > everything sense, PTO existed so it had to be considered when making > the power of the vampires. And its power had to be considered when it > was chosen for reprint in the Ventrue starter. That would have been > the time to fix it if it was so broken. I was shocked and appalled that PTO didn't get fixed in the "it doesn't get to play with the other puppies anymore" sense, when it was reprinted in CE. As much as I like to think every design choice is the product of perfect game-balancing judgment, I really think PTO just got reprinted because it was really rare and no one really brought up the power point because vote decks were already getting a kick in the ass from the change to 5th. > > > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > > > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. I don't see how any blood/pool cost can make this card balanced when vote decks have access to Voter Cap. Also note that a combat deck can't Taste nearly as well as a vote deck will Voter Cap. > > > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > > > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > > > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > > > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > > > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > > > than I am willing to admit.) PTO basically just requires you to be playing a vote deck. Sure, you have to play Inner Circle members, but we all know that there is only one true IC and Arika is her name. She's a whole pile of brokeness on top of the PTO argument, or better yet just another pile of brokeness altogether considering how she's costed against the other more recent 11-caps in the game. As I see it, the only real drawback to the card is the Non-Cam targetting restriction and that just became even less of an issue now that you can Mind Rape and take the cardless Go Anarch action. > unplayable can call this vote to burn any non-camarilla. and its not > a sure game loser. Ask dave b. he sits next to me with his assamites > all the time (so to speak) when I'm playing this deck and while he > rarely gets game wins, he does get VP's a lot. If you meet your foil, > and you can offer it something, a good player will except that. You always have to bring that up when we debate PTO don't you Cameron? *sigh* As a Good Player(tm), I think it is only right that if I can't win the table, I get as many VPs as possible. This should not be construed as support for table-winner. I'm just looking out for number one in the only way I can when a broken card like PTO hits the table. > I play a lot of non-cam's that are big (viva the lasombra), PTO hasn't Umm... Lasombra are probably the best vote clan there is of all the potential targets of PTO, they are probably the least likely to care about PTO because if they don't have vote control, they've already lost. Also, I would be remiss to point out that no one else in the playgroup owns any significant number of PTOs because of large gaping maw that is your PTO collection. Again, I can only blame myself as I bought so many packs of AH and then traded away the "useless" Camarilla cards for more shiny Quietus rares. > stopped that. I see Assamite decks every freaking time I play. The > Giovanni are everywhere, and yet PTO exists. Why do these decks > continue to be played? Because PTO hurts them but a smart player can Because I for one love the Assamites. PTO won't make me stop playing Assamites, but it sure as hell makes me want to stop playing against anyone who plays that card. I'm not sure you understand the pure hatred I have for this card Cameron. I've come to accept its existance out of apathy, but don't think for a moment I don't think the card should be banned. > I know several players that hate PTO, and feel that it's overpowered, > wrong, and evil. They've played against it, lost vampires to it, and > still have this feeling. I can accept that, it's their informed I feel that I can be counted among that number having been subject to PTO more than most people being in our playgroup. I know I've admitted to you before that PTO isn't broken, but I must recant my weakness. I cannot in good faith assert that this card is balanced. > "Fucking PTO" - Dave B. (aramis) Geez man, change your sig once in awhile... =) Aramis ----------------------------------------- When facing an IC member at the table... "Rush them cross-table, it's the only way to be sure." - Dave B.

came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) wrote in message news:<d9925496.04010...@posting.google.com>... > Not trying to boost your ego Cameron, but the failure rate is probably > linked to the fact that you've whomped the playgroup with that deck > several times now and we are likely guilty of a little metagaming to > stop the PTO-madness. I know if I didn't love the Assamites so damn > much I would have stopped playing them by now and just switched to > Gangrel or Brujah combat. Yeah, well my next thread will be why fear of mekhet is broken. And I don't see the anti-PTO metagaming, I'm talking about tournements where I simply misjudged the metagame and brougth PTO to Camarilla tables. > I was shocked and appalled that PTO didn't get fixed in the "it > doesn't get to play with the other puppies anymore" sense, when it was > reprinted in CE. As much as I like to think every design choice is > the product of perfect game-balancing judgment, I really think PTO > just got reprinted because it was really rare and no one really > brought up the power point because vote decks were already getting a > kick in the ass from the change to 5th. *still feeling sore from that kick in the balls* Both nerfs was to much. > > > > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > > > > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > > I don't see how any blood/pool cost can make this card balanced when > vote decks have access to Voter Cap. Also note that a combat deck > can't Taste nearly as well as a vote deck will Voter Cap. Eh, I just don't see a lot of votes in this playgroup. At least since Kevin left. The card is undercosted, I freely and often admit that. > > > > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > > > > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > > > > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > > > > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > > > > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > > > > than I am willing to admit.) > > PTO basically just requires you to be playing a vote deck. Sure, you > have to play Inner Circle members, but we all know that there is only > one true IC and Arika is her name. She's a whole pile of brokeness on > top of the PTO argument, or better yet just another pile of brokeness > altogether considering how she's costed against the other more recent > 11-caps in the game. As I see it, the only real drawback to the card > is the Non-Cam targetting restriction and that just became even less > of an issue now that you can Mind Rape and take the cardless Go Anarch > action. Arika can't make PTO broken, PTO can't make Arika broken, the have to stand on their own. Oh, and Shhh... about my secret tech. That action is admittedly what's made me change my mind on the costing of the card. But look, is it possiable to kill and IC? Yes it is, it's happened enough to me. Is it possiable to block an IC? Yes it is, it's happened enough to me. PTO requires and IC vote deck. Not just any vote deck. And 11 pool in one basket is the reason we're having the arguement about PTO in the first place. > > unplayable can call this vote to burn any non-camarilla. and its not > > a sure game loser. Ask dave b. he sits next to me with his assamites > > all the time (so to speak) when I'm playing this deck and while he > > rarely gets game wins, he does get VP's a lot. If you meet your foil, > > and you can offer it something, a good player will except that. > > You always have to bring that up when we debate PTO don't you Cameron? > *sigh* As a Good Player(tm), I think it is only right that if I > can't win the table, I get as many VPs as possible. This should not > be construed as support for table-winner. I'm just looking out for > number one in the only way I can when a broken card like PTO hits the > table. I'm not going to put broken there. PTO beats Assamite big guy combat. Like Unblockable/Kiss of Ra beats Tzim intercept, or Gangrel combat beats pot combat. In that situation you make a deal and get what you can. As for why it came up... I brought that situation up because it was asserted that anytime non-camarilla sit next to PTO they're immediatly out of the game. Which isn't true. I'm not tossing it around quite off the cuff here. It was to answer, through example, a false point. > > I play a lot of non-cam's that are big (viva the lasombra), PTO hasn't > > Umm... Lasombra are probably the best vote clan there is of all the > potential targets of PTO, they are probably the least likely to care > about PTO because if they don't have vote control, they've already > lost. Also, I would be remiss to point out that no one else in the > playgroup owns any significant number of PTOs because of large gaping > maw that is your PTO collection. Again, I can only blame myself as I > bought so many packs of AH and then traded away the "useless" > Camarilla cards for more shiny Quietus rares. Yeah, although that's changed with the reprint. "useless" and Silence of Death in the same sentence? turning in our membership to PoB? > > stopped that. I see Assamite decks every freaking time I play. The > > Giovanni are everywhere, and yet PTO exists. Why do these decks > > continue to be played? Because PTO hurts them but a smart player can > > Because I for one love the Assamites. PTO won't make me stop playing > Assamites, but it sure as hell makes me want to stop playing against > anyone who plays that card. I'm not sure you understand the pure > hatred I have for this card Cameron. I've come to accept its > existance out of apathy, but don't think for a moment I don't think > the card should be banned. Dave, I know you're a special case with the assamites, but you're not the only one who plays them. Giovanni are all over the place. Heslin plays weird non-cam stuff all the time. There are anarch decks running around. PTO hasn't stiffled the groups creativity. And yes I know you hate it. And I understand apathy is whats keeping you from strangling me, but broken? > > I know several players that hate PTO, and feel that it's overpowered, > > wrong, and evil. They've played against it, lost vampires to it, and > > still have this feeling. I can accept that, it's their informed > > I feel that I can be counted among that number having been subject to > PTO more than most people being in our playgroup. I know I've > admitted to you before that PTO isn't broken, but I must recant my > weakness. I cannot in good faith assert that this card is balanced. Neither can I. It's undercosted and needs the cost increased. > > "Fucking PTO" - Dave B. (aramis) > > Geez man, change your sig once in awhile... =) eh, I've used like 3 of them in this thread alone. I just figured I'd save you the time of rebutting my post. ;) > Aramis > ----------------------------------------- > When facing an IC member at the table... > "Rush them cross-table, it's the only way to be sure." - Dave B. Cameron "I can burn Arika's leather jacket in Cameron's untap phase." - Heslin

Derek Ray wrote: > I think that if you make a broken effect only happen once per game, it's > still broken and now it's just a race to see who gets to the broken > effect first. Just chiming in late--yeah, making the card only playable once per game wouldn't make the effect less broken (as it is way broken), but it at least would be a very easy, very precidented fix that would successfully make the card much less of an issue. If it is only playable once per game, you only can reasonably put so many in a deck, meaning it is unlikely to come up much, and it makes something like Delaying Tactics and DI much more of a viable defense (assuming that if it gets delayed or DIed, it still counts as being "played"). I mean, pre-Camarilla, Temptation of Greater Power was a total atrocity. But now it rarely ever comes up, 'cause it was given the "Once per game" limit. And Temptation was much less damaging than PTO (at least you got some pool in exchange...). Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BC1C89B5.12C4B%pd...@lightlink.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Temptation of Greater Power hurts more then PTO.. whit PTO u loose the vamp (lets say its Goratrix..), whit Temptation of Greater Power your pray or pred takes controle of your vamp, and now you got the Goratrix Monster on you.. so you lost your vamp and now he is bleeding you..

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BC1C89B5.12C4B%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Derek Ray wrote: > > > I think that if you make a broken effect only happen once per game, it's > > still broken and now it's just a race to see who gets to the broken > > effect first. > > Just chiming in late--yeah, making the card only playable once per game > wouldn't make the effect less broken (as it is way broken), but it at least > would be a very easy, very precidented fix that would successfully make the > card much less of an issue. If it is only playable once per game, you only > can reasonably put so many in a deck, meaning it is unlikely to come up > much, and it makes something like Delaying Tactics and DI much more of a > viable defense (assuming that if it gets delayed or DIed, it still counts as > being "played"). I think that the biggest problem with PTO (and I'm not yet willing to say broken) is that it can burn the cornerstone of you're deck (ie Fatima with her AR.) Once per game still allows this to occur, while making the usefulness against weenies nearly nonexistant - in essence limiting a card like this (or ToGP) to once per game simply makes you target it even more on the one big important vampire. > I mean, pre-Camarilla, Temptation of Greater Power was a total atrocity. But > now it rarely ever comes up, 'cause it was given the "Once per game" limit. > And Temptation was much less damaging than PTO (at least you got some pool > in exchange...). erm... Hostile gives you pool ToGP just lends you the rope to hang yourself. Cameron

[snip] > Arika can't make PTO broken, PTO can't make Arika broken, the have to > stand on their own. Oh, and Shhh... about my secret tech. That > action is admittedly what's made me change my mind on the costing of > the card. But look, is it possiable to kill and IC? Yes it is, it's > happened enough to me. Is it possiable to block an IC? Yes it is, > it's happened enough to me. PTO requires and IC vote deck. Not just > any vote deck. And 11 pool in one basket is the reason we're having > the arguement about PTO in the first place. I've just noticed something here. A lot of the people who are defending PTO seem to be contradicting themselves, somewhat. On one hand, they say "PTO isn't broken because you have to use an 11 cap to get it to work right" (by which I assume they mean that investing 1/3rd of your starting pool is a very risky thing, even without the possibility of that vampire being burned outright by a political action). Then, on the other hand, some seem to be saying "Well sure I just burned my prey's Thetmes, but that's hardly the end of their game.....they'll recover." Cameron, from the other side of the fence.

> > I mean, pre-Camarilla, Temptation of Greater Power was a total atrocity. But > > now it rarely ever comes up, 'cause it was given the "Once per game" limit. > > And Temptation was much less damaging than PTO (at least you got some pool > > in exchange...). > > erm... Hostile gives you pool ToGP just lends you the rope to hang > yourself. Well, the opponents of this card don't really care about the pool loss since Arika could just as well have bled for 8. The loss of the vampire is more the issue, which is why both Temptation and Hostile takeover were changed.

> Yeah, well my next thread will be why fear of mekhet is broken. And I > don't see the anti-PTO metagaming, I'm talking about tournements where > I simply misjudged the metagame and brougth PTO to Camarilla tables. Playing Cam decks when people might otherwise play non-Cam is exactly the kind of metagaming I'm talking about. Fear of Mekhet is way too cornercase. DT is probably the best metagame response to PTO decks, but it doesn't really save you, it just delays the inevitable. > Eh, I just don't see a lot of votes in this playgroup. At least since > Kevin left. The card is undercosted, I freely and often admit that. But is it undercosted because it lacks a significant cost or because the effect is so huge? I think it is the latter whereas you seem to believe the former. In my opinion there are some effects that are just too powerful to ever balance by a pool or blood cost. > Arika can't make PTO broken, PTO can't make Arika broken, the have to huh? I was simply stating that we should judge the power of PTO by the vampire that uses it best. If one vampire can break a card, the card is overpowered and should be "fixed". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how cards are playtested? A card may look fine on paper by itself, but it is in the combos with other cards that we find a card to be overpowered and in need of a fix. > stand on their own. Oh, and Shhh... about my secret tech. That > action is admittedly what's made me change my mind on the costing of I'll be quiet now about the secret tech, but I don't think that is the reason PTO needs a fix. PTO needed a fix way before Anarchs. > the card. But look, is it possiable to kill and IC? Yes it is, it's > happened enough to me. Is it possiable to block an IC? Yes it is, > it's happened enough to me. PTO requires and IC vote deck. Not just > any vote deck. And 11 pool in one basket is the reason we're having > the arguement about PTO in the first place. I'm not seeing the difference between the 11 pool you pay for Arika and the 11 pool I pay for Ur-Shulgi, who incidently can be burned by PTO. I don't see any tac-nuke cards for 11-cap independents? Other fat vampires have to defend themselves just as much as the IC and don't get access to a PTO-equivalent effect. > I'm not going to put broken there. PTO beats Assamite big guy combat. > Like Unblockable/Kiss of Ra beats Tzim intercept, or Gangrel combat > beats pot combat. In that situation you make a deal and get what you > can. I don't think it's quite that easy to dismiss. There are foils to decks I'll admit, but PTO is a foil to more than just one strategy, it foils a broad range of crypt choices. That looks less like a foil and more like a big hammer to me. > As for why it came up... I brought that situation up because it was > asserted that anytime non-camarilla sit next to PTO they're immediatly > out of the game. Which isn't true. I'm not tossing it around quite > off the cuff here. It was to answer, through example, a false point. I agree, the example was valid, I'm just tired of seeing my name in the toady spot every time we discuss PTO. I guess I'm just going to have to adopt a hard-line on IC members from here out to clear my name. > Yeah, although that's changed with the reprint. "useless" and Silence > of Death in the same sentence? turning in our membership to PoB? No, no.. I traded those "useless" PTO's for precious Silence of Deaths... Only too late did I discover the monster I had helped create. > Dave, I know you're a special case with the assamites, but you're not > the only one who plays them. Giovanni are all over the place. Heslin > plays weird non-cam stuff all the time. There are anarch decks > running around. PTO hasn't stiffled the groups creativity. And yes I > know you hate it. And I understand apathy is whats keeping you from > strangling me, but broken? I'd argue that's a recent trend since you shelved the Southern Baptist deck, but I don't have hard data on who's played what since that deck went into the archives. > Neither can I. It's undercosted and needs the cost increased. I don't think there is anyone in the thread that has been saying the card shouldn't be fixed. The argument as I understand it is between the two camps of "increase the cost" versus "reduce the effect". So hopefully this card is on the Design Team's radar at least for possible review and errata in Gehenna.

"mesh" <mesh...@eftel.com.au> wrote in message news:<3ff755ca$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au>... [ quoted text not captured ] i'm not saying losing your vampire isn't game shattering (if it's your only one, you haven't had time to bloat... yada yada yada.) PTO is a very powerful card, if you can set it up for use. There in lies the rub. Losing Arika is bad for my PTO deck. Losing Thetmes is bad for a Thetmes rush deck. I design my Arika deck to take into account the possiability of rush, bleed, etc. Some things kill it no matter what I do (Mind Numb, Brainwash, Pentex) other things I can plan for and defend against. PTO is one of the things you can defend against, through play style, cards, whatever. Not doing so means that you can lose him, like forgetting to pack combat D will lead to Arika going bye bye at KoKo's nearest opertunity. Cameron

hmm, i was sitting here thinking about how this card represents the Camarilla taking on vampires as an entire sect to get rid of a single opposing vampire. thematically wouldn't this mean that the Camarilla has instituted some sort of eternal bum-rush against the said minion until they are ash? If so why doesn't Protect Thine Own represent some of the casualty factor of this? Perhaps keeping the original effect of the entire card but increase its cost by requiring the player to sacrifice enough of his own vamires (burnt into the ash heap mind you) up to the capacity cost of targeted vampire - and any excess capacity over gets converted into pool. This way ICs can trade off for big 11-caps, showing the idea that it was a major battle and both ended up dying. Or having 3 or so mid-caps being burnt off to destroy a big cap, showing that the casualty rate is intense. This is probably an overly penalizing effect. But I feel it's thematic. Also it keeps a hoser card from being reduced to nullity (like being banned or "one referendum per game"). I believe that the Camarilla's big power of organization and voting needs to be represented in the game. It needs to hose opposition. I like well designed clan/sect hoser cards - it makes the card world reflect the flavor of the world it represents. That I believe is some of the great charm of V:tES, all the clans/sects and hostile interaction. But that said PTO is far too powerful as it stands and represents no real struggle for said effects. I believe the obscene hosing effect can be kept, but the opportunity cost as a simple action (which is undeniably obscene as it stands) needs to be representatively increased. If you had to sack a Justicar, IC member, or some other combination of vampires equivilent to the capacity to get rid of a horrifying non-Cam would you do it so flippantly? Or would you really think hard about it? It'd still see play this way and yet also show that the might of the Camarilla is in unity and organization, not sheer brute force. Too harsh? Too weak? how would you tweak this idea?

"Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:QMydnXfEKJm...@comcast.com... > hmm, i was sitting here thinking about how this card represents the > Camarilla taking on vampires as an entire sect to get rid of a single > opposing vampire. thematically wouldn't this mean that the Camarilla has > instituted some sort of eternal bum-rush against the said minion until they > are ash? If so why doesn't Protect Thine Own represent some of the casualty > factor of this? You mean exactly like Blood Hunt? -JTP

Was the conversation on Return to Innocence as long and _________ as well?

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > How about this; Put it into play, if the acting vampire remains ready on their next untap phase, THEN the pto burns the targeted vampire. G

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: 1 blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting > vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any > Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn > that vampire. > > Let's all assume this card is broken for the sake of discussion. What > changes would be required to "unbreak" it? > > How about this (changes in <>): > Protect Thine Own > Political Action > Cost: <X> blood > Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 > stealth. > Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below <X>. Justicars > may only choose Non-Camarilla vampires with capacity below 6. If this > referendum is successful, burn that vampire. How about this? Protect Thine Own Political Action Cost: 1 pool Worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. Controler of that vampire gains pool equal to capacity of that vampire. Than this card will slow down deck but don't help you to oust sometimes makes that player harder to oust. I know there can by problem with parity shift. Thanks. Matkov

> > > Do you feel that there have been any broken cards in the history of this > > > game? > > > > Most definitely:Monocle of Clarity in its original version. > > That's the only one? > Yep > > *they see what a certain card can do when played well by a good player > > PtO's uses are pretty obvious. Doesn't require a good player to play > Arika and call a single vote. It *does* require a good player to play Arika and survive nowadays> > > *they see what a certain card can do in certain circumstances, but > > fail to grasp the specific factors that enabled it being played that > > way, and how small the odds were of it actually doing that. > > Just because the odds of a broken card being played are small in a given > game doesn't make it less broken. I'm not talking about the odds of it being played, I'm talking about the odds of a certain card perorming a broken effect. > > *they fail to understand how to play against this specific card > > The defenses against the card in question are either poor or easily trumped. Disagree: play DI, Delay,Vox whatever,outvote them, intercept them,.. > > > *fail to anticipate it being played frequently. > > Anticipating a broken card being played frequently doesn't make it less > broken. It makes for people being prepared for it. > > > *do not grasp it's weaknesses > > What's the weakness in burning any non-cam vampire of your choice? You need an IC, you need to have the votes,you need to *not* encounter any of the anti-cards, you need a legal target, you need to be able to pick the right target. > > > *fail to see the difference between a "broken card", and the supremacy > > of the player/deckbuilder handling it > > Any idiot can throw Arika and PtO in a deck and have it ruin someone's > game. This isn't difficult tech we're talking about here. No, he can't.Not everybody's game is as easily ruined by 1 card as you make it out to be. > > > IMHO, none of the above reasons make a card broken. > > The card's effects make it broken, regardless of someone's preparation > for it. All of the reasons you give above could be applied to the > original Monocle of Clarity. > The card's effect is simply not strong enough for this to be true. The difference between PTO and Monocle is that the Monocle actually enabled you to oust someone.PTO doesn't even come close to having that effect. I simply A) seem to have a different vision on what makes a card broken B) do not share in the absolute scare this card seems to give everyone.. Greetz Jo

Just in case someone is keeping track of the people pro and con, write me down with those that say it ain't broken. Yes ofcourse it is a very powerful card, but in my environment the loss of one vampire (usually midcap) will not lose you the game, and the cost of playing the PTO succesfully to your advantage is too high. (playing IC's, protect them against rushes, be fast enough, don't be blocked, don't be outvoted, don't be DI-ed, don't be DT-ed, don't be Voxed, having a usefull target) I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But isn't it the sign of a good player to adjust to your environment? I mean when people started playing more stealth-bleed, i adjusted by playing more deflections, or i will choose another deck (rush/bloat?) If PTO becomes important in our environment i will start playing more DI's, or Voxes, or weenie/midcap(rush) or Camarilla, long enough until they stop playing them again. I mean that is pretty usual stuff in VTES, right? W

<snip stuff i have no opinion about really> Legbiter is currently > about to run right over me in a JOL game with an Autarkis Persecution > based weenie vote deck. Actually it's a toolbox trick deck, designed to get out the Renegade Garou with an assault rifle, rush the table to death and then swarm-bleed its successive preys. But it is quite flexible, and in the game in question it has in fact played AS IF it were a weenie vote deck. Perhaps weenie vote/bleed core with trick allies bolt-on. And ironically, I am playing Arika PTO sleaze, > so I can't say that I have lost any respect for him :) Erm, thanks, i think ;-) > > Cheers, > WES

In message <44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about: >I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty >troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But >isn't it the sign of a good player to adjust to your environment? I So you are saying that nobody should be playing with big vampires, because the environment doesn't justify it. Thanks! You're on the bandwagon with 'broken' now, in case you didn't realize it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty > troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But You arbitrarily limit your consideration to prey and predator; the actual card has no such restriction, and that is one part of the problem. As to "one man" decks.... If you field a large vampire, how much pool do you have left over to commit to other vampires? How quickly can you recoupe the resources necessary to do so? You are essentially arguing that no large vampires, other than Camarilla of course, should be playable in anything other than "goofy" games. > I mean that is pretty usual stuff in VTES, right? It's easy to adjust a local metagame where you see the same handful of players and, at any given time, the same cluster of decks. Tournaments tend to be one-off affairs and, therefore, much more difficult to deliberately "calibrate" in the manner you suggest. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

> You arbitrarily limit your consideration to prey and predator; the actual > card has no such restriction, and that is one part of the problem. As to > "one man" decks.... If you field a large vampire, how much pool do you > have left over to commit to other vampires? How quickly can you recoupe > the resources necessary to do so? You are essentially arguing that no > large vampires, other than Camarilla of course, should be playable in > anything other than "goofy" games. As it is no large vampires are playable in anything other than goofy games either way. PtO is hardly the reason. It's more that some ugle 2cap nosferatu can burn him with the right 4 card combo, or the fact that big vampires generally can do only one action without loading your deck with Freak Drives. The benefits simply aren't big enough with the sole exception of *maybe* Arika, part of which is her ability to play PtO combined with arguably the best discipline combo in the game.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > As it is no large vampires are playable in anything other than goofy > games either way. Does the TWD support this assertion? No, it does not. > PtO is hardly the reason. It's more that some ugle 2cap nosferatu can > burn him with the right 4 card combo Begging the question. Out of the box, PTO does this. De facto, large vampire decks will include serious combat defense. This has all been gone over before, and the two scenarios are not equivelant, not by a long shot. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031229...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > Well, for one thing, Cailean sets range to long and laughs at them, at the > very least. Cailean is just about impossible to put down with straight > combat. That's why he's a ten cap with no title and no bounce. Oh, but > you're playing PTO. Right. Um, *which* Cailean are we talking about? Because mine reads "Archbishop of Detroit" and as inferior dominate. Magnus

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Magnus Knoblauch wrote: > Um, *which* Cailean are we talking about? Because mine reads "Archbishop of Detroit" and as inferior dominate. The one in my head who's worse than the actual card. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > As it is no large vampires are playable in anything other than goofy > > games either way. > > Does the TWD support this assertion? No, it does not. If fatties are so fucking playable then WHY for the love of god do you keep whining about PtO? What is it? Is it so overpowered that it scares non-cam fattie decks away on tours? (but it apparently doesn't?? wtf) Is it just some crusade against a card just because there must be some card that's not right? > > PtO is hardly the reason. It's more that some ugle 2cap nosferatu can > > burn him with the right 4 card combo > > Begging the question. Out of the box, PTO does this. De facto, large > vampire decks will include serious combat defense. This has all been gone > over before, and the two scenarios are not equivelant, not by a long shot. Definately not reading it right. I'm gonna say this again, fatties are NOT umplayable because of PtO and neither are they LESS playable. Does it screw up one star decks, YES it does? Does bounce screw up bleeders? yes. Does Obedience screw up rushers? yes. I suggest we ban PtO, Bounce and Obedience. More?

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > If fatties are so fucking playable then WHY for the love of god do you > keep whining about PtO? You know, I'm a big boy, and wordy-durds don't make me go whining for momma. But you've already asked me once to be more civil to you, specifically, so stop being a fucking hypocrite, unless you are just *asking* for a flame war. > What is it? Is it so overpowered that it scares non-cam fattie decks > away on tours? (but it apparently doesn't?? wtf) No, none of these things. My reply to you was based specifically on your easily-refuted-by-one-line assertion, that large vampires are only playable in venues where people aren't playing the game "seriously". Would you care to dig that hole a little deeper? > Is it just some crusade against a card just because there must be some > card that's not right? No, rather than it being some cathartic outlet for my neurosis, I simply find the effect to be bad for the game. FWIW, I am encouraged when I look at the names that appear to weigh in on my side of the argument, and further encouraged that no one, with the exception of Cameron Domer, on the opposite side as someone who's opinion of unrelated elements has ever made me go "wow". > I'm gonna say this again, fatties are NOT umplayable because of PtO and > neither are they LESS playable. But you do want to maintain your stance that they are unplayable for other reasons? This undermines your credibility in my eyes. OF COURSE they are harder to play than weenies (which are broken) or midcaps; it is fairly impersonal logic to see the relationship between diffusing your resources through many targets, the number of actions and blocks available, and the amount of pool invested, and to then weigh that against the slight disadvantage of less robust discipline spreads. > Does it screw up one star decks, YES it does? It generates an effect that is more, IMO, than any one card should generate. The only other way to burn vampires, essentially, is combat. Combat != PTO. Diablerie != PTO. Look, here's my head, and there's the brick wall: WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!!!!!! > Does bounce screw up > bleeders? yes. Does Obedience screw up rushers? yes. Are you aware just how weak argument by analogy is? The distinctions between these things has already been pointed out. Exhasuted though I am with the repitition, I will lob just a few of them out there, by way of exit: Neither effect is available only to Camarilla vampires, nor do any of them only target non-Camarilla vampires. Each card's play is predicated upon an action that is directed at *you*. Further, each of these actions are at zero stealth. Etc, etc, ad nauseum. > I suggest we ban PtO, Bounce and Obedience. More? You say that like you are looking good here. Have a nut, it's your funeral. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > If fatties are so fucking playable then WHY for the love of god do you > > keep whining about PtO? > > You know, I'm a big boy, and wordy-durds don't make me go whining for > momma. But you've already asked me once to be more civil to you, > specifically, so stop being a fucking hypocrite, unless you are just > *asking* for a flame war. I'm not asking for anything. It's just that you (and several other people) keep redefining the problem with PtO to counter arguments in favor of it. First the pool loss is the problem. So, PtO-pro suggest that half the pool is regained. Then all of a sudden it's the actual minionloss that's the problem. Of course any analogy to combat, banishment or Sens dep is simply ignored or called "not the same thing" without further arguments. Then the problem is that big vamps are already too weak anyway and that PtO fucks up just those decks, while those decks should be improved with or without changing PtO anyway. And now all of a sudden fatties are perfectly competitive. Make up your mind. > > What is it? Is it so overpowered that it scares non-cam fattie decks > > away on tours? (but it apparently doesn't?? wtf) > > No, none of these things. My reply to you was based specifically on your > easily-refuted-by-one-line assertion, that large vampires are only > playable in venues where people aren't playing the game > "seriously". Would you care to dig that hole a little deeper? I didn't say that. I merely stated that big vampires are too weak in general to be competitive, aside from a few trick decks. The term useless, I think I used, was merely a word I copied from a previous post to make clear what line I was replying to. You, of course, pick just that to, well, pick on. You really can't disagree that playing with fatties is far riskier than with midcaps or weenies and require more than just deckbuilding and play skill to win with. > > Is it just some crusade against a card just because there must be some > > card that's not right? > > No, rather than it being some cathartic outlet for my neurosis, I simply > find the effect to be bad for the game. FWIW, I am encouraged when I look > at the names that appear to weigh in on my side of the argument, and > further encouraged that no one, with the exception of Cameron Domer, on > the opposite side as someone who's opinion of unrelated elements has ever > made me go "wow". As far as I know the ONLY argument I've seen against PtO is that it's "too strong" or "stupid that it can't target cams" or "it means game over for certain decks". Anything the other side throws at you (plural) is being ignored or defined as "not true" or "different ballgame". I have yet to see the first, real, unbiased, based upon facts and not opinion argument against PtO. Until I've seen that, I'm not convinced it's broken. You could argue many cards broken by your (again, plural) logic. > > I'm gonna say this again, fatties are NOT umplayable because of PtO and > > neither are they LESS playable. > > But you do want to maintain your stance that they are unplayable for other > reasons? This undermines your credibility in my eyes. OF COURSE they are > harder to play than weenies (which are broken) or midcaps; it is fairly > impersonal logic to see the relationship between diffusing your resources > through many targets, the number of actions and blocks available, and the > amount of pool invested, and to then weigh that against the slight > disadvantage of less robust discipline spreads. Fine, if I just change unplayble to "not competitive" (I did exlpain why I used the term unplayable somewhere else in this post). Better? > > Does it screw up one star decks, YES it does? > > It generates an effect that is more, IMO, than any one card should > generate. The only other way to burn vampires, essentially, is > combat. Combat != PTO. Diablerie != PTO. Look, here's my head, and > there's the brick wall: WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!!!!!! The IMO is pretty critical in this argument. You do believe it's too strong. I don't, considering the restrictions. Of course these restrictions are "no problem at all" and yet 4 card rush combo's are "out of the discussion". All the while we're playing PtO, Elder Impersonation, Forgotten Labyrinth AND Bewitching Oration. All with Arika, who is soooo easy to get and keep on the table, of course. > > Does bounce screw up > > bleeders? yes. Does Obedience screw up rushers? yes. > > Are you aware just how weak argument by analogy is? The distinctions > between these things has already been pointed out. Exhasuted though I am > with the repitition, I will lob just a few of them out there, by way of > exit: > Neither effect is available only to Camarilla vampires, nor do any of them > only target non-Camarilla vampires. There's multiple cards that target only Sabbat, Cammies, Indeps or a certain clan. Whether or not this is a good idea in the first place has nothing to do with how broken PtO is. > Each card's play is predicated upon an action that is directed at *you*. Which is why I argued PtO to be prey or predator only. > Further, each of these actions are at zero stealth. All those actions are automatically succesful, while for PtO a referendum is needed.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1ipivvc3lnilbil1o...@4ax.com>... > In message <44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>, > Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about: > > >I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty > >troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But > >isn't it the sign of a good player to adjust to your environment? I > > So you are saying that nobody should be playing with big vampires, > because the environment doesn't justify it. Thanks! You're on the > bandwagon with 'broken' now, in case you didn't realize it. Read what he wrote Derek you're smarter than this. If a deck type is prevelant, you play another deck type that beats it, until that deck type stops showing up and something else that beats you begins to make the rounds. If I show up in Ithaca expecting Majesty to defend me from combat, I get what's coming to me. If I want people to get away from IG, I play a lot of POT/FOR or PRO/POT and kill them without repercussion until they stop and play decks that beat me. If a PTO deck shows up in a meta-game, you play weenies, camarilla vamps, or vote defense and plenty of Fear of Mekhet... the PTO deck is retired after a few weeks for weenie hate and you bring big vamps. Ta freaking Da. Cameron

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I'm not asking for anything. It's just that you (and several other > people) keep redefining the problem with PtO to counter arguments in > favor of it. I'm not redefining it. I think PTO is broken in about half a dozen ways. As you make some argument against it's brokenness, I will naturally point to the aspect that I feel refutes it. It's not shifting the goalpost, it's carrying on a multi-faceted discussion (for the millionth time). > First the pool loss is the problem. So, PtO-pro suggest that half the > pool is regained. Of course, that's admitting the card needs changing. Then it's just haggling as to how. Personally, I've never wavered from my position that it should just be flat-out banned. I'll counter-argue various justifications for not banning it, but that's my take. > Then all of a sudden it's the actual minionloss that's > the problem. Of course any analogy to combat, banishment or Sens dep is > simply ignored or called "not the same thing" without further arguments. No, it's called not the same thing without typing out the same thing I typed out yesterday, all over again. Really, did I just hallucinate and imagine that I talked once about how SenseDep is very different, much weaker, and more balanced than PTO? Ditto for combat? I only dismiss it because I've already made the argument. Or someone has, and I'm not repeating them. > Then the problem is that big vamps are already too weak anyway and that > PtO fucks up just those decks, while those decks should be improved with > or without changing PtO anyway. And now all of a sudden fatties are > perfectly competitive. Make up your mind. It's an unfair advantage for the Camarilla. It makes fatties, already difficult to play at the highest level, even more so. What more reason do you need? In either case, it isn't an either/or scenario. > > > What is it? Is it so overpowered that it scares non-cam fattie decks > > > away on tours? (but it apparently doesn't?? wtf) Some people have balls. They're usually stupid for displaying them, as some Einstein who thinks his Dom/Obf bleed deck is the height of skill walks away with the victory, but they have them all the same. > I didn't say that. I merely stated that big vampires are too weak in > general to be competitive, aside from a few trick decks. And wouldn't it be nice to rectify that, just a little. Not grab the pendulum and bury it in the wall on the other side, just..... even things out a little bit. Are you wedded to the status quo.? > The term > useless, I think I used, was merely a word I copied from a previous post > to make clear what line I was replying to. You, of course, pick just > that to, well, pick on. Well you used the word. Don't blame me for not knowing you actually meant something other than what you wrote. > You really can't disagree that playing with > fatties is far riskier than with midcaps or weenies and require more > than just deckbuilding and play skill to win with. No, of course not. The game is heavily slanted towards weenie vampires and Camarilla vampires. Wouldn't it be nice if it weren't so? Imagine that you had the power to do something about it. Imagine there was some guy who decides what gets changed in the game, and that he might be listening. Fantasy, I know, because if there were such a guy, he'd obviously be sipping rum out of coconuts and fucking dark-skinned women on some tropical island with his pilez of mad loot, not spending all his time lurking on some newsgroup. But just imagine..... > As far as I know the ONLY argument I've seen against PtO is that it's > "too strong" or "stupid that it can't target cams" or "it means game > over for certain decks". Those are three good arguments. Do you think they are wrong, or do you think they are right, but just need even more reasons. Because if it's the former, I'm going to say "see previous posts." If it's the latter, we're done, cause you are nuts. Well, the last one *could* be a bad argument, but it actually isn't. > The IMO is pretty critical in this argument. You do believe it's too > strong. I don't, considering the restrictions. Of course these > restrictions are "no problem at all" and yet 4 card rush combo's are > "out of the discussion". All the while we're playing PtO, Elder > Impersonation, Forgotten Labyrinth AND Bewitching Oration. All with > Arika, who is soooo easy to get and keep on the table, of course. It is sooooo easy to get, watch: I transfer 11. I have Arika. Keeping is quite a bit easier. Obedience goes 99% of the way. But the real fallacy here is wishing to keep calling this PTO thing a 4 card combo. It isn't. +1 stealth, 5 votes in favor. Sure, some tables are title-fests, but those titles are as likely to be for you as against you, as you deal for the votes (like, I call the next one on some guy you don't like), or you target some combat god that any non-combat god wants to see gone, etc etc). Table votes are exactly a wash, and therefore not a consideration. You play with push anyway, but that has more to do with fueling your minion tap and taking free +1 stealth actions that say "Gain two pool, and..... stuff." Then there are the tables where having the edge is vote lock, and those tables happen. They even happen in good groups. Don't try to tell me otherwise. So, the votes you have, you start with stealth. Who starts with intercept? A negligible number of vampires. After that, it's a card-for-card tit-for-tat. One card, PTO, burns the vampire. There is no one card that does that in combat. Heck, you ate up one card just getting there, in all likelihood. > There's multiple cards that target only Sabbat, Cammies, Indeps or a > certain clan. Whether or not this is a good idea in the first place has > nothing to do with how broken PtO is. And that's fine. That's variety. The magnitude of PTO's effect, *combined* with it's exclusivity and scope, are the combinant problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Pine.GSO.4.21.04010...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Magnus Knoblauch wrote: > > > Um, *which* Cailean are we talking about? Because mine reads "Archbishop of Detroit" and as inferior dominate. > > The one in my head who's worse than the actual card. ;) > <g> Sorry for chewing you out, when other had already done so. I post as I read, so I sometimes miss that other people already did say the same as I. Magnus

"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<bt1vn0$2fa70$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>... > And if the referendum is successful (i.e., if there are more votes for than, > against), and if there is a non-Camarilla vampire in the game... Yes, there's the real kick in the pants. "Non-Camarilla". What would you feel about PTO reading "if this vampire is an Inner Circle member, then choose any vampire". Remove the restriction from not being able to burn Camarilla vampires... Restricting it from targeting the Camarilla vampires merely limits deck options. Why not give every clan/sect the same fear of PTO. There's no reason that the cammies should get off the hook (since there's no "non-independant" and "non-Sabbat" PTO). All that does is limit deck construction. People that like the card as it is should have no problem with the above change; it will balance the card away from being a sect hoser and towards just being a vampire hoser. It won't be a limiting factor on deck construction anymore, since there will be no specific disadvantage for playing large non-cam vamps instead of large Cam vamps. People that hate the card because they continually get their big non-cam vampires burned won't have a change of argument. And they'd get to see the love spread out a bit. Get on the bandwagon now! Sign the petition for the PtO upgrade! -- -Snapcase

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com... > texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.04010...@posting.google.com>... > err. yeah. bums rush, undead strength, disarm, amaranth. 4 cards, > used by a one cap vampire. Burns any vampire in the game without +1 > strength or a built in additional or prevent. Or prevention cards, S:CE cards, dodge, maneuver, obedience, +damage strike cards, additional strike cards... are you expecting the opposing minion to have *no* combat defense cards on his starting hand? Magnus

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>... > X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > > > > Bleed me out before I've got a vamp (It's possiable to do), burn my > > > > > vamp in combat with Agg damage or Tariq/Amaranth... these things > > > > > prevent me from using my vampire. > > > > > > > > At a cost of cosiderable card usage. > > > > > > err. yeah. bums rush, undead strength, disarm, amaranth. 4 cards, > > > used by a one cap vampire. Burns any vampire in the game without +1 > > > strength or a built in additional or prevent. > > > > If I have a dodge or strike combat ends or if I block and have a > > manuever, then I still beat your 4 card combo. > > Why is the prey of the pot deck allowed to play cards to stop the > combo when the prey of the PTO deck isn't allowed to play cards to > stop the PTO combo? Both combos are four cards. Both burn a vampire > if they are sucessful. The pot angle is available to more vampires > and has less restricitons than the PTO angle. Both can be defended > against, and you should have ways of dealing with both combat and > votes in your decks. > > > > > Looking at PTO purely in terms of pool swing -- burning Ezmerelda or > > > > Sutekh would be a 11-pool bleed equivalent. How do you do that in a > > > > single action as a bleed? > > > > > > keeping in mind that your prey happened to have the 11 cap > > > non-camarilla, and no one does anything to stand up to the vote, yes > > > this can happen. > > > > Ezmerelda 2 votes< Arika's 4 votes > > Does this make sense? > > <sigh> look, the whole table is going to try to maintain table > balance, and they'll likely try to prevent Ez from going bye bye. If > no one else has votes, like I said, then this can happen. IF the > table seating is perfect and no one else can or will do anything. But > a lot of deck effectiveness is seating. Any counter sitting next to > the ideal prey will be in the same type of situation. If Arika dares to add sufficient stealth and a Bewitching Oration there really is nothing that anyone can do. Opposing votes don't mean much to a single IC member -- because if the deck is built to pass any vote reliably, it can reliably pass PTO. Which does NOT justify PTO nor make it any less broken. Dorrinal

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>... > Read what he wrote Derek you're smarter than this. If a deck type is > prevelant, you play another deck type that beats it, until that deck > type stops showing up and something else that beats you begins to make > the rounds. I think this point has been raised before: Just because there's a workaround doesn't mean it's not broken. Sure everyone could play Camarilla vampires *all the time* and never have to worry about PTO. But PTO's effect is still way to powerful for its cost, even if you never get to use it!

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bsstd4$2is$1...@reader10.wxs.nl... >> If I have a bunch of Obediences and Majesties in my deck and happen to > have non combat predators and preys, those cards are also useless. How so? Obedience stops every vampire you block cold, unless of course he is has equal/higher capacity. He taps, you stay untapped. He doesn´t have to be rushing you for this card to be cool. Majesty is cool, too. Bleed your prey for +2 with Arika. Unless he deflects, he´ll surely try to block. Majesty at superior. Untap and vote him away. He has one less minion to block now. Magnus

On 4 Jan 2004 23:56:27 -0800, mat...@mail.host.sk (matkov) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] Make it have to choose a vampire controller by another methuselah, to prevent crazy bloat minion tap/PTO decks. (all 11 caps all the time). salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not > read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an > intercept wall? Could you kindly point me to this article, name of the thread/URL or somesuch? Magnus

In message <a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1ipivvc3lnilbil1o...@4ax.com>... >> In message <44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>, >> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about: >> >> >I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty >> >troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But >> >isn't it the sign of a good player to adjust to your environment? I >> >> So you are saying that nobody should be playing with big vampires, >> because the environment doesn't justify it. Thanks! You're on the >> bandwagon with 'broken' now, in case you didn't realize it. > >Read what he wrote Derek you're smarter than this. If a deck type is And so are you, and so is he. Read what WE'RE saying, over here on the "tired of getting decks fucked by PTO" side of the fence. Read my post about how playing anything above a 7-cap non-Cam in a tournament is, ... if you want to give yourself the best possible chance of winning ... a stupid decision. >prevelant, you play another deck type that beats it, until that deck >type stops showing up and something else that beats you begins to make >the rounds. Environmentally specific arguments don't belong in this discussion, because I'm sure there are some places where an IC member can't survive long enough to call the PTO because it's all combat. That isn't what you'll see when everyone is playing to win. The environment that matters is the one where everyone is playing to win, and I would really like to see it happen someday... all the good players bringing actual STRONG decks, instead of decks that are good-but-creative. I think we'd find out awful darn quick which cards are broken if people really tried. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:16:08 +0100, "Magnus Knoblauch" <magn...@gmx.de> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i think it might be this: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3041848851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=h36iev40oktjkqdk68pdpt4pft2jgbavun%404ax.com&rnum=8 (the url is big, you might have to cut-and-paste the text of the url in line-by-line to your web browser to get it to work.) but i am not sure. that was about 6 months ago, not 'nary a month before'. good article none-the-less. worth reading. [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... Does anyone else find it amusing that many of those who are arguing here on the "pro-PTO" side of things come from Europe while those are are "anti-PTO" side are from the U.S.? Trying to lighten things up a bit...;) Jeff

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:49:04 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not >>> read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an >>> intercept wall? >>Could you kindly point me to this article, name of the thread/URL or somesuch? http://www.thelasombra.com/walldecks.htm

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ml4kvvkkivhjmgs6r...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks, you two. :) Magnus

"Magnus Knoblauch" <magn...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<btcr33$qh9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] "expecting"? No. "keeping to comparison to PTO being made above the same"? Yes. Again: a) Arika using only PTO/stealth/Closed Session/BO gives 9 votes for burning any non-Camarilla vampire. This is treated as unpreventable. Nevermind vote defense. b) So I gave the above example with Hasina Kesi Bums' Rush/Undead Strenght/Disarm/Amaranth, burns any vampire without inherent ability to prevent it. Nevermind combat defense. In real life we expect the player in B) to have something (anything really) to keep Hasina from sending our (very possiably 11 cap vampire) to torpor. but in real life I expect people to play vote defense too. If it makes you feel better, make both combo's 5 cards by adding a Voter Cap to one and an IG to the other. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover which card goes in which combo. Cameron

dorr...@hotmail.com (Dorrinal Blackmantle) babbled in message > > If Arika dares to add sufficient stealth and a Bewitching Oration > there really is nothing that anyone can do. *takes a page out of David Cherryholmes's book* *hits head on brick wall* WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM look, there is plenty that you can do to prevent a vote... just because it has that nice little capitol building in the upper lefthand side of the card does not make it an act of god, which ye may resist only by peril of your immortal soul! (Woe be unto ye sinners who dared to vote against my PTO, may the lord strike you down! And he did, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and antelopes and fruit bats....) Honestly does no one play vote defense? ever? even if they're vulnerable to votes? even if they expect votes to appear? WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM > Opposing votes don't mean > much to a single IC member -- because if the deck is built to pass any > vote reliably, it can reliably pass PTO. Which does NOT justify PTO > nor make it any less broken. Yes I plan my deck to pass votes. Just others plan decks to bleed successfully or kill vampires in combat with ease, and you apparently plan decks to be ousted by KRC's. That does not make that planning universally successful when attempted to be put into practice. Cameron

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote > jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... > Does anyone else find it amusing that many of those who are arguing > here on the "pro-PTO" side of things come from Europe while those are > are "anti-PTO" side are from the U.S.? Ahem... I'm from Canada, Jeff. But maybe you're onto something. Perhaps all of the European players are broken? Cheers, WES

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.04010...@posting.google.com>... > orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > Read what he wrote Derek you're smarter than this. If a deck type is > > prevelant, you play another deck type that beats it, until that deck > > type stops showing up and something else that beats you begins to make > > the rounds. > > I think this point has been raised before: Just because there's a > workaround doesn't mean it's not broken. Agreed in general, if not in this specific case. Again, Derek was taking the proposition that hosing one vamp show decks ment that PTO was broken. That doesn't prove it by itself, even if I agreed that PTO was broken. > Sure everyone could play Camarilla vampires *all the time* and never > have to worry about PTO. But PTO's effect is still way to powerful for > its cost, even if you never get to use it! not all the time, just to make the oppertunity cost of playing PTO to high in the meta-game, then PTO changes and so can you. If you never get to use the PTO, it's effect is to take up a card slot that could have been useful, and to throw it in a referendum for one vote. BTW, and getting back on topic, I think your idea is interesting (burning blood for capacity burned)... I'd make it something like: PTO: Justicar/IC vote +1 stealth blood cost:X burn a non-cam vamp of capacity X, justicars may only target vamps 6 and down, IC burn X-6 blood. Cuts down on the deck's surviveablilty tremendously if you can't Minion Tap and still burn the big vamps, and not it's a blood cost so DT really screws you. Cameron

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.04010...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > If fatties are so fucking playable then WHY for the love of god do you > > keep whining about PtO? > > You know, I'm a big boy, and wordy-durds don't make me go whining for > momma. But you've already asked me once to be more civil to you, > specifically, so stop being a fucking hypocrite, unless you are just > *asking* for a flame war. Well it was fun for the rest of us last time. > > Is it just some crusade against a card just because there must be some > > card that's not right? > > No, rather than it being some cathartic outlet for my neurosis, I simply > find the effect to be bad for the game. FWIW, I am encouraged when I look > at the names that appear to weigh in on my side of the argument, and > further encouraged that no one, with the exception of Cameron Domer, on > the opposite side as someone who's opinion of unrelated elements has ever > made me go "wow". As I'm not really going to get into the debate on large vampire playability, oh hell: They are playable in a competative setting, using PTO or not, non-cam or not. Welcome to one of the goals of my playing career fufilled. that said, having read David's last paragraph *does a little dance* done. and let me assure you that you're thankful it was via **'s and not IRL. White males and all that. It does concern me the amount of people I respect whom I fail to see eye to eye with about this card. Oh well. *goes to tilt at windmills* > > Does it screw up one star decks, YES it does? > > It generates an effect that is more, IMO, than any one card should > generate. The only other way to burn vampires, essentially, is > combat. Combat != PTO. Diablerie != PTO. Look, here's my head, and > there's the brick wall: WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!!!!!! Not to make you take an aleve, but there are cards that burn vampires, and they all have some other requirements. both for the vampire using them and the vampire targeted. these requirements are not all equal, but they do exist. > > Does bounce screw up > > bleeders? yes. Does Obedience screw up rushers? yes. > > I suggest we ban PtO, Bounce and Obedience. More? > > You say that like you are looking good here. Have a nut, it's your > funeral. Yeah, looking a bit far gone here. But if you're starting from the view that the card isn't broken, then the comparisons are somewhat valid. As an aside: Ulugh put PTO up against Sacrifice. I'd like to see another person against banning PTO make that comparison. Cameron

In message <a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) mumbled something about: >As an aside: Ulugh put PTO up against Sacrifice. I'd like to see >another person against banning PTO make that comparison. Easy as pie. Current card text on Sacrifice: Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire with capacity above 7 at +1 stealth. Choose a vampire with a capacity below 7 who belongs to the same clan as the acting vampire. Successful referendum burns the chosen vampire. --------------------------- Sacrifice is inferior to PTO in the following ways: 1) Cannot burn 7-caps or older. Burning Jost Werner can often be a kick in the pants for Jost's controller, but 6-caps only cost 6 pool, and losing one 6-cap is typically not the end of your game for that very reason -- you'll have other vampires with PRE/AUS. 2) Must be the same clan as the acting vampire. Out of the box, PTO can affect 397 out of 699 vampires: approximately 56.7% of the vampires in the game. The Sabbat clans average about 23 vampires each -- so out of the box, Sacrifice can affect 3.2% of the vampires in the game... but actually less than THAT even, because it can't affect the 7-caps and up in each clan. 3) No Inner Circle members in the Sabbat -- can't get 4 votes in favor without a Regent card. --------------------------- Sacrifice is superior to PTO in the following ways: 1) Doesn't cost a blood. 2) Doesn't require a title. --------------------------- It doesn't take a genius to see the scales are heavily weighted in PTO's favor. Sure, we've all seen Malkavian Antitribu decks drop Deranges on people and then Sacrifice them, but you still can't get past disadvantage #1 with a Derange -- and !Malks don't have PRE as an in-clan discipline. Should Sacrifice exist? No, it's a generic clan-hoser and we have all agreed long ago that clan hosers are basically just dumb. But by the same token, it's far from broken, because not only can you not win with it, you can't even make someone else LOSE without some really contrived scenarios. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bsusuc$1mmph$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>, bel...@ono.com says... > > There is no "sure" burning a vampire in combat. > > As well as there is no sure burning a vampire via Protect Thine Own. Of course. Yet to even attempt to get a burn in combat it requires several cards. PtO requires 1. Itself. > > > If you can't deal with PtO, you also > > > can't deal with Parity Shify, KRC, Cons Agi, Domain Challenge and every > > > other vote that screws you. > > > > Those cause pool loss. > > Pool loss is what ousts you. Eventually. > > Your vampire resources are unaffected and can > > attempt to block/rush/vote against these votes. > > They cannot do anything you have no pool left. No, see. Someone KRC's you. You then (on your turn) rush said KRCing fool and blast him. Someone PtO's you. You then... Oops your vamp's burned. No rush for you. Now you take many KRCs to the face. > Not to mention PTO is a political action that can only be effectively called > by 7 vampires in the game. It must be voted (after no one has blocked it). And the fact that these 7 vampires start with 4 votes and 5 of them have a stealth discipline means nothing? > [...] > > > > I agree, which is why Sens Dep has no restrictions at all and is > Directed. > > > Making PtO only able to target prey and predator would put it, IMO, on > > > par with Sens Dep. > > > > Sense Dep doesn't have inherent stealth, costs 3, doesn't outright burn > > the vamp. > > As does not PTO, since it must be voted. The effect of PtO is that the vamp is burned, once the referendum passes. If you're going to get that technical, no vote has any effect, since it must be voted. -- -Snapcase

In article <a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>, orcao...@hotmail.com says... > Honestly does no one play vote defense? ever? even if they're > vulnerable to votes? even if they expect votes to appear? Vote defense is, as a whole, ineffective. Especially against inner circle members who have decks designed to push votes through. Delaying Tactics works great. But it only delays the burn, not stops it. I play them in every deck I can fit them into that has non-cam vampires, just for PTO. They don't always work. And the problem is, if you have a deck based around a large non-cam, and just one PtO goes through by your predator, you lose. Which leads into my sales pitch- Too long have we been confined by that "non-camarilla" restriction. There are so many camarilla vampires just waiting to be burned. Let us put an end to this shameless oppression! If people who dare to play non-cam vampires have learned to fear PTO, then it's high time those cammies learned their lesson as well. Fix PTO! Burn all vampires! -- -Snapcase

>The environment that >matters is the one where everyone is playing to win, and I would really >like to see it happen someday... all the good players bringing actual >STRONG decks, instead of decks that are good-but-creative. > >I think we'd find out awful darn quick which cards are broken if people >really tried. There are a number of things I prefer about multiplayer CCGs. One of the things I prefer about two-players is that you can isolate card strength. The problem with multiplayers is that personality is too often more important than deck strength, that it's in fact possible that playing a strong deck can work against you. I find analysis fascinating and it's hard to analyze anything when any ole crap deck can win simply due to table politics. I'd find it really interesting to see what happens when "everyone" played (in some event or series of events) the decks they thought were most powerful and metagamed against a field that they expected to play the most powerful decks. Wouldn't necessarily find it all that interesting to play. More relevant to why I wouldn't expect to see it happen is that I find it less interesting to try and play such a deck only to play against a mixed field of strong and not-so-strong decks.

Oh, i put vote defense in all my decks if i can. it only makes sense - it's the third main means of ousting your opponents. combat, bleed, vote. yup, gotta have a little to protect against them all. some focused decks forego it due to slot restrictions, but i make more toolboxy decks :) that said i can assure you that vote is a whole other can of fish than bleed and combat (which it should be naturally). the inherent +1 in each poli action really strains my intercept which i try to save for combat and bleed, which in a way i guess it should. the power to damage your prey and grandprey and king-make reliably through KRCs, Parity Shifts, Reversals of Fortune, Drastic Upheavals and other though is some serious power. To stave off stolen VPs i include DTs. And against an emergency i try to include an irregular protocol (an overdue card by the way). But the thing is, even with those in hand, maybe an Alamut if assamite, and maybe a floating 2-vote independent I'm still petrified of voting. it can do some serious bloating where it can aford to ignore it's predator. i can't think of many bleed decks or combat decks that can afford to ignore their predator. but i can't tell you how many times i've seen vote decks literally ignore the pressure exerted by their predator. bloat and a few obediences or bounce (all from one discipline by the way) literally nulls the majority of predators you can face, unless it's a fellow voter. now yes, there's taste of vitae, provisions of silsila, and other blood gaining means to minion tap; but bloating for combat is nowhere near the realm of vote. now, i can forgive this, try to find a way to deal with it, etc. but what i can't accept is the sheer poor quality of anti-vote cards. my defenses are all but ignored, along with my assaults. only occasionally can i snag that teflon elder and attempt to send it to torpor. just torpor! then it's a whole other prayer to get through the "spare justicar" to diablerie. and after all that i risk an assured loss of my own minion. sure sometimes i can get lucky and pull off a weenie potence combat burn - but don't EVER compare that to the reliability of the referendum. all these silly block comparisons forget that this same thing can happen to whatever weenie potence vampire - you just lost sight of your target, just like a vote can. so let's be sane and call that even. but who here has the guts to call the REFERENDUM as variable, unpredictable, and evenly balanced as COMBAT? please, i invite the argument. I have NEVER seen it, please enlighten me. I WANT, and have been SEEKING, a way to do so. you think my hard earned counters on alamut can stave this off? haha, well hasn't yet, but i can hope. has my DT saved me? well for one turn, which usually just busts out the KRC instead now, and the PTO later. oh how about the IP? nah, that "spare voting-house" solved that. my 2-vote non-cam? haha, well that guy's days are numbered if not already piffed away to my ash heap! no, none of my experience at tables i've played on, or others i was next to bared out the vagueries of vote you know what vote gets against this "atrocious" imbalance of combat's ability to burn their vampires after a lot of work? a vote card that can do it for them. no, not send to torpor, not to the uncontrolled region, but to the ash heap. do not pass go, do not collect 200, do not call blood hunt (which would be a joke anyways). and the kicker? they can keep doing their bloating thing from this action!!! they can play their game again in all oblivion that they even had a predator! and this "gift" also furthers king-making into piffing away without recourse cross table vampires, preferrably their grand-prey's. you think eagles sight balances this out? i laugh. now you are asking to make a deck according to your design - should i make a camarilla vote deck too? yes, yes, that might solve the problem... diversity is just for whittling away the long winter game nights i see.

Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message > news:<a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>... >> X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message >> news:<607fd93.04010...@posting.google.com>... > If Arika dares to add sufficient stealth and a Bewitching Oration > there really is nothing that anyone can do. Not counting vox senis, michael luther, of course. Those cards can simply waste any stealth-->PTO-->awe/bev oration, making them lose their precious 2-3 cards burning combo at any time. We got so many political hosers these days (not counting the unversal direct intervention) that no-one can really worry about Pto, imho, nor to count on it as a viable strategy to get to victory. IMHO, banishment with an IC on a semi-empty big vampire (ANY vampire, not just non cammies) would accomplish almost the same "broken" result, so i really see not point in this topic. greets Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snip>

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.04010...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 5 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > I can see that for certain decks (one-man-shows) it is pretty > > troublesome if your prey r predator is playing a succeful PTO. But > > You arbitrarily limit your consideration to prey and predator; the actual > card has no such restriction, and that is one part of the problem. True,....perhaps that is a problem, but i have never seen anyone use PTO on an ally. Just doesn't seem like a logical choice. If it indeed happens a lot, perhaps that should change. BUt again, i have never seen it. As to > "one man" decks.... If you field a large vampire, how much pool do you > have left over to commit to other vampires? How quickly can you recoupe > the resources necessary to do so? You are essentially arguing that no > large vampires, other than Camarilla of course, should be playable in > anything other than "goofy" games. Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some sort of defense against it. Just as that you should increase the number of obedience when you expect to see a lot of rush. Or increase the number of deflections when you expect to see a lot of stealth-bleed, or play with more Aranthebes when you expect a lot of weenies. PTO is just a vote, if you expect strong IC-votedecks to come to your table, adjust! either to the fact that they are bigvamps (rush?) or to the fact that they want to vote (voxes/DI/DT) or to the fact that they are IC's (fear of mekhet) or make yourself a more difficult target (play cammy) or don't be hurt that much by outspeeding him and putting bets on different horses instead of on 1/2 (weenie) ... every deck style has its nemesis... I would remove the most of the PTO's from my deck if there were not enough valuable targets (with my prey or predator). Assuming most people adjust their decks according to what they encounter, you can play your Thetmes again. > > > I mean that is pretty usual stuff in VTES, right? > > It's easy to adjust a local metagame where you see the same handful of > players and, at any given time, the same cluster of decks. Tournaments > tend to be one-off affairs and, therefore, much more difficult to > deliberately "calibrate" in the manner you suggest. True, more difficult, but not undoable. In the tournaments i played i usually was able to tell what kind of decks would do well. Those tournaments are usually about 20 players big, so i will not be able to tell what everyone is playing, but an overall estimation of what it will look like is possible. And you can adjust your decks to the decks you think will be strong in that envrionment and you will encounter in the finals. Yes, PTO is strong, but there are to many requirements to make it broken. If we look at the old RtI that was broken in my opinion, you only need one unblocked (unbounced) action to make someone loose a lot of pool. ...Everyone has pool...and when they lose it you win... Not everyone has a non-cam-vampire, not everyone loses when they lose one of their non-cam-vamps, that, on TOP of the fact that it is a VOTE that can only be called effectively by very little (fragile) vampires makes it strong, but not broken. in my opinion. :-) I wouldn't have mind if it was made a bit weaker from the start, but i hate changing cardtexts. W

salem wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:16:08 +0100, "Magnus Knoblauch" > <magn...@gmx.de> scrawled: > > >>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Once he got his first VP, it was all over but the shouting. Did you not >> >>>read my article, posted nary a month before, about how to win with an >>>intercept wall? >> >>Could you kindly point me to this article, name of the thread/URL or somesuch? > > > i think it might be this: > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3041848851d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=h36iev40oktjkqdk68pdpt4pft2jgbavun%404ax.com&rnum=8 > > (the url is big, you might have to cut-and-paste the text of the url > in line-by-line to your web browser to get it to work.) Same article, shorter URL: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=h36iev40oktjkqdk68pdpt4pft2jgbavun%404ax.com (all you need is the "selm" part - the rest is just locale and search context) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 5 Jan 2004, Jeff Kuta wrote: > Does anyone else find it amusing that many of those who are arguing > here on the "pro-PTO" side of things come from Europe while those are > are "anti-PTO" side are from the U.S.? Yes, I find it interesting. It confirms my impression of some of the differences between the italio-franco-spanish metagame and the american one. Of course the sample size is ridiculously small, but my reluctance to form an opinion is mitigated somewhat by the sheer consistency of anecdotes. FWIW, here is my general clumping of the metagames, and a short description of each: USA: heterogenous; a mix between "serious" and goofy, suggesting that deck construction is not the prime determiner in who or what wins. "Old Europe": whatever looks strongest, play it; combat-lite Scandinavia: like above, but the Toreador have guns. Brits: fairly combat-heavy; can't be too complicated to play on account of everyone being hammered. Australia: gore-fest; critical mass of combat achieved; very interesting metagame to observe. South America: can't tell; hear more about Princes, shopowners, and distributors stealing cards than I do about games. > Trying to lighten things up a bit...;) Not after I'm through with it, you aren't. :) <-------------------------- NOTE THE SMILEY David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On 5 Jan 2004, Cameron wrote: > Not to make you take an aleve, but there are cards that burn vampires, > and they all have some other requirements. both for the vampire using > them and the vampire targeted. these requirements are not all equal, > but they do exist. Since we both agree that the requirements aren't equal, we're half-way there to agreeing that PTO is a steaming pile of poo. Glad we could have this conversation. See, I can be flippant with Cameron because I know *for a fact* that we've discussed this before. Besides which, I think I've got one more reply to him to go..... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > True,....perhaps that is a problem, but i have never seen anyone use > PTO on an ally. Just doesn't seem like a logical choice. If it indeed > happens a lot, perhaps that should change. BUt again, i have never > seen it. I have. I have been that ally, more than a few times. More often than that, I've had to somehow *justify* why my "bridge partner" -- who is playing an IC deck with at least one broken card and, therefore, can rationally plan a strategy around stomping the table -- shouldn't screw me with it, and then wonder if I should pound him anyway to keep it from coming up again next turn. It's. Just. Too. Big. An. Effect. > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > sort of defense against it. I should have gotten to this a lot earlier, but lets drop the "one man deck" term. I don't know of any, except maybe Anson Mastercard Decks, that are one-vampire affairs. Usually, you sink 8 to 10 into a main guy, then a few more on some disposable minions. You can't *spend* 9 or 10 on a main guy and have much more than that. You can, but that's a Governing, parity shifting, minion-tapping, voter capping kind of thing. There should be more decks playable with large minions than that. The *possibility* of PTO is a significant deterrent against that. As for playing defense against it, how much defense do you need to have to reliably see it, will it make a difference, and what does playing with a hand size of six or less do to your deck's overall performance in order to do so? I heard all the "defend against it" arguments before when I was getting slaughtered in weenie-hell for two years straight. Sure, defensive cards exist, but even a prominent feature in your metagame isn't the *only* feature. While you are trying to include your own game *PLUS* don't-kill-me-wth-your-broken-crap, on the chance that you happen to sit next to kill-you-with-broken-crap, they have no worries at all, and simply play kill-you-with-my-broken-crap. It's just better if there isn't broken crap. More diversity, more fairness. The only people who object are the ones who get their kicks winning with it. Find something else to win with. You can do that as easily as I can tie every non-cam deck I concieve of into pretzels hoping I don't sit at the same table with you. > Just as that you should increase the number of obedience when you > expect to see a lot of rush. Or increase the number of deflections > when you expect to see a lot of stealth-bleed, or play with more > Aranthebes when you expect a lot of weenies. The last one isn't in the same category as the other two, but I won't go into it. The first two *are* reliable features of any and every game you play. Opportunity cost. Low. You can play with those cards; you probably should play with those cards. Bleeding happens. Blocking happens and, hence, combat happens. As has been stated before, the defenses against votes, other than blocking the action, are really very poor. But I do defend against it, to the extent that I play 2 DT's and 2 DI's in most decks. It's still rarely any kind of defense. > PTO is just a vote, if you expect strong IC-votedecks to come to your > table, adjust! either to the fact that they are bigvamps (rush?) or to > the fact that they want to vote (voxes/DI/DT) or to the fact that they > are IC's (fear of mekhet) or make yourself a more difficult target > (play cammy) or don't be hurt that much by outspeeding him and putting > bets on different horses instead of on 1/2 (weenie) > ... every deck style has its nemesis... PTO is too much of a nemesis against too many possible decks. That is part of the issue. > I would remove the most of the PTO's from my deck if there were not > enough valuable targets (with my prey or predator). Assuming most > people adjust their decks according to what they encounter, you can > play your Thetmes again. I grasp how metagames develop. Part of the inadequacy of that response is that you can't really adjust to a tournament metagame. Take for example a tournament in Washington DC in a few weeks. I might go. It's a four hour drive. I see those guys a few times a year. Is anything I do or they do really going to impact our deck choices? What are they even playing currently? Does that have anything to do with what they'll play at a tournament? Rather than all this accomodating, why not just ban the card? IC decks are still more than, much more than, viable, and a big headache is removed. Barring self-interest, I just can't see the objection. Sure, banning is bad, but it's not the end of the world. WW seems to have an eye on other CCG companies and what works for them. Well, banning cards has worked fine. The Magic tournament scene hasn't dried up, and they ban stuff right and left. Few cards need banning. This one does. Ban it. > True, more difficult, but not undoable. In the tournaments i played i > usually was able to tell what kind of decks would do well. Those > tournaments are usually about 20 players big, so i will not be able to > tell what everyone is playing, but an overall estimation of what it > will look like is possible. And you can adjust your decks to the decks > you think will be strong in that envrionment and you will encounter in > the finals. You will have to tell me your secret. I have no idea what I'll see at any given tournament, and other people's potential decks, barring actual personal knowledge on my part, is never a consideration. I think about what's strong *in the game* and plan for that. Therefore, I always plan for PTO. > Yes, PTO is strong, but there are to many requirements to make it > broken. Yeah, play Arika or Alexandria. Don't flip heads eight times in a row. Real tough. > If we look at the old RtI that was broken in my opinion, you only need > one unblocked (unbounced) action to make someone loose a lot of pool. > ...Everyone has pool...and when they lose it you win... And unblocked AND unbounced is trivial? Hell of a lot harder than passing a vote with an IC memeber. Your argument just crumbled to dust. > Not everyone has a non-cam-vampire, not everyone loses when they lose > one of their non-cam-vamps, that, on TOP of the fact that it is a VOTE > that can only be called effectively by very little (fragile) vampires > makes it strong, but not broken. IC's are not fragile. That dust is now dust in the wind. [ quoted text not captured ]

> USA: heterogenous; a mix between "serious" and goofy, suggesting that deck > construction is not the prime determiner in who or what wins. > > "Old Europe": whatever looks strongest, play it; combat-lite > > Scandinavia: like above, but the Toreador have guns. > > Brits: fairly combat-heavy; can't be too complicated to play on account of > everyone being hammered. > > Australia: gore-fest; critical mass of combat achieved; very interesting > metagame to observe. > > South America: can't tell; hear more about Princes, shopowners, and > distributors stealing cards than I do about games. Well, it's a given that the average European has a far more competitive nature than the average American. This is mainly because of the small size of the European countries and therefore tough selection/competition in, for example, sports. Maybe PtO is less a problem in a "whatever look the strongest is being played" environment. I have never even considered it overpowered or broken until the issue repeatedly came up here.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Well, it's a given that the average European has a far more competitive > nature than the average American. I'm glad some actual European chimed in with a sweeping generalization. I was expected to get called a nazi by at least one uptight continental. I dub thee SACRIFICAIL ANODE! That said, I'm not really seeing your statement as being true. Shit man, we lose our job, we've got six months, then we starve. I'd say that trumps population density. [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.04010...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I didn't see it yet, but you mean that those that think PTO is not broken are Europeans and the others are not? If that is true it is indeed an environment thing. Does that mean anything? W

FWIW, I am encouraged when I look > at the names that appear to weigh in on my side of the argument, and > further encouraged that no one, with the exception of Cameron Domer, on > the opposite side as someone who's opinion of unrelated elements has ever > made me go "wow". Apart from that being not very respectfull, i would also like to point out that having whoever on your side doesn't make you more or less right. It's the arguments that count (or perhaps in this case even better; the evidence) From where i sit your arguments don't persuade me (nor do mine persuade you, i know). as to evidence: I haven't seen PTO "break" a lot of games around here, and i don't think that if someone made a deck utilizing PTO to win he would come very far here. Please prove me wrong (i think i am easily persuaded with evidence, perhaps less with arguments) W

On 6 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Apart from that being not very respectfull, It's not my job to coddle your feelings. You seem like a perfectly fine player, and I can't recall ever reading anything you said that seemed stupid, but you also aren't on the "short list" of people I consider to be experts at this game. It's my own list, yours is probably different, and that is Oh-Kay. > i would also like to point > out that having whoever on your side doesn't make you more or less > right. It's the arguments that count (or perhaps in this case even > better; the evidence) Certainly not, but if Steven Hawking says one thing about physics, and George Bush something entirely different, my money would be on Stephen Hawking being correct, even if I knew nothing about physics. > From where i sit your arguments don't persuade me (nor do mine > persuade you, i know). No they don't. But then again, I have refuted them to my own satisfaction. Until someone can demonstrate to me why I should consider PTO *necessarily* part of a four or or five card combo, in the way that Amaranth most certainly is, I will continue to believe that the magnitude of its effect is a sufficient single argument for it's banning. There are others. > as to evidence: > I haven't seen PTO "break" a lot of games around here, and i don't > think that if someone made a deck utilizing PTO to win he would come > very far here. What you have or haven't seen has no bearing on the discussion in the same way, by your logic, whomever agrees with you has no bearing on it, either. Perhaps there isn't enough Camirilla played in your group. Perhaps there's too much. Perhaps not enough people have bought Ventrue startes. Who knows? The card is a problem if it is played. > Please prove me wrong (i think i am easily persuaded with evidence, > perhaps less with arguments) What kind of "evidence" do you want? The social factor obscures any evidentiary argument, and there are other problems with line of argument besides. I would suggest abstract reasoning is the best path toward drawing a conclusion, torturous though it may be. David Cherryholmes

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<btdaa...@enews3.newsguy.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I thought it might have more to do with all the Inner Circle members hanging out in Venice periodically issuing dictats to the rest of the Camarilla, while upstart antitribu wreak havoc on the system here stateside. Canada? Isn't that part of North Texas? :) Jeff

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> escribió en el mensaje news:Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On 6 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: [...] > > i would also like to point > > out that having whoever on your side doesn't make you more or less > > right. It's the arguments that count (or perhaps in this case even > > better; the evidence) > > Certainly not, but if Steven Hawking says one thing about physics, and > George Bush something entirely different, my money would be on Stephen > Hawking being correct, even if I knew nothing about physics. Do they play V:TES? >:-P [...] Greetings, Damnans

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.0401...@posting.google.com>... > It *does* require a good player to play Arika and survive nowadays No moreso than any other single large vampire. You get a vampire that starts with 4 votes, 3 bleed, arguably the most powerful discipline spread in the game and a damn good special ability. Sounds like a solid foundation. > > > *they see what a certain card can do in certain circumstances, but > > > fail to grasp the specific factors that enabled it being played that > > > way, and how small the odds were of it actually doing that. > > > > Just because the odds of a broken card being played are small in a given > > game doesn't make it less broken. > > I'm not talking about the odds of it being played, I'm talking about > the odds of a certain card perorming a broken effect. PTO has a singular effect. If it gets played, the effect happens (once the referendum passes). Votes do get called/passed in a game of vtes. What you seem to be disagreeing on is whether PTO's effect is too powerful or not. More on that later. > Disagree: > play DI If DI has to be mentioned, there's something wrong. > Delay Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. >Vox whatever Only 1 per game. How many you gonna put in your deck? >outvote them They start with inherently more votes than any of your single vampires will. Unreliable at best. >intercept them Indeed the best option, but the action starts at +1 stealth; 5 of the 7 IC members have a stealth discipline; the 6th has access to Torie Grand Ball. > > Anticipating a broken card being played frequently doesn't make it less > > broken. > It makes for people being prepared for it. So people should have been more prepared for Monacle of Clarity then. > > > *do not grasp it's weaknesses > > > > What's the weakness in burning any non-cam vampire of your choice? > You need an IC, you need to have the votes,you need to *not* encounter > any of the anti-cards, you need a legal target, you need to be able to > pick the right target. Requiring an IC is not a weakness, it's a requirement. Having the votes is necessary for any vote. The anti cards are either poor or have high opportunity cost. Or in the case of DT, you play it again next turn. More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. Picking the right target isn't difficult. "See large vampire that can be burned. Burn vampire. Lather. Rinse. Repeat if necessary." > > Any idiot can throw Arika and PtO in a deck and have it ruin someone's > > game. This isn't difficult tech we're talking about here. > > No, he can't.Not everybody's game is as easily ruined by 1 card as you > make it out to be. If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, barring extreme luck. > The card's effect is simply not strong enough for this to be true. The > difference between PTO and Monocle is that the Monocle actually > enabled you to oust someone.PTO doesn't even come close to having that > effect. Eliminating your prey's cornerstone vampire doesn't help you oust them? I'd love to see the decklists of decks designed around large non-Cam vamipres that are this impervious to PTO. Would you be fine with the other 2 sects getting a PTO against non-independent or non-Sabbat vamps? Or PTO being altered to burn any vampire of any sect? -- -Snapcase

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<btekng$ps3$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... > Well, it's a given that the average European has a far more competitive > nature than the average American. Heh... *Snort* At least Cherryholmes puts appropriate caveats on his unsubstantiated impressions. Where are yours? > This is mainly because of the small size of the European countries and > therefore tough selection/competition in, for example, sports. > LOL! Spare us the trolling pseudo-science, please... Did you arrive at these amazing conclusions by the usual examination of bumps on the skulls of various example European and American sportsmen? Or was it writ in the entrails of the last chicken you sacrificed? :-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] What do you think of Jeff's alternate costing (or my variation thereof?) And lets recall whos noncams were burned by a justicar the last time we sat next to each other. ;-P Cameron

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1e26d99.03123...@posting.google.com... > I'm perfectly willing to see an increase in the cost of PTO (a pool > cost seems appropriate) but there are other similiar cards available. > They aren't as good, just like no card in the game is as good as > Govern the unaligned. But I still maintain that for PTO to really > work you have to have a big combo on top of good seating (non-Cam > prey, PTO, Stealth, Vote push, pool gain, combat defense.) It isn't > as easy as people are making it seem (and its likely more powerful > than I am willing to admit.) Sure. It's not something that just always makes you win no matter what. But the effect is ridiculously powerful. I think Derek's use of the term "unfair" as another useful category besides "broken" is good here. Protect Thine Own is probably more of an "unfair" card than a "broken" one. It screws up the game by making its victim lose, a lot of the time. And it's victimizing them for having chosen to play large-capacity non-Camarilla vampires. In that way, it's a lot like getting hosed by clan hosers - except that people actually play with PTO because unlike clan hosers, they can count on non-Cam vamps to show up pretty often. It seems to me, having played with both, that current PTO is a lot like original Temptation of Greater Power. Both are playable against a wide range of vampires, but are only severely abusive against high-capacity vamps. But ToGP got nerfed, and PTO hasn't yet. On that topic, it's true that applying the ToGP "fix" (playable once per game) to PTO isn't really a fix of the card's effect. It's still harsh if it happens and on the flip side it may go too far in making a lot of copies of PTO not very useful anymore. But what that approach *does* have going for it is that it's very simple - probably the simplest card-text change that would accomplish anything, without banning the card. Josh and a lot of the truly "similar" cards are at least "unfair" if not broken, too...

On 6 Jan 2004, Cameron wrote: > What do you think of Jeff's alternate costing (or my variation > thereof?) Which part of "Ban it" is eluding you? :) Seriously, I don't think adjusting the cost is the answer, but I do like the X blood cost direction better than others, since it jumps right in the way of the tap-vote-bloat triangle. > And lets recall whos noncams were burned by a justicar the last time > we sat next to each other. ;-P Yeah, I'm not going to refute "PTO just screws you so you hate it" arguments by listing every deck I ever played. In the nationals, I played Cam. [ quoted text not captured ]

Snapcase wrote: > In article <a1e26d99.04010...@posting.google.com>, > orcao...@hotmail.com says... > >> Honestly does no one play vote defense? ever? even if they're >> vulnerable to votes? even if they expect votes to appear? > > Vote defense is, as a whole, ineffective. Uh ? I find michael luther quite effective as vote defense, as Quentin, demonstration, vox senis. Those cards, imho, are all but ineffective against votes decks. > Especially against inner > circle members who have decks designed to push votes through. > Delaying Tactics works great. But it only delays the burn, not stops > it. I play them in every deck I can fit them into that has non-cam > vampires, just for PTO. They don't always work. And the problem is, > if you have a deck based around a large non-cam, and just one PtO > goes through by your predator, you lose. Honestly, how many PTO you can put in a deck designed to win ? 4 in the best case, otherwise you simply risk to clog your hand with useless PTO when facing cammies deck a the table. In my experience, i never saw an IC deck (mostly, Arika) with more than 2 PTO in it, since no-one here relies too much on it as winner-maker. Sure, it can result very powerful sometimes, but, again, banishment on a big empty vampire from an IC will accomplish almost the same effect, not even triggering a soul gem... ;-) just my thought [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, David Cherryholmes wrote: > On 6 Jan 2004, Cameron wrote: > > And lets recall whos noncams were burned by a justicar the last time > > we sat next to each other. ;-P > Yeah, I'm not going to refute "PTO just screws you so you hate > it" arguments by listing every deck I ever played. In the nationals, I > played Cam. Ooops! I did it again. Just wanted to add for the home audience that I was burning his vampires the old-fashioned way: Burning Wrath + Amaranth. None of this PTO horse-hockey. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > Well, it's a given that the average European has a far more competitive > > nature than the average American. > Is it really a given? I have heard that the european players take the game very seriously and are in a sort of permanent cantankerous state because of it. There has to be some difference between competetiveness and emotional involvement. Perhaps your comment was not limited to vtes. I take it as a given that americans are far more competitive at basketball than europeans. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031231051952...@mb-m03.aol.com... > >Oh, I agree. I think all the ways to burn a ready vampire outside of > >combat - in fact, even a good number of the ones *in* combat - were > >probably a bad idea. At least as bad for the game as original > >Temptation of Greater Power or Hostile Takeover. > > > Hey Josh! Don't forget the awesome power of Tradition Upheld. Die Caitiff, die! You're right, how could I forget that? In not-quite-all seriousness, Tradition Upheld is certainly an unfair card too, and a bad idea. Imagine if higher-capacity Caitiff get printed at some point - it would be pretty rough to get one burned by Tradition Upheld, wouldn't it? Even Maldavis being burned would be pretty bad. Granted people aren't likely to put Tradition Upheld into their decks unless (a) they have P/J/IC to call it with and (b) caitiff to make worthwhile targets show up a lot, but that doesn't reduce the unfairness of the card when played. :-) Josh caitiff are people too!

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Tradition Upheld is certainly an unfair card too, and a bad idea. > Imagine if higher-capacity Caitiff get printed at some point - it would > be pretty rough to get one burned by Tradition Upheld, wouldn't it? > Even Maldavis being burned would be pretty bad. Granted people aren't > likely to put Tradition Upheld into their decks unless (a) they have > P/J/IC to call it with and (b) caitiff to make worthwhile targets show > up a lot, but that doesn't reduce the unfairness of the card when > played. :-) Those criteria make many clan hosers unfair as well. Higher opportunity cost makes for stronger (what you label "unfairer") effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FFB2392...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Granted people aren't > > likely to put Tradition Upheld into their decks unless (a) they have > > P/J/IC to call it with and (b) caitiff to make worthwhile targets show > > up a lot, but that doesn't reduce the unfairness of the card when > > played. :-) > > Those criteria make many clan hosers unfair as well. > > Higher opportunity cost makes for stronger (what you label "unfairer") > effects. Yes, exactly. Clan hosers are not fair. It's certainly my feeling that they should never have been created (or at least not with any level of effect beyond "flavor"). There are a lot of effects that shouldn't exist in VTES regardless of opportunity cost. Burning vampires without sending them to torpor first (in combat, preferably) is probably one of them. It's easy to see that it's possible for high opportunity cost to not be enough to balance a stronger effect: imagine an action only playable if you have exactly 3 pool and 1 minion in play, and your prey has exactly 20 pool and 4 minions in play. It causes your prey to burn 20 pool. Is that balanced? Its opportunity cost is astronomical. In general, it seems to me that there's a certain level of strength that just shouldn't be surpassed in a single card, no matter how high the opportunity cost appears. It's simply not appropriate for single cards to cause that much swing in VTES, even if they're not very easy to play. I had always believed that this was why Temptation of Greater Power was changed. Josh the burninator!

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<btekng$ps3$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... > > USA: heterogenous; a mix between "serious" and goofy, suggesting that > deck > > construction is not the prime determiner in who or what wins. > > > > "Old Europe": whatever looks strongest, play it; combat-lite > > > > Scandinavia: like above, but the Toreador have guns. > > > > Brits: fairly combat-heavy; can't be too complicated to play on > account of > > everyone being hammered. > > > > Australia: gore-fest; critical mass of combat achieved; very > interesting > > metagame to observe. > > > > South America: can't tell; hear more about Princes, shopowners, and > > distributors stealing cards than I do about games. > > Well, it's a given that the average European has a far more competitive > nature than the average American. > This is mainly because of the small size of the European countries and > therefore tough selection/competition in, for example, sports. What a load of unsubstanciated garbage. Europe is a smaller landmass, but beyond that Europeans seem to equally competitive as Americans. I would like to see your substanciated data supporting your claim. > Maybe PtO is less a problem in a "whatever look the strongest is being > played" environment. > > I have never even considered it overpowered or broken until the issue > repeatedly came up here. How often have you seen it played? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040102...@fnord.io.com... > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Perhaps LSJ would comment on why PTO was considered acceptable as > > written while the others weren't? > > Would be interesting, but I can't blame him if he doesn't want to offer > extensive explanations (and/or apologies?) for every decision he's ever > made. Why yellow shoelaces? Why sesame bagles? Why, why, why? :) Heh. True. And in fact "why" questions seem to be the thing Scott is least interested in answering, at least on the newsgroup. :-) > Baltimore Purge is another card we haven't abused yet. I keep wanting to, > but somehow I still only have like three copies. Isn't it uncommon? > That's just weird. Yeah, but it was new in Camarilla Edition. That means that you get one about every 100 U slots, and there are about 108 U slots in a booster box of CE. You have lots of the *other* uncommons in CE largely because of getting them in other sets as well, probably. I think I have around 7 BPs, and that's because I traded for at least a couple... I did try to abuse it once or twice, but it never worked out as abusively as I had hoped. > > Also we are old and > > jaded, and get bored with "the well known archetypes" easily. > > I see nothing wrong with that mentality, to tell you the truth. I mean, > how long have you been playing this game? Tell me you'd still be having > fun if you'd built three decks in 1994 and never tried anything else. > I've only been at it for a couple years now and I get bored with a deck if > I win with it two weeks in a row. A long, long time. And no, there's really not anything wrong with it. As Ian (curevei) has mentioned, though, it does make it harder to analyze the strongest cards/decks in the game if a lot of the most experienced players don't find those decks to be the ones they're interested in playing. This is one thing that Magic, I suppose, has kind of "solved" by continually rotating new sets into and out of their main tournament format. Because VTES doesn't do that, there isn't a continually changing environment to cause the set of "currently best decks" to evolve substantially over time. It would be a huge pain to do that like Magic does, for sure, but (at least in theory) it could be interesting to see if people's interest in building/playing the absolute strongest possible decks could be maintained that way. Josh still "a bit" behind on newsgroup reading/replies

In article <44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>, Wouter...@yahoo.com says... > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > sort of defense against it. Tough to expect a lot of PTO when you're driving to another state 4 hours away with 30 people showing up for a tournament (from even farther away). The metagame in a large tournament is a bit hard to predict the occurrence of a single card. > PTO is just a vote, if you expect strong IC-votedecks to come to your > table, adjust! either to the fact that they are bigvamps (rush?) or to > the fact that they want to vote (voxes/DI/DT) or to the fact that they > are IC's (fear of mekhet) or make yourself a more difficult target > (play cammy) or don't be hurt that much by outspeeding him and putting > bets on different horses instead of on 1/2 (weenie) > ... every deck style has its nemesis... All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. Occasionally they'll get a vote through. If a predator playing Arika pushes a PTO through on your Laz or Thetmes, you've lost. Plain and simple. At least with the Amaranth combos you've got a chance to block, even if you're not packing much intercept. Also, why is it just non-Cam vampires that have to put up with a single- card potential burn? Doesn't seem balanced there. -- -Snapcase

In article <btf5d2$6efcf$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>, no...@usa.com says... > Uh ? I find michael luther quite effective as vote defense Yeah, he's pretty cool. He's also not a widely useable vote defense card. He's good against IC members, sure. He's also a cam vampire (not necessarily going to fit into decks containing the vampires that need defense against PTO) and is ineffective against sabbat/indy voters. > as Quentin A singular (large) vampire. > demonstration Excellent card, unique, only playable by one clan. > vox senis I don't see this as being much better of a vote defense card than Surprise Influence (a card that doesn't exactly scream "put me in a deck!"). > Those cards, imho, are all but ineffective against votes decks. So we've got 2 specific vampires, a clan specific unique master and an out of turn master that can be used for 3 votes. Anything else? > Honestly, how many PTO you can put in a deck designed to win ? I've seen as little as 1; there is a deck in the TWD Archive that uses 14. > 4 in the best case, > otherwise you simply risk to clog your hand with useless PTO They can be cycled if anyone else ever plays a vote. But generally, I've found a good number to be 4-6. > In my experience, i never saw an IC deck (mostly, Arika) with more > than 2 PTO in it, since no-one here relies too much on it as winner-maker. > Sure, it can result very powerful sometimes, but, again, banishment on a big > empty vampire > from an IC will accomplish almost the same effect, not even triggering a > soul gem... ;-) Banishment can be used by the non-cam guys and cam guys alike. It doesn't deter anyone from playing non-cams. And soul gem is the ONLY time that PTO is not as bad for someone as Banishment. With Banishment you keep all the blood on the vampire, all the equipment, masters, etc. If you have an empty vampire get banished, at least that means you probably got to /do/ something with him, instead of him being burned at full. -- -Snapcase

[ quoted text not captured ] While I wouldn't use such reasoning, I'd actually agree that European (including UK) CCG players are more competitive than American CCG players ... on average. Now, it may be that we don't see the comments from the casual European crowd for reasons besides the lack of such a crowd. But, based on trying to gather information on metagames for various CCGs, the comments I've run across suggest that CCGs are taken more seriously in Europe ... again, on average. As to the reasoning, I could venture guesses, but does it matter why as much as it matters whether it's true?

Snapcase wrote: > In article <btf5d2$6efcf$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>, no...@usa.com > says... > >> Uh ? I find michael luther quite effective as vote defense > > Yeah, he's pretty cool. He's also not a widely useable vote defense > card. He's good against IC members, sure. He's also a cam vampire > (not necessarily going to fit into decks containing the vampires that > need defense against PTO) and is ineffective against sabbat/indy > voters. > >> as Quentin > > A singular (large) vampire. > >> demonstration > > Excellent card, unique, only playable by one clan. > >> vox senis > > I don't see this as being much better of a vote defense card than > Surprise Influence (a card that doesn't exactly scream "put me in a > deck!"). > >> Those cards, imho, are all but ineffective against votes decks. > > So we've got 2 specific vampires, a clan specific unique master and an > out of turn master that can be used for 3 votes. Anything else? > Yes, actually i was meaning vox "domini" instead of "senis" :P Not that vox senis is bad in the matter of votes, of course. >> Honestly, how many PTO you can put in a deck designed to win ? > > I've seen as little as 1; there is a deck in the TWD Archive that uses > 14. > >> 4 in the best case, >> otherwise you simply risk to clog your hand with useless PTO > > They can be cycled if anyone else ever plays a vote. But generally, > I've found a good number to be 4-6. In my experience, discarding is ok, but in a vote deck (the typical in which i see PTO used) 2 or 3 vote cards to be discarded being useless means much. I will never risk to put in more that 3 PTO in any vote deck, since i simply don't want to take the risk of cloggin my hand thereafter, facing eurobrujah princes and alexandra-michael luther at the table ;-) As much i will never take the risk of *not* putting a vox domini, a direct intervention and a delaying tactics in any non cam deck that relies heavily on big non-cam vamp (say, the multi rush lazverinus). > >> In my experience, i never saw an IC deck (mostly, Arika) with more >> than 2 PTO in it, since no-one here relies too much on it as >> winner-maker. Sure, it can result very powerful sometimes, but, >> again, banishment on a big empty vampire >> from an IC will accomplish almost the same effect, not even >> triggering a soul gem... ;-) > > Banishment can be used by the non-cam guys and cam guys alike. What's the point ? It can just have the same devastating effect, being usable by a very *larger* variety of vamps, not just 7 against 2/3 (about) of the vamp around. Only IC cam can use the "ovepovered" aspect of PTO, so, again , just the seven IC biggest vampires in the game can. That's enough to see still PTO not so overpowered, imho. > It > doesn't deter anyone from playing non-cams. And soul gem is the ONLY > time that PTO is not as bad for someone as Banishment. With > Banishment you keep all the blood on the vampire, all the equipment, > masters, etc. If you have an empty vampire get banished, at least > that means you probably got to /do/ something with him, instead of > him being burned at full. I don't understand, maybe you can do something with him once he/she's back big and empty in your uncontrolled region, sure, as you can do something with a second copy of a non-cam vamp in your uncontrolled after the first one get burned via PTO.... The difference is small, in the effect; in the usability aspect , the IC got an egde against banishment, sure, since they're so old and not easy banished, but we are always speaking of the 7 more expensive vampires in the game :-) greets Emiliano

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 5 Jan 2004, Jeff Kuta wrote: > > > Does anyone else find it amusing that many of those who are arguing > > here on the "pro-PTO" side of things come from Europe while those are > > are "anti-PTO" side are from the U.S.? > > Yes, I find it interesting. It confirms my impression of some of the > differences between the italio-franco-spanish metagame and the american > one. Of course the sample size is ridiculously small, but my reluctance > to form an opinion is mitigated somewhat by the sheer consistency of > anecdotes. FWIW, here is my general clumping of the metagames, and a > short description of each: > > USA: heterogenous; a mix between "serious" and goofy, suggesting that deck > construction is not the prime determiner in who or what wins. > > "Old Europe": whatever looks strongest, play it; combat-lite > > Scandinavia: like above, but the Toreador have guns. > > Brits: fairly combat-heavy; can't be too complicated to play on account of > everyone being hammered. > > Australia: gore-fest; critical mass of combat achieved; very interesting > metagame to observe. > > South America: can't tell; hear more about Princes, shopowners, and > distributors stealing cards than I do about games. > > > Trying to lighten things up a bit...;) > > Not after I'm through with it, you aren't. > > :) <-------------------------- NOTE THE SMILEY > > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu hehehe nice post :D But the place in sweden wher i play its 100% Gore-fest; 95% Commabt whit POT or CEL ;)

In article <btfjsg$6nq5k$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>, no...@usa.com says... > Yes, actually i was meaning vox "domini" instead of "senis" :P > Not that vox senis is bad in the matter of votes, of course. I think that Senis is actually a decent card, but it's not necessarily a good vote defense card. Domini is excellent, but it's got that whole "one per game" issue. > I will never risk to put in more that 3 PTO in any vote deck, since i simply > don't want to take the risk of cloggin my hand thereafter, > facing eurobrujah princes and alexandra-michael luther at the table ;-) Well, Alex is likely to play votes, so you can always cycle them. Sure Eurobrujah princes might clog your hand a bit, but 4-6 out of 90 isn't exactly a guaranteed handjam. > As much i will never take the risk of *not* putting a vox domini, a direct > intervention > and a delaying tactics in any non cam deck that relies heavily on big > non-cam vamp > (say, the multi rush lazverinus). Hopefully you'll draw them at the right time. > > Banishment can be used by the non-cam guys and cam guys alike. > > What's the point ? > It can just have the same devastating effect, being usable by a very > *larger* > variety of vamps, not just 7 against 2/3 (about) of the vamp around. Because it doesn't limit deck choices. PTO is a powerful argument against playing non-cam. Cam vampires don't have to worry about it at all. I can make a deck based around a large cam vamp and not have to worry about a single card burning it. Banishment doesn't hose any particular sect so it's not a restriction on what deck I choose to bring. > I don't understand, maybe you can do something with him once > he/she's back big and empty in your uncontrolled region, sure, > as you can do something with a second copy of a non-cam vamp in your > uncontrolled after the first one get burned via PTO.... No, I mean if Laz is empty and got banished, it means he actually did some shit. Got to play cards. Got into combat. Possibly made my deck work in some fashion. Maybe got into combat with Arika (and really, that has the potential to not go so well for her). That blood didn't disappear from him for no reason. Plus, he might not be completely empty. If he's only missing 2 blood, I can get him right back out. Slows me down a bit, but it cost less pool than a KRC. Further, I'm guaranteed a copy of him in my uncontrolled region; there's no guarantee for PTO. Also, any "stuff" that was on him gets to stay on him if/when he comes back out. If he got PTO'd, that can happen just as he comes out, at full blood. *BAMF*. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 200$ -- -Snapcase

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:08:52 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Same article, shorter URL: >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=h36iev40oktjkqdk68pdpt4pft2jgbavun%404ax.com > >(all you need is the "selm" part - the rest is just locale and search context) ahhh. i'm sure i'll forget that next time i do a search, and then i'll have to search for _your_ post to remember how to trim the url.....oh well... :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btfcm0$6pkab$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3FFB2392...@white-wolf.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > Granted people aren't > > > likely to put Tradition Upheld into their decks unless (a) they have > > > P/J/IC to call it with and (b) caitiff to make worthwhile targets > show > > > up a lot, but that doesn't reduce the unfairness of the card when > > > played. :-) > > > > Those criteria make many clan hosers unfair as well. > > > > Higher opportunity cost makes for stronger (what you label "unfairer") > > effects. > > Yes, exactly. Clan hosers are not fair. It's certainly my feeling that > they should never have been created (or at least not with any level of > effect beyond "flavor"). As they were however, the oppertunity cost would seem to be what balances them. So now we know the reason for costing PTO. > There are a lot of effects that shouldn't exist in VTES regardless of > opportunity cost. Burning vampires without sending them to torpor first > (in combat, preferably) is probably one of them. Can we try to limit the hate for the decks I play to one per year? ;) > It's easy to see that > it's possible for high opportunity cost to not be enough to balance a > stronger effect: imagine an action only playable if you have exactly 3 > pool and 1 minion in play, and your prey has exactly 20 pool and 4 > minions in play. It causes your prey to burn 20 pool. Is that > balanced? Its opportunity cost is astronomical. balanced? likely. Just dumb? absolutely. If we string this along to an extreme anything is possiable as long as the set of circumstances works out right. > In general, it seems to me that there's a certain level of strength that > just shouldn't be surpassed in a single card, no matter how high the > opportunity cost appears. It's simply not appropriate for single cards > to cause that much swing in VTES, even if they're not very easy to play. > I had always believed that this was why Temptation of Greater Power was > changed. I thought it was changed because of Legbiter. But as bad as PTO is, G:tU is a much stronger card. Cameron

> Yeah, he's pretty cool. He's also not a widely useable vote defense > card. He's good against IC members, sure. He's also a cam vampire (not > necessarily going to fit into decks containing the vampires that need > defense against PTO) and is ineffective against sabbat/indy voters. > > > as Quentin > A singular (large) vampire. smaller then IC vamps > > demonstration > Excellent card, unique, only playable by one clan. and PTO doesn't have it's own requirements? > > vox senis >> I don't see this as being much better of a vote defense card than > Surprise Influence (a card that doesn't exactly scream "put me in a > deck!"). with the cards that can ruin votes (delaying tactics, 2 different Dom reaction cards) one more just makes it even better for decks that don't have vote defence. > > Those cards, imho, are all but ineffective against votes decks. > So we've got 2 specific vampires, a clan specific unique master and an > out of turn master that can be used for 3 votes. Anything else? Delaying Tactics, Kindred Coercion, Pulling Strings. But more over, an acting vampire can only play so many action mods to a political action. He can't play more then 1 BO or Awe. But the more vamps out there can do Dread Gaze and other reaction vote gaining cards. Yeah, you have to convince others at the table to not let it through, but, that's just more negotiations going on. > > Honestly, how many PTO you can put in a deck designed to win ? > I've seen as little as 1; there is a deck in the TWD Archive that uses > 14. I've seen decks with 14 Anarch Revolts, but this numbers point isn't that important. > Banishment can be used by the non-cam guys and cam guys alike. It > doesn't deter anyone from playing non-cams. And soul gem is the ONLY > time that PTO is not as bad for someone as Banishment. With Banishment > you keep all the blood on the vampire, all the equipment, masters, etc. > If you have an empty vampire get banished, at least that means you > probably got to /do/ something with him, instead of him being burned at > full. I've had vampires burned in the round I brought them out, not by PTO, but by combat. I've had IC vamps that didn't get a chance to do anything or react to anything. Does this mean PTO is balanced? Not really, but it does say that everything in this game has strengths and weaknesses. Just because some cheese-head keeps burning your vamps with PTO at your local playgroup, does not mean it's broken, but more likely, you're not including enough variety in your own decks to break the one person who keeps playing the same PTO deck over and over again. Piss him off, play a deck centered on a Cam clan, or weenie decks that one burned vamp doesn't make a difference. Play delaying tactics til he's blue in the face. When in doubt, turn the table on him. Me, I'm getting sick of Disarm and Carrion Crows. So, I'm starting to either use them, or vary my decks so that either they are weak against them or better against them or just plain average. All this concludes is that there are many different types of decks, with each one having it's own weaknesses and strengths. Don't hate one card because of it's strength, go after it's weakness. Jamie The Seppo

In article <1fb48054.04010...@posting.google.com>, moon...@useoz.com says... > and PTO doesn't have it's own requirements? We're talking about general vote defense. Demonstration ain't it. > > > vox senis > >> I don't see this as being much better of a vote defense card than > > Surprise Influence (a card that doesn't exactly scream "put me in a > > deck!"). > > with the cards that can ruin votes (delaying tactics, 2 different Dom > reaction cards) one more just makes it even better for decks that > don't have vote defence. How often do you see surprise influence played? > Delaying Tactics Fantastic card. Doesn't solve the problem, just delays it a turn. > Kindred Coercion Opportunity cost is enormous. Doesn't work on IC members. > Pulling Strings Slightly better than KC, but opportunity cost is still large. > But more over, > an acting vampire can only play so many action mods to a political > action. He can't play more then 1 BO or Awe. But the more vamps out > there can do Dread Gaze and other reaction vote gaining cards. None of which get played. > Yeah, you have to convince others at the table to not let it through, but, > that's just more negotiations going on. So we're back to "the table can gang up on it so it must not be broken". This has been gone over before in other arguments. > I've had vampires burned in the round I brought them out, not by PTO, > but by combat. How many of those combats burned your vampire by a single card? Did it matter what sect of vampire you brought to the table? > I've had IC vamps that didn't get a chance to do > anything or react to anything. Does this mean PTO is balanced? Not > really So you agree then that PTO is "not balanced"? > Just because some cheese-head keeps burning your vamps > with PTO at your local playgroup, does not mean it's broken, but more > likely, you're not including enough variety in your own decks to break > the one person who keeps playing the same PTO deck over and over > again. Piss him off, play a deck centered on a Cam clan, or weenie > decks that one burned vamp doesn't make a difference. Play delaying > tactics til he's blue in the face. When in doubt, turn the table on > him. The /real/ problem is that going to a blank tournament, there's no way to predict the presence/lack of a deck using PTO. So if I really want to be safe from it, I have to cut out playing large non-cams. Is that really how it should be? And indeed, Dave hasn't been arguing for it's banning in local playgroups; he wants it gone from tournaments. Personally, I'm torn between banning it and altering it. I don't know if we'll ever come up with card text that'll work. > All this concludes is that there are many different types of decks, with > each one having it's own weaknesses and strengths. Don't hate one > card because of it's strength, go after it's weakness. But when going to a tournament (where there's a good deal of people coming and you don't have some sort of inside knowledge of the metagame) do you expect PTO? You have no way to tell. So you have to either 1. ignore the existence of PTO and possibly lose because of it, or 2. limit your deck choices. It's the limiting of deck choice that I think really has people up in arms. You can completely ignore PTO if you just play with a cam vamp instead of a non-cam. -- -Snapcase

moon...@useoz.com (Jamie The Seppo) wrote in message news:<1fb48054.04010...@posting.google.com>... > Just because some cheese-head keeps burning your vamps > with PTO at your local playgroup, > Jamie > The Seppo I want to know how you knew I was a Packer fan... Cameron

> > It *does* require a good player to play Arika and survive nowadays > > No moreso than any other single large vampire. Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. You get a vampire that > starts with 4 votes, 3 bleed, arguably the most powerful discipline > spread in the game and a damn good special ability. Sounds like a > solid foundation. You pay 1 third of your starting pool. You risk getig ousted before you even get your vamp into play. They had better bring you something extr, for all that effort. <snip part about odds> > PTO has a singular effect. If it gets played, the effect happens > (once the referendum passes). Votes do get called/passed in a game of > vtes. What you seem to be disagreeing on is whether PTO's effect is > too powerful or not. More on that later. Indeed. > > Disagree: > > play DI > > If DI has to be mentioned, there's something wrong. It does not *have*to be mentioned. I don't undertand why people wil simply not acept this cxard as being a truly important (necessary) part of the game. It was IMHO introduced exactly to create an overall defens.. > > > Delay > > Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > >Vox whatever > > Only 1 per game. How many you gonna put in your deck? Simple: 1 or none. Ihave yet to test some more before I decide to switch a universal master slot for this card, but I'm almost sure I will. > > >outvote them > > They start with inherently more votes than any of your single vampires > will. Unreliable at best. Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the brokenness of PTO. > >intercept them > > Indeed the best option, but the action starts at +1 stealth; 5 of the > 7 IC members have a stealth discipline; the 6th has access to Torie > Grand Ball. Personally, I find this the most lousy solution of them all.most people > > > Anticipating a broken card being played frequently doesn't make it less > > > broken. > > It makes for people being prepared for it. > > So people should have been more prepared for Monacle of Clarity then. As you will no doubt remember, being prepared for MoC in those days left you with only 2 options: *play Eagle's Sight based intercept deck and hope he's not playing unblockables *play rush decks, packing huge amounts of (otherwise fairly useless) destroy equipment cards, and pray to god he/she is not playing Obedience or S:CE, as you cannot get around it (not without IG anyways, which would then stop you from playing your destroy equipment), all the while hoping he doesn't actually block your rushes.. You will also no doubt remember there were (as there are still) lots of more different ways of getting a MoC into play then there are to play PTO. Also: it's a freakin' "permanent"! It's an 100%sure oust-granting equipment for crying out loud..(must agree I really love what they did to this card, it's one of my favorites in some decks now) > > > > *do not grasp it's weaknesses > > > > > > What's the weakness in burning any non-cam vampire of your choice? > > You need an IC, you need to have the votes,you need to *not* encounter > > any of the anti-cards, you need a legal target, you need to be able to > > pick the right target. > > Requiring an IC is not a weakness, it's a requirement. ??How is needing an 11-cap vampire in order to play a card *not* a weakness? requirements of cards are exactly that: weaknesses. If you take given card X, with requirement to play Q, then I bet most people will say X without Q will be a better card (simply due to playability). Therefore, the presence of requirement Q weakens the card. It is therefore a weakness. No? Having the votes is necessary for any vote. One of the inherent problems of voting decks (this requires card slots).Therefore an inherent problem (weakness )of playing PTO. q.e.d. The anti cards are either poor or have high opportunity cost. Strongly disagree.If played in decent amounts, and played well, they are exactly what denies political decks an allout domination of the scene. Political decks are (IMHO, and for the last few years) an unreliable way to score VP's, ad get GW's. Or in the case of DT, you play it again next turn. I disagree. see above.again, as an example, simply ask Reyda or Tobias for an account of their suffering.(Tobias, if you're reading this, remember the ECQ Belgium 2003 finals in antwerp, where Kamel jockeyed Great Greta?) More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. That doesn't mean "more than half the vampires you'll ever see in a decent game". This logic does not make sense, as the number of legal targets "existing in the game" has no direct connection to the number of targets you'll find in a given game, on a given table. > Picking the right target isn't difficult. You're missing part of the game then. I can't even recall how often I've seen players get ousted because of mistakes like this. "Do I burn one of pred's vamps? One of my prey's? One cross-table?Let's go forward and put some pressure on my prey.oops! let's get ousted" "See large vampire that can be burned. Burn vampire. Lather. Rinse. Repeat if necessary." I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. > > > > Any idiot can throw Arika and PtO in a deck and have it ruin someone's > > > game. This isn't difficult tech we're talking about here. > > > > No, he can't.Not everybody's game is as easily ruined by 1 card as you > > make it out to be. > > If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your > predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, > barring extreme luck. If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other decks. You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? > > > The card's effect is simply not strong enough for this to be true. The > > difference between PTO and Monocle is that the Monocle actually > > enabled you to oust someone.PTO doesn't even come close to having that > > effect. > > Eliminating your prey's cornerstone vampire doesn't help you oust > them? I'd love to see the decklists of decks designed around large > non-Cam vamipres that are this impervious to PTO. *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone If you succeed, it *might* *help* you, or not, or something in between. It might just as well turn the table on you.Again, it doesn't oust people by itself.See more about my opinion on decks based on cornerstone vamps above. > > Would you be fine with the other 2 sects getting a PTO against > non-independent or non-Sabbat vamps? I guess It wouldn't bother me really.Allthough I do not see the necessity of them needing such a card, whereas for many other cars currently not in the game, I do. Far more even. Or PTO being altered to burn any vampire of any sect? Here I don't follow you. You already think PTO is broken, and now you want to make it even better? Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a lesser amount/effect the justicars. These are individual vamps, not the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for certain titled vamps.. Unless of course you guys pay strictly single sect crypted decks?? Greetz Jo

> > i would also like to point > > out that having whoever on your side doesn't make you more or less > > right. It's the arguments that count (or perhaps in this case even > > better; the evidence) > > Certainly not, but if Steven Hawking says one thing about physics, and > George Bush something entirely different, my money would be on Stephen > Hawking being correct, even if I knew nothing about physics. Do you know any VTES player that equals Stephen Hawking? I don't at least... > > > From where i sit your arguments don't persuade me (nor do mine > > persuade you, i know). > > No they don't. But then again, I have refuted them to my own > satisfaction. Until someone can demonstrate to me why I should consider > PTO *necessarily* part of a four or or five card combo, in the way that > Amaranth most certainly is, I will continue to believe that the magnitude > of its effect is a sufficient single argument for it's banning. There are > others. What do you mean? You mean a PTO has a chance of passing when it is not played in a deck that plays sufficient stealth, sufficient votes, some way of protecting your IC and some ways of action multiplier and some ways of gaining the pool for the IC back? > > Please prove me wrong (i think i am easily persuaded with evidence, > > perhaps less with arguments) > > What kind of "evidence" do you want? The social factor obscures any > evidentiary argument, and there are other problems with line of argument > besides. I would suggest abstract reasoning is the best path toward > drawing a conclusion, torturous though it may be. The evidence i am looking for is a deck that uses PTO in a large amount to win, that actually wins a few tournaments (if possible in my environment, or anything that is about the same, perhaps somewhere else in Europe) Abstract reasoning can be a very good thing and i love doing it (or i wouldn't be here) but sometimes reality shows different things. (see changing philosophy and politics) "My reality" has shown me nothing about PTO being broken, and i think that in my environment it is not a broken card ( i mean it wouldn't win if played here). Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do you think PTO could be of very great influence here? And if not, don't you think that that is required for a card to be broken? (i mean it being of great influence in all environments?) W

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 6 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > True,....perhaps that is a problem, but i have never seen anyone use > > PTO on an ally. Just doesn't seem like a logical choice. If it indeed > > happens a lot, perhaps that should change. BUt again, i have never > > seen it. > > I have. I have been that ally, more than a few times. More often than > that, I've had to somehow *justify* why my "bridge partner" -- who is > playing an IC deck with at least one broken card and, therefore, can > rationally plan a strategy around stomping the table -- shouldn't screw me > with it, and then wonder if I should pound him anyway to keep it from > coming up again next turn. It's. Just. Too. Big. An. Effect. Could you keep us (me) posted when this happens in a tournament? I would like to see the situation and deck. (i mean i can think of situations (that are very rare), but i think it is very hard to build decks that do that "for a living") > > > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > > sort of defense against it. > > I should have gotten to this a lot earlier, but lets drop the "one man > deck" term. I don't know of any, except maybe Anson Mastercard Decks, > that are one-vampire affairs. Usually, you sink 8 to 10 into a main > guy, then a few more on some disposable minions. You can't *spend* 9 or > 10 on a main guy and have much more than that. You can, but that's a > Governing, parity shifting, minion-tapping, voter capping kind of > thing. There should be more decks playable with large minions than > that. The *possibility* of PTO is a significant deterrent against that. > So you expect to find enough PTO's on enough tables to not reach the finals and expect to find PTO played there? If not i would probably not chose another decktype, but i would play some more defense if it would really hurt me. yes that hurts my game a little, but if it hurts others more i am fine. > It's just better if there isn't broken crap. More diversity, more > fairness. The only people who object are the ones who get their kicks > winning with it. Find something else to win with. You can do that as > easily as I can tie every non-cam deck I concieve of into pretzels hoping > I don't sit at the same table with you. Well that obviously isn't true, as i have never won agame with PTO and am objecting. > I grasp how metagames develop. Part of the inadequacy of that response is > that you can't really adjust to a tournament metagame. Take for example a > tournament in Washington DC in a few weeks. I might go. It's a four hour > drive. I see those guys a few times a year. Is anything I do or they do > really going to impact our deck choices? What are they even playing > currently? Does that have anything to do with what they'll play at a > tournament? Perhaps again this is a metagame thing. I think it is easier to expect decks and environment when the tournament is bigger (20+) i agree that if you play tournaments with around 10 players it will differ more. (and normally tournaments are smaller on that side of the ocean, right?) > > True, more difficult, but not undoable. In the tournaments i played i > > usually was able to tell what kind of decks would do well. Those > > tournaments are usually about 20 players big, so i will not be able to > > tell what everyone is playing, but an overall estimation of what it > > will look like is possible. And you can adjust your decks to the decks > > you think will be strong in that envrionment and you will encounter in > > the finals. > > You will have to tell me your secret. I have no idea what I'll see at any > given tournament, and other people's potential decks, barring actual > personal knowledge on my part, is never a consideration. I think about > what's strong *in the game* and plan for that. Therefore, I always plan > for PTO. I always tell myself the same thing, that i prepare for everything. But obviously i did not...i knew there weren't going to be played a lot of PTO's. And i won't be playing many PTO's because i know it is too much work to get it to be effective here. > > > Yes, PTO is strong, but there are to many requirements to make it > > broken. > > Yeah, play Arika or Alexandria. Don't flip heads eight times in a > row. Real tough. > ok, again. and play stealth (orGrandball) and play poolgain, and play speedmasters, and play votes, and play sufficient combat defense. (what do you mean by don't flip heads?) > > If we look at the old RtI that was broken in my opinion, you only need > > one unblocked (unbounced) action to make someone loose a lot of pool. > > ...Everyone has pool...and when they lose it you win... > > And unblocked AND unbounced is trivial? Hell of a lot harder than passing > a vote with an IC memeber. Your argument just crumbled to dust. it needs three cards. RtI, dayops, and that tha-thingy. > > > Not everyone has a non-cam-vampire, not everyone loses when they lose > > one of their non-cam-vamps, that, on TOP of the fact that it is a VOTE > > that can only be called effectively by very little (fragile) vampires > > makes it strong, but not broken. > > IC's are not fragile. That dust is now dust in the wind. > Putting all your eggs in one basket is always fragile. Every basket can break. W

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com... > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. Wiping Arika out if you can is usually a good move. While wiping out any vampire out generally works out somewhat well, Arika has 3 bleed, 4 votes, fortitude for multiple actions and defense, dominate/presence for bloating (among other things), obfuscate for stealth...her discipline spread is just far too good to ignore. So while you may disagree, if I'm sitting next to Arika, I'm generally gonna do what I can to wipe her out. > > > Delay > > > > Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. Not necessarily, but if the person calling the PTO is not near ousted and nobody can do anything about the IC calling the vote (the odds of both conditions being met is relatively high I'd say) then they will most likely call it again...or oust you with a KRC or something if somehow they got you into ousting range in the meantime, neither of which I would consider a favorable option. DT may be a great counter to a VP-stealing Kindred Restructure (because the point of the Kindred Restructure probably no longer exists after the current turn) and other such vote tricks, however, it is a tad less effective in stopping a PTO. > > >outvote them > > > > They start with inherently more votes than any of your single vampires > > will. Unreliable at best. > > Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not > include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a > different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the > brokenness of PTO. I don't see how what you just said has any bearing on the fact that outvoting a PTO is not very likely, which you seem to agree with. I'm just curious about what the point of the above statement was, that's all. > Having the votes is necessary for any vote. > One of the inherent problems of voting decks (this requires card > slots).Therefore an inherent problem (weakness )of playing PTO. q.e.d. Perhaps it can be considered an inherent weakness that you need the votes, however, this weakness is relatively insignificant. With an IC and the vote card, that's already five votes in favor. This may not outvote every table in existance, however, just one bewitching oration (which you're probably using for the bloat aspect anyway) pushes that up to nine (assuming the IC has PRE, not all IC's have PRE, but if you're playing a vote deck you're probably using PRE at the very least for voter caps if not also BOs and other such cards.) If nine votes still isn't enough (which may be true later in the game, certainly not at the beginning) you probably have other titled vampires out to at the very least help you pass your votes. Passing votes doesn't require an excessive amount of card slots in every vote deck. Sure it still takes up some card slots, but as I mentioned above, some of those vote push cards also serve as bloat anyway, which is generally good. > More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. > That doesn't mean "more than half the vampires you'll ever see in a > decent game". > This logic does not make sense, as the number of legal targets > "existing in the game" has no direct connection to the number of > targets you'll find in a given game, on a given table. No it doesn't, but it does increase the chance you'll see a valid target in the game. Because it can affect a greater variety of targets, it makes it a more flexible card than if it were just a clan hoser. > > If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your > > predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, > > barring extreme luck. > > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > decks. > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? As a note, a deck based on one ten-cap vampire will more than likely have support weenies out. Support weenies can get rid of Pentex. Support weenies can block rushes. Support weenies can do lots of things to help out big fattie. Support weenies most likely can't do much about a PTO (yes, they can DT it, but I still question the effectiveness of DT in stopping PTO cold.) > > Eliminating your prey's cornerstone vampire doesn't help you oust > > them? I'd love to see the decklists of decks designed around large > > non-Cam vamipres that are this impervious to PTO. > > *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone > If you succeed, it *might* *help* you, or not, or something in > between. It might just as well turn the table on you.Again, it doesn't > oust people by itself.See more about my opinion on decks based on > cornerstone vamps above. Old Thoughts Betrayed wasn't an assured way to victory. Old Majesty didn't guarantee victory either. I also don't see how old Form of Mist on its own was assured to help. The list of changed cards that didn't assure victory in their old forms goes on and on. Generally, no card ousts people by itself, but some cards are powerful enough to just be too powerful. > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > lesser amount/effect the justicars. These are individual vamps, not > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > certain titled vamps.. > Unless of course you guys pay strictly single sect crypted decks?? If a card requires a titled vampire from that sect, I'd consider it a sect card. Sure not all Camarilla vampires can use it, however, in order to use the card you MUST be playing at least one Camarilla vampire. I suppose the definition of whether or not a card is a sect card if it requires a titled vampire of that sect is up for debate, however, I don't think I'm alone when I say that it is reasonable to say that if it requires a titled vampire of that sect, it can be considered a card for that sect. Now, I'm not sided either way with the broken or not broken crowds, although when I see the card I think "Sheesh, that's nasty." Not nasty in a Govern the Unaligned way, where it's good and powerful, but nasty in the "Man, I don't even feel like playing this card because it can quite easily ruin people and the game" way.

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No, PTO doesnt immediately oust your prey, nor gain you a VP. It just can help you a lot more, than one single card should. Sure, many cards can do it, but PTO has a lower opportunity cost for it, than many others. [ quoted text not captured ] Wait a turn. Make some dog kneel (Obedience/Majesty) or just look nasty. Minion tap. Then play PTO. Wonder why your Setite prey doesnt block. Burn Nefertiti. And if youre feeling really nasty, BO and Voter Cap. The "requirements" on PTO are ridiculous. The requirements on Sacrifice are ridiculous as well. But for very different reasons. > > > If we look at the old RtI that was broken in my opinion, you only need > > > one unblocked (unbounced) action to make someone loose a lot of pool. > > > ...Everyone has pool...and when they lose it you win... > > > > And unblocked AND unbounced is trivial? Hell of a lot harder than passing > > a vote with an IC memeber. Your argument just crumbled to dust. > > it needs three cards. RtI, dayops, and that tha-thingy. Whereas PTO needs only one. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:08:52 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: >>Same article, shorter URL: >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=h36iev40oktjkqdk68pdpt4pft2jgbavun%404ax.com >> >>(all you need is the "selm" part - the rest is just locale and search context) > > ahhh. i'm sure i'll forget that next time i do a search, and then i'll > have to search for _your_ post to remember how to trim the url.....oh > well... :D "selm" = [SEL]ected [M]essage, if that mnemonic will help. Or just click on "original format" to get a semi-short URL that begins with the selm and then delete from the first ampersand to the end of that URL (which tends to be just "&output=gplain"). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Snapcase wrote: > Wouter...@yahoo.com says... > > PTO is just a vote, if you expect strong IC-votedecks to come to your > > table, adjust! either to the fact that they are bigvamps (rush?) or to > > the fact that they want to vote (voxes/DI/DT) or to the fact that they > > are IC's (fear of mekhet) or make yourself a more difficult target > > (play cammy) or don't be hurt that much by outspeeding him and putting > > bets on different horses instead of on 1/2 (weenie) > > ... every deck style has its nemesis... > > All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. The issue for me is that it makes large non-cam vampires even less playable than they already are. Sure, I could play cam, or weenie, or whatever, but that isn't addressing the main issue. > Also, why is it just non-Cam vampires that have to put up with a single- > card potential burn? Doesn't seem balanced there. It isn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Jan 2004, Curevei wrote: > While I wouldn't use such reasoning, I'd actually agree that European > (including UK) CCG players are more competitive than American CCG players ... Right, hence my characterization "figure out what's strongest and play it." I'll throw another log on the fire and say that, in counterpoint, more American players seem to place a higher value on creativity i.e. doing something that hasn't been done before. Note I said "more", not all. We're talking in very broad, unsubstantiable generalizations here. While it's well known I enjoy a good flame war every now and then, I'm offering my *impressions*, not suggesting any of this is fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Tetragrammaton wrote: > In my experience, discarding is ok, but in a vote deck > (the typical in which i see PTO used) 2 or 3 vote cards to be discarded > being useless means much. What's being got at is the opportunity cost of including the card in your deck. Clan hosers are not often played because the odds of it just sitting in your hand and clogging things up is high. Pitching a vote is strong; while it's only one vote, it has a bit of a wildcard effect, and I've seen it cause big changes in a game. The fact that you can use PTO in this fashion at a minimum means the opportunity cost is, in fact, low. Coupled with the fact that it just takes one to wreck many decks, and put many others on the ropes, well..... you know the drill. > I will never risk to put in more that 3 PTO in any vote deck, since i simply > don't want to take the risk of cloggin my hand thereafter, But the risk is low. If a vote is called, you can play it. If diablerie happens you can play it. Barring all that, as a last resort, you can discard it. The hyper-focused crowd may view being forced to discard anything at all as a failure, I don't know, but I don't view the occasional discard as any great burden, especially when the bulk of your activity will be consumed with tier 1 effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Jan 2004, Tolbot wrote: > But the place in sweden wher i play its 100% Gore-fest; 95% Commabt > whit POT or CEL ;) Noted. Beyond the contrast between the Europe and America I was really just trying to be amusing. Sten and his gunning toreadors stand out in my memory, hence the comment. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com>, jo.her...@sca.com says... > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. *shrug*. Replace with other IC members then. > You pay 1 third of your starting pool. You risk getig ousted before > you even get your vamp into play. They had better bring you something > extr, for all that effort. Absolutely. Except I can pay 1/3 of my starting pool for Lazverinus or Augustus, and they can be fairly easily burned by your starting 1/3 because my guys aren't Cam. > > > Disagree: > > > play DI > > > > If DI has to be mentioned, there's something wrong. > It does not *have*to be mentioned. I don't undertand why people wil > simply not acept this cxard as being a truly important (necessary) > part of the game. It was IMHO introduced exactly to create an overall > defens.. Because requiring there to be a specific (rare!) defense card in every deck we make is bad game design. > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. So you've never seen a Delayed vote played the turn after? > Simple: 1 or none. Ihave yet to test some more before I decide to > switch a universal master slot for this card, but I'm almost sure I > will. I like it too. You still only get one per game. > Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not > include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a > different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the > brokenness of PTO. Losing 3 pool to a KRC and losing your entire vampire are different things, wouldn't you agree? > As you will no doubt remember, being prepared for MoC in those days > left you with only 2 options: > *play Eagle's Sight based intercept deck and hope he's not playing > unblockables > *play rush decks, packing huge amounts of (otherwise fairly useless) > destroy equipment cards, and pray to god he/she is not playing > Obedience or S:CE, as you cannot get around it (not without IG > anyways, which would then stop you from playing your destroy > equipment), all the while hoping he doesn't actually block your > rushes.. His statement was that knowing when a broken card was going to be played allowed you to be prepared for it. My statement was to refute that. Your statement seems to support me. > The anti cards are either poor or have high opportunity cost. > > Strongly disagree.If played in decent amounts, and played well, they > are exactly what denies political decks an allout domination of the > scene. Political decks are (IMHO, and for the last few years) an > unreliable way to score VP's, ad get GW's. The TWD archive has a grand total of 6 decks with Kindred Coercion, 3 with Pulling Strings and 5 with Dread Gaze. There are 22 just using PTO. Care to analyze? > More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. > That doesn't mean "more than half the vampires you'll ever see in a > decent game". > This logic does not make sense, as the number of legal targets > "existing in the game" has no direct connection to the number of > targets you'll find in a given game, on a given table. Given a "blank slate" table, it means that there is a good chance there will be legal targets for PTO. "Finding a target" is not a significant difficulty. > > Picking the right target isn't difficult. > You're missing part of the game then. I can't even recall how often > I've seen players get ousted because of mistakes like this. > "Do I burn one of pred's vamps? One of my prey's? One > cross-table?Let's go forward and put some pressure on my prey.oops! > let's get ousted" That's the beauty of PTO. You can burn both of them if you want. Just call another next turn. > "See large vampire that can be burned. Burn vampire. Lather. > Rinse. Repeat if necessary." > I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. Come to the irc room. I'm sure someone will play it up sooner or later. > > If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your > > predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, > > barring extreme luck. > > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > decks. Yet people play decks based around an 11 cap all the time. Funny that. And those decks get to play an extra card that can burn my 10 cap. > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? Nope. You can have *other* guys to get rid of the pentex. You can also still play reaction cards, collect blood from a blood doll, etc. > *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone Say it succeeds. > Or PTO being altered to burn any vampire of any sect? > Here I don't follow you. You already think PTO is broken, and now you > want to make it even better? Why not. Might as well even the playing field against the cams. I don't play them that much, so it won't affect my game at all. > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > lesser amount/effect the justicars. It's the camarilla sect that's impervious to the card. Even if I'm not playing IC members, if I play cam vamps, I get to completely ignore its existence. > These are individual vamps, not > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > certain titled vamps.. We can make it the 11 cap titled guys in the indie groups. Or for 10 cap cardinals in the sabbat. A nice small set of vamps. The point is, other (indie/sabbat) vamps will be impervious to it, while those cammie folks now have to watch out. -- -Snapcase

On 6 Jan 2004, Cameron wrote: > I thought it was changed because of Legbiter. But as bad as PTO is, > G:tU is a much stronger card. It is stronger because of it's availability and versatility. Its swing in the game state is miniscule compared to PTO, so I don't see the comparison as relevant. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Jan 2004, wolflord wrote: > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. Not in my experience, at least not with good players. Sure, when she comes out there'll be moaning and bitching and comments about that player's personal hygiene, but in reality people keep their eye on the ball, their prey and predator. Sure, you've got to keep an eye on Arika, because she can blow out 12+ pool in one go, so if your predator is in that range, you might have to get pre-emptive. Note that this goes to the heart of the problem, though, because from the other side of the fence, that same offensive power means the Arika player is even more likely to pre-emptively strike with the PTO just before wrapping around. The fact is, Arika gets no help. Luckily she doesn't need it. And that's about it. > You pay 1 third of your starting pool. You risk getig ousted before > you even get your vamp into play. They had better bring you something > extr, for all that effort. Right, big vampires are risky, despite the fact that Arika has many ways to almost immediately recoupe that pool or obviate the need to actually spend any more (govern down - freak - Enchant down - freak - scout down - freak - restore - freak - bleed - freak - vote - push - cap, mix in restoration as needed). Of course that's a ridiculously long chain of cards, but they are all cards that will exist in multiples in the deck (or most likely should), and even small chunks of the combo on any given turn pretty much refute your assertion. But even stipulating that you are correct, why should it be *so* much riskier to play large non-cam than cam. Keep your eye on the ball. The real issue isn't that PTO can't be defended against; it can be, simply by playing small vampires or cam vampires. The real issue is that it makes a wide range of decks a dumb decision to play, and this harms the game as a whole. > It does not *have*to be mentioned. I don't undertand why people wil > simply not acept this cxard as being a truly important (necessary) > part of the game. It was IMHO introduced exactly to create an overall > defens.. It's generally accepted that, if you have to fall back on a "DI it" argument, then the card is a problem. Anything can be DI'd. Here, watch: hypothetical card says "+1,000 stealth action -- DIE!". Just DI it, right? > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. DT doesn't stop the card. It delays it. It's been said many times. See above for DI. And yes, I understand that, in the time you buy, you *may* be able to do something about it. Or you may not. None of this addresses the fact that the card does more than one card should do, nor that it is only a factor for non-cams. > Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not > include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a > different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the > brokenness of PTO. Magnitude of effect. One vote, generate 3-5 pool loss for a player. Losing three to five pool happens in all kinds of ways, and is something everyone has to account for. Tactical nukes from orbit are something only non-cams have to account for. Were it not of "tactical nuke" magnitude, it wouldn't be a problem. > ??How is needing an 11-cap vampire in order to play a card *not* a > weakness? Burned out. Somebody else will re-re-re-re-state this one. > I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. What's wrong with the logic? See target, play card. Or do you not assume that a player can assess the impact on table balance and choose accordingly? You guys are masters of stealth bleed in Paris? Well, I'm a master of combat. What that means is that, most every game, I confront the terrible dillema of "sure, I can erase that guy. Now, should I?" Minion control is an aspect of the game, and one I would assume any good player using PTO is going to understand. > > > No, he can't.Not everybody's game is as easily ruined by 1 card as you > > > make it out to be. No, just people playing non-cams in the 8-11 range. That is the problem. If you don't think those vampires should be playable anyway, just say so. Then we can all have a good laugh. > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > decks. No one is arguing that any 10 cap is more fragile than weenies, or speedy stealth bleed mid-caps. But the defenses necessary to give you a fighting chance are much more easily includable -- in sufficient numbers such that it's not just a prayer card -- than defense against PTO. There are defenses against PTO, just not any *feasible* defenses, other than "don't play non-cam". > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? No. You can recover from Pentex and get your guy back, in many many ways. I think, at this late date, it should be acknowledged that arguing for PTO by appealing to similiar effects are fruitless. As is any appeal to it requiring a chain of 4 or 5 cards, but I'm sure I'll get a shot at re-re-re-replying to that again in a few more messages (working my way through the thread, decided to just jump in). > *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone > If you succeed, it *might* *help* you, or not, or something in > between. It might just as well turn the table on you.Again, it doesn't > oust people by itself.See more about my opinion on decks based on > cornerstone vamps above. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but it seems to be one of two things: either the player can't intelligently target PTO, which isn't a hard thing to do, or you are appealing to "gang up on me, I'm not broken", which is a fallacious argument. > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > lesser amount/effect the justicars. These are individual vamps, not > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > certain titled vamps.. It's not that every Cam can play it, it's that none of them can be targetted by it, while everyone else can. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Is it really a given? I have heard that the european players take the > game very seriously and are in a sort of permanent cantankerous state > because of it. There has to be some difference between competetiveness > and emotional involvement. I think you're confusing competitive with competitive here. Or I am. Whatever. I'll explain. > Perhaps your comment was not limited to vtes. I take it as a given > that americans are far more competitive at basketball than europeans. No doubt that in MANY MANY sports the US has the best player(s) and the tougest opposition. Fairly simple, it's the bigger landmass, produces tons of people and logically has the most talent around. That, however, has nothing to do with playing style. Also, basketball is in the US as soccer is here in Europe, so your example was pretty bad in this case. Take an international game like Tennis or Swimming and we're talking. What I'm merely saying, is that for all its size, the US still doesn't dominate every competition. Statistically it should, simply because of the amount of people. It's also a mentality thing. Europeans simply want to always win and be the best; moreso than the average American. To get back to V:TES. So you go to some 30 player tournament with a "creative, but working" deck. You hope to get into the finals and maybe even talk your way into a win. Of course, may other people will do the same and some will just play whatever is strong. The average European will ALWAYS play to win in a game that's of any importance. No inventive stuff, no creative decks (those only get played in friendly games), just the best decks around. Of course you'll see an odd fun theme deck around once in a while, but we're talking the middle of the road player here. A good 75% of the participants will play decks that are condidered strong; few moving parts, low average cap, not combo dependant. I was merely suggesting the possibility that this mentality, or, if you wish, emotional involvement reduces the strength of PtO. There must be SOME explanation why most Europeans here couldn't care less about PtO and most Americans hate it with a passion. > > I'm glad some actual European chimed in with a sweeping > > generalization. I was expected to get called a nazi by at least one > > uptight continental. I dub thee SACRIFICAIL ANODE! I don't recall calling you nazi, but if you really insist I can do it. > > That said, I'm not really seeing your statement as being true. Shit man, > > we lose our job, we've got six months, then we starve. I'd say that > > trumps population density. Yah that made sense...

> > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. > > Wiping Arika out if you can is usually a good move. Completely dependant on the actual situation. While wiping out any vampire out generally works out somewhat well, Arika has 3 bleed, 4 votes,> fortitude for multiple actions and defense, dominate/presence for bloating> (among other things), obfuscate for stealth...her discipline spread is just far too good to ignore. So while you may disagree, if I'm sitting next to Arika, I'm generally gonna do what I can to wipe her out. Exactly the "Aaargh Arika"- scare I'm talking about. While the things you say are quite accurate (about her having 3 bleed and all), there's generally lots of different options with regards to how to handle Arika.Blind hatred of this vampire, blindly attacking her,I feel are howevernot (nor will they ever be) justified, unless the situation at hand calls for it.However, she seems to have this effect on people, even crosstable.So if I'm right, while I do not agree on the necessity of doing it, you seems to agree on this effects taking place, as you yourself say you act this way. Hence, I believe this proves the point that it's generally hard for any given player to put Arika into play (or any IC for that matter) and survive these bad feelings towards her. Thus making it more difficult to play herthan other highcaps. Thus making it harder for a PTO player, thus being a weakness in the card.Which was the whole point.I believe needing an IC is a weakness in the card,not just requirement. > > > > > Delay > > > > > > Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > Not necessarily, but if the person calling the PTO is not near ousted and > nobody can do anything about the IC calling the vote (the odds of both > conditions being met is relatively high I'd say) I disagree. DT, DI, intercept, outvote *are* all things players can *do about the IC calling the vote*. It is exactly this which will lead to a situation where the player will *not* play PTO again, or succesfully. If you have a whole table of people who are incapable of coutering the problems of an IC calling a vote, then they will be ousted by them, regardless of which vot it is.. This is not due to the supposed brokenness of PTO, but due to the fact these players then have a large hole in their deckbuilding/playing strategies..Such situations do not make PTO a broken card. then they will most likely > call it again...or oust you with a KRC or something if somehow they got you > into ousting range in the meantime, neither of which I would consider a > favorable option. DT may be a great counter to a VP-stealing Kindred > Restructure (because the point of the Kindred Restructure probably no longer > exists after the current turn) and other such vote tricks, however, it is a > tad less effective in stopping a PTO. DT is always a great counter.To any vote being called.. > > > > >outvote them > > > > > > They start with inherently more votes than any of your single vampires > > > will. Unreliable at best. > > > > Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not > > include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a > > different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the > > brokenness of PTO. > > I don't see how what you just said has any bearing on the fact that > outvoting a PTO is not very likely, which you seem to agree with. I'm just > curious about what the point of the above statement was, that's all. > The original point was that PTO is supposed to be broken, and that needing an IC is not a weakness. As I stated the possible ways of countering it, and one such solution consists of outvoting them, it was stated that the IC's start with inherently more votes than other vamps. IMHO this is not a usefull argument with regards to the overpoweredness of PTO. If being outvoted is a problem, than it is a problem caused by not being prepared for political decks, and as such does not prove anything with regards to PTO, and as such has no place in this thread I think. > > Having the votes is necessary for any vote. > > One of the inherent problems of voting decks (this requires card > > slots).Therefore an inherent problem (weakness )of playing PTO. q.e.d. > > Perhaps it can be considered an inherent weakness that you need the votes, > however, this weakness is relatively insignificant. With an IC and the vote > card, that's already five votes in favor. This may not outvote every table > in existance, however, just one bewitching oration (which you're probably > using for the bloat aspect anyway) pushes that up to nine (assuming the IC > has PRE, not all IC's have PRE, but if you're playing a vote deck you're > probably using PRE at the very least for voter caps if not also BOs and > other such cards.) If nine votes still isn't enough (which may be true > later in the game, certainly not at the beginning) you probably have other > titled vampires out to at the very least help you pass your votes. Passing > votes doesn't require an excessive amount of card slots in every vote deck. > Sure it still takes up some card slots, but as I mentioned above, some of > those vote push cards also serve as bloat anyway, which is generally good. Under the right circumstances, having enough votes can be indeed easy. But my point is that i *is still* a necessity for a succesfull PTO.And a mighty bloody important one. How many political decks have you seen becoming victorious in the past couple of years? Exactly: not an overwhelming mass.It's hard to win with a political deck, and this is a disadvantage which carries ovr onto eery single political card.It's one of the resons I find it absolutely crazy to call a political card broken. > > More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. > > That doesn't mean "more than half the vampires you'll ever see in a > > decent game". > > This logic does not make sense, as the number of legal targets > > "existing in the game" has no direct connection to the number of > > targets you'll find in a given game, on a given table. > > No it doesn't, but it does increase the chance you'll see a valid target in > the game. Hold on. Let me repeat myself: the number of legal targets *existing* in the game has IMHO absolutely NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE NUMBER OF LEGAL TARGETS YOU'LL FIND IN A GIVEN GAME OR AT A GIVEN TABLE" As you agree with this statement, I do no comprehend that you wish to somehow then state a direct connection anyways, namely of it increasing the chance of seeing a valid target in the game.This is a statement with which I clearly disagree, as I do not remark there to be any connection at all.. It would be different however to take into account the number of legal targets for PTO if you look solely at the vampires that regularly see actual play, and even then, you're limited to metagame impressions,(further adding to my point that PTO is not broken ..) Because it can affect a greater variety of targets, it makes it a > more flexible card than if it were just a clan hoser. I've never said anything about the power of PTO compared to a clan hoser.Somehow it strikes me as logical that cards which require an IC to play are better than some of the worst cards in the game. > > > > If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your > > > predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, > > > barring extreme luck. > > > > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > > decks. > > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? > > As a note, a deck based on one ten-cap vampire will more than likely have > support weenies out. Support weenies can get rid of Pentex. Support > weenies can block rushes. Support weenies can do lots of things to help out > big fattie. Support weenies most likely can't do much about a PTO (yes, > they can DT it, but I still question the effectiveness of DT in stopping PTO > cold.) As you might have noticed,I don't see why you question it's effectiveness. As to the weenie-single fattie deck.Would you believe me if I told you Pentex Subversion is an absolute killer card?Would you believe me if I told you it has it's greatest uses against fattie decks, with or without weenies to protect the fatties? Would you believe me if I said I don not believe PS to broken?Because there are lots of ways to get around it (as you've stated). The ways to get around PTO are, for some decks easier, for others harder then getting around a PS, but *you can get around them*, which makes them *not broken* ><snip> > Old Thoughts Betrayed wasn't an assured way to victory. Agreed Old Majesty didn't guarantee victory either. Agreed I also don't see how old Form of Mist on its own was assured to help. Agreed The list of changed cards that didn't assure victory in their old forms goes on and on. Agreed Generally, no card ousts people by itself, Ahem,the old Monocle of Clarity virtualy did, as you needed nothing else besides any vamp and the monocle.. but some cards are powerful enough to just be too powerful. Please explain how that can be so, cause I really don't get this part.I mean, people keep on saying this, yet when they get a reaction with what you can do about it, they never seem to accept those facts. Cards that you can do nothing against are too powerfull. Such cards do not exist. Cards that you can do virtually nothing against and/or that guarantee ousts are too powerfull. such cards do not exist Cards that come close enough to either one of the previous 2 for a majority of players to either start playing this card, or playing specifically against it or being forced into these 2 situations in order to keep up are too powerfull. such cards do not exist. I don't see how a card by itself can be considered "too powerfull" in any other case > > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > > lesser amount/effect the justicars. These are individual vamps, not > > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > > certain titled vamps.. > > Unless of course you guys pay strictly single sect crypted decks?? > > If a card requires a titled vampire from that sect, I'd consider it a sect > card. Sure not all Camarilla vampires can use it, however, in order to use > the card you MUST be playing at least one Camarilla vampire. I suppose the > definition of whether or not a card is a sect card if it requires a titled > vampire of that sect is up for debate, however, I don't think I'm alone when > I say that it is reasonable to say that if it requires a titled vampire of > that sect, it can be considered a card for that sect. The reason I'm saying this is the following (I don't know any other way how to explain it ) Suppose there were 1 card "ABCD" which could only be played by 1 vampire, say by Uma Hatch. Some people would reasonably consider that a card which could be played by the feminine vampires, are an advantage for the group of feminine vampires as a whole.Some people might claim it to be broken ,as Uma can play ABCD, and nobody else, based on whether they find it's efect too strong or not. They'd probably immediately start screaming that male vampires would need an equivalent, or that the card should be "fixed", "unbroken" or outrightly banned. Now:I feel like the guy who's trying to tell those people that Uma is not such a big threat, that she can (relatively)easily be dismissed, that ABCD are only the first 4 letters in the alphabet, and thus are rather useless without their other 22 companions, do absolutely nothing when you don't create a language, and that this does not make it a target fo a genuine witch hunt or Holy Crusade or anything.And that playing with cards which have female or male vampires depicted has absolutely no impact on the game, so you can just as easily continue playing your "good ol'macho" deck wihout there being an "EFGH"card, and that they should feel so much at a disadvantage.. > Now, I'm not sided either way with the broken or not broken crowds, although > when I see the card I think "Sheesh, that's nasty." Not nasty in a Govern > the Unaligned way, where it's good and powerful, but nasty in the "Man, I > don't even feel like playing this card because it can quite easily ruin > people and the game" way. That's a good point and I can imagine you thinking that (though I definitely don't), but I'm afraid we disagree on this: I don't think/believe PTO can.I simply don't see how it could. I simply have not seen or heard anything to prove that it can in any way. greetz Jo

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:bth7n8$66n$1...@reader08.wxs.nl... > I think you're confusing competitive with competitive here. Or I am. > Whatever. I'll explain. What in the world does this mean? > No doubt that in MANY MANY sports the US has the best player(s) and the > tougest opposition. Fairly simple, it's the bigger landmass, produces > tons of people and logically has the most talent around. That, however, > has nothing to do with playing style. Also, basketball is in the US as > soccer is here in Europe, so your example was pretty bad in this case. > Take an international game like Tennis or Swimming and we're talking. > > What I'm merely saying, is that for all its size, the US still doesn't > dominate every competition. Statistically it should, simply because of > the amount of people. It's also a mentality thing. Europeans simply want > to always win and be the best; moreso than the average American. To get > back to V:TES. So you go to some 30 player tournament with a "creative, > but working" deck. You hope to get into the finals and maybe even talk > your way into a win. Of course, may other people will do the same and > some will just play whatever is strong. Your "statistical" analysis is flawed. The main flaw in your logic at this point is that the culture in the US and the culture in Europe place different values on different sports. So, to expect the US to compete as "statistically" as they should in soccer as landmass, population, and other factors would indicate is folly, because the culture here in the US does not place as much value in soccer as Europe does. I daresay that if soccer were the main sport in the US and in Europe that the numbers would come close to to matching what you seem to think is expected. Of course my assumption has no basis, however, it is relatively safe to assume that if a lot of the capable athletes were to have received soccer training instead of say...baseball training, or American football training, or basketball training, they would probably play soccer pretty well. Yes these sports require different sorts of physical activity and I'm sure not all athletes in these sports would do well, however, their innate physical talent is great enough that I am willing to say they could probably have played soccer very well had they received the proper impetus in their younger years. Keep in mind that these are not normal people like you (I'm assuming you're not a pro-sports player) but that these are people with distinct physical gifts, gifts that must be properly channeled and could be channeled in many directions. So before you go around saying the US doesn't want to "be the best," try to consider other possibilities that could explain what's going on. > The average European will ALWAYS play to win in a game that's of any > importance. No inventive stuff, no creative decks (those only get played > in friendly games), just the best decks around. Of course you'll see an > odd fun theme deck around once in a while, but we're talking the middle > of the road player here. A good 75% of the participants will play decks > that are condidered strong; few moving parts, low average cap, not combo > dependant. I was merely suggesting the possibility that this mentality, > or, if you wish, emotional involvement reduces the strength of PtO. > > There must be SOME explanation why most Europeans here couldn't care > less about PtO and most Americans hate it with a passion. There is nothing that makes an inventive or creative deck any weaker than traditional decks. You seem to equate creative with weak, which simply is not the case. Do creative decks win in unconventional ways? Sometimes. Do creative decks win in unexpected ways? Most of the time. Just because a deck takes an alternate path to victory does not make it any weaker than any deck that's been proven to work. In fact, it could help you win if nobody's ever seen a deck like it before, because your opponents probably haven't accounted for it in their list of defenses and thus are less prepared to handle it. But to imply that people in the US aren't attempting to play to win and just want to play for creativity's sake is again, folly.

On 7 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Do you know any VTES player that equals Stephen Hawking? I don't at > least... No, but there are very good ones who've done or said things repeatedly that make them stand out in the crowd. That's really all that's necessary for the analogy to hold. > What do you mean? You mean a PTO has a chance of passing when it is > not played in a deck that plays sufficient stealth, sufficient votes, > some way of protecting your IC and some ways of action multiplier and > some ways of gaining the pool for the IC back? Vampires by default have 0 intercept. So, by default, the vote does not get blocked. By default, it has 5 in its favor. Tit-for-tat "I play this" arguments are a wash. > The evidence i am looking for is a deck that uses PTO in a large > amount to win, that actually wins a few tournaments (if possible in my > environment, or anything that is about the same, perhaps somewhere > else in Europe) It's been cited that 22 decks in the TWD use PTO. Requiring it to be in large amounts is unnecessary. The problem is with the effect, which is so large that playing just one is problematic. Cameron has cited his "14 PTO" deck, which I would consider cornercase. Just one is a problem, and including 4 is painless. > "My reality" has shown me nothing about PTO being broken, and i think > that in my environment it is not a broken card ( i mean it wouldn't > win if played here). Does "your reality" include large, non-cam vampires? If it doesn't, then you won't see a problem with the card. Stifling creativity, a complexity that makes the game more interesting to play, is a bad thing. No, not everything should be playable against everything else; no Werewolf Pack decks, please. But the effect of PTO is too broad, and seems to me to be clearly an unnecessary stifling of the game. > Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do you > think PTO could be of very great influence here? No, but I play against Europeans all the time on deckbot. You should come give it a try. > And if not, don't you think that that is required for a card to be > broken? (i mean it being of great influence in all environments?) It's a great influence in both my local metagame, in my choices for tournament play, and in my play on deckbot against a world-wide pool of players. It is actually in the last venue where it's been the biggest problem, and most of the players of such decks *have* been European, FWIW. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Wiping Arika out if you can is usually a good move. > Completely dependant on the actual situation. > > While wiping out any vampire out generally works out somewhat well, > Arika has 3 bleed, 4 votes,> fortitude for multiple actions and > defense, dominate/presence for bloating> (among other things), > obfuscate for stealth...her discipline spread is just far too good to > ignore. So while you may disagree, if I'm sitting next to Arika, I'm > generally gonna do what I can to wipe her out. > > Exactly the "Aaargh Arika"- scare I'm talking about. While the things > you say are quite accurate (about her having 3 bleed and all), there's > generally lots of different options with regards to how to handle > Arika.Blind hatred of this vampire, blindly attacking her,I feel are > howevernot (nor will they ever be) justified, unless the situation at > hand calls for it.However, she seems to have this effect on people, > even crosstable.So if I'm right, while I do not agree on the necessity > of doing it, you seems to agree on this effects taking place, as you > yourself say you act this way. Hence, I believe this proves the point > that it's generally hard for any given player to put Arika into play > (or any IC for that matter) and survive these bad feelings towards > her. Thus making it more difficult to play herthan other highcaps. > Thus making it harder for a PTO player, thus being a weakness in the > card.Which was the whole point.I believe needing an IC is a weakness > in the card,not just requirement. What "scare" are you talking about? This isn't just about Arika. If I see a 3 bleeder, especially with a stealth discipline, under my predator's control, I'm gonna try to get rid of the sucker. If I see a vampire that can generate 7 blood from the blood bank to uncontrolled vampires, you know what, that's a damn threat. And I never said I'd blindly go attacking her, however, I'm gonna keep a damn big eye on her, and there is a damn good chance I'm gonna eliminate her. Of course everything is situation dependant, but if trying to eliminate a vampire like Arika isn't reasonable a majority of the time when I'm sitting next to her, color me insane. > > > > > > > Delay > > > > > > > > Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. > > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > > > Not necessarily, but if the person calling the PTO is not near ousted and > > nobody can do anything about the IC calling the vote (the odds of both > > conditions being met is relatively high I'd say) > > I disagree. DT, DI, intercept, outvote *are* all things players can > *do about the IC calling the vote*. It is exactly this which will lead > to a situation where the player will *not* play PTO again, or > succesfully. If you have a whole table of people who are incapable of > coutering the problems of an IC calling a vote, then they will be > ousted by them, regardless of which vot it is.. This is not due to the > supposed brokenness of PTO, but due to the fact these players then > have a large hole in their deckbuilding/playing strategies..Such > situations do not make PTO a broken card. You still have not refuted my argument as to why DT is not an effective counter for PTO. DT doesn't stop them from playing it again. If the person is not ousted, and his prey is not in ousting range, then he'll most likely play that PTO next turn. > The original point was that PTO is supposed to be broken, and that > needing an IC is not a weakness. As I stated the possible ways of > countering it, and one such solution consists of outvoting them, it > was stated that the IC's start with inherently more votes than other > vamps. IMHO this is not a usefull argument with regards to the > overpoweredness of PTO. If being outvoted is a problem, than it is a > problem caused by not being prepared for political decks, and as such > does not prove anything with regards to PTO, and as such has no place > in this thread I think. Okay, just curious, although I think the point of that was to emphasize that passing a PTO is not really a difficult task once you enter the referendum. > As to the weenie-single fattie deck.Would you believe me if I told you > Pentex Subversion is an absolute killer card?Would you believe me if I > told you it has it's greatest uses against fattie decks, with or > without weenies to protect the fatties? > Would you believe me if I said I don not believe PS to broken?Because > there are lots of ways to get around it (as you've stated). The ways > to get around PTO are, for some decks easier, for others harder then > getting around a PS, but *you can get around them*, which makes them > *not broken* I play with Pentex Subversion quite a bit so don't even try to imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I also know that it's not a horribly difficult task to have it removed (surprise, cross-table Pentex removal does happen, and you know, while a wall deck can block a lot of actions per turn, a lot of decks, some of which will utilize Pentex, can't) and thus doesn't completely ruin games for certain decks. PTO doesn't give you that chance to recover. PTO says "you're playing with a large non-Cam vampire, so I'm gonna ruin your game." And as you still haven't provided any arguments countering why I think DT is not an effective counter, yes, I still remain unconvinced.

On 7 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Could you keep us (me) posted when this happens in a tournament? I > would like to see the situation and deck. (i mean i can think of > situations (that are very rare), but i think it is very hard to build > decks that do that "for a living") I suppose so. But see, it's not just a matter of tallying up the "kills" from PTO. It's a deterrant. The fact that it exists inhibits the number of times it's going to have an effect. I'm not dodging the question, but I want to reinforce the idea that the card's presence makes playing large non-cams kind of a dumb choice. > So you expect to find enough PTO's on enough tables to not reach the > finals and expect to find PTO played there? I expect anyone who cares more about winning than getting a pat on his back for cleverness to consider PTO. Yes, I expect to see it at every tournament I go to. Just like I expect to see some yo-yo that wants to flood the table with AR. But I'd still like to actually play a deck of my own design, and not just come with "shields up" trying to fend off the Broken Trio: Weenies, PTO, AR. I win tournaments from time to time, so I'd like to think I can build a decent deck and, with a little luck, come out on top. But the amount of effort I have to give and the risk I have to take, to not merely play the same tiny subset of decks that everyone else who's "playing to win" plays is annoying. It makes me like the game less. If I feel that way, I imagine I'm not alone. Why drive people away from the game? > If not i would probably not chose another decktype, but i would play > some more defense if it would really hurt me. yes that hurts my game a > little, but if it hurts others more i am fine. Luckily, IC decks don't make or break on getting PTO passed. It's just another trick in the bag, except this one is a broken trick. > Well that obviously isn't true, as i have never won agame with PTO and > am objecting. OK then, it's generally true, not absolutely true. > Perhaps again this is a metagame thing. I think it is easier to expect > decks and environment when the tournament is bigger (20+) i agree that > if you play tournaments with around 10 players it will differ more. > (and normally tournaments are smaller on that side of the ocean, > right?) I play in 20+ tournaments quite a bit. It's the 50+ monsters that I only get to see in regional qualifiers and nationals. And it seems to me you've got it backwards: the smaller the tournament, the more likely it's local and that you'll know the decks you might face. The bigger the tournament the greater the uncertainty. Again, I can assess for myself what's good and what's bad in the game. I think this is all you are doing, and overestimating your ability to predict what's actually going to be seen in a tournament. If you care to give some more details about the actual process you go through, you may convince me. > I always tell myself the same thing, that i prepare for everything. > But obviously i did not...i knew there weren't going to be played a > lot of PTO's. And i won't be playing many PTO's because i know it is > too much work to get it to be effective here. Why is it not effective there? So your groups only play with a fraction of the game? Sad. > ok, again. and play stealth (orGrandball) and play poolgain, and play > speedmasters, and play votes, and play sufficient combat defense. > (what do you mean by don't flip heads?) So you play influence enhancers to get your large vampire out sooner. So does anyone who plays large vampires. I don't see it as relevant, and 11 pool still leaves you with 19. If you got bled/voted for 19 before turn 4, any deck you tried to play probably gets nuked, too. The point isn't that playing large vampires is not risky. It is. But playing large *Cam* vampires, you don't have to worry about this one card that will absolutely ruin your game. And they are the best vampires in the game. No indy 11 cap compares, no 10 cap compares (there are some cool specials out there now, but overall it is true). As I said before, the stealth is a wash, the vote push is a wash, leaving us with this one card generating too huge an effect. I don't know what else I can say. > it needs three cards. RtI, dayops, and that tha-thingy. That tha-thingy didn't exist prior to RtI getting banned. Try again. > Putting all your eggs in one basket is always fragile. Every basket > can break. All your eggs are only in the IC basket for a narrow window. You'll get the pool back, govern down some more, and/or avail yourself of DOM and a slew of other top disciplines to protect what you've got until you do pull into either of the first two. Speaking as one who's hurled myself against many an IC, I have to disagree that they are fragile. Perhaps you mean fragile in the sense that a weenie bleed, Anarch Revolt deck kills them before they get going. Fine, that deck's broken as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > generalization. I was expected to get called a nazi by at least one > > > uptight continental. I dub thee SACRIFICAIL ANODE! > > I don't recall calling you nazi, but if you really insist I can do it. You didn't. Do you know what a sacrificial anode is? If not, then you probably wouldn't get the joke, which you weren't the butt of, but merely the springboard for. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040106...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > > Seriously, I don't think adjusting the cost is the answer, but I do like > the X blood cost direction better than others, since it jumps right in the > way of the tap-vote-bloat triangle. > Only really forcing the PTO player to do a vote-bloat-tap triangle instead. I much prefer a delayed effect like 'put PTO into play, if IC is still ready in your next untap, burn this card and the targeted vampire' clause than any blood/pool cost. G

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>... > True,....perhaps that is a problem, but i have never seen anyone use > PTO on an ally. Just doesn't seem like a logical choice. If it indeed > happens a lot, perhaps that should change. BUt again, i have never > seen it. I'd hazard a guess that you don't play non-cam at major tournies yet. That, or your play environment hasn't truly hit their stride with IC decks. I regularily fear PTO in any competitive environment, and have had my 'ally' burn my best non-cam crosstable. There is no such thing as 'ally' in vtes. Just temporary non-belligerents. > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > sort of defense against it. Brilliant. Might as well ban all big non cam vamps then. Because their best defence is going to be DI or offence imo. Which is about the status quo right now. Too bad that has to be the case. > > Yes, PTO is strong, but there are to many requirements to make it > broken. How about undercosted then? Would you agree on that much? G

On 7 Jan 2004, Talonz wrote: > Only really forcing the PTO player to do a vote-bloat-tap triangle > instead. > I much prefer a delayed effect like 'put PTO into play, if IC is still > ready in your next untap, burn this card and the targeted vampire' > clause than any blood/pool cost. I don't think the card can be fixed. But, I think a large blood cost may be okaysimply because, if you can't pay for the action, you can't even attempt it. That would mean, to burn a large vampire you would have to keep your IC topped off, cutting into recouping the pool loss of playing with a large vampire. But whatever, I still say ban it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > So you've never seen a Delayed vote played the turn after? Mmm... In fact it's not so easy : I like to play votes (especially sabbat voters ) and i can recall two or three finals ruined by the extensive use of delaying tactics by my prey or predator, and even grand predator. Couldn't get to pass 5 votes in a row and it coste me the game =) most votes require a little setting and a good timing to be called. Calling a parity shift (or Transfer of power -yeah i play this shit) , and being delayed does not guarantee you that your prey, predator or other possible target will have the same amount of pool on the following turn. You can't guarantee that they will have the same number of minions tapped for a domain challenge, the same amount of blood on their vamps for a free states rant. Plus , often, the player laying a delaying tactics will wait to the point you have spend cards like Telepathic vote counting, bewitching oration, tapped your demonstration etc... So you just lost precious cards and missed the oportunity to voter cap (if any). Some very useful votes in heavy voter decks like reins of power, political stranglehold can't be called again so your machiavelic plans all go to the trashbin with a single card. But the worst effect when a delaying tactics is played is that you lost all surprise factor and you don't ever know if your vampires will stand here next turn or be turned to ashes by the nearby fighter. Example : Marcus vitel calls a Banishment on my predator's Jalan Ajav. If the vote is delayed -and it can happen either by your prey ("let jalan put pressure on my predator!) your predator ("i won't let you banish my minions") or even your grand prey ("if jalan is still ready next turn, he will rush and torporize marcus vittel, guranteed"), the you can say bye bye to your voters because the punching machine will come directly to you. Not to count table split deals like "let me kill the damn voting bastard and i'll roll over") I think it's especially true for a strong vote like protect thine own. If the IC lightning hamer mises the target (most often due to DT), the IC is in deep trouble. It's because i endured the troubles facing delaying tactics, that now i pack at least three in all my decks. And also because sitching places to steal VP's is plain bad. Yeah sorry for all those people who did the job for me : i know it's bad but it's so much fun, the loook on your face when i simply take the ripe fruits from the tree you've just shaken =) Politics in jyhad are difficult to handle but allow you to do very unique things : switching places, making people pay for playing their turns, steal pool from other players -and even burn other vampires right away. I just think the best answer to all of this is Delaying tactics. Pack some more and you'll see that life is better when you don't get your vp stolen or your vampires burnt =) reyda

[ quoted text not captured ] How exactly is the different from what I said? I was pointing out that basketball is a poor example of comparing competitions. Let alone the fact that I wasn't even comparing them. [snip....] > So before you go around saying the US doesn't want to "be the best," try > to consider other possibilities that could explain what's going on. Having experienced both worlds all I can say is that the pressure to win is higher in Europe than it is in the US. Do you agree? Apparently not. Why it is? Well, I could probably start explaining it a bit, but I'm afraid my knowledge of English is lacking when it comes to psychological terminology. Also note I'm comparing the average European with the average American. Not the top-of-the-line professional sportsmen/women. [snip] > There is nothing that makes an inventive or creative deck any weaker > than traditional decks. You seem to equate creative with weak, which simply > is not the case. Do creative decks win in unconventional ways? Sometimes. > Do creative decks win in unexpected ways? Most of the time. Just because a > deck takes an alternate path to victory does not make it any weaker than any > deck that's been proven to work. In fact, it could help you win if nobody's > ever seen a deck like it before, because your opponents probably haven't > accounted for it in their list of defenses and thus are less prepared to > handle it. But to imply that people in the US aren't attempting to play to > win and just want to play for creativity's sake is again, folly. Creative decks that are fun and working, are generally weaker than the strong, wellknown Archtypes (S/B, Weenie Vote for example). Those decks are very dependant on your skill to play the tables and seating. If you want to optimize the conditions under which you play your games, you don't play big vampires, and neither do you play creative-but-working decks. Simple as that. Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European players? Maybe.

Snapcase wrote: > In article <1fb48054.04010...@posting.google.com>, > moon...@useoz.com says... > > The /real/ problem is that going to a blank tournament, there's no way > to predict the presence/lack of a deck using PTO. Well, you can reasonably predict that you'll face some vote deck. So, if i'm going to play with a non-vote deck , then i will save 3 slot for my strategy against votes deck. As said, a delaying tactics, vox domini and a direct intervention are my preferred vote defense. greets Emiliano

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Creative decks that are fun and working, are generally weaker than the > strong, wellknown Archtypes (S/B, Weenie Vote for example). Those decks > are very dependant on your skill to play the tables and seating. If you > want to optimize the conditions under which you play your games, you > don't play big vampires, and neither do you play creative-but-working > decks. Simple as that. Which decks are dependant on playing the table and seating? I've seen people assert that DEM/OBF requires a high degree of skill before, so I'm not sure if you are referring to the former or the latter. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bthl7q$7c7hm$1...@ID-158753.news.uni-berlin.de>, no...@usa.com says... > Well, you can reasonably predict that you'll face some vote deck. > So, if i'm going to play with a non-vote deck , then i will save 3 slot > for my strategy against votes deck. > As said, a delaying tactics, vox domini and a direct intervention > are my preferred vote defense. All good cards; although DI is "everything defense" and isn't really good for the game. None of this changes the fact that you're playing non-cam large vamps you've got to deal with the fact that your guy can get burned by a single card. There's no equivalent effect for the non-cams to utilize nor is there any fear of PTO when playing cams. -- -Snapcase

Ulugh Beg II wrote... (snip) > Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. > Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. > Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. > Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. > > Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European > players? Maybe. This is a stupid thread. You cannot say "Americans are..." OR "Europeans are..." and expect to be accurate in any real sense. The United States of America is a relatively huge area with many different types of people. Not only are the people within ONE city quite different from one another, but making generalizations and comparisons about people in two different cities is fairly ridiculous. Then you guys go so far as to generalize about an entire country?!? ...and then take it even farther to make generalizations about several different countries within one area (Europe). Huh?!? ...stupid comments by foolish people... ...people who should know better. Why are you guys acting like you're 12 years old? Who cares about all this sillyness?? Is anyone else completely unimpressed with this nonsense?? Cheers, Howard PS Not "every" American hates PTO. That's yet another generalization. Most of the people that play VTES don't even read this newsgroup. Many of the ones that actually do read this newsgroup still don't comment on such things... and of those people who occassionally do post a comment, many of them have not said anything about their personal opinion of PTO. Here is one American's opinion of the card that you "might" have missed: It is just one card in a game with tons of good cards... it's not that big a deal. It takes a relatively large vampire to make the most use out of it. You have to be able to avoid intercept, you have to be able to win the votes to pass it, you cannot effect the entire table in one sweeping moment once it passes... and if it does actually pass, then you have to deal with the huge bull's eye that you've just placed on your chest. Everyone else at the table now has the option of turning some of their efforts towards ousting you. Again, it's just one cards in a large and complex game. Get over it. David - Please stop the maddness. These posts are getting ridiculous.

"HD" <hdma...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:c0922a66.04010...@posting.google.com... > Ulugh Beg II wrote... > > (snip) > > > Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. > > Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. > > Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. > > Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. > > > > Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European > > players? Maybe. > > > This is a stupid thread. You cannot say "Americans are..." OR > "Europeans are..." and expect to be accurate in any real sense. The > United States of America is a relatively huge area with many different > types of people. Not only are the people within ONE city quite > different from one another, but making generalizations and comparisons > about people in two different cities is fairly ridiculous. Then you > guys go so far as to generalize about an entire country?!? ...and > then take it even farther to make generalizations about several > different countries within one area (Europe). Huh?!? ...stupid > comments by foolish people... ...people who should know better. Why > are you guys acting like you're 12 years old? Who cares about all > this sillyness?? > > Is anyone else completely unimpressed with this nonsense?? > > Cheers, > Howard > If that's your opinion on the thread, why bother to post at it at all? Just close your eyes, count to 10, and see the next thread. Delete this one. Ignore it in the future. Since you dont care, ignore.

There is an equivalent to Protect Thine Own, and its Fear of Mekhet, because it ONLY affects vampires that can play PTO, if you are so afraid of PTO, play fears of Mekhet, its a Master anyone can play.

"Kimbal" <kim...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:678de5b5.04010...@posting.google.com... > There is an equivalent to Protect Thine Own, and its Fear of Mekhet, > because it ONLY affects vampires that can play PTO, if you are so > afraid of PTO, play fears of Mekhet, its a Master anyone can play. OMG!! H4x0R! PlZ LoLZ uber. LolZ! please..

Kimbal wrote: > There is an equivalent to Protect Thine Own, and its Fear of Mekhet, Hardly an equivelant. It is a Master card (more expensive than an Action). It costs 2 pool (more expensive than 1 blood). It has a *much* higher opportunity cost (only playable on a Justicar/IC is *much* more restrictive than "choose a non camarilla vampire"). The ability to burn vampires in much smaller ("burn 4 blood or burn Vampire" is *much* less effective than "burn vampire"). > because it ONLY affects vampires that can play PTO, if you are so > afraid of PTO, play fears of Mekhet, its a Master anyone can play. And a Master that is a crapshoot, at best. It is about as good as a Society of Leopold in a Cryptic Mission deck. Other than that, not even close. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:49:59 -0800, HD wrote: > David - Please stop the maddness. These posts are getting ridiculous. How serious did you think I was being? How many more times do I have to caveat it and say that these are just my impressions? I do think there is a nugget of truth about the "European" metagame, but I think it has more to do with the average size of tournaments and, following from that, the need to get maybe three game wins to hit the finals, than it does with any blood-born personality-thingies. The rest was just kidding around. Except for that bit about the Brits. Three sheets to the wind, the whole lot of them.

> All good cards; although DI is "everything defense" and isn't really > good for the game. Isn't good for the game? Dang, you're pissed at PTO, and you don't like DI. What the heck do you like? > None of this changes the fact that you're playing non-cam large vamps > you've got to deal with the fact that your guy can get burned by a > single card. There's no equivalent effect for the non-cams to utilize > nor is there any fear of PTO when playing cams. It almost seems the anti-PTO thinking says it is broken because it takes $25 vampires from FN that's damn hard to get ahold of, and it burns them with just one card. But we on the pro-PTO side keep trying to tell you this, it isn't just one card. It's the votes, it's the stealth, it takes a bloody big vampire to burn a bloody big vampire, and it's having a target card. O' course, it's doing this with what once was a $25 card from AH... and it requires a cheap vampire from DS. But now both cards are in 1 pre-con. A pretty much sold out pre-con if you're overseas. As for the equivalent effect, there many cards that have no similar effect that crosses the sect line, the clan line, the grouping line, and even the vamp capacity line. Praise Sutekh, that this is what gives each of the clans and sects it's unique colour and flavour that VTES was able to bring over from the table top game. To use a horrible example (it's a good example, bad that I have to take it from Magic), each of the different colours in Magic has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Each color has it's own unique abilities among the many abilities that each share with some or all of the colors. Up until the Malks got Dementia, the Sabbat had TWO cards that put someone into torpor, Entombment and Coma. No damage prevention, just to torpor. And this does work out like PTO. If PTO doesn't get the stealth, it's blocked and lost. If someone out maneuvers you, so much for either 2 cards. If the strike is dodged, it's a waste. If you can't get the votes, it's a waste. But with all 3 cards, if you get it right, WOW! What a fantastic result. Now, sure you can say, but these 2 cards only torpor the vamp, PTO burns. Gawds, if I had a dollar everytime I've been on the wrong end of a Decap, Amaranth, Sacrificial Lamb and a host of other cards that burn a vamp. I might be able to afford an entire box of Black Hand. If something is broke because it's too powerful, can it also be broke because it's too weak? Look at the Followers of Set from AH. An 8-cap with 5 points in disciplines, only 1 Sup inclan, a +1 bleed and 2 votes (but no title, so it doesn't get all the nifty Title votes or cards,< oh joy, 1 vote for independant vamps>). Sure, it works out on paper for it's points, but generally, it sucks! I don't see a 255-post thread about it. Speaking of which, how does one see respondings to something you said after the 250 mark? blah, Jamie The Seppo

In article <1fb48054.04010...@posting.google.com>, moon...@useoz.com says... > Isn't good for the game? Dang, you're pissed at PTO, and you don't > like DI. What the heck do you like? Everyone points to DI as being the universal defense. If we're required to put a specific (rare) card in every deck for defense... you don't see a flaw with that? > It almost seems the anti-PTO thinking says it is broken because it > takes $25 vampires from FN that's damn hard to get ahold of, and it > burns them with just one card. Eh? I think I have some copies of Sutekh gathering dust in my binder. I'm more concerned with all of the (more common) 8-10 caps it can burn from every non-cam clan. > But we on the pro-PTO side keep trying > to tell you this, it isn't just one card. It's a one card setup. Additional cards played against you require cards in your favor. But the lunge is there. They have to play cards to defend against it (or happen to have enough sitting votes that will vote the referendum down). > It's the votes Assuming you need them. Requires cards played against or sitting votes. Default is that it will pass. > it's the stealth Default is that it will be unblocked (as it has inherent stealth). Requires cards played against to block. > it takes a bloody big vampire to burn a bloody big vampire, So? It's still a 1 card setup to burn said "bloody big vampire". > and it's having a target card. 56% of the vampires in the game are legal targets. There's bound to be something. If there aren't any worth nuking, vote cards are some of the easiest cards in the game to cycle. > O' course, it's doing this with what > once was a $25 card from AH... and it requires a cheap vampire from > DS. But now both cards are in 1 pre-con. A pretty much sold out > pre-con if you're overseas. Ave price is $4.25 US for a PTO. > As for the equivalent effect, there many cards that have no similar > effect that crosses the sect line, the clan line, the grouping line, > and even the vamp capacity line. Praise Sutekh, that this is what > gives each of the clans and sects it's unique colour and flavour that > VTES was able to bring over from the table top game. How many of them burn an entire vampire for 1 blood and 1 card? > To use a horrible example (it's a good example, bad that I have to > take it from Magic), each of the different colours in Magic has it's > own strengths and weaknesses. Each color has it's own unique > abilities among the many abilities that each share with some or all of > the colors. You're right. It's a horrible example. I'm all for unique flavor. I'm not for single cards being able to burn 1 card, and the cams being impervious to this card just reduce my deck choices if I want to be really playing to win (just like the average European!). > Up until the Malks got Dementia, the Sabbat had TWO cards that put > someone into torpor, Entombment and Coma. No damage prevention, just > to torpor. Your counterargument is a Coma rush deck? For one thing, combat starts at 0 stealth. And you need to use a card to even get into combat. This has been gone over again and again. > Gawds, if I had a dollar everytime I've been on the wrong end of a Decap, > Amaranth, Sacrificial Lamb and a host of other cards that burn a vamp. I might > be able to afford an entire box of Black Hand. At least they require another card and/or another action (after your 0 stealth action has succeeded and your card successfully played). You really see Sacrificial Lamb played that much? > And this does work out like PTO. If PTO doesn't get the > stealth, it's blocked and lost. Except PTO starts with stealth. If someone doesn't get the intercept, it's not blocked and your vamp likely burns. > Look at the Followers of Set from AH. An > 8-cap with 5 points in disciplines, only 1 Sup inclan, a +1 bleed and > 2 votes (but no title, so it doesn't get all the nifty Title votes or > cards,< oh joy, 1 vote for independant vamps>). Actually, independent vampires with votes are considered to be titled. > Sure, it works out on paper for it's points, but generally, it sucks! I don't see a > 255-post thread about it. Yeah, there are some real turd vampires out there. They also don't cause people to not play large non-cam vamps for fear of seeing them. > Speaking of which, how does one see respondings to something you said > after the 250 mark? Google? I'm not sure. My newsreader just highlights the unread ones. I don't think it has a post limit. Anyone know if google does? -- -Snapcase

y'see... blocking PTO isn't really the *big thing* we who don't like it focus on. For the sake of argument, sure PTO is "equally blockable." Even though it does have an inherent +1 stealth, has an alternate use of burning for +1 vote, and can target directly a vampire even though it's an undirected action (for table crossing). but barring all that - and the majority of ICs having general access to "block fails" cards - the referrendum is no where near an unpredictable place like combat. The means of defense are poor, and already the referrendum starts with 5 votes for. I don't know how your playgroup works, but even seasoned players here admit that unless you are a devoted vote player yourself the casual vote defense cards just don't cut it like the casual combat defense available out there. It is hardly that hard to vote lock, especially with an IC vote deck. So the struggles in the referrendum are just staving off the inevitable, unless you have some reliable permanent table votes. Now plopping PTO into the mix, in an environment of the game mechanic that isn't that hard to overwhelm, that takes an effect beyond the scope of even the most galling combat cards is just wrong. Yes, yes, I hear about Amaranth, and Coma and Entombment et al. But seriously, read the text again. Combat - you have to get into combat, preferrably with a particular minion, which therefore generally necessitates another card. And Amaranth exposes you to diablerie's drawback of the blood hunt, something PTO does not. Coma and Entombment only send you to torpor, for a hefty blood cost unusual to most combat cards. And these are but mere strike cards, in a game mechanic environment that is notoriously diverse and filled with strong countermeasures. PTO? final death, do not pass go, do not collect $200. that's it, nothing. no penalty. from a simple action at +1 that has low opportunity cost. and this nowhere deals with big votes routine ability to bloat in obscene proportions, therefore ignoring most of your bleed damage. nor does it deal with casual anti-defense so strong as to ignore the majority of your rushing. y'know, i believe that is fair and all for playing a big vamp - big bloating and teflon coating - but to add a vote action that blithely piffs away a minion without significant recourse or significant opportunity cost is just sheer poor design. the opportunity cost before was the non-camarilla vampires were a significant minority in the game. now that opportunity cost is undeniably no longer there. the other opportunity cost of playing an IC member and using vote cards? Laughable. Sure playing with big vampires is an opportunity cost in an of itself, but are you saying we are such inept deck designers that we don't know how to get around such a problem? Undoubtedly you've seen those playing large cap vampires, they were obviously able to work around that. And with vote you can work around it with great success to the point of even bloating back pool. So obviously people worked around this precious argument, and to an incredible degree of success, and therefore has eternally nulled this line of reasoning. It is the unfairness of having a cardre of large caps being able to abuse an unfair and unbelievably simple combo that is being argued. and to refer to magic, just think, each time a set came out there was generally one card that was poorly thought about, or worked so well with current conditions or previous cards that warranted it to be restricted or banned. it wasn't hard to see in that game if a combo was egregiously overpowered, because in a duel you can isolate the swing effects of a single card. but vtes it's a bit harder due to multiplayer reasons. but even so we can see there is still such egregious swings of power by a simplistic combo that doesn't strain the decks construction in any significant manner. if a combo only necessitates a splash of 2-4 copies of the same card in an already existing strategy to have drastic play dynamic effects then obviously there's something wrong. at least when i ask players of other CCG that same question they say that. and i happen to agree.

well, maybe there's another opportunity cost i'm not aware of LSJ, so perhaps you can fill it in. I see the original printing in AH the opportunity cost was significant - non-Camarilla clans made up a very small percentage of the crypt selection. Yet, isn't that opportunity cost now blown away? So if that was one of the opportunity costs - and it is now blown away - what are any of the other significant opportunity costs? J/IC restriction is one, but there's already other vote cards out there that they can call, but are nowhere near in strength. Is there any other cost I'm missing?

> All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. > Occasionally they'll get a vote through. If a predator playing Arika > pushes a PTO through on your Laz or Thetmes, you've lost. Plain and > simple. At least with the Amaranth combos you've got a chance to block, > even if you're not packing much intercept. > Don't you think it's hypocritical to say my trick should work, yours shoudn't ? If your Laz blocks the PtO (which he may have a huge chane to do, especially considering the possibility of a DI on Elder Impersonnation) then I suggest the IC is dead. No matte rthe flavor, combat vs a combat monster like Lazve is almost certain death for non combat decks. If it's not, then I suggest you play smaller vampires, then can fight quite effectively though not as well as a well played Lazverinus. If you kill the Ic, it means your opponent as almost lost and ius in the same situation as if he failed his action. So a good intercept deck should be able to defend himself withoutt specifric cards ( and NO, eagle sight is not a specific card) If you play rush with your thetmes, I suggest you rush the IC before. If the problem is that you cannot rush the IC while playing such a big fighter as Thetmes, then the problem is not Protect Thine Own. Planning is part of skill, and rushing your "ally"'s IC soon enough is part of your playing skill. By the way, my idea on the subject is that "the right moment to rush cross table" is frequently the turn the IC comes out. If you play Lasombra or !ventrue vote, then you may have the votes to repel the voting IC, or purge him from Baltimore to torpor. If you cannot, then once again PtO is not the problem. Not to mention the fact that Justicar's retribution is espiaclly powerfull in these decks. For Ravnos, sensory deprivation might do the job as well. So your only problem is that a deck relying on big non-camarillas with neither intercept nor rush nor votes nor a way to deal pereemptively with the IC nor specific vote defense is helpless against PtO decks. Well, I suppos it is time to deal for them, but anyways, I wonder if PtO is the one to blame ...

> > What do you mean? You mean a PTO has a chance of passing when it is > > not played in a deck that plays sufficient stealth, sufficient votes, > > some way of protecting your IC and some ways of action multiplier and > > some ways of gaining the pool for the IC back? > > Vampires by default have 0 intercept. So, by default, the vote does not > get blocked. By default, it has 5 in its favor. Tit-for-tat "I play > this" arguments are a wash. I don't think a deck that plays no additional ways of getting a vote to pass would win anything here. you need stealth, you need votepush, you need everything to make IC's playable. > > > The evidence i am looking for is a deck that uses PTO in a large > > amount to win, that actually wins a few tournaments (if possible in my > > environment, or anything that is about the same, perhaps somewhere > > else in Europe) > > It's been cited that 22 decks in the TWD use PTO. Requiring it to be in > large amounts is unnecessary. The problem is with the effect, which is so > large that playing just one is problematic. Cameron has cited his "14 > PTO" deck, which I would consider cornercase. Just one is a problem, and > including 4 is painless. > I think Camerons deck would be an example of what might persuade me if it could win in most environments. The fact that it is used in small quantities in some tournament winning decks perhaps even proves the opposite to me: you should perhaps better include a govern then a PTO. (the opposite thing feels flawed somewhere, but it defenitley doesn't prove to me that it is broken) > > "My reality" has shown me nothing about PTO being broken, and i think > > that in my environment it is not a broken card ( i mean it wouldn't > > win if played here). > > Does "your reality" include large, non-cam vampires? If it doesn't, then > you won't see a problem with the card. Stifling creativity, a complexity > that makes the game more interesting to play, is a bad thing. No, not > everything should be playable against everything else; no Werewolf Pack > decks, please. But the effect of PTO is too broad, and seems to me to be > clearly an unnecessary stifling of the game. yes we have large non-cammies. and still i haven't seen a problem with this card. > > > Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do you > > think PTO could be of very great influence here? > > No, but I play against Europeans all the time on deckbot. You should come > give it a try. > where do i find it, how does it work? (not that i think that the Europeans there will be a representative group, but i always like to play more and with different people) > > And if not, don't you think that that is required for a card to be > > broken? (i mean it being of great influence in all environments?) > > It's a great influence in both my local metagame, in my choices for > tournament play, and in my play on deckbot against a world-wide pool of > players. It is actually in the last venue where it's been the biggest > problem, and most of the players of such decks *have* been European, FWIW. > I think i am going to use your argument now :-) The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. (i don't see it of great influence in my local, tournament and in the JOL-games i played) And my question was, don't you think, for it to be broken, that it has to be of great influence in all environments? W

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040107...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 7 Jan 2004, Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > Could you keep us (me) posted when this happens in a tournament? I > > would like to see the situation and deck. (i mean i can think of > > situations (that are very rare), but i think it is very hard to build > > decks that do that "for a living") > > I suppose so. But see, it's not just a matter of tallying up the > "kills" from PTO. It's a deterrant. The fact that it exists inhibits the > number of times it's going to have an effect. I'm not dodging the > question, but I want to reinforce the idea that the card's presence > makes playing large non-cams kind of a dumb choice. It *is* a dumb choice if you expect to see a lot of PTO, i will give you that. But it is also a dumb choice to play PTO if you don't expect to see targets that will win you the game, or to play IC's when you expect to see a lot of Rush, or weenie or... > > > So you expect to find enough PTO's on enough tables to not reach the > > finals and expect to find PTO played there? > > I expect anyone who cares more about winning than getting a pat on his > back for cleverness to consider PTO. Yes, I expect to see it at every > tournament I go to. And how many games that you have won would you have lost if you weren't prepared for PTO? Just like I expect to see some yo-yo that wants to > flood the table with AR. But I'd still like to actually play a deck of my > own design, and not just come with "shields up" trying to fend off the > Broken Trio: Weenies, PTO, AR. I win tournaments from time to time, so > I'd like to think I can build a decent deck and, with a little luck, come > out on top. But the amount of effort I have to give and the risk I have > to take, to not merely play the same tiny subset of decks that everyone > else who's "playing to win" plays is annoying. It makes me like the game > less. If I feel that way, I imagine I'm not alone. Why drive people away > from the game? I do agree with you here. I like to play decks that others don't. And it is annoying that it is often a deck from your "same tiny subset of playing-to-win-decks" that wins. And i would love to see that changed. Perhaps changing PTO might do that, but that is a COMPLETE other discuusion. I would rather see the influence of AUS and dom lessened. > > Perhaps again this is a metagame thing. I think it is easier to expect > > decks and environment when the tournament is bigger (20+) i agree that > > if you play tournaments with around 10 players it will differ more. > > (and normally tournaments are smaller on that side of the ocean, > > right?) > > I play in 20+ tournaments quite a bit. It's the 50+ monsters that I only > get to see in regional qualifiers and nationals. And it seems to me > you've got it backwards: the smaller the tournament, the more likely it's > local and that you'll know the decks you might face. The bigger the > tournament the greater the uncertainty. uhm, i am no math wizard, but i did do some statistics... Let's assume you want another environment (an environment in which PTO is going to win you tournaments) How big a percentage of the decks need to change? Let's make an assumption of 33%. Chances of a changing environment with n=9 (only 3 people have to bring big-non-cam decks) are a tad bit bigger then when 21 get to the tournament. Now suddenly 7 people have to bring those decks... Or this: when facing 1000 people, there will be around 50 % female, when facing 3 people, there is a fair chance that they are all male. I think it is a lot easier to make an assumption with large numbers...ofcourse if you know the people you are going to play with so well that you know they are always playing a Ravnos-deck, yeah...teach them to be flexible. Again, I can assess for myself > what's good and what's bad in the game. I think this is all you are > doing, and overestimating your ability to predict what's actually going to > be seen in a tournament. If you care to give some more details about the > actual process you go through, you may convince me. > Perhaps i am indeed overestimating myself in my predictions, but i was always right i my predictions that i would not lose because of a PTO, even though i have played more non-cam than cam decks in tournaments. (i must admit that the only 7+ noncam i played was Huitzi, but Matthias would have cost me 10 pool to bring out again as well. I did play Alexandra in a few tournaments in vote-decks and i wouldn't have won more games with PTO in the deck.) I think our environment is always changing (how many bleeders, how many voters, how many combat, how many trick, how many toolbox). I usually base my prediction on the precentages i have seen played in the 2 or 3 tournaments before and on the rate and direction of change i expect from that. (Many big vampires: probably more rush this time). > > I always tell myself the same thing, that i prepare for everything. > > But obviously i did not...i knew there weren't going to be played a > > lot of PTO's. And i won't be playing many PTO's because i know it is > > too much work to get it to be effective here. > > Why is it not effective there? Because i think i haven't seen enough good noncam-bigcap-decks (you see how specialized the card is?) to make it better then a 7cap-prince calling a Parity Shift or a KRC (or a kindred restricture). Don't get me wrong, there are non-cam-bigcap decks here, but the chance of running into them and not being able to win with cards i can use against everyone are not that big. So your groups only play with a fraction > of the game? Sad. I am guessing all groups do. we don't play many werewolfpack decks here, to use your example. > > > ok, again. and play stealth (orGrandball) and play poolgain, and play > > speedmasters, and play votes, and play sufficient combat defense. > > (what do you mean by don't flip heads?) > > So you play influence enhancers to get your large vampire out sooner. So > does anyone who plays large vampires. I don't see it as relevant, and 11 > pool still leaves you with 19. If you got bled/voted for 19 before turn > 4, any deck you tried to play probably gets nuked, too. > > The point isn't that playing large vampires is not risky. It is. But > playing large *Cam* vampires, you don't have to worry about this one card > that will absolutely ruin your game. And they are the best vampires in > the game. No indy 11 cap compares, no 10 cap compares (there are some > cool specials out there now, but overall it is true). As I said before, > the stealth is a wash, the vote push is a wash, leaving us with this one > card generating too huge an effect. I don't know what else I can say. huh, so now it is not the effect that makes it broken, but the fact that it only targets noncams? > > > it needs three cards. RtI, dayops, and that tha-thingy. > > That tha-thingy didn't exist prior to RtI getting banned. Try again. > true, my mistake, but we are going OT here. (or even more OT :-) ) IMO cards that deal large amounts of pooldamage are a lot easier broken than cards that deal with vampires. > > Putting all your eggs in one basket is always fragile. Every basket > > can break. > > All your eggs are only in the IC basket for a narrow window. You'll get > the pool back, govern down some more, and/or avail yourself of DOM and a > slew of other top disciplines to protect what you've got until you do pull > into either of the first two. Speaking as one who's hurled myself against > many an IC, I have to disagree that they are fragile. Perhaps you mean > fragile in the sense that a weenie bleed, Anarch Revolt deck kills them > before they get going. Fine, that deck's broken as well. a good rushdeck will be very happy to see only one target, even if it can theoreticaly play 2 obediences in a turn. a haven will kill you. W

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message news:<86e3f5f4.04010...@posting.google.com>... > Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > > True,....perhaps that is a problem, but i have never seen anyone use > > PTO on an ally. Just doesn't seem like a logical choice. If it indeed > > happens a lot, perhaps that should change. BUt again, i have never > > seen it. > > I'd hazard a guess that you don't play non-cam at major tournies yet. > That, or your play environment hasn't truly hit their stride with IC > decks. Decks i have gone to tournaments with are Salubri, Setites, Anson, with Huitzi) or allies (including setites). Ofcourse some others as well, but most times i played noncam. Point i was making is that IC-decks probably don't do too good in our environment, which makes PTO a good card, but because of it requiring an IC it is not broken. > > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > > sort of defense against it. > > Brilliant. Might as well ban all big non cam vamps then. Because > their best defence is going to be DI or offence imo. Which is about > the status quo right now. Too bad that has to be the case. Would you play PTO if you knew that there aren't going to be much games you win with it? W

Snapcase wrote: > > "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<bt1vn0$2fa70$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > And if the referendum is successful (i.e., if there are more votes for than, > > against), and if there is a non-Camarilla vampire in the game... > > Yes, there's the real kick in the pants. "Non-Camarilla". That is precisely what makes the card not broken. > What would you feel about PTO reading "if this vampire is an Inner > Circle member, then choose any vampire". Remove the restriction from > not being able to burn Camarilla vampires... Then it would be a broken because people would abuse it and the number of PTO in any deck based on IC members would pack a lot of them. > Restricting it from targeting the Camarilla vampires merely limits > deck options. No way. Combat also limits deck options. The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) because of a PTO? One? Two?. There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > Why not give every clan/sect the same fear of PTO. That's up to the Rules Team. I think not every clan or sect should be able to do exactly the same things as others do. However, independent clans (for instance) have Free States Rant, which, if combined either with Temptation, Form of Corruption, or Society of Leopold can be very deadly indeed. > There's no reason that the cammies should get off the hook (since > there's no "non-independant" and "non-Sabbat" PTO). All that does is > limit deck construction. There is a reason. Someone made that decission. > People that like the card as it is should have no problem with the > above change; it will balance the card away from being a sect hoser > and towards just being a vampire hoser. [...] False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card broken. Greetings, Damnans

[ quoted text not captured ] You'll have to supply some context if you want elaboration on that context. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"> > > Wiping Arika out if you can is usually a good move. > > Completely dependant on the actual situation. > > > What "scare" are you talking about? This isn't just about Arika. If I see > a 3 bleeder, especially with a stealth discipline, under my predator's > control, I'm gonna try to get rid of the sucker. If I see a vampire that > can generate 7 blood from the blood bank to uncontrolled vampires, you know > what, that's a damn threat. And I never said I'd blindly go attacking her, > however, I'm gonna keep a damn big eye on her, and there is a damn good > chance I'm gonna eliminate her. Of course everything is situation > dependant, but if trying to eliminate a vampire like Arika isn't reasonable > a majority of the time when I'm sitting next to her, color me insane. Allthough you now say you will not blindly go attacking her, a large number of people will, regardless of whether or not she's actually a real threat. that's what I am referring to. Just keeping an eye on her on the other hand is reasonable. > > > > > > > > > Delay > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic card. They'll do it again next turn. > > > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > > > > > Not necessarily, but if the person calling the PTO is not near ousted > and > > > nobody can do anything about the IC calling the vote (the odds of both > > > conditions being met is relatively high I'd say) > > > > I disagree. DT, DI, intercept, outvote *are* all things players can > > *do about the IC calling the vote*. It is exactly this which will lead > > to a situation where the player will *not* play PTO again, or > > succesfully. If you have a whole table of people who are incapable of > > coutering the problems of an IC calling a vote, then they will be > > ousted by them, regardless of which vot it is.. This is not due to the > > supposed brokenness of PTO, but due to the fact these players then > > have a large hole in their deckbuilding/playing strategies..Such > > situations do not make PTO a broken card. > > You still have not refuted my argument as to why DT is not an effective > counter for PTO. DT doesn't stop them from playing it again. If the person > is not ousted, and his prey is not in ousting range, then he'll most likely > play that PTO next turn. > I simply have encountered thousands of situations in which they never got that opportunity again (not just talking about PTO here, it's the same principle for every vote beig countered by DT), or in which it was no longer at the top of their list, without either one of your conditions being met.I can think of thousands of reasons why he/she wouldn't call/be able to call that same vote again next turn. Situations *DO* change in between turns you know. Strongly. <snip> > > As to the weenie-single fattie deck.Would you believe me if I told you > > Pentex Subversion is an absolute killer card?Would you believe me if I > > told you it has it's greatest uses against fattie decks, with or > > without weenies to protect the fatties? > > Would you believe me if I said I don not believe PS to broken?Because > > there are lots of ways to get around it (as you've stated). The ways > > to get around PTO are, for some decks easier, for others harder then > > getting around a PS, but *you can get around them*, which makes them > > *not broken* > > I play with Pentex Subversion quite a bit so don't even try to imply that I > have no idea what I'm talking about. I also know that it's not a horribly > difficult task to have it removed (surprise, cross-table Pentex removal does > happen, and you know, while a wall deck can block a lot of actions per turn, > a lot of decks, some of which will utilize Pentex, can't) and thus doesn't > completely ruin games for certain decks. With all do respect, but I can give you dozens of examples in which cases PS meant the end for players. As in: PS=>immediate oust.In such cases (and they happen to be in my experience a lot more frequent than the cases in which PS actually gets removed) you don't get any chance for recovery at all. I also do not agree on your statement that PS is easily removed, and not just in wall decks.Surprise: players cannot always afford to take this action. PTO doesn't give you that chance to recover.PTO does not oust you. PTO makes you lose 1 vamp. Just like rush/amaranth. Partly like banishment. Just like being torporized and diablerized.Such tings happen. It does not make this card broken. PTO says "you're playing with a large non-Cam vampire, so I'm gonna ruin your game." Subjective assessment. You could just as easily claim PTO says:" I've invested 1 third of my pool in a single high cap. I have the table against me from the word go.I have now need of a card which might actually do me some good".. SUch arguments bring nothing to a discussion like this And as you still haven't provided any arguments > countering why I think DT is not an effective counter, yes, I still remain > unconvinced. It's quite simple: you say DT's only effect is that that player will call the same vote again next turn. I think you have no assurance this will be so. "Calling vote X with vampire A in turn Y "is a single moment's snap shot action.It occurs at that given moment, in that given situation. Then you get DT-ed. Boom.The person calling the PTO does not achieve the target (having PTO pass in most cases, unless his initial target was to get rid of DT or find out about intercept ans such) Nowhere do I see a direct, definite connection between that and "Calling vote X with vampire B in turn Y+1" Nowhere in the game can you define this second is the necessary, automatic, direct consequence of the first situation. If you can proove to me that this is so, then I might accept what you're saying. It might be interesting to keep track of this. If we can ty to have people record (in an honest way, not just to win an argument) *the number of times their votes (and I'm not just talking abvout PTO, as we're discussing DT here) get Delaying Tactics-ed, *with of course the number of votes they actually sucseeded in calling(perhaps also the number of times they had their votes DI-ed or intercepted), and then the number of times those votes passed * the number of times they called the same DT-ed vote with the same vamp the turn after, and the number of times it succesfully passed. If of course it gets DI-ed, intercepted, DT-ed again or outvoted, it should also be recorded. That way, if the spread of games you get in different environments, from different players, with different metagames, and different deck-end playstyles is big enough, you might actually see it. However, I doubt you'll ever get a realistic picture, due to the limitations of gatheringt this info on an NG.. untill that time, I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe.We're probably into such different gaming environments, with such a different view, that we'll never actually convince each other. greetz Jo

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > > > generalization. I was expected to get called a nazi by at least one > > > > uptight continental. I dub thee SACRIFICAIL ANODE! > > > > I don't recall calling you nazi, but if you really insist I can do it. > > You didn't. Do you know what a sacrificial anode is? If not, then you > probably wouldn't get the joke, which you weren't the butt of, but merely > the springboard for. I don't know what it is, so I looked it up on google. I got some page about boring science stuff so I didn't read it. Is a sacrificial anode boring science stuff? Are you saying Ulugh Beg II is like boring science stuff? :) Matt Morgan

[snip] > False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card > broken. > > Greetings, > Damnans Can you see how you just admitted that PTO is broken in it's current state? You are saying that so long as only Thetmes or Ambrosio comes and sits next to you, it's not broken. You are saying that so long as it effects only 2/3rds of the game's sects that's it not broken. Whether PTO can burn 10 and 11 independant and sabbat vampires or it can ANY 10 and 11 capacity vampire, *THE EFFECT REMAINS THE SAME, BROKEN EFFECT*.

"mesh" <mesh...@eftel.com.au> escribió en el mensaje news:3ffd...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au... > [snip] > > False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card > > broken. > > > > Greetings, > > Damnans > > Can you see how you just admitted that PTO is broken in it's current state? No. > You are saying that so long as only Thetmes or Ambrosio comes and sits next > to you, it's not broken. You are saying that so long as it effects only > 2/3rds of the game's sects that's it not broken. Correct. > Whether PTO can burn 10 and > 11 independant and sabbat vampires or it can ANY 10 and 11 capacity vampire, > *THE EFFECT REMAINS THE SAME, BROKEN EFFECT*. Vampires get burned. It's a reality. If your deck just burns 1 or 2 vampires per game (when lucky), well, I wouldn't call that a tragedy nor even a broken effect, since combat and diablerie have a much deeper impact on vampires' lives than PTO does. And the fact is that current PTO cannot be abused. Greetings, Damnans

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Wow. Thousands. Care to tell one of those concrete examples, then? I'm quite interested in the effectiveness of a DT, when *not* playing a rush deck. [ quoted text not captured ] PTO and Amaranth aint comparable. Banishement is, but only to a small point. Small. > PTO says "you're playing with a large non-Cam vampire, so I'm gonna > ruin your game." > Subjective assessment. You could just as easily claim PTO says:" I've > invested 1 third of my pool in a single high cap. I have the table > against me from the word go.I have now need of a card which might > actually do me some good".. > SUch arguments bring nothing to a discussion like this > Sadly though, PTO says; I'm going to burn your vampire. And gain pool in the process. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com... > > > What do you mean? You mean a PTO has a chance of passing when it is > > > not played in a deck that plays sufficient stealth, sufficient votes, > > > some way of protecting your IC and some ways of action multiplier and > > > some ways of gaining the pool for the IC back? > > > > Vampires by default have 0 intercept. So, by default, the vote does not > > get blocked. By default, it has 5 in its favor. Tit-for-tat "I play > > this" arguments are a wash. > > I don't think a deck that plays no additional ways of getting a vote > to pass would win anything here. you need stealth, you need votepush, > you need everything to make IC's playable. > No. You dont need *any* of that stuff, by default. By Default, the actions (votes by IC members) have - More stealth than vampires have intercept (barring the odd few) - More votes than any vampire in the game (4+1, more than any single vamp, correct?) If the deck is playable without any of the things, I dont know. I've played games where I had votelock from round two, and had not a single of my votes blocked. [ quoted text not captured ] The Europeans indeed are a well represented group. irc.sorcery.net #vtes #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. > > > And if not, don't you think that that is required for a card to be > > > broken? (i mean it being of great influence in all environments?) > > > > It's a great influence in both my local metagame, in my choices for > > tournament play, and in my play on deckbot against a world-wide pool of > > players. It is actually in the last venue where it's been the biggest > > problem, and most of the players of such decks *have* been European, FWIW. > > > > I think i am going to use your argument now > :-) > The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, > doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. (i don't > see it of great influence in my local, tournament and in the JOL-games > i played) And my question was, don't you think, for it to be broken, > that it has to be of great influence in all environments? But it is a great influence in any enviroment, by default. Burning a vampire is always a great influence. > > W

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] What about a non-rush deck? S&B for instance? > W

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] For the odd chance of getting to use it, of course. The main reason I slapped my only PTO to my vote deck is exactly that. It's too good to pass by. > W

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:3FFD4CE7...@ono.com... > > > Snapcase wrote: > > > > "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<bt1vn0$2fa70$1...@ID-206221.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > And if the referendum is successful (i.e., if there are more votes for than, > > > against), and if there is a non-Camarilla vampire in the game... > > > > Yes, there's the real kick in the pants. "Non-Camarilla". > > That is precisely what makes the card not broken. > > > What would you feel about PTO reading "if this vampire is an Inner > > Circle member, then choose any vampire". Remove the restriction from > > not being able to burn Camarilla vampires... > > Then it would be a broken because people would abuse it and the > number of PTO in any deck based on IC members would pack a lot > of them. > > > Restricting it from targeting the Camarilla vampires merely limits > > deck options. > > No way. Combat also limits deck options. > > The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. > How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) > because of a PTO? One? Two?. I've seen two. One for Thetmes, the other for Parnassus, who came up after Thetmes got burned. I wasnt really extatic, at that point. It had a *very* deep impact on the game. I lost. > > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. > > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > The effect is the same, granted. But burning in combat and PTO burning are miles away from each other. I do suppose you've read the thread through and through, instead of hopping in to chime your opinion "just because", have you? > > Why not give every clan/sect the same fear of PTO. > > That's up to the Rules Team. > > I think not every clan or sect should be able to do exactly the > same things as others do. > > However, independent clans (for instance) have Free States Rant, > which, if combined either with Temptation, Form of Corruption, > or Society of Leopold can be very deadly indeed. PTO needs PTO. PTO needs *ONLY* PTO. PTO doesnt need to be combined with anything to still be.. PTO. Comparing PTO to anything is just not possible, due to the simple fact. that no card in the game does what PTO does. Not a single one. > > > There's no reason that the cammies should get off the hook (since > > there's no "non-independant" and "non-Sabbat" PTO). All that does is > > limit deck construction. > > There is a reason. Someone made that decission. > > > People that like the card as it is should have no problem with the > > above change; it will balance the card away from being a sect hoser > > and towards just being a vampire hoser. > > [...] > > False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card > broken. Hold on.. if only Camarilla can use the card, it aint broken? But if any 11 cap can use it to burn any vampire, it gets broken? You honestly think people dont abuse PTO as is? Is it abusing, if I myself slap a PTO to my vote deck, just because its too good to pass by? I think so, yes. It aint abusing in it's harshest form, I grant you that, but I still think it to be a form of abuse. Then we get to the matter as to why people use PTO in their decks.. Could it be, that it's just too good to pass by? > > Greetings, > Damnans

"Jamie The Seppo" <moon...@useoz.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:1fb48054.04010...@posting.google.com... > > All good cards; although DI is "everything defense" and isn't really > > good for the game. > > Isn't good for the game? Dang, you're pissed at PTO, and you don't > like DI. What the heck do you like? > > > None of this changes the fact that you're playing non-cam large vamps > > you've got to deal with the fact that your guy can get burned by a > > single card. There's no equivalent effect for the non-cams to utilize > > nor is there any fear of PTO when playing cams. > > It almost seems the anti-PTO thinking says it is broken because it > takes $25 vampires from FN that's damn hard to get ahold of, and it > burns them with just one card. But we on the pro-PTO side keep trying > to tell you this, it isn't just one card. It's the votes, it's the > stealth, it takes a bloody big vampire to burn a bloody big vampire, > and it's having a target card. >snip< It aint the votes. It aint the stealth. And it sure as heck aint the vampire. IC members have more votes than anyone else, when calling votes. By default. Votes have more stealth than vampires have intercept. By default. Getting an IC member is not hard. By default. > As for the equivalent effect, there many cards that have no similar > effect that crosses the sect line, the clan line, the grouping line, > and even the vamp capacity line. Praise Sutekh, that this is what > gives each of the clans and sects it's unique colour and flavour that > VTES was able to bring over from the table top game. > To use a horrible example (it's a good example, bad that I have to > take it from Magic), each of the different colours in Magic has it's > own strengths and weaknesses. Each color has it's own unique > abilities among the many abilities that each share with some or all of > the colors. > > Up until the Malks got Dementia, the Sabbat had TWO cards that put > someone into torpor, Entombment and Coma. No damage prevention, just > to torpor. And this does work out like PTO. If PTO doesn't get the > stealth, it's blocked and lost. If someone out maneuvers you, so much > for either 2 cards. If the strike is dodged, it's a waste. If you > can't get the votes, it's a waste. But with all 3 cards, if you get > it right, WOW! What a fantastic result. Now, sure you can say, but > these 2 cards only torpor the vamp, PTO burns. Gawds, if I had a > dollar everytime I've been on the wrong end of a Decap, Amaranth, > Sacrificial Lamb and a host of other cards that burn a vamp. I might > be able to afford an entire box of Black Hand. All of which require more setting up, than PTO. > > If something is broke because it's too powerful, can it also be broke > because it's too weak? Look at the Followers of Set from AH. An > 8-cap with 5 points in disciplines, only 1 Sup inclan, a +1 bleed and > 2 votes (but no title, so it doesn't get all the nifty Title votes or > cards,< oh joy, 1 vote for independant vamps>). Sure, it works out on > paper for it's points, but generally, it sucks! I don't see a > 255-post thread about it. > Kephamos doesnt have that huge of an effect on the game, as PTO does. You dont actually see people cow in fear when Kephamos hits the table, now do you? I wont argue whether or not Kephamos is undercosted/useless. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@eris.io.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040108...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ] An anode attached to a metal object, such as a boat or underground tank, to inhibit the object's corrosion. The anode is electrolytically decomposed while the object remains free of damage. N-joy. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Clearly you're not using Google correctly :) Try: "define: sacrificial anode"

e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) wrote in message news:<10c2c156.04010...@posting.google.com>... > Don't you think it's hypocritical to say my trick should work, yours > shoudn't ? "my trick" (I guess you're referring to PTO?) requires a 1 card setup. "yours" (guess you're referring to an amaranth combo?) requires a 3-5 card setup. You do notice the difference there, right? > If your Laz blocks the PtO (which he may have a huge chane to do, > especially considering the possibility of a DI on Elder > Impersonnation) then I suggest the IC is dead. Once again, we fall back on DI. > If you play rush with your thetmes, I suggest you rush the IC before. I'll let you argue with the guy that says you shouldn't rush Arika the minute she hits the table no matter where she is. > So your only problem is that a deck relying on big non-camarillas with > neither intercept nor rush nor votes nor a way to deal pereemptively > with the IC nor specific vote defense is helpless against PtO decks. One of my problems is that a deck relying on big non-cams has to worry about PtO, while a deck relying on big cams does not. Another is that the card burns a vampire with a 1 card setup. As for your specific points... intercept is easily overcome by stealth, unless you're playing a wall deck. Rush requires a many card setup. Table votes are unreliable when facing someone that starts with 5 on their vote (especially if if the PTO is hitting a vampire that someone else wouldn't mind rubbed out). Vote defense is pretty bad with the exception of Delaying Tactics (which only 'delays' the problem) and Vox Domini, which you get 1 of. This has all been gone over before. We can go back and forth and say "I play X" all day. If you need more convincing, play a deck based around large non-cams against people using PTO more. -- -Snapcase

Oko wrote: > > "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:3FFD4CE7...@ono.com... [...] > > The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. > > How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) > > because of a PTO? One? Two?. > > I've seen two. > One for Thetmes, the other for Parnassus, who came up after Thetmes got > burned. > I wasnt really extatic, at that point. > It had a *very* deep impact on the game. I lost. Is that the only game you played where somebody played a PTO? > > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. > > > > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > > > The effect is the same, granted. > But burning in combat and PTO burning are miles away from each other. The PTO vote must pass so that it can burn a non-Camarilla vampire. Political actions are not "just one card". They have an inherent +1 stealth, and they must be voted (and during the referendum more cards may or may not need to be played). [...] > > > Why not give every clan/sect the same fear of PTO. > > > > That's up to the Rules Team. > > > > I think not every clan or sect should be able to do exactly the > > same things as others do. > > > > However, independent clans (for instance) have Free States Rant, > > which, if combined either with Temptation, Form of Corruption, > > or Society of Leopold can be very deadly indeed. > > PTO needs PTO. It needs an IC member, which means you will have to pack several IC members in your crypt to put at least one of them in play (which is not too difficult). > PTO needs *ONLY* PTO. > PTO doesnt need to be combined with anything to still be.. PTO. Yes, it does. It needs to be combined with a non-Camarilla vampire in play. > Comparing PTO to anything is just not possible, due to the simple fact. that > no card in the game does what PTO does. Not a single one. Just because of that? :) > > > There's no reason that the cammies should get off the hook (since > > > there's no "non-independant" and "non-Sabbat" PTO). All that does is > > > limit deck construction. > > > > There is a reason. Someone made that decission. > > > > > People that like the card as it is should have no problem with the > > > above change; it will balance the card away from being a sect hoser > > > and towards just being a vampire hoser. > > > > [...] > > > > False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card > > broken. > > Hold on.. if only Camarilla can use the card, it aint broken? > But if any 11 cap can use it to burn any vampire, it gets broken? Right, since it would be abused, and the number of PTO people would pack in their decks would increase dramatically. > You honestly think people dont abuse PTO as is? Yes. How many PTO's would you include in a deck with several IC members? On the other side, how many old-Temptation of Greater Power did you include in TGP decks? or Baltimore Purges in BP decks? > Is it abusing, if I myself slap a PTO to my vote deck, just because its too > good to pass by? > I think so, yes. It aint abusing in it's harshest form, I grant you that, > but I still think it to be a form of abuse. So if you play a combat deck with Tariq or Muaziz won't you include several Amaranth just in case?. > Then we get to the matter as to why people use PTO in their decks.. > Could it be, that it's just too good to pass by? I see. Vote decks are perfect, because their political actions are never blocked and pass all the time >:-) Greetings, Damnans

"Jason Babbitt" <dcij...@aol.comS-P-A-M> wrote in message news:20040108110442...@mb-m05.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Jason Babbitt! Long time no see! :-) Wow, I didn't even know Google did that. Obviously I haven't been using Google correctly either. That's super cool. Truly you are wise in the ways of websites. And not just Mapquest either. Josh boring? how is science stuff boring?

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<bthla8$18p$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>... > How exactly is the different from what I said? I was pointing out that > basketball is a poor example of comparing competitions. Let alone the > fact that I wasn't even comparing them. It was intended to be a poor example - something in which it is clear that american dominate europeans and which clearly shows you need to be more specific about what you mean. > > Having experienced both worlds all I can say is that the pressure to win > is higher in Europe than it is in the US. > Do you agree? Apparently not. Why it is? Well, I could probably start > explaining it a bit, but I'm afraid my knowledge of English is lacking > when it comes to psychological terminology. > Also note I'm comparing the average European with the average American. > Not the top-of-the-line professional sportsmen/women. > Is it true that the european work week is 32 hours? That hardly seems to compete with the typical american work week of 45 hours. > > There is nothing that makes an inventive or creative deck any > weaker > > than traditional decks. You seem to equate creative with weak, which > simply > > is not the case. Do creative decks win in unconventional ways? > Sometimes. > > Do creative decks win in unexpected ways? Most of the time. Just > because a > > deck takes an alternate path to victory does not make it any weaker > than any > > deck that's been proven to work. In fact, it could help you win if > nobody's > > ever seen a deck like it before, because your opponents probably > haven't > > accounted for it in their list of defenses and thus are less prepared > to > > handle it. But to imply that people in the US aren't attempting to > play to > > win and just want to play for creativity's sake is again, folly. > > Creative decks that are fun and working, are generally weaker than the > strong, wellknown Archtypes (S/B, Weenie Vote for example). Those decks > are very dependant on your skill to play the tables and seating. If you > want to optimize the conditions under which you play your games, you > don't play big vampires, and neither do you play creative-but-working > decks. Simple as that. > I follow this to a certain extent. I often make a new deck if I am going to play in a tournament. This is done for two reasons: 1) I am bored of my decks, 2) they suck. It might make a certain sense to play weenie potence but I don't think I could restrain my gag reflex for 8 consecutive hours. I feel the need to point of that stealth bleed hardly ever wins tables in my experience. It seems pretty good at getting a vp before someone sets up an inpenetratable defense or your minions are all in torpor. Similiarly weenie vote doesn't really demand my attention. Any deck that is shut down by a raven spy is no sure thing. > Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. > Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. > Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. > Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. > > Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European > players? Maybe. Who really cares about PTO? It is a sloppy design but there are bigger fish to fry.

I don´t think PtO is broken. Those who think - try playing a Camarilla deck for a while and watch the PtO-players lose when they draw that card instead of something useful. As for the America vs Europe-discussion: Why not have a tournament? Team Europe vs Team America... I only know how it goes in Magic The Gathering and Chess...

"Henrik Klippstr?m" <as...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:5a3b0aea.0401...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] My dog's better than your dog. Who care`s?

>Who really cares about PTO? It is a sloppy design but there are bigger >fish to fry. Okay, I think there are bigger fish to fry then PTO. I've contributed to the endless PTO debate not because I think it's the most important change the game needs but because it could, in theory, fry quickly. So, what is the most pressing fix the game needs? Or, since there's going to be a lot of disagreement, what are the most pressing fixes without going overboard? There are a lot of cards I don't like in the game, but even as dumb as I think some cards are, I don't rate errataing or banning a particular card the top priority nor do I think it's most essential to create new cards that make old, library cards significantly better as to make them worth playing. There are certain fundamental features of the game that bug me even if they aren't entirely bad. One being the limited paths to victory, though this has the benefit of keeping the game under control, of providing a solid framework for having a multiplayer CCG work well mechanically even if it contributes to it becoming stale over time. Another, older complaint being the extremeness in the details - combats being too much carnage or too little, bleeds being too big, etc. While it's not *obviously* the most bothersome issue and, for all I know, it's just the bitch of the year or has been highlighted due to the storyline events, I think the thing about the game that bothers me the most is how little what's really good changes. For all that players handle Dom/Obf better now than they once did, whether due to being better players or because the card pool has changed, it's still studly. Just consider if there weren't so many crap Jyhad vampires and the group 1 Malks had some depth to their worth playing vampires. Aus/Dem/Obf. Dom + stealth. P/J. Weenie. Etc. The game has evolved. Evolved even towards a more balanced environment. But, it's slow and it's incomplete (okay, incomplete is a bad word with evolution - insufficient). It's good that clans that suck and disciplines that suck get help to make them somewhat better, but to keep the game lively, what should be best should be changing as well. It's not that I care whether the Assamites are the best clan in the game for 6 months, but I do care that some currently lesser clans get their moment in the sun, so to speak. And, really, over the course of the game, every clan should have an opportunity at the top, every discipline should be the Dominate of the game for a while, every bundle of titles should be abbreviated in tournament winning decks as P/J are, and so forth.

Curevei wrote: > The game has evolved. Evolved even towards a more balanced environment. But, > it's slow and it's incomplete (okay, incomplete is a bad word with evolution - > insufficient). It's good that clans that suck and disciplines that suck get > help to make them somewhat better, but to keep the game lively, what should be > best should be changing as well. It's not that I care whether the Assamites > are the best clan in the game for 6 months, but I do care that some currently > lesser clans get their moment in the sun, so to speak. And, really, over the > course of the game, every clan should have an opportunity at the top, every > discipline should be the Dominate of the game for a while, every bundle of > titles should be abbreviated in tournament winning decks as P/J are, and so > forth. The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation (rotating out the old "good" cards). Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD4CE7...@ono.com>... > > Yes, there's the real kick in the pants. "Non-Camarilla". > > That is precisely what makes the card not broken. Ooh. Someone took the bait. > > What would you feel about PTO reading "if this vampire is an Inner > > Circle member, then choose any vampire". Remove the restriction from > > not being able to burn Camarilla vampires... > > Then it would be a broken because people would abuse it and the > number of PTO in any deck based on IC members would pack a lot > of them. So the card has a broken effect. This broken effect is only mitigated by the fact that it can't affect less than half the existing vampire pool. But for those people playing non-camarilla vampires, the effect is exactly the same as if it had the "choose any vampire" text. Do you get the connection? > The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. > How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) > because of a PTO? One? Two?. So you lose your largest vampire and the one you call up to be replaced... and that isn't a "deep impact"? > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. Incorrect. See the rest of the thread for examples. > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. The effect is the same, sure. But the circumstances are completely different to get to that point. > I think not every clan or sect should be able to do exactly the > same things as others do. Even with the removal of PTO, the Camarilla sect would still be able to do many things that the other sects could not. > However, independent clans (for instance) have Free States Rant, > which, if combined either with Temptation, Form of Corruption, > or Society of Leopold can be very deadly indeed. And Camarilla clans have Parity Shift, which is pool loss and life gain in one card. We can go tit-for-tat on this all day. > There is a reason. Someone made that decission. Bah. Forgive me if WotC's design decisions are called into question. > False. As I have already stated above, that would make the card > broken. The card is already broken; just not if you limit your deck design. -- -Snapcase

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.04010...@posting.google.com... [Snapcase wrote] > > All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. > > Occasionally they'll get a vote through. If a predator playing Arika > > pushes a PTO through on your Laz or Thetmes, you've lost. Plain and > > simple. At least with the Amaranth combos you've got a chance to block, > > even if you're not packing much intercept. > > Don't you think it's hypocritical to say my trick should work, yours > shoudn't ? That's not the point at all. The point is that "my" trick (and it's not "mine", as much as the "pro Protect Thine Own" players may feel like the "anti PTO players" love combat and hate vote, I am perfectly willing and able to play with PTO myself as long as it remains an unfair card, and I don't play that much combat these days - sorry for the tangent) is *easily* foiled by *a lot* of things that are common to *most* decks. The PTO "trick", on the other hand, requires at least one card (an intercept or a Direct Intervention) to foil and can un-foil itself by using one of the other cards that are likely to be in its own library (just because they're generally useful cards, not specifically because it needs them to be able to play PTO). Sure, no combat defense is absolute either, but (a) burning vampires in combat is *a lot* harder than burning them with PTO, as it *always* requires more than one card, and (b) burning vampires in combat is generally blockable at 0 intercept, ie by the smallest vampire you have (since stealth-rush isn't all that likely, as stealth's synergy with rush isn't very strong), whereas blocking a PTO requires at least 1 intercept and may often require more (since stealth-vote is a great plan that wins games, in my experience). > If your Laz blocks the PtO (which he may have a huge chane to do, > especially considering the possibility of a DI on Elder > Impersonnation) then I suggest the IC is dead. Do you hear what you're saying? The possibility of a DI on Elder Impersonation? That means paying a pool to be able to block what has otherwise become unblockable to you, and having one specific card in hand at the right moment. It also means that you had enough intercept for the Inner Circle member to have felt the need to play the Elder Impersonation, and you have now wasted that intercept unless you *do* have the DI in hand. If you had the DI, you'd be a *lot* safer playing it on the Protect Thine Own itself - in which case the PTO player got to "bleed you for 1" and use up your master phase action (and ability to DI again before your next turn!) while remaining untapped to do something else. > No matte rthe flavor, > combat vs a combat monster like Lazve is almost certain death for non > combat decks. That's simply not true. Any IC member with Dominate can play Obedience against Lazverinus... or any other vampire that's likely to be rushing it. Many of them have the possibility of going to long range and using a Combat Ends, as well. > So a good > intercept deck should be able to defend himself withoutt specifric > cards ( and NO, eagle sight is not a specific card) Uh... how exactly is Eagle's Sight not a specific card? Are there lots of cards that do the same thing as Eagle's Sight? Do they exist for several common disciplines, so that you can use them even if you don't have superior Auspex? Perhaps what you're trying to say here is that a "good intercept deck" must use superior Auspex and must include Eagle's Sight anyway, just as a prerequisite for being a good intercept deck. Perhaps that's true. But it doesn't give any consolation to people who might want to play something *other* than a "good intercept deck". > If you play rush with your thetmes, I suggest you rush the IC before. > If the problem is that you cannot rush the IC while playing such a big > fighter as Thetmes, then the problem is not Protect Thine Own. No... the problem *is* Protect Thine Own. It's the PTO that lets the IC member strike preemptively against any non-Camarilla vampire it chooses, for the cost of one card, one blood, and one political action. Would it be OK for this card to exist? "Protect Thy Turf Action 1 stealth 1 blood Requires a non-Camarilla vampire of at least 8 capacity with 3 votes, or a non-Camarilla vampire of 11 capacity. Choose a Camarilla vampire with capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire has 11 capacity, choose any Camarilla vampire. That vampire is burned." I know it's not an exact comparison because this action is not a vote - that seems fair because the non-Camarilla don't have any 4-vote +2 bleed vampires to play it with. It's still a pretty close comparison - it's even a lot weaker on the targeting section because (a) there are fewer Camarilla vampires in print than there are non-Cam, and (b) there are only 4 vampires in print who can play this "out of the box" to burn any Cam vampire. But if you don't think this card would be fair, how can Protect Thine Own be fair? Burning a ready vampire with no restriction on capacity as a 1 stealth action is simply too large an effect for any single card to have - whether it's a vote or not. It's Just Not A Fair Effect. It doesn't matter if it's "possible" to counter it by making your opponent unable to play it before they actually get to play it, or if it can be stopped with Direct Intervention (the "DI defense", by the way, is not exactly plausible in that it existed *just as much* for the only cards in the game that some people have been willing to admit *ever* needed fixing - Monocle of Clarity and The Return to Innocence). A single card *should not have such a large effect*. It's *not appropriate to the game of VTES*. And that's nearly all that can be said about it. If you don't believe that there even *can* be such a thing as an effect that's too great for a single card to have, I guess you'll never see what I (and others) have been trying to get at. Josh shut my mouth try not to panic

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.08....@duke.edu>... > On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:49:59 -0800, HD wrote: > > > > David - Please stop the maddness. These posts are getting ridiculous. > > How serious did you think I was being? I thought that you were probably kidding, but that wasn't the point. I got kind of flustered by the overgeralizations in the other guys post even though it's not that important. Basically, I was asking you to stop feeding the fire so other fools wouldn't keep replying to your taunts. But all I need to do is quit reading these posts... I should have just ignored it all. I don't know why I was affected by any of this... maybe I need more sleep... How many more times do I have to > caveat it and say that these are just my impressions? I do think there is > a nugget of truth about the "European" metagame, but I think it has more > to do with the average size of tournaments and, following from that, the > need to get maybe three game wins to hit the finals, than it does with any > blood-born personality-thingies. The rest was just kidding around. That's fine. Sorry to have taken it seriously. Cheers, Howard PS I really can't imagine why I posted anything... "Move along. Nothing to see here..." > Except for that bit about the Brits. Three sheets to the wind, the whole > lot of them. Classic. Just had to keep it going eh? ;o)

"Oko" <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote in message news:<btic2j$8qs$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > "HD" <hdma...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:c0922a66.04010...@posting.google.com... > > Ulugh Beg II wrote... > > > > (snip) > > > > > Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. > > > Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. > > > Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. > > > Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. > > > > > > Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European > > > players? Maybe. > > > > > > This is a stupid thread. You cannot say "Americans are..." OR > > "Europeans are..." and expect to be accurate in any real sense. The > > United States of America is a relatively huge area with many different > > types of people. Not only are the people within ONE city quite > > different from one another, but making generalizations and comparisons > > about people in two different cities is fairly ridiculous. Then you > > guys go so far as to generalize about an entire country?!? ...and > > then take it even farther to make generalizations about several > > different countries within one area (Europe). Huh?!? ...stupid > > comments by foolish people... ...people who should know better. Why > > are you guys acting like you're 12 years old? Who cares about all > > this sillyness?? > > > > Is anyone else completely unimpressed with this nonsense?? > > > > Cheers, > > Howard > > > > If that's your opinion on the thread, why bother to post at it at all? > Just close your eyes, count to 10, and see the next thread. Delete this one. > Ignore it in the future. > > Since you dont care, ignore. Good point. And you're right, I probably shouldn't have posted anything in the first place. Why waste time commenting on such things?? Just forget I said anything and continue on with your banter... Cheers, Howard

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com... > I think i am going to use your argument now > :-) > The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, > doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. (i don't > see it of great influence in my local, tournament and in the JOL-games > i played) And my question was, don't you think, for it to be broken, > that it has to be of great influence in all environments? No, certainly not. In an environment where everyone plays 15 Direct Interventions in their decks, even The Return to Innocence wouldn't be "of great influence". For it to be "overpowered enough to need fixing", or "unfair", all it has to be is a card that produces an effect inappropriate to the game, or inappropriate to its cost. Which I certainly think it is. You would have seen it being of great influence in that last JOL game I played with you, if I hadn't been having a bad draw (of insufficient stealth cards): I could have burned every vampire you ever brought into play as my prey, and every vampire Colin ever brought into prey as my predator. The only other Methuselah's votes on the table would have been happy to see it happen, and didn't have enough table votes to stop it even if he wasn't. And it all would have gone a lot better (ie more unfairly) if Colin *hadn't* had in hand and played one of the few cards that helps against Protect Thine Own: Delaying Tactics. Later in the game I would even have been able to burn some of the opposing voters (Cailean, for example) with more PTOs. Josh not to mention that even the stealth drawn would've probably been enough if not for the +1 intercept matthias sitting next to me

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FFDC49B...@white-wolf.com... > Curevei wrote: > > > And, really, over the > > course of the game, every clan should have an opportunity at the top, every > > discipline should be the Dominate of the game for a while, every bundle of > > titles should be abbreviated in tournament winning decks as P/J are, and so > > forth. > > The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation > (rotating out the old "good" cards). > > Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? Power escalation is a problem if you escalate power relative to "the best cards in the game." It's probably *not* a problem if you escalate power relative to "the cards that currently exist for discipline X", if those cards are currently weak relative to the best cards in the game. That is, it seems like it would not be bad for the game as a whole if Quietus were to start getting cards as powerful as Govern the Unaligned and Deflection. They would be escalated hugely in power over things like Foul Blood, sure, but as long as you don't escalate power above the strongest cards in the game - which we already accept that people can and will play - I don't think it should give the game an "escalation problem". Set rotation has a certain appeal too, but obviously tends to piss off the existing player base. Unlike Magic, I suspect that we don't have a big enough (or easily-expandable-enough) player base to be able to shrug that off. :-) Of course, I'm always interested in third-solution ideas too... Josh power to the people!

"HD" <hdma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c0922a66.0401...@posting.google.com... > "Oko" <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote in message news:<btic2j$8qs$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > > Since you dont care, ignore. > > > Good point. And you're right, I probably shouldn't have posted > anything in the first place. Why waste time commenting on such > things?? Just forget I said anything and continue on with your > banter... Howard - I would by no means wish to discourage you from posting on the newsgroup or responding to things where you have an opinion. But, well, in-depth (and argumentative, and repetitive) analysis of game topics is one of the standard things that goes on on the newsgroup. I mean, that doesn't excuse or explain the Europeans/Americans generalizations, which are indeed silly or over-general at the least. But that's why we're all going on at such length about Protect Thine Own, even if you don't think it's worth the fuss. Because we think it is a big deal, or at least enough of a big deal, gamewise, to get worked up about. :-) Josh can only manage to ignore things when he doesn't get around to looking at them in the first place (otherwise they burrow into my consciousness and force me to talk about them) (get out of my head! :-)

"Oko" <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote in message news:<btjqij$9o6$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > "Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com... > > > > What do you mean? You mean a PTO has a chance of passing when it is > > > > not played in a deck that plays sufficient stealth, sufficient votes, > > > > some way of protecting your IC and some ways of action multiplier and > > > > some ways of gaining the pool for the IC back? > > > > > > Vampires by default have 0 intercept. So, by default, the vote does not > > > get blocked. By default, it has 5 in its favor. Tit-for-tat "I play > > > this" arguments are a wash. > > > > I don't think a deck that plays no additional ways of getting a vote > > to pass would win anything here. you need stealth, you need votepush, > > you need everything to make IC's playable. > > > > No. You dont need *any* of that stuff, by default. > By Default, the actions (votes by IC members) have > - More stealth than vampires have intercept (barring the odd few) > - More votes than any vampire in the game (4+1, more than any single vamp, > correct?) > > If the deck is playable without any of the things, I dont know. I do, you will get killed in no time if you donı play stealth, and obedience and poolgain and so on. > > > > > > > Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do you > > > > think PTO could be of very great influence here? > > > > > > No, but I play against Europeans all the time on deckbot. You should > come > > > give it a try. > > > > > > > where do i find it, how does it work? (not that i think that the > > Europeans there will be a representative group, but i always like to > > play more and with different people) > > > > The Europeans indeed are a well represented group. That is not what i meant, i meant that probably the Europeans there are not a good representation of the average European players. But i don't know, i haven't been there > irc.sorcery.net > #vtes > #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. I don't know these kind of things, if i go to : irc.sorcery.net i don't see the option #vtes, should i? > > > > > And if not, don't you think that that is required for a card to be > > > > broken? (i mean it being of great influence in all environments?) > > > > > > It's a great influence in both my local metagame, in my choices for > > > tournament play, and in my play on deckbot against a world-wide pool of > > > players. It is actually in the last venue where it's been the biggest > > > problem, and most of the players of such decks *have* been European, > FWIW. > > > > > > > I think i am going to use your argument now > > :-) > > The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, > > doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. (i don't > > see it of great influence in my local, tournament and in the JOL-games > > i played) And my question was, don't you think, for it to be broken, > > that it has to be of great influence in all environments? > > But it is a great influence in any enviroment, by default. > Burning a vampire is always a great influence. ok, ...again... Yes being able to burn any vampire with any vampire with an action would be very bad. But you need a IC, this means that in a heavy rush/weenie environment PTO will not have that much influence. You need to have a viable target. if your prey and predator are not playing good targets you had better played a simple KRC, that would have had more influence. So your environment needs a lot of large nonCam decks for a PTO to be worth a lot. W

> > How exactly is the different from what I said? I was pointing out that > > basketball is a poor example of comparing competitions. Let alone the > > fact that I wasn't even comparing them. > > It was intended to be a poor example - something in which it is clear > that american dominate europeans and which clearly shows you need to > be more specific about what you mean. Even rereading my own post, which I admitted wasn't entirely clear, your respone about basketball made less than no sense. > > Having experienced both worlds all I can say is that the pressure to win > > is higher in Europe than it is in the US. > > Do you agree? Apparently not. Why it is? Well, I could probably start > > explaining it a bit, but I'm afraid my knowledge of English is lacking > > when it comes to psychological terminology. > > Also note I'm comparing the average European with the average American. > > Not the top-of-the-line professional sportsmen/women. > > > Is it true that the european work week is 32 hours? No. If you're lucky you get a 36'er, but I'm at around 45-50 atm. >That hardly seems > to compete with the typical american work week of 45 hours. I also do fail to see why the average working week has anything to do with gaming mentality. > I follow this to a certain extent. I often make a new deck if I am > going to play in a tournament. This is done for two reasons: 1) I am > bored of my decks, 2) they suck. It might make a certain sense to play > weenie potence but I don't think I could restrain my gag reflex for 8 > consecutive hours. > > I feel the need to point of that stealth bleed hardly ever wins tables > in my experience. It seems pretty good at getting a vp before someone > sets up an inpenetratable defense or your minions are all in torpor. > > Similiarly weenie vote doesn't really demand my attention. Any deck > that is shut down by a raven spy is no sure thing. And how many Raven Spies and wakes do you have? I sure have my 6-7 weenies with Majesties ready. Please, block, so I can cycle it out of my hand. Presence weenies is one of the strongest archtypes in the game. > > Are Europeans better players than Americans? No. > > Are Americans more creative than Europeans? Unlikely. > > Do Europeans care more about losing? Yes. > > Does that affect the decks seen at tournaments? Probably. > > > > Is that an explanation why PtO isn't considered broken by the European > > players? Maybe. > > Who really cares about PTO? It is a sloppy design but there are bigger > fish to fry. Since this thread has 280+ posts now, people do seem to care about PtO. I'm not going to repeat my observation about US vs Europe here, as I've explained it well enough. I was merely looking for an explanation. Also note, that I *never* even IMPLIED Americans are poorer players/sportsmen. Perhaps you guys do like the hard way to victory? Heck, if you want I could even argue that you are better players because you play more challenging stuff in tournaments. Whatever floats your boat. You're obviously not reading this right, so either just shut up, or read better and try again.

> Political actions are not "just one card". They have an inherent > +1 stealth, and they must be voted (and during the referendum more > cards may or may not need to be played). By that logic, Return to Innocence isn't broken, either. It has no stealth. It likely won't happen unless other cards are played. Being a bleed, it's actually more fragile than a vote (votes can't be bounced). Every action has a delivery system -- stealth, bleed boost, vote push, etc. The weight of a card isn't determined by the delivery system it needs to happen, it's determined by the size of the payload. Yeah, Govern + Conditioning from Arika is a huge payload, comparable to PTO in pool-equivalency loss. But two cards are required to generate that payload. The only other single card that carries PTO's payload has been banned for quite some time. Fanboy

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] > I do, you will get killed in no time if you doný play stealth, and > obedience and poolgain and so on. The mentioned factors were stealth and votepush. Bloodgain, Obedience, etc. Inconsenquential. Not necessarily. But de facto, PTO can do its mission without *any* other cards played by the acting vampire. *any*. The requirements? A vampire. Oooh.. there's an achievement, really. Influencing someone out.. Wow. Like pulling bunnies out of a hat. ;) Magic.. > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do you > > > > > think PTO could be of very great influence here? > > > > > > > > No, but I play against Europeans all the time on deckbot. You should > > come > > > > give it a try. > > > > > > > > > > where do i find it, how does it work? (not that i think that the > > > Europeans there will be a representative group, but i always like to > > > play more and with different people) > > > > > > > The Europeans indeed are a well represented group. > > That is not what i meant, i meant that probably the Europeans there > are not a good representation of the average European players. But i > don't know, i haven't been there You'll see, hopefully. But incase you dont, why is that? Are not Germans a good representation of the average European players, the same as French, for instance? > > > irc.sorcery.net > > #vtes > > #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. > > I don't know these kind of things, if i go to : irc.sorcery.net i > don't see the option #vtes, should i? Huh? You slap up mIRC or some other IRC client, connect to irc.sorcery.net and when it (mIRC) asks for a channel to join upon connection, you enter #vtes or #vtes-game. There'll propably be someone alive enough to help you get started. :) [ quoted text not captured ] No, it requires just one non-cam to have an influence. The magnitude of the influence is inconsequential to the discussion whether or not PTO is broken/blah blah blah..

In article <btkl9o$8b8s4$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, jtdu...@yahoo.com says... > Power escalation is a problem if you escalate power relative to "the > best cards in the game." > > That is, it seems like it would not be bad for the game as a whole if > Quietus were to start getting cards as powerful as Govern the Unaligned > and Deflection. Hmm... I guess we need to ask "does every discipline need to be as good as Dominate". I'm all for quietus getting a boost, but I'm not sure we need every discipline getting an equivalent to Govern/Deflection... > Set rotation has a certain appeal too Egad, no. > but obviously tends to piss off the existing player base. It pisses off new players too, as soon as the next rotation takes place... -- -Snapcase

>The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation >(rotating out the old "good" cards). > >Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? My first thought is what Josh said about escalating power in parts of the game to match other parts. It's likely to have some sort of overall power escalation effect, but it's possible that it can be kept under control. Isn't this, to an extent, what's being done already? For instance, Deed the Heart's Desire sets up making Quietus a vastly better discipline once Quietus or Assamites (since they have Quietus) get worthwhile actions to go with it. Is the plan to never give them those actions? Or, if you don't like conjecture, isn't this what happened to some extent with independents (besides Assamites) and Final Nights? The difference being, instead of elevating the independents to decent status, they could have been elevated to first tier status. Now, at some point, to get evolution at the top, what was once mighty and not so anymore would have to be elevated again somehow, which ultimately means power escalation. Power escalation can easily get out of hand, but zero escalation is a stale game. I'm not, therefore, against power escalation per se. If the game takes 3 years to see dramatic power escalation, um, okay, I don't see the big deal. Nor am I against rotation. The reality of CCGs is that they become increasingly cumbersome unless something is done to reboot the environment either by a game reboot or by rotation. I realize that there's likely an enormous resistance to creating a true "type 2" environment even if CCGs besides Magic have gone that path. Already, one hears comments from existing players how they would be happy if the game stopped expanding. That might indeed produce the optimal game as many a CCG has gotten declined from some peak that seems to center around the two expansion period. Maybe it's possible that a static CCG is worth playing in perpetuity. But, it artificially limits the game, much like putting out weak cards and new strategies that are weak. That might not be too clear in meaning. This may not help, but here's a go anyway. For people who don't need anything new to maintain interest, they have the choice of not using anything new, less than ideal choice but it exists. Adding nothing new that's interesting removes the choice from people who want something new to play with that which interests them. There is the possibility, though it's exceedingly hard to manage, that increases in strategic variety can change the balance of power without overblown power escalation. I think this is what you've been trying to do. The problem is that, if only because there was so little balance to begin with, that the shifts in balance of power have been too small. Any CCG needs a shaking up to some degree regularly, if not often. As I just said to somebody, I can survive on new style without new substance, e.g. new clans and new disciplines that really don't do anything significant new or different besides being new and supposedly different. This path, I'm sure, would satisfy a lot of other people as well given how warmly Bloodlines has been embraced. There was a time, back when Sabbat was easy to get, that I wanted to play in a Sabbat only environment. Not all of the time, of course, but regularly. While it may not have been a great environment (I don't know), there were differences in the balance of power (obviously) that I thought would make the game feel fresher. Now, it's entirely possible to do that now. The problem being getting people to cooperate. There's no encouragement for such alternate environments outside of the relatively minor differences in storyline as there's a lack of sanctioning, whether real or perceived, for doing something different with the game. If the game, with its standard card pool, does it "naturally" through expansion, then the need is no longer there to try to create it artificially, to get people's cooperation, something which they aren't likely to give.

> Also note, that I *never* even IMPLIED Americans are poorer > players/sportsmen. Perhaps you guys do like the hard way to victory? > Heck, if you want I could even argue that you are better players because > you play more challenging stuff in tournaments. Whatever floats your > boat. You're obviously not reading this right, so either just shut up, > or read better and try again. By saying "Europeans simply want to always win and be the best; moreso than the average American," (which, for the record, was a quote you made about Europeans in life and Americans in life, not just in VTES) that is a pretty clear indication that you seem to think that Americans don't strive as good at things as European, which is insulting. I really don't care what you said about VTES or the quality of players and playstyles, however, I will not stand by as my country (and indirectly, I) am the target of such thinly veiled insults.

as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.0401...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Or why not start with Teams from different countries? That would be good :D

In article <R7KdndNvgaz...@comcast.com>, opao...@comcast.net says... > I see the original printing in AH the opportunity cost was significant - > non-Camarilla clans made up a very small percentage of the crypt selection. > Yet, isn't that opportunity cost now blown away? This made me think of something... The original wording of the Independent vamps' sect text was "Non-Camarilla". Is it possible the original designer intent of PTO was to only hit independants? -- -Snapcase

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btkll5$8deap$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "HD" <hdma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c0922a66.0401...@posting.google.com... > > "Oko" <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote in message > news:<btic2j$8qs$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > > > > Since you dont care, ignore. > > > > > > Good point. And you're right, I probably shouldn't have posted > > anything in the first place. Why waste time commenting on such > > things?? Just forget I said anything and continue on with your > > banter... > > Howard - I would by no means wish to discourage you from posting on the > newsgroup or responding to things where you have an opinion. But, well, > in-depth (and argumentative, and repetitive) analysis of game topics is > one of the standard things that goes on on the newsgroup. I know. And I guess that's what it's for, eh? I have no problem/issue with that. These kind of arguments and discussions are fairly common. And that's one of the reasons why I should have just skipped it and left the whole thing alone. I wasn't being sarcastic in my statement above. I was simply trying to bow out of the discussion with a quick "Sorry for butting in... go on about your business" kind of comment. I guess it didn't come across the way I wanted it to. > I mean, that doesn't excuse or explain the Europeans/Americans > generalizations, which are indeed silly or over-general at the least. Yeah, that was the part that originally got me going. ...but then I babbled on about "silly people" and "why are you guys acting like you're 12 years old" and so on... that was pretty lame on my part and I think it reads fairly poorly as I look back over my statements. Aparently I was kind of worked up and just kept going. Anyway, generalizations may be somewhat silly, but they are also a natural part of such conversations and I shouldn't have reacted to it with an unnecessary post. ...and now it's 3-4 post later. Doh! Remember when I said "stop the maddness"?!? Now it's MY turn to step away from the keyboard and take a breather... ;o) > But that's why we're all going on at such length about Protect Thine > Own, even if you don't think it's worth the fuss. Because we think it > is a big deal, or at least enough of a big deal, gamewise, to get worked > up about. :-) Fine. I just need to stop reading the posts about PTO. They were kind of amusing to me for a while and I found some of the points kind of interesting. But now I'm fairly bored by it all and I just need to leave it to others that still care enough to continue the conversation... > > Josh > > can only manage to ignore things when he doesn't get around to looking > at them in the first place > (otherwise they burrow into my consciousness and force me to talk about > them) > (get out of my head! :-) Sounds familiar! :o) That's kind of why I commented in the first place. Once I saw those American/European generalizations, my hands got away from me and I wrote all kinds of foolish nonsense... Double Doh! ;o) Cheers, Howard PS No need to respond. :o)

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btkk69$82mr7$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com... > > > I think i am going to use your argument now > > :-) > > The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, > > doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. (i don't > > see it of great influence in my local, tournament and in the JOL-games > > i played) And my question was, don't you think, for it to be broken, > > that it has to be of great influence in all environments? > > No, certainly not. In an environment where everyone plays 15 Direct > Interventions in their decks, even The Return to Innocence wouldn't be > "of great influence". If everyone was playing 15 DI because of it it WOULD be of great influence... > > For it to be "overpowered enough to need fixing", or "unfair", all it > has to be is a card that produces an effect inappropriate to the game, > or inappropriate to its cost. Which I certainly think it is. I am not talking about inappropriate to the game, i haven't really thought about that, i am just saying that it is not broken in a "too strong" way. > > You would have seen it being of great influence in that last JOL game I > played with you, if I hadn't been having a bad draw (of insufficient > stealth cards): I could have burned every vampire you ever brought into > play as my prey, and every vampire Colin ever brought into prey as my > predator. The only other Methuselah's votes on the table would have > been happy to see it happen, and didn't have enough table votes to stop > it even if he wasn't. And it all would have gone a lot better (ie more > unfairly) if Colin *hadn't* had in hand and played one of the few cards > that helps against Protect Thine Own: Delaying Tactics. > > Later in the game I would even have been able to burn some of the > opposing voters (Cailean, for example) with more PTOs. > > > Josh > > not to mention that even the stealth drawn would've probably been enough > if not for the +1 intercept matthias sitting next to me probably not...but i don't remember that well, i was playing more intercept though. I don't know, but this sounds to me like a perfect example of why it is not broken. 1) you played IC's so you were fragile to a very agressive predator.(Baali-S-B in this case) 2) 1 Delaying Tactics made life hard for you. 3) you didn't have sufficient stealth to make it pass. 4) you lost W

> > > All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. > > > Occasionally they'll get a vote through. If a predator playing > Arika > > > pushes a PTO through on your Laz or Thetmes, you've lost. Plain and > > > simple. At least with the Amaranth combos you've got a chance to > block, > > > even if you're not packing much intercept. > > > > Don't you think it's hypocritical to say my trick should work, yours > > shoudn't ? > > That's not the point at all. The point is that "my" trick (and it's not > "mine", as much as the "pro Protect Thine Own" players may feel like the > "anti PTO players" love combat and hate vote, I am perfectly willing and > able to play with PTO myself as long as it remains an unfair card, and I > don't play that much combat these days - sorry for the tangent) is > *easily* foiled by *a lot* of things that are common to *most* decks. > The PTO "trick", on the other hand, requires at least one card (an > intercept or a Direct Intervention) to foil and can un-foil itself by > using one of the other cards that are likely to be in its own library > (just because they're generally useful cards, not specifically because > it needs them to be able to play PTO). The PtO trick uses one card and a 11 cap vampires, can be fooled by generic vote defense or intercept. The rush trick requires only a 2-cap and 3 cards (rush+aggravated+amaranth) or a 1 cap and 5 cards (rush+concealed+saturday+DBR+amaranth) Unless your first vampire is Cailean, Karsh or Jalaan, I can't see a deck that can reliably resist a first turn protean or vicissitude rush, not two mention two rushes as you bring your vampire out. Same por POT (yes,you can survive HEctor Sosa. Agatha is coming. both of them cost less than Arika ) > Sure, no combat defense is absolute either, but (a) burning vampires in > combat is *a lot* harder than burning them with PTO, as it *always* > requires more than one card, and (b) burning vampires in combat is > generally blockable at 0 intercept, ie by the smallest vampire you have > (since stealth-rush isn't all that likely, as stealth's synergy with > rush isn't very strong), whereas blocking a PTO requires at least 1 > intercept and may often require more (since stealth-vote is a great plan > that wins games, in my experience). > > > If your Laz blocks the PtO (which he may have a huge chane to do, > > especially considering the possibility of a DI on Elder > > Impersonnation) then I suggest the IC is dead. > > Do you hear what you're saying? The possibility of a DI on Elder > Impersonation? That means paying a pool to be able to block what has > otherwise become unblockable to you, and having one specific card in > hand at the right moment. It also means that you had enough intercept > for the Inner Circle member to have felt the need to play the Elder > Impersonation, and you have now wasted that intercept unless you *do* > have the DI in hand. If you had the DI, you'd be a *lot* safer playing > it on the Protect Thine Own itself - in which case the PTO player got to > "bleed you for 1" and use up your master phase action (and ability to DI > again before your next turn!) while remaining untapped to do something > else. Playing DI on the PtO, he can play another one and not enter combat. Playing DI on the Elder Imp means you can detroy it. By the way, DI was there only as a sounter ergument to Elder Imeprsonnation, as "no Elder Impersonnation" means a succesfull block. You may have or not the DI, but the threat you may have it should refrain the IC player to risk his IC. Of course, the ability to bluff is part of the plaer's skill. > > No matte rthe flavor, > > combat vs a combat monster like Lazve is almost certain death for non > > combat decks. > > That's simply not true. Any IC member with Dominate can play Obedience > against Lazverinus... or any other vampire that's likely to be rushing > it. Many of them have the possibility of going to long range and using > a Combat Ends, as well. > Difficult to play obedience while you are blocked. As for the manoeuver plus combat ends argument, it is so card intensive that either the IC won't be able to pull it out at the times he needs it or he will have to slow the power of his IC so much that he will reduce all the advantage gained by his IC abocve midcaps). By the way, a combat deck based on a 10 cap can be expected to tear appart an opposing minion, including the use of cards like telepathic tracking, or to block opponent until he has depleted all combat defneces. > > So a good > > intercept deck should be able to defend himself withoutt specifric > > cards ( and NO, eagle sight is not a specific card) > > Uh... how exactly is Eagle's Sight not a specific card? Are there lots > of cards that do the same thing as Eagle's Sight? Do they exist for > several common disciplines, so that you can use them even if you don't > have superior Auspex? > > Perhaps what you're trying to say here is that a "good intercept deck" > must use superior Auspex and must include Eagle's Sight anyway, just as > a prerequisite for being a good intercept deck. Perhaps that's true. > But it doesn't give any consolation to people who might want to play > something *other* than a "good intercept deck". > Well, a Non cam big cap is often either a "good intercept deck"(who can block) or a "good rush duck"(who can strike preemptively) or a "good vote deck"(who can outvote the IC) or a "good S&B deck (sigh ... oh this guy gets screwed, I am to sorry for him. Oh wait he plays at least 5 DI/DT) or a "good trick deck" (who can go for sensory on the IC, temptation and DT's until he can steal the guy, derange on the now !malk IC, lunatic eruption ...) or a "good toolbox deck" (which means he packs vote defnese +intercept) or a "good crappy deck". I mean no strategy unless "I play a crappy deck" lacks access to generic defenses that will help him deal with threats other than PtO (like seat switchinfg for VP stealing) > > If you play rush with your thetmes, I suggest you rush the IC before. > > If the problem is that you cannot rush the IC while playing such a big > > fighter as Thetmes, then the problem is not Protect Thine Own. > > No... the problem *is* Protect Thine Own. It's the PTO that lets the IC > member strike preemptively against any non-Camarilla vampire it chooses, > for the cost of one card, one blood, and one political action. Would it > be OK for this card to exist? The same for haven uncovered or any rush card, it lets you strike preemptively any IC (wich arn't often combat monsters) > "Protect Thy Turf > Action > 1 stealth > 1 blood > Requires a non-Camarilla vampire of at least 8 capacity with 3 votes, or > a non-Camarilla vampire of 11 capacity. Choose a Camarilla vampire with > capacity below 6, or if the acting vampire has 11 capacity, choose any > Camarilla vampire. That vampire is burned." > > I know it's not an exact comparison because this action is not a vote - > that seems fair because the non-Camarilla don't have any 4-vote +2 bleed > vampires to play it with. It's still a pretty close comparison - it's > even a lot weaker on the targeting section because (a) there are fewer > Camarilla vampires in print than there are non-Cam, and (b) there are > only 4 vampires in print who can play this "out of the box" to burn any > Cam vampire. > > But if you don't think this card would be fair, how can Protect Thine > Own be fair? > Because PtO is a vote, which leaves it open to additional defneses (voices, DT, Vox Domini, irregular protocol, Michael Luther ...). The same cards, not being a vote would be somewhat OK (though the equivalent of a justicar retribution whould be found). As for the 4 votes/+2 bleed, I often prefer Lambach's or Lazverinus' or Fatima's or Thetmes' or Cailean's or ... ability to it. Not to mention a slightly cheaper cost. > > And that's nearly all that can be said about it. If you don't believe > that there even *can* be such a thing as an effect that's too great for > a single card to have, I guess you'll never see what I (and others) have > been trying to get at. I believe some effects are to great for a card to have (being able to bleed for 14 at the cost of a vampire, or preventing opponent from playing combat cards, being able to hunt for 2 with all of your vampires permanently or to counter any minion card of the came for a single pool). Burning a vampire isn't, especially concerning harsh prerequisites.

I am against the fact that all skill must have there dominate moment... no way, we are not there for this, even for a storyline event. We are here for the fun and the scary moment. And about the storyline event, I like the spirit during this type of tournament where bleed stealth are not the base of 2 of the 5 decks in the final. But the fact that the winning clan will have something more.... I think they have to find another way to grade the storyline event and first of all no final are needed (3 round in order to meet as many players as possibe). Now the last point I want to make : I would like to see new way of getting VP.... something different....per clan for example... It is a game about methusalah power but not all clan want this power. Ok just some thought...

Delay > > > > > > You still have not refuted my argument as to why DT is not an effective > > > counter for PTO. DT doesn't stop them from playing it again. If the > person > > > is not ousted, and his prey is not in ousting range, then he'll most > likely > > > play that PTO next turn. > > > > > I simply have encountered thousands of situations in which they never > > got that opportunity again (not just talking about PTO here, it's the > > same principle for every vote beig countered by DT), or in which it > > was no longer at the top of their list, without either one of your > > conditions being met.I can think of thousands of reasons why he/she > > wouldn't call/be able to call that same vote again next turn. > > Situations *DO* change in between turns you know. Strongly. > > > > Wow. Thousands. Yes. Thousands. Does this actually surprise you/seem unlikely to you?Or are you just joking here? Cause I think there are lots of players who can support the statement, from their own long time experience. > Care to tell one of those concrete examples, then? ECQ Belgium 2003 Antwerp finals. Tobias op den Brouw playing weenie pre vote. His predator,Kamel Senni playing Great Greta with 3 DT and 3 DI. Only thing Tobias got to do was do some damae on his prey. He has had 3 critical votes delayed, and some more DT-ed throuhgout the finals.In short, he got massacred.And this was not due to a rush deck (as there were none in the game), not due to heavy politics, or not having the votes, as the only other person with votes (a regent in play) was voting full force in favor of everything T did, and didn't pack any votes himself).It was due to DT and DI. Other example: a month or 2 ago, I played a tournament in Paris.Final game, my grandprey is Reyda, playing !Ventrue/Pander vote deck.Between myself playing Fast Eddie, and the other players at the table..I think it took Reyda something like 8 turns before passing his situation critical vote.In the end, he just didn't get it to pass, and got ousted.see his explanation (which I like alot) in another thread) > I'm quite interested in the effectiveness of a DT, when *not* playing a rush > deck. I have to confess:I play rush decks so seldom, I couldn't remember when last I played one in Tournament environment. So all you read from me in tihs issue is written from a pointof view from someone who almost never plays them in tournament environment. DT is simply an overwhelmingly good defense against poitical decks. I simply do not se where you get the idea that simply doing the same thing the turn after is always so evident for a political deck...maybe there's something so otherworldly to the environmens I play in, I don't know, but I don't know any good decent experienced players who would think that way.. > > > <snip> > > > > As to the weenie-single fattie deck.Would you believe me if I told you > > > > Pentex Subversion is an absolute killer card?Would you believe me if I > > > > told you it has it's greatest uses against fattie decks, with or > > > > without weenies to protect the fatties? > > > > Would you believe me if I said I don not believe PS to broken?Because > > > > there are lots of ways to get around it (as you've stated). The ways > > > > to get around PTO are, for some decks easier, for others harder then > > > > getting around a PS, but *you can get around them*, which makes them > > > > *not broken* > > > > > > I play with Pentex Subversion quite a bit so don't even try to imply > that I > > > have no idea what I'm talking about. I also know that it's not a > horribly > > > difficult task to have it removed (surprise, cross-table Pentex removal > does > > > happen, and you know, while a wall deck can block a lot of actions per > turn, > > > a lot of decks, some of which will utilize Pentex, can't) and thus > doesn't > > > completely ruin games for certain decks. > > > > With all do respect, but I can give you dozens of examples in which > > cases PS meant the end for players. As in: PS=>immediate oust.In such > > cases (and they happen to be in my experience a lot more frequent than > > the cases in which PS actually gets removed) you don't get any chance > > for recovery at all. > > > > I also do not agree on your statement that PS is easily removed, and > > not just in wall decks.Surprise: players cannot always afford to take > > this action. > > > > PTO doesn't give you that chance to recover.PTO does not oust you. > > PTO makes you lose 1 vamp. Just like rush/amaranth. Partly like > > banishment. Just like being torporized and diablerized.Such tings > > happen. It does not make this card broken. > > > > PTO and Amaranth aint comparable. Yes they are. They they are both cards that burn your vampire.They are both cards that can do so in very specific circumstances. They are both cards that can be huge mistakes to play when burning the wrong vampire. > Banishement is, but only to a small point. Small. > > > PTO says "you're playing with a large non-Cam vampire, so I'm gonna > > ruin your game." > > Subjective assessment. You could just as easily claim PTO says:" I've > > invested 1 third of my pool in a single high cap. I have the table > > against me from the word go.I have now need of a card which might > > actually do me some good".. > > SUch arguments bring nothing to a discussion like this > > > > Sadly though, PTO says; I'm going to burn your vampire. And gain pool in the > process. Where is it for you implicit to gain pool? It's hard enough getting the vote to pass as it is.. > > , I still > remain > > > unconvinced. How about the attempt proposed below regarding keeping track of DT's effectiveness? > > It's quite simple: you say DT's only effect is that that player will > > call the same vote again next turn. > > I think you have no assurance this will be so. > > > > "Calling vote X with vampire A in turn Y "is a single moment's snap > > shot action.It occurs at that given moment, in that given situation. > > Then you get DT-ed. > > Boom.The person calling the PTO does not achieve the target (having > > PTO pass in most cases, unless his initial target was to get rid of DT > > or find out about intercept ans such) > > > > Nowhere do I see a direct, definite connection between > > that and > > "Calling vote X with vampire B in turn Y+1" > > Nowhere in the game can you define this second is the necessary, > > automatic, direct consequence of the first situation. > > If you can proove to me that this is so, then I might accept what > > you're saying. > > > > It might be interesting to keep track of this. > > If we can ty to have people record (in an honest way, not just to win > > an argument) > > *the number of times their votes (and I'm not just talking abvout PTO, > > as we're discussing DT here) get Delaying Tactics-ed, > > *with of course the number of votes they actually sucseeded in > > calling(perhaps also the number of times they had their votes DI-ed or > > intercepted), and then the number of times those votes passed > > * the number of times they called the same DT-ed vote with the same > > vamp the turn after, and the number of times it succesfully passed. If > > of course it gets DI-ed, intercepted, DT-ed again or outvoted, it > > should also be recorded. > > > > That way, if the spread of games you get in different environments, > > from different players, with different metagames, and different > > deck-end playstyles is big enough, you might actually see it. > > However, I doubt you'll ever get a realistic picture, due to the > > limitations of gatheringt this info on an NG.. > > > > untill that time, I believe what I believe, you believe what you > > believe.We're probably into such different gaming environments, with > > such a different view, that we'll never actually convince each other. > > > > greetz > > Jo

Curevei wrote: >>The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation >>(rotating out the old "good" cards). >> >>Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? > > My first thought is what Josh said about escalating power in parts of the game > to match other parts. It's likely to have some sort of overall power > escalation effect, but it's possible that it can be kept under control. > Isn't this, to an extent, what's being done already? For instance, Deed the > Heart's Desire sets up making Quietus a vastly better discipline once Quietus > or Assamites (since they have Quietus) get worthwhile actions to go with it. Yes. Balance is the number 1 design goal. But your original message indicated that you wanted cards introduced to make, say, Quietus *exceed* Dominate (to be "at the top"). And then add some cards to another Discipline to it exceed Quietus (to be "at the top for a while"). And so on. Which, as near as I can figure, involves strict escalation unless card rotation is involved. > Is the plan to never give them those actions? ? Of course not, if by worthwhile you mean balanced. > Or, if you don't like conjecture, isn't this what happened to some extent with > independents (besides Assamites) and Final Nights? The difference being, Final Nights attempted to bring into balance what had been some of the weaker clans, yes. > instead of elevating the independents to decent status, they could have been > elevated to first tier status. Now, at some point, to get evolution at the > top, what was once mighty and not so anymore would have to be elevated again > somehow, which ultimately means power escalation. Exactly. > Power escalation can easily get out of hand, but zero escalation is a stale > game. I'm not, therefore, against power escalation per se. If the game takes > 3 years to see dramatic power escalation, um, okay, I don't see the big deal. That might make good fodder for a pool for someone. > Nor am I against rotation. The reality of CCGs is that they become > increasingly cumbersome unless something is done to reboot the environment > either by a game reboot or by rotation. That might make more good fodder. Note the reaction to the grouping rule - a pale shadow of actual rotation. > I realize that there's likely an enormous resistance to creating a true "type > 2" environment even if CCGs besides Magic have gone that path. Already, one > hears comments from existing players how they would be happy if the game > stopped expanding. That might indeed produce the optimal game as many a CCG > has gotten declined from some peak that seems to center around the two > expansion period. Maybe it's possible that a static CCG is worth playing in > perpetuity. It sure seemed that it was possible back in 1999. > But, it artificially limits the game, much like putting out weak > cards and new strategies that are weak. A design decision not to introduce power escalation is a limit of sorts, yes. The question is whether it's a good limit to have. > That might not be too clear in meaning. This may not help, but here's a go > anyway. For people who don't need anything new to maintain interest, they have > the choice of not using anything new, less than ideal choice but it exists. > Adding nothing new that's interesting removes the choice from people who want > something new to play with that which interests them. > There is the possibility, though it's exceedingly hard to manage, that > increases in strategic variety can change the balance of power without > overblown power escalation. I think this is what you've been trying to do. Right. See Black Hand for example. Power Escalation isn't a necessary condition for interesting. > The problem is that, if only because there was so little balance to begin with, > that the shifts in balance of power have been too small. Any CCG needs a > shaking up to some degree regularly, if not often. You need an "IMO" at the end there, IMO. More fodder for the polls, at any rate. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

"cure" <cu...@caramail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:64a19912.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] (This is a joke) Yeah! VP's for Assamites when they burn someone in combat using Quietus!!! w00t!!!

> > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. > > *shrug*. Replace with other IC members then. I was not the one in the first place to put Arika on top of the list of "needing Arika is not a weakness it's a requirement" argumentations. If you replace with other IC memebers: I'd like to see the first person who will *not* find it the least bit encumbrant having to play Harrod or Gwendolyn just so they can play the allmighty PTO. > > > You pay 1 third of your starting pool. You risk getig ousted before > > you even get your vamp into play. They had better bring you something > > extr, for all that effort. > > Absolutely. Except I can pay 1/3 of my starting pool for Lazverinus or > Augustus, and they can be fairly easily burned by your starting 1/3 > because my guys aren't Cam. No they can't. There is 1 card in the game which seems to scare the shit out of you, but I do not, (nor have I ever)deem that card a reason to not play them. There are so many things which are less nice when happening to a 11 cap, but if it scares you this much, don't play them. > > > > > Disagree: > > > > play DI > > > > > > If DI has to be mentioned, there's something wrong. > > It does not *have*to be mentioned. I don't undertand why people wil > > simply not acept this cxard as being a truly important (necessary) > > part of the game. It was IMHO introduced exactly to create an overall > > defens.. > > Because requiring there to be a specific (rare!) defense card in every > deck we make is bad game design. No, it's good deckbuilding.It enables people to not have to play specific disciplines, sprecific tacts or specific vampires in order to be able to defend themselves against something. In that light, I'd say it's good game desing. > > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > So you've never seen a Delayed vote played the turn after? Rarely.in the early days, when people didn't belive in the power of putting off a vote for 1 turn. In th emeantime, people have simply learned that that is often the most crucial thing. > > Simple: 1 or none. Ihave yet to test some more before I decide to > > switch a universal master slot for this card, but I'm almost sure I > > will. > > I like it too. You still only get one per game.And you get as many DT's as you put in.the ydo differentthings, and for th epower of the vox, I'd say 1 is enough. You don't need more anyway, and you won't often get the chance of playing more than 1 in a game either. > > > Same goes for every single other decent political deck which does not > > include PTO. If your deck is not prepared to handle those, you have a > > different problem alltogether, and then we should stop discussing the > > brokenness of PTO. > > Losing 3 pool to a KRC and losing your entire vampire are different > things, wouldn't you agree? > Depends on your point of view.As to the singular effct of te card, yes. As to them both being simple political actions which suffer from the same problem when you want to design a winning deck with them, no.(from that point of view, PTO is the weaker of the 2 even..) > > As you will no doubt remember, being prepared for MoC in those days > > left you with only 2 options: > > *play Eagle's Sight based intercept deck and hope he's not playing > > unblockables > > *play rush decks, packing huge amounts of (otherwise fairly useless) > > destroy equipment cards, and pray to god he/she is not playing > > Obedience or S:CE, as you cannot get around it (not without IG > > anyways, which would then stop you from playing your destroy > > equipment), all the while hoping he doesn't actually block your > > rushes.. > > His statement was that knowing when a broken card was going to be played > allowed you to be prepared for it. My statement was to refute that. > Your statement seems to support me. Negative!!that's xactly the f*** point!!When dealing with a broken card, even knowing so in advanace will not help you. Ergo, cards that suffer from their opponents knowing about it beforehand are not broken. simple logic, thouhg you people seem to want to complicate it. You starting point is that it's a broken card, and that thus stated, anticipation doesn't hep. My point is that anticipating votes will help, hence they are not broken. > > The anti cards are either poor or have high opportunity cost. > > > > Strongly disagree.If played in decent amounts, and played well, they > > are exactly what denies political decks an allout domination of the > > scene. Political decks are (IMHO, and for the last few years) an > > unreliable way to score VP's, ad get GW's. > > The TWD archive has a grand total of 6 decks with Kindred Coercion, 3 > with Pulling Strings and 5 with Dread Gaze. There are 22 just using > PTO. Care to analyze? Have I ever stated anything about Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion or Pulling Strings? I do not even regard these as decently playable anti-vote cards! Have you checkd the number of decks packing DT? And have you even looked at thedcks, or are they just numbers, I mean, packing 1 or 2 PTO's, well, that makes them prayer cards in those decks at best. > > More than half the vampires in the game are legal targets. > > That doesn't mean "more than half the vampires you'll ever see in a > > decent game". > > This logic does not make sense, as the number of legal targets > > "existing in the game" has no direct connection to the number of > > targets you'll find in a given game, on a given table. > > Given a "blank slate" table, it means that there is a good chance there > will be legal targets for PTO. And how do you propose to get a blank slated table, onto which the arrival of certain vampires is strisctly statistics?Players sometimes actually think about which vampires they chose you know. As I've stated before: these numbers have no clearly distingushable correlation with which vamps o or do not hit a randomlycosen table. "Finding a target" is not a significant > difficulty. > > > Picking the right target isn't difficult. If you say that, then I must conclude you have never been in a difficult position before, and simply have not hd to choose between equivalent legal targets, in situations where the rigt/wrong ecisions was a metter of survival/victory/... > > You're missing part of the game then. I can't even recall how often > > I've seen players get ousted because of mistakes like this. > > "Do I burn one of pred's vamps? One of my prey's? One > > cross-table?Let's go forward and put some pressure on my prey.oops! > > let's get ousted" > > That's the beauty of PTO. You can burn both of them if you want. Just > call another next turn. No you can't. You maybe able to burn 1. Maybe not.Maybe if you pick the wrong one, you get ousted. And "just call another one next turn" is not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. > > > "See large vampire that can be burned. Burn vampire. Lather. > > Rinse. Repeat if necessary." > > I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. > > Come to the irc room. I'm sure someone will play it up sooner or later. Why would I do that..I'm sadly one of those people who like to play table top cardgames on a live table with live people, and as I'm living in Europe, I'm afraid we'll never be able to convince each other face to face. > > > If you lose the 10 cap your deck is designed around, when your > > > predator has an IC member behind you, I'd say you're pretty screwed, > > > barring extreme luck. > > > > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > > decks. > > Yet people play decks based around an 11 cap all the time. Funny that. > And those decks get to play an extra card that can burn my 10 cap. Maybe they do around where you play. Here they don't.As a matter of fact, they really really ldom do. Because people have discovered that surviving whil playing a fattie deck, is hugely, immensely difficult, cause they are extremely fragile/vulnerable. > > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? > > Nope. You can have *other* guys to get rid of the pentex. Not necessarily. You can also still play reaction cards, collect blood from a blood doll, etc. That's supposing you're still i nthe game afterwards. > > > *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone > > Say it succeeds. > > > Or PTO being altered to burn any vampire of any sect? > > Here I don't follow you. You already think PTO is broken, and now you > > want to make it even better? > > Why not. Might as well even the playing field against the cams. I > don't play them that much, so it won't affect my game at all. > > > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > > lesser amount/effect the justicars. > > It's the camarilla sect that's impervious to the card. Even if I'm not > playing IC members, if I play cam vamps, I get to completely ignore its > existence. > That's your choice, and your choice only. While you might not feel like playing non-cammies due to the existence of PTO, others might feel they are limited to playing malk or !malk due to the existence of Derange, so I don't see this cause the need for a similar card for indies/sabbat.. > > These are individual vamps, not > > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > > certain titled vamps.. > > We can make it the 11 cap titled guys in the indie groups. Or for 10 > cap cardinals in the sabbat. A nice small set of vamps. The point is, > other (indie/sabbat) vamps will be impervious to it, while those cammie > folks now have to watch out. I belive you will not hear people say: that card is too strong, nor will you have people who stop playing cammie because of it; Which also partly proves IMHO that PTO shouldn't create tihs reaction from sabbat-preferring players either.. Jo

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:31:32 -0800, cure wrote: > And about the storyline event, I like the spirit during this type of > tournament where bleed stealth are not the base of 2 of the 5 decks in > the final. Actually, it still usually is, if not in even greater numbers. David Cherryholmes

> > Disagree. There's sadly been this "Aargh Arika!! Must kill on sight" > > hype for the past couple of years which tends to turn the table > > against anyone playing Arika, with or without good reason.People will > > go to absurd lengths to try and wipe Arika off the table, often withot > > even benefitting in the least from this direction of actions.. > > Not in my experience, at least not with good players. Sure, when she > comes out there'll be moaning and bitching and comments about that > player's personal hygiene, but in reality people keep their eye on the > ball, their prey and predator. Sure, you've got to keep an eye on Arika, > because she can blow out 12+ pool in one go, so if your predator is in > that range, you might have to get pre-emptive. Note that this goes to the > heart of the problem, though, because from the other side of the fence, > that same offensive power means the Arika player is even more likely to > pre-emptively strike with the PTO just before wrapping around. The fact > is, Arika gets no help. Luckily she doesn't need it. And that's about > it. I agree with your part about it being very different with good players. if you read the previous part, his statement was: "any fool of a poor player can..not difficult tech..ectetc". SO regarding the idiots he's talking about, the above statement is true. For good players goes this: I have never met really good top level payers that can, from the bottom of their heart 100* honestly claim they find PTO broken > > > You pay 1 third of your starting pool. You risk getig ousted before > > you even get your vamp into play. They had better bring you something > > extr, for all that effort. > > Right, big vampires are risky, despite the fact that Arika has many ways > to almost immediately recoupe that pool or obviate the need to actually > spend any more (govern down - freak - Enchant down - freak - scout down - > freak - restore - freak - bleed - freak - vote - push - cap, mix in > restoration as needed). Of course that's a ridiculously long chain of > cards, but they are all cards that will exist in multiples in the deck (or > most likely should), and even small chunks of the combo on any given turn > pretty much refute your assertion. But even stipulating that you are > correct, why should it be *so* much riskier to play large non-cam than > cam. Keep your eye on the ball. The real issue isn't that PTO can't be > defended against; it can be, simply by playing small vampires or cam > vampires. The real issue is that it makes a wide range of decks a dumb > decision to play, and this harms the game as a whole. The ball: It is not *so* much riskier for large non-cam's. It is 1 card which a reqiurement of IC we're talking about. How many times have you come prepared for PTO (even when playing large non-cammies) and got beaten by it? > > > It does not *have*to be mentioned. I don't undertand why people wil > > simply not acept this cxard as being a truly important (necessary) > > part of the game. It was IMHO introduced exactly to create an overall > > defens.. > > It's generally accepted that, if you have to fall back on a "DI > it" argument, then the card is a problem. Anything can be DI'd. Here, > watch: hypothetical card says "+1,000 stealth action -- DIE!". Just DI > it, right? My point is: you *don't* have to fall back to DI.It's one (and an obvious and simple ) solution to the PTO problem. As everything can be DI-ed, indeed, its solves the problem as any other solution, right?DI came up nt as the sole defense, it came up in the list of defenses against PTO... > > > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always > > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the > > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. > > DT doesn't stop the card. It delays it. It's been said many times. See > above for DI. And yes, I understand that, in the time you buy, you *may* > be able to do something about it. Or you may not. None of this addresses > the fact that the card does more than one card should do, nor that it is > only a factor for non-cams. > Which is the reason I requested the DT issue to be moved to a separate discussion, which it has in the meantime. You find it does more than 1 card should do. I simply fail to grasp, as not a single anti PTO person seem to be able to: why??? >> Magnitude of effect. One vote, generate 3-5 pool loss for a > player. Losing three to five pool happens in all kinds of ways, and is > something everyone has to account for. pool loss happens in all kinds of ways; Getting your vampires burned happens in all kinds of ways AS WELL, and in some games more than pool loss BTW...everybody has to account for it. Tactical nukes from orbit are > something only non-cams have to account for. Were it not of "tactical > nuke" magnitude, it wouldn't be a problem. Please define "Tactical Nuke Magnitude" in a way so we can discuss it. Do you think putting Succubus Club in play is of tactical magnitude?Do you think getting another turn is? I don't fel inclined to call PTO in any way orbital by the way.. > > > ??How is needing an 11-cap vampire in order to play a card *not* a > > weakness? > > Burned out. Somebody else will re-re-re-re-state this one. > > > I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. > > What's wrong with the logic? See target, play card. Or do you not assume > that a player can assess the impact on table balance and choose > accordingly? You guys are masters of stealth bleed in Paris? Well, I'm a > master of combat. What that means is that, most every game, I confront > the terrible dillema of "sure, I can erase that guy. Now, should > I?" Minion control is an aspect of the game, and one I would assume any > good player using PTO is going to understand. > > > > > No, he can't.Not everybody's game is as easily ruined by 1 card as you > > > > make it out to be. > > No, just people playing non-cams in the 8-11 range. That is the > problem. If you don't think those vampires should be playable anyway, > just say so. Then we can all have a good laugh. > > > If your deck is based on 1 10 cap, then I'd say you've designed a deck > > that will have trouble dealing with an overwhelming majority of other > > decks. > > No one is arguing that any 10 cap is more fragile than weenies, or speedy > stealth bleed mid-caps. But the defenses necessary to give you a fighting > chance are much more easily includable -- in sufficient numbers such that > it's not just a prayer card -- than defense against PTO. There are > defenses against PTO, just not any *feasible* defenses, other than "don't > play non-cam". There are. They are the same defenses as the ones you should be including against*any* political deck.And that's not too hard these days. > > > You're complaining about the difficulty of playing decks that are > > based on 1 high cap here, not about the power of PTO.In your opinion, > > do you think Pentex Subversion is broken as well? > > No. You can recover from Pentex and get your guy back, in many many > ways. No necessarily.I'm starting to belive you've seldom seen a well-played PS now.. I think, at this late date, it should be acknowledged that arguing > for PTO by appealing to similiar effects are fruitless. As is any appeal > to it requiring a chain of 4 or 5 cards, but I'm sure I'll get a shot at > re-re-re-replying to that again in a few more messages (working my way > through the thread, decided to just jump in). > > > *possibly* eliminating his cornerstone > > If you succeed, it *might* *help* you, or not, or something in > > between. It might just as well turn the table on you.Again, it doesn't > > oust people by itself.See more about my opinion on decks based on > > cornerstone vamps above. > > I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but it seems to be one of > two things: either the player can't intelligently target PTO, which isn't > a hard thing to do, or you are appealing to "gang up on me, I'm not > broken", which is a fallacious argument. Read the whole list of "things you an do against/about PTO".People seem to insist on PTO being broken cause it can burn high cap non cammies. It is simply not a guaranteed way of doing that.Taking out a cornerstone vamp is simply not a guarantueed oust. > > > Also, I'd like to add, I keep finding it so bizar that you're actually > > looking at it as if it were the Camarilla as a sect who have access to > > this card. This is an incorrect idea. It's the IC's who do, and to a > > lesser amount/effect the justicars. These are individual vamps, not > > the sect as such.Sect as such actually has absolutly nothing to do > > with it. By this logic, I don't see why you would create a card > > requiring the other sects as such,rather a vampspecific card for > > certain titled vamps.. > > It's not that every Cam can play it, it's that none of them can be > targetted by it, while everyone else can. > Again, if "being a legal target for PTO or not" is the first and/or only thing people take into account when deciding which vamps to play, I'm not surprised to find they get ousted very often. Such a way of thinking would IMO represent a complete screwed up/silly/illogical/ childish view of the game. How often do you play single sect decks?or strictly indies?or strictly indies/non-cammies? greetz Jo

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com... > Negative!!that's xactly the f*** point!!When dealing with a broken > card, even knowing so in advanace will not help you. > Ergo, cards that suffer from their opponents knowing about it > beforehand are not broken. > simple logic, thouhg you people seem to want to complicate it. > You starting point is that it's a broken card, and that thus stated, > anticipation doesn't hep. > My point is that anticipating votes will help, hence they are not > broken. By that logic Return to Innocence wasn't broken either. Just bounce it, archon investigation it (in its old form), DI it, or block it somehow, etc...Now, I suppose we could argue whether or not RtI was broken or not, but evidently it was powerful enough to get banned, unless it was banned for some reason I'm not aware of, in which case, ignore this. > > Come to the irc room. I'm sure someone will play it up sooner or later. > Why would I do that..I'm sadly one of those people who like to play > table top cardgames on a live table with live people, and as I'm > living in Europe, I'm afraid we'll never be able to convince each > other face to face. You can like playing with live people and like playing online too. I enjoy playing with live people more, but IRC gives me the opportunity to test and tweak decks before playing with said live people. > I belive you will not hear people say: that card is too strong, nor > will you have people who stop playing cammie because of it; Which also > partly proves IMHO that PTO shouldn't create tihs reaction from > sabbat-preferring players either.. Well, if a card is introduced that can burn Cam vampires like PTO burns others, then there really is no advantage to choosing any sect in this matter, so a large decrease in Cam is probably unlikely. There may be some decrease because some people who avoided non-Cam clans because of PTO would cross over, but I don't think this decrease would be large or even significant, but I could be wrong as this is all conjecture.

"Albert Chang" <na...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:btl1sj$992$1...@joe.rice.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] Call it an insult if you wish, but both psychological research and my own experience with Americans in three different places in the States show me it's a fact. If that fact is insulting to you, very well, then so be it. Fun is more important to them than winning; on average, of course. Is this bad? I don't think so; it's another way to look at a *game*. V:TES or sports; make your pick. Is playing to win in the easiest possible way bad? I don't think so either, but it does make for predictable metagames. PtO is NOT part of that metagame, which is enough indication for me to claim it's not broken, which was the whole point of that post about US vs Europe anyway.

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<btkrmd$fel$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>... > > > How exactly is the different from what I said? I was pointing out > that > > > basketball is a poor example of comparing competitions. Let alone > the > > > fact that I wasn't even comparing them. > > > > It was intended to be a poor example - something in which it is clear > > that american dominate europeans and which clearly shows you need to > > be more specific about what you mean. > > Even rereading my own post, which I admitted wasn't entirely clear, your > respone about basketball made less than no sense. > It makes sense to me and I am sure it makes sense to others. > > I also do fail to see why the average working week has anything to do > with gaming mentality. > I'm just dicking around with you a bit. It must have something to do with my non-competetive american spirit. > > I feel the need to point of that stealth bleed hardly ever wins tables > > in my experience. It seems pretty good at getting a vp before someone > > sets up an inpenetratable defense or your minions are all in torpor. > > > > Similiarly weenie vote doesn't really demand my attention. Any deck > > that is shut down by a raven spy is no sure thing. > > And how many Raven Spies and wakes do you have? I sure have my 6-7 > weenies with Majesties ready. > Please, block, so I can cycle it out of my hand. Presence weenies is one > of the strongest archtypes in the game. > I would typically be able to generate +1 intercept casually around turn 3. I have stopped an entire hoard of presence weenies with a single minion for several turns on multiple occassions. This is not because I am amazingly skilled - it is because it is not very difficult. Different cards and different styles. > > > > Who really cares about PTO? It is a sloppy design but there are bigger > > fish to fry. > > Since this thread has 280+ posts now, people do seem to care about PtO. > I'm not going to repeat my observation about US vs Europe here, as I've > explained it well enough. I was merely looking for an explanation. > > Also note, that I *never* even IMPLIED Americans are poorer > players/sportsmen. Perhaps you guys do like the hard way to victory? > Heck, if you want I could even argue that you are better players because > you play more challenging stuff in tournaments. Whatever floats your > boat. You're obviously not reading this right, so either just shut up, > or read better and try again. I think that I am reading it correctly. I suspect what you intenting to say is that in your experience americans play vtes more casually and heterogenously than europeans. I was meerly responding to your poor choice of words to convey this idea. Am I close to understanding? Don't assume that I am some zealoud patriotic american defending my national honour. I don't give two craps about the US. We have simply inherited the glory that has faded from europe and use it just as poorly as europe ever did.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:09:40 -0800, wolflord wrote: > For good players goes this: I have never met really good top level > payers that can, from the bottom of their heart 100* honestly claim > they find PTO broken Hopefully I'm not putting words in other people's mouths with this, but I believe the following people have publicly stated that PTO is broken/unfair/too good: Josh Duffin Jeff Thompson Derek Ray Peter Bakija Snapcase Jeff Kuta My apologies for the others that I know I've overlooked, but those are some people who have participated heavily in the discussions here, have all won tournaments, and all of whom I regard as excellent players. You just told them they sucked. I think it would be much, *much* more productive to leave out any considerations of how good a player might be, or what their metagame might be like, and just stick to the game mechanics. Yes, Paris has an enormous number of players but, for god's sake, there are good players elsewhere. > The ball: It is not *so* much riskier for large non-cam's. It is 1 > card which a reqiurement of IC we're talking about. > How many times have you come prepared for PTO (even when playing large > non-cammies) and got beaten by it? This side-steps the issue of whether incorporating vote defense is feasible. It boils down to DI, a poor argument for anything, and DT. I assume you've read all the discussion about DT that's already occurred. If you didn't find any of the explanations of its inadequacy compelling before, I don't see that repeating them will have much of an effect. I myself have argued in the past the importance of timing in the game. Most recently, in the context of extracting pool via succubus club in return for not rushing. There is a distinction between never being rushed at all, which is a silly premise to build a deal upon, and not being rushed *right now*. So, I think I have some grasp of the delicacies of timing. That said, I believe the ability to stave off the effect of PTO for a turn is the best defense out there, but ultimately a poor counter-argument to the proposition that the effect is too large, inappropriate, or whatever language you choose for "me no likey". > My point is: you *don't* have to fall back to DI.It's one (and an > obvious and simple ) solution to the PTO problem. But if DI is the *only* answer to the problem, then *that* is a problem in itself, correct? I understand that you disagree about the efficacy of DT, but I think we will have to just agree to disagree on that, as I have nothing new to say on it. The third option, choosing a deck that isn't vulnerable to PTO either because of sect composition or average capacity, is begging the question. It seems to me that, in this light, PTO remains a problem. > As everything can be DI-ed, indeed, its solves the problem as any > other solution, right?DI came up nt as the sole defense, it came up in > the list of defenses against PTO... >> > No they wont. Not necessarily.Whenever I play tournaments, I always >> > include DT and DI's.You can always ask Reyda to testify what the >> > effects of that are on political decks being payed at those tables. I'm familiar with the effects of the cards, having played it and seen it played for years. It is also possible that you choose decks that are strong enough in their basic strategy, e.g. mid-cap stealth bleed that also gains pool via its bleed mechanic (just as an example) that it has plenty of room left over for such extras. That is a good deck. There should be more good decks possible, and not every deck is going to have the luxury of playing stealth bleed with midcaps (for example). The core of this argument is that the *possibility* of PTO is sufficient to deter playing 8 - 11 cap non-cams in tournaments. This idea is predicated upon the premise that there is no adequate defense against this card, most especially if you are targeted from across the table by it. If you are fine with the idea that such vampires have no place within a tournament game anyway, then you of course are not going to see it as a problem. Personally, I think that is a ridiculous position to take. > You find it does more than 1 card should do. > I simply fail to grasp, as not a single anti PTO person seem to be > able to: why??? I'm not sure I'm parsing your sentence as you intend, as I would ask "what" not a single anti-PTO person is able to.... do? say? grasp? But if you are asking for explanations as to why the card is overpowered, I can only refer you to the previous 250+ threads. I have nothing new to add on that front. > Getting your vampires burned happens in all kinds of ways AS WELL, and > in some games more than pool loss BTW...everybody has to account for > it. The other ways in which vampires are burned are: A) equally applicable to vampires of all sects, and B) require much more set up, and C) much easier to defend against. This goes against my decision to avoid repeating myself and others, but I saw an opportunity to do so succinctly. > Please define "Tactical Nuke Magnitude" in a way so we can discuss it. Choose a vampire. Burn it. That would be "tactical nuke" magnitude. > Do you think putting Succubus Club in play is of tactical magnitude? Not really the same thing, but the way in which it facilitates spiteful losing is a sufficient reason in my mind for banning it, if that's what you are getting at. > Do > you think getting another turn is? No, and I see the obvious followup to this, if you care to save yourself, and then myself, some typing. > I don't fel inclined to call PTO in > any way orbital by the way.. The "orbital" bit alludes to the fact that you can be targeted by it with no chance to block it, barring eagle's sight. Less strongly, it also alludes to its inherent stealth, and the relative strengths of stealth vs. intercept. > There are. They are the same defenses as the ones you should be > including against*any* political deck.And that's not too hard these > days. Uh, yes it is. If you know of some defenses besides DI, DT, and Vox, please let me know. And there is no vote that has so immediate an impact on your game as this card. Note that there have not been repeated arguments that "politics is broken". The problem is with the effects of this card, not vast swaths of players low-balling their politics defense in the hopes of not getting nailed by it. Also, as an aside, the best politics defense is to have titled vampires in play, not some reaction card or OOT master. Sadly, most of these table votes will manifest in the form of P/J titles, who will not care about PTO and further may conspire with you to benefit from it's passing. > No necessarily.I'm starting to belive you've seldom seen a well-played > PS now. And I am starting to believe you are yet another snotty little person who just can't *quite* bring himself to leave the ad hominem at home. Or do you think "play PS on key blocker, swarm in with my wave of Sooper Sekrit Stealth Bleed, oust" is some special Parisian technique? Design something original, then get an attitude. > Read the whole list of "things you an do against/about PTO".People seem > to insist on PTO being broken cause it can burn high cap non cammies. It > is simply not a guaranteed way of doing that.Taking out a cornerstone > vamp is simply not a guarantueed oust. Read it? Hell, I *wrote* a good chunk of it. I started the thing over on Path of Blood, and Jeff Kuta brought it here. I suggest reading it yourself, as everything you touch upon has been raised and answered, exhaustively. > Again, if "being a legal target for PTO or not" is the first and/or only > thing people take into account when deciding which vamps to play, I'm > not surprised to find they get ousted very often. Such a way of thinking > would IMO represent a complete screwed up/silly/illogical/ childish view > of the game. Who said it is first or only? It is *a* consideration, and a serious one. Your further ad hominem is built upon a straw man. Man, you are willing to work hard for you ad hominems, aren't you? > How often do you play single sect decks? Quite often, usually due to playing disciplines that only occur within a single clan. >or strictly indies?or strictly > indies/non-cammies? Again, a lot. Is that bad? If so much diversity exists in the card game, shouldn't at least a majority of it stand on equal footing to the three or four decks that *most of us* identify within a few months of learning the game? If so, how will one know without playing them at the highest level? David Cherryholmes

"Oko" <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote in message news:<btkrsc$8nl$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... [ quoted text not captured ] I was talking about all those things all the time, see above. > > Not necessarily. > But de facto, PTO can do its mission without *any* other cards played by the > acting vampire. > *any*. > The requirements? A vampire. Oooh.. there's an achievement, really. > Influencing someone out.. Wow. Like pulling bunnies out of a hat. ;) > Magic.. *a* vampire??? an IC you mean... but whatever, i think i argued about the requirements enough, you can read them in this thread somewhere close. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever played in Europe? (not meant offensively) If so, Do > you > > > > > > think PTO could be of very great influence here? > > > > > > > > > > No, but I play against Europeans all the time on deckbot. You > should > come > > > > > give it a try. > > > > > > > > > > > > > where do i find it, how does it work? (not that i think that the > > > > Europeans there will be a representative group, but i always like to > > > > play more and with different people) > > > > > > > > > > The Europeans indeed are a well represented group. > > > > That is not what i meant, i meant that probably the Europeans there > > are not a good representation of the average European players. But i > > don't know, i haven't been there > > You'll see, hopefully. But incase you dont, why is that? > Are not Germans a good representation of the average European players, the > same as French, for instance? well, those probably are indeed not reprentative for whole of Europe, but that is again not what i meant. what i meant was: People that like Vtes so much that they start playing it on the net in some obscure place ( :-), i will count myself to them) are in no way representative of the entire population of European Vtes-players. These people play more then average i guess and might (thus) play other decks. and such. I once read something about a company wanting to sell something and doing a marketing research on the net. They found that 60% of the people would buy it. 60% of the Dutch population is a whole lot, and they started making the product....what they didn't take into account was the fact that it was 60% of the internetusing population that actually found the site. which was 0.0000001 of the Dutch population or something. ok, i made it up, but i did read something *like* that. > > > > > > irc.sorcery.net > > > #vtes > > > #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. > > > > I don't know these kind of things, if i go to : irc.sorcery.net i > > don't see the option #vtes, should i? > > Huh? > You slap up mIRC or some other IRC client, connect to irc.sorcery.net and > when it (mIRC) asks for a channel to join upon connection, you enter #vtes > or #vtes-game. > There'll propably be someone alive enough to help you get started. :) sorry, i am not into internet and all its options that much, but i will see if i can find somewhere here who is :-) W

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040108201646...@mb-m24.aol.com>... > > There was a time, back when Sabbat was easy to get, that I wanted to play in a > Sabbat only environment. Not all of the time, of course, but regularly. While > it may not have been a great environment (I don't know), there were differences > in the balance of power (obviously) that I thought would make the game feel > fresher. Now, it's entirely possible to do that now. The problem being > getting people to cooperate. There's no encouragement for such alternate > environments outside of the relatively minor differences in storyline as > there's a lack of sanctioning, whether real or perceived, for doing something > different with the game. If the game, with its standard card pool, does it > "naturally" through expansion, then the need is no longer there to try to > create it artificially, to get people's cooperation, something which they > aren't likely to give. We Played a sabbat only Tournament in Karlstad whitout problems. Nothing in Vtes stops you from doing this, if the players want to play sabbat only for som time its ok. Thats the good thing about Vtes. /BTW Card rotation sux, I play Magic Typ 2, and i would NEVER play a cardrotaing game again, its cheaper to gett Power 9 in Magic then play Typ 2 for som time..

> > As for the America vs Europe-discussion: Why not have a tournament? > > Team Europe vs Team America... I only know how it goes in Magic The > > Gathering and Chess... > > My dog's better than your dog. > > Who care`s? I would. People care for all kinds of sports/games all the time. Is this new to you?

[ quoted text not captured ] I only see stealth and votespush mentioned. But, enough of it. Case closed. > > > > Not necessarily. > > But de facto, PTO can do its mission without *any* other cards played by the > > acting vampire. > > *any*. > > The requirements? A vampire. Oooh.. there's an achievement, really. > > Influencing someone out.. Wow. Like pulling bunnies out of a hat. ;) > > Magic.. > > *a* vampire??? an IC you mean... > > but whatever, i think i argued about the requirements enough, you can > read them in this thread somewhere close. > Yes. *a* vampire. IC. 11 cap. *a* vampire, nonetheless. Yes, an IC member. But still, *a* vampire. [ quoted text not captured ] Gotcha now. > > > > > > > > > irc.sorcery.net > > > > #vtes > > > > #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. > > > > > > I don't know these kind of things, if i go to : irc.sorcery.net i > > > don't see the option #vtes, should i? > > > > Huh? > > You slap up mIRC or some other IRC client, connect to irc.sorcery.net and > > when it (mIRC) asks for a channel to join upon connection, you enter #vtes > > or #vtes-game. > > There'll propably be someone alive enough to help you get started. :) > > sorry, i am not into internet and all its options that much, but i > will see if i can find somewhere here who is > :-) > www.mirc.com Should get you started. Look forward to see you there.

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com>... > > Vampires by default have 0 intercept. So, by default, the vote does not > > get blocked. By default, it has 5 in its favor. Tit-for-tat "I play > > this" arguments are a wash. > > I don't think a deck that plays no additional ways of getting a vote > to pass would win anything here. you need stealth, you need votepush, > you need everything to make IC's playable. > No kidding. But lets assume that for every stealth/whatever card you have, yoru predator or prey had intercept/whatever to counter that. Thats the 'tit for tat' argument. Now if that is the case, we need only look at the defaults to determine effect. Which is what David already posted above. > > I think Camerons deck would be an example of what might persuade me if > it could win in most environments. The fact that it is used in small > quantities in some tournament winning decks perhaps even proves the > opposite to me: you should perhaps better include a govern then a PTO. > David's argument is that it is broken. If it is, it won't matter how many there are. If its undercosted but not broken, then the cost requires fixing and then the number of cards used may have more meaning. > > yes we have large non-cammies. and still i haven't seen a problem with > this card. > So how do those playing large non-cams deal with PTO? Better yet, how do they deal with the loss of their best and biggest non-cam to PTO? Better yet, have you not seen a large non-cam burnt by pto? > I think i am going to use your argument now > :-) > The fact that it is of great influence in the environments you know, > doesn't mean it is of great influence in all environments. This is a given, as not all environments are the same. They *can* be though, thus if your environment hasn't discovered this cause and effect via PTO yet, it certainly can at some later point. G

e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) wrote in message news:<10c2c156.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > All valid advice, but the issue is no vote defense is absolute. > > Occasionally they'll get a vote through. If a predator playing Arika > > pushes a PTO through on your Laz or Thetmes, you've lost. Plain and > > simple. At least with the Amaranth combos you've got a chance to block, > > even if you're not packing much intercept. > > > > > Don't you think it's hypocritical to say my trick should work, yours > shoudn't ? > What trick? There is no combo here. PTO burns vampires, period. G

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > I'd hazard a guess that you don't play non-cam at major tournies yet. > > That, or your play environment hasn't truly hit their stride with IC > > decks. > > Decks i have gone to tournaments with are Salubri, Setites, Anson, > with Huitzi) or allies (including setites). But, did you see any IC decks there? If you did, and they played PTO, your game would likely be over. > > > > > Not at all! What i am arguing is that you shouldn't play > > > big-noncam-vamps when you expect to see a lot of PTO, or play some > > > sort of defense against it. > > > > Brilliant. Might as well ban all big non cam vamps then. Because > > their best defence is going to be DI or offence imo. Which is about > > the status quo right now. Too bad that has to be the case. > > Would you play PTO if you knew that there aren't going to be much > games you win with it? > What the hell does that have to do with your suggestion that I shouldn't play my big non-cam decks? Whether PTO wins games or not, it causes other people to largely LOSE games. G

kim...@hotmail.com (Kimbal) wrote in message news:<678de5b5.04010...@posting.google.com>... > There is an equivalent to Protect Thine Own, and its Fear of Mekhet, > because it ONLY affects vampires that can play PTO, if you are so > afraid of PTO, play fears of Mekhet, its a Master anyone can play. FOM is a master card, and if the target can burn 5(?) blood they are safe. Master cards are at a premium in combat decks, cannot be used on a smaller target like PTO can, cannot be burnt for a vote like PTO can, and cannot be negated by paying 5 blood. Not the best option imo. G

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com>... > I disagree. DT, DI, intercept, outvote *are* all things players can > *do about the IC calling the vote*. Except for DI, all of those are subject to the opposite counter by the PTO player. So there is no point in bringing them up as 'counters' to a vote. We know it can be blocked, we know it can be voted down, but assuming those options wash out, the effect is still too strong for the cost. G

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<bth7n8$66n$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>... > > Perhaps your comment was not limited to vtes. I take it as a given > > that americans are far more competitive at basketball than europeans. > > No doubt that in MANY MANY sports the US has the best player(s) and the > tougest opposition. Fairly simple, it's the bigger landmass, produces > tons of people and logically has the most talent around. That, however, > has nothing to do with playing style. Also, basketball is in the US as > soccer is here in Europe, so your example was pretty bad in this case. > Take an international game like Tennis or Swimming and we're talking. > > What I'm merely saying, is that for all its size, the US still doesn't > dominate every competition. Statistically it should, simply because of > the amount of people. You've got some basic facts in error here. The population of the EU is roughly 379 million, and that of the USA is roughly 289 million (estimates pulled from various government census websites, as of January 2003). Of course, the EU population number would have to be adjusted upward to account for the UK (another 58.8 million, according to their 2001 census) and other European and neighboring areas not participating in that greatest of economic experiments, but which _do_ participate in the competitive events you refer to (be they sport, or VTES). The basic population numbers heavily favor Europeans, if that is a criterium you feel has relevance. Personally, I think its obviously ridiculous to leap from success in international sports to any generalization about the relative competitiveness of different countries, but if you choose to continue to hang yourself on these arguments, at least have your basic facts right. > There must be SOME explanation why most Europeans here couldn't care > less about PtO and most Americans hate it with a passion. > Why does the vocal nature of the US posters here cause you to conclude that most Americans hate PtO with a passion? If every post in this thread came from a unique poster, we would only be just now approching 300 people chiming in on the topic. Hardly enough of a selection of any VTES population to draw any conclusions from... Much of these threads is mere argument coming from the same people, too, reducing the usefulness of such conclusions even more. > > > That said, I'm not really seeing your statement as being true. Shit > man, > > > we lose our job, we've got six months, then we starve. I'd say that > > > trumps population density. > > Yah that made sense... Its no worse a gross generalization than your own. If you're going to generalize about the competitive nature of whole countries, then competition in the workplace is just as valid a source for material as international sports.

>If something is broke because it's too powerful, can it also be broke >because it's too weak? Depends upon what you mean by broken, which is part of the reason the thread has gone on so long. If you put it "if something is badly designed because it's too powerful, can it also be badly designed because it's too weak", then I think the answer is obvious. >Look at the Followers of Set from AH. An >8-cap with 5 points in disciplines, only 1 Sup inclan, a +1 bleed and >2 votes (but no title, so it doesn't get all the nifty Title votes or >cards,< oh joy, 1 vote for independant vamps>). Sure, it works out on >paper for it's points, but generally, it sucks! I don't see a >255-post thread about it. I wouldn't mind seeing more threads about cards badly designed, failings in the point systems, truly working out how good cards are, etc.

I find myself nodding when I read Josh's post. Although I think the larger theme I want to see is every clan having an area within which they are on par with the long-established top clans of the game. Not every group should be good at everything, but each group needs something to make you want to play with them. The problem I think we see currently is that while each clan/discipline has a unique "flavor", they are not all equally good at winning the game. So people who play those groups of vampires usually either end up playing handicapped with less powerful options, or grafting out-of-clan elements onto their deck design (Gangrel w/Dominate come to mind). I thought the best design decision to date was the creation of dual-discipline cards. They allow powerful effects to be designed and targeted to help balance out the weaker clans without giving further advantage to the established groups. Although, just giving the underpowered disciplines (quietus, etc.) good cards to start with would probably be a more direct fix.

Oops. A quick follow-up to an error my own message. It seems that while the UK isn't participating in the Euro common currency experiment, they are included in the census data, and are an EU member. Here's my source; http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=3-09012004-EN-BP-EN&mode=download ...which puts the 2003 EU population at 384.3 million, and that of Acceding nations at 74.2 million (and Switzerland at 7.3 million). DaveZ Atom Weaver

>Yes. Balance is the number 1 design goal. If it is, then what is taking so long in achieving it? If it's so bad to have Gargoyles be stronger than Malks because that's not balance, why is it okay that Malks and Ventrue, which from day one have been two of the strongest clans, continue to be two of the strongest clans? >But your original message indicated that you wanted cards introduced to make, >say, >Quietus *exceed* Dominate (to be "at the top"). And then add some cards to >another >Discipline to it exceed Quietus (to be "at the top for a while"). And so on. > >Which, as near as I can figure, involves strict escalation unless card >rotation >is involved. Besides limited escalation, there is another way, a way I don't like as a philosophy, a way that's being used - weakening power. We see this in changes to Majesty, Fifth Tradition, et al. We see this in more hosers. While some of the former - errata, bannings - doesn't bother me. A philosophy where attacking power is the only way to balance the game has its problems, including turning people off who find mass card text changes annoying. >Final Nights attempted to bring into balance what had been some of the weaker >clans, yes. Balance with what, though? Balance with the middle of the pack? That would make sense if everyone was around the middle of the pack. But, as is, the message is "if you want to play stuff that wins more often than anything else, you should continue playing the same archetypes that were at the top of the heap previously". >> Power escalation can easily get out of hand, but zero escalation is a stale >> game. I'm not, therefore, against power escalation per se. If the game >takes >> 3 years to see dramatic power escalation, um, okay, I don't see the big >deal. > >That might make good fodder for a pool for someone. Poll? >> Nor am I against rotation. The reality of CCGs is that they become >> increasingly cumbersome unless something is done to reboot the environment >> either by a game reboot or by rotation. > >That might make more good fodder. >Note the reaction to the grouping rule - a pale shadow of actual rotation. > >> I realize that there's likely an enormous resistance to creating a true >"type >> 2" environment even if CCGs besides Magic have gone that path. Already, >one >> hears comments from existing players how they would be happy if the game >> stopped expanding. That might indeed produce the optimal game as many a >CCG >> has gotten declined from some peak that seems to center around the two >> expansion period. Maybe it's possible that a static CCG is worth playing >in >> perpetuity. > >It sure seemed that it was possible back in 1999. If the player base doesn't like expansions and WW doesn't care about making money off of the game, then isn't the answer to stop expanding? I don't think either is true. In fact, I think both must be false. Players must want expansions or they wouldn't sell, for instance. If players want expansions, then it follows that they don't want the game to be stagnant. If they don't want the game to be stagnant, then some power escalation must occur simply because the only way true stagnation can happen when new cards come out is that no one plays the new cards, at least on a tournament level. Once you buy into some power escalation, then it's a matter of degree, and the degree I'm looking for is one that I think it perfectly reasonable - what's best evolves over time. >> But, it artificially limits the game, much like putting out weak >> cards and new strategies that are weak. > >A design decision not to introduce power escalation is a limit of sorts, yes. >The question is whether it's a good limit to have. I've noticed a pattern with CCGs. Some expansion comes out that has minor impact on the competitive level of the game. Afterwards, expansions come out that are much more powerful. Could be cynical and say that the reason this occurs is that the company wants to make more money and powerful sets necessitate people buying cards to remain competitive where weak sets don't. Does it matter ... when people buy them? What I haven't noticed is a pattern where the putting out of powerful sets has killed a CCG. Now, it seems exceedingly difficult to figure out the precise causes and the proportions they contribute to why a CCG dies, but my experience with one company has been that they often wrongly attributed the causes for why something like poor sales of a set have occurred. Anyway, point being that power escalation may make a game less optimized, but it may also keep games alive. >> That might not be too clear in meaning. This may not help, but here's a go >> anyway. For people who don't need anything new to maintain interest, they >have >> the choice of not using anything new, less than ideal choice but it exists. > >> Adding nothing new that's interesting removes the choice from people who >want >> something new to play with that which interests them. > >> There is the possibility, though it's exceedingly hard to manage, that >> increases in strategic variety can change the balance of power without >> overblown power escalation. I think this is what you've been trying to do. > > >Right. >See Black Hand for example. Power Escalation isn't a necessary condition for >interesting. I find the stuff in BH that's interesting is the stuff that can have impact on a competitive level. While loads better than Anarchs, I still see a bunch of junk/filler in BH that drags the set down. Bloodlines would be a much better example. This is why I push for more clans and more disciplines - it's easier to disguise weakness in something completely novel than it is to disguise weakness in something already figured out. Fortunately, it takes years for V:TES players to figure out new cards where it only takes a couple of months for players of other CCGs. (If you think this is a swipe, see comments to as much posted here not too infrequently.) >> The problem is that, if only because there was so little balance to begin >with, >> that the shifts in balance of power have been too small. Any CCG needs a >> shaking up to some degree regularly, if not often. > >You need an "IMO" at the end there, IMO. More fodder for the polls, at any >rate. Do you actually care about the polls? I'm not sure why. Only a fraction of the player base is even aware they exist. Only another fraction will vote. The people who do vote may care more on the issue, which is good for the validity of the poll, but they also tend to be people who care more about saying something, anything regardless as to subject or interest, which is bad for the validity of the poll. Then, the questions are often poorly constructed. The options given too often have biases towards certain answers. Couldn't you (someone in WW) do a sampling of a decent number of known players? This retains certain biases, like that known players is only some fraction of the player base, but it should be a more balanced view. Personally, if I were running the show, I'd try to analyze sales numbers as they would at least cover the entirety of the customer base. Though, I could see pain in trying to figure out what's what through them as factors such as the economy in general, the CCG economy, timing of sets, and whatever else could affect numbers. And, BTW, rather than make the mistake Precedence did by believing that poor sales for a set indicated disdain for that set, I would try to gauge the hangover effect that a poorly taken set has on the next set.

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<btmdq1$c8$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... > Call it an insult if you wish, but both psychological research There it is... Cite that research, big guy! I doubt there's a researching psychologist in the world who could put his name to these generalizations you sling, and not get laughed out of tenure. Prove me wrong. > and my own experience with Americans in three different places in the States > show me it's a fact. Wow. Three whole places? Gee. I guess it must be fact if you saw it in three whole places... Which three places were they? What was the competitive event that you observed? How many competitors were there? Lets all hope you're not leaping from a severly limited set of observations to a grossly inaccurate generalization. DaveZ Atom Weaver What? There's always hope...

>Although, just giving the >underpowered disciplines (quietus, etc.) good cards to start with >would probably be a more direct fix. All of these pent up rants. Vicissitude, Obtenebration, Dementation. These are really good disciplines. Add one inclan discipline to them, and they are "whole". Chimerstry, Necromancy, Quietus, Serpentis. Chimerstry is really good if you don't pay full cost for it. Necromancy is okay, having some nice cards, a little depth. Serpentis has a very small number of strong cards and no depth. Quietus blows. So, what's the point? The point is that certain clans in the game have their own discipline (going to ignore bloodlines for the moment). Those with a strong, unique discipline are far stronger than those without. While not difficult to run into problems pumping a weak, common discipline like Celerity as you may can make clans like (!)Toreador even better, pumping a not strong, unique discipline (and would anyone care if HoS and Nagaraja got better) is controllable. Or, maybe the point is one wonders why the independents' disciplines haven't gotten a greater boost already.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FFEA731...@white-wolf.com... > Curevei wrote: > > Isn't this, to an extent, what's being done already? For instance, Deed the > > Heart's Desire sets up making Quietus a vastly better discipline once Quietus > > or Assamites (since they have Quietus) get worthwhile actions to go with it. > > Yes. Balance is the number 1 design goal. > > But your original message indicated that you wanted cards introduced to make, say, > Quietus *exceed* Dominate (to be "at the top"). And then add some cards to another > Discipline to it exceed Quietus (to be "at the top for a while"). And so on. > > Which, as near as I can figure, involves strict escalation unless card rotation > is involved. To me, Quietus doesn't have to exceed Dominate (or Presence, or Obfuscate). It just ought to *equal* it. I haven't really seen sufficient evidence in terms of cards printed to show that this (equalizing power of disciplines) has been a design goal, unless it's supposed to take 15 years for the goal to be reached. (I don't mean that as a slam, but there does seem to me to be a great reluctance to ever create anything new that rivals the power of Govern the Unaligned or Deflection. And while I sympathize with that reluctance, as you can see from my Jyhad "done right" idea, in a world where Govern and Deflection are always going to exist, I think it is the right thing to do to make other cards that are as good for the disciplines and clans that have historically been weaker.) > > Is the plan to never give them those actions? > > ? > Of course not, if by worthwhile you mean balanced. Is Govern the Unaligned a "balanced" action? If it is, things on that level would be plenty worthwhile for the Assamites to get. But if it's not, then the Assamites (or Quietus, or whatever) might need to get some "unbalanced" actions to truly compete with the strong clans. > > Power escalation can easily get out of hand, but zero escalation is a stale > > game. I'm not, therefore, against power escalation per se. If the game takes > > 3 years to see dramatic power escalation, um, okay, I don't see the big deal. > > That might make good fodder for a pool for someone. I wouldn't have thought you would trust polls (assuming you do mean polls and not pools in the "betting pool" sense, which is what I thought at first) as an accurate means of even gauging player-base opinion, let alone for determining the proper direction for the game. I'm sure you know that amateur polls of the kind we can actually do aren't very scientific and are therefore not necessarily very accurate at all. That said, if White Wolf can hire a polling firm to do some good surveys of VTES players, I would be absolutely thrilled to see some results on VTES topics. > > Nor am I against rotation. The reality of CCGs is that they become > > increasingly cumbersome unless something is done to reboot the environment > > either by a game reboot or by rotation. > > That might make more good fodder. > Note the reaction to the grouping rule - a pale shadow of actual rotation. Yes, exactly. Rotation pisses people off. And we might not have the playerbase to support it. But it was done in Magic for a reason... and it lets them introduce new cards that are tournament-worthy without straight-up power escalation. The only real alternative is to eventually (who knows how long eventually is, it certainly varies by the game and the players involved) let the game die, or become stagnant, or accept escalation. Unless, again, you know of another way. > > Maybe it's possible that a static CCG is worth playing in > > perpetuity. > > It sure seemed that it was possible back in 1999. ? I don't think 3 years equals perpetuity. And I don't think all the VTES players who were into the game in 1994, 1995, 1996 were still into it in 1999, either. And I don't think there were as many playing in 1999 as were playing in 2001 or 2002 or 2003. A static CCG may well be worth playing to *some* people in perpetuity, but I really believe that that's going to be a *much* smaller audience - and a shrinking one - compared to the people it can attract with ongoing meaniningful expansion. > > But, it artificially limits the game, much like putting out weak > > cards and new strategies that are weak. > > A design decision not to introduce power escalation is a limit of sorts, yes. > The question is whether it's a good limit to have. I don't think you should blithely assume that it *is* a good limit to have. I'm somewhat familiar with two other relatively-lively CCGs: Magic and Shadowfist. Both have seen their share of power escalation (at least in some sense) over the years. I think that stringently avoiding *any* power escalation is likely to become a handicap at least as harmful to the game as allowing "some" power escalation would be. (Even VTES has seen "some", in the vampire design criteria. Not necessarily under your watch, initially, of course.) > > There is the possibility, though it's exceedingly hard to manage, that > > increases in strategic variety can change the balance of power without > > overblown power escalation. I think this is what you've been trying to do. > > Right. > See Black Hand for example. Power Escalation isn't a necessary condition for > interesting. But it's so hard - it really is, and you've probably noticed it yourself in card design - to make very many "interesting" cards (ie not only increasing variety but strong enough to successfully compete for card slots in tournament decks) *without* letting them escalate power - at least within their "niche", if their niche is one that has in the past had relatively weak cards or effects. I think I would take it farther than Ian and say that the increases in strategic variety we've actually seen in the past few expansions *haven't* significantly changed the balance of power, except perhaps in weakening weenie decks somewhat. (Stealth-bleed and vote decks have been nearly unaffected.) As Ian wrote below, the shifts in power may exist, but they're not big enough relative to the preexisting *im*balances in power. > > The problem is that, if only because there was so little balance to begin with, > > that the shifts in balance of power have been too small. Any CCG needs a > > shaking up to some degree regularly, if not often. > > You need an "IMO" at the end there, IMO. More fodder for the polls, at any rate. Much like editorial-page pieces in the newspaper, newsgroup posts don't normally need "IMOs" in that everything in them is naturally the opinion of the writer, unless there are statistical analyses involved or something. Actually putting the "IMO" in is kind of like using smilies - it emphasizes that this is an especially opinion-based sentence, or something. Well, IMO, anyway. :-) Anyhow, if you dispute that every CCG needs shaking up occasionally, isn't the alternative to claim that the CCG would be fine without ever changing in any real way? Which is a claim that you could make, but it would suggest never bothering to print expansions at all rather than going to the effort (and it's a lot of effort) without wanting to allow the new cards to really change the game. I'm not unreservedly in favor of power escalation. But at least to the point of making the weak clans and disciplines *as* strong as the existing strong clans/disciplines, I don't think it should be preemptively written off, either. Josh out of the frying pan... and into the fire

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.04010...@posting.google.com>... > I was not the one in the first place to put Arika on top of the list > of "needing Arika is not a weakness it's a requirement" > argumentations. I never mentioned Arika specifically. She is indeed the best of the IC members, but she's certainly not the only one that gets use. You're the one who stated that rushing her the minute she hits the table is a bad idea. I don't really have an opinion on that issue one way or the other. > If you replace with other IC memebers: I'd like to see the first > person who will *not* find it the least bit encumbrant having to play > Harrod or Gwendolyn just so they can play the allmighty PTO. PTO is in the IC member's deck. Very rarely does the IC member get put in just to play PTO. > > Absolutely. Except I can pay 1/3 of my starting pool for Lazverinus or > > Augustus, and they can be fairly easily burned by your starting 1/3 > > because my guys aren't Cam. > > No they can't. There is 1 card in the game which seems to scare the > shit out of you, but I do not, (nor have I ever)deem that card a > reason to not play them. There are so many things which are less nice > when happening to a 11 cap, but if it scares you this much, don't play > them. Cliff notes: You don't feel PTO's effect is broken. I do. > > Because requiring there to be a specific (rare!) defense card in every > > deck we make is bad game design. > > No, it's good deckbuilding.It enables people to not have to play > specific disciplines, sprecific tacts or specific vampires in order to > be able to defend themselves against something. > In that light, I'd say it's good game desing. So you think it's good to have a rare card required in every deck? (one that didn't even exist in the early stages of the game). Or more likely, multiple copies of this rare card? You think it's a good idea for any player be able to stop any minion card at any time with minimal cost and risk? > > So you've never seen a Delayed vote played the turn after? > > Rarely. My experience has been different. > > Losing 3 pool to a KRC and losing your entire vampire are different > > things, wouldn't you agree? > > > Depends on your point of view.As to the singular effct of te card, > yes. That is indeed what we're talking about. As a single card, PTO's effect is too much. > > His statement was that knowing when a broken card was going to be played > > allowed you to be prepared for it. My statement was to refute that. > > Your statement seems to support me. > Negative!!that's xactly the f*** point!!When dealing with a broken > card, even knowing so in advanace will not help you. Okay... > Ergo, cards that suffer from their opponents knowing about it > beforehand are not broken. This doesn't follow from the above statement in the slightest. > You starting point is that it's a broken card, and that thus stated, > anticipation doesn't hep. > My point is that anticipating votes will help, hence they are not > broken. So if there were a vote that says "if the referendum passes, your prey is ousted... Gain an extra 6 pool", the card will never be broken because I anticipate seeing votes when I play. > Have I ever stated anything about Dread Gaze, Kindred Coercion or > Pulling Strings? I do not even regard these as decently playable > anti-vote cards! Others in this thread do. > Have you checkd the number of decks packing DT? There's quite a few, yes. I've said that DT is a great card many times. > And have you even looked at thedcks, or are they just numbers, > I mean, packing 1 or 2 PTO's, well, that makes them prayer cards in > those decks at best. So if a deck is only packing 1 or 2 DT, it's a prayer card as well, right? 27 of the 42 decks in the TWD archive that contain DT have only 1 or 2 copies of the card. Thoughts? > And how do you propose to get a blank slated table, onto which the > arrival of certain vampires is strisctly statistics?Players sometimes > actually think about which vampires they chose you know. > As I've stated before: these numbers have no clearly distingushable > correlation with which vamps o or do not hit a randomlycosen table. Clearly distinguishable? No. The decks are assembled independantly and the crypt is randomly drawn. But the probability is there that in a given game you will see available targets. > If you say that, then I must conclude you have never been in a > difficult position before, and simply have not hd to choose between > equivalent legal targets, in situations where the rigt/wrong ecisions > was a metter of survival/victory/... No, I'm saying I've played PTO many times over the years and never found myself picking the "wrong" target at the time. > No you can't. You maybe able to burn 1. Maybe not.Maybe if you pick > the wrong one, you get ousted. > And "just call another one next turn" is not nearly as easy as you > make it out to be. It'll likely be easier, since the largest threat would be removed with the first one. > > > I'll gladly play anyone who plays PTO according to this logic.. > > > > Come to the irc room. I'm sure someone will play it up sooner or later. > > Why would I do that. To see people playing PTO according to that logic. > Maybe they do around where you play. Here they don't.As a matter of > fact, they really really ldom do. Because people have discovered that > surviving whil playing a fattie deck, is hugely, immensely difficult, > cause they are extremely fragile/vulnerable. And this is just another card that makes certain fatties even more vulnerable. I see fattie decks played regularly. > That's your choice, and your choice only. And it's the choice of a new generation! > While you might not feel like playing non-cammies due to the existence > of PTO, others might feel they are limited to playing malk or !malk > due to the existence of Derange, so I don't see this cause the need > for a similar card for indies/sabbat.. To "balance the playing field" so to speak. > I belive you will not hear people say: that card is too strong, nor > will you have people who stop playing cammie because of it Obviously not, since the playing field would be level at that point. There'd be no specific leaning towards any sect since they'd all be equally at risk. -- -Snapcase

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message news:<86e3f5f4.0401...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the point i was trying to make, that over here people play cards that they think they can win with... So if they think they can win with IC-PTO they will play with it (for instance because there are a lot of noncam decks around) If there are not a lot of Non-cam decks around (or because the environment doesn't favor IC decks), They will not play PTO, because it is not that good a card/strategy in that environment... If people stick around with playing IC-PTO decks in your environment, teach them not to...tactics for that have been discussed before...and when you taught them you can play your non-cam-bigcap deck. W

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:39:36 GMT, Snapcase <capta...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In article <R7KdndNvgaz...@comcast.com>, opao...@comcast.net >says... > >> I see the original printing in AH the opportunity cost was significant - >> non-Camarilla clans made up a very small percentage of the crypt selection. >> Yet, isn't that opportunity cost now blown away? > >This made me think of something... The original wording of the >Independent vamps' sect text was "Non-Camarilla". Is it possible the >original designer intent of PTO was to only hit independants? well, yes. at the time it was designed there were no Sabbat vampires. "Independant' didn't exist then. it was cam or non-cam, with the non-cam being those we now call independant. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.08....@duke.edu>... > On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:49:59 -0800, HD wrote: > > > > David - Please stop the maddness. These posts are getting ridiculous. > > How serious did you think I was being? How many more times do I have to > caveat it and say that these are just my impressions? I do think there is > a nugget of truth about the "European" metagame, but I think it has more > to do with the average size of tournaments and, following from that, the > need to get maybe three game wins to hit the finals, than it does with any > blood-born personality-thingies. The rest was just kidding around. > > Except for that bit about the Brits. Three sheets to the wind, the whole > lot of them. SOOOO true. Mine's another dozen pints, if you'ld be so good, Hoegarten, since you ask, or Leff if they don't have it. And while you're up, i'm sure that Pierre*, mike, both the matthews [Green and Stockton], dave, rob, barney, michael, Sid, Niki, Ant, Lamp, jack, john E, john K, Garry, Haukur*, both the tonys [literary thug and hairy hammer bloke], shevaun, liam, jazzbeaux, william lee and jon would want the same, as would all the others whose names in my current drunken haze i do not recall. And some peanuts, please. Timlagor, alas, does not drink. *honourary brits

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> kirjoitti viestissä news:20040109160836...@mb-m15.aol.com... > >Although, just giving the > >underpowered disciplines (quietus, etc.) good cards to start with > >would probably be a more direct fix. > > All of these pent up rants. > > Vicissitude, Obtenebration, Dementation. These are really good disciplines. > Add one inclan discipline to them, and they are "whole". > > Chimerstry, Necromancy, Quietus, Serpentis. Chimerstry is really good if you > don't pay full cost for it. Necromancy is okay, having some nice cards, a > little depth. Serpentis has a very small number of strong cards and no depth. > Quietus blows. I'd argue about Quietus "blowing" but nah. It does need something to it, since as is, there aint too many Quietus cards worthwhile of playing. Quite like Potence, IMO. What that'd be? I trust other people to have better ideas for it. > > So, what's the point? The point is that certain clans in the game have their > own discipline (going to ignore bloodlines for the moment). Those with a > strong, unique discipline are far stronger than those without. While not > difficult to run into problems pumping a weak, common discipline like Celerity > as you may can make clans like (!)Toreador even better, pumping a not strong, > unique discipline (and would anyone care if HoS and Nagaraja got better) is > controllable. > > Or, maybe the point is one wonders why the independents' disciplines haven't > gotten a greater boost already. Indeed.

"Henrik Klippstr?m" <as...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:5a3b0aea.04010...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. I was on speed while writing that reply, apparently. :) *blush*

> Vicissitude, Obtenebration, Dementation. These are really good disciplines. > Add one inclan discipline to them, and they are "whole". Vic and Obt are both very strong support disciplines. Dementation is what Dominate should be -- strong bleed, but more support actions and less sheer power -- and no bounce. > Chimerstry, Necromancy, Quietus, Serpentis. Chimerstry is really good if you > don't pay full cost for it. Some of the effects are still strong if you pay full cost, though it is the most expensive discipline in the game. Sensory Dep is worth three blood if you can keep your vampires alive. Reality works well with Trick of the Danyaa. It works well by itself, and it synergizes perfectly with Fortitude and Animalism. Thanks to Draba, the Ravnos are the strongest defensive clan in the game, IMO, which they pay for in reduced in-clan ousting power. >Necromancy is okay, having some nice cards, a little depth. It is a solid support discipline. Not Obtenebration-strength, but it's a good replacement for Obfuscate (and in intercept-heavy environments, better). >Serpentis has a very small number of strong cards and no depth. Too focused on a difficult strategy. They could use some versatility. > Quietus blows. Outside of combat, yes. In combat, it's very strong. Burn blood, unpreventable damage, aggravated damage. The only things it misses are anti S:CE and maneuvers, which are supplied by the other two Assamite inclans in abundance. It synergizes very well -- but it is probably the worst at standing alone. > Or, maybe the point is one wonders why the independents' disciplines haven't > gotten a greater boost already. The last time the four original independents got a set focus, they got a huge boost. Mostly. Assamites became as deadly at close range as they always were at long. Ravnos got Draba, more versatility in minion control (Reality, Sensory Overload), and a card that made Far Fatuus more playable (Amria). Setites got um...better vampires. And more stuff like stuff they already had. Giovanni got a lot of great toolbox options. All four clans are in better shape then they were before Final Nights. The sets since then have been more inconsistent. Ravnos got Mayaparasatya, which is far stronger than anything else the other three have gotten since Final Nights came out. But the sets have been consistent in supporting each group seperately -- Sabbat, Indies, Cam, then new stuff (BL and Anarchs), now we've gone back to the Sabbat. It's time to go back to the Indies, and hopefully Gehenna will have some good toys (though being a story-based expansion, I expect it to be a bit more across-the-board in the support area). If Gehenna doesn't give the indies a boost specifically, then whatever comes next certainly should. Fanboy

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btn6mg$98oif$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Is Govern the Unaligned a "balanced" action? If it is, things on that > level would be plenty worthwhile for the Assamites to get. I could really go for an "improved" Khabar: Loyalty which cost 1 blood and transferred 3 pool from the bank to a younger Assamite. ;) Of course, there are probably all sorts of fun actions no one has dreamed up yet that Assamites and Quietus could use. Er...wait...maybe they have.... :D http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32 http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:48:41 -0800, Jeff Kuta wrote: > Of course, there are probably all sorts of fun actions no one has > dreamed up yet that Assamites and Quietus could use. Er...wait...maybe > they have.... :D I think, if you wanted to give the clan the boost it needs, you could print an IG-level S:CE hoser. Yes, I know the analysis has been done and the consensus seemed to be that the Assamites would be "too good" with that available. But, really, combat sucks as an actual ousting strategy, and even "too good" combat, when it has no bleed, bounce, etc to back it up, still isn't going to be overly-strong. And, hey, we know burning vampires is no big deal, right? David Cherryholmes

Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote: > What I haven't noticed is a pattern where the putting > out of powerful sets has killed a CCG. Netrunner. Babylon 5. Galactic Empires. Highlander. Pokemon. The Star Wars CCG, in general. The Star Trek CCG, in general. And, of course, the all-time best example -- Rage: Umbra. This doesn't happen with that *other* ccg for ONE REASON: there's too much money at stake for anyone to care that a particular set or sets can combine to make a "broken" season. :P Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On 9 Jan 2004 11:57:48 -0800, atomweaver wrote: >Its no worse a gross generalization than your own. If you're going >to generalize about the competitive nature of whole countries, then >competition in the workplace is just as valid a source for material as >international sports. As we're off-topic here, let me indulge my curiosity. Every Christmas, I watch a TV show here in the UK - the World's Strongest Man - a fascinating spectacle of real-world Potence. And every year, I'm mystified that there is little US participation in this event and the few that do enter don't do very well. The event is usually dominated by Nordic types but the Eastern Europeans are coming on strong (and will be joining the EU soon too). I thought maybe it was just a parochial event (like the so-called World Series) but a quick browse indicates that the current champ, Mariusz Pudzianowski from Poland, is leading in similar events in the US too. My current theory is that this happens because exceptionally strong men in the US become pro-footballers and wrestlers instead. But maybe the Europeans are indeed just more hungry for it. Like Arnold from Austria ... Andrew

The Fanboy wrote: > > > Political actions are not "just one card". They have an inherent > > +1 stealth, and they must be voted (and during the referendum more > > cards may or may not need to be played). > > By that logic, Return to Innocence isn't broken, either. It has no > stealth. It likely won't happen unless other cards are played. Being > a bleed, it's actually more fragile than a vote (votes can't be > bounced). Old Return to Innocence affected any Methuselah being your prey, regardless of the sect his or her vampires belonged to. RtI was also an +X pool loss (where X was the capacity of the acting vampire), which IS a much stronger effect than PTO's. Current Return to Innocence also affects your prey regardless of the sect his minions belong to. But it's no longer a bleed, but just an X pool loss (where X is the capacity of the acting vampire), so it cannot be deflected, reduced or Archon Investigated, which makes it much stronger than PTO. > Every action has a delivery system -- stealth, bleed boost, vote push, > etc. The weight of a card isn't determined by the delivery system it > needs to happen, it's determined by the size of the payload. ... and its requirements. > Yeah, Govern + Conditioning from Arika is a huge payload, comparable > to PTO in pool-equivalency loss. But two cards are required to > generate that payload. And NO referendum. Losing a vampire is not the same as losing pool. [...] Greetings, Damnans

Snapcase wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD4CE7...@ono.com>... [...] > > > What would you feel about PTO reading "if this vampire is an Inner > > > Circle member, then choose any vampire". Remove the restriction from > > > not being able to burn Camarilla vampires... > > > > Then it would be a broken because people would abuse it and the > > number of PTO in any deck based on IC members would pack a lot > > of them. > > So the card has a broken effect. This broken effect is only mitigated > by the fact that it can't affect less than half the existing vampire > pool. But for those people playing non-camarilla vampires, the effect > is exactly the same as if it had the "choose any vampire" text. Do > you get the connection? So you think current Temptation of Greater Power is a broken card? This is the perfect example of a broken card made not-broken by making it playable once per game so that people cannot abuse it. As I have already said, PTO is not a card you can base your deck's strategy on as Temptation of Greater Power was (do you remember old ToGP decks?). Adding many copies of PTO to your deck makes it weaker, while adding many old ToGP in your deck makes is stronger. BTW, bleeding for 6-8 is a stronger effect than PTO. > > The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. > > How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) > > because of a PTO? One? Two?. > > So you lose your largest vampire and the one you call up to be > replaced... and that isn't a "deep impact"? A Methuselah losing 2 vampires via PTO seldom happens, and I would rather call it bad luck. A Methuselah losing 16 pool via two bleed actions seldom happens too. > > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. > > Incorrect. See the rest of the thread for examples. > > > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > > The effect is the same, sure. But the circumstances are completely > different to get to that point. If a non-combat deck is not prepared against focussed combat, then the effect is the same as if a non-political deck is not prepared against vote decks. Many decks only use S:CE as their only combat defense, which is not effective against Immortal Grapple (for instance). There should be more "effective" ways to deal with vote decks other than blocking? SURE. [...] Greetings, Damnans

> > I disagree. DT, DI, intercept, outvote *are* all things players can > > *do about the IC calling the vote*. > > Except for DI, all of those are subject to the opposite counter by the > PTO player. So there is no point in bringing them up as 'counters' to > a vote. We know it can be blocked, we know it can be voted down, but > assuming those options wash out, the effect is still too strong for > the cost. > > G True!! two thumbs up. IMO The "non-camarilla" should be renamed to "independent" In the dark sovereighs set the secttitle on the vampires was still non-camarilla. When they changed that to independant, they should have changed PTO as well. That will make this forum more peacefull for a short time. Oortje http://www.oortje.bravehost.com/ Some Vtes decks posted here. Check it out.

On 10 Jan 2004 05:23:33 -0800, oortj...@hotmail.com (Oortje4ever) wrote: RE: Protect Thine Own >IMO >The "non-camarilla" should be renamed to "independent" >In the dark sovereighs set the secttitle on the vampires was still >non-camarilla. When they changed that to independant, they should have >changed PTO as well. That will make this forum more peacefull for a >short time. Not at all. It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card should not exist. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

[snip] > So you think current Temptation of Greater Power is a broken card? > This is the perfect example of a broken card made not-broken by > making it playable once per game so that people cannot abuse it. > > As I have already said, PTO is not a card you can base your deck's > strategy on as Temptation of Greater Power was (do you remember > old ToGP decks?). Adding many copies of PTO to your deck makes it > weaker, while adding many old ToGP in your deck makes is stronger. PTO is one of those cards that doesn't *need* to be put in great amounts in a deck for it too be broken. You draw one of your 4 PTO's in your Ventrue OBF deck, you burn Yong Sun, you win. Simple as that. You don't *need* to keep drawing them for it too be a broken effect. > BTW, bleeding for 6-8 is a stronger effect than PTO. So let me get this straight. A 0 stealth action, that can be bounced, is a stronger effect than PTO? Don't refute this argument with "oh but's a referendum, they're hard to pass!", that has been gone over and over again. Referendums are EASY to pass, when you have Arika, Marcus, Elysium: Pallace of Versailles,Ventrue Headquarters, Presence, Queen Ann and Lucinde at your disposal. > > > The fact is that Protect Thine Own has no deep impact on the game. > > > How many vampires can burn during a game (with an IC member in play) > > > because of a PTO? One? Two?. > > > > So you lose your largest vampire and the one you call up to be > > replaced... and that isn't a "deep impact"? > > A Methuselah losing 2 vampires via PTO seldom happens, and I would > rather call it bad luck. Don't need to lose Matteus twice for the effect to be broken. > A Methuselah losing 16 pool via two bleed actions seldom happens too. > > > > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > > > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. > > > > Incorrect. See the rest of the thread for examples. > > > > > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > > > > The effect is the same, sure. But the circumstances are completely > > different to get to that point. > > If a non-combat deck is not prepared against focussed combat, then > the effect is the same as if a non-political deck is not prepared > against vote decks. I am willing to bet you nearly every single card I own that decks far more readily put in combat defence than they put vote defence in.

[snip > Vampires get burned. It's a reality. If your deck just burns 1 or 2 vampires > per game (when lucky), well, I wouldn't call that a tragedy nor even a > broken effect, since combat and diablerie have a much deeper impact on > vampires' lives than PTO does. Once again, PTO has a disproportionate cost for it's effect. Which is why comparing PTO to combat is a silly thing. You are comparing a multi-faceted, highly-unpredictable, risky and card-intensive delivery method to 1 single political action. And I'm not even talking about diablerie.

>> What I haven't noticed is a pattern where the putting >> out of powerful sets has killed a CCG. > >Netrunner. Babylon 5. Galactic Empires. Highlander. Pokemon. The Star >Wars CCG, in general. The Star Trek CCG, in general. Are you sure about some of these? My sense is that Netrunner went away because WotC stopped caring about anything that wasn't making boatloads of money. Pokemon is still around, having taken a major hit because it isn't the in thing anymore seemingly rather than the quality of any of its sets. First Star Wars CCG ran out of images from the original trilogy. Star Trek recently rebooted itself, was always an ass game from what I heard, yet is still alive because anything Star Trek or Star Wars or, now, Lord of the Rings can apparently make money. B5 I know a lot more about. What technically killed it was Precedence losing the license while Anal Shock (Anla'shok) was being designed and right before the much delayed Collector's Set was going to finally come out. What hurt it first was the delay putting out Psi Corps followed by the uselessness of PC. Wheel of Fire, which was far and away more powerful than the previous two sets - Psi Corps and Severed Dreams - sold better than the previous set, SD. SD was probably the best designed but one of the weaker sets and likely suffered from a PC hangover. Now, WoF likely also hurt the interest in the game as it did the most to screw it up (with new mechanics that completely changed the nature of the game), power escalation or no. The last set was probably the most powerful, if not the most useful, but Anal Shock would have likely come out if Pre. didn't waste its time on Rifts and put out expansions for their games that were making money in a timely manner. Actually, if I had to rate the number one reason a CCG will die outside of the obvious two of being a junk game to begin with or being a quick money/fad game, it would be taking too long between expansions. I'm not sure that's supported in the big picture, but it drove me nuts with ones I played that we would lose players because they'd get bored with the game. >And, of course, the all-time best example -- Rage: Umbra. I considered both Rages horrendous games that didn't deserve a player base, a propos of just wanting to mention this. >This doesn't happen with that *other* ccg for ONE REASON: there's too much >money at stake for anyone to care that a particular set or sets can combine >to make a "broken" season. It helps that lots of people like playing Magic, even if lots don't. I've heard plenty of Netrunner players bitch about constructed Netrunner. I hated playing B5 at the end even though I was designing for it (ah, irony). Some, small number of people I ran across enjoyed Rage, but it never seemed that popular except maybe when it was brand new. Galactic Empires may have a ridiculous number of expansions, but I hardly felt its presence, maybe because it was before my time.

>> So the card has a broken effect. This broken effect is only mitigated >> by the fact that it can't affect less than half the existing vampire >> pool. But for those people playing non-camarilla vampires, the effect >> is exactly the same as if it had the "choose any vampire" text. Do >> you get the connection? > >So you think current Temptation of Greater Power is a broken card? >This is the perfect example of a broken card made not-broken by >making it playable once per game so that people cannot abuse it. > >As I have already said, PTO is not a card you can base your deck's >strategy on as Temptation of Greater Power was (do you remember >old ToGP decks?). Adding many copies of PTO to your deck makes it >weaker, while adding many old ToGP in your deck makes is stronger. So, I decided to build a PTO deck to see what players who weren't familiar with it would think of it. I lent it to my prey for a 6 player game and decided not to metagame against it by playing a different new deck from the one I intended. I blocked the first PTO. Later, my prey played Temptation of Greater Power on my Dragos with two Raven Spys, which ended up guaranteeing my prey 3 VPs and my predator 1 (due to what else was going on) when my predator gained control of him. Later, Dragos got PTOed, of course. But, the PTO deck did only achieve a 3/3 table split with the other deck playing IC members (but didn't play PTOs as he doesn't own any). The point? None that I care to go into. It was just amusing and, while it's not clear what the anecdote means, it does relate to the topic.

In article <3FFFF42A...@ono.com>, damna...@ono.com says... > > So the card has a broken effect. This broken effect is only mitigated > > by the fact that it can't affect less than half the existing vampire > > pool. But for those people playing non-camarilla vampires, the effect > > is exactly the same as if it had the "choose any vampire" text. Do > > you get the connection? > > So you think current Temptation of Greater Power is a broken card? Not sure how this relates at all to the above comment, but... Jury's still out on ToGP. It does cost 3 pool. > This is the perfect example of a broken card made not-broken by > making it playable once per game so that people cannot abuse it. PTO does not have this restriction though, does it? > As I have already said, PTO is not a card you can base your deck's > strategy on as Temptation of Greater Power was (do you remember > old ToGP decks?). Adding many copies of PTO to your deck makes it > weaker, while adding many old ToGP in your deck makes is stronger. I find that makes PTO stronger. You don't need to make a "PTO deck". You can add it to an already existing strong vampire base to make your deck more potent. > BTW, bleeding for 6-8 is a stronger effect than PTO. I disagree. > > So you lose your largest vampire and the one you call up to be > > replaced... and that isn't a "deep impact"? > > A Methuselah losing 2 vampires via PTO seldom happens, and I would > rather call it bad luck. So is losing 2 vampires via combat. > A Methuselah losing 16 pool via two bleed actions seldom happens too. So? > If a non-combat deck is not prepared against focussed combat, then > the effect is the same as if a non-political deck is not prepared > against vote decks. Again, I disagree. Combat defense is extremely card efficient, and thus does not hurt your deck to include several copies. Vote defense is card inefficient and putting in "enough" copies of vote defense to reliably draw it often weakens your deck. And as has been stated several times before, combat does not always result in a burn even if it flows right. PTO does. > Many decks only use S:CE as their only combat defense, which is not > effective against Immortal Grapple (for instance). However, in terms of card efficiency it is very effective. Most combats require several cards to set up, and with the exception of Thoughts Betrayed (uncommonly used) and IG, it only requires one S:CE card to foil it. Most IG decks do not bother to burn the vampire outright in combat. > There should be more "effective" ways to deal with vote decks other > than blocking? SURE. That would be helpful. Or more versatile ways. I'd prefer to not have votes that outright burn vampires upon completion either. Yes Sacrifice also falls in this category. Luckily, Sacrifice sucks. -- -Snapcase

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.10....@duke.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] Eh, you've already got an anti-S:CE from CEL, and you beat FOR into the ground at both ranges. I'd be disinclined to say QUI needs IG level anti-S:CE. It does need actions however. Cameron

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:46:43 -0800, Cameron wrote: > Eh, you've already got an anti-S:CE from CEL I considered that. > and you beat FOR into the ground at both ranges. Considered that, too. That's not entirely true, though, because actually playing with the strikes tends to be a nut-punch. IMO, it's either weapons, +1 Str/CEL, or Thetmes. YMMV. > I'd be disinclined to say QUI needs IG > level anti-S:CE. Part of the premise is that this would put assamite combat through the roof. It's stipulated, but even give the consequence, it probably still wouldn't put them in the same league as malks or ventrue, or various other power decks. But it might come close. Anyway, it's not going to happen in a million years; I'm just offering it as an example of just how ridiculously good you could make a combat strategy, and still have combat lag far, far behind bleeding and voting, after you factor in the lack of bleed, bounce, *good* intercept (Black Hand not fully digested), weenies, etc. > It does need actions however. I don't see the need. With nothing but combat in the toolbox, they can't afford to do anything else but it, generally (i.e. a few cornercase decks refute it, but the clan disciplines and crypt as a whole don't). Anyway, I'm not advocating, just musing. David Cherryholmes

mesh wrote: > > [snip] > > So you think current Temptation of Greater Power is a broken card? > > This is the perfect example of a broken card made not-broken by > > making it playable once per game so that people cannot abuse it. > > > > As I have already said, PTO is not a card you can base your deck's > > strategy on as Temptation of Greater Power was (do you remember > > old ToGP decks?). Adding many copies of PTO to your deck makes it > > weaker, while adding many old ToGP in your deck makes is stronger. > > PTO is one of those cards that doesn't *need* to be put in great amounts in > a deck for it too be broken. PTO is one of those cards that cannot be put in great amounts in a deck. > You draw one of your 4 PTO's in your Ventrue > OBF deck, you burn Yong Sun, you win. Simple as that. You don't *need* to > keep drawing them for it too be a broken effect. The same could happen with current ToGP. You could add multiple copies of it to assure you the control of Yong Sun (which is a worse effect than burning him). BTW, burning Yong Sun != You win. > > BTW, bleeding for 6-8 is a stronger effect than PTO. > > So let me get this straight. A 0 stealth action, that can be bounced, If you have bounce cards. > is a > stronger effect than PTO? Don't refute this argument with "oh but's a > referendum, they're hard to pass!", [...] I thought we were talking about effects, not about more cards being played during those actions. I think a 6-8 pool loss is a strongest effect than burning one of your non-Camarilla vampires. [...] > > > > There is absolutely no difference between being burned one of your > > > > vampires in combat or by diablerie and via PTO. > > > > > > Incorrect. See the rest of the thread for examples. > > > > > > > The effect is the same. You get your key vampire burned. > > > > > > The effect is the same, sure. But the circumstances are completely > > > different to get to that point. > > > > If a non-combat deck is not prepared against focussed combat, then > > the effect is the same as if a non-political deck is not prepared > > against vote decks. > > I am willing to bet you nearly every single card I own that decks far more > readily put in combat defence than they put vote defence in. Sure. But that's because the current means for vote defense are not versatile enough to be packed in one's decks. Greetings, Damnans

[ quoted text not captured ] Do you think PTO burns more vampires than combat or diablerie? Greetings, Damnans

> > PTO is one of those cards that cannot be put in great amounts in > a deck. Cameron's (the OTHER one) tournament winning PTO deck with 14 of them says differently. But yes, I would agree that having a deck with a huge amount of PTO is a risky thing for the deck. But that has never been disputed..... > The same could happen with current ToGP. You could add multiple copies > of it to assure you the control of Yong Sun (which is a worse effect > than burning him). But you pay for it by bidding. It costs 3 pool to start off with. You are paying a lot for 1 vampire. > BTW, burning Yong Sun != You win. Agreed. But it more than likely the former controller of Yong Sun has lost. And if that player is your prey, you are going to have a pretty easy time of ousting. > > > BTW, bleeding for 6-8 is a stronger effect than PTO. > > > > So let me get this straight. A 0 stealth action, that can be bounced, > > If you have bounce cards. I hear people put them in decks once in a blue moon. Maybe I'm wrong... > I thought we were talking about effects, not about more cards being played > during those actions. > > I think a 6-8 pool loss is a strongest effect than burning one of your > non-Camarilla vampires. I was just pre-emptively countering a possible argument. But as to whether 6-8 pool loss is a stronger effect than losing a vampire is highly debateable. You spend a lot of pool and importantly, *time* bringing out a large capacity vampire. And even more importantly, people count on being bled, whether for 1 or for 8; they will much more readily put bleed defence in than combat or vote defence. When people have no vampires, it's very hard to defend against bleeding (especially an IC, with some help from Dominate). > Sure. But that's because the current means for vote defense are not > versatile enough to be packed in one's decks. Glad we can agree on this one :)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FFEA731...@white-wolf.com>... > Curevei wrote: > >>The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation > >>(rotating out the old "good" cards). > >> > >>Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? > > > > My first thought is what Josh said about escalating power in parts of the game > > to match other parts. It's likely to have some sort of overall power > > escalation effect, but it's possible that it can be kept under control. > > > Isn't this, to an extent, what's being done already? For instance, Deed the > > Heart's Desire sets up making Quietus a vastly better discipline once Quietus > > or Assamites (since they have Quietus) get worthwhile actions to go with it. > > Yes. Balance is the number 1 design goal. If "balance" is number one, then where does the relationship with WW world of darkness fit in. If WW dogam is teh guide then dominate just wins. Ventrue and Lasombra rule their respective sects, albeit not absolutely. While gangel come into contact with other occasionally. Clearly avoiding problem cards is important. In magic it was the cards that violated simple rules that caused the most problems, and the ones that were supposed to be semetric. i.e. more cards than mana or life spent, or balanve which was anything but. A govern for 4 that costs two blood would escalate the game, but it would fit the linear progression between SM and Govern. Luckily there is this other rule where no action should produce an effect that does more than X. Where X is crap that is out of line. PtO may fit in this category, to much for one action. > > But your original message indicated that you wanted cards introduced to make, say, > Quietus *exceed* Dominate (to be "at the top"). And then add some cards to another > Discipline to it exceed Quietus (to be "at the top for a while"). And so on. > > Which, as near as I can figure, involves strict escalation unless card rotation > is involved. > > > Is the plan to never give them those actions? > > ? > Of course not, if by worthwhile you mean balanced. Balanced Queitus actions, that are useful, probably involve combat. Like a zero stealth rush where the opposing minion may not end combat as a strike. Or blood tranfering, as they suck at pool management. Other fringe disiplines, i.e. in-clan proprietary ones, suffer from a binary existence. Look at action, is it temptation or form of corruption, no, move on. Is it Sens Dep, etc. So to "balance" these disiplines a tier one action must exist, cause dominate has one. Same with Re-action, action modifier, combat card or 2. Maybe you could leave out one of these as no disipline should have everything. > > > Or, if you don't like conjecture, isn't this what happened to some extent with > > independents (besides Assamites) and Final Nights? The difference being, > > Final Nights attempted to bring into balance what had been some of the weaker > clans, yes. > > > instead of elevating the independents to decent status, they could have been > > elevated to first tier status. Now, at some point, to get evolution at the > > top, what was once mighty and not so anymore would have to be elevated again > > somehow, which ultimately means power escalation. > > Exactly. You can't elevate clans, only the cards in teh disiplines they can play; excepting clans specific masters/cards, which probably should not be on the top tier because that wouldgive you yet another thing to balance. Here you get into the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to balance Quietus you could make a card that breaks Lucas Halton Decks. Not likely, but it must be considered. > > > Power escalation can easily get out of hand, but zero escalation is a stale > > game. I'm not, therefore, against power escalation per se. If the game takes > > 3 years to see dramatic power escalation, um, okay, I don't see the big deal. > > That might make good fodder for a pool for someone. > > > Nor am I against rotation. The reality of CCGs is that they become > > increasingly cumbersome unless something is done to reboot the environment > > either by a game reboot or by rotation. Like Dark ages. Probably look a lot like Josh's Mythical Jyhadiverse, if they ever get around to printing it. Could be played togetehr, but "best" played alone. And darkages is going to have continued WW product support. > > That might make more good fodder. > Note the reaction to the grouping rule - a pale shadow of actual rotation. > > > I realize that there's likely an enormous resistance to creating a true "type > > 2" environment even if CCGs besides Magic have gone that path. Already, one > > hears comments from existing players how they would be happy if the game > > stopped expanding. That might indeed produce the optimal game as many a CCG > > has gotten declined from some peak that seems to center around the two > > expansion period. Maybe it's possible that a static CCG is worth playing in > > perpetuity. > > It sure seemed that it was possible back in 1999. Are you refering to Vtes or magic in 99?, both would be applicable. > > > But, it artificially limits the game, much like putting out weak > > cards and new strategies that are weak. > > A design decision not to introduce power escalation is a limit of sorts, yes. > The question is whether it's a good limit to have. It creates more loyal customers. If every new set makes my old cards crap, that is bad. > > > That might not be too clear in meaning. This may not help, but here's a go > > anyway. For people who don't need anything new to maintain interest, they have > > the choice of not using anything new, less than ideal choice but it exists. > > Adding nothing new that's interesting removes the choice from people who want > > something new to play with that which interests them. > > > There is the possibility, though it's exceedingly hard to manage, that > > increases in strategic variety can change the balance of power without > > overblown power escalation. I think this is what you've been trying to do. > > Right. > See Black Hand for example. Power Escalation isn't a necessary condition for > interesting. > > > The problem is that, if only because there was so little balance to begin with, > > that the shifts in balance of power have been too small. Any CCG needs a > > shaking up to some degree regularly, if not often. > > You need an "IMO" at the end there, IMO. More fodder for the polls, at any rate. > > [...] Sure the original set was unbalanced. Card have been created to defend against old norms, while improving new strategies. Maybe a more aggresive approach to strengthening weaker clans/strategies would be better. Ventrue meths have their vamps actually torped/burned by an assamite might complain, but come on, they are assasins. Everyone love that new nugget in the set that allows them to build that deck that never quite cut it. And ussually you get a follow up in the following set. But what would happen if the clans without Pre/Dom were offered some form of blood management- as they are the clans with less tournament impact. Perhaps, Add two blood to a younger uncontrolled vampire, for 1 blood; Do not replace until after this action. Clearly worse than other cards, and yet every deck I've built w/o PRE/Dom would at least consider some. Matt Guinn Don't be that guy at the end of deflection alley.

> Do you think PTO burns more vampires than combat or diablerie? > > Greetings, > Damnans Nope, and I'd be a fool if I did. That's not the point, and you know it.

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<400139B7...@ono.com>... > Do you think PTO burns more vampires than combat or diablerie? > > Greetings, > Damnans I would venture PTO burns almost as many vampires as combat, but not diablerie. That's the whole problem: Combat typically sends a vampire to torpor first, which is very card intensive, then diablerie requires a second, usually non-stealth action to succeed. This appears to be an attempt to make PTO seem like less of a problem than Amaranth, but Amaranth is not nearly as strong. Besides the whole Blood Hunt thing, it's pretty hard to get a vampire on its way to torpor to begin with.

>> I'd be disinclined to say QUI needs IG >> level anti-S:CE. > >Part of the premise is that this would put assamite combat through the >roof. It's stipulated, but even give the consequence, it probably still >wouldn't put them in the same league as malks or ventrue, or various other >power decks. But it might come close. Anyway, it's not going to happen >in a million years; I'm just offering it as an example of just how >ridiculously good you could make a combat strategy, and still have combat >lag far, far behind bleeding and voting, after you factor in the lack of >bleed, bounce, *good* intercept (Black Hand not fully digested), weenies, >etc. > >> It does need actions however. > >I don't see the need. With nothing but combat in the toolbox, they can't >afford to do anything else but it, generally (i.e. a few cornercase decks >refute it, but the clan disciplines and crypt as a whole don't). Anyway, >I'm not advocating, just musing. I'm not sure I'm understanding. You think that adding combat strength to the Assamites would make them sick in combat but still not an elite clan, then you are stating you don't see the need for Assamites to do something else? I think it's obvious that making a combat clan better at combat isn't a productive path to making it a strong clan. Combat ability has little to no correlation to winning. While what I'm trying to get at is more general than the failings of Assamites, the Assamites don't seem to do anything productive well. They don't bleed well, they don't vote well, they don't bloat well, they don't defend pool well, they don't even dick with people outside of combat well though they have a couple of cards to do so (they don't got a Sens. Dep. level card). This isn't entirely Quietus's fault, for instance lots of clans don't vote well by virtue of lacking enough titled vampires. But, give Quietus Govern or give it Telepathic Misdirection or give it Sensory Deprivation, and it moves towards being a decent discipline. (Give Quietus all of them and see a significant shift in the balance of power.) Also, this won't do much to power escalate anything besides them due to the rarity of Qui/QUI.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:14:06 +0000, Curevei wrote: > I'm not sure I'm understanding. You think that adding combat strength to the > Assamites would make them sick in combat but still not an elite clan, then you > are stating you don't see the need for Assamites to do something else? OK, sure, if they got a Quietus Govern, then they could do that. But I was imagining goofy trick actions such as they are likely to get. If they got strong actions, then those strong actions would be worth taking, by definition. > I think it's obvious that making a combat clan better at > combat isn't a > productive path to making it a strong clan. Combat ability has little > to no correlation to winning. If it was uber combat, it might. Barring uber combat (and currently, there is no uber combat, IMO), I agree. > While what I'm trying to get at is more general than the failings of > Assamites, the Assamites don't seem to do anything productive well. They > don't bleed well, they don't vote well, they don't bloat well, they > don't defend pool well, they don't even dick with people outside of > combat well though they have a couple of cards to do so (they don't got > a Sens. Dep. level card). Right, they don't do any of those things well. I was just supposing that, if they were in a league of their own, combat-wise, it may be enough to float winning strategies on. Or it could wreck the game, but I doubt that as long as you can assume people will build decks to win. David Cherryholmes

I too would like to some evolution in the game. Some thoughts on how evolve the game without doing set rotation or pure power escalation: The currently clans and core disciplines are all well rounded and developed at this point. I too would like Quietus and/or Assamites get 2-3 power cards, but that's the sole exception. And the vampire selection for existing clans and discipline spreads is more than sufficient. I would like more discipline combinations to play with. Bloodlines showed how 3-6 vamps with a set of common disciplines can make for a solid deck core. Lets bust out the in-clan-3 formula and see small clumps of vamps with NEC, VIC, CEL or THA, THN, MEL, OBF or POT, PRO, SER. There's much freshness to be found with new combos of existing disciplines- we just need the Vamps to form the crypt cores. There are a number of underdeveloped card types, with inherent disadvantages, that should come with above-the-curve effects. Specifically, I'm thinking of Anarch-only cards, dual-discipline cards, and Merged Vampire specials. All of these come with integrated limitations. So, they provide a means to escalate the effects without unbalancing new cards vs old. Diversion is a good example of a 3-Way done well. It provides 3 different basic-level effects with the strength of advanced effects. But, its Anarch-only. It's a nice example of power-escalation without have an unbalancing effect, and can be the template for future 3-way costing and balancing. Dual-Discipline cards are really underused. Here again, the increased discipline requirements should come with a power increase to offset the cost. Basic duals should provide advanced effects and Advanced duals can go over the top (especially for those discipline combos that aren't in-clan for anyone). Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. Actually, building a crypt that has a reasonable chance of producing a Merged vampire comes with a considerable cost. So, these merged specials better be worth building a competitive deck around, or there's not much point. A Merged Vampire should have some obvious advantage over her non-merged brethren (other than yet-another-conerncase-special) to make the crypt-contortions worthwhile. These are a few suggestions, some of which may already be the within the intent of recent (and future?) sets. But I think this is the way forward. 1) Provide new discipline combos. 2) Introduce new cards, which, in some cases, provide more powerful effects than we've seen (so we want to buy and build a deck around them!) but are balanced vs. the older stuff with inherent limitations. -Ben Swainbank

> Right, they don't do any of those things well. I was just supposing that, > if they were in a league of their own, combat-wise, it may be enough to > float winning strategies on. Or it could wreck the game, but I doubt that > as long as you can assume people will build decks to win. If the goal is to keep Assamites as the best combat clan in the game, but to give them a way to WIN through combat, then the solution would be to give Quietus cards that allow you to oust through combat. An example: Marking the Master Action 1 blood qui: Put this card on a vampire with a contract. If that vampire enters torpor, his controller loses two pool. When this happens, burn this card. QUI: As above, but if the vampire with this card is burned in combat, the vampire's controller loses three pool. Cards with a similar effect to Fame or Tension in the Ranks, played as actions by the Assamites, would give the Assamites the sorely-needed ousting power. My example might not be a good one, but I think it gets the idea across. Fanboy

> But, really, combat sucks as an actual ousting strategy, > and even "too good" combat, when it has no bleed, bounce, etc to back it > up, still isn't going to be overly-strong. Then perhaps what Clan Assamite [and other combat-centric clans] need is for combat to be amped into a more viable oust strategy. Rather than boost QUI or other specific disciplines, perhaps what needs to be addressed is the flaws of combat as a general strategy, and it's massive shortcomings when held up against S/B, votes, etc. More cards along the lines of Fame and Tension in the Ranks to help combat decks do more than bash a couple of vamps senseless before being ousted would be a good start. Perhaps an alternate group of cards which give pool to the basher rather than strip pool from the bash-ee [I know this doesn't help oust, but at least it might help keep you in the game]. And no, I don't think Sociopath, while a step in the right direction, makes the grade. Burning a minion in combat is a hell of a lot harder than "Govern, Lost in crowds, Conditioning". Should the rewards not reflect this? Fair day's pay for a fair day's work and all that. j

As someone who plays the Assamites extensively I'd tend to agree that Assamites tend to need better actions. Assamites exist almost entirely as a combat clan and right now the only actions they take are the rush actions which lead them to combat. Sure, Clandestine Contract was a great boon to Assamites, but it didn't really make the combats any better except for allowing greater use of Khabar: Honor and Provisions of the Silsila and the pool cost was quite prohibitive for a clan with such poor pool gain and pool defense options. I'd really like to see a follow-up on the Blood Clots-type of card. I think pre-emptive weakening of targets via actions is exactly the kind of theme I'd want for a clan of assassins. Of course these cards would have to be much more powerful than Erosion or Blood Clots otherwise they'd probably be passed over due to the difficulty of increasing the action count of a standard Assamite deck. I think most powerful effects could be balanced if the card was removable as an action, or perhaps burned itself in the Assamite player's next untap or some such. I'd also submit that as a design goal the Assamites really should focus on ousting their prey via combat instead of knocking all the vampires down and bleeding for 1 alot. The contract concept was much improved with Final Nights, but what is still lacking is a way for Assamites to translate their combat power into ousting power. Fame and Tension in the Ranks have both served as the baseline for any combat-specific ousting method, but I think the Assamites should receive a clan-specific card that adds to combat-induced pool damage to reflect this clan's emphasis. I think this would best be implemented via an action requiring an Assamite that puts the action card in play and acts much in the same way as Tension in the Ranks for the Assamite's controller, probably burnable as a (D) action like Army of Rats. Aramis *waiving any rights to any ideas expressed above so White Wolf can use them as they see fit*

Curevei wrote: It's not that I care whether the Assamites > > are the best clan in the game for 6 months, but I do care that some currently > > lesser clans get their moment in the sun, so to speak. And, really, over the > > course of the game, every clan should have an opportunity at the top, every > > discipline should be the Dominate of the game for a while, every bundle of > > titles should be abbreviated in tournament winning decks as P/J are, and so > > forth. > LSJ wrote: > The ways to accomplish that are by power escalation or by card set rotation > (rotating out the old "good" cards). > > Which are you proposing (or is there something else you had in mind)? I'm happy to chip in with a third (something else) way: give the weak deck types multiuse cards, with some mild uses, plus one use which is a hoser for the strategies that are too powerful. Examples follow. Assumption for the examples are: Anarchs and Assamites are the weakest strategy / clan AND Of the various powerful strategies, weenie vote and sneaky bleed need targeting the most, as being quite tedious / frustrating for other players. AND It was decided to alter this balance without escalating Anarchs and Assamites to be the most powerful force in the game. Please no-one respond to disagree with these assumptions. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong - they are just there to illustrate the concept. Anyway, assumption bit done. How could this aim be achieved? IMO, it would be possible by giving a selection of cards *only playable by Assamites or Anarchs* which have several widely different uses (in much the same way that Govern or Dreams have effects thet differ in type, rather than just in power). Have one use be generic, not too strong, and giving mild support to what the Assamites / Anarch are already likely to be doing. Have one use be strong in terms of effect per cost, BUT only usable against the targeted powerful strategy. Basically, have them be strategy hosers rather than clan hosers, and cards which are playable in their own right, so it's possible / sensible to include several of each in a regular deck. That way, you would want to play the weak groups not because they will dominate the game with their new cards, but specifically because the new cards will let these formerly weak groups be the "scissors" to the "paper" of the particular strategies that you are getting tired of. Example cards: Dreams of the Assamites Type: Master (unique) Pool Cost: 1 Clan Required: Assamite Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third counter is added, burn this card. Tap this card to give an Assamite you control one maneuver. Tap when an Assamite announces a hunting action. If that action is successful, the Assamite gains an additional blood. Tap this card when a bleed for 2 or more is resolving at 2 or more stealth. Reduce the bleed amount by 1, and inflict 2 points of damage on the acting minion. ...2 OK abilities, + 1 which is quite powerful because you can hit any stealth bleeder on the table with it... but which is no good if no-one is playing stealth bleed. Similarly: Govern the Quietus Type: Action Blood Cost: 1 Discipline: Quietus +1 stealth action qui: choose up to 3 younger vampires. These vampires each move 1 blood from themselves to their controllers blood pool. QUI: burn a titled vampire whose capacity is less than 5. ...so one OK ability, can be used for pool gain, or aggressively with Foul Blood or whatever, plus a rather harsh but limited-use hoser. And anarchs could have a similar couple of cards... Dreams of Anarchy Type: Master (unique) Pool Cost: 1 Requires a ready Anarch Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third counter is added, burn this card. Tap this card to allow a reacting Anarch to burn 1 blood to gain 2 votes. Tap this card to move 2 blood from the blood bank to an Anarch in torpor. Tap this card when you are bled at more than 1 stealth to place a grudge counter on the acting minion. Any Anarch may take a (D) action to steal 2 blood or life from any minion with a grudge counter. ...again, its useful + useful + hoser. And an action: Govern the Anarchs Type: Equipment Pool cost: 1 Requires a ready Anarch The anarch with this equipment may steal 1 blood from a younger vampire as a +1 stealth action. Burn this equipment and tap the Anarch bearing it to burn a titled vampire whose capacity is below 5. Yes, anyone can steal these ideas, WW can go nuts with them if it wants to. No, I don't care too much about minuatae of card text (or spelling, or whatever), it's the broad idea that matters. Cheerio, Craig

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message > > SOOOO true. Mine's another dozen pints, if you'ld be so good, > Hoegarten, since you ask, or Leff if they don't have it. And while > you're up, i'm sure that Pierre*, mike, both the matthews [Green and > Stockton], dave, rob, barney, michael, Sid, Niki, Ant, Lamp, jack, > john E, john K, Garry, Haukur*, both the tonys [literary thug and > hairy hammer bloke], shevaun, liam, jazzbeaux, william lee and jon > would want the same, as would all the others whose names in my current > drunken haze i do not recall. And some peanuts, please. Timlagor, > alas, does not drink. > > *honourary brits Aint it just great that the only time a Brit gets involved, even tentatively, in this whole debate is to confirm that we're all a bunch of piss-heads :) Protect Thine Own, huh? what a card. Tony Literary Thug and guy who's only posting coherently because it's too early to be down the pub. Hoegarten? my mum drinks that. That must mean that you're a girl.

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote in message news:<b20d2553.04011...@posting.google.com>... > I too would like to some evolution in the game. > > The currently clans and core disciplines are all well rounded and > developed at this point. I too would like Quietus and/or Assamites get > 2-3 power cards, but that's the sole exception. And the vampire > selection for existing clans and discipline spreads is more than > sufficient. > > There are a number of underdeveloped card types, with inherent > disadvantages, that should come with above-the-curve effects. > Specifically, I'm thinking of Anarch-only cards, dual-discipline > cards, and Merged Vampire specials. All of these come with integrated > limitations. So, they provide a means to escalate the effects without > unbalancing new cards vs old. > > Dual-Discipline cards are really underused. Here again, the increased > discipline requirements should come with a power increase to offset > the cost. Basic duals should provide advanced effects and Advanced > duals can go over the top (especially for those discipline combos that > aren't in-clan for anyone). > > Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. > Actually, building a crypt that has a reasonable chance of producing a > Merged vampire comes with a considerable cost. So, these merged > specials better be worth building a competitive deck around, or > there's not much point. A Merged Vampire should have some obvious > advantage over her non-merged brethren (other than > yet-another-conerncase-special) to make the crypt-contortions > worthwhile. > > These are a few suggestions, some of which may already be the within > the intent of recent (and future?) sets. But I think this is the way > forward. 1) Provide new discipline combos. 2) Introduce new cards, > which, in some cases, provide more powerful effects than we've seen > (so we want to buy and build a deck around them!) but are balanced vs. > the older stuff with inherent limitations. > > -Ben Swainbank Well if we are in the "prayer for better Jyhad" field, here are a few things that should be needed Number one : many cards that help burning weenies, especially weenies going to torpor. Apart from protect thine own, there are very few cards whose burning capacity depends on the size of the opponent. I often play combat decks, and sometimes I play them with some success. But we should really get more ways to burn weenies that otherwise rescue each other cheaply from torpor, especially witth the hungry coyote. cards like Devastating punch pot : stike strength +1 damage pot : as above, but if the opposing minion has capacity below 3 and if he goes to torpor, burn him instead Assasin's path qui : only usable when you send an opposing vampire with capacity below five to torpor. Burn him instead. QUI : as above, and if the vampire playing this card was blocked by the opposing minion, the acting vampire may continue his action as if unblocked A few cards like this could really help the fatties I would also like banning or errating of DI and Succubus club, but this is more personnal I would like also by the way (I know Christams is already over) a few anarch fun 3-ways and already anarch vamps New merged vamps "Tegyrius style" : ok but no asskicking vamps who would get huge specials only when merged. Like a 10 cap Aziz advanced, who would be so so (like the current one is) but with OBF or pro, and would merge as Inner circle. A 2 votes title is too light an incentive to merge an 8 cap As for discipline combos, I doon't really like the idea. Well, combos or in clan disciplines are cool, but I don't like weird combos that somewhat turn into being "signature cards" for one or two vampires in the game.

> > Not at all. > > It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card > should not exist. > > Does this mean that you would be in favor of simply banning it in stead of changing it? Cause that would be my preferred solution, should WW decide it's too powerfull. greetz Jo

ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) wrote in message news:<19048d48.04011...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] That's what your fridge is for, brother, emergency beer container for those O No! Pub not open moments. > > Hoegarten? my mum drinks that. Wow, she can afford £4.50 a pint? Is she reasonably fit? That must mean that you're a girl. Yep, a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) wrote in message > Hoegarten? my mum drinks that. That must mean that you're a girl. Your mum's facial hair is nearly as unkempt too. Matt Green - card-carrying bitch since '76.

e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) wrote in message news:<10c2c156.04011...@posting.google.com>... > > > Well if we are in the "prayer for better Jyhad" field, here are a few > things that should be needed > > Number one : many cards that help burning weenies > cards like > Devastating punch > pot : stike strength +1 damage > pot : as above, but if the opposing minion has capacity below 3 and > if he goes to torpor, burn him instead > > Assasin's path > qui : only usable when you send an opposing vampire with capacity > below five to torpor. Burn him instead. > QUI : as above, and if the vampire playing this card was blocked by > the opposing minion, the acting vampire may continue his action as if > unblocked > I like both of these. The Quietus one has especially nice flavor. I imagine an Assassin dispatching guards on the way to his target. When dealing with the whack-a-mole defense today Fame and Tension are there to help discourage endless rescues. I also like Pulled Fangs as a "sit down and stay down" card. The extra damage point and no more hunting helps put vamps in torpor and leaves no reason to rescue. Also works well with Fame and Tension. -Ben Swainbank

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04010...@posting.google.com>... > > Well, the point i was trying to make, that over here people play cards > that they think they can win with... > So if they think they can win with IC-PTO they will play with it (for > instance because there are a lot of noncam decks around) If there are > not a lot of Non-cam decks around (or because the environment doesn't > favor IC decks), They will not play PTO, because it is not that good a > card/strategy in that environment... > > If people stick around with playing IC-PTO decks in your environment, > teach them not to...tactics for that have been discussed before...and > when you taught them you can play your non-cam-bigcap deck. > W Gee I'll remember that the next time I go to a tournament. For petes sake stop dragging up these useless 'i don't see them in my environment, teach them not to use it in your enviornment' arguments. They're completely useless. G

>Then perhaps what Clan Assamite [and other combat-centric clans] need >is for combat to be amped into a more viable oust strategy. Rather >than boost QUI or other specific disciplines, perhaps what needs to be >addressed is the flaws of combat as a general strategy, and it's >massive shortcomings when held up against S/B, votes, etc. This would be fine if combat's balance flaws got worked on as well. I'm not currently in favor of anything that encourages combat because combat is too extreme and the table destabilization potential is high. Now, in the grand scheme of things, more combat leads to more combat defense, which should balance things out*. But, I'd be worried about a more chaotic environment when significant but few changes are made in an area that doesn't lend itself to balance in the first place rather than a better one. * Though, there's a possible combat avoidance increase effect that can come about as well. >Burning a minion in combat is a hell of a lot harder than "Govern, >Lost in crowds, Conditioning". Should the rewards not reflect this? My view is that burning a minion should be nigh impossible and that it's its own reward. Antiminion effects, whether noncombat or combat, everything else being equal, reward playing lower cap vampires. >Fair day's pay for a fair day's work and all that. Except, I see little that's fair about combat. Or, more specifically, individual combats. On average, things work out adequately, but individual combats are far too extreme. The more rewards added to playing a combat strategy, the more often these unfair events will occur. And, there are other ways of helping combat besides rewarding it more heavily. Reducing the ability to stealth actions through would see more combat, a greater need to run combat defense in noncombat decks, which would in turn see more combat as deck space is taken up with cards that don't evade combat. Getting back to helping clans already good at combat, not every combat capable clan or set of disciplines is weak. A *lot* of the imbalance in the game arises from who has bounce and who doesn't. A decent disciplineless bounce might reshape the landscape in desired ways. OTOH, how much do you want to help the FoS or whoever at the same time?

>Some thoughts on how evolve the game without doing set rotation or >pure power escalation: > >The currently clans and core disciplines are all well rounded and >developed at this point. I don't find Celerity or Potence well rounded nor adequately developed. Thaumaturgy could use some help in power and versatility or at least some help in overcoming its synergy problems. >There are a number of underdeveloped card types, with inherent >disadvantages, that should come with above-the-curve effects. >Specifically, I'm thinking of Anarch-only cards, dual-discipline >cards, and Merged Vampire specials. All of these come with integrated >limitations. So, they provide a means to escalate the effects without >unbalancing new cards vs old. I certainly think the merged mechanic has been a waste. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, even if only subtle ones, to doing something with a merged vampire, then the payoffs are so low as to not make it worth it unless you would play the two vampires in your crypt anyway. >Diversion is a good example of a 3-Way done well. It provides 3 >different basic-level effects with the strength of advanced effects. I think it's underpowered. I don't find the versatility great enough to offset the cost of anarching, while having inferior effects of superior magnitude is trivial when a different deck could simply play vampires who have superiors. >But, its Anarch-only. It's a nice example of power-escalation without >have an unbalancing effect, and can be the template for future 3-way >costing and balancing. > >Dual-Discipline cards are really underused. Here again, the increased >discipline requirements should come with a power increase to offset >the cost. Basic duals should provide advanced effects and Advanced >duals can go over the top (especially for those discipline combos that >aren't in-clan for anyone). I really dislike the dual discipline cards in the game. Some are way too good for the ease of play just ramping up the power level of clans (or, if you don't like clans, vampires with easily found sets of disciplines) who don't need the help. The Call, Madman's Quill, Read the Winds, Shroud of Absence - why do we need these cards? Then, on the flip side, there are junky cards that do next to nothing to elevate clans that could use help. Shadow Feint is kind of cool, but the clans who play it easily could use something much better than kind of cool. Even others annoy me; Nightmare Curse, yeah, I wanted another Sens. Dep. in the game. I think there's potential for good dual/multi disciplines, but I'd like to see a lot better job done on execution: no more ones that just ramp up strong clans, no more that suck, no more hosers, no more that make the game more unpleasant to play. And, if those criteria aren't hard enough to satisfy, if you do make a mistake, could you make the next Shroud of Absence common at least? >Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. >Actually, building a crypt that has a reasonable chance of producing a >Merged vampire comes with a considerable cost. So, these merged >specials better be worth building a competitive deck around, or >there's not much point. *Competitive* Merged vampire decks are combo decks and they get so little reward for their combo. So with you. [ quoted text not captured ]

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote in message news:<b20d2553.04011...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I like them, and the Assasin's Path *is* thematically cute, but I do have one reservation – in metagames / areas which are already combat-heavy (like where I live), it's already hard to play anything BUT combat, or with quite a pile of combat defence (S:CE, chump blockers, never using big caps unless they have fortitude). I think that with a few cards like the ones you propose (an easily cycleable potence option), that balance could be tipped a bit too far towards combat, making it suicidal to play any decks / clans without fortitude. If whack-a-mole cards were to be developed, I would prefer to see them either targeted towards truly obnoxious weenies (like Caitiff Princes / Pander Archbishops) or to have these cards go only to vampires which can't prevent damage, so therefore only fight well in a lowish combat environment. That way, environments that are already combat heavy won't get crazy with nothing but bloodshed. An example would be: Brutal Demagogue Type: Master Clan: !Bruhaj or !Toreador Text: Put this card on a ready titled Bruhaj Antitribune or Toreador Antitribune you control. Only usable in combat when the younger opposing vampire should go to torpor. This vampire may diablerize the opposing vampire instead. If the opposing vampires capacity was below 5, this diablerising vampire gains 4 votes in the resulting blood hunt. Not usable by a vampire going into torpor. ...in a low combat metagame, you could put slap this card onto Sela or Amelia in a !Bru rush deck, or get it onto a !Tor eternal Vigilance deck, for blazing pistolero carnage. But in a combat heavy metagame, where Drawing out the beast and aggravated damage are more likely, this card would be a lot harder to use, and therefore not tip the balance towards even more combat.

On 12 Jan 2004 04:03:40 -0800, jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote: >> Not at all. >> It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card >> should not exist. >Does this mean that you would be in favor of simply banning it in >stead of changing it? Yes. Errata is unacceptable. >Cause that would be my preferred solution, should WW decide it's too >powerfull. Indeed. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

> > >Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. > >Actually, building a crypt that has a reasonable chance of producing a > >Merged vampire comes with a considerable cost. So, these merged > >specials better be worth building a competitive deck around, or > >there's not much point. > > *Competitive* > > Merged vampire decks are combo decks and they get so little reward for their > combo. So with you. > Yep. Merging, as a general rule, doesnt seem to be a too good idea. But Tegyrius is a good merge, imo. That Justicar title just opens up a whole new window of opportunities.

talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) wrote in message news:<76d1d5ef.04011...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ok, you are right, you're post made me see the error in my ways. W

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.04011...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] > Wow, she can afford Ł4.50 a pint? Is she reasonably fit? > >Christ, a bloke on the internet is asking if my mum is fit!!! these are the moments you truley remember;) Nah, not really, James, you're probably better off with Greeno over there. Tony Literary Thug and Matt Green's Pimp

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote in message news:<b20d2553.04011...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Fame and tension are not enough, especially since the introduction of Life in the city, whick makes (as trifles mean additional master cards in weenie decks) Tension far easier to destroy. Fame is unique, and the famous guy won't be rushed easily (other weenies will protect him). I used pulled fangs for the same reason but life in the city ... In fact I hate Life in the city, as it is an awfull boost to weenies/lowcaps and a hindrance to fatties (who cannot always afford to use one of the precious seven slots in your hand to gain a blood). Another problem is that I still need to see an efficient way to destroy a bunch of embraces/progeny/thin blood seers through combat, which should thematically be easy but in fact isn't. The assamite card gives them IMHO what they lack : a decent way to burn vampīres, as thay can't diablerize, and an help towards ousting, as assassin's path could be used in conjunction with fame in rder to rush the right guy

> I like them, and the Assasin's Path *is* thematically cute, but I do > have one reservation ? in metagames / areas which are already > combat-heavy (like where I live), it's already hard to play anything > BUT combat, or with quite a pile of combat defence (S:CE, chump > blockers, never using big caps unless they have fortitude). I think > that with a few cards like the ones you propose (an easily cycleable > potence option), that balance could be tipped a bit too far towards > combat, making it suicidal to play any decks / clans without > fortitude. > Yes and know. It is rother created to cut the "weenie blocker/rescuer/swarmer" approach to rush defense, while letting other options opened, especially S:CE. > If whack-a-mole cards were to be developed, I would prefer to see them > either targeted towards truly obnoxious weenies (like Caitiff Princes > / Pander Archbishops) or to have these cards go only to vampires which > can't prevent damage, so therefore only fight well in a lowish combat > environment. That way, environments that are already combat heavy > won't get crazy with nothing but bloodshed. > A "regular" deck is already heavily hampered by the smackdown to very little blood of his big vampires. The difference is that such card would give an opportunity to do something against weenies, though it wouldn't be that efficient.

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.0401...@posting.google.com... > In fact I hate Life in the city, as it is an awfull boost to > weenies/lowcaps and a hindrance to fatties (who cannot always afford > to use one of the precious seven slots in your hand to gain a blood). That's interesting. I haven't viewed it that way at all. To me, weenies are much more able to afford the action to hunt to gain a blood than fatties; as such they don't have as much need for Life in the City, most of the time. Sure, they can use it, but they have to weigh whether it's worth a card slot compared to being able to cardless-hunt instead. The "slot in hand" cost doesn't seem to me weighted against fatties. Big-vampire decks, in my experience, are likely to cycle *fewer* cards per turn than small-vampire decks; as such, the cost of having one of them be a master card is often lower (since you weren't going to cycle through all your cards anyway with minion actions) than for a weenie deck. You could argue that the "master slot in deck" cost is still pretty high for fattie decks, on the basis that with few vampires they need each card to have maximum "effect per slot" value. But saving a fatty from a mandatory hunt seems to me quite a bit stronger than saving a weenie from a mandatory hunt. > Another problem is that I still need to see an efficient way to > destroy a bunch of embraces/progeny/thin blood seers through combat, > which should thematically be easy but in fact isn't. Yes, I do like your card ideas there. Cool concepts. :-) Josh hot off the griddle

> > > > > > > > > irc.sorcery.net > > > > > #vtes > > > > > #vtes-game <-- This'd be the channel we are talking about. > > > > > > > > I don't know these kind of things, if i go to : irc.sorcery.net i > > > > don't see the option #vtes, should i? > > > > > > Huh? > > > You slap up mIRC or some other IRC client, connect to irc.sorcery.net > and > > > when it (mIRC) asks for a channel to join upon connection, you enter > #vtes > > > or #vtes-game. > > > There'll propably be someone alive enough to help you get started. :) > > > > sorry, i am not into internet and all its options that much, but i > > will see if i can find somewhere here who is > > :-) > > > > www.mirc.com > > Should get you started. > Look forward to see you there. found it, you'll see me there :-) W

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<i61000dbar40je9pc...@4ax.com>... > On 10 Jan 2004 05:23:33 -0800, oortj...@hotmail.com (Oortje4ever) > wrote: > > RE: Protect Thine Own > >IMO > >The "non-camarilla" should be renamed to "independent" > >In the dark sovereighs set the secttitle on the vampires was still > >non-camarilla. When they changed that to independant, they should have > >changed PTO as well. That will make this forum more peacefull for a > >short time. > > Not at all. > > It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card > should not exist. Akhenaten Anisa Marianna Lopez Goratrix, Advanced Fear of Mekhet Society of Leopold ...some examples of cards that burn a vampire. I vote for errata. Bye, Daneel

The Lasombra wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2004 05:23:33 -0800, oortj...@hotmail.com (Oortje4ever) > wrote: > > RE: Protect Thine Own > >IMO > >The "non-camarilla" should be renamed to "independent" > >In the dark sovereighs set the secttitle on the vampires was still > >non-camarilla. When they changed that to independant, they should have > >changed PTO as well. That will make this forum more peacefull for a > >short time. > > Not at all. > > It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card > should not exist. So lets ban Justicar Retribution too :-) Being burned 3 Inner Circle members I controlled by a Malkavian calling that vote was not a nice experience >:-) Greetings, Damnans

Curevei wrote: > Nightmare Curse, yeah, I wanted another Sens. Dep. > in the game. There currently isn't any vampire that can play it at AUS-CHI without skill cards, and playing with skill cards is dubious. That leaves the aus-chi effect, which is more like making a vampire infernal, and a rather unique ability. Even more interesting is the barely-explored use of the plain old chi effect, especially when combined with Red Herring at CHI. The card is hardly "just another Sens. Dep". > *Competitive* > Merged vampire decks are combo decks and they get so little reward for their > combo. So with you. I've tried, god I've tried, to build decks around a merged Tegyrius. It sucks. If you could spend a 4 transfers and a pool to go looking for an advanced copy to merge it might be playable, but as it is the mechanic is too much overhead. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On 14 Jan 2004 05:32:32 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (D?niel Hadik-Bark?czy) wrote: >Akhenaten >Anisa Marianna Lopez >Goratrix, Advanced >Fear of Mekhet >Society of Leopold >...some examples of cards that burn a vampire. None of which are votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote > > > >Some thoughts on how evolve the game without doing set rotation or > >pure power escalation: > > > >The currently clans and core disciplines are all well rounded and > >developed at this point. The main clans, sure. But the Independents and Bloodlines certainly could use some help here and there... > I don't find Celerity or Potence well rounded nor adequately developed. > Thaumaturgy could use some help in power and versatility or at least some help > in overcoming its synergy problems. I agree that Thaumaturgy could still use a bit of a boost. At least it is getting a little better with each expansion. Thanks WW. :o) On the other hand, I think that Celerity and Potence work pretty well just as they are. Why would we want to make two of the best diciplines even more powerful OR totally diversified? I don't like the idea of adding too much diversity to any of the main diciplines. Imagine a bunch of new Potence cards that create intercept, bounce, votes, massive bleeds, etc. Wouldn't that get a bit ridiculous? Of course, I also love new cards. So now I'm curious about what kind of cards you would like to see developed for Celerity and Potence. Do you have any examples? > >There are a number of underdeveloped card types, with inherent > >disadvantages, that should come with above-the-curve effects. New cards for certain underpowered diciplines is a great idea (IMHO). And you're on the right track with your Quietus card. As long as the folks at WW keep creating new cards that help improve weaker clans/combos, then the game will slowly improve without suddenly becoming overbalanced. I think they are doing a pretty good job so far. > >Specifically, I'm thinking of Anarch-only cards, dual-discipline > >cards, and Merged Vampire specials. All of these come with integrated > >limitations. So, they provide a means to escalate the effects without > >unbalancing new cards vs old. The Anarch cards could be improved. However, the introduction of vampires with an *Anarch* title would make massive improvements even faster. Hopefully we will see a few of those in the next few sets. Dual-discipline cards are a great idea that definitely need to be developed further... Merged vampires could use some more thoughtful screening and testing before being released. > I certainly think the merged mechanic has been a waste. Wait a minute there.. some of the merged vampires are fantastic (Jessica & King Quintin III). Just being able to put 2 of them in a deck without doubling up is worth quite a bit. Don't you agree? > There are a lot of > hoops to jump through, even if only subtle ones, to doing something with a > merged vampire, then the payoffs are so low as to not make it worth it unless > you would play the two vampires in your crypt anyway. I agree that some of them are pretty lame. Tusk should have had superior Potence or Animalism. Why waste time making "advanced" vampires that aren't all that great? Hopefully that type of thing won't happen again... > >Diversion is a good example of a 3-Way done well. It provides 3 > >different basic-level effects with the strength of advanced effects. > > I think it's underpowered. I don't find the versatility great enough to offset > the cost of anarching, If you combine the Anarch masters, some good 3-way cards, Anarch votes, and other tried and true methods (bleeds, strong votes, etc.), then you have a pretty good deck. As soon as we get a few *Anarch* vampires, then we will be all set. In the meantime, it's still kind of fun to try to work with it... isn't the challenge of making/trying a new deck concept part of the fun? while having inferior effects of superior magnitude is > trivial when a different deck could simply play vampires who have superiors. > >But, its Anarch-only. It's a nice example of power-escalation without > >have an unbalancing effect, and can be the template for future 3-way > >costing and balancing. > > > >Dual-Discipline cards are really underused. Here again, the increased > >discipline requirements should come with a power increase to offset > >the cost. Basic duals should provide advanced effects and Advanced > >duals can go over the top (especially for those discipline combos that > >aren't in-clan for anyone). Good comments. Some of the dual-discipline cards meet your requirements and they are very useful. Others aren't that great, but they might become more useful as new vampires are created and other cards come out. I'm very curious about what Gehenna will bring... > I really dislike the dual discipline cards in the game. Some are way too good > for the ease of play just ramping up the power level of clans (or, if you don't > like clans, vampires with easily found sets of disciplines) who don't need the > help. The Call, Madman's Quill, Read the Winds, Shroud of Absence - why do we > need these cards? I like most of those cards. And I think that some of them actually helped bring in some sorely needed skills and were interesting developments for new deck designs. Personally, I hope we see even more of these kinds of cards for the clans/combos that really need a boost. Then, on the flip side, there are junky cards that do next > to nothing to elevate clans that could use help. Shadow Feint is kind of cool, > but the clans who play it easily could use something much better than kind of > cool. Even others annoy me; Nightmare Curse, yeah, I wanted another Sens. Dep. > in the game. You're right that some of the dual-dicipline cards aren't all that great, but at least they are trying, right? And maybe some of these cards will become more useful later on as more cards/minions are developed. (apparently I'm feeling really optomistic today :o) > I think there's potential for good dual/multi disciplines, but I'd like to see > a lot better job done on execution: I agree that some of the cards could have been a bit better. Imagine if Typhonic Beast was SER/PRE... that could have been VERY useful. Or if Alpha Glint had a stronger superior version... > no more ones that just ramp up strong > clans, no more that suck, no more hosers, no more that make the game more > unpleasant to play. And, if those criteria aren't hard enough to satisfy, if > you do make a mistake, could you make the next Shroud of Absence common at > least? That's a lot of criteria to meet. Wouldn't that lead to wallpaper cards? ;o) > >Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. I'm sure that it will be developed a bit more carefully in the future. My current prediction is that the newer *advanced* vampires will probably be more powerful than the older version (more Superior diciplines - like Quintin King III) and their merged abilities will be even more useful. At least, that's what I'm hoping for... > >Actually, building a crypt that has a reasonable chance of producing a > >Merged vampire comes with a considerable cost. So, these merged > >specials better be worth building a competitive deck around, or > >there's not much point. > > *Competitive* > > Merged vampire decks are combo decks and they get so little reward for their > combo. So with you. But if they are useful to begin with (Jessica, Quintin King III, etc.), then putting two of them in the deck is a great idea (one advanced and one regular version). And then you have the possibility of a REALLY strong vampire without doubling up in your crypt. I think that alone makes it well worth putting them in your crypt. ...AND you can build a deck around them if they have all the disciplines you need at superior. At one point I built a deck with 2 Lucita and 2 Lucita Advanced to use DOM/FOR/OBT... and it was a lot of fun to play with. I often got the meged Lucita into play, but that wasn't critical to the deck. However, I almost always saw at least one version in my opening crypt... which I was very satisfied with the increased options the advanced vampires gave me in building my crypt. > >A Merged Vampire should have some obvious > >advantage over her non-merged brethren (other than > >yet-another-conerncase-special) to make the crypt-contortions > >worthwhile. > > > >These are a few suggestions, some of which may already be the within > >the intent of recent (and future?) sets. But I think this is the way > >forward. 1) Provide new discipline combos. 2) Introduce new cards, > >which, in some cases, provide more powerful effects than we've seen > >(so we want to buy and build a deck around them!) but are balanced vs. > >the older stuff with inherent limitations. > > Sounds good. Keep those great ideas coming... Cheers, Howard PS Why doesn't Tusk have a merged ability?!? Who was responsible for that??? Question - What are the most underdeveloped clans? Meaning... which clans need the most help in future expansions? Setites? Assimites? Daughters? Salubri? ...who else needs a boost??

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<h6ub00dmrp8jlda6h...@4ax.com>... > On 14 Jan 2004 05:32:32 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (D?niel > Hadik-Bark?czy) wrote: > > >Akhenaten > >Anisa Marianna Lopez > >Goratrix, Advanced > >Fear of Mekhet > >Society of Leopold > > >...some examples of cards that burn a vampire. > > None of which are votes. I fail to see the difference. Not that I don't think that PTO is unhealthy for the game, it is simply that I do not agree with your reasoning. The ability in and of itself to burn a vampire with a vote is very much acceptable. The problem is that in PTO's (and IMHO Goratrix's and maybe Akhenaten's) case the effect on the game balance and player morale is very detrimental (especially due to the scale of the effect). The reason I'm not so sure about Akhenaten is that it can be countered by many types of offence/defence, whereas an IC or Goratrix, adv. is far more sturdy. I would reword Protect Thine Own's main text to be something like this: Political card, worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar, Cardinal, or Inner Circle member. Cost: 2 Pool. Choose a vampire with a capacity below 6. Succesful vote burns the chosen vampire. If this acting vampire is Regent or a member of the Inner Circle, this action costs 2 pool less (but never less than 0 pool). ...or: Political card, worth 1 vote. Called by any Justicar, or Inner Circle member. Cost: 1 Blood. Choose a vampire with a capacity below 6. Succesful vote burns the chosen vampire. If this acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any vampire. Only one Protect Thine Own can be played in a game. So. ;) Note that the omission is not an omission... ;) Bye, Daneel [ quoted text not captured ]

> > In fact I hate Life in the city, as it is an awfull boost to > > weenies/lowcaps and a hindrance to fatties (who cannot always afford > > to use one of the precious seven slots in your hand to gain a blood). > > That's interesting. I haven't viewed it that way at all. > > To me, weenies are much more able to afford the action to hunt to gain a > blood than fatties; as such they don't have as much need for Life in the > City, most of the time. Sure, they can use it, but they have to weigh > whether it's worth a card slot compared to being able to cardless-hunt > instead. > > The "slot in hand" cost doesn't seem to me weighted against fatties. > Big-vampire decks, in my experience, are likely to cycle *fewer* cards > per turn than small-vampire decks; as such, the cost of having one of > them be a master card is often lower (since you weren't going to cycle > through all your cards anyway with minion actions) than for a weenie > deck. You could argue that the "master slot in deck" cost is still > pretty high for fattie decks, on the basis that with few vampires they > need each card to have maximum "effect per slot" value. But saving a > fatty from a mandatory hunt seems to me quite a bit stronger than saving > a weenie from a mandatory hunt. IMHO the "slot cost" is higher for fatties because they often play multiple disciplines, and thouch need wider card combinations. A smallcap deck often plays 3-4 kinds of differnt cards massively, whereas a fattie plays more different card from the combos he can pull out. So he needs more "drawing" new cards, especially while engaged in an action. Suppose you call a vote. You replace it with life in the city. Wouldn't you have prefered to draw voter cap instead ?

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040112195331...@mb-m01.aol.com>... > > I don't find Celerity or Potence well rounded nor adequately developed. They aren't well-rounded. But I think they are adequately developed. I'm happy seeing focused disciplines. The clans (and the game) get pretty bland once everyone can do everything. > > I certainly think the merged mechanic has been a waste. So far, I agree. But I think that's mostly in the execution, rather than the concept. Now that we have a better sense of the "cost" of Merging (high) and so new Merge abilities can be designed appropriately. Make then stronger and therefore worth the effort. > > >Diversion is a good example of a 3-Way done well. . > > I think it's underpowered. It's not. I'm a little Diversion-obsessed at the moment (hmm... look at the fortitude on those Assamites... and the celerity on those Ravnos... and the celerity and thaumaturgy on the !Ventrue!) Once you get more then one discipline on a vamp and/or crypt its really quite good and contributes greatly to having a flexible card-efficient deck. This is true of the 3-ways in general. Mole is also good. Smash and Grab is growing on me. > > > >Dual-Discipline cards are really underused. > > I really dislike the dual discipline cards in the game. Some are way too good > for the ease of play just ramping up the power level of clans (or, if you don't > like clans, vampires with easily found sets of disciplines) who don't need the > help. The Call, Madman's Quill, Read the Winds, Shroud of Absence - why do we > need these cards? We didn't "need" these cards to make the vamps/clans that can use them stronger. But I do think these are examples of the type done well. I also think these are nice examples of strong cards that can be added to the game, without creating imbalance. The dual discipline requirement (even with in-clan disciplines) does its job here. > Then, on the flip side, there are junky cards that do next > to nothing to elevate clans that could use help. Agreed. Here is where there is room for improvement. > Shadow Feint is kind of cool, > but the clans who play it easily could use something much better than kind of > cool. Right. Or, at least, make it free. > > I think there's potential for good dual/multi disciplines, but I'd like to see > a lot better job done on execution: Yes. > no more ones that just ramp up strong > clans, I'd rather see weaker disciplines enhanced, but I have less problem with ramp-up in general. -Ben Swainbank

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.04011...@posting.google.com... [re life in the city] > IMHO the "slot cost" is higher for fatties because they often play > multiple disciplines, and thouch need wider card combinations. A > smallcap deck often plays 3-4 kinds of differnt cards massively, > whereas a fattie plays more different card from the combos he can pull > out. So he needs more "drawing" new cards, especially while engaged in > an action. Suppose you call a vote. You replace it with life in the > city. Wouldn't you have prefered to draw voter cap instead ? In that example, sure. I could also come up with examples where you'd rather draw a Life in the City. (You play Wake during your predator's turn and block an action, reducing your fatty to 0 blood. You draw Voter Captivation during your untap phase. Wouldn't you rather have drawn Life in the City, instead of being forced to hunt?) I think I see what you're getting at, which seems to be the idea that weenies can "afford" to use cards that have a relatively small effect individually, because their many minion actions let them accumulate effectiveness over many actions instead of just a few. I would still say that a weenie deck benefits a lot less from saving a single weenie from having to hunt than a fatty deck benefits from keeping its fatty from having to hunt. But I think you're saying that the weenie deck doesn't *need* to get as much benefit, because it's already got the "weenie advantage" overall. Which is probably true as far as it goes, but I'm not sure it's a good argument to show that Life in the City actually *helps* weenie decks more than fatty decks. Since the weenie deck doesn't benefit all that much from it, even if it can get *some* use out of the card because each card doesn't *have* to do that much in its deck, I'm not yet convinced that LitC is truly a card that helps weenies more than fatties. (I've played it in relatively-fat decks and liked having it there myself.) Josh livin'... in the city...

e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) wrote in message news:<10c2c156.04011...@posting.google.com>... > > I like them, and the Assasin's Path *is* thematically cute, but I do > > have one reservation ? in metagames / areas which are already > > combat-heavy (like where I live), it's already hard to play anything > > BUT combat, or with quite a pile of combat defence (S:CE, chump > > blockers, never using big caps unless they have fortitude). I think > > that with a few cards like the ones you propose (an easily cycleable > > potence option), that balance could be tipped a bit too far towards > > combat, making it suicidal to play any decks / clans without > > fortitude. > > > Yes and know. It is rother created to cut the "weenie > blocker/rescuer/swarmer" approach to rush defense, while letting other > options opened, especially S:CE. Yep, I can see why you made it. But, I proposed an alternative version because: IMO, your suggestion would help combat in a normal metagame, and make it murderous in a metagame that was already combat heavy. IMO, my suggestion would also help combat in a normal metagame (where Sela and Amelia and titled !Tor can fight well), but would not see much use in a metagame where the combat is already heavy. Therefore, IMO, my suggestion preserves the spirit of what you wanted (a weenie-killer), but it is better balanced. > > > If whack-a-mole cards were to be developed, I would prefer to see them > > either targeted towards truly obnoxious weenies (like Caitiff Princes > > / Pander Archbishops) or to have these cards go only to vampires which > > can't prevent damage, so therefore only fight well in a lowish combat > > environment. That way, environments that are already combat heavy > > won't get crazy with nothing but bloodshed. > > > A "regular" deck is already heavily hampered by the smackdown to very > little blood of his big vampires. The difference is that such card > would give an opportunity to do something against weenies, though it > wouldn't be that efficient. Yes, I can see that you want to hose annoying weenie decks where you play. However, the point I made above still stands. I wouldn't want to see any new cards created that helped to hose most non-combat decks where I play, and in other combat-heavy metagames. Making combat more interesting, I'm OK with. Making it impossible to play a reange of interesting decks, I'm not fine with. If I couldn't play weenies and / or have chump blockers for fear of them being easily burned, I would have to play fatties. And if I play fatties, I can't afford to lose one, so I must play with fortitude. That's pretty limiting.

On 15 Jan 2004 04:31:49 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote: >> >Akhenaten >> >Anisa Marianna Lopez >> >Goratrix, Advanced >> >Fear of Mekhet >> >Society of Leopold >> >...some examples of cards that burn a vampire. >> None of which are votes. >I fail to see the difference. Then I have nothing more to discuss. My objection is to votes that burn vampires. Protect Thine Own, Sacrifice, Tradition Upheld, Justicar Retribution. I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> This would be fine if combat's balance flaws got worked on as well. I'm not > currently in favor of anything that encourages combat because combat is too > extreme and the table destabilization potential is high. "Too extreme"? Please define. > Now, in the grand scheme of things, more combat leads to more combat defense, which should balance things out*. But, I'd be worried about a more chaotic environment when significant but few changes are made in an area that doesn't lend itself to balance in the first place rather than a better one. "Does not lend itself to balance"? Please explain. > My view is that burning a minion should be nigh impossible and that it's its > own reward. Antiminion effects, whether noncombat or combat, everything else > being equal, reward playing lower cap vampires. There is little to no reward in burning a minion. Provision of the Silsila, Draught of the Soul and Tension in the Ranks are the only cards [that i can think of off the top of my head] that generate any kind of direct profit from the incredibly difficult task of actually ashing a minion through combat. Bragging rights is about the best most decks get out of it, and they don't pay the bills. > Except, I see little that's fair about combat. Or, more specifically, > individual combats. On average, things work out adequately, but individual > combats are far too extreme. The more rewards added to playing a combat > strategy, the more often these unfair events will occur. Again, please explain what is "unfair" about combat? > And, there are other ways of helping combat besides rewarding it more heavily. > Reducing the ability to stealth actions through would see more combat, a > greater need to run combat defense in noncombat decks, which would in turn see > more combat as deck space is taken up with cards that don't evade combat. "Reducing stealth" would require nerfing or banning the current stealth cards in play - not really a viable option. Increasing the abilities of intercept is a more realistic option, but so long as "block fails, block with someone else" cards like Elder intervention and Call of the hungry Dead exist, even this isn't a very sure bet. > Getting back to helping clans already good at combat, not every combat capable > clan or set of disciplines is weak. A *lot* of the imbalance in the game > arises from who has bounce and who doesn't. A decent disciplineless bounce > might reshape the landscape in desired ways. OTOH, how much do you want to > help the FoS or whoever at the same time? FOS have their own unique problems which are somewhat off thread. I'm talking about making combat a more competitive and viable ousting strategy than it is now [easily the weakest fo the bleed/vote/combat pantheon]. At the moment, if you actually win a tourney with a combat deck, you're generally regarded as having turned water into wine. noodleboy

nood...@iprimus.net.au (noodleboy) wrote in message news:<e72ec49.04011...@posting.google.com>... > > Except, I see little that's fair about combat. Or, more specifically, > > individual combats. On average, things work out adequately, but individual > > combats are far too extreme. The more rewards added to playing a combat > > strategy, the more often these unfair events will occur. > > Again, please explain what is "unfair" about combat? The point of combat is to destroy another person's game by eliminating their minions. You either deal pool damage to them as a result of them failing in combat, or bleed them when they're defenseless after all their minions are either burnt or in torpor. Whether this is "fair" or not is debateable--it's combat right? So everyone has the same playing field to start--but when tiny minions can wreck huge minions it can cause "unfair" swings in the game, e.g. Koko catches Arika at the wrong time and Amaranth's her. Sure Koko's controller had to get lucky, but a 2-cap burning an 11-cap should be nearly impossible if the game were realistic. Yeah, you can say that Arika should have been playing more Fortitude, but just because the cards make it possible doesn't mean it should be possible. Personally, I like combat a lot and don't have much of a problem with small vampires burning large vampires (especially Tariq). But when 11-pool worth of someone's resources goes up in a single event, it can be perceived as "unfair" simply because that's 1/3 of a person's game gone in a very short time. These huge swings in table balance due to a single action--ANY ACTION--are what's most problematic.

> >> None of which are votes. > > >I fail to see the difference. > > Then I have nothing more to discuss. > > My objection is to votes that burn vampires. > > Protect Thine Own, Sacrifice, Tradition Upheld, Justicar Retribution. > > I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or > specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes. Might I inquire, is there a reason for this particular aversion? One might think that of all the card types currently in the game political actions are perhaps the toughest to get through. A card, a minion meeting its requirements, an unblocked action (at default +1 stealth), and a succesful (and uncancelled) referendum are probably more than what anything else requires. Sidenote: does your aversion extend to the blood hunt? Best Regards, Daneel [ quoted text not captured ]

this is easy to answer. though i don't want to put words in Lasombra's mouth what i'm getting is this: this pointing to a wide array of cards saying they do a similar effect is topic jumping. it's not dealing with the realities and the mechanics of the topic cards - PTO and similar minion burn vote cards. if you can't see the difference in the mechanics of opportunity cost, delivery system, et al. between those cards (which are each different, from among as well as around) and the topical cards, then there can be little to talk about. it means that you've locked yourself into such a narrowly defined manner of analysis that you forget to take the entire synthesis into account. essentially it's the [forgot poor guy's name] Razor Theory - by the effort of looking ever closer to the subject your lose sight of what your looking at. that's what i think Lasombra is getting from you and finds it futile to go through the effort for someone who cannot see the obvious inconsistency.

The Lasombra wrote: > Then I have nothing more to discuss. > > My objection is to votes that burn vampires. > > Protect Thine Own, Sacrifice, Tradition Upheld, Justicar Retribution. > > I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or > specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes. This makes abosolutely no sense to me at all. Votes to burn vampires, esp. small cap ones, is entirely appropriate. What justification do you have that Political Actions, as opposed to other actions which don't ask permission of the table, be denied the ability to burn vampires? Regards, Noal

>> This would be fine if combat's balance flaws got worked on as well. I'm >not >> currently in favor of anything that encourages combat because combat is too >> extreme and the table destabilization potential is high. > >"Too extreme"? Please define. Some common results of a combat between two vampires: One or both play combat ends and nothing happens. One or both maneuver and wave or dodge and nothing happens. One or both are "real" combat decks and one or both vampires end up torpored or (less likely) burnt. BTW, while exchanging hands for 1 may be a common result, it can't be that common as I've run into problems cycling Martyr's Resiliences in games. I don't know what the average blood loss is per vampire per combat. Let's say the mean is 2 as a basis for trying to clarify the point. While the mean may be 2, the mode results are far more often 0, 1, 3+. Combat is extreme in that it rarely matches the average. Nothing happens combat is the death of some combat decks. Torp/burn results can randomly end someone's, anyone's game. Again, as it stands, on average for a game, combat works out much better, but each individual combat has the potential to be fraught with peril. Then, because combat comes in much more diverse forms, it's far harder to metagame against than bleed or vote, leading to a greater luck/match up factor.

"Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ZbadnUADa9G...@comcast.com>... > this is easy to answer. > > though i don't want to put words in Lasombra's mouth what i'm getting is > this: I think I'll basically wait for TheLasombra's reply. > this pointing to a wide array of cards saying they do a similar effect is > topic jumping. it's not dealing with the realities and the mechanics of the > topic cards - PTO and similar minion burn vote cards. Again, my debate is primarily with TheLasombra. I'm not sure that there is more similarity between PTO and a different vote (say ConBoon) or between PTO and another vampire burning effect. Alas, it is a matter of the angle from which the analysis is approached. Restraining the approach to analysis to a certain angle deprives one from insight and questions one's sincerity regarding the desire to truly find a solution through analysing. > if you can't see the difference in the mechanics of opportunity cost, > delivery system, et al. between those cards (which are each different, from > among as well as around) and the topical cards, then there can be little to > talk about. it means that you've locked yourself into such a narrowly > defined manner of analysis that you forget to take the entire synthesis into > account. essentially it's the [forgot poor guy's name] Razor Theory - by the > effort of looking ever closer to the subject your lose sight of what your > looking at. I may be quite well aware of the differences between the requirements and various costs of using different types of cards, but I fail to see how a comparison between different card types are a blasphemy to the analysis. Regarding your post I can only quote - yourself: "by the effort of looking ever closer to the subject your lose sight of what your looking at". Without context comparison is pointless. Sticking pointlessly to one angle will just deprive you from insight. > that's what i think Lasombra is getting from you and finds it futile to go > through the effort for someone who cannot see the obvious inconsistency. I'm not sure what this meant, but judging from the general relevance of the post (which was, by the way, well written) I'll just disregard it. I look forward to TheLasombra answering my sincere question. Bye, Daneel

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b20d2553.04011...@posting.google.com... > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040112195331...@mb-m01.aol.com>... > > > > I don't find Celerity or Potence well rounded nor adequately developed. > > They aren't well-rounded. But I think they are adequately developed. > I'm happy seeing focused disciplines. The clans (and the game) get > pretty bland once everyone can do everything. It wouldn't have to be at all about having Celerity or Potence do "everything", though. That's an *easy* way to develop them in directions other than the "99.44% combat cards" direction they've mostly been in, but they *could*... in theory... get unique new effects that made them interesting in ways other than "beating people up, a lot, really fast". Action cards that do weird wacky stuff, for example (things as unduplicated as Masochism or Army of Rats or Contagion). Or action modifiers more in the vein of Perfect Clarity and less in the vein of Alacrity. Or even combat cards that don't just produce +damage or +strikes or dodges or maneuvers. There's already been some clear effort in this direction, with things like Rooftop Shadow (though it is a "somewhat" generic effect), Brick Laying, and so on. More of that would, IMO, be cool. Especially for the disciplines that are currently very "narrow" in terms of what kinds of effects are available to them. Josh i mean, look at fortitude: it's all over the map, in *addition* to having most of the game's damage prevention...

"Azel" wrote: > that's what i think Lasombra is getting from you and finds it futile to go > through the effort for someone who cannot see the obvious inconsistency. And what we're getting from Lasombra is that he's smoking crack on this issue. His quote, "I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes," is ridiculous on its face. Imagine the following card (as quoted by LSJ in an e-mail discussing this issue): Protect the Crown Action 1 blood +1 stealth action. Requires a ready justicar or Inner Circle member. Choose a non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any non-Camarilla vampire instead. Burn the chosen vampire. According to Lasombra's quote, he wouldn't care about this card. Can you, in exactly 2 words, tell me why this would be more broken, not less? Regards, Noal

On 16 Jan 2004 03:31:40 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote: >> >> None of which are votes. >> >I fail to see the difference. >> Then I have nothing more to discuss. >> My objection is to votes that burn vampires. >> Protect Thine Own, Sacrifice, Tradition Upheld, Justicar Retribution. >> I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or >> specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes. >Might I inquire, is there a reason for this particular aversion? Cross table targeting and the inability of the victim to block by virtue of seating. If they were all restricted to predator/prey, I would be happier, but would still object to them. When (D) bleeds were usable against anyone, ganging up against the visitor / unpopular player was de rigour. These votes have the same opportunity and effect. I have no interest in travelling to another country and having some asshole across the table destroy my vampires and then fail to win the game. If playing the cards won you the game, I would be less concerned with them. They don't. They make your victim lose. This is not an effect that should happen across the table with no opportunity for blocking by the victim's minions. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jan 2004 13:25:45 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >"Azel" wrote: >> that's what i think Lasombra is getting from you and finds it futile to go >> through the effort for someone who cannot see the obvious inconsistency. >And what we're getting from Lasombra is that he's smoking crack on >this issue. >His quote, "I don't care whether or not there are other effects for >actions or specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with >votes," is ridiculous on its face. Pass that crack pipe back over here when you are done with it. All of the other options are directed. I can block them when the actor is cross table and aiming them at me. I cannot block votes across the table as they are not directed by definition. I don't have a problem with undirected votes, I have a problem with the effect of these undirected votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jan 2004 08:53:26 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >The Lasombra wrote: >> Then I have nothing more to discuss. >> My objection is to votes that burn vampires. >> Protect Thine Own, Sacrifice, Tradition Upheld, Justicar Retribution. >> I don't care whether or not there are other effects for actions or >> specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with votes. >This makes abosolutely no sense to me at all. Votes to burn vampires, >esp. small cap ones, is entirely appropriate. Because? >What justification do you have that Political Actions, as opposed to other >actions which don't ask permission of the table, be denied the ability to burn >vampires? Cross table targetting and the inability of the victim to even attempt to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Might I inquire, is there a reason for this particular aversion? > > Cross table targeting and the inability of the victim to block by > virtue of seating. > > If they were all restricted to predator/prey, I would be happier, but > would still object to them. > > When (D) bleeds were usable against anyone, ganging up against the > visitor / unpopular player was de rigour. > > These votes have the same opportunity and effect. > > I have no interest in travelling to another country and having some > asshole across the table destroy my vampires and then fail to win the > game. > > If playing the cards won you the game, I would be less concerned with > them. They don't. They make your victim lose. This is not an effect > that should happen across the table with no opportunity for blocking > by the victim's minions. Nice argument. Valid. Thanks for the explication. Cross-table targeting is stil there with some other cards, like the innate ability of Goratrix, Advanced. Also, IMHO some of the votes are less particular. Also note that a lot of the common threats can be made direct any methuselah with certain decks. Malkavians can bleed any methuselah with Kindred Spirits, Assamites can rush anyone with Contracts or (D) rushes, etc. In fact, on a tournament I'm usually using a decks that can harm cross-table to maintain the game balance. There were issues where I eliminated someone from across the table (to win the game later, of course). My concern is that PTO is too cheap. Many times have my grand-predator passed the harmful votes while my crippled predator was still in the game (effectively making blocking them impossible). In this respect I agree with your reasoning, even if I'm not sure repeatable (D) actions are morally less puzzling. If Goratrix, Advanced sits cross-table and wants to burn my Tremere Antitribu every round, I'm not sure I'll feel too comfortable. Or if my ally plays DI from cross-table to burn my bounce card. My general problem is that these are two separate issues - ganging up and too powerful effect. You seem to be concerned by the first issue, while I'm more concerned about the latter. My take is that ganging up cannot be ruled out, its observation should be vigilantly done by the judges to prevent unsportsmanship. However, the likes of PTO and Goratrix, Advanced have the possibility of being the only currently possible action that can cripple a particular deck in a defenceless moment (after a conceptually necessary round of overexpansion, etc). I'll leave it at that, as my last sentence fairly well explains why I dislike PTO. Regards, Daneel [ quoted text not captured ]

>On the other hand, I think that Celerity and Potence work pretty well >just as they are. Why would we want to make two of the best >diciplines even more powerful OR totally diversified? Because I don't believe they are powerful. Of the disciplines held by more than one clan, I rank Celerity as the weakest. It's entirely a support discipline and entirely limited to combat support. And, both are extremely boring. >I don't like >the idea of adding too much diversity to any of the main diciplines. >Imagine a bunch of new Potence cards that create intercept, bounce, >votes, massive bleeds, etc. Wouldn't that get a bit ridiculous? > >Of course, I also love new cards. So now I'm curious about what kind >of cards you would like to see developed for Celerity and Potence. Do >you have any examples? This has a problem, namely that it's so narrow it will likely never see play, but it's from a group of card ideas where I was trying to come up with something unusual. My thought on expanding the versatility of disciplines is not predicated on making all disciplines do the same things, though some overlap doesn't bother me just as some overlap already exists in the game. Ideally, novel effects that don't suck and don't screw the game up get introduced. Slippery Reaction Cost = 1 <cel>: Play when a directed action is announced that targets this minion. The action is cancelled. The controller of the acting minion takes the action card (if any) back into his or her hand (and discards down to his or her hand size), and his or her minions cannot attempt the same action targeting this minion this turn. <CEL>: Play when a directed action is announced that targets this minion. The action fails. Minions controlled by the controller of the acting minion cannot attempt the same action targeting this minion this turn. >> I certainly think the merged mechanic has been a waste. > > >Wait a minute there.. some of the merged vampires are fantastic >(Jessica & King Quintin III). Just being able to put 2 of them in a >deck without doubling up is worth quite a bit. Don't you agree? To paraphrase something I said, if you were going to play both versions anyway, then the net benefit of merging is okay. The problem is when one version, like most of the advanced vampires pre-BH, was too weak to be desirable while the payoff for merging wasn't high enough to compensate for putting a loser in your crypt. In the case of, say, Lucita, I have no problems running both in a deck because her disciplines are really good for certain decks and because they are largely interchangeable. If you don't care about the differences in abilities, then it's strictly better to run one of each than two of one, as you said. The Quentins aren't particularly interchangeable, so preventing double up isn't much of a benefit. Then, merged, I'm not impressed by the gains over the basic version. Nothing wrong with them merged, but I wouldn't build a deck around either merged ability. The former being even more effort for a deck already going to the effort of merging a vampire; the latter being ho hum with a vampire with a strong bleed discipline. >> >Diversion is a good example of a 3-Way done well. It provides 3 >> >different basic-level effects with the strength of advanced effects. >> >> I think it's underpowered. I don't find the versatility great enough to >offset >> the cost of anarching, > > >If you combine the Anarch masters, some good 3-way cards, Anarch >votes, and other tried and true methods (bleeds, strong votes, etc.), >then you have a pretty good deck. Haven't found the masters useful. Don't consider any of the 3-ways good; now, if they didn't require an anarch ... If I'm using tried and true methods, why bother anarching? >As soon as we get a few *Anarch* >vampires, then we will be all set. In the meantime, it's still kind >of fun to try to work with it... isn't the challenge of making/trying >a new deck concept part of the fun? Not when you realize that you could make a deck strictly better by removing the new concept. Not when the new concept isn't terribly interesting. Not when the new concept is something everyone else will do as well because it's the only effective thing you can do with the cards at hand. >I agree that some of the cards could have been a bit better. Imagine >if Typhonic Beast was SER/PRE... that could have been VERY useful. >Or if Alpha Glint had a stronger superior version... Typhonic Beast as Ser/Pre would still suck. It doesn't fulfill a useful role. If it were free, then at least it would be light combat defense. But, rush with vampires who have Ser/Pre? What do you do about combat ends? Intercept combat? With what intercept? >> no more ones that just ramp up strong >> clans, no more that suck, no more hosers, no more that make the game more >> unpleasant to play. And, if those criteria aren't hard enough to satisfy, >if >> you do make a mistake, could you make the next Shroud of Absence common at >> least? > > >That's a lot of criteria to meet. Wouldn't that lead to wallpaper >cards? ;o) Shroud of Absence as a Cel/Obt card wouldn't have bothered me. Then, it would be a highly useful effect without being ridiculously good Obtenebration stealth (requirement of Dominate is trivial for getting massive use from it). The Call as Dem/Pre? Okay, I can see the point of its existence now. A fairly strong Aus/Tha card? I can see why that might be constructive where good multidiscipline cards in other inclan combinations wouldn't. >> >Merged vampires are another, new, and under-developed mechanic. > > >I'm sure that it will be developed a bit more carefully in the future. > My current prediction is that the newer *advanced* vampires will >probably be more powerful than the older version (more Superior >diciplines - like Quintin King III) and their merged abilities will be >even more useful. At least, that's what I'm hoping for... They appear to be getting better as individual vampire choices. That's useful. Still not seeing enough payoff in trying to merge. >...AND you can build a deck around them if they have all the >disciplines you need at superior. At one point I built a deck with 2 >Lucita and 2 Lucita Advanced to use DOM/FOR/OBT... and it was a lot >of fun to play with. I often got the meged Lucita into play, but that >wasn't critical to the deck. Isn't it contradictory to say that you can build around them but merging them isn't critical? I'm guessing you mean build around one of them when they are largely interchangeable, emphasizing the idea that you can reduce crypt duplication. But, I'd go back to how little you get for *trying* to merge vampires. If the intent is only that merging is a random event that happens when you get the right crypt draw, then the individual vampires should be costed well and not costed as if they were always going to be merged. If the intent is to see merged vampire decks, then the payoff needs to be greater to justify the limitations put on deck construction and other costs associated with merging. >PS Why doesn't Tusk have a merged ability?!? Who was responsible for >that??? One assumes the process was something like: "What would be really funny is making an advanced group 1 vampire like Tusk." "That would be funny. He couldn't be played with our new base set Nos we just released." "Even funnier - we make him worse than the original and give no good reason to play with both." "Brilliant!" >Question - What are the most underdeveloped clans? Meaning... which >clans need the most help in future expansions? Setites? Assimites? >Daughters? Salubri? ...who else needs a boost?? Underdeveloped? Ignoring bloodlines, I'd still say the Sabbat clans, with the possible exceptions of the Lasombra and Tzimisce. The antitribu are in every case weaker than the originals, though it varies how much so. Also, they tend to do the same things the originals do, not unsurprising given the discipline combination similarities. One of the good things about BH is that makes the antitribu a bit more distinct. Still, the number of clan specific cards heavily favors the Cammies. The Cam title cards are better. Makes some sense that the Cammies come out better per clan as there are fewer Cam clans. Then, there are the Pander who do little but provide weenie support. Underpowered? Similar story but add in the Assamites. Assuming things change for the !Brujah and !Nos post-BH, which is a bit of an assumption, !Gangrel and Assamites need the most help. If you look at disciplines, I'd diversify Celerity and Potence, give some decent stuff to Thaumaturgy, Serpentis, and Quietus. Bloodlines? They could all use something. Ahrimanes could use a Gangrel or !Gangrel with ANI/PRE or could use another Bear Paw. Spiritus having some more variety wouldn't hurt either. Baali could use a change in the infernal rule that read "infernal means nothing". BB could use a good strategy that has no synergy with Unwholesome Bond. DoC could use another vampire so that Choir sucked less. Gargoyles? Maybe a blood gain card along the lines of Taste or Kamut. HoS could use a little helper dude. Kiasyd could use a card that makes them less Lasombralike. Nagaraja could use something that ties them together. Samedi could use intercept and an across the board reduction in capacity. Salubri could use an ally. !Salubri could use help, a lot of help. True Brujah could use intercept and/or bounce, but, then, couldn't every clan?

The Lasombra wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2004 13:25:45 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) > wrote: [...] > >His quote, "I don't care whether or not there are other effects for > >actions or specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with > >votes," is ridiculous on its face. [...] > I cannot block votes across the table as they are not directed by > definition. I don't have a problem with undirected votes, I have a > problem with the effect of these undirected votes. The effect of Banishment is actually very similar to that of PTO. In my experience, a cross-table PTO is used when you are about to oust your prey and you want to weaken your grandprey; or when there is a vampire threatening the whole table or yourself (such as a Fatima [in a multirush deck], Lucita [in a turbo deck], etc.); or when your grandpredator is about to oust your predator and is a real threat to you; or in other cases I cannot remember now. What's the difference between playing a PTO and a Banishment when you are about to deal a final blow?. PTO only affects non-Camarilla vampires and can only be effectively called by the 7 Inner Circle members. While Banishment can be called by any older vampire and can affect any younger vampire (regardless of sect allegiance and title). In the mid or end game, vampires are not usually at full capacity, so Banishment's effect can be as much destructive as PTO's, since the result is the same: you lose a vampire. (note that when dealing a final blow, losing a vampire for 1 or 2 turns is the same as losing a vampire forever, because you cannot use that vampire anyway, and you might not have enough pool to influence him back into play later). Example: During the final round of Storyline: Meddling of Semsith (in Palma de Mallorca) there were just 4 players left (Xavier -> Josep -> David Q.-> Víctor) when the following happened: (note: Howler had 1 Blood Doll, 1 Guardian Angel, 2 Murder of Crows, and 1 Sport Bike at that time.) ... XAVIER Guido Lucciano attempts to hunt Antonio Delgado plays Banishment (Howler) % XAVIER +6 votes % Gratiano plays Kine Resources Contested (JOSEP 3, DAVID 1) % XAVIER +6 votes; JOSEP is OUSTED % DAVID uses Blood Doll The Siamese; -1 blood Nettie Hale employs J.S. Simmons, Esq. Howler +1 VICTOR Gilbert Duane attempts to bleed Victoria attempts to bleed XAVIER plays Power Structure Guido Lucciano plays Kine Resources Contested The Siamese attempts to block Guido Lucciano plays Shroud of Night at superior Kine Resources Contested (DAVID 3, XAVI 1) % XAVIER +6 votes % Gratiano plays Govern The Unaligned at inferior The Siamese attempts to block Gratiano plays Shadow Play at superior Nettie Hale plays Forced Awakening Gratiano Conditioning at superior; DAVID is OUSTED ... David Q's key vampire, Howler, was forever Banished. Vote decks are about undirected actions playable cross table when necessary (to win, of course) ;-) Greetings, Damnans

On 16 Jan 2004 23:55:24 -0800, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote: >Cross-table targeting is stil there with some other cards, like the >innate ability of Goratrix, Advanced. Also, IMHO some of the votes are >less particular. The others are directed actions. They can be blocked by the targets. There is no comparison. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:17:12 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >PTO only affects non-Camarilla vampires and can only be >effectively called by the 7 Inner Circle members. While >Banishment can be called by any older vampire and can >affect any younger vampire (regardless of sect allegiance >and title). And therefore Banishment does not penalize you for playing a clan and does not prevent you from building and playing tournament competitive decks with non-Camarilla clans. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Nor does PTO :-) Nowadays, you can build and play tournament competitive decks with non-Camarilla clans. PTO does not stops that from happening. E.g., do you think David Quiñonero's Ahrimane deck is not tournament competitive enough because of the existance of PTO? Banishment is a more common vote in tournament play than PTO, since it's not only restricted to decks playing with several IC members. So its effects in tournament play are surely more destructive than PTO's. (Side note: Banishment penalizes you for playing younger vampires that get low of blood). >:-) Greetings, Damnans

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:25:55 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >E.g., do you think David Quiñonero's Ahrimane deck is not tournament >competitive enough because of the existance of PTO? No, it is a dedicated intercept deck. It is not affected by the presence of Protect Thine Own in the game. It would be much more competitive and tournament worthy every tournament if Protect Thine Own didn't exist. But don't tell him I said that right before the tournament today, or he will play it again. :> I think he can be destroyed across the table with his own Protect Thine Own deck, and his predator will take the victory point, not the person calling the Protect Thine Own. I don't believe that dedicated intercept decks with the ability to block across the table (Falcon's Eye) are particularly vulnerable to this type of vote. I just don't want it to be the only type that is tournament worthy. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:25:55 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > wrote: > > >E.g., do you think David Quiñonero's Ahrimane deck is not tournament > >competitive enough because of the existance of PTO? > > No, it is a dedicated intercept deck. It is not affected by the > presence of Protect Thine Own in the game. It would be much more > competitive and tournament worthy every tournament if Protect Thine > Own didn't exist. > > But don't tell him I said that right before the tournament today, or > he will play it again. Won't do :-) At least, yesterday he did not know what deck he was going to play today. I suggested him "The Followers of Angra Mainyu" but he told me he wanted to win. >:) > I think he can be destroyed across the table with his own Protect > Thine Own deck, and his predator will take the victory point, not the > person calling the Protect Thine Own. That should not be reprehensible as long as the IC deck is playing to get the most VPs and/or the game win. > I don't believe that dedicated intercept decks with the ability to > block across the table (Falcon's Eye) are particularly vulnerable to > this type of vote. > > I just don't want it to be the only type that is tournament worthy. So you mean none of your Lasombra decks is tournament worthy? >:-) They are quite vulnerable to Banishment as well (and you know Lasombra vampires aren't usually at full capacity because many Obtenebration cards cost blood.) Greetings, Damnans

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:00:22 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >So you mean none of your Lasombra decks is tournament worthy? >:-) Only the ones that include 7 Delaying Tactics. >They are quite vulnerable to Banishment as well (and you know >Lasombra vampires aren't usually at full capacity because many >Obtenebration cards cost blood.) Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > >"Azel" wrote: > >> that's what i think Lasombra is getting from you and finds it futile to go > >> through the effort for someone who cannot see the obvious inconsistency. > > >And what we're getting from Lasombra is that he's smoking crack on > >this issue. > > >His quote, "I don't care whether or not there are other effects for > >actions or specific vampires or master cards, my concern is with > >votes," is ridiculous on its face. > > Pass that crack pipe back over here when you are done with it. I never had it. You've been hogging it the whole time. > All of the other options are directed. Correct. > I can block them when the actor is cross table and aiming them at me. Right up until I use the two Magic Words I alluded to earlier...."Horrifc Countenance." Or two other Magic Words, "Day Operation." Once I use those Magic Words, you, god and everyone can't block shit. DI is your only hope at that point and even it won't do anything for you if I have more copies in hand, which is going to be a fair bet. > I cannot block votes across the table as they are not directed by > definition. I don't have a problem with undirected votes, I have a > problem with the effect of these undirected votes. Blocking isn't the issue and you've gotten your judgement waaaaaaaaaay too clouded to see that. With directed actions, I just have to make the action unblockable, which isn't all that difficult, and you're screwed blue without any chance of help. With PtO in its current form, even if I make the action unblockable, there are still options available. Delaying Tactics will still save the day as will simply voting the referendum away. Even better, you don't have to try to go it alone. Anyone else on the table can come to your rescue, unlike the directed action you seem to feel is better. Jeff, you need to step back and think of the bigger picture before going off the deep end. Your suggestions would make the game worse, not better. If PtO was limited to non-titled, non-Cams controlled by your predator or prey, that would satisfy what you've stated to be your objections and it would give the Mind Rape/Clan Impersonation combo a little less punch, because it would have to go back to the original controller before you blasted it. However, I'd like to state for the record that I think all this going back and changing old cards is a bunch of blathering nonsense. The game isn't broken. Stop trying to fix it. Regards, Noal

The Lasombra wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > >PTO only affects non-Camarilla vampires and can only be > >effectively called by the 7 Inner Circle members. While > >Banishment can be called by any older vampire and can > >affect any younger vampire (regardless of sect allegiance > >and title). > > And therefore Banishment does not penalize you for playing a clan and > does not prevent you from building and playing tournament competitive > decks with non-Camarilla clans. As has been pointed out earlier, this is a straw man. With Mind Rape/Clan Impersonation, PtO can blast any vampire in the game. Regards, Noal

On 17 Jan 2004 06:55:25 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: > a bunch of blathering nonsense Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Jan 2004 06:57:59 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >As has been pointed out earlier, this is a straw man. With Mind >Rape/Clan Impersonation, PtO can blast any vampire in the game. That's a three action combo. Banishment is clearly the better choice. Have a nice day. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >What justification do you have that Political Actions, as opposed to other > >actions which don't ask permission of the table, be denied the ability to burn > >vampires? > > Cross table targetting and the inability of the victim to even attempt > to block. Nice. I'm just back from a relatively prominent tournament (~55 people), and I just have first-hand experience of how cross-table targetting really works. In a game my predator had vote control (by having certain vote cancellation tools and some votes) in a fashion that no political deck could pass any votes without his approval or consent. Therefor all political actions done by my predator's predator and his predator (my hypothetical allies) and my prey (luckily everyone had at least a small voting angle in their deck) ended up putting (or trying to put) at least some of the pool loss and other detrimental effects on me. Distinguished as I felt for such an honor I nevertheless begun wondering whether the problem is not with the nature of politics. Because even though PTO could have burned my 7-cap vampire in a single action, over the course of several turns the small leftovers from KRCs and CAs amounted to a fair loss (which, among other circumstances, eventually ended up in my oust). I begun to develop a certain dislike towards politics in general. Because given my preference for non-political decks I usually end up getting shafted by these cross-table votes, even if I pack lots of intercept (as I did today). So all in all politics in general is unfair, because voting decks have a tendency to weaken their prey *and* the prey of the other most prominent voting power - meaning, they usually target cross table just to get their thing done. PTO does not really stand out from among the other political cards regarding this. PTO does stand out in power and effect though. So all in all I'm on the opposite side of the same side regarding PTO... ;) Bye, Daneel

Whatever, Jeff. If you want to be a jackass tilting windmills and alienating all your friends in the process, go right on ahead. Until you settle down and conduct yourself in a manner more appropriate of one your age, I have nothing further to say to you. Good day. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra expounded: > On 12 Jan 2004 04:03:40 -0800, jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote: > > >> Not at all. > > >> It doesn't matter if in only affects 10 vampires in the game, the card > >> should not exist. > > > >Does this mean that you would be in favor of simply banning it in > >stead of changing it? > > Yes. > > Errata is unacceptable. Why? You are fundamentally opposed to votes hurting vampires? (in which case there are others to look at as well)

In article <bb705c59.04011...@posting.google.com>, dhar...@my-deja.com says... > Once I use those Magic Words, you, god and everyone can't block shit. > DI is your only hope at that point and even it won't do anything for > you if I have more copies in hand, which is going to be a fair bet. Nitpick: Can't play the same action mod after it's been DI'd. > Blocking isn't the issue and you've gotten your judgement waaaaaaaaaay > too clouded to see that. With directed actions, I just have to make > the action unblockable, which isn't all that difficult, and you're > screwed blue without any chance of help. Blocking has been a large counterargument in this enormous thread for the "don't touch pto" crowd. > With PtO in its current form, > even if I make the action unblockable, there are still options > available. Delaying Tactics will still save the day as will simply > voting the referendum away. Even better, you don't have to try to go > it alone. Anyone else on the table can come to your rescue, unlike the > directed action you seem to feel is better. Delaying Tactics is really the only good option. Really if you're burning your prey's largest threat, I doubt your grandprey is going to be terribly adverse to the whole idea, unless it's setting up an obvious sweep. And most decks that push votes through can do so in the face of an unfavorable table at times. It is very possible they'll be able to do it 2 turns in a row. > If PtO was limited to non-titled, non-Cams controlled by your predator > or prey, that would satisfy what you've stated to be your objections > and it would give the Mind Rape/Clan Impersonation combo a little less > punch, because it would have to go back to the original controller > before you blasted it. This Mind Rape/CI/PTO combo you keep harping on is a little far fetched. Aside from the fact that no deck using PTO that I've seen has bothered to do it, it's a 3 action card combo at minimum (not all of which is at stealth), and 2 of the 3 actions require the (an) IC member. PTO on its own is certainly worth its inclusion and pretty much ends someone's game every time it gets passed. -- -Snapcase

The Lasombra expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] So contrary to your prevous assertion you would be happy to see it erratad to pred/prey's vamps only? The Lasombra expounded: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:17:12 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > wrote: > > >PTO only affects non-Camarilla vampires and can only be > >effectively called by the 7 Inner Circle members. While > >Banishment can be called by any older vampire and can > >affect any younger vampire (regardless of sect allegiance > >and title). > > And therefore Banishment does not penalize you for playing a clan and > does not prevent you from building and playing tournament competitive > decks with non-Camarilla clans. So it never had anything to do with burning vampires OR blocking cross- table? Could you state a consistent position please so that it can be discussed sensibly. Kindly include reasons why the following migrations wouldn't satisfy you: 1) Pred/Prey only 2) Torpor instead of burn. (with optional blood loss/votes)

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:54:38 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Errata is unacceptable. >Why? Cards that don't do what is printed on the card damage the game. Banning is preferable to errata. >You are fundamentally opposed to votes hurting vampires? Burning vampires. I have no objection to Free States Rant, Banishment, Deploy the Hand, Anathema, etc. Notice that Banishment has already received new card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Jan 2004 20:24:28 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >Whatever, Jeff. If you want to be a jackass tilting windmills and >alienating all your friends in the process, go right on ahead. Until >you settle down and conduct yourself in a manner more appropriate of >one your age, I have nothing further to say to you. This isn't a discussion about friendship. Feel free to add me to your killfile. Both sides of the argument are codswallop. See Nothing New To Say About Protect Thine Own. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4rd300hc2ci56349j88btr2e1a23a7n7ci%404ax.com Errata is unacceptable. If any change is required, banning is the only acceptable solution. Until someone can make an argument that "votes that burn vampires improve the game", the argument will doubtless continue. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:43 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >So contrary to your prevous assertion you would be happy to see it >erratad to pred/prey's vamps only? No. Errata is unacceptable. If the card is a big enough problem to require change, then it should be banned. Cards that do not do what their printed text say damage the game much more than the existance of these vampire burning votes do. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aramis expounded: > for a clan with such poor pool gain and pool defense options. Fear of the Assassin Combat 1 Pool Assamite Put this card in play when a vampire ir torporised or burned in combat. qui: Minions controlled by the controller of the burned vampire may not bleed the controller of this Assamite. This card may be burned by any minion as a +1 Stealth action. Burn this card during your next untap phase. QUI: as above but burn this card during their next untap phase. All sorts of variations are possibly but I think that some sort of Combat-based bleed defence would be very good.