What I played on Saturday at the London Storytelling event

Had a great time on Saturday at the London Baltimore thingy. A good day, and lots of new faces. The Meddling card is VERY COOL. I have 3 decks in mind for it already - better start trading! Anyhow, I got into the final with the following "novelty" deck. It did very well on the day, but I was scuppered by my predator having more disposable allies than me. Curses! On reflection, I should have gone backwards more to ease up the pressure, but I thought I have my prey so I slightly overextended myself. Oops! Oh well, 4vp in three rounds is still respectable: Deck Name: Ghouled Street Thuggery Crypt: (13 cards, Min: 4, Max: 14, Avg: 2.08) --------------------------------------------- 1 Basil obf 1, Pander 1 Christine Boscacci dom vic 2, Pander 1 Gillian Krader ani dem 2, Pander 1 Hasina Kesi pot 1, Caitiff 1 Huang pro 1, Pander 1 Hugo POT pre vic 4, Brujah Antitribu 1 Jacob Bragg cel pot 3, Brujah Antitribu 1 Jimmy Dunn CEL for POT 4, Pander 1 March Halcyon for 1, Pander 2 Mitchell obt pot 2, Pander 1 Rex pot pro vic 3, Pander 1 Royce dom 1, Pander Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (14 cards) 4 Blood Doll 2 Charisma 1 Fame 1 Haven Uncovered 1 Left for Dead 1 London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper 1 Powerbase: Montreal 1 Sudden Reversal 1 Tribute to the Master 1 Waste Management Operation Action (16 cards) 3 Ambush 6 Bum's Rush 6 Computer Hacking 1 Rampage Combat (43 cards) 8 Disarm 7 Fake Out 10 Immortal Grapple 4 Mighty Grapple 8 Torn Signpost 6 Undead Strength Ally (10 cards) 9 Ghouled Street Thug 1 Vagabond Mystic Equipment (7 cards) 7 Leather Jacket As you can see, I chose Pander as the clan. The idea is to get lots of Ghouled Street Thugs, Rush, Signpost, Grapple, Disarm. Immune to Obedience, Majesty, and most things. With a Leather Jacket, you can usually torporise any vampire, damage prevention allowing. Vagabond Mystic is a useful guy for helping the GSTs recover (I used him in every game). I actually managed to use the Left for Dead in one game! Hilarious! I wish I had another Jimmy Dunn to replace the utterly useless Rex. However, when Rex did come up, I just Blood dolled him and used him as a pool generator. Mitchell and Hasina are great in this deck - cheap and effective. The Waste Management Op came up in all three games too, but I never really had any benefit, since the deck was a little too big. It couple probably be easily de-sized to about 75 cards with no loss, but I made the deck in 5 mins and had never played it before the event, so I erred on the side of caution. Next time I play it, I'm playing to win, rather than playing a novelty deck to help screw over White Wolf's creative team! DH

hamdamcwa wrote: > > Had a great time on Saturday at the London Baltimore thingy. A good > day, and lots of new faces. The Meddling card is VERY COOL. I have 3 > decks in mind for it already - better start trading! Could you post what the card is? A card with a name like that sounds very cool. (By the way, I tried to access White Wolf's server yesterday for the first time in a while. It appears to be down and is still down today. Did it move, by any chance?) Fred

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:59:14 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Could you post what the card is? >A card with a name like that sounds very cool. Political Action - worth 1 vote Called by any vampire at +1 stealth Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. The art is by Mike Huddleston and looks ok. Andrew

> (By the way, I tried to access White Wolf's server yesterday for the > first time in a while. It appears to be down and is still down today. > Did it move, by any chance?) Noticed the same thing. They could be doing a massive overhaul. It appeared to go down the this weekend - it worked fine when I looked at it two days ago. Fanboy

>>Political Action - worth 1 vote Called by any vampire at +1 stealth Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action.>> Umm, yeah. Is it just me or is this card *wayyyyyyy* to powerful? For cripes sake, you pass a single vote, and someone, for all intents and purposes, ceases to be able to play the game. That is really not a good thing. What exactly were they thinking here? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!" -Zim.

> Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this > card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen > Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's > minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his > or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card > as a +1 stealth political action. Having already been on the ass end of this card, I've decided that if it's played against me, and passed, I am going to walk away from the table. The card effectively means that most decks can't play until its removed. My Ravnos/Smiling Jack deck had it played against it by a Brujah toolbox predator - and was shut down and ousted within two turns. I couldn't survive more than one action taken by me or against me in a given turn, since a single combat/block drained my hand of useable resources, and I didn't get them back until the acting player had finished ALL their actions. IMO, it is the single most damaging card for table balance I've ever seen - worse even than Thoughts Betrayed before the errata. Fanboy

> Umm, yeah. Is it just me or is this card *wayyyyyyy* to powerful? > For cripes sake, you pass a single vote, and someone, for all intents and > purposes, ceases to be able to play the game. Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. The decks this card hurts the most are combat and intercept decks. The two types that political decks have to fear the most. > That is really not a good thing. No, definitely not. Wasn't one of the arguments for TB being broken that a player could play their hand/deck? And here we have something just a step below that? > What exactly were they thinking here? *shrug* Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd... Sorrow --- "Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress." - Malcolm

Sorrow wrote: > > > Umm, yeah. Is it just me or is this card *wayyyyyyy* to powerful? > > For cripes sake, you pass a single vote, and someone, for all intents and > > purposes, ceases to be able to play the game. > > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. > The decks this card hurts the most are combat and intercept decks. > The two types that political decks have to fear the most. Correction. You replace cards after each minion phase. The only decks this is likely to shut down are those that are combo intensive. It of course would completely wreck a POT combat deck. One combat are your out of cards till the next players turn. Raille

> > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. > > The decks this card hurts the most are combat and intercept decks. > > The two types that political decks have to fear the most. > Correction. You replace cards after each minion phase. Notice my phrase: "They can still play their hand for a turn.". I understand that you replace cards after each minion phase. But you still can't play any- thing but whats in your hand for that current turn. > The only decks this is likely to shut down are those that are combo intensive. Umm, both combat and intercept decks are combo intensive. > It of course would completely wreck a POT combat deck. One combat are > your out of cards till the next players turn. Yup. Sorrow --- Through the screams of falling steel. By the light of flares and wisdom. All the doubts I could not face. All this time I wanted more. With a line I'll mark the past as a symbol of beginning. To the gods whose names we've lost and the names who gave in vain.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:D9F2B61D122A1132.4C92A0DF...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] The guy who created this card was on crack. I was not really happy about the new "millstone" decks, now we'll face some "Mind twist" decks... Gee, since Bloodlines, i'm playing magic again. We even have flying vampires... This new card is as cool as a Pentex Subversion affecting all of your prey's vampire but one. Why do they errata Misdirection to create such cards the next year ?? I just hope that the playtesters of this card have been shot. reyda

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:u5rq38e...@corp.supernews.com... (snip) > No, definitely not. Wasn't one of the arguments for TB being broken that > a player could play their hand/deck? And here we have something just a > step below that? you bet it's powerful. > > What exactly were they thinking here? > > *shrug* > Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd... Acceptable errata : *Requires a Titled vampire*.Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Your hand size is 1 card smaller. *The chosen Methuselah's hand size is 1 card larger*. He doesn't draw to replace cards during *his own*minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action.>> it reflects the defensive position of the target meth. He can still react normally with a, increased hand size. comments ? reyda

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:D9F2B61D122A1132.4C92A0DF...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] OUCH, that is powerful indeed. I'll have a closer look and post more later......bloody hell it is nasty isn't it ? Rob

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:<u5s14gp...@corp.supernews.com>... > > > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. > > > The decks this card hurts the most are combat and intercept decks. > > > The two types that political decks have to fear the most. > > Correction. You replace cards after each minion phase. > > Notice my phrase: "They can still play their hand for a turn.". I understand > that you replace cards after each minion phase. But you still can't play any- > thing but whats in your hand for that current turn. > > > The only decks this is likely to shut down are those that are combo intensive. > > Umm, both combat and intercept decks are combo intensive. > > > It of course would completely wreck a POT combat deck. One combat are > > your out of cards till the next players turn. It wrecks any sort of combat deck. I get into combat (1 card), I play at least one pre-range, manuver at least once, IG/Thin Blood, etc. Strike card, possibly additionals and prevents. That's 5 cards minimum for most combat decks. But here's the kicker, they all have to be in my hand at one time. I can't draw into prevent, or top-deck the IG I need. Exactly how does a combat deck stop this? Anyone can call it too! Maybe I'm just over-reacting, but this seems so powerful every vote deck will play at least 4-6. Shucks, their hand size goes down by a couple cards (at least they can replace them). I guess the big problem I have with this card (and its strategy) is that it doesn't attack anything I can work around. Once nailed down with one, you just have to sit there and twiddle your thumbs if you're combo intensive. Try mixing this vote with Raptor combat or with the new deck-depletion strategies. A double helping of madness. I hope I'm over-reacting, Aramis > > Yup. > > Sorrow

texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.02020...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ermmm, is it just me, or were we not supposed to see this card before the end of this month? (I'm assuming this is the promo for Storyline - all previous messages indicate this, but I might've missed some posts). In that case, I'm not all that pleased that the players in my Storyline Tournament which is still to be played already know what they are getting. A little secrecy would've been nice here. Unless this is a troll... Tobias Deventer

Sorrow wrote: > > Umm, both combat and intercept decks are combo intensive. > > > It of course would completely wreck a POT combat deck. One combat are > > your out of cards till the next players turn. > > Yup. And of course it seems like the masses were asking for a combat defense, seems like they got it. Raille

Tobias wrote: > > Ermmm, is it just me, or were we not supposed to see this card before > the end of this month? (I'm assuming this is the promo for Storyline - > all previous messages indicate this, but I might've missed some > posts). We weren't supposed to see this card until the 1st of Feb. Thats the cards "release" date. > In that case, I'm not all that pleased that the players in my > Storyline Tournament which is still to be played already know what > they are getting. A little secrecy would've been nice here. True, but had to enforce in the newsgroups. > Unless this is a troll... *Looks under bridge* Nope just a hairy old man! Raille

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:a3l75a$gvs$1...@quark.noos.net... > > I just hope that the playtesters of this card have been shot. > playtested? i don't think this card was playtested. also, i won't be widely available. only players attending the storyline tournaments will get one copy of it. some might trade to get a second or third of it but that will be it. at least until the remaining copies of this card will be released in a year from now. it remains to be seen how powerful this card is. but i believe it gives all decks with votes a huge lift. the only problem: can you get it out before someone else plays it on you? regards pallando

On 4 Feb 2002 01:34:02 -0800, Tobias wrote: >In that case, I'm not all that pleased that the players in my >Storyline Tournament which is still to be played already know what >they are getting. A little secrecy would've been nice here. At the London event, I was told that we could add the card to our deck. I didn't use it myself and didn't see it used during the event. Maybe that's because players weren't prepared for it. And, if it's as good as people say, then maybe knowing this will encourage players to go to the storyline events. That's the only way to get the card, right? The card carries a Bloodlines symbol so I assume that it's legal for tournament play like the other Bloodlines cards, right? What's the story behind this card? Who is Semsith? Does his meddling take place in Baltimore? Andrew

> > *shrug* > > Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd... > Acceptable errata : > it reflects the defensive position of the target meth. He can still react > normally with a, increased hand size. Or hell, how about just cannot redraw during the current action. I do like your idea about it requiring a titled vamp, though. Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

> also, i won't be widely available. only players attending the storyline > tournaments will get one copy of it. some might trade to get a second or > third of it but that will be it. at least until the remaining copies of this > card will be released in a year from now. It doesn't matter. People who go to more than one event will have more than one. Trading... How many times has it been said that (uber)rarity shouldn't be a factor for how powerful a card should be? Just because the average joe has only one, it won't stop people from getting a ton. Hell, TheLasombra is offering $10 worth in trade of any card(s) he owns for one. > it remains to be seen how powerful this card is. but i believe it gives all > decks with votes a huge lift. the only problem: can you get it out before > someone else plays it on you? Again, this shouldn't be a factor in how powerful a card is. And yes, it does give vote decks a lift. At the expense of actual play. Isn't this what TB did? Give a lift to Ventrue (and other DOM) decks? Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

> Acceptable errata : > > *Requires a Titled vampire*.Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum > is successful, put this card in play. Your hand size is 1 card smaller. > *The chosen Methuselah's hand size is 1 card larger*. He doesn't draw to > replace cards during *his own*minion phase. After each minion phase, he or > she draws back up to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a > referendum to burn this card > as a +1 stealth political action.>> > > it reflects the defensive position of the target meth. He can still react > normally with a, increased hand size. I would prefer a vampire with a capacity above 7 calling it. Otherwise it is a weenie presence's best friend. Call the vote in turn 2, pass with BO. Bleed, bleed, vote bleed. Call another vote. Rinse repeat. With a titled vampire, you could end up with a 5 cap calling it (at stealth if it's Calebros) in turn 2 with the right cards in play. Or weenie presence getting the title to call the vote in turn 2, calling it in turn 3, etc. Besides, I think that Semsmith (the vampire the vote refers to) is unlikely to be titled! I do like the "other players hand size goes up" clause. More balance. DH

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<a3le5l$195il9$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > OUCH, that is powerful indeed. I'll have a closer look and post more > later......bloody hell it is nasty isn't it ? > > Rob Bloody hell, it IS nasty! And, it's a promo card, that means few players will effectively use it... Only restriction : When you play succesfully this card, the chosen meth have one objective : Oust you...(Fanboy reaction is clear...). It limits its use cross table... (you don't want 3 enemies on a table, dont't you ?). Its a powerful defense against intercept and combat decks... Is vote decks need this type of tools ? I will wait someone post and/or test in play (is it different to play test ??lol) a deck abusing of this vote before make a judgement. Ah, it slow down a lot of decks, not only combat and/or intercept : weenie vote/or bleed are very slowed down with a single succesful vote... In fact,... I WANT FOUR OF THEM! Arg... I 'm betrayed by my own compulsion... Kindred Spirit (This is a Personnal Message : Hello reyda ! Do you want to be pre registered to Cup of Paris ? already 35 players pre registered !)

In message <DCE39F2A9FB129D4.2448B92D...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >The card carries a Bloodlines symbol so I assume that it's legal for >tournament play like the other Bloodlines cards, right? Except in specific tournaments, cards are not officially playable for a period of 30 days after their release. -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:u5ss2n9...@corp.supernews.com... > > also, i won't be widely available. only players attending the storyline > > tournaments will get one copy of it. some might trade to get a second or > > third of it but that will be it. at least until the remaining copies of this > > card will be released in a year from now. > > It doesn't matter. People who go to more than one event will have more > than one. Trading... How many times has it been said that (uber)rarity > shouldn't be a factor for how powerful a card should be? Just because > the average joe has only one, it won't stop people from getting a ton. Hell, > TheLasombra is offering $10 worth in trade of any card(s) he owns for > one. > actually i wanted to say that limited availability is a problem with this card. it doesn't really have anything to do with the power of this card. we could consider it a different problem altogether. regards pallando

On 4 Feb 2002 04:09:27 -0800, Kamel SENNI wrote: >Only restriction : When you play succesfully this card, the chosen >meth have one objective : Oust you... The card goes into play and affects two Methusalehs. I assume that it stays in play while either of them is in the game. Ousting the person that played it isn't going to help the target, right? Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect. [1.6.3] It stays while the person who played it is in the game. (Even if the target is ousted.) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <DCE39F2A9FB129D4.2448B92D...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >The card carries a Bloodlines symbol so I assume that it's legal for > >tournament play like the other Bloodlines cards, right? > > Except in specific tournaments, cards are not officially playable for a > period of 30 days after their release. > What is the official release date for The Meddling of Semsith? I would assume February 1st, making it legal for Standard Constructed play on March 3rd. Is this correct? Andy Setite Ruler of Cambridge VEKN Prince -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

Andy Brown wrote: > What is the official release date for The Meddling of Semsith? I would > assume February 1st, making it legal for Standard Constructed play on > March 3rd. Is this correct? It was first released at Storyline London and Storyline Austin on February 2nd. There were no storyline tournaments on February 1. So it is legal for VEKN constructed play on March 4th. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:BE5B5AA71857B23B.524B723D...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Being a minion card it is in play until it's controller is ousted ( or by card text ). Since it doesn't go onto any minion and has no text to change who controlls it the controller is the Meth who played it. So, ousting the Meth who plays it will burn it.

texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.02020...@posting.google.com>... > > (By the way, I tried to access White Wolf's server yesterday for the > > first time in a while. It appears to be down and is still down today. > > Did it move, by any chance?) > > Noticed the same thing. They could be doing a massive overhaul. It > appeared to go down the this weekend - it worked fine when I looked at > it two days ago. Honestly!!! I slave away to make something worth looking at and all you boys can do is complain about White Wolf's site and ask what the new card is. Can't you see this deck is ART!!! Philestines!!! *flounce* ;) DH

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<D9F2B61D122A1132.4C92A0DF...@lp.airnews.net>... > On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:59:14 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >Could you post what the card is? > >A card with a name like that sounds very cool. > > Political Action - worth 1 vote > Called by any vampire at +1 stealth > > Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this > card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen > Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's > minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his > or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card > as a +1 stealth political action. > > > The art is by Mike Huddleston and looks ok. > > Andrew Well I hope it is only legal for the storyline tournament. Semsith sounds like a Harbinger ;) hmmm... is Baltimore currently controlled by the Giovanni? :)

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<a3l7go$b6i$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > news:u5rq38e...@corp.supernews.com... > (snip) > > > No, definitely not. Wasn't one of the arguments for TB being broken that > > a player could play their hand/deck? And here we have something just a > > step below that? > > you bet it's powerful. > > > > What exactly were they thinking here? > > > > *shrug* > > Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd... > > Acceptable errata : ...you might want to tack "Only one Meddling of Semsith can be played in a game" to that errata and/or maybe "Meddling of Semsith can only be played during the Baltimore Storyline Tournament"". :)

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >> Political Action - worth 1 vote >> Called by any vampire at +1 stealth >> >> Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put >> this card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen >> Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's >> minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up >> to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to >> burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. > > The guy who created this card was on crack. Maybe it was the Art Director. The same person that selected the Christanus Lionel art and the "Which one of these is not like the others?" Blood Brother. > I was not really happy about the new "millstone" decks, Our local group decided that whether you like them or not, something new was defnitely needed. If new strategies weren't created, the only thing you could to expand the game would be to escalate the existing ones to ridiculous levels...something that would kill the game quicker than WotC. > I just hope that the playtesters of this card have been shot. I'm not convinced that anyone playtested this card. However, if you have to blame someone, blame Scott. After all, he is the head of the design team and the playtesting. However, don't forget to applaud him for the things he's done right, like trying to expand the game in new directions. In this case, I just chalk it up to growing pains. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN PRince of Metro Detroit

Reyda skrev i meddelandet ... [ quoted text not captured ] Weren't lot's of player complaining a while ago that there were no useful votecards to use beside KRC and CA... And now the kind WW has given us this lite toy!!! I like this card, what's so wrong with allowing a new voting stretegy?? I you want to go boring, try the "weenie presence 40 Kine, 10 Majesty, 10 bewitching, 5 awe, 10 votercap, 15 praxis"-deck... /Henrik Isaksson

Sorrow wrote: > > > Umm, yeah. Is it just me or is this card *wayyyyyyy* to powerful? > > For cripes sake, you pass a single vote, and someone, for all intents and > > purposes, ceases to be able to play the game. > > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. "a" turn? They get to play their hand each turn. (card text). Five players at a table: A, B, C, D, and E. Meddling played (and passed) against player A. For each player X (A-E in turn): Player X's master phase, target (A) has a full hand. During Player X's minion phase, cards the target (A) plays are not replaced. At the end of Player X's minion phase, target (A) draws to replace the played cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > Political Action - worth 1 vote > Called by any vampire at +1 stealth > > Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this > card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen > Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's > minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his > or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card > as a +1 stealth political action. > Interesting new card effect - direct cycling restriction. But it does seem overpowered. Getting stuck with it is going to really strangle your offense and defense. Yikes. Anyone know when this thing becomes tournament legal? -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Anyone know when this thing becomes tournament legal? 30 days after it is released: March 4th. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. > "a" turn? Yes. *A* turn. > They get to play their hand each turn. (card text). At which time the affected person has a new hand, yes? > Player X's master phase, target (A) has a full hand. Yup > During Player X's minion phase, cards the target (A) plays are not replaced. > At the end of Player X's minion phase, target (A) draws to replace the played > cards. Right. But that will be a new hand. My assertion is that a player can only play the hand they have each turn. When cards are played, they can't redraw to potentially play any new cards they might draw. How many times have we played SoR for prevention hoping that we might be able to draw another? I know I've done that many times. So basically, you are stuck with the hand you have until the end of the current players turn. And that was the context of my statement. Tell me I'm wrong. Sorrow --- "Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress." - Malcolm

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Umm, yeah. Is it just me or is this card *wayyyyyyy* to powerful? > > For cripes sake, you pass a single vote, and someone, for all intents and > purposes, ceases to be able to play the game. That is really not a good thing. > > What exactly were they thinking here? > HOLY CRAP! This card will slow down almost every deck type that currently is popular. Stealth bleed, intercept combat, rush combat, bruise and bleed. This card will require folks to bring more vote defense and permanents to the table. About the only type of deck that won't care too much about the card is the loping vote and bloat deck, which, consequently also benefits the most from _playing_ the card. A side effect of this is the person who has a Meddling of Semsith targeting them will not be as effective against both predator and prey. If played on one's prey, one's grand prey will not be getting as much pressure and will consequently be stronger. If played on one's predator, one's grandpredator will likewise gain an advantage. I think that this is more destabilizing than the new deck denial strategy. My opinion is that anyone playing this card is seeking to destabilize the table and therefore suggest the rest of the table should gang up on them immediately, get them the hell out of the game, and then move on. Doug

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:06:05 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >Political Action - worth 1 vote >Called by any vampire at +1 stealth > >Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this >card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen >Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's >minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his >or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card >as a +1 stealth political action. How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? So this card might be destructive, there are ways around it

"Pepijn Kok" <ka...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3c5f02d5....@newszilla.xs4all.nl... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, you will definitely get to draw your 5 cards for the Distraction (Semsmith says "does not draw to replace cards", so it has no relevance on the draw 5 cards part of Distraction's effect), however, Distraction also says "replace this card." Since Distraction has specific card text telling you to replace it, you might get to do that as well. I'm not sure. There is precedence in the superior Sleeping Mind/Wake ruling. SM says that tapped vampires cannot block, but specific card text of Wake that permits blocking has been ruled to override that effect.

In article <Z8E78.25332$PC.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >Well, you will definitely get to draw your 5 cards for the Distraction >(Semsmith says "does not draw to replace cards", so it has no relevance on >the draw 5 cards part of Distraction's effect), however, Distraction also >says "replace this card." Since Distraction has specific card text telling >you to replace it, you might get to do that as well. I'm not sure. > >There is precedence in the superior Sleeping Mind/Wake ruling. SM says that >tapped vampires cannot block, but specific card text of Wake that permits >blocking has been ruled to override that effect. Interestingly, the Seekrit Library of Alexandria also works well under Semsith. For some values of 'well,' anyhow. The Secret Library of Alexandria [AH] Master Nosferatu 1 pool Unique location. You may draw a card each time you successfully bleed your prey. Discard to your maximum hand size afterward. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

>Interestingly, the Seekrit Library of Alexandria also works well under >Semsith. For some values of 'well,' anyhow. > >The Secret Library of Alexandria [AH] >Master >Nosferatu >1 pool >Unique location. >You may draw a card each time you successfully bleed your prey. Discard to >your maximum hand size afterward. I think the question is whether cards that haven't been replaced due to Meddling count as part of your hand size. Just like when playing a Wake (which doesn't get replaced till later), the Wake still counts as part of your hand, similarly, cards that haven't been replaced by Meddling may still count. LSJ? Halcyan 2

Sorrow wrote: >>Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. The decks this card hurts the most are combat and intercept decks. The two types that political decks have to fear the most.>> Yeah, they can play what they have in their hand for a turn. If they have a deck that generally uses, say, 3 cards an action (not at all an unreasonable expectation for pretty much any strategy), they can, if they are lucky, perform 2 actions a turn. If they need more cards, they get one action a turn. That is freaking insanity. This card is soooooo wrong. Redrawing during your turn is the basic mechanic that makes the game go. Every deck in the game is built around regular card flow. Having a card introduced that selectively removes a basic mechanic from a single player is just stupid. It is a vote card. Sure, there is a possibility that it might be affected by table politics, but in most cases, this card is going to be passed by virtue of vote lock. Meaning the only way to avoid it is to intercept the guy calling it. Which means now *every* deck in the game is required to have intercept in it, to avoid being preemptively removed from the game by this absurdly over powered card. Up till now, there was no *neccessary* defensive addition to every deck. You could survive without intercept or votes or bleed bounce by virtue of diferent strategy options. This card, when successfully played, will end your game (hmm. Kind of like RtI, which was banned from play...). Period. Thus, *every* deck will need to include enough intercept to stop this card, 'cause if they don't they are removed from play. A single vote card that effectively prevents you from playing the game. That is just dumb. >>No, definitely not. Wasn't one of the arguments for TB being broken that a player could play their hand/deck? And here we have something just a step below that?>> Yup. TB removed from your opponent the basic resource mechanic of the game. That was deemed too powerful and errated down. And TB only affected one combat at a time. And had a substantial cost. This card hamstrings your ability to play any cards at all on your turn for effectively the same cost as, say, KRC (which does nothing but make you lose 3 pool). This card is completely, utterly, just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And a *deeply* bad idea. How did this get printed? All of the previous sets of cards from this administration (SW, FN, BL) are all very well balanced and seem to be mostly devoid of questionable cards. This is a single card that is more dertimental to the game than any 5 previous "broken" cards combined. Wha? >>*shrug* Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd...>> I can only hope immediately. If the card said "Everyone can't redraw until the current turn's influence phase" or whatever (so that *everyone* was affected), it would be reasonable--everyone will be screwed in the same fashion. As it is, I can call a vote, that if is not intercepted, prevents my prey from playing the game. They can only take one action a turn, if they are lucky. No card cycling. No card flow. No drawing cards that you need to take actions Your vampires can't really do anything without cards. You take one action a turn. If you are playing any sort of active deck (S+B, tap-n-bleed, presence vote, bruise and bleed, rush, well, *anything), you take one successful action a turn. If you are a defensive deck, you can stop one action a turn. Consequently, you lose. Due to a single card. This card is a *huge* mistake. Huge. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!" -Zim.

>"a" turn? >They get to play their hand each turn. (card text). > >Five players at a table: A, B, C, D, and E. >Meddling played (and passed) against player A. > >For each player X (A-E in turn): >Player X's master phase, target (A) has a full hand. >During Player X's minion phase, cards the target (A) plays are not replaced. >At the end of Player X's minion phase, target (A) draws to replace the played >cards. Which pretty much means that Player A is screwed if his minions get attacked. (His hand may keep him alive for one round or even one combat but then the combat opponent gets to replace and he doesn't). Halcyan 2

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<D9F2B61D122A1132.4C92A0DF...@lp.airnews.net>... > On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:59:14 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: Lets consider the typical decks that would use this card. S:CE bleed. S:CE vote. Euro Brujah (maybe...). Other odd decks. Now most people tend to hate these kind of decks anyhow... Cross table actions and a deal make this card easily gone, right? Nope, not if political dude has vote lock... Generally most Awe/vote cap decks I've seen can't keep winning votes forever (they rely on offensively passing votes). It'd be better balanced if this baby could be canceled as a +1 stealth action (not a political one... or at least a political one, but the person calling to remove gets one vote...). Regardless, this one might very well fit my voting reaction deck... that I disassembled cause it sucked. :) ~SV

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20020204182618...@mb-cl.aol.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > That is freaking insanity. This card is soooooo wrong. Redrawing during your > turn is the basic mechanic that makes the game go. Every deck in the game is > built around regular card flow. Having a card introduced that selectively > removes a basic mechanic from a single player is just stupid. > Yep. I'm not quite as upset as you are, but this card is definitely wrong. A pity... it woulda been a really interesting card if it inflicted the same punishment on everyone in the game, or at the very least on both yourself *and* the chosen methuselah. The -1 hand size is not even close to enough of a balancing factor. If it was burnable as a +1 stealth (D) action, maybe it'd be okay, but expecting someone to be able to vote it away is crazy.

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in message news:a3mmnj$18pv4d$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de... > Weren't lot's of player complaining a while ago that there were no useful > votecards to use beside KRC and CA... And now the kind WW has given us this lite toy!!! who was complaining ? politics is PLENTY of useful vote cards. Hey ? presence bleed doesn't give you other people's location ! dominate bleede doesn't allow you to banish vampires ! combat decks doesn't let you choose your predator and prey ! There's many powerful political cards, but you have to meet requirements. Protect thine own or Parity shift can't be called by any vampire... and if you build a strong political deck, it will prove sufficient to win without spoiling other poeple's chance. > I like this card, what's so wrong with allowing a new voting > stretegy?? I you want to go boring, try the "weenie presence 40 Kine, 10 > Majesty, 10 bewitching, 5 awe, 10 votercap, 15 praxis"-deck... 1- It's not only a new voting strategy. Every clan can use this card, combined with a handful of delaying tactics it will prove perfectly usable. Do you realise that used in conjunction with anarch troublemakers, changes of target or form of mist, your prey (with meddling on him) will be unable to block a single action after the first ?? 2-it's not even a strategy. Okay, no matter what your deck is, you cannot play your cards, so screw you. Very M:tg specific... reyda > /Henrik Isaksson > >

> Only restriction : When you play succesfully this card, the chosen > meth have one objective Except if your deck is at all hampered by the card, then you CAN'T do that. Let's look at some deck types out there: S&B: Your average S&B deck uses 3-4 cards an action - the action card, a modifier, a stealth card, and sometimes a second stealth card, a seduction, or a Command of the Beast (if you're using them). So you get one, MAYBE two actions a turn once you're hit with it. More than enough slowdown for your prey to be able to ignore you, unless you're playing VERY recklessly. Rush: You get one good combat per turn - assuming the ideal combat hand is the hand you start with. You may not WANT to fight if it's not, since that's all you're getting. Intercept: Hmm, you can block, or you can fight. If you're lucky, you MIGHT get away with both. Once a turn. Only political decks can survive having this played against them, because a) They're most likely to be able to get rid of it and b) they're less dependent upon transients, unless you're going the weenie route (in which case, you need a steady flow of BO and Awe to keep moving). If you're playing Intercept, you can block it before it hits the table - but that's definitely an action worth Day Oping if I'm using it against a rush or intercept deck. And it's even worse if the person who hits you with it can fight as well. Because he gets however many fights he needs in a turn - and you get one. No point in playing anymore once it's on the table. I'll save everybody the greif of listing to my bitching about it until the shove a Kit-Kat in my mouth to shut me up, and just walk away from the table. And I'll keep doing it, until I trade every last one of them into my collection so I can ritually destroy them during my next Dragoncon appearance. Fanboy

Pepijn Kok wrote: > How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? You do not replace Distraction, correct. You draw 5 cards. Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still count against your hand size). [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris wrote: >>Yep. I'm not quite as upset as you are, but this card is definitely wrong.>> I'm not like quitting the game over it or anything--I'm just going to complain till it gets changed or banned. I'm complaining 'cause A) this card *really* deserves complaint and B) I haven't had a good ranting over some broken card for a really long time. Luckily, this card is as rich a target as any I've ever seen. Sadly, that means that this card has been introduced to the game. Which is really, really bad. >>A pity... it woulda been a really interesting card if it inflicted the same punishment on everyone in the game, or at the very least on both yourself *and* the chosen methuselah.>> Sure--then it would have either a reasonable cost, or would give other folks at the table incentive to help stop it. As it stands, there is limited incentive to stop it if you are not being targeted by it, and even less incentive to stop it if you are across the table from the guy calling it (i.e. players 3 and 5 when player 1 is calling it). That, and when vote decks work, it is 'cause they have vote lock (lots of titles and/or vote boosters), so rarely will table politics have anything to do with it. It will be called (unblockably, with Daring the Dawn if someone tries to block), get passed, and never get unvoted (due to vote lock on the part of the guy calling it). The target will be quickly ousted, as he can no longer defend or act with any reasonable ability. When he is dead, the vote deck will do it again to his next prey. And so on. >>The -1 hand size is not even close to enough of a balancing factor.>> Not even a little bit close. I'm trading 1 hand slot to make my prey completely unable to play the game. If I'm including this card in my deck, I'm also including Elder Libraries and Dreams of the Sphinx to make up for it (and Daring the Dawns so my action to call this vote can't be blocked--this vote will *always* be worth going to torpor over, as it makes your prey unable to play the game. With 1 card). Is there a way for my prey to make up for it? If they can't intercept it ('cause I played Daring the Dawn) and can't out vote it ('cause I have vote lock and they have the audacity to not play a vote deck), they simply lose the game from a single vote getting called. That is just stupid. >>If it was burnable as a +1 stealth (D) action, maybe it'd be okay, but expecting someone to be able to vote it away is crazy.>> Exactly. The whole card is crazy as it is printed. How did this card get made? [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Not quite. They can still play their hand for a turn. But that's about it. > > "a" turn? > > Yes. *A* turn. > > > They get to play their hand each turn. (card text). > > At which time the affected person has a new hand, yes? > > > Player X's master phase, target (A) has a full hand. > > Yup > > > During Player X's minion phase, cards the target (A) plays are not replaced. > > At the end of Player X's minion phase, target (A) draws to replace the played > > cards. > > Right. But that will be a new hand. My assertion is that a player can only play Ah. Then you can only ever play your hand for "a" turn, MoS or no, if your assertion is correct. > the hand they have each turn. When cards are played, they can't redraw to > potentially play any new cards they might draw. How many times have we > played SoR for prevention hoping that we might be able to draw another? I > know I've done that many times. So basically, you are stuck with the hand you > have until the end of the current players turn. And that was the context of my > statement. > Tell me I'm wrong. If that's the context of your statement as you give it, how can you possibly be wrong? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Exactly. The whole card is crazy as it is printed. How did this card get made? The only person who can answer that is LSJ and it's an answer I'm (and I'm sure alot of others are) very keen to hear... Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

>I'm not like quitting the game over it or anything--I'm just going to >complain >till it gets changed or banned. I'm complaining 'cause A) this card *really* >deserves complaint and B) I haven't had a good ranting over some broken card >for a really long time. Luckily, this card is as rich a target as any I've >ever >seen. Sadly, that means that this card has been introduced to the game. Which >is really, really bad. One complaint that I'm going to add that I haven't seen anyone else mention is that promo cards, even if they will be in a normal set at some point in the future, should *never* do something significantly different from an existing card. I've had to put up with this idiocy in B5, promos being the number one source of complaint for much of its existence though not necessarily for play reasons, where one promo had to be errataed, and in WoT, where the best card drawing card in a game where card drawing is huge is a promo card. If a company wants to do *good* promos, do foils, which have thematic inconsistency with V:TES's look so probably aren't good here, or alternate artwork which is my personal favorite. Alternate versions of Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Wake, Bum's Rush - I could see it easily. As long as people realize that the promo versions are, in fact, hard to acquire, they will chase them even in a game where a number of cards have alternate artwork (Magic has alternate art versions of staple cards that are worth decent dough).

"Tobias" <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8aa6db00.02020...@posting.google.com... > texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.02020...@posting.google.com>... > > > Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this > > > card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen > > > Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's > > > minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his > > > or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card > > > as a +1 stealth political action. > > > > Having already been on the ass end of this card, I've decided that if > > it's played against me, and passed, I am going to walk away from the > > table. Tobias: as official organizer of the tourney I would suggest you 'coerce' people not to use this card. I, personally, will attack (rush/bleed/vote/whatever) the first player to try bring it into play, cross-table if needs be. I will also mention this to every table I will play during the tournament, and suggest people do the same. This is much, much worse than four times The Slaughterhouse. Maybe it's White Wolf's intention to change current popular strategies towards more card-conservative ones, but there's no reason I've got to like it and I'll make that plenty clear, should the card actually show up. Note: I don't think it's actually all that damaging to many decks, but it kicks most of the fun out of the game, as you have no options left but quietly suffer half the time; I'll not stand for it. Patrick Primogen to Prince Tobias

LSJ wrote: > > Pepijn Kok wrote: > > How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > > distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > > hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > > hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > > to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > You draw 5 cards. > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > count against your hand size). Forgive me if I am wrong, but where does it state on the card that if you have this played against you, your hand size is equal to the number of cards left in your hand. From my understanding, only the Methuselah who called the vote has a reduced hand size (by 1) and this remains as long as that Methuselah is in the game. Also, I can see this bringing in deal cutting again. If someone has a severe vote lock, and starts to play this card, he may pass it, but then surely deals can be made that will try to oust the Methuselah playing the cardm as he will be seen as a threat by the table. I will wait to reserve judgement on this card until I see it regularly played. In my mind, the person who plays it is going to need one hell of a strategy if he/she tries this route. It is probably going to make that person target Number 1 exactly like a Setite Deck, pure S&B, or Temptation of Greater Sleaze. Errataring after just two tournaments (that I know of) and at one where it was attempted to be played, but failed every time, is possibly a little excessive, dontcha think. To Scott, I think you have produced an interesting card, that will change the metagame of a lot of groups, which will ultimately add variety. It's a real shame that some people obviously can't abide change. (This will now probably get me flamed to my eyeballs, at which point I would like to mention that I can tell me browser to ignore this thread, so you will be filling other peoples mail box, not mine.) Andy Setite Ruler of Cambridge VEKN Prince -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<a3n6d4$dse$1...@hadron.noos.net>... > 2-it's not even a strategy. Okay, no matter what your deck is, you cannot > play your cards, so screw you. Very M:tg specific... ok...if M:tG was a dice game, I might (but probably not) see a problem with similar mechanics. However, M:tG, like V:TES, is a card game. The cards and their flow are valuable resources and valid targets. So you can draw the same comparison about discarding, replacing from your library, recycling from the discard pile, etc. And, btw, I don't think a single card has to constitute a strategy. I could combine this Semsith card with Lextalionifragilisticexpialidocious to screw over someone who just collected a VP (and to use L. as something besides a bookmark.) :-)

Yoritom...@hotmail.com (Yoritomo Jiriki) wrote in message news:<c8f639d5.02020...@posting.google.com>... > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<a3l7go$b6i$1...@neon.noos.net>... > > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > > news:u5rq38e...@corp.supernews.com... > > (snip) > > > > > No, definitely not. Wasn't one of the arguments for TB being broken that > > > a player could play their hand/deck? And here we have something just a > > > step below that? > > > > you bet it's powerful. > > > > > > What exactly were they thinking here? > > > > > > *shrug* > > > Dunno. I wonder how quickly this one will be errata'd... > > > > Acceptable errata : > > ...you might want to tack "Only one Meddling of Semsith can be played > in a game" to that errata and/or maybe "Meddling of Semsith can only > be played during the Baltimore Storyline Tournament"". :) I like that last errata best. :) Tobias Deventer

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:<u5uiva...@corp.supernews.com>... > > Exactly. The whole card is crazy as it is printed. How did this card get made? > > The only person who can answer that is LSJ and it's an answer I'm > (and I'm sure alot of others are) very keen to hear... Here's one of the lot of others. Consider me VERY keen indeed... The card makes me sick. If it is unerrata'd, I will ask the players in my tournament if they agree unanimously with me not giving it to them all, and will send the whole lot back to WW. Of course, there will always be a few who DO want the card... so then I'll have to hand them all out. Tobias Deventer [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<Z8E78.25332$PC.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>... > There is precedence in the superior Sleeping Mind/Wake ruling. SM says that > tapped vampires cannot block, but specific card text of Wake that permits > blocking has been ruled to override that effect. Sleeping mind, The Card Text: SUP: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Minions cannot untap during this action, and tapped minions cannot block this action. Why include the "tapped minions cannot block this action" if wakes override it? Tapped minions aren´t allowed to block normally so I can see no way for that part to have any effect at all. To stay on topic though, this meddling card sounds very powerfull. Thankfully there won´t be any storyline tournaments in Iceland so I won´t be seeing this card played :)

If it is really going to be played a lot i might finally try to build a working weapon-deck, if everyones strategy is "you're screwed" then that might be quite fun... Wouter

On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:21:47, Andy Brown wrote: >To Scott, I think you have produced an interesting card, that will >change the metagame of a lot of groups, which will ultimately add >variety. It's a real shame that some people obviously can't abide >change. Indeed. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. If this card would destroy someone's game-plan then maybe they should put some vote defense into their deck. Cards like Delaying Tactics and Surprise Influence can go in any deck and are useful against any other political actions too. Players are being lazy and unethical if they try to achieve the same game effect using illegal methods - boycotts and bans, walking away from the table, mob rule, etc. This is not a game where you make up your own political rules. It's a card game. If you fear a card then use another card to counter it or make your deck less vulnerable to it. And complaints from fans of rush decks are just bare-faced cheek and hypocrisy. Their game plan is to torporise the minions of any player that they don't like the look of. This stops their victims playing the game in a nastier way than this card does. I've noticed before that rush decks are cowards and bullies - they can dish it out but can't take it. That's why they run away from anything resembling a fair fight. They deserve to be meddled with. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C5F49B1.EA0B1CBE@white- wolf.com: > Pepijn Kok wrote: >> How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on >> distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum >> hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my >> hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get >> to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > You draw 5 cards. > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > count against your hand size). Wouldn't this ruling go against the one concerning Visit from the Capuchin and WWEF/'do not replace' cards? What if you have both a VotC and a MoS on you? Which 'do not replace' rule takes precedence? (frankly I don't see a problem here now, but I just thought I'd ask anyway ;-) Flux

In message <cf597231.02020...@posting.google.com>, evil_poot_cat <evilp...@yahoo.com> writes: >ok...if M:tG was a dice game, I might (but probably not) see a problem >with similar mechanics. However, M:tG, like V:TES, is a card game. >The cards and their flow are valuable resources and valid targets. So >you can draw the same comparison about discarding, replacing from your >library, recycling from the discard pile, etc. Jyhad's continuous replace mechanism vs Magic's slow replace/card advantage system, together with Magic's automatic death when you empty your library/can't draw a card, make such comparisons harder. Not impossible. -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

In message <3C5F880B...@sanger.ac.uk>, Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> writes: >Forgive me if I am wrong, but where does it state on the card that if >you have this played against you, your hand size is equal to the number >of cards left in your hand. Cards you are not currently replacing count against your hand size. (e.g. if you tap Fragment of the Book of Nod whilst in a combat from having played Wake with Evening's Freshness, you would discard down to 6) * The cards that you are currently not replacing count against your hand size. [LSJ 19980803] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:92472F64505CFA51.5C14473F...@lp.airnews.net... > On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:21:47, Andy Brown wrote: > > >To Scott, I think you have produced an interesting card, that will > >change the metagame of a lot of groups, which will ultimately add > >variety. It's a real shame that some people obviously can't abide > >change. > > Indeed. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. If this card > would destroy someone's game-plan then maybe they should put some vote > defense into their deck. Cards like Delaying Tactics and Surprise > Influence can go in any deck and are useful against any other > political actions too. Oh my... here are my thoughts : you can't be prepared for everything. In the first days of jyhad, you had to be prepared to face combat decks -pak some obedience, some prevention, some combat ends or maneuvers... to face bleed decks -pack some deflexions, thelepatic counters, archon investigation, whatever... to face political decks -pack delaying tactics, dread gaze or surprise influence... Now, thanks to bloodlines, you have to pack some defense against crypt and library destruction -arsons for those slaughterhouses, blood hunt for agaitas and Gisela... Okay, and when my deck is full of counter strategies card, where do i put the card to play my own tactics ? Unless we play 180 cards tower decks, i'm sorry but i can't see how we can be prepared for every threat. Now, you just choose two strategies to fight against (say, library destruction and combat) and if your didn't guess what your opponents will play, you are royally screwed. I don't say that new strategies are always bad. I just say that now the game becomes more and more random, and skill is less important than luck in guessing what kind of environnment you'll meet at tournament. it's sad for the game. but maybe i'm whining without reason ? comments anyone ? reyda

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:92472F64505CFA51.5C14473F...@lp.airnews.net... > On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:21:47, Andy Brown wrote: (snip) excuse me but i wanted to reply this part in another post. > And complaints from fans of rush decks are just bare-faced cheek and > hypocrisy. Their game plan is to torporise the minions of any player > that they don't like the look of. wow. you seem to have a problem with combat decks. The game plan of a combat deck is to torporise and/or burn his prey's key minions so he can bleed through -without being stopped, in fact. A combat decks packing a handful conditionning/Arie of elation will be as efficient as the regular stealth bleed in hitting his prey's pool. In the process, the combat deck is quite required to deal with his predator in a direct way, by torporizing his key vampires. but he has to let him a chance to fight against his grand predator. Playing a combat deck efficiently requires skill. It also requires a good experience in deck building and table strategics. If you don't believe me, then just try to sweep a table with a combat deck. >This stops their victims playing > the game in a nastier way than this card does. yeah... every deck has the purpose of stopping his prey in the nastier way. let me remember... A vote deck, on turn two, made me loose 8 pool with two consecutive conservative agitation. My old coma deck, on turn three, ate Genevieve (10 pool) alive by comating, then amaranthing her. A pal's Lambach deck can burn each of your vampires one by one, one vampire per turn, and he gains blood in the process. Mike C. 's deck will mind rape your vampires, and burn them one after the other. you are not required to be gentle to your prey. It's quite the opposite. > I've noticed before > that rush decks are cowards and bullies - they can dish it out but > can't take it. That's why they run away from anything resembling a > fair fight. They deserve to be meddled with. > > Andrew I've noticed before that andrew is a coward and bully. He likes to criticize this game and can't take it when he loses. That's why he run away from anything resembling a fair argument. He deserves to be bashed with a big, big stick. reyda

Reyda skrev i meddelandet ... [ quoted text not captured ] Hey, I can still play a total number of 7 cards during my turn, 7 cards reacting to my preys turn and 7 cards reacting to my predators turn... Granted, It'll be very hard for certain decks to handle this, it won't even remotely cripple many decks... And think of the beuty of having this card played against a lame weenie [insert Pre-bleed, S&B, Pre-vote], which I think most people agrees has to be penalized a little for being to strong... /Henrik Isaksson

Reyda wrote: > Okay, and when my deck is full of counter strategies card, where do i put > the card to play my own tactics ? Unless we play 180 cards tower decks, i'm > sorry but i can't see how we can be prepared for every threat. > Now, you just choose two strategies to fight against (say, library > destruction and combat) and if your didn't guess what your opponents will > play, you are royally screwed. > I don't say that new strategies are always bad. I just say that now the game > becomes more and more random, and skill is less important than luck in > guessing what kind of environnment you'll meet at tournament. > > it's sad for the game. but maybe i'm whining without reason ? > > comments anyone ? > > reyda I don't know if it's bad for the game. I guess we'll see a greater polarization between toolboxes and extremely focused decks, but I don't see that as neither bad nor good - just different. Hehe, I like decks with lots of permanents, and that vote sure makes me happier *grin* Sten During

Andy Brown wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Pepijn Kok wrote: > > > How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > > > distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > > > hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > > > hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > > > to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > > You draw 5 cards. > > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > > count against your hand size). > > Forgive me if I am wrong, but where does it state on the card that if > you have this played against you, your hand size is equal to the number > of cards left in your hand. From my understanding, only the Methuselah > who called the vote has a reduced hand size (by 1) and this remains > as long as that Methuselah is in the game. You hand size isn't dependent on the number of cards in your hand. Quite the opposite. Except in cases where your library is empty and you eventually have fewer cards in your hand than your hand size would allow, you always draw up to your hand size. Cards you are not replacing (Bum's Rush, Wakey, cards played during a referendum, cards played during a minion phase under Semsith, etc.) count against your hand size (otherwise you'd be drawing up to you hand size in the interim, which would defeat the "do not replace" mechanism). Under Semsith, when each minion phase is over, you get to replace the cards you played during that minion phase. In the example given, the victim of Semsith had played 3 cards on her minion phase prior to playing Distraction (assuming no other effects were modifying her hand size). She doesn't replace the Distraction (a 4th card, leaving her with a hand size of 3 because of the 4 cards she's not replacing). She draws five cards. She then discards down to her hand size (7 minus the 4 she's not replacing = 3). [ quoted text not captured ]

dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.0202...@posting.google.com>... > texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.02020...@posting.google.com>... > > > (By the way, I tried to access White Wolf's server yesterday for the > > > first time in a while. It appears to be down and is still down today. > > > Did it move, by any chance?) > > > > Noticed the same thing. They could be doing a massive overhaul. It > > appeared to go down the this weekend - it worked fine when I looked at > > it two days ago. > > Honestly!!! > > I slave away to make something worth looking at and all you boys can > do is complain about White Wolf's site and ask what the new card is. > Can't you see this deck is ART!!! > > Philestines!!! > I have to admit that it was a very cool deck, and I was tempted to compliment you and/or offer you a special prize, but I was worried that it might go to your head... :) Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London > *flounce* > > ;) > > DH

Flux wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C5F49B1.EA0B1CBE@white- > wolf.com: > > > Pepijn Kok wrote: > >> How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > >> distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > >> hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > >> hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > >> to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > > You draw 5 cards. > > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > > count against your hand size). > > Wouldn't this ruling go against the one concerning Visit from the Capuchin > and WWEF/'do not replace' cards? No. WWeF/'do not replace' cards function the same way. Capuchin doesn't enter the picture at all - the cards there are simply played to reduce your hand size (via counters). There's a distinction between a card which is never replaced and a card which is not replaced "until" such-and-such a time. > What if you have both a VotC and a MoS on you? Which 'do not replace' rule > takes precedence? Neither. They are compatible. The card played is not replaced (under both), and is never replaced (under VftC) - you lose the hand size (in the form of a counter from VftC) and that ends the tracking of the played card. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a3ojj3$flr$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes: >Okay, and when my deck is full of counter strategies card, where do i put >the card to play my own tactics ? Unless we play 180 cards tower decks, i'm >sorry but i can't see how we can be prepared for every threat. Go for more generic defence. Don't defend against votes, defend against actions, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik wrote: > > Hey, I can still play a total number of 7 cards during my turn, 7 cards > reacting to my preys turn and 7 cards reacting to my predators turn... > Granted, It'll be very hard for certain decks to handle this, it won't even > remotely cripple many decks... And think of the beuty of having this card > played against a lame weenie [insert Pre-bleed, S&B, Pre-vote], which I > think most people agrees has to be penalized a little for being to strong... > /Henrik Isaksson > > > Funny you should mention weenie. In my book it's the only kind of deck that ought to gain greatly from this card against a large amount of other decks. Mainly by denying them from cykling wake-cards into their hands. The card actually doesn't seem THAT frightening in the hands of the 'big bad monster' vampires deck. Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd say: Weenie=many minions out=more actions=more cards used=more crippled if meddled with! /Henrik

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C5FD61D...@white-wolf.com: > Under Semsith, when each minion phase is over, you get to replace the > cards you played during that minion phase. In the example given, the > victim of Semsith had played 3 cards on her minion phase prior to > playing Distraction (assuming no other effects were modifying her hand > size). She doesn't replace the Distraction (a 4th card, leaving her > with a hand size of 3 because of the 4 cards she's not replacing). She > draws five cards. She then discards down to her hand size (7 minus the > 4 she's not replacing = 3). Why won't the text on Distraction override MoS when it resolves, Distraction specifies you should replace it (not 'draw up to your hand size')? Flux

Henrik wrote: > >>Funny you should mention weenie. In my book it's the only kind of deck >>that ought to gain greatly from this card against a large amount of >>other decks. Mainly by denying them from cykling wake-cards into their >>hands. The card actually doesn't seem THAT frightening in the hands of >>the 'big bad monster' vampires deck. >> >> > > I'd say: Weenie=many minions out=more actions=more cards used=more crippled > if meddled with! > > /Henrik > > > Yup, goes both ways I guess :) Sten During

Flux wrote: > Why won't the text on Distraction override MoS when it resolves, > Distraction specifies you should replace it (not 'draw up to your hand > size')? No. You replace Distraction when you play it, not when the action resolves. Therefore the text cannot be anything but a reminder (to replace it before drawing the five cards). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a3olgk$18sbc2$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik <henri...@spray.se> writes: >I'd say: Weenie=many minions out=more actions=more cards used=more crippled >if meddled with! It depends. A weenie deck can often be going Computer Hacking, Computer Hacking, Computer Hacking, Computer Hacking.... whereas the fattie deck can be doing Govern, Lost in Crowds, Bonding etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns91AC86D064...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >Why won't the text on Distraction override MoS when it resolves, >Distraction specifies you should replace it (not 'draw up to your hand >size')? Distraction's text is reminder text. (You would already have replaced the card anyway. But some people might think the replacement formed one of those five and so only draw four.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> For each player X (A-E in turn): > Player X's master phase, target (A) has a full hand. > During Player X's minion phase, cards the target (A) plays are not replaced. > At the end of Player X's minion phase, target (A) draws to replace the played > cards. Does this mean that if you're the target of Meddling, you ignore "Do Not Replace Until" clauses? Particularly, can you redraw to replace Wake with Evening's Freshness at the end of the current minion phase, instead of your next untap?

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in message news:<a3mmnj$18pv4d$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de>... > Weren't lot's of player complaining a while ago that there were no useful > votecards to use beside KRC and CA... And now the kind WW has given us this > lite toy!!! I'm someone who has complained that V:TES Politics could use a little refreshing. And this is exactly the KIND of thing I'd normally to be excited to see. New. Interesting. Strong enough to play without being another pool-drain card. It definately brings something new to the game and stengthens and diversifies politics. And I'll hold back on crying wolf until I see the card in play. But my gut says, as is, the card is too strong. When dropped on someone it seems like it'll instantly restrict their ability to play the game in a unfun way. If it had a few more restrictions... Playable by a Titled vampire Only playable once per game Don't replace cards during actions (instead of the entire minion phase) it would scare me a lot less and I'd be happy to see it added to the game. -Ben Swainbank

In message <YQR78.78136$Ln2.17...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes: >Does this mean that if you're the target of Meddling, you ignore "Do Not >Replace Until" clauses? You still do not replace them, as per the text, but you then continue to not replace them until the end of that minion phase, per Semsith. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<92472F64505CFA51.5C14473F...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I like the two previous posts a whole lot better than the card they are about, at first read. :) While my immediate reaction to this card has been overwhelmingly negative, I must admit it hasn't seen much play yet - and woe indeed to the poor Methuselah who plays this card, for the table will indeed try to eat him if they're smart. Semsith's meddling is nothing if not as obvious as a 2-by-4 between the eyes. Also, my reaction was largely inspired by my disappointment in that the card text was posted BEFORE all tourneys were played - but I should have known better than to harbor any hopes on that point. As it stands, this card will shut down a target, and the targetter, as he become a meta-target. Now only for people to have the power to hurt the person calling this vote - some tables are remarkably low on D or cross-table opportunities - which would make a cross-table player a nice target for this card as well... (hmm, chain-voting a couple of these into existance is fun - and you have only a few cards left yourself). Interesting that the card should be self-defeating if used heavily simultaneously. What IS a shame, is that it does become a card for 'the table to beat'. Tobias Deventer

James Coupe wrote: > In message <YQR78.78136$Ln2.17...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Jozxyqk > <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes: > >Does this mean that if you're the target of Meddling, you ignore "Do Not > >Replace Until" clauses? > > You still do not replace them, as per the text, but you then continue to > not replace them until the end of that minion phase, per Semsith. Correct. Similarly for Wake With Evening's Freshness - you do not replace it during the minion phase and then you continue to not replace it until your next untap. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:92472F64505CFA51.5C14473F...@lp.airnews.net... > > Indeed. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. > Well, that settles it. The card is obviously broken.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C5F49B1...@white-wolf.com... > Pepijn Kok wrote: > > How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > > distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > > hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > > hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > > to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > You draw 5 cards. > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > count against your hand size). > But Semsmith says that at the end of each minion phase, you draw up to your hand size. Distraction also says draw up to your hand size. How come your hand size is 7 (or whatever) when Semsmith tells you to do it, but only 3 when Distraction tells you to do it. Also, how does one differentiate between "reminder" text and "specific card text." Even if Distraction's "replace this card" text is normally just a reminder, in this case it is relevant, and looks like specific card text telling you to replace it. Normally, it doesn't make a difference, since you already replace it, but in this case, you should follow the instructions on the card that is played most recently.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3C5F49B1...@white-wolf.com... > > Pepijn Kok wrote: > > > How does this effect cards like Distraction? Since card text on > > > distraction states you draw cards and thereafter discard to maximum > > > hand size. Now imagine I play distrcation with 3 cards left in my > > > hand. I do not replace the distraction (card text of meddling) but get > > > to draw 5 cards, leaving me with a hand of 7 right? > > > > You do not replace Distraction, correct. > > You draw 5 cards. > > Then you discard down to 3 (since the 4 cards you're not replacing still > > count against your hand size). > > > But Semsmith says that at the end of each minion phase, you draw up to your > hand size. Distraction also says draw up to your hand size. How come your > hand size is 7 (or whatever) when Semsmith tells you to do it, but only 3 > when Distraction tells you to do it. Distraction says to discard down to your hand size, but I know what you mean. During Distraction, your hand size is unchanged. Distraction pumps extra cards into your hand and then reminds you to discard (immediately) down to your hand size (as you must always do). During a Semsisth minion phase, your hand size is incrementally decreased by each card that leaves your hand - the cards, being not replaced, count against your hand size. After the minion phase, the cards qare replaced (and so no longer count against your hand size) - you draw cards. > Also, how does one differentiate between "reminder" text and "specific card > text." Even if Distraction's "replace this card" text is normally just a > reminder, in this case it is relevant, and looks like specific card text > telling you to replace it. Normally, it doesn't make a difference, since > you already replace it, but in this case, you should follow the instructions > on the card that is played most recently. It cannot be anything but a reminder. If it were not a reminder, then (under normal ciscumstances) you'd replace the card twice. This is obviously not the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Honestly!!! > > > > I slave away to make something worth looking at and all you boys can > > do is complain about White Wolf's site and ask what the new card is. > > Can't you see this deck is ART!!! > > > > Philestines!!! > > > > I have to admit that it was a very cool deck, and I was tempted to > compliment you and/or offer you a special prize, but I was worried > that it might go to your head... :) Mike, My dear chap, you should know by now that I would never be so crass as to let a compliment such as that "go to my head". I am only trying, in my humble way, to provide a little innovation into the world of VTES. The fact that I consistently do so is a testament to the diverse and wonderful selection of cards that are available. So, thank you for your kind words, but I can assure you that my ego is sated enough knowing I made a final with a true no brainer of a deck that had less thought put into it than my dinner the previous evening (a takeaway). However, about that prize... ;) DH

[ quoted text not captured ] It seems that WW wants to get the political stuff back in the game, and I for one am in favour of that. These kind of cards, together with the newly introduced library denial (I don't understand the fuss about Slaughterhouse as we allready had aggrassive tactics, dirty little secrets and raptors but hey.. who am I) and the specials on those two Harbinger just force creativity of deck design. and I'm all for that... let us all stop whinig about "broken" cards... The fact that we think they are disruptive only comes from the fact that we have grown lazy and non creative. We are affraid that cards like this will screw us over... and well.. that might be the case if you try the age old S&B, Rush or whatever decks.... If it screws that over.. well, then your deck concept sucks and you have to change that... It only shows that focussed decks are vulnerable, as it should be. Toolboxes are vulnerable as well since they lead to possible hand jams, so basicly, these cards restore the balance a bit... every body gets screwed.. the way it should be in a STRATEGIC game.... If you want to make a power deck go play Magic! Okay.. just had to vent this... I just get tired by all this whining as of late... Awaiting flames Pepijn Kok Prince of Amsterdam "as primitive man afraid of fire, standing in the way of progress....."

Just to make it clear that I don't intend to start a flame war with below (previous) post. This post is not directed to anyone... Sorry to Reyda that he is the one this is replied to, it could have been anyone, this is NOT intended for any person as an individual, just my frustration vented to the community. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > I've noticed before that andrew is a coward and bully. He likes to criticize > this game and can't take it when he loses. That's why he run away from > anything resembling a fair argument. He deserves to be bashed with a big, > big stick. Wow. Don't hold back. *grin* What I find remarkable is the stark contrast between Andrew online and offline. In person, he strikes me as a quiet, bookish and fairly pleasant man that would avoid direct conflict. Whereas, in the newsgroup, he comes off as a braying donkey. Perhaps he feels less inhibited online and tends to overcompensate for his perceived shortcomings. *shrug* Regards, Noal

Every time a new strategy enters the game, we get a chorus of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Remember the uproar over The Slaughterhouse? Well, that card has so far failed to turn the game on its head, and I doubt Meddling of Sesmith will either. I'm not saying this card isn't powerful--imagine the synergy between it and inferior Revelations!--but it's not broken. Dramatic Upheaval is a more powerful vote, and it lacks a built-in reversal clause, but we're used to DU, so it doesn't boggle our minds like MoS does. If MoS becomes a commonly used vote, it will shift the balance of the game, true. It will strengthen permanents and weaken weenies. But it's not going to break the game.

> Regardless, this one might very well fit my voting reaction deck... > that I disassembled cause it sucked. :) lol... I've got one that I'm thinking of making storyline legal now. but it's only got 6 ventrue 2 tory 4 daughters now... wouldn't be that hard to change I guess. Its even swept a few tables, but only on occasion, as my group has gotten its trick already. Mmm... so very very tempting, but to quote Faith as Buffy, "that would be wrong." cameron

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C5FDE86.84BFF134@white- wolf.com: > Flux wrote: >> Why won't the text on Distraction override MoS when it resolves, >> Distraction specifies you should replace it (not 'draw up to your hand >> size')? > > No. You replace Distraction when you play it, not when the > action resolves. Therefore the text cannot be anything but a > reminder (to replace it before drawing the five cards). What I don't see is precisely why this has to be reminder text. As you say, the card should be replaced when it is played, not when the action resolves, so that text seems out of place. Besides, it lacks the () that you usually put on all reminder text, despite it's reprint in SW. It could very well be an effect that would do nothing in most circunstances, however would come in handy with MoS. Flux

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:QuoQAIUD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <YQR78.78136$Ln2.17...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, Jozxyqk > <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes: >>Does this mean that if you're the target of Meddling, you ignore "Do Not >>Replace Until" clauses? > > You still do not replace them, as per the text, but you then continue to > not replace them until the end of that minion phase, per Semsith. ..or, in the case of WWEF, you do not replace it per Semsith, then at the end of the minion phase you continue not to replace it, per WWEF. Flux

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C600B37...@white-wolf.com: > Chris Berger wrote: >> Also, how does one differentiate between "reminder" text and "specific >> card text." Even if Distraction's "replace this card" text is >> normally just a reminder, in this case it is relevant, and looks like >> specific card text telling you to replace it. Normally, it doesn't >> make a difference, since you already replace it, but in this case, you >> should follow the instructions on the card that is played most >> recently. > > It cannot be anything but a reminder. If it were not a reminder, then > (under normal ciscumstances) you'd replace the card twice. This is > obviously not the case. You'd attempt to replace the card twice, but would only succeed the first time, the second attempt would fail because the card is already replaced. 'Replace' is not the same as 'draw a card', though it usually has the same effect. Flux

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C600B37...@white-wolf.com: > Chris Berger wrote: >> Also, how does one differentiate between "reminder" text and "specific >> card text." Even if Distraction's "replace this card" text is >> normally just a reminder, in this case it is relevant, and looks like >> specific card text telling you to replace it. Normally, it doesn't >> make a difference, since you already replace it, but in this case, you >> should follow the instructions on the card that is played most >> recently. > > It cannot be anything but a reminder. If it were not a reminder, then > (under normal ciscumstances) you'd replace the card twice. This is > obviously not the case. You'd attempt to replace the card twice, but would only succeed the first [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>And complaints from fans of rush decks are just bare-faced cheek and hypocrisy. Their game plan is to torporise the minions of any player that they don't like the look of.>> Oh, Andrew. This card doesn't just screw Rush decks. It screws every deck. Badly. In any situation, if this card is successfully played, and you are the target, you are effectively removed from the game, regardless of your deck strategy. You can only take, like, 1 action per turn. No deck can survive that. Rush decks are screwed. Stealth and Bleed decks are screwed. Intercept decks are screwed. Horde Bleed decks are screwed. Celerity/gun decks are screwed. Minion Tap/5th decks are screwed. Presence vote decks are screwed. Tap and Bleed decks are screwed. Bruise and Bleed decks are screwed. Animalism horde decks are screwed. I can't think of a single, viable deck strategy that is not completely screwed by this single card. A single card that essentially destroys a player's ability to play the game. A single card. Not a strategy. Not a collection of cards. A single card. That is insane. Maybe I am just feeling charitable, but I can't even see how *you* wouldn't see that. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!" -Zim.

Emmit wrote: >>Every time a new strategy enters the game, we get a chorus of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Remember the uproar over The Slaughterhouse? Well, that card has so far failed to turn the game on its head, and I doubt Meddling of Sesmith will either.>> The problem with Slaughterhouse is that it doesn't make you win--it just makes your prey lose. This was constantly brought up in all the Slaughterhouse threads, primarily by the people complaining about the Slaughterhouse. It takes so much effort to make a Slaughterhouse deck work that you can't actually oust your prey with it. Thus, playing a Slaughterhouse deck is self defeating and thus self regulating--sure, you can make your prey lose real bad, but you aren't going to win either, so you are something of a fool to play a Slaughterhouse deck. Meddling, however, doesn't have such problems. Take any, currently viable vote deck and add a handfull of Meddlings. You now have at your disposal a vote card that essentially says "Your prey can no longer play the game", for no significant additional cost or deck modification. Ok, sure, you lose a hand slot. That is *nothing* to pay to screw your prey to such an extent. The comparison between the new Discard "strategy" (which is both conceiveably a new strategy and not particularly viable) and Meddling (which isn't a new strategy, it is just a broken card conceived in a fit of delusional madness) is not a valid one. >>If MoS becomes a commonly used vote, it will shift the balance of the game, true. It will strengthen permanents and weaken weenies. But it's not going to break the game.>> It is for the person it is played on. This isn't a matter of strategy shifting. This is a matter of a single vote card that destroys a player's ability to play the game. If the card said "If this vote passes, your prey is ousted", would that also do little more than shift the balance of the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 05 Feb 2002 22:10:31 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Emmit wrote: >>>Every time a new strategy enters the game, we get a chorus of "The sky >is falling! The sky is falling!" Remember the uproar over The >Slaughterhouse? Well, that card has so far failed to turn the game on >its head, and I doubt Meddling of Sesmith will either.>> > >The problem with Slaughterhouse is that it doesn't make you win--it just makes >your prey lose. This was constantly brought up in all the Slaughterhouse >threads, primarily by the people complaining about the Slaughterhouse. It takes >so much effort to make a Slaughterhouse deck work that you can't actually oust >your prey with it. Thus, playing a Slaughterhouse deck is self defeating and >thus self regulating--sure, you can make your prey lose real bad, but you >aren't going to win either, so you are something of a fool to play a >Slaughterhouse deck. Entirely True. Anytime my predator pulls out a Slaughterhouse, they better be prepared for my automatically working backwards. I hated mill decks in magic, and the same holds true of Slaugherhouse in VTES. >Meddling, however, doesn't have such problems. Take any, currently viable vote >deck and add a handfull of Meddlings. You now have at your disposal a vote card >that essentially says "Your prey can no longer play the game", for no >significant additional cost or deck modification. Ok, sure, you lose a hand >slot. That is *nothing* to pay to screw your prey to such an extent. > >The comparison between the new Discard "strategy" (which is both conceiveably a >new strategy and not particularly viable) and Meddling (which isn't a new >strategy, it is just a broken card conceived in a fit of delusional madness) is >not a valid one. > >>>If MoS becomes a commonly used vote, it will shift the balance of the >game, true. It will strengthen permanents and weaken weenies. But it's >not going to break the game.>> > >It is for the person it is played on. This isn't a matter of strategy shifting. >This is a matter of a single vote card that destroys a player's ability to play >the game. If the card said "If this vote passes, your prey is ousted", would >that also do little more than shift the balance of the game? Not really agreeing with all of your examples Pete, but you have the essense of it right. MoS will wreck a lot of decks that operate with few permanents. BernieTime >Peter D Bakija >PD...@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 > >"These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!" >-Zim.

Bernie wrote: >>Entirely True. Anytime my predator pulls out a Slaughterhouse, they better be prepared for my automatically working backwards.>> You don't even have to work backwards for the Slaughterhouse deck to get killed. If you don't have a lot of deck discard, you are little more than a nusiance, if you have a lot of deck discard, you don't have much room for other viable offense. You put the deck into action, make your prey pretty much suck while not really doing much else to him and getting both you and your prey killed by your predator. >>I hated mill decks in magic, and the same holds true of Slaugherhouse in VTES.>> If you have only one or two Slaughterhouses in play, they aren't really worth worrying about. You would be better off with more other useful master cards. If you have a lot of them, you end up weaker than not. >>MoS will wreck a lot of decks that operate with few permanents.>> It will wreck decks *with* lots of permanents. What is a deck going to do with lots of permanents that doesn't involve card cycling? Umm, bleed for 2 with a Lap Top at zero stealth, and if blocked, manuver and shoot with a .38? You need transient cards to back up your permanents. You need actions and action modifiers or combat cards. MoS will prevent you from drawing the cards you need to take actions that do anything. As I said elsewhere, if this card had the same effect upon *everyone* at the table, (i.e. no one got to redraw till the end of the turn), then it would be interesting, game changing, and lead to increased table politics. As it is, it is a card that an already powerful strategy adds to their arsenal for limited, if any, cost, calls and passes, and totally demolishes their prey's ability to play the game. With one card. Very similar to Return to Innocence, which was banned from competetive for being a single card that caused simply too much game swing. Just like MoS. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <D9F2B61D122A1132.4C92A0DF...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >Political Action - worth 1 vote >Called by any vampire at +1 stealth Oh, the pain. "any" vampire. This includes Khay'tall and Natasha Volfchek, both of whom have an extra +1 stealth on political actions. >Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put this >card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen >Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's >minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his >or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card >as a +1 stealth political action. Let's just see what we can do here, then. - Queen Anne has superior DOM/PRE, and inferior OBF. She is a Prince, so this vote automatically has 3 votes in favor. [It is entirely possible that 3 votes will be enough to pass this all on its lonesome, if nobody else has a titled vampire out.] - She calls this vote on her prey, with Forgotten Labyrinth handy to make it at +3 stealth. [At this point, you must be an intercept deck to block this vote.] - She passes it with superior Awe and Voter Captivation, gaining 2 pool. [If you let it get to this point, you must DI the Awe, play Kindred Coercion from a 10- or 11-cap, play Delaying Tactics, or the vote passes. Delaying Tactics is a bad option, as the vote just comes around again next turn.] - Groovy! - Play some Masters like Elder Library and the Barrens, and be sure to include lots of Dreams of the Sphinx in your deck for the +2 hand size to offset this card. [So much for its "disadvantage" -- easy enough to build around. Kanimana Belghazi also comes to mind here.] - Get some other Ventrue out. Do voting things with them. You know, the usual Ventrue Law Firm stuff. Put OBF skill cards on all of them so they can play Forgotten Labyrinth too. Pool gain with Minion Tap/Voter Captivation while you call KRCs on your prey. Ignore bleeders, and play Obedience against Rushers. If necessary, play one of these on your predator. This will put him in "PARK" for awhile and is well worth the hand-size hit you may take. - If your prey tries to remove this card, have Queen Anne play Elder Kindred Network and Kindred Coercion. Gain 6 pool. Nobody else will attempt to remove ANY of these cards for the remainder of the game. If your prey isn't the one attempting to remove the card, you can leave the Elder Kindred Network out and just play Kindred Coercion, unless you're feeling ornery. - Alternatively, just put 8 of this card in your deck. Your prey burns one, you regain your hand size for awhile and call another one on him immediately on your next turn, and your prey has wasted an action. I like the EKN/KC method as more "stylish", myself. But this might be even more effective. - As the cards show up in your hand, call them on your grandprey, etc, on down the line. You shouldn't have long to wait before they become your current prey, as most Ventrue Law Firm decks can do an inordinate amount of damage per turn when they feel like it. You probably should never have more than 2 in play at once, but that won't be much of a problem, will it, since you should also be ousting people rapidly. - From card text, it does not look like the card goes away when its target is ousted... but you can always call a +1 stealth referendum to burn it yourself, as soon as you no longer need it. *** Personally, I believe this card is broken. It's far too easy to defend this vote once it's in play (Delaying Tactics is another highly effective method that's been mentioned), and it's far too easy to get the vote passed in the first place (as the raw success of vote decks over the years in tournaments would indicate), and it's far too easy for an effective vote deck to run you over once your defenses are down (can't replace cards = can't play game). The only TRULY effective defense I see is to simply DI the damn thing over and over as it hits the table, and even that will fail if someone has 2 of them in hand, or waits to get 2 in hand after you DI the first one. This means I put 6 DI in my next tournament deck after March 4th, but even that probably won't be enough. Intercept will not be a defense. Anyone playing this card will know that block attempts will happen, and will pack loads of stealth OR Daring the Dawn. Causing the vote to fail will not be a defense. Awe exists. Calling a vote to burn it will not be a defense. Delaying Tactics and Kindred Coercion exist. Killing the people calling the vote MIGHT be a defense, except that it's hard to kill someone when you can't replace cards. I believe that this card sets up one of the worst X or anti-X situations since Return to Innocence was legal. Either you're playing this card, or you're prepared to defend yourself against this card -- because if you DON'T defend yourself against this card, it will stop your game in its tracks. I agree with Noal; I do not believe that this card was playtested. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02020...@posting.google.com... > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >> Political Action - worth 1 vote > >> Called by any vampire at +1 stealth > >> > >> Choose another Methusaleh. If this referendum is successful, put > >> this card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen > >> Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuslaeh's > >> minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up > >> to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to > >> burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. > > > > The guy who created this card was on crack. > > Maybe it was the Art Director. The same person that selected the > Christanus Lionel art and the "Which one of these is not like the > others?" Blood Brother. > > > I was not really happy about the new "millstone" decks, > > Our local group decided that whether you like them or not, something > new was defnitely needed. If new strategies weren't created, the only > thing you could to expand the game would be to escalate the existing > ones to ridiculous levels...something that would kill the game quicker > than WotC. Certainly, I mean, it could be meddling as the promo...or a new dominate card: Dominate Rulez! 3 blood Action Modifier [dom] +4 bleed no further bleed modifiers. [DOM] +5 bleed no further bleed modifiers. Eventually without new stuff you either have to keep making threats/conditioning or come out with something bigger, cause all the small stuff has already been done.(and you sure can't come up with worse stuff, cause no one will use it.) Or you come out with new strageties that say "evolve or die." -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote: > Rush decks are screwed. Stealth and Bleed decks are screwed. Intercept decks > are screwed. Horde Bleed decks are screwed. Celerity/gun decks are screwed. > Minion Tap/5th decks are screwed. Presence vote decks are screwed. Tap and I wouldn't say PRE vote decks get screwed. Just vote it away. Same for OBF prince, FoS free states decks, etc. Maybe you just need to be a little nicer to the other vote decks out there, and they will help you get rid of it. > Bleed decks are screwed. Bruise and Bleed decks are screwed. Animalism horde > decks are screwed. I can't think of a single, viable deck strategy that is not > completely screwed by this single card. I can think of many that are not just shut off like you say they are. They are slowed down. But if your intercept can't stop the key actions with 7 cards for your prey and 7 for your predator, maybe you could work on it a bit? And maybe you just will have to not torpor every minion you want? Focusing on your prey, a rush deck should still be able to take them out. You just can't go performing random acts of violence againt everyone else also. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > But Semsmith says that at the end of each minion phase, you draw up to your > > hand size. Distraction also says draw up to your hand size. How come your > > hand size is 7 (or whatever) when Semsmith tells you to do it, but only 3 > > when Distraction tells you to do it. > > Distraction says to discard down to your hand size, but I know what you mean. > > During Distraction, your hand size is unchanged. Distraction pumps extra > cards into your hand and then reminds you to discard (immediately) down to > your hand size (as you must always do). > > During a Semsisth minion phase, your hand size is incrementally decreased by > each card that leaves your hand - the cards, being not replaced, count against > your hand size. After the minion phase, the cards qare replaced (and so no > longer count against your hand size) - you draw cards. So wouldn't that work something like this: Start of my predators turn, I have 7 cards in my hand. His first action is a vote, I wake to attempt to block(via sports bike) My actualy hand size is 7-1 for a wake I'm not replacing, I have 6 cards in my hand 1 less the my normal size. With Meddler out, I play the same wake, and my hand size is now only 6 due to meddler, so shouldn't I discard down to 5 since the wake still counts against me? Sounds like you get -1 hand size for playing a card, then you can also have -1 hand size for playing a card that counts against your hand size(Effectivly hitting you for a 2 card negative hand size) Would be similar to me waking to block something(7-1= 6 cards in my hand) then my predator takes control of the High Priest via temptation(or whatever) forcing me to play with 1 less card in my hand. Since I'm already at 6 physical cards in hand, he reduces me to a base of 6, there is still a wake counting against me so I have to discard something out of my hand.(leaving me with just 5) I don't get to count the wake that is currently couting against me towards the 6 hand size I have from the priest., so it becomes 6-1 for wake = 5. Is it kinda like every card that leaves your hand(For whatever reason) says "do not replace untill the end of the minion phase?" And this meddler is supposed to over ride some of the "do not replace until..." cards(like lucky blow) but not all of them.(like wake) How do we know which it does and which it doesn't? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a3qb36$19thg3$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes: >Dominate Rulez! >3 blood >Action Modifier >[dom] +4 bleed no further bleed modifiers. >[DOM] +5 bleed no further bleed modifiers. > >Eventually without new stuff you either have to keep making >threats/conditioning or come out with something bigger, cause all the small >stuff has already been done.(and you sure can't come up with worse stuff, >cause no one will use it.) Or you come out with new strageties that say >"evolve or die." Partly true, but there is no need - necessarily - to introduce new things *now*. That's a deliberately considered element. Dominate has many things it currently does. Expanding on, refining on and manipulating it are not exactly the trickiest of things, without having to resort to +X bleed. -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

In message <20020205170127...@mb-fj.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes: >I can't think of a single, viable deck strategy that is not >completely screwed by this single card. The Betrayer deck. And lots of it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Tobias: as official organizer of the tourney I would suggest you 'coerce' > people not to use this card. I, personally, will attack > (rush/bleed/vote/whatever) the first player to try bring it into play, > cross-table if needs be. I will also mention this to every table I will play > during the tournament, and suggest people do the same. This is much, much > worse than four times The Slaughterhouse. > Maybe it's White Wolf's intention to change current popular strategies > towards more card-conservative ones, but there's no reason I've got to like > it and I'll make that plenty clear, should the card actually show up. Patrick, thanks for the support. Unfortunately due to the delay Google imposes upon us, things have evolved in my mind since then. While I still think the card is a bad idea, I will reserve judgement on its total impact until it's shown itself during the tourney - and I will, of course, do what my players want. The whole idea of Storyline is to have some funky stuff happening, and in that manner, Semsith may be appropriate. I do not really find the card comparable to the slaughterhouse - this is worse, unless the metagame evolves significantly with the upcoming cammie release. However, your suggesting of cross-table rushing is something that many people will support, although I will remain impartial concerning any on-table events during the tournament. > Note: I don't think it's actually all that damaging to many decks, but it > kicks most of the fun out of the game, as you have no options left but > quietly suffer half the time; I'll not stand for it. > 'quietly suffering' is something I would find damaging. Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<k6ju5u4kbtlsue295...@4ax.com>... <snip a lot of practical, reasonable comment> > I believe that this card sets up one of the worst X or anti-X situations > since Return to Innocence was legal. Either you're playing this card, > or you're prepared to defend yourself against this card -- because if > you DON'T defend yourself against this card, it will stop your game in > its tracks. > > I agree with Noal; I do not believe that this card was playtested. I've been cracking my head a little about this last thing: whether it was playtested or not. Part of me says: "Surely they MUST have playtested it, as it is a key element of a special new event happening world-wide and influencing even the RPG element." A more nagging part of me chimes in with: "Yes, but what if they were afraid of the card content leaking? I do not know how long ago bloodlines was playtested, but surely some people would know a certain card was missing from the bloodlines set (if it is indeed part of that). Or, not putting the blame on players, anyone just coming across the card without knowing its specialness could've mentioned it." If it were playtested, the playtesters could never compete in this Storyline tourney, since they would have an unfair advantage over the rest (well, until now that it's been revealed). If LSJ, or any playtester that is at liberty to speak about this, would tell us a little about why they think it is balanced and good for VTES, that would be kind. If their lips are sealed due to greater interests (for instance, not giving away the content of the Cammie set), so be it. Tobias Deventer On a bloody seesaw on this entire semsith business - he's sure meddled with me!

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:38:36 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >What's the story behind this card? Who is Semsith? Does his meddling >take place in Baltimore? I found a story fragment about this on the WW web site. The card clearly illustrates this story. I'm not sure why it has been implemented as a political action though. I'd have thought the card would have been the vampire himself. Maybe they want to see who wins the storyline event and will make the vampire part of that clan? Andrew "The Baltimore Prelude Greed and distrust drive the in-fighting and factionalizing that threaten to destroy the Sabbat's fragile hold on Baltimore. The Camarilla and other clans watch with great interest, waiting for a weak moment and a grand opportunity. The internal and external pressures are mounting and the arrival in the New World of the mysterious Kindred Semsith signals an inevitable tugging on the strings of power. The brackish sea scents adequately cover the odor of decaying flesh aboard the Lionel Blaire. Stowing-away on the container ship for the duration of the Atlantic crossing, Semsith butchered her Cockney crew upon their docking in the Port of Baltimore. For the third straight rainy night Semsith returns unnoticed to the ship, once more soaked to his waist in blood and foul water. Tonight, however, his covert mission has been especially rewarding. Semsith achieves a full and proud sneer as he savors the perfume of the greasy smoke clinging to his overcoat. He rests in the Captain's quarters, racing toward sleep, warmed equally by the sight of the dawn sky aglow with fires set by his hand and by the promise of rewards for that which he has set in motion."

<snip andrew's troll> > Oh, Andrew. This card doesn't just screw Rush decks. It screws every deck. I disagree. I've got a reactionary anarch's deck that wouldn't much care, it cycles infrequently anyway, and takes few actions on its turn. Further it actually, has... vote defence. I know the kill kill kill deck doesn't pack delaying tactics, etc. but honestly table talk. ofter a vote deck a favor to remove it. It goes away, so does that annoying blocker. Any deck with some table votes. I'm looking forward to it being played at Madison's story line. If its on me, I laugh and vote it off. If its not on me I laugh (quietly) and make a deal to vote it off someone else. > Badly. In any situation, if this card is successfully played, and you are the > target, you are effectively removed from the game, regardless of your deck > strategy. You can only take, like, 1 action per turn. No deck can survive >that. Honestly, your still sitting there with x other people, y of whom will listen to you. (where y=x-[2+number of crosstable rushes]) <snip everyone is screwed> this card doesn't remove the ability to play the game. Yes it puts annoying restrictions on that ability, and no I'd never prefer to play with the card on me than without. Of course I'd also like to be invulnerable to bleed... but I'm not. Instead I plan to deal with a bleed deck. All this card has done so far is make us all think about how we deal with a vote deck, something we should be doing anyway. It does not reduce your hand size to 0, immedeatly oust you, or cause an unstoppable effect to destroy you. It annoys you, and limits you. Like losing pool. Cameron "El diablo con dinero..."

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20020205171031...@mb-fj.aol.com>... > The comparison between the new Discard "strategy" (which is both conceiveably > a new strategy and not particularly viable) and Meddling (which isn't a new > strategy, it is just a broken card conceived in a fit of delusional madness) > is not a valid one. Perhaps you're right, but I maintain that my other comparison is quite valid: Dramatic Upheaval is even more powerful than Meddling of Sesmith. Of course, MoS is useful in situations when DU isn't, such as 2-player endgames, but MoS has a self-destruct clause and a penalty. DU doesn't. DU fits in all vote decks; MoS only goes in titled/defensive vote decks--you have to keep people from voting it away. Sure, MoS is a powerful card. But if DU doesn't require erratta, I doubt MoS requires erratta. But hey, I'm no playtester.

Reyda wrote: > > it's sad for the game. but maybe i'm whining without reason ? Yes. > comments anyone ? The best defense is a good offense. Ignore building a defensive deck and instead look at your prey and take them out. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3C61EB70...@spamcop.net... > > Reyda wrote: > > > > it's sad for the game. but maybe i'm whining without reason ? > > Yes. that's quite short =p > > comments anyone ? > > The best defense is a good offense. Ignore building a defensive deck > and instead look at your prey and take them out. If you were abstolutely right, everyone would play stealth bleed decks and intercept wouldn't even exist. mmm... subtlety is something i worship... reyda

On 6 Feb 2002 05:07:27 -0800, Tobias wrote: >> I agree with Noal; I do not believe that this card was playtested. > >I've been cracking my head a little about this last thing: whether it >was playtested or not. How do we know that any card is playtested? There are no playtester credits in the rules. My impression is that none of the players on this newsgroup are playtesters. And note that VEKN rules forbid playtesters from participating in the Baltimore storyline events as this card is still embargoed. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > And note that VEKN rules forbid > playtesters from participating in the Baltimore storyline events as > this card is still embargoed. The rules also prohibit the card itself (in constructed deck tournaments, which the storyline events are). And limit libraries to 90 cards. The storyline events do not (the limit for libraries is 91 if the player includes a copy of the promo card, which is allowed). Since some of the rules are being bent/lifted for the storyline events, the events do not count toward player ratings. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Derek Ray wrote: > Let's just see what we can do here, then. > > - Queen Anne has superior DOM/PRE, and inferior OBF. She is a Prince, > so this vote automatically has 3 votes in favor. [It is entirely > possible that 3 votes will be enough to pass this all on its lonesome, > if nobody else has a titled vampire out.] > > - She calls this vote on her prey, with Forgotten Labyrinth handy to > make it at +3 stealth. [At this point, you must be an intercept deck to > block this vote.] So, if it's so trivial for your proposed deck to pull off the vote, what does it matter if you're playing with Meddling of Semsith? If you're that unstoppable, why waste your time? Just use damaging votes and oust the guy instead of dicking around with Meddling. Nowhere in your description of what will happen do you explain how playing Meddling of Semsith further enables this deck to inflict unstoppable righteous kick-ass-itude. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

In article <3010E4879F7E6F77.94E32B2E...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 6 Feb 2002 05:07:27 -0800, Tobias wrote: > >>> I agree with Noal; I do not believe that this card was playtested. >> >>I've been cracking my head a little about this last thing: whether it >>was playtested or not. > >How do we know that any card is playtested? There are no playtester >credits in the rules. My impression is that none of the players on >this newsgroup are playtesters. In this matter, as in so many others, your impressions are profoundly, wholly, and utterly incorrect. Incorrect _de Profundis_, as it were. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

> Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > How do we know that any card is playtested? There are no playtester > credits in the rules. My impression is that none of the players on > this newsgroup are playtesters. Translation: BRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! BRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! BRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop braying like a donkey, Andrew. Doing so only servers to reinforce everyone's belief that you are nothing more than an ignorant ass clown. I, and several of the regulars on this list, have been playtesters for the last three sets. (No, I'm not playtesting the Camarilla set, so don't ask.) So your impressions, as usual, are about as sound as Enron's financial policies. > And note that VEKN rules forbid playtesters from participating > in the Baltimore storyline events as this card is still embargoed. BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong again. First off, if the card was never playtested, than there would be no playtesters to forbid. Second, the storyline event doesn't follow any of the sanctioned formats in VEKN rules, so again, playtesters may participate. Noal

On 8 Feb 2002 13:55:41 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Noal, Are you out of coffee again?!? Or is it just that they stock the cheap stuff at the office :-) Bernie

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3c646837....@netnews.attbi.com... > Noal, > Are you out of coffee again?!? Or is it just that they stock the > cheap stuff at the office :-) I think it's simply that the *real* Noal has taken charge again. There must have been some sort of pod-person-kinder-and-gentler Noal in his place for a while. :) Xian

On 8 Feb 2002 13:55:41 -0800, Noal McDonald wrote: >I, and several of the regulars on this list, have been playtesters for >the last three sets. (No, I'm not playtesting the Camarilla set, so >don't ask.) There seems to have been some mystery about this in the past. E.g. your own statement, "You don't need to know who they are." Anyway, what did you make of this card in playtest? >> And note that VEKN rules forbid playtesters from participating >> in the Baltimore storyline events as this card is still embargoed. > >BZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong again. > >First off, if the card was never playtested, than there would be no >playtesters to forbid. Second, the storyline event doesn't follow any >of the sanctioned formats in VEKN rules, so again, playtesters may >participate. That's not what the WW website says. It says that the event is "sanctioned" and that "All standard V:EKN Rules will apply.". It seems that the rule barring playtesters is always ignored when it comes up (c.f. the Bloodlines pre-release). It therefore ought to be dropped from the VEKN rules. It's another carryover from the DCI. Their policy had an adverse effect upon Magic - good players would refuse to be playtesters because it would bar them from tournaments and that's why so many broken cards got into Magic expansions. Andrew

In message <D4D6D2CE879510C8.B31438E8...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On 8 Feb 2002 13:55:41 -0800, Noal McDonald wrote: >>I, and several of the regulars on this list, have been playtesters for >>the last three sets. (No, I'm not playtesting the Camarilla set, so >>don't ask.) > >There seems to have been some mystery about this in the past. E.g. >your own statement, "You don't need to know who they are." Anyway, >what did you make of this card in playtest? 1) He said he'd been a playtester for the last three sets. Meddling isn't part of a set. Even your level of stupidity can handle this. 2) NDAs routinely prevent such discussions in many ways, if the printed version varies even slightly - since you would be releasing information about the unvaried version. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bf72a12e.02020...@posting.google.com>, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) mumbled something about: > So, if it's so trivial for your proposed deck to pull off the vote, what > does it matter if you're playing with Meddling of Semsith? If you're > that unstoppable, why waste your time? Just use damaging votes and oust > the guy instead of dicking around with Meddling. Stealthy Presence vote has always been quite formidable in its own right. The Ventrue are only held in check by their overall lack of ability to get more than +1 stealth on their actions, and the fact that you have to go up to a 10-cap to get a Ventrue with OBF. The "Your Game Stops Here" power of Meddling largely negates the inherent disadvantages of dicking around with 10-caps. > Nowhere in your description of what will happen do you explain how playing > Meddling of Semsith further enables this deck to inflict unstoppable > righteous kick-ass-itude. With a Meddling on him, your prey's deck will not function effectively, preventing him from doing a number of things: 1) Ousting his own prey (quite possible, as if you're dicking around with 10-caps, you're starting out slow) 2) Bloating sufficiently such that you cannot oust him (again quite possible, since you can't have enough 2nds in your deck) 3) Rushing you effectively (He can't generate enough cards for more than one combat, which you can defend against easily) 4) Ousting you backwards in some fashion (mostly only applies to vote decks, but !Malks can do this too) 5) Generating any sort of functional cardflow in order to defend himself (really hard to get to your next Delaying Tactics when you have ugly hand jam) The single card Meddling (or the 6-8 cards Meddling, realistically) slot(s) directly into your pre-built vote deck that was already functioning quite well. Plenty of cards come to mind as candidates for disposal to make room: Disputed Territory (why bother?) excess 2nd Tradition (just Meddle your predator) excess combat defense (don't need as much, not getting hit as much) excess Freak Drive (don't need speed, your prey will be much slower than you) any "speculative" cards like Far Mastery (why bother?) It has always been possible to build a deck that chunks around KRCs and Con Ags at high stealth with Presence. Such decks generally have required very large vampires, and as a result been noticeably slower to "start up" and get rolling than the other decks on the table... bringing balance to the game. By passing one vote (the thing it does BEST), that same deck can now slow its prey or predator down to SLOWER than its own speed -- and the removal process for that effect plays directly into the thing your deck does best (much like a Tzimisce intercept/combat deck playing Smiling Jack). So much for balance. And in the process, it prevents one player from actually playing the game, something Thoughts Betrayed was errata'd for. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bl196us43ok5j49nv...@4ax.com>... > In message <bf72a12e.02020...@posting.google.com>, > fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) mumbled something about: > > So, if it's so trivial for your proposed deck to pull off the vote, what > > does it matter if you're playing with Meddling of Semsith? If you're > > that unstoppable, why waste your time? Just use damaging votes and oust > > the guy instead of dicking around with Meddling. > Stealthy Presence vote has always been quite formidable in its own > right. The Ventrue are only held in check by their overall lack of > ability to get more than +1 stealth on their actions, and the fact that > you have to go up to a 10-cap to get a Ventrue with OBF. Erm, actually it's only 9 for Suhailah... or 11 for Arika. Anne has obf (and the PRE Suhailah lacks) at 10. That doesn't leave you with an exactly huge crypt selection. Ok, you are going to tool up the other ventrue princes with obf masters, awe this card into play, EKN + KC it to stay, and obedience to protect from rush? With a six card hand, there's six cards... sorry if this doesn't impress me as unbeatable just yet. > The "Your Game > Stops Here" power of Meddling largely negates the inherent disadvantages > of dicking around with 10-caps. > With a Meddling on him, your prey's deck will not function effectively, > preventing him from doing a number of things: > 1) Ousting his own prey (quite possible, as if you're dicking around > with 10-caps, you're starting out slow) > 2) Bloating sufficiently such that you cannot oust him (again quite > possible, since you can't have enough 2nds in your deck) There's no doubt that the card interferes with ousting your prey, or rushing someone. It won't stop tradition tap from bloating; you don't want to tap down to a low # of blood and have to draw into the 5th as this leaves you vulnerable. Additionally, while you're messing around with MoS you aren't hammering the bloaters pool, which will probably mean multiple additional titled vampires. That makes the MoS rather hard to protect (to say nothing of passing your other votes)... were you really going to have piles of Kindred Coercions in the deck, and Queen Annes in the crypt? Tradition tap will have old vampires due to the efficiency, and other requirements. > The single card Meddling (or the 6-8 cards Meddling, realistically) > slot(s) directly into your pre-built vote deck that was already > functioning quite well. If you aren't going for simple title based vote lock, it's a lot more than 8 cards! > It has always been possible to build a deck that chunks around KRCs and > Con Ags at high stealth with Presence. Such decks generally have > required very large vampires, and as a result been noticeably slower to > "start up" and get rolling than the other decks on the table... bringing > balance to the game. Then Zillah's Valley should also break them as it gives a massive speed boost and it's cumulative with IH. The one pool cost (compared to simply transfering on a latter turn) is very insignificant compared to the 6 (or less) hand size. It's clearly a strong effect, but it I don't see the need to ban the card before anyone has even won a tournament with it.

Derek Ray wrote: > With a Meddling on him, your prey's deck will not function effectively, > preventing him from doing a number of things...<snip> *shrug* In the two times it was played at the Boston storyline tournament, it was found to be a thorn in the sides of its victims, but it wasn't at all catastrophic or broken. It certainly slowed the players down, but it didn't leave them toothless. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Even if there were Playtesting credits in the rules, they would have to wait 18 months after the set was released according to the NDA. Since 18 months after excludes any possibility of getting the names into the published rules. It also keep people from pestering the Play testers, which might lead them to voluntarily break their NDA. Your starting to sound like Ernie Wilson. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] I think his Girl did a job on him. Fortunately the brain transplant failed. Raille

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > It's clearly a strong effect, but it I don't see the need to ban the > card before anyone has even won a tournament with it. Or even used it effectively. Of all the MoS's in play,it has hindered the player more than the allegeded victim. Raille of course the jury is still out.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:22:24 -0500, Raille wrote: >Even if there were Playtesting credits in the rules, they would have to >wait 18 months after the set was released according to the NDA. >Since 18 months after excludes any possibility of getting the names into >the published rules. 18 months? What 18 months? A long list of playtesters appeared in the original Jyhad rules - I doubt that this causes or has caused any problem. Things now seem be done in a deliberately secretive way. Not only the playtesters but the rules team are kept secret. This gives me the impression that folk have something to hide. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > 18 months? What 18 months? A long list of playtesters appeared in > the original Jyhad rules - I doubt that this causes or has caused any > problem. Jyhad was produced by WotC. V:TES is currently produced by White Wolf. Is it any wonder that two different companies may have different policies? With Jyhad, the playtesting was done (IIRC) entirely by WotC employees. These days, playtesters are not employees and may wish to keep their names from being published. > Things now seem be done in a deliberately secretive way. Not only the > playtesters but the rules team are kept secret. This gives me the > impression that folk have something to hide. No shit, Sherlock. The playtesters' and rules team members' identities are kept secret so that they aren't pestered, lobbied, badgered, threatened, etc. by bozos like you. They do have something to hide and, per the NDA, are legally restrained from disclosing it for 18 months. Noal

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:22:24 -0500, Raille wrote: > > >Even if there were Playtesting credits in the rules, they would have to > >wait 18 months after the set was released according to the NDA. > >Since 18 months after excludes any possibility of getting the names into > >the published rules. > > 18 months? What 18 months? A long list of playtesters appeared in > the original Jyhad rules - I doubt that this causes or has caused any > problem. Hey, all I can say is. Different Owners. > Things now seem be done in a deliberately secretive way. Not only the > playtesters but the rules team are kept secret. This gives me the > impression that folk have something to hide. There is no reason for a Playtester not to identify them selves. Its just that most don't want the hassel of players pestering them. Raille

> Things now seem be done in a deliberately secretive way. Not only the > playtesters but the rules team are kept secret. This gives me the > impression that folk have something to hide. > > Andrew They probably do have things to hide - like their names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, favorite places to eat without being accosted by people they don't know who have a score to settle or a whine to let out. Makes sense to me. Hell, I should probably join 'em. lactamaeon

>The playtesters' and rules team members' identities >are kept secret so that they aren't pestered, lobbied, badgered, >threatened, etc. by bozos like you. Have never seen any of that. I've seen designers pestered, certainly, buy maybe most folks subconsciously realize how little effect playtesters have on games.

> Have never seen any of that. I've seen designers pestered, certainly, buy > maybe most folks subconsciously realize how little effect playtesters have on > games. Not sure how many of you guys play live-action - but one of White Wolf's books for thier Mind's Eye Theater series (the LARP system) is Laws of the Wild Revised. This book was playtested by several groups. Each of them noticed the same problem with it - despite the fact that it refers to "soaking damage" in many places, nowhere does it state the mechanics for how to do so. The concept was copy & pasted over from the tabletop books, but not defined with live-action mechanics (or tabletop mechanics, for that matter). EVERY SINGLE PLAYTEST GROUP reported this, according to the people I've talked to (members of the Camarilla responsible for adapting WW's MET books to their game). The book was published without soaking rules. This has created a plethora of game balance issues - as the gifts that magnify damage dealt were designed with soaking in mind - and without soaking rules, and since we don't have soaking rules, they deal too much damage. This book was playtested, so I'm told - but a HUGE problem made it through the cracks. Now, given the overall balance and quality of Sabbat War, Final Nights, and Bloodlines, I'm pretty sure that the VTES branch of WW is a bit more perceptive on the playtest reports - but this example does serve to prove your point - how little impact playtesters have on the games. Fanboy