Ok, I thought I'd like to post my musings on the matter, after following
the other thread.
To begin with, I'm not advocating a change of the current Wake errata at
the moment. :)
Let's start with the original un-errataed Wake. I never thought of it
unbalanced, but this is probably because I've never seen it abused.
However, when I read about the possibilities I was "shocked". :)
IMO the main problem was that you could put the Wakes in as "fillers":
find a killer combo, fill the rest of the deck with Wakes up to 60
cards, there you go. That was clearly a matter that had to be changed.
To a lesser degree you still can dump the Wakes: you can put down
exactly 7. This you can do on the last action of your predator, so you
don't have to face *any* disadvantage.
If you did it during any other player's turn, it would be plain stupid.
Now, what would change if we had errata that allows you to replace at
the end of the *current* turn? In a 4-player game you could dump 3*7=21
Wakes. Still Bad IMO.
There came some new ideas up:
* "do not replace until after combat <original card text> and when you
replace the card, show it to all players." I believe this wouldn't
violate any rules regarding showing cards to other players in
tournaments, btw.
This solution has a certain "coolness" to it, but doesn't do anything
against the cycling. Even if combined with "do not replace until the
beginning of the next turn" it is still abusable. ("Hey, look, he just
picked up 7 other Wakes.")
* burn either 1 pool or blood to replace the card. Here the question is:
when should it be replaced? If you keep the original card text (after
combat), and you pay one blood to replace the Wake, it's nothing else as
exactly the same card as FA (if you don't intend to block, that is). We
wouldn't want that. If it would be possible to replace at the end of
turn, or at the beginning at your own next turn, it would be clearly
inferior to FA, and obsolete.
What if you burned 1 pool to replace it? "Do not replace until the
beginning of your next turn. You may burn 1 pool to replace this card
immediatly." Hm. It *surely* would stop mad cycling. (Provided it isn't
a mass pool gain deck...) It would act just like the card is now with
the current errata, except that you'd have the option to replace it
sooner for the tradeoff of a very valuable resource. *But* it has an
additional sentence to it, whereas the current errata has just, well, 2
or 3 additional words or so.
Well, if I think now about it, I'm beginning to like the "1-pool option"
for Wake errata... :)
For me it seems to be a possible middleway. How much is a non-reduced
handsize worth to you? If it's not worth the 1 pool per slot, then just
don't replace it. :)
These are just some musings of mine, some ideas have been taken
selfishly from the other thread, but I think it shows the Wake-balance
issue from another angle. I hope you weren't bored by my long posting.
Carl
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carl wrote:
>>* "do not replace until after combat <original card text> and when you
replace the card, show it to all players." >>
Isn't really a disadvantage, and does nothing to adress the problems with the
card--I'm rarely concerned that anyone know what is in my hand. If my deck
works, I pretty much always have the cards I need, and rarely is anyone ever
surprised.
>>* burn either 1 pool or blood to replace the card. >>
If you have to burn blood, it is inferior to Forced. If you have to burn pool,
it is *vastly* inferior to Forced. Either way, this sort of change would
wallpaper Wake like there was no tomorrow.
>>What if you burned 1 pool to replace it? "Do not replace until the
beginning of your next turn. You may burn 1 pool to replace this card
immediatly.">>
Interesting, but again, makes the card inferior to Forced.
As Wake currently stands, it is perfectly useful. If you intend on blocking,
you use Forced. If you intend on bleed bouncing, or intend on blocking with
small vampires, you use Wake. Occasionally you will find yourself in trouble
due to the "don't redraw" aspect of Wake. Most of the time, however, you will
be using it on your predator's turn, so you don't have that long to wait before
you re-draw.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"I wanted out of the huge Jackson Pollock canvas that is the U.S.A.,
vast, murky, splotched, and slapped together by a drunk."
-Sarah Vowell
> due to the "don't redraw" aspect of Wake. Most of the time, however, you
will
> be using it on your predator's turn, so you don't have that long to wait
before
> you re-draw.
"Most of the time", maybe, but definitely *not* all the time. And because
there is this whole predator/prey relationship where you have to worry about
what is going on during the turns of the players to either side of you, if
you use
Wake during your prey's turn, there is a greater penalty in using it than
during
your predators turn. In response to the sentiment that you are supposed to
be
more concerned about blocking your predator than your prey, I totally
disagree.
There are plenty of actions that your prey takes that you might want to
block
but your grand prey could care less about. How about a 5th right after a
Minion
Tap? Why would your grand prey care about his predator doing a 5thTrad
if it doesn't overly affect him. But while it might not affect your grand
prey, it
certainly affects you as it is setting up for yet another Minion Tap, making
it
that much harder for you to oust your prey.
But then you have that whole "if you want to block..." sentiment going
around
right now. That's all well and fine for dedicated intercept decks. But
what of
those decks that use permanent/light intercept? It's in there in hopes of
messing
up your pred's/prey's plans, but might not be enough. So, for the decks
that
utilise this strategy (and there are alot of them out there), why should it
"cost"
more in terms of duration of hand size reduction to wake and attempt to
block
your prey than it does to wake and attempt to block your pred?
Please don't respond saying "Well, if you *want* to block...". I'm getting
so
tired of hearing that. FA is fine and justly costed, IMO. Here, I'm
talking
about Wake and it's cost and why it should be that this cost is higher on
one
end of the table and lower on the other.
Sorrow
---
I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no devil as well.
No
pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always letting us humans down. The
wars you bring, the babes you drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and
it's the same the whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax, and if you're up
there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon my sleeve. If there's one
thing
I don't believe in, it's you... Dear God.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:51:34 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>But then you have that whole "if you want to block..." sentiment going
>around
>right now. That's all well and fine for dedicated intercept decks. But
No, that's just there for people who want to make noise about how Wake
is useless compared to FA right now. They claim Wake is useless, we
point out that you Wake/bounce and FA/block. Then they go off on some
tangent.
>what of
>those decks that use permanent/light intercept? It's in there in hopes of
>messing
>up your pred's/prey's plans, but might not be enough. So, for the decks
>that
>utilise this strategy (and there are alot of them out there), why should it
>"cost"
>more in terms of duration of hand size reduction to wake and attempt to
>block
>your prey than it does to wake and attempt to block your pred?
See my example previously. I get to go before you do, because I'm
your predator (an advantage in itself). I get an Ivory Bow. Your
turn, you attempt to get a Flak Jacket. I Wake, play Spirit's Touch,
and torporize your vampire while taking no damage.
One card (Wake) just gave me a butt-ass HUGE advantage in the game,
because now you have no vampires. You also don't have your Flak
Jacket, which you needed for your own defense (and would have negated
my Ivory Bow totally for that vamp). Because of Wake, I was able to
proactively STOMP on your deck's attempt to get started. If my deck
is flowing well, you could possibly never recover and I have just
gained a VP.
Intercepting your prey doesn't need to be easier than it is.
(And the whole "if you WANT to block..." - well, if I play FA, I need
to be sure that i'll catch him, or I spend some blood off that vamp
and waste some intercept cards. If this is just a light intercept
deck, I'd prefer to play Wake just in case my prey has good stealth
available - and I'd prefer to play Wake so that my deflections don't
cost anything. So, for keeping all my options open instead of
committing myself, there is a greater cost.)
>Please don't respond saying "Well, if you *want* to block...". I'm getting
>so
>tired of hearing that. FA is fine and justly costed, IMO. Here, I'm
>talking
>about Wake and it's cost and why it should be that this cost is higher on
>one
>end of the table and lower on the other.
FA's cost is higher if someone is playing a heavy stealth deck, almost
nonexistent if you are facing a zero or +1 stealth deck. All cards'
cost change with the situation. Wake's too.
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
> See my example previously. I get to go before you do, because I'm
> your predator (an advantage in itself). I get an Ivory Bow. Your
> turn, you attempt to get a Flak Jacket. I Wake, play Spirit's Touch,
> and torporize your vampire while taking no damage.
> One card (Wake) just gave me a butt-ass HUGE advantage in the game,
> because now you have no vampires. You also don't have your Flak
> Jacket, which you needed for your own defense (and would have negated
> my Ivory Bow totally for that vamp). Because of Wake, I was able to
> proactively STOMP on your deck's attempt to get started. If my deck
> is flowing well, you could possibly never recover and I have just
> gained a VP.
Substitute Wake with FA in the above situation. The same thing will
hold true. The difference is that by using Wake, you now have to go
an entire turn around the table with one less card in your hand. This
is much more hurtful cost.
> Intercepting your prey doesn't need to be easier than it is.
It's not that hard right now. Wake doesn't make it any easier to
intercept your prey than FA makes it. The only difference is that
with FA, there *might* be a cost. With Wake, there *is* a cost
no matter what. Plus, it's even harder with Wake because it
cannot be replaced. You had *better* have the intercept in your
hand because there is no chance for you to draw it (which was
true even pre-errata). With FA, you at least have a chance of
drawing it.
> cost anything. So, for keeping all my options open instead of
> committing myself, there is a greater cost.)
I'm sorry, but having a 1 card reduction per wake for an entire
turn around the table (if you attempt to block your prey) is a
significantly greater cost than 1 blood, which is incredibly easy
to replace.
> FA's cost is higher if someone is playing a heavy stealth deck, almost
> nonexistent if you are facing a zero or +1 stealth deck. All cards'
> cost change with the situation. Wake's too.
The cheapest Wake ever gets is on your pred's last action. Even
on his/her first action, it holds a pretty significant cost. I said it
once and I'll say it again - if losing 1 card from your hand was an
insignificant cost, why does Aggresive Tactics cost 2 pool? I will
grant you that with AT, it is someone else forcing you to lose a
card and with Wake, it is voluntary. But the net effect is still the
same - you have 1 fewer cards in your hand which is a significant
advantage to your predator. It is this advantage that represents a
majority of the cost of AT, I'm sure, because I'd find it *very*
difficult to believe that the entire 2 pool cost is just because it is
forced.
If it is felt (and this is obviously the case) that Wake *needs* to
be errata'd, then fine. But the current cost of the card is way out
of line.
Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >But then you have that whole "if you want to block..." sentiment
going
> >around
> >right now. That's all well and fine for dedicated intercept decks.
But
>
> No, that's just there for people who want to make noise about how Wake
> is useless compared to FA right now. They claim Wake is useless, we
> point out that you Wake/bounce and FA/block. Then they go off on some
> tangent.
FA/Block does not have a cost, WWEF/Bounce has cost. That's first thing
why the wake is worse. If you intend to block you will surely play FA.
If you intend to play reactions - you can choose between two kinds of
cost.
But is you think that's ok, let me give you another expmale.
Categorized actions by type (and appropriate defenses):
Bleed - FA/Block, Wake/Deflect
Vote -FA/Block, Wake/Delaying Tactics
Hunt -FA/Block, Wake/ Foul's Blood and so
The rest of the actions (equip, emply retainer, recruit ally and non-
categorized ones like cryptic mission, derange, bum's rush) all require
block to stop them.
So there are 3 types of actions where WWEF is equal to FA. Otherwise
the FA should be better. Only thing that can change this is whether
you/other players are playing with stealth/intercept.
In your example with Ivory Bow, playing FA would be much better, and
still better would be waking then twice on your predator's turn and
redirecting his bleeds to your prey (redirection does not cost blood,
so it is worth playing with the FA). That is nearly impossible to
achieve using only WWEF.
Some alternative errata:
Do not replace until your next untap.
If this minion plays another reaction card during this action, you may
replace WWEF at the end of action.
Martin
[ quoted text not captured ]
> But is you think that's ok, let me give you another expmale.
>
> Categorized actions by type (and appropriate defenses):
>
> Bleed - FA/Block, Wake/Deflect
> Vote -FA/Block, Wake/Delaying Tactics
> Hunt -FA/Block, Wake/ Foul's Blood and so
>
> The rest of the actions (equip, emply retainer, recruit ally and non-
> categorized ones like cryptic mission, derange, bum's rush) all
require
> block to stop them.
>
> So there are 3 types of actions where WWEF is equal to FA. Otherwise
> the FA should be better. Only thing that can change this is whether
> you/other players are playing with stealth/intercept.
>
Yeah but do i ever *want* to block with my titled ventrue? No, so in any
situation FA is worse in that deck. As for stealth, it beats intercept,
almost period, so if you try to block the malks, you pay a blood with
FA, almost certainly.
> In your example with Ivory Bow, playing FA would be much better, and
> still better would be waking then twice on your predator's turn and
> redirecting his bleeds to your prey (redirection does not cost blood,
> so it is worth playing with the FA). That is nearly impossible to
> achieve using only WWEF.
Unless the deck is a bounce/vote deck, that got the Bow out quick, and
decided a quick combat is worth killing their prey's first vampire.
>
> Some alternative errata:
>
> Do not replace until your next untap.
> If this minion plays another reaction card during this action, you may
> replace WWEF at the end of action.
>
Not sure if this can be abused or not, would 'probably' stop dumping in
a preys turn (over pre-eratta), but honestly i dont mind the current
cost.
Cameron
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:48:42 GMT, murlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> No, that's just there for people who want to make noise about how Wake
>> is useless compared to FA right now. They claim Wake is useless, we
>> point out that you Wake/bounce and FA/block. Then they go off on some
>> tangent.>
>FA/Block does not have a cost, WWEF/Bounce has cost. That's first thing
FA/Block has the constant risk of someone producing shitloads of
stealth OR an unblockable action. Every deck that relies on blocking
runs this risk, and it is one of the reasons intercept decks have
trouble - because stealth and unblockable actions win hands down.
WWEF/Bounce has such a negligible cost it's not even funny. You get
to bleed your prey for a cost of one blood and two cards, one of which
you get back right away and one of which you get back Real Soon Now.
How can this be bad? Answer: IT CAN'T.
>why the wake is worse. If you intend to block you will surely play FA.
>If you intend to play reactions - you can choose between two kinds of
>cost.
See my analysis on "when non-blocking reaction cards are played".
What cost? Any Wake action you take on your predator's turn pays for
itself.
>But is you think that's ok, let me give you another expmale.
>
>Categorized actions by type (and appropriate defenses):
>
>Bleed - FA/Block, Wake/Deflect
>Vote -FA/Block, Wake/Delaying Tactics
Or Wake/Dread Gaze, etc. 10 different options. Some suck, yes.
>Hunt -FA/Block, Wake/ Foul's Blood and so
>
>The rest of the actions (equip, emply retainer, recruit ally and non-
>categorized ones like cryptic mission, derange, bum's rush) all require
>block to stop them.
And for the most part, require intercept, making your deck vulnerable
to stealth.
>So there are 3 types of actions where WWEF is equal to FA. Otherwise
Two of which just happen to be the primary actions usable to oust
someone, and which your deck should be prepared for ANYWAY. Combat is
a distant third, since you need to bleed people after you beat up
their vampires and neither Wake nor FA has any real effect on a combat
deck, which wants to beat on ALL your vampires anyway.
I also don't agree that Wake is equal in one instance - I believe that
wake is VASTLY SUPERIOR to FA when dealing with bleed decks. Bounce
beats blocking 100% of the time - it converts your predator's vampire
into YOUR vampire for one turn. Telepathic Counter is just lovely for
those pesky little Night Moves/Spying Mission decks.
Being able to do things that aren't blocking are importnat, especially
if you like your vampires alive.
>the FA should be better. Only thing that can change this is whether
>you/other players are playing with stealth/intercept.
>>In your example with Ivory Bow, playing FA would be much better, and
...but putting FAs in my deck locks me into blocking actions whether
or not I get the Ivory Bow. If I want to ever do anything BUT block,
I'm going to be paying blood. Using FA is fine if I have a dedicated
intercept deck - stupid if I only have a KRCG, a Rumor Mill, and a
handful of Spirit's Touch.
>still better would be waking then twice on your predator's turn and
>redirecting his bleeds to your prey (redirection does not cost blood,
>so it is worth playing with the FA). That is nearly impossible to
But realistically, Redirection requires a vampire with superior
Dominate, which is much more difficult to get than inferior Dominate.
For tapped minions and Deflection, inferior Dominate and superior
Dominate are totally equal. This results in Deflection being a much
more commonly played card, not to mention the ability to leave one
superior-DOM guy untapped and bounce forever without tapping.
Redirection is 100% USDA Grade "A" Crap when you only have inferior
Dominate out, and Constanza Vinti comes to bleed your ass for 6.
"younger vampire" is often underestimated. =)
And if you're going to kill your prey's vampire on his only action,
then wake twice more and use your predator's vampires to bleed your
prey,... you don't think this is powerful? you don't think that this
should have a HUGE cost to be able to do this? FA makes you spend
extra blood, either to get the vampires with the disciplines, or just
for not blocking. That cost begins to be BIG. Wake, well, who cares?
You get the card back almost right away anyway, and a bounced bleed
for 3 is -always- worth a hand slot.
>achieve using only WWEF.>Some alternative errata:
>
>Do not replace until your next untap.
>If this minion plays another reaction card during this action, you may
>replace WWEF at the end of action.
Why play FA when I can Wake, play Spirit's Touch, and block -
replacing my Wake since Spirit's Touch is a reaction card?
And for Wake, blocking a zero-stealth bleed of 6 costs you a hand
slot. Is this in line with your idea of what you want it to do?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorrow wrote:
>>In response to the sentiment that you are supposed to
be more concerned about blocking your predator than your prey, I totally
disagree.>>
I never said that you are supposed to be more concerned about blocking your
predator than your prey. I said that if you intend on blocking, you use Forced.
If you are using Wake for Bounce, on the other hand, most of the time, you will
only have to Wake on your Predator's turn, and thus will only have to do
without the hand size for a short period of time.
>>There are plenty of actions that your prey takes that you might want to
block but your grand prey could care less about.>>
Yes. If you want to block stuff, use Forced.
>>But then you have that whole "if you want to block..." sentiment going
around right now. That's all well and fine for dedicated intercept decks. But
what of those decks that use permanent/light intercept?>>
If you intend on blocking, use Forced. If you can block consistiently (even if
you can only stop light stealth), you use Forced. If you sucessfully block,
then you lose nothing. If you fail to block, you probably shouldn't have tried
to block anyway.
>>It's in there in hopes of messing up your pred's/prey's plans, but might not
be enough. So, for the decks that utilise this strategy (and there are alot of
them out there), why should it "cost" more in terms of duration of hand size
reduction to wake and attempt to block your prey than it does to wake and
attempt to block your pred?>>
I'm a tad confused here. If you have a deck that is designed to block, be it a
dedicated intercept deck or a deck with light, permanent intercept, you use
Forced. I fail to see why you would use Wake is such a situation. Wake is
useful for Bleed Bounce (which is very common, and usually only used against
your predator) and generic reaction cards. The whole blocking issue you bring
up, in regards to Wake, is moot. If you are going to build a deck that intends
on blocking stuff, you use Forced. If you are building a deck that intends on
Bleed Bouncing, you are often better off using Wake.
>>Please don't respond saying "Well, if you *want* to block...". I'm getting
so tired of hearing that.>>
Sorrow, you know full well that I have never been concerned with what you are
tired of hearing.
>>Here, I'm talking about Wake and it's cost and why it should be that this
cost is higher on one end of the table and lower on the other.>>
That is a valid concern in terms of play cost, but in practicality, it isn't
really much of an issue--if you intend on blocking someone, you use Forced.
Wake is useful for Bleed Bounce and for larky defense strategies (like the
occasional Delaying Tactics or whatever). When you are building a deck, you
know full well what kind of defenses you are going to employ, be it blocking,
bouncing, or whatever. You don't build a deck by throwing in random cards and
hoping that they work out. This being the case, as you build your deck you can
very well say to your self "Self, this deck is going to block stuff. Thus, I
will use Forced." or "Self, this deck is going to use Bounce as its primary
bleed defense. Thus, I will use Wake."
Yes--you have a valid complaint in that if you use Wake to block your Prey, you
have a smaller hand size for longer than if you only block your Predator. This
is true. Thus, if you are concerned about this added cost, and you are playing
a deck that intends on blocking stuff, you use Forced. Wake is useful in
situations where you are not concerned with the loss of hand size (like 'cause
your main intention is to bounce your predator), or where the loss of hand size
is potentially worth the trade off for the bonus defensive abilities.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >>In response to the sentiment that you are supposed to
> be more concerned about blocking your predator than your prey,
> I totally disagree.>>
> I never said that you are supposed to be more concerned about
> blocking your predator than your prey.
You may not have said it, but it was said. I believe it was Derek
> I said that if you intend on blocking, you use Forced.
> If you are using Wake for Bounce, on the other hand, most of the
> time, you will only have to Wake on your Predator's turn, and thus
> will only have to do without the hand size for a short period of time.
But it's never this simple. There are plenty of other reasons that you
would want to untap and do neither.
> >>There are plenty of actions that your prey takes that you might
> want to block but your grand prey could care less about.>>
> Yes. If you want to block stuff, use Forced.
But if you are using light intercept, something that has a decent enough
chance of being enough but not 100%, you aren't going to be using FA
but Wake instead. And for those decks, they shouldn't have to deal
with such an outrageous penalty. If you want to make Wake cost,
make it cost. But make it cost less than it does now.
> >>But then you have that whole "if you want to block..." sentiment going
> around right now. That's all well and fine for dedicated intercept decks.
But
> what of those decks that use permanent/light intercept?>>
>
> If you intend on blocking, use Forced. If you can block consistiently
(even if
> you can only stop light stealth), you use Forced. If you sucessfully
block,
> then you lose nothing. If you fail to block, you probably shouldn't have
tried
> to block anyway.> I'm a tad confused here. If you have a deck that is designed to block,
> be it a dedicated intercept deck or a deck with light, permanent
intercept,
> you use Forced. I fail to see why you would use Wake is such a situation.
To save blood. If you don't have FA. There are a variety of reasons you'd
want to use Wake. However, in doing so, the cost is way too much if you
do so against your prey.
> Wake is useful for Bleed Bounce (which is very common, and usually
> only used against your predator) and generic reaction cards. The whole
> blocking issue you bring up, in regards to Wake, is moot.
Not necessarily
> If you are going to build a deck that intends on blocking stuff, you use
> Forced. If you are building a deck that intends on Bleed Bouncing, you
> are often better off using Wake.
Right, but it is never a clear cut case of block *or* bleed bounce. There
are a host of other reactions you can take. And because it isn't *just*
block or bounce, why should it be that the cost is extra in those cases?
> >>Please don't respond saying "Well, if you *want* to block...". I'm
> getting so tired of hearing that.>>
> Sorrow, you know full well that I have never been concerned with what
> you are tired of hearing.
I never expected you to. But I meant it more in that it seemed to be a
mantra that was used as the complete justification for the cost of Wake.
And I didn't want to hear it yet again and so anyone who was going to
say it *yet again* need not respond.
> That is a valid concern in terms of play cost,
And it is exactly my concern.
> but in practicality, it isn't really much of an issue--
Not always true.
> will use Forced." or "Self, this deck is going to use Bounce as its
> primary bleed defense. Thus, I will use Wake."
Please get out of this mentality. All reactions do not revolve around
blocking or bouncing. It is in using these other reactions that the cost
of Wake is greatly increased.
> your main intention is to bounce your predator), or where the loss
> of hand size is potentially worth the trade off for the bonus defensive
> abilities.
It's never worth the trade off. FA will always clearly be better because
of that. Tell you what, try changing the cost of FA from 1 blood to
'do not replace until the end of the turn'. Then see how much better
that 1 blood looks then... Losing a card slot, regardless of how long,
is always worse. Why do you think it is so often used? Because it
is a significant cost and in the case of Wake, grows going counter-
clockwise from your predator to your prey.
Sorrow
---
"...but you know, evil is an exact science..."
Sorrow wrote:
>>But it's never this simple. There are plenty of other reasons that you
would want to untap and do neither.>>
These reasons are in most situations much less likely to occur than blocking or
bouncing. What other reaction cards get used all that often? Obedience,
Delaying Tactics, Dread Gaze (maybe), possibly Telepathic Counter. Reaction
cards (that do not directly result in either blocking or bleed bounce) are a
sorely underutilized resource (because they simply aren't that useful). The
number of times you will need to play them in a given game is pretty limited,
and if you find yourself in a situation where you need one, in all likelyhood,
the blood cost of FA will be a reasonable price to pay.
>>But if you are using light intercept, something that has a decent enough
chance of being enough but not 100%, you aren't going to be using FA
but Wake instead.>>
If you only have light intercept, you are foolish to be trying to block anyone
that is likely to have extra stealth, Forced or no. If you have a deck that can
reliably provide +1 intercept (say, from a Sports Bike), you should only be
using that intercept to block minions who you know you can block. Otherwise,
you are just helping your opponents cycle cards. This being said, if you are
playing such a deck, Forced is the appropriate card to use--either you know you
can block so you do, or you don't even try.
>>To save blood. If you don't have FA. There are a variety of reasons you'd
want to use Wake. However, in doing so, the cost is way too much if you
do so against your prey.>>
If you want to save the blood, you use Wake and don't worry about the hand
loss. If you want to block, you use Forced.
>>Right, but it is never a clear cut case of block *or* bleed bounce.>>
It usually is in the decks that I build. I know what defenses I plan on. If I
am building a deck that plans on blocking, I use Forced. If Iam building a deck
with no intercept, but reaction cards (Deflect, Delaying Tactics), I use Wake.
>>There are a host of other reactions you can take. And because it isn't
*just*
block or bounce, why should it be that the cost is extra in those cases?>>
But you know when you are building your deck what options are available to you
in the deck, so you can plan accordingly, in terms of Forced or Wake.
>>Please get out of this mentality. All reactions do not revolve around
blocking or bouncing.>>
Nah. I like this mentality. You are correct that not *all* reactions revolve
around blocking or bouncing, but I would suport the notion that *most* of them
do. In my experience,the *vast* bulk of the reasons people play Wake/Forced is
to either block or bounce.
>>It is in using these other reactions that the cost of Wake is greatly
increased.>>
Yes, it is. If the cost is too excessive, use Forced--it is a simple choice.
Either pay the blood or lose hand size for a while. I still use Wake all the
time.
>>It's never worth the trade off. FA will always clearly be better because
of that.>>
This is clearly a point of disagreement that cannot be reconciled. Again, I
still use Wake in half of the decks I have that use reaction cards. Even one of
them that blocks (it uses light intercept and other reaction cards).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:36:28 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>> >>In response to the sentiment that you are supposed to
>> be more concerned about blocking your predator than your prey,
>> I totally disagree.>>
>> I never said that you are supposed to be more concerned about
>> blocking your predator than your prey.>
>You may not have said it, but it was said. I believe it was Derek
Yep. But you SHOULD be, in general, more concerned about blocking
your predator, because most to all of his actions are going to be
designed to oust you - a thing you CANNOT permit to happen. Your
prey, on the other hand, should be allowed to step on HIS prey every
so often, so at the right time you can sweep through both of them and
gain two VPs. If you time it improperly, your prey may gain a VP, but
you still have the opportunity to oust him, since you are still
around.
>> If you are going to build a deck that intends on blocking stuff, you use
>> Forced. If you are building a deck that intends on Bleed Bouncing, you
>> are often better off using Wake.>>Right, but it is never a clear cut case of block *or* bleed bounce. There>are a host of other reactions you can take. And because it isn't *just*
>block or bounce, why should it be that the cost is extra in those cases?
Please read my analysis of reaction cards, which you apparently
haven't done. Most of the time, you're Waking to block, or you're
Waking to an action your predator has taken. The vote reaction cards,
other than Delaying Tactics, just don't get used very much, if at all.
So most of the time you Wake/React, you will be dealing with your
predator, and everyone has already noted that the cost associated with
Waking on your predator's turn is basically minimal.
>> will use Forced." or "Self, this deck is going to use Bounce as its>> primary bleed defense. Thus, I will use Wake.">
>Please get out of this mentality. All reactions do not revolve around>blocking or bouncing. It is in using these other reactions that the cost>of Wake is greatly increased.
See above. Name some that are used frequently. The only two that
come to mind are Delaying Tactics, Obedience, and Dread Gaze, and
Dread Gaze really isn't that frequent. (I consider Telepathic Counter
to be 'bounce' simply because it's only played on a bleed coming from
your predator.)
We've had a pile of people here in Atlanta from other playgroups for
the past couple days (dragoncon and all), and you know what? The only
non-block, non-bounce reaction cards I've seen were Delaying Tactics
and Obedience. And Obedience was usually paired up with 2nd
Tradition, *or* by just leaving a vampire untapped in the first place.
I have seen a LOT of Wake played. I have seen some FA played in the
heavy-intercept decks. But I've seen a lot more Wake than I have FA.
And these are good players.
>It's never worth the trade off. FA will always clearly be better because
Except it's not clearly better, for a great number of us who play with
both FA and Wake and have discovered how BAD it can be to lose
unexpected blood from a vamp. Especially later down in the game,
where vampires are often hovering at 1-2 blood.
>of that. Tell you what, try changing the cost of FA from 1 blood to
>'do not replace until the end of the turn'. Then see how much better
>that 1 blood looks then... Losing a card slot, regardless of how long,
>is always worse. Why do you think it is so often used? Because it
It's not so often used. I don't see ANY FA/Deflect decks.
I see decks that try to FA/Redirect, but they also often go kaboom
because of lack of superior Dominate. I do not consider decks that go
kaboom to be a good indicator of a card's usefulness.
People who play FA are intending to block. Pure and simple. They
also generally are packing enough intercept to be decently sure
they'll block.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:09:44 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote:
>Let's start with the original un-errataed Wake. I never thought of it
>unbalanced, but this is probably because I've never seen it abused.
>However, when I read about the possibilities I was "shocked". :)
>IMO the main problem was that you could put the Wakes in as "fillers":
>find a killer combo, fill the rest of the deck with Wakes up to 60
>cards, there you go. That was clearly a matter that had to be changed.
I'm just getting into this game. I didn't quite understand the
problem so have just referred to the online rulings on this card which
are:
* Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 19980707]
* May be played by your tapped vampire if you are not the acting
Minion's controller. The vampire need not attempt to block nor play
further reaction cards; that is merely an option. [TOM 19951129]
It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that the
waking vampire need not attempt to block. This seems very wrong as it
is so obviously contrary to the intent of the card. In opening up the
possibility of playing the card to do nothing, it creates the
collapsing deck problem which the 1998 errata is designed to correct.
Why not do away with both rulings and simply require the waking
vampire to attempt to enter combat as the card implies?
I have generated some interest here and have 5 players in my group
now. One had prior experience of Jyhad and we have just agreed that
we will not use any errata. I would have been interested in playing
in tournaments too but will avoid them now I understand how the
tournament rules warp the game.
My concern now is that the WW edition of the game will force the issue
upon us by MRPing cards with the current official errata. The game
was already given one kiss of death when its card backs were changed.
Radical errata such as this and the golden tenets seem like a second.
Andrew
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 08:27:24 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:09:44 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote:
>>>Let's start with the original un-errataed Wake. I never thought of it
>>unbalanced, but this is probably because I've never seen it abused.
>>However, when I read about the possibilities I was "shocked". :)
>>IMO the main problem was that you could put the Wakes in as "fillers":
>>find a killer combo, fill the rest of the deck with Wakes up to 60
>>cards, there you go. That was clearly a matter that had to be changed.>
>I'm just getting into this game. I didn't quite understand the
>problem so have just referred to the online rulings on this card which
>are:
>
>* Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 19980707]
>
>* May be played by your tapped vampire if you are not the acting
>Minion's controller. The vampire need not attempt to block nor play
>further reaction cards; that is merely an option. [TOM 19951129]
>
>It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that the
>waking vampire need not attempt to block. This seems very wrong as it
It's RIGHT, though, because if the ruling were not made the Waking
vampire could not play cards like Deflection, Telepathic Misdirection,
Delaying Tactics, or the like.
>is so obviously contrary to the intent of the card. In opening up the
This is, in fact, not true. The intent of the card is to permit a
tapped minion to be "reusable" for defense - in whatever form.
>possibility of playing the card to do nothing, it creates the
>collapsing deck problem which the 1998 errata is designed to correct.
>
>Why not do away with both rulings and simply require the waking
>vampire to attempt to enter combat as the card implies?
See above, and think of Deflection.
>I have generated some interest here and have 5 players in my group
>now. One had prior experience of Jyhad and we have just agreed that
>we will not use any errata. I would have been interested in playing
>in tournaments too but will avoid them now I understand how the
>tournament rules warp the game.
But you don't understand. The errata was arrived at after careful
consideration of game balance. Some may seem odd at first, but rest
assured, no errata was made for "no reason".
>My concern now is that the WW edition of the game will force the issue
>upon us by MRPing cards with the current official errata. The game
>was already given one kiss of death when its card backs were changed.
>Radical errata such as this and the golden tenets seem like a second.
This kind of hyperbole and exaggerated glop is not required. If you
predict the "Immanent Death of V:TES", it's common courtesy to add
"Film at 11" afterwards so everyone knows you're joking - which you
are, if you realize it or not.
Three tournaments took place at Dragon*Con, all under current errata.
None had less than 25 Methuselahs, and the Sabbat Draft had something
like 40. This is NOT a game that's about to die.
[ quoted text not captured ]
i do not like the latest errata affecting WWEF very much - in fact the
most of my friends started to look for FA when they were made. in my
opinion older version (do not replace until after combat) reflected its
cost quite well, because it it always problem to have your handsize
reduced during combat, see dodge, fake out etc. with "do... until next
untap..." WWEF has become nearby useless for most of situations - for
typical combat/block (toreador or tremere for example) deck is very
difficult to block more than 1 of his prey's vamps using WWEF (first
combat - 6 cards, second - 5 only!) and then defend himself against his
predator with 5-card-hand!
somebody declared it would be better something like "pay 1 blood to
replace" etc. but it seems as a nonsence to me - if a vamp burns 1 blood
for FA, it might be your already-once-invested blood, but if you have to
burn for replacing card... compare with camarilla threat which forces
players to burn blood for discard and which is terrible in effect.
so if the errata would be "do not replace or burn 1 blood..." or
something alike, it would be only possibility to choose from two costs
which are both very hard...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8jcit1$vl9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
prea...@utanet.at wrote:
> Ok, I thought I'd like to post my musings on the matter, after
following
> the other thread.
> To begin with, I'm not advocating a change of the current Wake errata
at
> the moment. :)
>> Let's start with the original un-errataed Wake. I never thought of it
> unbalanced, but this is probably because I've never seen it abused.
> However, when I read about the possibilities I was "shocked". :)
> IMO the main problem was that you could put the Wakes in as "fillers":
> find a killer combo, fill the rest of the deck with Wakes up to 60
> cards, there you go. That was clearly a matter that had to be changed.
>> To a lesser degree you still can dump the Wakes: you can put down
> exactly 7. This you can do on the last action of your predator, so you
> don't have to face *any* disadvantage.
> If you did it during any other player's turn, it would be plain
stupid.
>
> Now, what would change if we had errata that allows you to replace at
> the end of the *current* turn? In a 4-player game you could dump
3*7=21
> Wakes. Still Bad IMO.
>
> There came some new ideas up:> * "do not replace until after combat <original card text> and when you> replace the card, show it to all players." I believe this wouldn't
> violate any rules regarding showing cards to other players in
> tournaments, btw.
> This solution has a certain "coolness" to it, but doesn't do anything
> against the cycling. Even if combined with "do not replace until the
> beginning of the next turn" it is still abusable. ("Hey, look, he just
> picked up 7 other Wakes.")
> * burn either 1 pool or blood to replace the card. Here the question
is:
> when should it be replaced? If you keep the original card text (after
> combat), and you pay one blood to replace the Wake, it's nothing else
as
> exactly the same card as FA (if you don't intend to block, that is).
We
> wouldn't want that. If it would be possible to replace at the end of
> turn, or at the beginning at your own next turn, it would be clearly
> inferior to FA, and obsolete.> What if you burned 1 pool to replace it? "Do not replace until the
> beginning of your next turn. You may burn 1 pool to replace this card> immediatly." Hm. It *surely* would stop mad cycling. (Provided it
isn't
> a mass pool gain deck...) It would act just like the card is now with
> the current errata, except that you'd have the option to replace it
> sooner for the tradeoff of a very valuable resource. *But* it has an
> additional sentence to it, whereas the current errata has just, well,
2
> or 3 additional words or so.
>
> Well, if I think now about it, I'm beginning to like the "1-pool
option"
> for Wake errata... :)
> For me it seems to be a possible middleway. How much is a non-reduced
> handsize worth to you? If it's not worth the 1 pool per slot, then
just
> don't replace it. :)
>
> These are just some musings of mine, some ideas have been taken
> selfishly from the other thread, but I think it shows the Wake-balance
> issue from another angle. I hope you weren't bored by my long posting.
>
> Carl
>
At all Carl.
Your effort here is very welcome.
I'm late in posting this now, however there's
another (very good, for me) alternative:
WwEF react -
only usable by a tapped vampire.
This vampire can block and play reaction cards
as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
If this reacting vampire doesn't play any other reaction card during
the current action, he or she
burns 1 blood after the current action is concluded.
So, FA would be still the good card for blocking attempt,
and WwEF would be "really" the good card for playing general reaction
cards (deflections and telepatic counters above all).
The two cards costs, then, would be the same,
but (this way) without making WwEF a clone of FA.
Your thoughts?
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 05:41:12 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>>* May be played by your tapped vampire if you are not the acting
>>Minion's controller. The vampire need not attempt to block nor play
>>further reaction cards; that is merely an option. [TOM 19951129]
>>
>>It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that the
>>waking vampire need not attempt to block. This seems very wrong as it>
>It's RIGHT, though, because if the ruling were not made the Waking
>vampire could not play cards like Deflection, Telepathic Misdirection,
>Delaying Tactics, or the like.
When I said "block", this was just shorthand for the phrase that the
ruling uses. I meant "block or play further reaction cards", ie.
cards like Deflection etc. The point is that it should not be legal
to play Wake in reaction to an action and then do nothing further with
the woken vampire. That's obviously silly. Adding yet another layer
of errata to deal with the loophole that allowing this introduces is
dumb.
>But you don't understand. The errata was arrived at after careful
>consideration of game balance. Some may seem odd at first, but rest
>assured, no errata was made for "no reason".
A straw man. But I'm curious - who am I supposed to be trusting and
why? What is your part in this?
Andrew
(Andrew, remember me from the old Fist discussions? I assure you, the errata
for Jyhad is both necessary and greatly improves the game--Josh Duffin, another
old Fist standby, and I have been playing this game forever, and are proponents
of the various errata and tournament rules)
Andrew Davidson wrote:
>>It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that the
waking vampire need not attempt to block. This seems very wrong as it
is so obviously contrary to the intent of the card. In opening up the
possibility of playing the card to do nothing, it creates the
collapsing deck problem which the 1998 errata is designed to correct.>>
There is no way to prevent the card from being easily cycleable--if you require
the vampire using it to "attempt to block", I just wait till someone somewhere
takes a +1 stealth action and Wake all of my vampires and attempt to block--I
have no intercept, so I don't block anyone and don't get into a fight. It seems
likely that you could re-word the card so that you could only use it to untap
to use a reaction card or only if you have enough intercept to block the
current action, but this would require *far* more additional verbiage than the
current errata and would still be sketchy.
>>Why not do away with both rulings and simply require the waking
vampire to attempt to enter combat as the card implies?>>
Again, 'cause this doesn't change anything--+1 stealth actions are a dime a
dozen, and without intercept, you don't block them. Just wait till a guy across
the table has someone hunt (an automatic +1 stealth action) and then throw out
15 Wakes.
>>I have generated some interest here and have 5 players in my group
now. One had prior experience of Jyhad and we have just agreed that
we will not use any errata.>>
Really--it makes the game a much better place. It fixes some gaping holes and
removes some of the later produced, really abusive cards. Without the errata
and tournament rules, the game environment will quickly devolve into "Who can
play Return to Innocence" quicker or "Who can get the most Freak Drives to make
a rediculous infinite bleed loop deck".
>>I would have been interested in playing in tournaments too but will avoid
them now I understand how the tournament rules warp the game.>>
No, no, really--the tournament rules are *very* important for making the game a
viable, balanced play environment.
>>My concern now is that the WW edition of the game will force the issue
upon us by MRPing cards with the current official errata. The game
was already given one kiss of death when its card backs were changed.
Radical errata such as this and the golden tenets seem like a second.>>
Again, Andrew, trust me on this one. Josh and I are *huge* Jyhad freaks--we
have been playing competetively for a really long time, and play a lot. When
LSJ issued the current errata and tournament rules, we were very happy, as the
game is a better place because of it. You know Josh is a reasonable guy. You
may know that I am a reasonable guy. This is a situation where people who you
have reason to belive are reasonable endorse the errata and tournament rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:59:54 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>>But you don't understand. The errata was arrived at after careful>>consideration of game balance. Some may seem odd at first, but rest
>>assured, no errata was made for "no reason".>
>A straw man. But I'm curious - who am I supposed to be trusting and
>why? What is your part in this?
Hardly a straw man, but "\/\/hatever". I'm Derek. I play the game
lots. I talk lots, too. I'm not on the Rules Team. I'm not the
NetRep. I'm just me. Why should you trust me... because I'm right?
Every time we ask the NetRep why a card was changed, he has an answer.
That is definitely not "no reason".
The golden tenets are there for an EXTREMELY good reason, especially
the "No repeat actions" rule. This is definitely not "warping the
game", although i'm curious why you think the Golden Tenets do.
Card text on Wake specifies "This vampire can play reaction cards and
attempt to block as though untapped" - the key word here is "can".
Contrast with 2nd Tradition, which states "Also usable by a tapped
Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
attempt to block with +2 intercept." The key word "can" or "may" is
missing, and strict interpretation of card text discovers the ruling
that 2nd Tradition users MUST attempt to block.
The errata to Wake may seem to make little sense to you, but there is
plenty of precedent for permitting cards to be played when they have
no useful effect - hand-strike cards in combat while the opponent is
at long range, for example, or adding Conditioning to a bleed after a
block is declared hoping to fish up a stealth card. If someone wishes
to waste cards by playing them to no effect, that should be fine -
it's invariably harmful to them in the long run, so they are hoping
for a short-term improvement at the cost of long-term viability. It
should just not be possible to waste cards to guaranteed good effect.
Hence, the more complex errata to Wake, because if you block one card
from being wasted because it "isn't right", you should block cards
from being played when they do no good - can't play Undead Strength if
your opponent is at long, etc. And that would be an ENORMOUS pile of
errata to no significant use.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 03 Jul 2000 00:48:24 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija)
wrote:
>have no intercept, so I don't block anyone and don't get into a fight. It seems
>likely that you could re-word the card so that you could only use it to untap
>to use a reaction card or only if you have enough intercept to block the
This would prevent you from gaining intercept, as you can't play
intercept cards while tapped. If you require someone to play enough
intercept from his hand at the same time he plays the Wake, it becomes
extremely difficult to catch +3 stealth cards like inferior Night
Moves, Magic of the Smith, Forgotten Labyrinth, etc, as you can't go
fishing for intercept by redraw, Barrens, Fragment, etc., and aren't
likely to have 3-4 cards in hand specifically to defend ONE action.
=)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 03 Jul 2000 00:48:24 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>There is no way to prevent the card from being easily cycleable--if you require
>the vampire using it to "attempt to block", I just wait till someone somewhere
>takes a +1 stealth action and Wake all of my vampires and attempt to block--I>have no intercept, so I don't block anyone and don't get into a fight. It seems
>likely that you could re-word the card so that you could only use it to untap
>to use a reaction card or only if you have enough intercept to block the>current action, but this would require *far* more additional verbiage than the
>current errata and would still be sketchy.
You don't really need any more than is on the card at the moment.
That the card currently admits of the sensible meaning is shown by the
1995 ruling. Someone clearly had to ask whether one could play Wake
and then do nothing further. If the answer had been "No, of course
not" then we wouldn't be still here discussing the matter.
If you want to make the meaning stronger without a lot of rewording
then try changing "can" to "must".
>>>I would have been interested in playing in tournaments too but will avoid>them now I understand how the tournament rules warp the game.>>
>
>No, no, really--the tournament rules are *very* important for making the game a
>viable, balanced play environment.
They may improve the environment for players who have bought cases of
the cards and so can field decks with 30 Majesty &c. We're playing at
a much lower power level and they just seem to be an unnecessary
irritation.
>Again, Andrew, trust me on this one. Josh and I are *huge* Jyhad freaks--we
>have been playing competetively for a really long time, and play a lot. When
>LSJ issued the current errata and tournament rules, we were very happy, as the
>game is a better place because of it. You know Josh is a reasonable guy. You
>may know that I am a reasonable guy. This is a situation where people who you
>have reason to belive are reasonable endorse the errata and tournament rules.
Dennis Heffernan played Shadowfist too - does that make him a
reasonable guy too? <grin> People differ in their taste for errata
but it seems clear that LSJ went too far - there is even a rival
tournament organisation which exists largely to offer an alternative.
You may be interested to know that Shadowfist is going the same way,
alas. The new folks had a long list of changes that they wanted to
make. The playtesters rejected these but enough survive that we will
probably not want to use their new rules.
Andrew
In article <8jo956$8im$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8jcit1$vl9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> prea...@utanet.at wrote:
> > Ok, I thought I'd like to post my musings on the matter, after
> following
> > the other thread.
> > To begin with, I'm not advocating a change of the current Wake
errata
> at
> > the moment. :)
> >
> > Let's start with the original un-errataed Wake. I never thought of
it
> > unbalanced, but this is probably because I've never seen it abused.
> > However, when I read about the possibilities I was "shocked". :)> >> > These are just some musings of mine, some ideas have been taken
> > selfishly from the other thread, but I think it shows the Wake-
balance
> > issue from another angle. I hope you weren't bored by my long
posting.
> >
> > Carl
> >
>> At all Carl.
> Your effort here is very welcome.
> I'm late in posting this now, however there's
> another (very good, for me) alternative:
>
> WwEF react -
> only usable by a tapped vampire.
> This vampire can block and play reaction cards
> as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
> If this reacting vampire doesn't play any other reaction card during
> the current action, he or she
> burns 1 blood after the current action is concluded.>
> So, FA would be still the good card for blocking attempt,
> and WwEF would be "really" the good card for playing general reaction
> cards (deflections and telepatic counters above all).
I was considering that, instead of the above, the best change for WwEF
is:
WwEF react -
only usable by a tapped vampire.
This vampire can block and play reaction cards
as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
If this reacting vampire enters in combat as result of
succesfully blocking the current action, he or she burns 1 blood
before combat begins.
So, still, FA and WwEF would have same cost.
But, still, FA is for blocking actions, and WwEF would be really the
good card for reacting with misdirections and so on.
Suggestions?
Regards
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <20000702204824...@ng-bg1.aol.com>,
pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote:
> Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> >>I have generated some interest here and have 5 players in my group
> now. One had prior experience of Jyhad and we have just agreed that
> we will not use any errata.>>
>
> Really--it makes the game a much better place. It fixes some gaping
holes and
> removes some of the later produced, really abusive cards. Without the
errata
> and tournament rules, the game environment will quickly devolve into
"Who can
> play Return to Innocence" quicker or "Who can get the most Freak
Drives to make
> a rediculous infinite bleed loop deck".
As one of the player's in Andrew's group, I would regard the decision
to ignore errata as initial and provisional. We are all likely to have
modest card collections which seem unlikely to produce strongly abusive
decks for some time. If we get really serious and invest more, the
situation may change. I'm not sure whether Andrew has seen Return to
Innocence yet but I hope you demonstrate it for him on Thursday. :-)
Tom
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrwe Davidson wrote:
>>You don't really need any more than is on the card at the moment.
That the card currently admits of the sensible meaning is shown by the
1995 ruling. Someone clearly had to ask whether one could play Wake
and then do nothing further. If the answer had been "No, of course
not" then we wouldn't be still here discussing the matter.>>
Even if you *did* change the the "can" to "must", there would *still* be
nothing preventing the card from being cycled like water (which is what the
current errata exists to prevent--the complete lack of cost of the card)--my
Predator or Prey take a +1 stealth action (hunting, equipping, calling a vote,
pulling someone out of torpor, etc), I Wake all of my vampires and attempt to
block. Oops. I fail, as I have no intercept. I have now cycled 5 cards out of
my hand for nothing. The current errata exists to provide the card a cost
(which it lacked, unlike pretty much every other card in the game) and to
prevent it from being cycled like water (as a result of having no cost).
The amount of excess verbiage that would be required to be put on the card
requiring the vampire using Wake to have access to enough intercept to reliably
block the vampire being reacted to is where the excess comes in. Simply
requiring the vampire to *attempt* to block fixes nothing.
>>They may improve the environment for players who have bought cases of
the cards and so can field decks with 30 Majesty &c. We're playing at
a much lower power level and they just seem to be an unnecessary
irritation.>>
You don't need cases and cases of cards to play decks with a lot of one card,
but that is besides the point. While you are certainly welcome to ignore the
errata and tournament rules, it strikes me as kind of silly to outright shoot
down the official rules before you have enough experience with the game to
determine if they are important or not. Many folks also came into the game from
Magic, saw that there was no card limit, and immediately decided it needed one,
even without playing by the actual rules, and determined that Jyhad wasn't
playable without a card limit without ever playing without one. This was silly
too.
>>People differ in their taste for errata but it seems clear that LSJ went too
far>>
This is not clear at all, and to make such a statement with a limited
background in the subject at hand is presumptuious.
>>there is even a rival tournament organisation which exists largely to offer
an alternative.>>
Yes--the rival tournament organization was a well organized, but small minority
(no offense, Noal :-) who have since more or less disbanded as a political
entity and have intigrated themselves into the official organization.
Listen--again, if you want to ignore the errata and not play in tournaments and
avoid all the official rulings, more power to you, but to decry the official
rules and rules team with such limited play experience really strikes me as
kind of a sketchy manuver. Play for a while. With and without the official
rules. Try the whole thing out, good and bad. Give it a good, long test drive
before you start calling for the overthrow of the current regime.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:12:57 GMT, tka...@my-deja.com wrote:
>As one of the player's in Andrew's group, I would regard the decision
>to ignore errata as initial and provisional. We are all likely to have
This is a MUCH better idea. It's your group, so you can play by
whatever rules you want to - but there are a number of cards that are
just WRONG in their initial incarnation, and there was no question of
errata. Some include the fix for Army of Rats, the fix for Fame (I
send my own guy to torpor because I'm bleeding with Govern + Condition
+ Day Operation, and my prey loses an EXTRA 3 pool. Huh??), the
clarification on Sleeping Mind that allows Wake/FA to still be
playable, the ruling that forbids Zip Guns to use ammo (specifically,
Dragon's Breath Rounds)... you get the idea. I imagine you'll
discover a few as you continue on.
It's the errata that wasn't as obviously necessary that's been
producing the hideous debates you see on here. =)
>modest card collections which seem unlikely to produce strongly abusive
>decks for some time. If we get really serious and invest more, the
>situation may change. I'm not sure whether Andrew has seen Return to
>Innocence yet but I hope you demonstrate it for him on Thursday. :-)
Bad, bad, BAD card. Generally universally agreed that it requires
errata - exactly WHAT errata is disagreed upon. but just a BAD card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I was considering that, instead of the above, the best change for WwEF
> is:
> WwEF react -
> only usable by a tapped vampire.
> This vampire can block and play reaction cards
> as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
> If this reacting vampire enters in combat as result of
> succesfully blocking the current action, he or she burns 1 blood
> before combat begins.
So if it's a +1 stealth action, and i burn 7 wakes, attempt to block,
but have no intercept, I don't burn any blood, and get a new hand, ditto
an "opps didn't have an eagle's sight..." while making the card look
like a opposite FA, this doesn't solve the original reason for errata:
namely that the card can be cycled for free. WwEF is expensive now, but
still useful.
Cameron
[ quoted text not captured ]
pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote:
>>>there is even a rival tournament organisation which exists
>>> largely to offer an alternative.>
> Yes--the rival tournament organization was a well organized,
> but small minority (no offense, Noal :-) who have since more
> or less disbanded as a political entity and have intigrated
> themselves into the official organization.
Small? I dunno about that. Michigan has the 2nd largest geographical
concentration of Jyhad players in the world (according to the old WotC
player registration). We are also made up of groups from northern Ohio,
Denver and New Orleans.
Minority? Compared to VEKN, yes.
Disbanded? Sorry to disappoint, but not even close. We're still very
much an active "political entity", although much of that is being done
in private e-mail. I've found that publicly discussing issues in the
newsgroup tends to draw unnecessary input from third parties, which
serves as nothing more than a distraction. The NJL as an organization
hasn't integrated with VEKN at all. While three of our rules team
members are also Princes (incl. me), we are still very much a sovereign
organization, complete with sanctioned tournaments and mailing list.
> Listen--again, if you want to ignore the errata and not play in
> tournaments and avoid all the official rulings, more power to you,
> but to decry the official rules and rules team with such limited
> play experience really strikes me as kind of a sketchy manuver.
I truly agree with this. I (and, I believe, all the other NJL rules team
members) have been playing Jyhad since the original set was in print. We
have extensive knowledge of the game mechanics as well as full knowldege
of all the pros and cons of the differences in the errata that we use
vs. the errata that VEKN uses. We tend to have basic philosophic
differences but have been working with LSJ to resolve those differences
when possible.
> Play for a while. With and without the official rules. Try the
> whole thing out, good and bad. Give it a good, long test drive
> before you start calling for the overthrow of the current regime.
Overthrow of the current regime??? *chuckles* Not what he was stating
at all, Peter. Even I wouldn't advocate that. LSJ does a decent job.
It's just that some people strongly disagree with some of his rulings.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
Priscus of Farmington Hills, MI
National Jyhad Leage Rules Team Member.
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> * Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 19980707]
>> * May be played by your tapped vampire if you are not the acting
> Minion's controller. The vampire need not attempt to block nor play
> further reaction cards; that is merely an option. [TOM 19951129]
>> It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that the
> waking vampire need not attempt to block.
It was merely a reading of card text, from TOM. It was not a change to
the text.
> This seems very wrong as it
> is so obviously contrary to the intent of the card.
So, you wouldn't want people to play Dread Gaze, say?
> Why not do away with both rulings and simply require the waking
> vampire to attempt to enter combat as the card implies?
Not at all. Consider that Arson does not imply that a vampire must enter
combat, or even attempt it, merely that it is possible.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him.
I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin
with him and the way he makes me feel?"
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 bartok...@my-deja.com wrote:
> i do not like the latest errata affecting WWEF very much - in fact the
> most of my friends started to look for FA when they were made. in my
> opinion older version (do not replace until after combat) reflected its
> cost quite well, because it it always problem to have your handsize
> reduced during combat, see dodge, fake out etc.
Dodge and Fake Out have you already in combat, and so at risk. Wake has
no such possibility.
> with "do... until next
> untap..." WWEF has become nearby useless for most of situations - for
> typical combat/block
I tend to find Kine Resouces Contested is not very sueful for my typical
combat/block deck - but then, it's function doesn't lend itself to
that. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, however, in other decks
- which Wake still does.
If people are still using Wake *in preference* to FA, when *all* they
intend to do is block, they are not using the cards to their best
ability. Wake occupies a niche that *isn't* occupied by FA.
> somebody declared it would be better something like "pay 1 blood to
> replace"
No, someone (me) mentioend that this was used by some people *before*
Forced Awakening was created.
The rest of your reasoning is spurious based on the fact that you do not
understand what was said earlier.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> >But you don't understand. The errata was arrived at after careful
> >consideration of game balance. Some may seem odd at first, but rest
> >assured, no errata was made for "no reason".
>
> A straw man. But I'm curious - who am I supposed to be trusting and
> why? What is your part in this?
The officially appointed net-rep. If you have probloems with LSJ's
actions, White Wolf (now) are the people to complain to.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> 1995 ruling. Someone clearly had to ask whether one could play Wake
> and then do nothing further. If the answer had been "No, of course
> not" then we wouldn't be still here discussing the matter.
Net-reps, in those days, did not have that authority.
The Rules Team then chose not to act.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:25:50 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>That is definitely not "no reason".
Again the straw man. Who are you quoting - it appears to be yourself.
>The golden tenets are there for an EXTREMELY good reason, especially
>the "No repeat actions" rule. This is definitely not "warping the
>game", although i'm curious why you think the Golden Tenets do.
They change the game from the printed rules - that's their point.
This might be alright if their effect was felt only at high power
levels, e.g. national tournaments. But they go further and I can see
how they would affect my own low-power circle. Few of us go online to
ferret out errata. I want us to enjoy playing the game, not reject it
as a broken mess. We're just going to play the game as written and if
there are any problems, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
>The errata to Wake may seem to make little sense to you, but there is
>plenty of precedent for permitting cards to be played when they have
>no useful effect - hand-strike cards in combat while the opponent is
>at long range, for example, or adding Conditioning to a bleed after a
>block is declared hoping to fish up a stealth card. If someone wishes
>to waste cards by playing them to no effect, that should be fine -
>it's invariably harmful to them in the long run, so they are hoping
>for a short-term improvement at the cost of long-term viability. It
>should just not be possible to waste cards to guaranteed good effect.
>Hence, the more complex errata to Wake, because if you block one card
>from being wasted because it "isn't right", you should block cards
>from being played when they do no good - can't play Undead Strength if
>your opponent is at long, etc. And that would be an ENORMOUS pile of
>errata to no significant use.
Given the game's fundamental dynamic - that cards are replaced
immediately - I'd have thought you'd need to be tough on playing cards
for no effect otherwise people will do this at every opportunity to
get to cards which are some use immediately. But Wake appears to be
special in this regard - I assume that the other cards are not so easy
to abuse in this way. If Wake is special then it deserves special
treatment.
The trouble with the current errata is that it goes beyond the printed
text in a non-intuitive way and that it punishes ordinary use of the
card too. If the problem is that the card can be too easily played to
no effect then that's the thing that need fixing. Just forbid it.
But I'm not even convinced that this is the real problem. As I
understand it, the problem is that collapsing the deck makes it easier
to play broken combos. I don't know what these combos are but why are
they not being addressed directly? And why can't players just load up
with lots of copies of the combo cards instead of lots of Wake? Are
they rares?
Note BTW that deck collapsing is a standard tactic in Doomtown and
folk typically use this to leave themselves with a killer shootout
hand. It usually takes a while though and the game might be lost in
the meantime. That's because you only fill your hand once a turn
rather than continuously. There is a card which let you refill your
hand within your turn like VTES. This broke the game - leading to
infinite loops on turn 2 or 3 - and has now been given errata. Our
former Jyhad player, Tom Kassel, recently used similar thinking to
break the wargame Paths of Glory and that had to be given errata too.
Examples of convergent evolution, I'm thinking. Given its mechanics,
I'm surprised that VTES doesn't have more trouble in this area - why
doesn't the same tactic work with other, easy-to-play cards?
Andrew
On 03 Jul 2000 13:40:15 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>The amount of excess verbiage that would be required to be put on the card
>requiring the vampire using Wake to have access to enough intercept to reliably
>block the vampire being reacted to is where the excess comes in. Simply
>requiring the vampire to *attempt* to block fixes nothing.
The guy who asked the question originally understood the issue. You
understand the issue and have expressed it without a ton of verbiage
right there. You're just being difficult.
>While you are certainly welcome to ignore the
>errata and tournament rules, it strikes me as kind of silly to outright shoot
>down the official rules before you have enough experience with the game to
>determine if they are important or not. Many folks also came into the game from
>Magic, saw that there was no card limit, and immediately decided it needed one,
>even without playing by the actual rules, and determined that Jyhad wasn't
>playable without a card limit without ever playing without one. This was silly
>too.
AFAIC, the official rules are what came with the game. The various
errata, variants and house rules that are out there may be all well
and good but I'm not going to bother with any of them. The game's
complex enough without trying to make sense of all that too.
>Listen--again, if you want to ignore the errata and not play in tournaments and
>avoid all the official rulings, more power to you, but to decry the official
>rules and rules team with such limited play experience really strikes me as>kind of a sketchy manuver. Play for a while. With and without the official>rules. Try the whole thing out, good and bad. Give it a good, long test drive
>before you start calling for the overthrow of the current regime.
I didn't start this thread about Wake - there were already dozens of
posts before I stuck my two-penn'rth in. I'm expressing my opinion,
ignorant as it may be, because this is a live issue, I have a fresh
eye and because I may be representative of players who are willing to
take a second look at the game now that WW are taking over.
Andrew
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:09:25 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>This is a MUCH better idea. It's your group, so you can play by
>whatever rules you want to - but there are a number of cards that are
>just WRONG in their initial incarnation, and there was no question of
>errata. Some include the fix for Army of Rats, the fix for Fame (I
>send my own guy to torpor because I'm bleeding with Govern + Condition
>+ Day Operation, and my prey loses an EXTRA 3 pool. Huh??), the
>clarification on Sleeping Mind that allows Wake/FA to still be
>playable, the ruling that forbids Zip Guns to use ammo (specifically,
>Dragon's Breath Rounds)... you get the idea. I imagine you'll
>discover a few as you continue on.
AFAIC, we're going to play by the Golden Rule - the cards are always
right. I've already noticed that Army of Rats and Fame look like good
cards. This is fine by me - we don't have enough copies for them to
get out of hand and multi-player diplomacy should take care of the
game balance.
The actual problem that we've been having in sessions so far is
getting the game finished. What we need is more strong cards not
less.
Andrew
In article
<EF436CEA7A35254E.40BA888D...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> The actual problem that we've been having in sessions so far is
> getting the game finished. What we need is more strong cards not
> less.
>
> Andrew
>
Don't worry about that, Andrew. I'll show you The Return to Innocence
on Thursday.
Tom
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8jqal9$l3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
You're all right.
Indeed, i was not considering the cycling problem again (damn it!).
Let's another try to make WwEF a good card for reacting purpose:
WwEF react -
only usable by a tapped vampire.
This vampire can block and play reaction cards
as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
This reacting vampire burns 1 blood after current action ends.
If this vampire played any other reaction card(s) during the action,
he then gains 1 blood after current action is completed.
This should works fine.
Your thought?
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
>
> Cameron[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <65D2ED20CCC96D56.A34DD766...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote:
>AFAIC, the official rules are what came with the game. The various
>errata, variants and house rules that are out there may be all well
>and good but I'm not going to bother with any of them. The game's
>complex enough without trying to make sense of all that too.
Jyhad is horribly broken without some of the official errata -- for example
the no repeat actions rule. You'll also get the joy of seeing Return to
Innocence abused if you play with competitive players.
Honestly, if you like a balanced and competitive game, I wouldn't look over
the official errata so quickly.
In article <8jqqi7$1h8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
So Wake becomes the FA for reactions... I agree that this errata is a
valid alternative to the current one - they both fix the cycling
problem, however I think that unless they print it in a manner like
this the current errata should be stuck with. Why? simple:
This switch means that I play WwEF to use a reaction card, I play WwEF
now if i want to play a reaction card, as do many others. So the fix
doesn't change how I play the card, just how I pay for it. Unless a
new errata will change the way a card is played, why do it?
[IMHO],
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:06:19 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:25:50 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:>>>That is definitely not "no reason".>
>Again the straw man. Who are you quoting - it appears to be yourself.
Will you please stop with the "straw man" crap? It is just another
piece of blather, frankly. Let's go through it bit by bit.
You said that you won't use any errata, and the tournament rules warp
the game. I said that all the errata had a reason for existence, some
just for clarification, some to fix broken holes in the game. You
said something about a "straw man" and asked me who I was to be
speaking. I answered, and you said something about a "straw man"
again. If you'd read, you'd see that what I mean is exactly what
Peter has mentioned - that you are still fairly new to the game, and
the point of some errata will not be immediately obvious. "No repeat
actions", for example, prevents (among other things) the Presence
bleed deck that plays Legal Manipulations, you block, it plays Majesty
and untaps, it plays Legal Manipulations again... continue until you
have used up all your blockers and then it bleeds you for 9-12. Do
you see where it becomes a problem, and not just a "straw man"?
>>The golden tenets are there for an EXTREMELY good reason, especially
>>the "No repeat actions" rule. This is definitely not "warping the
>>game", although i'm curious why you think the Golden Tenets do.>
>They change the game from the printed rules - that's their point.
Yes, they do. And for some damn good reasons, too. You may not be in
a situation in your local playgroup where they matter - that's fine,
and more power to you. But it is recommended that you learn the
errata, or eventually you'll stumble on broken things on your own -
the Majesty/untap/repeat action trick is one of the first ones most
people seem to find.
>This might be alright if their effect was felt only at high power
>levels, e.g. national tournaments. But they go further and I can see
>how they would affect my own low-power circle. Few of us go online to
>ferret out errata. I want us to enjoy playing the game, not reject it
>as a broken mess. We're just going to play the game as written and if
>there are any problems, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Fair enough. But some of the errata you may wish to adopt
immediately, as it saves later issues. I have a copy of the complete
current errata in a Word document, and our playgroup keeps a printed
copy handy. Most of us know the basic things like the Golden Tenets,
and there really isn't THAT much of the errata that comes up in
everyday play.
>Given the game's fundamental dynamic - that cards are replaced
>immediately - I'd have thought you'd need to be tough on playing cards
>for no effect otherwise people will do this at every opportunity to
>get to cards which are some use immediately. But Wake appears to be
>special in this regard - I assume that the other cards are not so easy
>to abuse in this way. If Wake is special then it deserves special
>treatment.
Players only normally do it out of desperation - when they need things
to work RIGHT THEN or face being ousted. But, using the Undead
Strength example, normally you only put a certain amount of strike
cards in a deck. If you begin wasting those cards carelessly, you'll
quickly discover that you have no more strike cards when you actually
CAN use them to effect. You may save yourself from ousting the first
time, but often you'll find that you've jammed up on master cards,
maneuvers, and Rush actions and your next combat will be "hand strike
for 1... don't have the Undead Strength in hand". It's a significant
risk to do that sort of thing.
Wake is special because its ability is useful in -every- deck, and the
only resource required to use it is a tapped vampire, something which
is normally plentiful. So you build a 60 card deck and toss in 20
Wakes - now you have a normal 60 card deck that taps out taking
actions, knowing that it will always be able to defend against its
predator if necessary, OR dump enough Wakes to get to the offensive
cards for its own turn. Peter's concern is a real issue - there are a
lot of +1 stealth actions to dump Wake on.
>The trouble with the current errata is that it goes beyond the printed
>text in a non-intuitive way and that it punishes ordinary use of the
>card too. If the problem is that the card can be too easily played to
>no effect then that's the thing that need fixing. Just forbid it.
Actually, it just gives Wake a cost, where previously it had none.
('replace at end of combat' is extremely minimal, especially if you
intend for there to be no combat by playing Deflection, etc.) I
suspect that Wake's original intent was to emphasize blocking instead
of reaction cards, but the designers misjudged the effect Deflection's
existence would have on the game - and THAT effect is only significant
because bleed decks are the strongest decks.
>But I'm not even convinced that this is the real problem. As I
>understand it, the problem is that collapsing the deck makes it easier
>to play broken combos. I don't know what these combos are but why are
>they not being addressed directly? And why can't players just load up
>with lots of copies of the combo cards instead of lots of Wake? Are
>they rares?
Not quite. The broken combos -do- get addressed directly - see Return
to Innocence, and Golconda/Soul Gem. Collapsing the deck makes it
easier to play *ANY* combo, and makes it much more likely that those
combos will actually show up. It doesn't mean the combos are broken
though. It ALSO means that you can tap out against your prey playing
the combos, and still be able to defend against your predator with
minimal to no cost (can always dump the Wakes to get more combos).
You could try to load up with lots of copies of the combo cards, but
decks that neglect their defense in this way tend to fall down and go
boom unless the combo is EXTREMELY powerful. You may have seen
discussion regarding "Weenie Dominate Tap & Bleed", which basically
relies on a whole bunch of small vampires with Dominate and a deckful
of Misdirections, bleed cards, bleed modifiers, Deflection, and
Delaying Tactics. It carries no Wakes, errata'd or not, because it
moves extremely fast and doesn't NEED much defense. Its defense is
gaining pool by ousting people. It's feared far and wide, although
combat decks tend to make it go "pop!" and people tend to gang up on
it to make it go away.
The problem with it is, how do you errata weenie dominate? The most
key card in the deck is Misdirection, but to play it you spend one
pool per vampire you tap - it's a strong card, but I'm not certain
that it's overpowered especially EXCEPT in combination with weenie
hordes.
>Examples of convergent evolution, I'm thinking. Given its mechanics,
>I'm surprised that VTES doesn't have more trouble in this area - why
>doesn't the same tactic work with other, easy-to-play cards?
Most of the easy-to-play cards are combat cards. Most combat decks
have a bit of difficulty gaining VPs anyway, so as the game stands
now, combat decks are not overpowered even WITH the ability to run
through their cards like water - see example above. They usually
shoot themselves in the foot in the long run by doing so.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <EF436CEA7A35254E.40BA888D...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:09:25 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>AFAIC, we're going to play by the Golden Rule - the cards are always
>right. I've already noticed that Army of Rats and Fame look like good
>cards. This is fine by me - we don't have enough copies for them to
>get out of hand and multi-player diplomacy should take care of the
>game balance.
>>The actual problem that we've been having in sessions so far is
>getting the game finished. What we need is more strong cards not
>less.
Jyhad is very similar to shadowfist in this respect (which I recall you're
familiar with...), beginners often think the game will drag for ever, but
veterans tend to play nasty decks that can win quickly. As in shadowfist,
it isn't necessary to add broken cards to bring things to an end quickly.
As in shadowfist there are cards that are broken, and need errata (actually,
Jyhad had cards quite a bit further off the end of the scale).
If you need convincing, find a good Gangrel Loop deck (bleed, untap, bleed
again, ad infinitum), or a deck that abuses Return to Innocence, and let
someone proxy the cards.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:06:20 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>AFAIC, the official rules are what came with the game. The various>errata, variants and house rules that are out there may be all well
>and good but I'm not going to bother with any of them. The game's
>complex enough without trying to make sense of all that too.
It's worth noting that the new standalone/expansion, Sabbat War, is
going to come with reprinted rules that match current errata. So the
"what comes with the game" problem is about to be fixed. If the
original V:TES set is reprinted, the same will happen. From what I
understand, Sabbat War is going to include a good amount of the
original set in it as well, so it won't be necessary to find old Jyhad
or V:TES boxes anymore.
This is something I think -everyone- is in favor of - the stuff that's
printed needs to match the errata, and finally there will BE printed
stuff that people can by that matches the errata. But the game came
out in '95, and it's 2000 now. Not everything is going to stay "good"
over the course of five years, especially with three expansions.
>I didn't start this thread about Wake - there were already dozens of
>posts before I stuck my two-penn'rth in. I'm expressing my opinion,
>ignorant as it may be, because this is a live issue, I have a fresh
>eye and because I may be representative of players who are willing to
>take a second look at the game now that WW are taking over.
What will REALLY re-garner interest in the game is the Sabbat War
expansion, which will address the issues with card text not matching.
It'll be a physical box from White Wolf that people can look at and
say "Cool, the game's not dead" - which is exactly the reaction we got
from everyone at Dragon*Con for just playing the game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:06:22 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:09:25 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>>>This is a MUCH better idea. It's your group, so you can play by
>>whatever rules you want to - but there are a number of cards that are
>>just WRONG in their initial incarnation, and there was no question of
>>errata. Some include the fix for Army of Rats, the fix for Fame (I
>>send my own guy to torpor because I'm bleeding with Govern + Condition
>>+ Day Operation, and my prey loses an EXTRA 3 pool. Huh??), the
>>clarification on Sleeping Mind that allows Wake/FA to still be
>>playable, the ruling that forbids Zip Guns to use ammo (specifically,
>>Dragon's Breath Rounds)... you get the idea. I imagine you'll
>>discover a few as you continue on.>>AFAIC, we're going to play by the Golden Rule - the cards are always
>right. I've already noticed that Army of Rats and Fame look like good
>cards. This is fine by me - we don't have enough copies for them to
>get out of hand and multi-player diplomacy should take care of the
>game balance.
One or two copies of Fame are sufficient, I find - slap it on a
Ventrue, who bleeds with Govern + Threats, plays Day Operation, boom,
lose 8 pool unless you bounce the bleed, and even then you lose 3.
Next guy rescues the Famous Ventrue. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Day Op
is a rare, sure, but there are plenty of other ways - Minion Tap a
vampire down to 1 blood, he bleeds with Conditioning. If you block,
he gets hit and goes to torpor, lose 3 pool ANYWAY and 1 per turn if
he stays there. Since the bleeder Minion Tapped, that vampire was
effectively free. Put a Hunting Ground in play and that vampire now
always has 1 blood every turn until you block him.
Army of Rats isn't a problem until you get 4 of them out. Then it
sucks, especially against the Gangrel who can block and untap forever
with Cat's Guidance and who will prevent all your damage if you try to
beat them up.
>The actual problem that we've been having in sessions so far is
>getting the game finished. What we need is more strong cards not
>less.
The game runs about 1 1/2 hours. Is this about what your group's time
length is? You undoubtedly play a bit slower than most of us, not
being way-too-familiar with the mechanics, but it shouldn't make that
much difference. It also could come down to deckbuilding or play
strategy still.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> Note BTW that deck collapsing is a standard tactic in Doomtown and
> folk typically use this to leave themselves with a killer shootout
> hand.
My limited understanding of Doomtown (I've never played it, but I've seen
it played, heard it discussed etc.) suggests that not only is this
possible, it's also likely, because of people wanting to be able to
complete runs, flushes etc. So far as I can tell, deck flushing either
was or should have been entirely predictable.
Jyhad's complex mechanics based on when and how you can play certain cards
(no more than one source of additional strikes, no needless maneuvers,
only one strike, only one action modifier, only one reaction etc.) seem to
have been aimed at stopping card flushing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> AFAIC, the official rules are what came with the game.
You don't see correctly. Those were the initial rules.
> The various
> errata, variants and house rules that are out there may be all well
> and good but I'm not going to bother with any of them.
Don't expect anyone to listen to you then. Many people argue over what
should be banned, and errata-ed, and how, but I believe that *Everyone*
can see the need for it, in some circumstances.
Just arguing that what came with the game are the only things you're oging
to play with is about as sensible as saying you're going to leave the gas
on your cooker on because they didn't sell you a box of matches with it.
> The game's
> complex enough without trying to make sense of all that too.
Many things are complex. Jyhad is an iherently complex game. If you want
simple, there are other games. Jyhad *thrives* on its subtle
complexities. Attemping to take a brute hammer to it with "I'm only
playing with what came with it" is supposing that everything was perfect
first time round. Yeah, right - like that's going to happen with the
second ever Wizards trading card game. They can't even manage it now.
I'm quite happy to suppose that the first versions of Outlook Express were
fine, but personally I'd rather run something that wasn't quite so
vulnerable to exploitation. If you're going to play card text, can I play
a Jyhad Conditioning, followed by a Foreshadowing Destruction?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> AFAIC, we're going to play by the Golden Rule - the cards are always
> right.
No - the cards contradict the rules.
However, the cards themselves are re-written by errata, and the Golden
Rule does not extend to errata, only the rules.
Please, if you are going to try and justify yourself, at least don't make
it that easy to contradict you.
> I've already noticed that Army of Rats and Fame look like good
> cards. This is fine by me - we don't have enough copies for them to
> get out of hand and multi-player diplomacy should take care of the
> game balance.
Ah - so whoever goes out and buys a fe copies of them has to be dealt with
by ganging up on them, rather than by making the cards balanced.
Sounds like a recipe for happiness to me.
> The actual problem that we've been having in sessions so far is
> getting the game finished. What we need is more strong cards not
> less.
Jyhad goes plenty fast enoughk, if you choose to play it that way. A game
being finished in less than an hour is perfectly possible, if people
choose to play that way. People can slow the game if they choose to, too.
Your problem with speed is based on the fact that you do not know the
game, not that the game itself lacks power.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew wrote;
>>The guy who asked the question originally understood the issue. You
understand the issue and have expressed it without a ton of verbiage
right there. You're just being difficult.>>
No--I'm simply pointing out that there is no easy way to errata Wake to work
the "intuitive" way (if you can envision one, please post it here)--again,
there is no simple wording for the card to prevent using it to attempt to block
an action that you have no chance of blocking ("I Wake all 6 of my vampires to
attempt to block you hunting at +1 stealth. Oops. They all fail."). Thus, you
fall into a card with no cost, and a card that is simply better than Forced
Awakening (the fixed version of Wake).
>>AFAIC, the official rules are what came with the game.>>
Again, you are welcome to play however you are happy doing so. Keep in mind
that had Jyhad continued being printed, the errata of today would simply have
been inherrent in any new editions, and will be so in the new printing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew wrote:
>>But I'm not even convinced that this is the real problem. As I
understand it, the problem is that collapsing the deck makes it easier
to play broken combos. I don't know what these combos are but why are
they not being addressed directly? And why can't players just load up
with lots of copies of the combo cards instead of lots of Wake? Are
they rares?>>
The problem with unerrataed Wake is that it has a completely insufficient cost
for its effect. Jyhad is a game with a very strict cost/effect paradigm, and
Wake completely circumvented this paradigm. All cards have a cost--the more
powerful card, the more expensive the cost. Some costs are requiring
disciplines (discipline cards), costing blood (more powerful discipline cards),
or conditionality (cards like Fake Out or Dead End Alley). Wake had a cost (do
not redraw until after combat) that was found to be completey insufficient for
the power of the card, and consequently, became the *only* card in the game
that could be played for no effect and cycled for free. Thus, it needed to be
errataed to be brought into line with other cards and the cost/effect paradigm.
You may or may not be aware of the Sabbat version--Forced Awakening. It is
essentially similar to Wake, but you get to re-draw it immediately, but if you
fail to sucessfully block, the reacting vampire burns a blood. When compared to
the pre-errata Wake, FA was simply not as good. FA, however, was an example of
how Wake *should* have been designed. To have both FA and unerrataed Wake in
the game environment was a bad thing, thus Wake was weakened to what it is now.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew wrote:
<< I'm surprised that VTES doesn't have more trouble in this area - why doesn't
the same tactic work with other, easy-to-play cards? >>
It does--repeat actions provided by the likes of Majesty and Freak Drive. This
is fixed by the No Repeat Action tournament rule.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8jqr2v$1v9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Because we discuss so much if actual WwEF errata is bigger in cost
than the forced awakening counterpart.
I think that it is:
and hand reduction cost until next untap (WwEF), is notably worse
than a "burn blood" penalty if reacting vamp fails to block (FA).
After a short analysis,
i realized that WwEF matters is complex to deal
if we confront it with FA cost/penalty.
The big question is:
how to assign WwEF a cost like FA (so, a "burn blood" cost)
without making WwEF a clone of FA?
The "new" cost should make WwEF good for reacting
with general react cards such as deflections and tel misdirection.
However, if the "new" cost/penalty for WwEF triggers only
if reacting vamp doesn't play any other reactions,
at that point FA would be useless:
a vamp could play intercept reaction cards, block
(and so WwEF would be "free") and we could forget FA as the "blocking
reaction" card.
So, WwEF should have also a penalty for entering in combat
as result of blocking the action.
Here lies the problem:
if the two penalties' sum is bigger in card cost than the actual
errata, the new-would-be errata is pointless.
But, also, the two penalities' sum must be a little better
than the actual errata.
Not an easy thing.
So, here's my revised idea of WwEF's possible errata:
WwEF react - do not replace until after combat
only usable by a tapped vampire.
This vampire can block and play reaction cards
as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
If this reacting vampire doesn't play any other reaction card during
the current action, he or she
burns 1 blood after the current action is concluded.
We have a permanent penalty for entering
in combat (the "old good" do not replace UAC).
So, FA would be still a good card for "blocking" purpose.
And we have the burn blood cost to stop the "free cycling" problem of
WwEF.
Your thought?.
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 03 Jul 2000 23:58:23 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>No--I'm simply pointing out that there is no easy way to errata Wake to work
>the "intuitive" way (if you can envision one, please post it here)--again,
>there is no simple wording for the card to prevent using it to attempt to block
>an action that you have no chance of blocking ("I Wake all 6 of my vampires to
>attempt to block you hunting at +1 stealth. Oops. They all fail."). Thus, you
>fall into a card with no cost, and a card that is simply better than Forced
>Awakening (the fixed version of Wake).
The card implictly assumes that the reacting vampire is going to enter
combat. The art supports this too. With that in mind, here's a
couple of simple alternatives. They would be added to the printed
card text which currently reads:
>> Do not replace until after combat.
>> Only usable by a tapped vampire.
>> This reacting vampire can use reaction
>> cards and attempt to block as though>> untapped until the current action
>> is concluded.
* If combat does not occur, replace this card during your next untap
phase.
* If combat does not occur, burn the reacting vampire and replace this
card.
The first alternative is like the current errata but only coming into
effect when Wake is not used as intended. But I like the idea that
the punishment should fit the crime. With the second alternative, if
a vampire wakes carelessly ahead of schedule then it risks being
scorched by the sun. Is that enough cost for you?
Andrew
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:57:03 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>Do you see where it becomes a problem, and not just a "straw man"?
More shorthand. A "straw man" is a metaphor for a weak argument that
you put in your opponent's mouth so that you can defeat it. You kept
repeating "no reason" as if I had said this. I had not and nor is
anyone else supposing that there is no reason for the current errata.
My actual position was that:
a) the current errata for Wake doesn't get to the root of the problem
and is inelegant to boot
b) it is also irksome for new players such as myself who would prefer
not to be burdened with the task of remembering alternate card texts
when we are not playing with abusive decks. An errata which more
closely followed the common-sense reading of the card would avoid this
problem.
>But it is recommended that you learn the
>errata, or eventually you'll stumble on broken things on your own -
>the Majesty/untap/repeat action trick is one of the first ones most
>people seem to find.
My play circle routinely cracks games and discovering how to do this
is half the fun. It sounds like this one would be too easy but I
wasn't planning to play it seriously. And after discovering the price
of Sabbat boxes today (~$250), I'm doubly sure of that.
>You may save yourself from ousting the first
>time, but often you'll find that you've jammed up on master cards,
>maneuvers, and Rush actions and your next combat will be "hand strike
>for 1... don't have the Undead Strength in hand". It's a significant
>risk to do that sort of thing.
I was more worried about running out of cards altogether but I gather
that this is unusual, right?
>The problem with it is, how do you errata weenie dominate?
We were already coming to the conclusion that young vampires were the
most cost-effective. The variant rules in the VTES rulebook appear to
address this problem quite well but I guess they didn't find favour
with the Jyhad veterans. I think the game needs more incentive to
play older vampires. Something like "your hand size equals the age of
your oldest minion". Hmm...
Andrew
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:16:36 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>The game runs about 1 1/2 hours. Is this about what your group's time
>length is? You undoubtedly play a bit slower than most of us, not
>being way-too-familiar with the mechanics, but it shouldn't make that
>much difference. It also could come down to deckbuilding or play
>strategy still.
About 2 hours with no result in a 3-player game. What happens is that
things grind to a halt when everyone gets low on pool - it's hard to
attack and defend effectively simultaneously. More emphasis on
younger vampires may improve matters.
Andrew
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:04:40 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>What will REALLY re-garner interest in the game is the Sabbat War
>expansion, which will address the issues with card text not matching.
>It'll be a physical box from White Wolf that people can look at and
>say "Cool, the game's not dead" - which is exactly the reaction we got
>from everyone at Dragon*Con for just playing the game.
Could be. This wasn't quite what happened with Rage though. This was
given a make-over but its fans seemed to say, "they did what?!" and it
sank like a stone. It all depends how it's handled. The Doomtown
relaunch got off to a shaky start but it's now business as usual. The
Shadowfist relaunch will be with us real soon now. I'm not sure how
many other revivals are underway - I hear rumours about METW. Could
be the market will be too fragmented again, what with all the new
stuff too. Interesting times ...
Andrew
On 04 Jul 2000 00:02:04 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:
><< I'm surprised that VTES doesn't have more trouble in this area - why doesn't
>the same tactic work with other, easy-to-play cards? >>
>
>It does--repeat actions provided by the likes of Majesty and Freak Drive. This
>is fixed by the No Repeat Action tournament rule.
I haven't seen these cards yet. But something is puzzling me. I
bought the game thinking that it was basically sound. But if it is as
broken as you say then something is puzzling me. LSJ didn't produce
his errata until mid 98. What happened before then - during what
might be called the antediluvian period? Did people play a broken
game for several years or what?
Andrew
OK, once more for that ones staying behind...
JC: Dodge and Fake Out have you already in combat, and so at risk. Wake
has no such possibility.
BD: of course i do know the fact that dodge and fake out are combat
cards... i was only trying to express an idea of mine, that even common
(i.e. not discipline requiring) cards, which are very strong in one side
(i.e. WWEF and FA are universal "wakes" usable everywhere), have their
cost well set by "do not replace..." - as they are strong for their
universality, their cost is hard - in any card game is nearby always
better hold more cards than your opponent... (i've been playing MtG,
Star wars, Middleearth and others...]
JC: I tend to find Kine Resouces Contested is not very useful for my
typical combat/block deck - but then, it's function doesn't lend itself
to that. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, however, in other
decks - which Wake still does.
BD: ??? what has been the poet trying to say with this? although KRC (as
many other specific cards) has no place in every deck, "waking" cards
(as many other common "good" cards, f.e. blood doll...) do in most
situations...
JC:> If people are still using Wake *in preference* to FA, when *all*
they
> intend to do is block, they are not using the cards to their best
> ability. Wake occupies a niche that *isn't* occupied by FA.
BD: how do you know this? in my place most of people do prefer FA - it
is usuable for reactions as WWEF and for block better than WWEF...
JC:> No, someone (me) mentioend that this was used by some people
*before*> Forced Awakening was created.
BD: OK, my misundestood...
JC:> The rest of your reasoning is spurious based on the fact that you
do not> understand what was said earlier.
BD: be carefull with such comments, please, i do not like this way of
conversation...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<66E62A54A7A200BF.DA1AD4BB...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On 03 Jul 2000 23:58:23 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:> The card implictly assumes that the reacting vampire is going to enter
> combat. The art supports this too.
If we should guess the errata basing on cards' artwork,
then we could just assume anything for every card...
However, you are right in this: WwEF is not to be played without
reacting with other cards or attempting to block.
With that in mind, here's a
> couple of simple alternatives. They would be added to the printed
> card text which currently reads:
>
> >> Do not replace until after combat.
> >> Only usable by a tapped vampire.
> >> This reacting vampire can use reaction
> >> cards and attempt to block as though
> >> untapped until the current action
> >> is concluded.
>
> * If combat does not occur, replace this card during your next untap
> phase.
It would be a bigger cost than FA counterpart.
>
> * If combat does not occur, burn the reacting vampire and replace this
> card.
?...."If combat does not occour, burn the reacting vampire".....?
Thas would make WwEF a truly wallpaper ready for trash.
As errata, it would be absurd (and the cost an enormous BIG one).
>
> The first alternative is like the current errata but only coming into
> effect when Wake is not used as intended. But I like the idea that
> the punishment should fit the crime. With the second alternative, if
> a vampire wakes carelessly ahead of schedule then it risks being
> scorched by the sun. Is that enough cost for you?
Maybe, it's a good reasoning in terms of V:tM logic,
but, definitively, is no-no for VtES game (and WwEF) balance.
Regards
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
> Andrew[ quoted text not captured ]
> Yeah but do i ever *want* to block with my titled ventrue? No, so in
any
> situation FA is worse in that deck. As for stealth, it beats
intercept,
> almost period, so if you try to block the malks, you pay a blood with
> FA, almost certainly.
I would hate to start a tangent with this simple observation,
First of all. More than likely if you have a titled Ventrue you are
using 2nd traditions to block, so this isn't an issue. But once you
block certainly a Ventrue prince has about as many options as anyone
when it comes to stopping a minion that is using a ivory bow. First is
Fortitude. Second is S:Ce, and third is Obedience. An Ivory Bow is
just not that scary to a titled Ventrue.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:47:47 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:57:03 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>>>Do you see where it becomes a problem, and not just a "straw man"?>>More shorthand. A "straw man" is a metaphor for a weak argument that
>you put in your opponent's mouth so that you can defeat it. You kept
>repeating "no reason" as if I had said this. I had not and nor is
>anyone else supposing that there is no reason for the current errata.
I wasn't meaning that you'd said this, but you certainly weren't
looking very hard for the actual reasons behind things like the Golden
Tenets. My point was that just because the GOOD reason isn't
immediately obvious doesn't mean it's not there -- and so it's not a
good idea to poke at some of the errata which is more or less
universally accepted as good (Golden Tenets, specifically "no repeat
actions"), and say that it's warping the game.
>My actual position was that:
>
>a) the current errata for Wake doesn't get to the root of the problem
>and is inelegant to boot
Actually, it's pretty difficult to dump Wakes gratuitously with the
current errata. Sure, you can dump all of them on your predator's
last action, but you can't always guess what your predator's last
action is going to -be-. Dumping them before your predator's turn is
just silly, since you're liable to need them. With the difficulty of
cycling them like water comes the next gotcha: you won't put that
many in your deck, so if you dump 2 to no purpose, that's two less
untaps you'll have later in the game, and you'll regret it a LOT.
It's not especially inelegant - it changed the words "replace after
combat" to "replace on your next untap". Two words altered to four.
It is an awkward play mechanic for a game that constantly replaces
cards. That's the biggest drawback I see with it, actually, trying to
make sure that people DON'T replace. The "wake-on-the-table-in-front"
thing seems to work best, and then just remembering "i should have ...
six cards (counts) ok. Louie, here, blocks."
>b) it is also irksome for new players such as myself who would prefer
>not to be burdened with the task of remembering alternate card texts
>when we are not playing with abusive decks. An errata which more
>closely followed the common-sense reading of the card would avoid this
>problem.
Except such an errata would require the sort of massive card-text
change that is mindless on the face of it - the card purpose itself
already requires several lines. The penalty shouldn't require that
many more lines.
>>But it is recommended that you learn the
>>errata, or eventually you'll stumble on broken things on your own -
>>the Majesty/untap/repeat action trick is one of the first ones most
>>people seem to find.>>My play circle routinely cracks games and discovering how to do this
>is half the fun. It sounds like this one would be too easy but I
>wasn't planning to play it seriously. And after discovering the price
>of Sabbat boxes today (~$250), I'm doubly sure of that.
Expect -that- to drop through the floor after Sabbat War comes out.
And Ebay prices are invariably inflated to unreasonable, too, due to
people with more money than brains.
It's interesting that I was able to buy Sabbat boxes for $59 each
about a year ago... the rising price indicates a quickly growing
interest in the game.
>>You may save yourself from ousting the first
>>time, but often you'll find that you've jammed up on master cards,
>>maneuvers, and Rush actions and your next combat will be "hand strike
>>for 1... don't have the Undead Strength in hand". It's a significant
>>risk to do that sort of thing.>>I was more worried about running out of cards altogether but I gather
>that this is unusual, right?
It is, in fact, unusual. Most decks that run out of cards have
already gained a couple victory points, and also often had started
with only 60 or 75 cards anyway. The average 90-card deck doesn't
usually run out of cards during a game.
>>The problem with it is, how do you errata weenie dominate?>>We were already coming to the conclusion that young vampires were the
>most cost-effective. The variant rules in the VTES rulebook appear to
>address this problem quite well but I guess they didn't find favour
>with the Jyhad veterans. I think the game needs more incentive to
>play older vampires. Something like "your hand size equals the age of
>your oldest minion". Hmm...
>
>Andrew
-- Derek
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew wrote:
>>I haven't seen these cards yet. But something is puzzling me. I
bought the game thinking that it was basically sound. But if it is as
broken as you say then something is puzzling me. LSJ didn't produce
his errata until mid 98. What happened before then - during what
might be called the antediluvian period? Did people play a broken
game for several years or what?>>
Yes--people were playing a broken game, and the tournament scene was completely
dominated by Infinite Loop Repeat Bleed decks and Weenie Vote Push decks.
To counter this, however, The Golden Tenents were developed very early on in
the history of Jyhad (No Vote Pushing, which was arguably the intention of the
original rules and the No Repeat Actions rule), and most right minded people
adopted these rules very quickly. Eventually, they became the official
tournament rules.
The game *is* basically sound, but there were a few holes inherrent in the
rules (like repeat actions and the misinterpreted vote pushing rules) and a few
cards that needed tweaking (like Wake, which was debated about since '95...).
The vast bulk of the errata is actually very minimal, mostly clarifications of
ambigious text--there are maybe a dozen cards that have any significant errata,
and most of those are from the expansion sets. Off the top of my head, the only
original set cards that were significantly changed were Wake ('cause it was
significantly undercosted), Fame ('cause it was stupidly abusive), and Immortal
Grapple (because it was misinterpreted and reprinted twice with this
misinterpretation inherrent in the card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew wrote:
>>The card implictly assumes that the reacting vampire is going to enter
combat. The art supports this too. With that in mind, here's a
couple of simple alternatives. They would be added to the printed
card text which currently reads:>>
The card implicitly assumes nothing (being a card), and relying on the art to
indicate what how a card should be interpreted is sheer folly--I suggest you
don't go anywhere near Torn Signpost...
>>* If combat does not occur, replace this card during your next untap
phase.>>
This one isn't bad, but how does it interact with the likes of Obediance,
Change of Target, and Illusions of Kindred? Addressing these issues will create
more errata and clarification--I was under the impression that you wanted to
avoid having errata at all.
>>* If combat does not occur, burn the reacting vampire and replace this
card.>>
Heh heh. That's funny :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dammit. Forgot to respond to the tail end of it. See below.
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:47:47 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>We were already coming to the conclusion that young vampires were the>most cost-effective. The variant rules in the VTES rulebook appear to
>address this problem quite well but I guess they didn't find favour
>with the Jyhad veterans. I think the game needs more incentive to
>play older vampires. Something like "your hand size equals the age of
>your oldest minion". Hmm...
I'll have to go look up the variant rules - I remember reading and
discarding them, so now I'm curious as to what I ditched.
We're all hoping that Sabbat War will provide some cards to vastly
benefit older vampires - this will help swing the balance of the game
away from the weenie horde. We're pretty confident that it will, just
because it's a very well-known problem that vampires like, say,
Appolonius are almost totally useless right now because of the
excessive investment cost for what is still just one action.
The hand size thing would be amusing at first - what do you do with no
minions in play? =) Is it the age of your oldest READY minion, or
your oldest CONTROLLED minion? Can I bring out Arika, Minion Tap her,
then let her go to torpor and sit there? If it's your oldest ready
minion, combat decks just got an enormous advantage. If it's your
oldest controlled minion, weenie decks could just bring out a 6-7 cap
and let it sit and hunt forever with a Blood Doll - if someone blocks
it and kills it, who cares, the hand size still works.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:47:45 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2000 23:58:23 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>>> Do not replace until after combat.
>>> Only usable by a tapped vampire.
>>> This reacting vampire can use reaction
>>> cards and attempt to block as though
>>> untapped until the current action
>>> is concluded.>>* If combat does not occur, replace this card during your next untap
>phase.
This could be interesting, as it preserves the "wake-and-bounce"
aspect as it is currently, but encourages people to actually block
with it. Forced Awakening is still superior to this card for blocking
since it is replace-immediately.
It disturbs me that both untap cards would have a visible penalty for
attempting and failing to block, however - even when you WANTED to
block. More blocking is good, since that means more combat, which is
good.
(for public reference: despite my stance here, I am not actually EVER
going to be in favor of re-changing the current errata to Wake,
because I think we've screwed around with the card enough as it is.
It's presently a functional card. It may be a tiny bit overcosted,
but it still gets played, so it's only a minor problem. To change the
errata on it again would just invite trouble, so I feel that we're
stuck with what we got. This is why I'm playing "Whack-a-Mole" with
every argument I see.)
>* If combat does not occur, burn the reacting vampire and replace this
>card.
Wallpapers the card. Stealth currently beats intercept - it's easier
to gain stealth than it is to gain intercept. Misdirection/heavy
stealth would gain favor immediately since nobody would risk Waking to
attempt to block the deck that burns vampires when it fails. Stealth
bleed would once again become the monster it once was since intercept
would be much too precarious of a deck to play.
Not to mention there's a card...
Elder Impersonation, Obfuscate, 1 blood:
+1 stealth. Only usable when another minion attempts to block the
acting minion. That minion's blocking attempt fails; untap that
minion. That minion cannot attempt to block this action again.
With the errata on Wake, you now have a card for OBFUSCATE, a
non-combat discipline, that costs one blood and burns a vampire.
Never before has it been so easy to make dead guys - a BAD thing.
>The first alternative is like the current errata but only coming into
>effect when Wake is not used as intended. But I like the idea that
>the punishment should fit the crime. With the second alternative, if
>a vampire wakes carelessly ahead of schedule then it risks being
>scorched by the sun. Is that enough cost for you?
shall we say it's perhaps too much?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:47:52 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:16:36 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
Somewhat. It's also important to remember that ousting your prey
gains you 6 pool, so neglecting your defense at the right time can be
a good thing.
Some of it is probably deck building and play strategy - it's fine to
have Anneke out and assume "she'll bleed for 4!", but you have to ask
yourself "what will I do if he blocks?" You need to either figure out
a way to get the bleed actions through consistently, or have some sort
of penalty handy for when he blocks (a .44 and a Blur usually do the
trick, and often improve your next turn by subtracting one blocker).
When the endgame has slid down like that, it's usually the guy with
the most minions who has the upper hand - he can still spend at least
one action per turn bleeding his prey without leaving himself
excessively undefended. And even "hand strike for 1, me too" will
wear a vampire down and put them in torpor eventually, so forcing
blockers to actually keep blocking is a good thing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<047A1A2AF911465B.AB5DCDE8...@lp.airnews.net>,
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It disturbs me that both untap cards would have a visible penalty for
> attempting and failing to block, however - even when you WANTED to
> block. More blocking is good, since that means more combat, which is
> good.
Indeed, you are a fighting guy..
>
> (for public reference: despite my stance here, I am not actually EVER
> going to be in favor of re-changing the current errata to Wake,
> because I think we've screwed around with the card enough as it is.
> It's presently a functional card. It may be a tiny bit overcosted,
> but it still gets played, so it's only a minor problem. To change the
> errata on it again would just invite trouble, so I feel that we're
> stuck with what we got. This is why I'm playing "Whack-a-Mole" with
> every argument I see.)
>
Yes, yes, i know how do you feel about a possible WwEF new errata but,
just to throw in my idea:
WwEF: react - do not replace until after combat
only usable by a tapped vampire.
This vampire can block and play reaction cards
as though untapped until the current action is concluded.
If this reacting vampire doesn't play any other reaction card during
the current action, he or she
burns 1 blood after the current action is concluded.
We have a penalty, mostly for entering
in combat (the "old good" do not replace UAC),
and the burn blood cost to stop the "free cycling" problem.
FA would be still the all good card for blocking (and, therefore,
entering in combat),
and WwEF the good card for reacting with misdirections, telpatic
counters and so on.
The two cards, then, would have almost the same cost.
Your thought?.
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
> shall we say it's perhaps too much?> -- Derek
>
> Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
> It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7BC0D449F47A2004.6F4055F9...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>b) it is also irksome for new players such as myself who would prefer
>not to be burdened with the task of remembering alternate card texts
>when we are not playing with abusive decks. An errata which more
>closely followed the common-sense reading of the card would avoid this
>problem.
A common sense reading of the card suggests that you can abuse it.
There is nothing in the card text, as printed, to suggest by any sense
that you have to do anything.
If, by common sense, you mean that people should see it your way,
remember that everyone's version of common sense is very different.
Usenet is an excellent way of discovering that.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.nethttp://www.zephyr.org.uk
In article <8jsq54$dhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bartok...@my-deja.com
writes
>OK, once more for that ones staying behind...
>
>JC: Dodge and Fake Out have you already in combat, and so at risk. Wake
>has no such possibility.
>BD: of course i do know the fact that dodge and fake out are combat
>cards... i was only trying to express an idea of mine, that even common
>(i.e. not discipline requiring) cards, which are very strong in one side
>(i.e. WWEF and FA are universal "wakes" usable everywhere), have their
>cost well set by "do not replace..."
But drawing parallels between the two types of cards - Wake vs Fake
Out/Dodge - is difficult.
*Because* Fake Out/Dodge are played during combat, they automatically
take up the problem of "Do not replace...." because of the fact that
they are played during combat. Similarly, because "Do not replace...."
means "Do not replace until after combat, or until this action
concludes" an action card like Arson has the built in disadvantage that
you won't replace it (and, say, draw a stealth card).
Wake, being a reaction card, doesn't do any of that. Being a reaction
card, you're never going to *have* to do anything - unless you put a
cumbersome and unwieldy errata upon it ("You must react or block, or
play sufficient intercept to meet the current action's stealth,
or...."). As a result, Wake can just be cycled immediately. The cost
on Fake Out really is a cost - because you are in combat. The cost on
Arson really is a cost - because you are acting. The cost on Wake, by
card text, isn't a cost, because you don't have to do anything.
> - as they are strong for their
>universality, their cost is hard - in any card game is nearby always
>better hold more cards than your opponent... (i've been playing MtG,
>Star wars, Middleearth and others...]
Well, I don't know Middle-earth or Star Wars too well, but V:TES is
among the less common card games, so far as I can tell, in having the
constant replace mechanism, in that when you play a card, you (normally)
replace it very quickly. Most other games tend to have the "Draw a
card" phase somewhere near the start of your turn.
As such, in V:TES, terms like "card advantage" never really come into
their own, as they do in Magic. Drawing more cards than your opponent
isn't *quite* such a guarantee of doing well, because you aren't getting
an advantage over the basic rules. In Magic, everyone draws one card a
turn. In V:TES, everyone could, theoretically, draw their entire deck
in one turn, just by playing enough cards - continually pressing,
maneuvering, preventing, stealthing etc.
>
>JC: I tend to find Kine Resouces Contested is not very useful for my
>typical combat/block deck - but then, it's function doesn't lend itself
>to that. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, however, in other
>decks - which Wake still does.
>BD: ??? what has been the poet trying to say with this?
Assuming I understand the question:
You said that Wake wouldn't be useful in block/combat. Probably not.
If you're playing a hugely heavy intercept deck, I quite agree - Forced
Awakening is the better card. In a partial intercept deck - where you
cannot *guarantee* playing enough intercept and blocking - it becomes
more of a toss-up, depending on what you value most. Blood *can* be
more expensive than hand size. It all depends on your deck. You pick
which suits you best.
>although KRC (as
>many other specific cards) has no place in every deck, "waking" cards
>(as many other common "good" cards, f.e. blood doll...) do in most
>situations...
Old Wake, yes, quite probably. And it still does. Now, just choose
between Forced and Wake. Wake is still a good card, and eminently
playable. It's really still is a versatile card, you just don't dump it
so easily. But if you find that you want to block a lot, maybe try
using Forced Awakening.
>
>JC:> If people are still using Wake *in preference* to FA, when *all*
>they>> intend to do is block, they are not using the cards to their best
>> ability. Wake occupies a niche that *isn't* occupied by FA.>BD: how do you know this? in my place most of people do prefer FA - it
>is usuable for reactions as WWEF and for block better than WWEF...
It *can* be used for reactions - but then, I *can* play Alacrity for
stealth (and it's fun seeing people's faces when you do it). But you
end up burning a blood. Is burning a blood important to you? Well,
*depending on your deck* it might be. But then, we have three very
similar cards in Protean - Wolf Claws, Claws of the Dead, Bone Spur.
Each has a different advantage. Myself, I simply adore Claws of the
Dead. The maneuver at superior is, IMO, worth its weight in gold, and a
superb addition to the card. But, depending on your deck, you *can* use
Wolf Claws for exactly the same purposes as Claws of the Dead.
I see new Wake and FA in the same fashion. You can use both as poor
substitutes for the other. Depending on your deck, one will certainly
excel *way* beyond the other. If you cannot, absolutely cannot, afford
the blood for the burning in FA, Wake becomes great. If you cannot
afford the hand size, FA is much better. And are you reacting, but can
afford blood? Well, in that case, does FA work out better for you for
immediately getting a new card, rather than a slight delay? It might
do.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:40:08 +0100, James Coupe wrote:
>A common sense reading of the card suggests that you can abuse it.
>
>There is nothing in the card text, as printed, to suggest by any sense
>that you have to do anything.
Poppycock. The card has printed upon it "Do not replace until after
combat." Unless you think that cards can be played and never
replaced, this card simply does not conceive of the possibility that
combat will not take place.
I can see that there is a lacuna here but the idea that the card was
designed to be used to do nothing is ridiculuous. You can't see this
because you have presumably been playing the game for a while and so
the routine abuse of this card has come to seem natural.
What's amusing is that some people now want to put the perverted usage
of the card above the original purpose - by making the card most
useful when combat does not take place as a consequence of playing it.
Part of the trouble seems to be that the original designers no longer
pay any attention to the game. From comments here, I gather that folk
like Garfield and Petersen never deigned to explain themselves. I'm
more used to games in which the designer is active on the game's list
and so is able to correct misconceptions as they arise.
Andrew
In article
<52C91D354F58A7A7.D3ABAA71...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 05:41:12 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>
> >>* May be played by your tapped vampire if you are not the acting
> >>Minion's controller. The vampire need not attempt to block nor play
> >>further reaction cards; that is merely an option. [TOM 19951129]
> >>
> >>It seems to me that the problem started with the 1995 ruling that
the
> >>waking vampire need not attempt to block. This seems very wrong as
it
> >
> >It's RIGHT, though, because if the ruling were not made the Waking
> >vampire could not play cards like Deflection, Telepathic
Misdirection,
> >Delaying Tactics, or the like.
>
> When I said "block", this was just shorthand for the phrase that the
> ruling uses. I meant "block or play further reaction cards", ie.
> cards like Deflection etc. The point is that it should not be legal
> to play Wake in reaction to an action and then do nothing further with
> the woken vampire. That's obviously silly. Adding yet another layer
> of errata to deal with the loophole that allowing this introduces is
> dumb.
>
I do agree with this type of play for the Wake. Have it based upon the
same criteria of Disguised Weapon, where you must have a weapon in your
hand at the time of play. Work the Wake where you can block or have
the reaction card within your hand to play with the Wake.
I am guessing that idea didn't pan out. As to why, I can only
speculate as I do not have access to the text battles that occurred on
this subject prior to it's current errata.
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
--
Worry comes from the belief you are powerless.
(So get in there and kick some butt!)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <5681753ADD0CCE3C.3CC82015...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>Poppycock. The card has printed upon it "Do not replace until after
>combat."
So does Arson.
It doesn't compel anyone to block. Nor does Wake.
Hope that helps.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <5681753ADD0CCE3C.3CC82015...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:40:08 +0100, James Coupe wrote:
>>>A common sense reading of the card suggests that you can abuse it.
>>>>There is nothing in the card text, as printed, to suggest by any sense
>>that you have to do anything.>
>Poppycock. The card has printed upon it "Do not replace until after>combat." Unless you think that cards can be played and never
>replaced, this card simply does not conceive of the possibility that
>combat will not take place.
Combat is a particular phase in an action. After the action is done,
combat relating to it is also done. Hence, you get to (by original text)
redraw your card.
Also, by your logic if you tried to block, but failed, you wouldn't ever get
to draw your card back either! This is plainly not right.
-Jasper
In article <8jvrf0$a00$1...@spock.peak.org>, Jasper Phillips
<jas...@spock.peak.org> writes
>Also, by your logic if you tried to block, but failed, you wouldn't ever get
>to draw your card back either!
No, you'd replace it after the next combat (possibly never).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8jut5s$rms$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ramsteiner <ramsteiner@my-
deja.com> writes
>I do agree with this type of play for the Wake. Have it based upon the
>same criteria of Disguised Weapon, where you must have a weapon in your
>hand at the time of play. Work the Wake where you can block or have
>the reaction card within your hand to play with the Wake.
>
>I am guessing that idea didn't pan out. As to why, I can only
>speculate as I do not have access to the text battles that occurred on>this subject prior to it's current errata.
Note: I was not privy to any such discussions either. All that follows
is conjecture, combined with bits and pieces that seem to have come up
from debates with LSJ etc.
1) There seems to be a clear desire to - except where *absolutely*
necessary - keep errata short.
2) Any errata which goes along the lines of "When you play Wake, you
must also play sufficient intercept to be able to block (either from
permanent sources or from transient sources), or play another reaction
card" is more difficult to explain to new players. A new player can
look at the card as it stands and, were they to turn up to a tournament,
would only be slightly impinged by Wake - it gets replaced a bit later.
If they suddenly found that they had to play other cards with it, all
their preparation along the lines of "Well, if it becomes a bit of a
drag in my deck, I'll just react with it and ditch it" becomes
meaningless. They can still do that with the current errata - it's just
slowed down.
3) Ditto point 2) regarding changing it to a burn blood penalty/cost.
The current errata is merely an annoyance to player working around the
text, and a mild spanner in the works. But if they can't afford the
blood, because their deck never planned for it, you've just screwed them
over. Only a couple of the errata *really* change a card (Fame being
the 'worst' offender (but then Fame was a hideous card to start with),
Mind Rape being slightly less bad). Keeping those to an absolute
minimum is best. Strengthening the delay penalty is a mild change.
Adding/Changing a blood cost penalty is a more major change, as would
adding a "Show the card to...." change be.
[ quoted text not captured ]
inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I was considering that, instead of the above, the best change for WwEF
> > is:
> > WwEF react -> > only usable by a tapped vampire.
> > This vampire can block and play reaction cards
> > as though untapped until the current action is concluded.> > If this reacting vampire enters in combat as result of
> > succesfully blocking the current action, he or she burns 1 blood
> > before combat begins.
>
> So if it's a +1 stealth action, and i burn 7 wakes, attempt to block,
> but have no intercept, I don't burn any blood, and get a new hand, ditto
> an "opps didn't have an eagle's sight..." while making the card look
> like a opposite FA, this doesn't solve the original reason for errata:
> namely that the card can be cycled for free. WwEF is expensive now, but
> still useful.
>
> Cameron
>
One minor point is that to play 7 wakes, you need 7 minions. That seems
like a lot to me. Remember you cannot play more than 1 of the same
reaction card for each action.
Raille
a...@csi.com wrote:
> They change the game from the printed rules - that's their point.
> This might be alright if their effect was felt only at high power
> levels, e.g. national tournaments. But they go further and I can see
> how they would affect my own low-power circle. Few of us go online to
> ferret out errata. I want us to enjoy playing the game, not reject it
> as a broken mess. We're just going to play the game as written and if
> there are any problems, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Excellent strategy. The primary purpose of the game is to provide a fun
way for a group of friends (or enemies :-) to pass the time.
When teaching the game, ignoring the errata is a valid option - it decreases
the learning curve. As players get more experience, however, it might be
beneficial to look at the clarifications and rulings to double-check one's
playing style. And even if one doesn't use the errata, it would probably
still be a good idea to look over the errata to see what typos have been
corrected (the Malkavian requirement on Malkavian Dementia, for example)
as well as what "problems" have been perceived in other groups.
If your group begins to encounter some of these same problems, you
may find that the game ceases to be fun any more. At that stage, you
have a few options:
1) stop playing.
2) continue playing, but with a "gentleman's agreement" not to play in
an "un fun" way.
3) adopt some or all of the errata, as you need it to maintain the fun level
of the game
4) adopt some of your own house rules as opposed to the errata to
address the problems in way that you find to be superior to the official
rules.
Of course, if you end up playing in any tournaments or other setting where
players from other groups besides your own are involved, the default
method of play includes all of the official errata (probably some circular
definition in there, but you get the idea).
> The trouble with the current errata is that it goes beyond the printed
> text in a non-intuitive way and that it punishes ordinary use of the
> card too. If the problem is that the card can be too easily played to
> no effect then that's the thing that need fixing. Just forbid it.
Difficult in practice. But see 4) above.
Good luck to youi and your group, and welcome aboard!
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:24:04 GMT, LSJ wrote:
>Good luck to youi and your group, and welcome aboard!
Thank you. And what a pleasure it was to read your calm, tolerant
response. I might not agree with every detail of all that you've done
but I've got a lot of respect for the way that you go about it.
Andrew