Abomination (was Cards that suck!)

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9hun94$3mq$1...@neon.noos.net... > You must make a deck to revolve around it, yes. But each of the abomination > you create is worth the effort : 2 strength, an additional strike each > round, an optional maneuver, a built in rush action The Garou already has all this without being abominated. Sure its good to convert a werewolf pack into an abomination, but its not worth putting werewolf pack in a deck when you could use Garous instead for 1 pool more. > AND Superior protean on This is the only decent benifit I see from Abomination, is that the garou can get PRO. However the Garou loses all its life and its regenerative ability which REALLY sucks.To value this loss in blood terms, I would say its about 4 blood loss equivalent to this minion (3 life and 1 for the regenerative ability). > the top of that. They are vampires now, and thus are hard to burn or steal. > That means they are the *best fighters* of whole v:tes, and they are not > unique. Yeah, they are vampires now which means memories of mortaility doesnt protect them from Lazvernious, Donald oconner, Meshenka or other nasty combat monsters. They also cant be left for dead after losing a battle. (another AWESOME card for ally lovers). And apparently they ARE unique only one abomination out on the table at a time. That really sucks if you are trying to make an abomination deck. > The other good thing is, Werewolf pack has a cost that can be > reduced by Charisma. You even don't have to use protean except for stealth, > actually. Try them in a Malkavian, a Nosferatu or a Ravnos deck with a bunch > of Gangrel weenie if you want ! But, as i already mentioned, you must make a > dedicated deck. Honest, it's far from wallpaper. Werewolf pack? I dont see why anyone would chose to use werewolf pack instead of Renegade (pack is utter crap only benefit is that it costs 4 instead of 5). If for some reason you dont have enough renegade garous, I can trade you some cheap so you dont have to handicap your werewolf deck with the pack. I do have a dedicated Renegade Garou deck (thats tournament worthy) and I have tried to incorporate Abomination but it only weakens the deck, better to have Memories of mortaility to take up those slots and a little intercept to stop the ally stealing cards that almost no one plays with. Granted an abomination is a nice minion to have, but its cost is exorbanent The following is the cost to get out an abomination (unique vampire with 4 blood) (5 for garou + 1 for recruit action + 1 for abomination + 1 for abomination action + 4 transfered blood from abominatee) = 12 Blood for a kick ass little 4 capacity vampire. Frankly id rather transfer out Parmenides for 8 less blood or an inner circle member for 1 less blood. Giving this card more thougth makes me believe it really is wallpaper. Brad > > Abomination > > Pool Cost: 1 > > Unique. Requires a ready vampire. > > +1 stealth action > > > > Burn an untapped werewolf ally (such as Renegade Garou, Werewolf > > Pack or Black Spiral Buddy) in your ready region to put this card in > > play. This card becomes a unique clanless Independent vampire of 4 > > capacity with superior Protean. You may move up to 4 blood from the > > acting vampire to this vampire. This vampire has +1 strength,gets an > > additional strike each round and gets an optional maneuver each > > combat. This vampire may attack any ready minion as a (D) action.

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote > > You must make a deck to revolve around it, yes. But each of the > abomination > > you create is worth the effort : 2 strength, an additional strike each > > round, an optional maneuver, a built in rush action > > The Garou already has all this without being abominated. Sure its good to > convert a werewolf pack into an abomination, but its not worth putting > werewolf pack in a deck when you could use Garous instead for 1 pool more. It's designed for the werewolf pack =) But we agree on this, the Garou is cool as it is despite its inherent "ally flaws" > > AND Superior protean on > > This is the only decent benifit I see from Abomination, is that the garou > can get PRO. However the Garou loses all its life and its regenerative > ability which REALLY sucks.To value this loss in blood terms, I would say > its about 4 blood loss equivalent to this minion (3 life and 1 for the > regenerative ability). The Abomination can benefit from a hunting ground, a blood doll, can even call votes, rescue or diablerize a torporized vampire or play nice cards like Taste of vitae and Wake with evening's freshness to maximize his chances of getting in combat. A Garou certainly cannot do that. A Garou can be stolen with Presence, Dominate, Dementation, Serpentis card, can be burned in a single Necromancy action. Abomination is immune to that. And Abomination can kick Stanislava's butt : +3 Fun =) > > the top of that. They are vampires now, and thus are hard to burn or steal. > > That means they are the *best fighters* of whole v:tes, and they are not > > unique. > > Yeah, they are vampires now which means memories of mortaility doesnt > protect them from Lazvernious, Donald oconner, Meshenka or other nasty > combat monsters. They also cant be left for dead after losing a battle. > (another AWESOME card for ally lovers). You have to play Memories on those combat monsters before rushing... But d'you think the Garou is immortal ? Carrion crow, Wolf companion, Inferior entombment, Weather control, blood of acid, King of the mountain or other environnmental damage can burn it for real. The abomination simply goes to torpor, and you'll rescue him. I'm also sorry for the bad news but Left for Dead only works during another meth's Turn, if your Garou is burned in combat.... I see no use for this card in a garou deck unless you dont' use them for rushing. which would be ridiculous. > And apparently they ARE unique only one abomination out on the table at a > time. That really sucks if you are trying to make an abomination deck. Yes, Abomination is unique in the *same way* that an Embrace or a progeny is unique. So you can have multiple in play but each one is a unique vampire. Capice ? > > The other good thing is, Werewolf pack has a cost that can be > > reduced by Charisma. You even don't have to use protean except for > stealth, > > actually. Try them in a Malkavian, a Nosferatu or a Ravnos deck with a > bunch > > of Gangrel weenie if you want ! But, as i already mentioned, you must make > a > > dedicated deck. Honest, it's far from wallpaper. > > Werewolf pack? I dont see why anyone would chose to use werewolf pack > instead of Renegade (pack is utter crap only benefit is that it costs 4 > instead of 5). If for some reason you dont have enough renegade garous, I > can trade you some cheap so you dont have to handicap your werewolf deck > with the pack. I can see a reason to use Werewolf Pack : Abomination. Recruit them to embrace them =) Anyway i'm okay for the offer ! every man needs Garous ! if you want to trade them for cheap, here is my email re...@noos.fr > I do have a dedicated Renegade Garou deck (thats tournament worthy) and I > have tried to incorporate Abomination but it only weakens the deck, better > to have Memories of mortaility to take up those slots and a little intercept > to stop the ally stealing cards that almost no one plays with. If your deck is already okay, just don't add the abominations. If you want to play an abomination, build a deck around it. That's the point of my previous post, you remember =) Memory of mortality, which is quite a good card, leads to a really, really, different strategy. Let's call tha a Tactical Abomination Deck =) And put a Lupine Assalut for flavor ! > Granted an abomination is a nice minion to have, but its cost is exorbanent > The following is the cost to get out an abomination (unique vampire with 4 > blood) > > (5 for garou + 1 for recruit action + 1 for abomination + 1 for abomination > action + 4 transfered blood from abominatee) = 12 Blood for a kick ass > little 4 capacity vampire. Let's try another way. 4 Pool for the Werewolf pack (or black spiral buddy) . 1 pool for the action. Move 1 blood to the Abomination, and during the same turn, rush immediatly a small vamp and taste back the 4 damage you've inflicted to him. Voila ! 5 pool and 1 blood for the best fighter in the v:tes sphere. Just imagine you're packing a small Giovanni or a Sargon Fragment in your deck : play Compel the spirit to put the Werewolf/spiral buddy back on the table. There are so many things you can do if you only make the effort to mack a deck revolve around it... > Frankly id rather transfer out Parmenides for 8 less blood or an inner > circle member for 1 less blood. The blood transfered from the acting vamp is *quite* different from your pool. The Abomination costs *you* 5 Pool. For the same price, what's the best you can get ?? Volker ? Raven ? Patrizia Giovanni ;) ? the inner circles have a bigger cost and can't fight better than the Allmighty Abomination =) > Giving this card more thougth makes me believe it really is wallpaper. Just trade them with me, then ! [ quoted text not captured ]

can you confirm this LSJ ? please say i'm right ;) and maybe i'll send you a bottle of french wine... "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> Abomination is unique in the *same way* that an Embrace or a progeny is unique. So you can have multiple in play but each one is a unique vampire. reyda, setite apprentice =)

In message <9i08sh$f50$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >Abomination is unique in the *same way* that an Embrace or a progeny is >unique. The card text of Progeny: "This vampire is not considered unique" The card text of Embrace: "This vampire is not considered unique" The card text of Creation Rites: "This vampire is not considered unique" The card text of Shock Troops: "These vampires are not unique" The card text of Abomination: "Unique" -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: N72DTW27...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9i08sh$f50$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >Abomination is unique in the *same way* that an Embrace or a progeny is > >unique. > > The card text of Progeny: > > "This vampire is not considered unique" Yup ! > The card text of Embrace: > > "This vampire is not considered unique" okay ! > The card text of Creation Rites: > > "This vampire is not considered unique" right ! > The card text of Shock Troops: > > "These vampires are not unique" sure ! > > The card text of Abomination: > > "Unique" Arrrrrrrrrgh =( You killed all the hope i had in Abomination. so embrassing a garou is something so rare it is unique. Argh. Okay. I face it. I was wrong. I was really sincere though and didn't wanted to trick anyone. But just plain wrong. Hey, LSJ, no wine for you ;) I trade about 1200 Jyhad V:tes, DS, AH, sabbat, SW, FN cards for a single set of Lunch money. So i won't be ambarrassed by card text anymore =) reyda

FYI to those not familiar with WoD, Aboms are very rare, hence why I can see uniqueness required. Almost got me scared they *DIDNT* make it unique. Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Vince "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9i0cg8$ijv$1...@neon.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ]

>FYI to those not familiar with WoD, Aboms are very rare, hence why I can see >uniqueness required. Almost got me scared they *DIDNT* make it unique. In the story-line and setting they are extremely rare. Not only is it difficult to successfully embrace one, but werewolves will try to hunt it down. In addition, I'm sure most vampires will want to kill it since I don't think most Princes would like the idea of vampiric werewolf-thingies running around. And rest assured that an Abomination is indeed much more of an abomination than just about every other supernatural (so Hunters and The Technocracy will be after it as well). In addition, all Abominations also suffer from Harano Gloom, which I guess is pretty much like severe depression the power of ten. So they often tend to be suicidal and/or reckless which shortens their life spans even more... Of course I'm not really a Werewolf: The Apocalpyse expert so feel free to correct me. (Hey, how about Embraced Anasazi and Embraced Mokoles?). Halcyan 2

>In the story-line and setting they are extremely rare. Not only is it >difficult >to successfully embrace one, but werewolves will try to hunt it down. In >addition, I'm sure most vampires will want to kill it since I don't think >most >Princes would like the idea of vampiric werewolf-thingies running around. And >rest assured that an Abomination is indeed much more of an abomination than >just about every other supernatural (so Hunters and The Technocracy will be >after it as well). And I forgot to mention: Even though Abominations are extremely rare in the setting, they really aren't *that* rare mechanics-wise (some book gives mechanics on how to develop an Abomination). Something about when the vampire Embraces the werewolf, the werewolf has to make a Gnosis roll. I guess it simply dies or something if it succeeds, but it only becomes an Abomination if it actually botches its roll. Halcyan 2

> Granted an abomination is a nice minion to have, but its cost is exorbanent > The following is the cost to get out an abomination (unique vampire with 4 > blood) > > (5 for garou + 1 for recruit action + 1 for abomination + 1 for abomination > action + 4 transfered blood from abominatee) = 12 Blood for a kick ass > little 4 capacity vampire. > > Frankly id rather transfer out Parmenides for 8 less blood or an inner > circle member for 1 less blood. > Yeah, you are right. please sent all your worthless Abominations to Norm Brown 404 Cane Dr. Lafayette, La. I would not recommend using Compel the Spirit to get the Garou back into play for free at Superior. That would also be a worthless move.

In message <82c154eb.01070...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> writes >I would not recommend using Compel the Spirit to get the Garou back >into play for free at Superior. That would also be a worthless move. You bad, bad man. Remind me to air-mail you some tequila or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:09:12 -0700, "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: >"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9hun94$3mq$1...@neon.noos.net... >> You must make a deck to revolve around it, yes. But each of the >abomination >> you create is worth the effort : 2 strength, an additional strike each >> round, an optional maneuver, a built in rush action > >The Garou already has all this without being abominated. Sure its good to >convert a werewolf pack into an abomination, but its not worth putting >werewolf pack in a deck when you could use Garous instead for 1 pool more. How about Black Spiral Buddy, for the !Gangrel? >> AND Superior protean on > >This is the only decent benifit I see from Abomination, is that the garou >can get PRO. However the Garou loses all its life and its regenerative >ability which REALLY sucks.To value this loss in blood terms, I would say >its about 4 blood loss equivalent to this minion (3 life and 1 for the >regenerative ability). But it GAINS the most important regenerative ability - it can hunt, and it requires agg damage to get rid of permanently. As it stands right now a Garou is starting to get pretty damned fragile. Only 3 life means that it's VERY easy to get rid of one; most decks that include combat can manage to do 3 points of damage. Of course a Garou rocks against Majesty-monkeys and weenie hordes. But against something that hits back, he starts to look like a big bleed of 5. >Yeah, they are vampires now which means memories of mortaility doesnt >protect them from Lazvernious, Donald oconner, Meshenka or other nasty >combat monsters. They also cant be left for dead after losing a battle. >(another AWESOME card for ally lovers). Of course, they can play Flesh of Marble and never lose a battle. >Werewolf pack? I dont see why anyone would chose to use werewolf pack >instead of Renegade (pack is utter crap only benefit is that it costs 4 >instead of 5). If for some reason you dont have enough renegade garous, I >can trade you some cheap so you dont have to handicap your werewolf deck >with the pack. ...Costs 4 instead of 5, and isn't a worthwhile target for someone to steal, Rush, or otherwise pre-emptively incapacitate. It DOES sort of mean that you're playing an Abomination deck, but just think of it this way; someone who Far Masteries, Lure-of-the-Serpents, or Entrances your Werewolf Pack has, well, a Werewolf Pack. Someone who steals your Garou is going to ruin your day, because the next Garou you bring out will be killed by your OLD Garou. Bleed of TEN! >Granted an abomination is a nice minion to have, but its cost is exorbanent >The following is the cost to get out an abomination (unique vampire with 4 >blood) > >(5 for garou + 1 for recruit action + 1 for abomination + 1 for abomination >action + 4 transfered blood from abominatee) = 12 Blood for a kick ass >little 4 capacity vampire. 4 pool for Werewolf Pack 1 pool for Abomination = 5 total pool cost, same as Renegade Garou 2 actions, one to get Pack, one to get Abomination - those pesky Gangrel have Freak Drive and can do it all in one go, although it DOES cost them a blood. So ACTUALLY, the Abomination costs exactly one more action than a Garou, if you do it right instead of just making up a bunch of numbers. as far as coming out full... Just let the damn thing hunt and play Flesh of Marble/Taste of Vitae in its first combat, refilling itself totally. Don't waste your time pitching a ton of blood onto it, unless you're making a Big-Ass Gangrel Bloat deck, in which case you just 5th Tradition all the blood back onto your Big-Ass Gangrel. If you need it to Rush right away, feed it 1 blood so it doesn't have to hunt. Then again, play Flesh of Marble/Taste of Vitae. >Giving this card more thougth makes me believe it really is wallpaper. Didn't think enough. >> > Abomination >> > Pool Cost: 1 >> > Unique. Requires a ready vampire. >> > +1 stealth action >> > >> > Burn an untapped werewolf ally (such as Renegade Garou, Werewolf >> > Pack or Black Spiral Buddy) in your ready region to put this card in >> > play. This card becomes a unique clanless Independent vampire of 4 >> > capacity with superior Protean. You may move up to 4 blood from the >> > acting vampire to this vampire. This vampire has +1 strength,gets an >> > additional strike each round and gets an optional maneuver each >> > combat. This vampire may attack any ready minion as a (D) action. -- Derek Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions. Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:iFAo8$BnQIR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <82c154eb.01070...@posting.google.com>, XZealot > <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> writes > >I would not recommend using Compel the Spirit to get the Garou back > >into play for free at Superior. That would also be a worthless move. > > You bad, bad man. I try. :) > Remind me to air-mail you some tequila or somethin I'll take some scotch. I here they don't ship the good stuff out of th UK. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9i07oc$e18$1...@neon.noos.net... > The Abomination can benefit from a hunting ground, a blood doll, can even > call votes, rescue or diablerize a torporized vampire or play nice cards > like Taste of vitae and Wake with evening's freshness to maximize his > chances of getting in combat. A Garou certainly cannot do that. A Garou can > be stolen with Presence, Dominate, Dementation, Serpentis card, can be > burned in a single Necromancy action. Abomination is immune to that. And > Abomination can kick Stanislava's butt : +3 Fun =) You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a vampire. Garous will not succumb to obedience (bad doggie!), temptation, Hostile Takeover, temptation of greater power, form of corruption, vampiric disease, society of leopold and best of all in a combat situation Garous treat aggravated damage like normal!!!. Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or encounter vampires in torpor you are wasting a valuable resource. My Garou's love to kick Stanislava's butt just as much as your abominations but the Garou has the advantage in that the Garou doesn't car about Obedience or Aggravated damage. > You have to play Memories on those combat monsters before rushing... But > d'you think the Garou is immortal ? Carrion crow, Wolf companion, Inferior > entombment, Weather control, blood of acid, King of the mountain or other > environmental damage can burn it for real. The abomination simply goes to > torpor, and you'll rescue him. Yeah, you have to play Memories before rushing a combat monster vamp. I'd rather play a master and go in for the rush than waste an action abominating before I rush. At least the Garou will be protected from all damage from opposing vampire. Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to torpor or burn him "for real". > I'm also sorry for the bad news but Left for Dead only works during another > meth's Turn, if your Garou is burned in combat.... I see no use for this > card in a garou deck unless you dont' use them for rushing. which would be > ridiculous. Left for Dead being OOT only is certainly bad news, but my Garous block after they have equipped a leather jacket. They also often get rushed when some bad ass realizes he can actually kill one during his turn. Left for Dead is a great insurance card to keep my garou alive for my next turn. Cant do that with an abomination can you? So Garous should only be used for rushing, but Abominations should be vote callers and Diabliarists?? Your not following your own logic. > > And apparently they ARE unique only one abomination out on the table at a > > time. That really sucks if you are trying to make an abomination deck. > > Yes, Abomination is unique in the *same way* that an Embrace or a progeny is > unique. So you can have multiple in play but each one is a unique vampire. > Capice ? LSJ has already corrected you on this one, its unique making the card even more crappy. What will you do with all those other W. Packs after you get out your first Abomination? > I can see a reason to use Werewolf Pack : Abomination. Recruit them to > embrace them =) Even if your planning to Abominate them its worth the extra 1 blood to recruit and abominate a Garou instead, just incase you don't have the abominate in your hand. The W. Pack is also unique so if your abomination action is blocked you are SOL. > > (5 for garou + 1 for recruit action + 1 for abomination + 1 for > abomination > > action + 4 transferred blood from abominatee) = 12 Blood for a kick ass > > little 4 capacity vampire. > > Let's try another way. 4 Pool for the Werewolf pack (or black spiral buddy) > . 1 pool for the action. Move 1 blood to the Abomination, and during the > same turn, rush immediately a small vamp and taste back the 4 damage you've > inflicted to him. Voila ! 5 pool and 1 blood for the best fighter in the > v:tes sphere. Gee, why don't we just recalculate the cost to bring out arika, simply use a Tomb of RIII, just transfer blood on and off until she has 11 counters on the tomb and comes out empty, next turn Giants Blood her or 5th tradition. WOW inner circles only cost 3 pool to bring out!!! You have opened up my eyes, every vampire or card process is really cheap if I just have the right combination of cards and table set up. Hey maybe after I get Arika out and full for just 3 pool I can use Hostile Takeover to steal any vamp for 1 pool, it could happen right? ya know if everyone else just has 1 pool to bid with? > Just imagine you're packing a small Giovanni or a Sargon > Fragment in your deck : play Compel the spirit to put the Werewolf/spiral > buddy back on the table. There are so many things you can do if you only > make the effort to mack a deck revolve around it... Well hey, this is the first decent Idea you've come up with for this card. Double your garou double your fun! I like it! > The blood transferred from the acting vamp is *quite* different from your > pool. The Abomination costs *you* 5 Pool. For the same price, what's the > best you can get ?? Volker ? Raven ? Patrizia Giovanni ;) ? Actually its *not* that different. A blood or a pool its about the same thing. Blood goes into your pool regularly and pool always goes into vampires blood. Its very close to a 1:1 value. Actions can be assigned an inherent value of 1 blood since any vamp can hunt to gain 1 blood. Therefore, since you must take an action to recruit the garou and must take an action to abominate thats an extra 2 blood cost involved with abominating a vampire. A Garou's cost is 5 pool + 1 action, which equals more or less 6 pool. Creating an abomination w/4 blood from scratch costs as detailed above (11~12 pool) > > Giving this card more thought makes me believe it really is wallpaper. > Just trade them with me, then ! I am actively trading all my Abominations away. There is still a misperception that its a useful card. I'll take about any two R2 cards for one of my Abominations. Still think its a kick ass card? give me an offer. Brad Prince of NLV [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tkaacth...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward <br...@jakescrane.com> writes >You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire >combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a >vampire. In terms of *combat*, they are weaker, most generally. Once they lose their life, they die. No aggravated damage required for burn, no torpor etc. They die, they burn. That they are not, as a result, vulnerable to the increased power of agg damage is usually irrelevant since even an agg damage deck can normally throw together a few points of damage for damage prevention avoidance. They can't S:CE except for Smoke Grenades. They can't prevent damage except for Jackets. etc. (Left for Dead excepted.) >Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left >the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of >a hunting ground. Norm's "Do both" idea is just sick and depraved. Just add Necromancy. > If you are using your abomination to call votes or >encounter vampires in torpor you are wasting a valuable resource. My >Garou's love to kick Stanislava's butt just as much as your abominations but >the >Garou has the advantage in that the Garou doesn't car about Obedience or >Aggravated damage. However, the Abomination has the added advantages of: Flesh of Marble Claws of the Dead Taste of Vitae Earth Meld (if it ever gets sticky.... aargh, you blocked with him?!?! etc.) And so on. Can your Garou hit Stanislava with agg damage? Not easily. It's partly swing and roundabouts, partly taste. Some people's play styles suit some things and not others. >Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, >Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to >torpor or burn him "for real". True, but many similarly common combat tricks will kill your Garou. >So Garous should only be used for rushing, but Abominations should be vote >callers and Diabliarists?? Your not following your own logic. This isn't necessarily an "either/or". You get additional flexibility with the Abomination, at the expense of other abilities (e.g. the regeneration from the Garou, the agg from the Buddy etc.). Whether these are worth it *for you* is exactly why everyone has different play-styles. In the right situation, that ability to do Something Else (tm) with the Abomination could be a life-saver - and having the ability could just swing you a game. Or not. >LSJ has already corrected you on this one, its unique making the card even >more crappy. >What will you do with all those other W. Packs after you get out your first >Abomination? Play a Garou deck for extra fun, as has been noted. Burn, recycle. Yum. >Gee, why don't we just recalculate the cost to bring out arika, simply use a >Tomb of RIII, just transfer blood on and off until she has 11 counters on >the tomb and comes out empty, next turn Giants Blood her or 5th tradition. >WOW inner circles only cost 3 pool to bring out!!! You have opened up my >eyes, every vampire or card process is really cheap if I just have the right >combination of cards and table set up. If you're playing a Gangrel-ish combat deck, it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that you will have such cards to hand. The only difficult one was Taste, which is less popular in Gangrel combat due to the blood burning properties of aggravated damage. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses B457CA213D7E6 It's me Nono small robot you know - friend of Ulysses 68C3695D623D5D

> > Of course I'm not really a Werewolf: The Apocalpyse expert so feel free to > correct me. (Hey, how about Embraced Anasazi and Embraced Mokoles?). > > It's not possible to have embraced Mokole as they draw their power directly from the sun. Whenever it's been tried (Which I doubt is very often) the Were-creature involved has spent several hours of unbearably painful madness before dying. When Garou are embraced they are HIGHLY unlikely to survive. They make a Gnosis role which they have to botch to become an Abomination. So basically all they have to do is spend a willpower point to stop it happening, they still die, but they die peacefuly and are returned to Gaia. Realistically they have to have no rage and no willpower (Generally known as losing the wolf) before they can be embraced. I know of three abominations in The World of Darkness, and a shitload of vamps that have tried it. Basically, the card needs to be Unique. Not sure about Ananasi, they drink blood anyway, so it wouldn't be a tremendous stretch. But it may be possible. Tony Anarch of Luton

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:12:30 -0700, "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: >"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9i07oc$e18$1...@neon.noos.net... >> be stolen with Presence, Dominate, Dementation, Serpentis card, can be >> burned in a single Necromancy action. Abomination is immune to that. And >> Abomination can kick Stanislava's butt : +3 Fun =) > >You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire >combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a >vampire. But allies ARE, in fact, weaker than vampires -- which is why you see lots of vampires, and not that many allies. A Garou is a good ally, but he's only an ally. >Garous will not succumb to obedience (bad doggie!), temptation, Hostile >Takeover, temptation of greater power, form of corruption, vampiric >disease, society of leopold and best of all in a combat situation Garous >treat aggravated damage like normal!!!. But Garous WILL succumb to all those "usable only against a younger vampire or ally" cards, all those "steal/burn an ally" cards (which, by the way, DO get put into many decks), and when you punch them for 3, they go away PERMANENTLY. This is the big weakness of allies. When they die, they're GONE. If you don't have Necromancy, forget about getting them back. >Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left >the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of >a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or And he would die if someone threw a Sewer Lid at him, or played Pushing the Limit at inferior, or or or ... there are a lot of ways to get rid of a Garou in combat. The Abomination can HUNT. Not gain from a HG (although he can do that too), he can HUNT. +1 stealth action to gain a blood, which is one of the most valuable things about vampires. >encounter vampires in torpor you are wasting a valuable resource. My >Garou's love to kick Stanislava's butt just as much as your abominations but >Garou has the advantage in that the Garou doesn't car about Obedience or >Aggravated damage. Garou can't prevent damage, so Carrion Crows/punch for 1 turns him into a big old bleed of 5 -- while Stanislava goes from 11 blood to 9 blood. The Abomination, on the other hand, plays Flesh of Marble/Claws/Taste, and Stanislava hits torpor. >Yeah, you have to play Memories before rushing a combat monster vamp. I'd >rather play a master and go in for the rush than waste an action >abominating before I rush. At least the Garou will be protected from all >damage from opposing vampire. Masters are worth significantly more than actions. Memories of Mortality is an amusing card, but I think I'd rather have a Blood Doll or something USEFUL, myself. Besides, after you Memories all your prey's vampires and then oust him, what have you got? One measly VP, and a bunch of 100% wasted Master actions. No, I don't think so. >Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, >Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to >torpor or burn him "for real". None of them will burn him for real, because he plays the FREE COMBAT CARD "Flesh of Marble" at superior, and never takes more than one point of agg... meaning he might even be able to rescue HIMSELF from torpor. >Left for Dead being OOT only is certainly bad news, but my >Garous block after they have equipped a leather jacket. They also >often get rushed when some bad ass realizes he can actually kill one during >his turn. >Left for Dead is a great insurance card to keep my garou alive for my next >turn. Cant do that with an abomination can you? "I rescue the Abomination from torpor at +1 stealth." >So Garous should only be used for rushing, but Abominations should be vote >callers and Diabliarists?? Your not following your own logic. No, Abominations should be used for rushing and playing Flesh/Taste. But if you NEED them to, they can call a vote OR diablerize someone. >LSJ has already corrected you on this one, its unique making the card even >more crappy. >What will you do with all those other W. Packs after you get out your first >Abomination? (shrug) So I won't put 5 Packs and 5 Abomination cards in a deck -- instead I'll put 2 and 2. That leaves me a lot more room to do things BESIDES gain pool and toss in support cards for them. To answer your question: I'll go ahead and recruit the SECOND Pack, and then start playing a whole bunch of Amaranth cards with the first Abomination. Burn him in the bloodhunt? woohoo! Take an action, get him back... no problem. >Even if your planning to Abominate them its worth the extra 1 blood to >recruit and abominate a Garou instead, just incase you don't have the Someone will steal a Garou and use him against you. Nobody will steal a Werewolf Pack. >abominate in your hand. The W. Pack is also unique so if your abomination >action is blocked you are SOL. No, the Werewolf Pack stays around; you just have to take another Abomination action later if it gets blocked. I heartily recommend lots of "Form of Mist" (which you can use later with your Abomination to strike a blocker for 2, and then hit the guy you REALLY wanted to enter combat with afterwards). >> The blood transferred from the acting vamp is *quite* different from your >> pool. The Abomination costs *you* 5 Pool. For the same price, what's the >> best you can get ?? Volker ? Raven ? Patrizia Giovanni ;) ? > >Actually its *not* that different. A blood or a pool its about the same >thing. Blood goes into your pool regularly and pool always goes into >vampires blood. Its very close to a 1:1 value. Whoa, Nellie! This is a MAJOR misconception. One pool is worth significantly more than one vampire blood. When a vampire is out of blood, he gets to take a free +1 stealth action to gain 1 blood. There is no equivalent action for gaining pool. The closest anyone can come is Art Scam, which requires you to have a !Toreador AND have a card, making it vulnerable to not only intercept, but Direct Intervention (can't DI a hunt). This is why a 2-cap vampire with a Blood Doll is immensely valuable in the endgame. This is also why Hunting Grounds by themselves are not that useful, but Hunting Grounds combined with Blood Dolls are - the one blood is converted into POOL, which matters a lot more. Ask yourself this; you have Gilbert Duane in your controlled region, full. You have 7 pool. Donal O'Connor comes to bleed you with superior Govern+Conditioning. Do you block, and let Donal play Torn Signpost+Pushing the Limit for 6 blood off of Gilbert? Or do you just shrug off the 6-pool loss, since blood is worth just as much as pool and you're going to Minion Tap Gilbert on your turn anyway? Will you still feel the same after the Minion Tap gets Suddened? Blood is not 1:1 equal to pool... far from it! >Actions can be assigned an inherent value of 1 blood since any vamp can hunt >to gain 1 blood. Therefore, since you must take an action to recruit the >garou and must take an action to abominate thats an extra 2 blood cost >involved with abominating a vampire. This is a seriously mistaken assumption as well. I'm not sure where you get your math, but if you have a vampire that is taking no actions, you gain absolutely no benefit -- zero blood. Taking ANY action will STILL produce a benefit, even if it costs blood - so the "action baseline cost" needs, appropriately, to be measured as "zero blood and one action". You cannot mix the two; it really IS like comparing oranges and kittens. Put more clearly, if actions 'cost' 1 blood and hunting gains 1 blood, then you would be spending your action for no visible benefit, which is manifestly not true; hunting GAINS you a blood. Actions 'cost' zero blood, plus one action. >A Garou's cost is 5 pool + 1 action, which equals more or less 6 pool. >Creating an abomination w/4 blood from scratch costs as detailed above >(11~12 >pool) And you're just WAY off the deep end here, of course, with all kinds of airy, fictional constructs. But this paragraph isn't very relevant anymore, because of the above two. >I am actively trading all my Abominations away. There is still a >misperception that its a useful card. I'll take about any two R2 cards for >one of my Abominations. *snort* If it's so useless, you shouldn't expect more than commons for them. Or maybe spare vampires. But asking for two-for-one on rares? Come on, man, that means that Abominations have EXTREMELY good value in your eyes! We appreciate how you're coming to see things our way, though. I'll give you a couple Adaptabilities for Aboms. One to one. How's that? [ quoted text not captured ]

Bradly Ward wrote: > You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire > combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a > vampire. Garous will not succumb to obedience (bad doggie!), temptation, > Hostile Takeover, temptation of greater power, form of corruption, vampiric > disease, society of leopold and best of all in a combat situation Garous > treat aggravated damage like normal!!!. > > Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left > the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of > a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or > encounter vampires in torpor you are wasting a valuable resource. My > Garou's love to kick Stanislava's butt just as much as your abominations but > the Garou has the advantage in that the Garou doesn't care about Obedience or > Aggravated damage. My perception has always been that the generic ally is much weaker than the generic vampire, life-to-blood-capacity, strength, and bleed being equal. If you give the ally a regeneration ability of one life per turn, the ally will start to approach the vampire but he's still a long ways off. My perception of the aggravated damage thing and some of the other things that don't matter to allies is that they're fairly rare and exceptions, where the torpor vs. being burnt thing is much more important. Also, you can burn allies by with steal and burn blood functions and though such things are also relatively rare, the result is extreme and therefore this is also a fairly significant point. Fred

In message <9i4p68$eo$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >Marry me =) No fair, I saw him first. Isn't it good that you can wipe a monitor more easily than a print-out? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> Marry me =) reyda

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:40:50 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <9i4p68$eo$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >>Marry me =) > >No fair, I saw him first. > >Isn't it good that you can wipe a monitor more easily than a print-out? HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: yAN8tcPS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9i4p68$eo$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >Marry me =) > > No fair, I saw him first. Yeah ! but it's not my first proposal =) (i didn't try to make a research in google of "marry me" though !) > Isn't it good that you can wipe a monitor more easily than a print-out? You said it =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <blrbkts2pdi4fl76d...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET YOU WERE >TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! Can I have that for my sig-file sometime? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:18:38 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: >yAN8tcPS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <9i4p68$eo$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >> >Marry me =) >> >> No fair, I saw him first. > >Yeah ! but it's not my first proposal =) >(i didn't try to make a research in google of "marry me" though !) ...Third, in fact. =) Is this the "keep trying, he'll run out" theory? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <79ubktglrqtdfv8nn...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Is this the "keep trying, he'll run out" theory? I hope not. What use would an exhausted Derek be? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:05:28 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <79ubktglrqtdfv8nn...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Is this the "keep trying, he'll run out" theory? > >I hope not. > >What use would an exhausted Derek be? Well, I -do- have a couple permanents in play, so to speak. (heroically resists all jokes about "attempting to withdraw") [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> > >What use would an exhausted Derek be? > > Well, I -do- have a couple permanents in play, so to speak. > > (heroically resists all jokes about "attempting to withdraw") > > -- Derek wow ! now thanks to derek we're sure this group isn't moderated =)

In message <js4cktgrg485agba0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >(heroically resists all jokes about "attempting to withdraw") How do I transfer my pool to you? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:ApigXPfs...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <tkaacth...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward > <br...@jakescrane.com> writes > >You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire > >combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a > >vampire. > > In terms of *combat*, they are weaker, most generally. Once they lose > their life, they die. No aggravated damage required for burn, no torpor > etc. They die, they burn. That they are not, as a result, vulnerable > to the increased power of agg damage is usually irrelevant since even an > agg damage deck can normally throw together a few points of damage for > damage prevention avoidance. True, like vampires you try to keep the blood/life on your fella and take the opponents away. Vampires fall too when they are nocked to 0 blood. > Can your Garou hit Stanislava with agg damage? Not easily. Doesnt need to if I have memories of Mortalilty, just a trap will suffice. > >Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, > >Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to > >torpor or burn him "for real". > > True, but many similarly common combat tricks will kill your Garou. Actually none of the above combos will kill a garou w/3 life on their own. > >Gee, why don't we just recalculate the cost to bring out arika, simply use a > >Tomb of RIII, just transfer blood on and off until she has 11 counters on > >the tomb and comes out empty, next turn Giants Blood her or 5th tradition. > >WOW inner circles only cost 3 pool to bring out!!! You have opened up my > >eyes, every vampire or card process is really cheap if I just have the right > >combination of cards and table set up. > > If you're playing a Gangrel-ish combat deck, it's not entirely beyond > the realms of possibility that you will have such cards to hand. The > only difficult one was Taste, which is less popular in Gangrel combat > due to the blood burning properties of aggravated damage. Your right taste is the most difficult one and the one he was counting on reducing the cost by 3 blood, and assuming the opposing combatant was not going to do more than 1 normal damage to the Abomination. Thats a lot to assume.

> >You seem to think that an ally combatant is weaker than a vampire > >combatant. I see Garous as being much stronger because they are aren't a > >vampire. > > But allies ARE, in fact, weaker than vampires -- which is why you see > lots of vampires, and not that many allies. > > A Garou is a good ally, but he's only an ally. I think you missed the combatant part. Point in fact that Aggro doesnt send your ally to torpor. > >Garous will not succumb to obedience (bad doggie!), temptation, Hostile > >Takeover, temptation of greater power, form of corruption, vampiric > >disease, society of leopold and best of all in a combat situation Garous > >treat aggravated damage like normal!!!. > > But Garous WILL succumb to all those "usable only against a younger > vampire or ally" cards, all those "steal/burn an ally" cards (which, > by the way, DO get put into many decks), and when you punch them for > 3, they go away PERMANENTLY. Hence Dodges go good as combat defense, just like most decks out there have some form of combat defense/avoidance. > This is the big weakness of allies. When they die, they're GONE. If > you don't have Necromancy, forget about getting them back. Except for Left for Dead of course. > >Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left > >the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of > >a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or > > And he would die if someone threw a Sewer Lid at him, or played > Pushing the Limit at inferior, or or or ... there are a lot of ways to > get rid of a Garou in combat. Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) > The Abomination can HUNT. Not gain from a HG (although he can do that > too), he can HUNT. +1 stealth action to gain a blood, which is one of > the most valuable things about vampires. > > >encounter vampires in torpor you are wasting a valuable resource. My > >Garou's love to kick Stanislava's butt just as much as your abominations but > >Garou has the advantage in that the Garou doesn't car about Obedience or > >Aggravated damage. > > Garou can't prevent damage, so Carrion Crows/punch for 1 turns him > into a big old bleed of 5 -- while Stanislava goes from 11 blood to 9 > blood. The Abomination, on the other hand, plays Flesh of > Marble/Claws/Taste, and Stanislava hits torpor. Again, Dodge, Flack jacket, Leather Jacket, Vagabond mystic, or using the Garou's Natural Ability to manuever Long would stop him from falling to this trick. > >Yeah, you have to play Memories before rushing a combat monster vamp. I'd > >rather play a master and go in for the rush than waste an action > >abominating before I rush. At least the Garou will be protected from all > >damage from opposing vampire. > > Masters are worth significantly more than actions. Memories of > Mortality is an amusing card, but I think I'd rather have a Blood Doll > or something USEFUL, myself. Not really A master is worth about 1 pool and an action is worth about 1 blood, depending of course on the Action card or the MAster Card. With a Garou, Memories usually guarentees the kill of the biggest baddest vamp out there. > Besides, after you Memories all your prey's vampires and then oust > him, what have you got? One measly VP, and a bunch of 100% wasted > Master actions. No, I don't think so. You only need to use the Memories on the "problem vampires" like Lazvernius or other combat monsters. So only about 4 Memories are needed in a garou deck. > >Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, > >Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to > >torpor or burn him "for real". > > None of them will burn him for real, because he plays the FREE COMBAT > CARD "Flesh of Marble" at superior, and never takes more than one > point of agg... meaning he might even be able to rescue HIMSELF from > torpor. Yeah but even with Flesh of Marble your Abomination is still going to torpor(possibly burnt with amaranth), which now means any vamp can take an action to diabliarize it. > >Even if your planning to Abominate them its worth the extra 1 blood to > >recruit and abominate a Garou instead, just incase you don't have the > > Someone will steal a Garou and use him against you. > Nobody will steal a Werewolf Pack. I would steal a were wolf pack if I had the card in my hand, just as fast as I would steal a garou. > >abominate in your hand. The W. Pack is also unique so if your abomination > >action is blocked you are SOL. > > No, the Werewolf Pack stays around; you just have to take another > Abomination action later if it gets blocked. I heartily recommend > lots of "Form of Mist" (which you can use later with your Abomination > to strike a blocker for 2, and then hit the guy you REALLY wanted to > enter combat with afterwards). So now you DO want to pack lots of Abominations in your deck? > >> The blood transferred from the acting vamp is *quite* different from your > >> pool. The Abomination costs *you* 5 Pool. For the same price, what's the > >> best you can get ?? Volker ? Raven ? Patrizia Giovanni ;) ? > > > >Actually its *not* that different. A blood or a pool its about the same > >thing. Blood goes into your pool regularly and pool always goes into > >vampires blood. Its very close to a 1:1 value. > > Whoa, Nellie! This is a MAJOR misconception. One pool is worth > significantly more than one vampire blood. When a vampire is out of > blood, he gets to take a free +1 stealth action to gain 1 blood. > There is no equivalent action for gaining pool. The closest anyone > can come is Art Scam, which requires you to have a !Toreador AND have > a card, making it vulnerable to not only intercept, but Direct > Intervention (can't DI a hunt). Ever hear of Parity shift, blood doll, minion tap, tribute to the master, Nikolus Vermulan, Lazar Debrescu, and many other cards. > This is why a 2-cap vampire with a Blood Doll is immensely valuable in > the endgame. This is also why Hunting Grounds by themselves are not > that useful, but Hunting Grounds combined with Blood Dolls are - the > one blood is converted into POOL, which matters a lot more. Yes you have heard of blood doll! Around here 90% of the decks contain this card. Therefore 1 blood = 1 pool. > Ask yourself this; you have Gilbert Duane in your controlled region, > full. You have 7 pool. Donal O'Connor comes to bleed you with > superior Govern+Conditioning. Do you block, and let Donal play Torn > Signpost+Pushing the Limit for 6 blood off of Gilbert? Or do you just > shrug off the 6-pool loss, since blood is worth just as much as pool > and you're going to Minion Tap Gilbert on your turn anyway? > > Will you still feel the same after the Minion Tap gets Suddened? I try my luck with what combat defense I have in my deck. > Blood is not 1:1 equal to pool... far from it! I disagree its very close to 1:1 > >Actions can be assigned an inherent value of 1 blood since any vamp can hunt > >to gain 1 blood. Therefore, since you must take an action to recruit the > >garou and must take an action to abominate thats an extra 2 blood cost > >involved with abominating a vampire. > > This is a seriously mistaken assumption as well. > > Taking ANY action will STILL produce a benefit, even if it costs blood > - so the "action baseline cost" needs, appropriately, to be measured > as "zero blood and one action". You cannot mix the two; it really IS > like comparing oranges and kittens. > I'm not sure where you get your math, but if you have a vampire that > is taking no actions, you gain absolutely no benefit -- zero blood. I got my math from Calculus and Advanced Engineering Mathmatics College courses. However my addition is still pretty good from elementry school. Let me help you understand how an action is inheretly worth roughly 1 blood. Ok you were off to a good start, 0 actions = 0 blood.. very good. Now lets take an action oh, lets say, hmmm I dunno HUNTING? 1 hunting action = 1 gained blood. therefore if I hunted instead of Abominating a vampire My vampire would have 1 more blood on it. > >A Garou's cost is 5 pool + 1 action, which equals more or less 6 pool. > >Creating an abomination w/4 blood from scratch costs as detailed above > >(11~12 > >pool) > > And you're just WAY off the deep end here, of course, with all kinds > of airy, fictional constructs. But this paragraph isn't very relevant > anymore, because of the above two. Maybe now you understand that an action usually produces somthing worth blood/pool? The value of that somthing should be 1 blood or more, because if it's less than that you should have just hunted. And thats what im saying about Abomination. Its better just to Hunt and gain a blood than to Abominate because the outcome of Abomination is just not worth more than taking a hunt action. understand? > >I am actively trading all my Abominations away. There is still a > >misperception that its a useful card. I'll take about any two R2 cards for > >one of my Abominations. > > *snort* If it's so useless, you shouldn't expect more than commons > for them. Or maybe spare vampires. But asking for two-for-one on > rares? Come on, man, that means that Abominations have EXTREMELY good > value in your eyes! We appreciate how you're coming to see things our > way, though. Again you are having a little trouble paying attention to what I typed. I said there is a misperception of its value. For some reason people like you value Abomination you probably value Pokemon cards too. I value neither, but If I have a shitload of Pokemon cards im not just going to give them away, I understand that others value it and will trade nicely for it. If you still think Abomination is so cool, why dont you give me an Ex Nihilo, Week of Nightmares, or Ezmerelda for it? You sir are the one that doesnt value this card because you are only willing to part with an adaptability for it. Brad Prince of North LAs Vegas

In message <tkcle3c...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward <br...@jakescrane.com> writes >I think you missed the combatant part. Point in fact that Aggro doesnt send >your ally to torpor. He only has three life, however. Most aggro decks are capable of doing a couple of damage when they need to, to fight off minor damage prevention. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tkcle2c...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward <br...@jakescrane.com> writes >True, like vampires you try to keep the blood/life on your fella and take >the opponents away. Vampires fall too when they are nocked to 0 blood. Not true. Vampires fall when they go to negative. (In terms of normal damage.) >> Can your Garou hit Stanislava with agg damage? Not easily. > >Doesnt need to if I have memories of Mortalilty, just a trap will suffice. Opportunity cost, requirement for MoM, deck slots etc. These make powerful combos, of course, but suffer from the inherent limitations of combos. >> >Do you think Abominations are immortal? Burst of Sunlight, Blood of Acid, >> >Wolf Claws, Dawn opp, or Body Arsenal will all send you abomination to >> >torpor or burn him "for real". >> >> True, but many similarly common combat tricks will kill your Garou. > >Actually none of the above combos will kill a garou w/3 life on their own. No, I didn't say they would. "many similarly common". You've picked a handful of scenarios which will "kill" the Abomination (still with the possibility of rescuing) but not the Garou. Reverse situations are equally plentiful. However - Blood of Acid. You hit me for two with Mr Garou (2 strength) and I hit you for one. Isn't that three life? *ponders* e.g. Inferior Potence, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength. Superior Potence and Undead Strength. Inferior Potence - Thrown Sewer Lid Song of Serenity/Carrion Crows/Hand Damage (superior) And so on >> If you're playing a Gangrel-ish combat deck, it's not entirely beyond >> the realms of possibility that you will have such cards to hand. The >> only difficult one was Taste, which is less popular in Gangrel combat >> due to the blood burning properties of aggravated damage. > >Your right taste is the most difficult one and the one he was counting on >reducing the cost by 3 blood, If you're playing a deck with this combo in it, having four or five and a Storage Annex seems likely. (And the Gangrel can defend it, of course.) >and assuming the opposing combatant was not >going to do more than 1 normal damage to the Abomination. Thats a lot to >assume. It is. But Garou->Memories of Mortality->No environmental damage (This was Stanislava mentioned, remember) is similarly large. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:SLEE$KD1Nm...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <tkcle3c...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward > <br...@jakescrane.com> writes > >I think you missed the combatant part. Point in fact that Aggro doesnt send > >your ally to torpor. > > He only has three life, however. Most aggro decks are capable of doing > a couple of damage when they need to, to fight off minor damage > prevention. The Garou only has 3 life? Thanks for enlightening me. The abomination is only a 4 capacity Vampire that starts with 0 blood unless transfered to it by the abominatee. did you know that?

In message <tkd2p5g...@corp.supernews.com>, Bradly Ward <br...@jakescrane.com> writes >> He only has three life, however. Most aggro decks are capable of doing >> a couple of damage when they need to, to fight off minor damage >> prevention. > >The Garou only has 3 life? Thanks for enlightening me. > >The abomination is only a 4 capacity Vampire that starts with 0 blood unless >transfered to it by the abominatee. > >did you know that? I did. I also, however, know that just doing damage to the Abomination doesn't mean shit. Burn != torpor, a point which has been made repeatedly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:27:12 -0700, "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: >> But allies ARE, in fact, weaker than vampires -- which is why you see >> lots of vampires, and not that many allies. >> >> A Garou is a good ally, but he's only an ally. > >I think you missed the combatant part. Point in fact that Aggro doesnt send >your ally to torpor. So? 3 points of normal damage are far more common than 1 point of aggravated damage; it's simply easier to do. >> But Garous WILL succumb to all those "usable only against a younger >> vampire or ally" cards, all those "steal/burn an ally" cards (which, >> by the way, DO get put into many decks), and when you punch them for >> 3, they go away PERMANENTLY. > >Hence Dodges go good as combat defense, just like most decks out there have >some form of combat defense/avoidance. So much for putting Garous in as a sideline to my deck; now I need to put all KINDS of shit in to save them. Of course, I can put an Abomination in as a sideline to my deck, since it can just use all the Protean cards that I already have in there. >> This is the big weakness of allies. When they die, they're GONE. If >> you don't have Necromancy, forget about getting them back. > >Except for Left for Dead of course. Oh, you mean that "not-playable-on-your-turn" master that won't save your Garou when he rushes the wrong guy? >> >Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left >> >the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of >> >a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or >> >> And he would die if someone threw a Sewer Lid at him, or played >> Pushing the Limit at inferior, or or or ... there are a lot of ways to >> get rid of a Garou in combat. > >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see the weak ones. >> Garou can't prevent damage, so Carrion Crows/punch for 1 turns him >> into a big old bleed of 5 -- while Stanislava goes from 11 blood to 9 >> blood. The Abomination, on the other hand, plays Flesh of >> Marble/Claws/Taste, and Stanislava hits torpor. > >Again, Dodge, Flack jacket, Leather Jacket, Vagabond mystic, or using the >Garou's Natural Ability to manuever Long would stop him from falling to this >trick. Boy, that's real useful. Rush someone, maneuver to long... sit and feel small and foolish... and I notice that a couple more "save my Garou!" cards made it into your deck. So far you have about 30 support cards in the deck for the Garou. hint: if I have the means to kill your Garou in hand, I'm probably going to sit and let you send him after me, and then surprise you with your pants down. >> Masters are worth significantly more than actions. Memories of >> Mortality is an amusing card, but I think I'd rather have a Blood Doll >> or something USEFUL, myself. > >Not really A master is worth about 1 pool and an action is worth about 1 >blood, depending of course on the Action card or the MAster Card. With a >Garou, Memories usually guarentees the kill of the biggest baddest vamp out >there. These are groundless assumptions; you give absolutely no reasons or basis for why a Master is "1 pool" or why an action should be "1 blood". An excellent Master to use as a baseline is Ascendance. Free, gains you a pool, costs you a Master Phase Action. This would indicate that Masters should at LEAST gain you the equivalent of one pool, as opposed to COSTING you a pool. >> Besides, after you Memories all your prey's vampires and then oust >> him, what have you got? One measly VP, and a bunch of 100% wasted >> Master actions. No, I don't think so. > >You only need to use the Memories on the "problem vampires" like Lazvernius >or other combat monsters. So only about 4 Memories are needed in a garou >deck. *snort* This is a Garou *deck* now? Not a useful comparison since Abomination is unique and MUST be a sideline. However, I will note that many, many, MANY vampires can do 3 points of damage to your Garou. The 141 with Potence, for example, are real good at it. It's nice to glue Lazverinus' hands together, but seriously, now. >> None of them will burn him for real, because he plays the FREE COMBAT >> CARD "Flesh of Marble" at superior, and never takes more than one >> point of agg... meaning he might even be able to rescue HIMSELF from >> torpor. > >Yeah but even with Flesh of Marble your Abomination is still going to >torpor(possibly burnt with amaranth), which now means any vamp can take an >action to diabliarize it. Torpor isn't burnt, as we've pointed out over and over again. Many, many vampires visit torpor and return. Some on a regular basis (Ozmo). And oh, no, someone might DIABLERIZE IT! AAIEEE. OF course, they have to survive the Blood Hunt AND get the zero-stealth diablerie action through. Oh, and hey, I just realized - the Abomination can play Movement of the Slow Body while he's in torpor! Now I realize no Gangrel deck would EVER include MotSB... ("sarcasm" sign flashing) Your responses are beginning to get a very hysterical tone to them. >> Someone will steal a Garou and use him against you. >> Nobody will steal a Werewolf Pack. > >I would steal a were wolf pack if I had the card in my hand, just as fast as >I would steal a garou. This statement speaks for itself. >> Whoa, Nellie! This is a MAJOR misconception. One pool is worth >> significantly more than one vampire blood. When a vampire is out of >> blood, he gets to take a free +1 stealth action to gain 1 blood. >> There is no equivalent action for gaining pool. The closest anyone >> can come is Art Scam, which requires you to have a !Toreador AND have >> a card, making it vulnerable to not only intercept, but Direct >> Intervention (can't DI a hunt). > > Ever hear of Parity shift, blood doll, minion tap, tribute to the master, >Nikolus Vermulan, Lazar Debrescu, and many other cards. Parity Shift requires a Prince/Justicar, AND that someone have more pool than you; an enormous set of conditions. In contrast, ANY vampire may hunt. The rest are, unfortunately, not actions, as I had specified above. (individual vampire special abilities do NOT compare with hunting, an action even a skill-cardless Embrace can take.) Literacy in Las Vegas: not on the rise. >> This is why a 2-cap vampire with a Blood Doll is immensely valuable in >> the endgame. This is also why Hunting Grounds by themselves are not >> that useful, but Hunting Grounds combined with Blood Dolls are - the >> one blood is converted into POOL, which matters a lot more. > >Yes you have heard of blood doll! Around here 90% of the decks contain this >card. Therefore 1 blood = 1 pool. The illiteracy strikes again. You offer no response other than "it does too!" and only a weak basis for any reasoning. A Blood Doll allows you to convert 1 blood to 1 pool, but without the Blood Doll your blood isn't even REMOTELY worth 1 pool. If blood *on a vampire* was worth the same as 1 pool, more people would play with Hunting Grounds... which they don't. Blood Doll's popularity comes from the ability to convert vampire blood (not worth much) to pool (worth lots). >> Signpost+Pushing the Limit for 6 blood off of Gilbert? Or do you just >> shrug off the 6-pool loss, since blood is worth just as much as pool >> and you're going to Minion Tap Gilbert on your turn anyway? >> >> Will you still feel the same after the Minion Tap gets Suddened? > >I try my luck with what combat defense I have in my deck. Another non-response. >> Blood is not 1:1 equal to pool... far from it! > >I disagree its very close to 1:1 Another non-response. >> This is a seriously mistaken assumption as well. >> >> Taking ANY action will STILL produce a benefit, even if it costs blood >> - so the "action baseline cost" needs, appropriately, to be measured >> as "zero blood and one action". You cannot mix the two; it really IS >> like comparing oranges and kittens. > >> I'm not sure where you get your math, but if you have a vampire that >> is taking no actions, you gain absolutely no benefit -- zero blood. > >I got my math from Calculus and Advanced Engineering Mathmatics College >courses. However my addition is still pretty good from elementry school. >Let me help you understand how an action is inheretly worth roughly 1 blood. >Ok you were off to a good start, 0 actions = 0 blood.. very good. Now lets >take an action oh, lets say, hmmm I dunno HUNTING? 1 hunting action = 1 >gained blood. therefore if I hunted instead of Abominating a vampire My >vampire would have 1 more blood on it. Another graduate of the "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, my cat is a dog" school of logic, I see. As I stated above, taking an action produces a benefit. Actions have no inherent "cost"; the ability to take the action itself is a Good Thing. You are basing your entire idea on "well, this is what I COULD'VE done" without realizing that very few benefits have a direct parallel in vampire blood. >Maybe now you understand that an action usually produces somthing worth >blood/pool? The value of that somthing should be 1 blood or more, because >if it's less than that you should have just hunted. And thats what im >saying about Abomination. Its better just to Hunt and gain a blood than to >Abominate because the outcome of Abomination is just not worth more than >taking a hunt action. Of course, you haven't shown it - all you've shown is that Garous are a lot weaker and require a whole bunch more support cards to save them than an Abomination, which only requires Flesh of Marble. I get the feeling you're going to keep saying this stuff until someone's Abomination rips your entire deck a new asshole, aren't you? >> *snort* If it's so useless, you shouldn't expect more than commons >> for them. Or maybe spare vampires. But asking for two-for-one on >> rares? Come on, man, that means that Abominations have EXTREMELY good >> value in your eyes! We appreciate how you're coming to see things our >> way, though. > >Again you are having a little trouble paying attention to what I typed. I >said there is a misperception of its value. For some reason people like you >value Abomination you probably value Pokemon cards too. I value neither, >but If I have a shitload of Pokemon cards im not just going to give them >away, I understand that others value it and will trade nicely for it. No, Rosco. I'm going to give you what YOU think it's worth, because otherwise I'd be "overpaying" you. And because you don't think it's worth anything, I'm going to get a hell of a deal on this transaction from my point of view -- or I'm going to go elsewhere and leave you STUCK with your Abomination and *nothing* in trade, because I don't HAVE to have the Abomination. Basic economics lesson: A thing is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. >If you still think Abomination is so cool, why dont you give me an Ex >Nihilo, Week of Nightmares, or Ezmerelda for it? You sir are the one that >doesnt value this card because you are only willing to part with an >adaptability for it. I'd immediately trade you a Week of Nightmares for it (if I had one). Not an Ex Nihilo, though; I can get more for those if I trade them to Pat. And I like the Ravnos, so I'm keeping my Ezmereldas. =P [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [snip] > 4 pool for Werewolf Pack > 1 pool for Abomination > > = 5 total pool cost, same as Renegade Garou > > 2 actions, one to get Pack, one to get Abomination - those pesky > Gangrel have Freak Drive and can do it all in one go, although it DOES > cost them a blood. actually, i beleive the garou ally has to be in your ready region, and i also beleive that the rulebook states that when you recuit an ally you place it in your uncontrolled region to show that it cannot act that turn. (i would have quoted the section but the WW site seems to be playing up again...) so you'd have to wait a turn to do it. But i'd defiately play with Abomination of i had it. For all those reasons stated previously..which i am sure you've all read. also, the actual angry dog in the Abomination picture looks kind of like this werewolf on a color divider from some Ravenloft AD&D Monstrous Compendium Folder expansion. which, i am sure, is another reason to play it....or not. but it does look cool. OT: That Nono quote in jame's .sig made me remember the cool sword/gun that ulysees had. i so wanted one of them when i was a kid. and the wrist shield thing. salem.

On 7 Jul 2001 06:58:25 -0700, salem_...@my-deja.com (salem christ) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> 2 actions, one to get Pack, one to get Abomination - those pesky >> Gangrel have Freak Drive and can do it all in one go, although it DOES >> cost them a blood. > >actually, i beleive the garou ally has to be in your ready region, and >i also beleive that the rulebook states that when you recuit an ally >you place it in your uncontrolled region to show that it cannot act >that turn. (i would have quoted the section but the WW site seems to >be playing up again...) Yep. Abomination card text specifies "ready region", so you WOULD have to wait a turn... giving you one turn's worth of blocking with the thing, if you feel like it. (Not to be confused with the Rom Gypsy ally, which can be tapped to give stealth despite being in your uncontrolled region. =) >so you'd have to wait a turn to do it. > >But i'd defiately play with Abomination of i had it. For all those >reasons stated previously..which i am sure you've all read. And, of course, there's always the good old-fashioned "the Abomination equips with Bang Nakh", just to add all kinds of terror to the table. Hmm... +3 strength, built-in additional strike, maneuver, and Rush. It looks JUST as nasty as Miller with an Art of Pain at that point. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a36647e2.01070...@posting.google.com>, salem christ <salem_...@my-deja.com> writes >actually, i beleive the garou ally has to be in your ready region, "Burn and untapped werewolf ally (such as...) in your ready region to put this card in play." >and >i also beleive that the rulebook states that when you recuit an ally >you place it in your uncontrolled region to show that it cannot act >that turn. [6.1.5] "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your uncontrolled region, even though it is controlled, to indicate that it cannot act...... At the end of the turn, any allies that were placed in your uncontrolled region (to indicate that they cannot act) are moved to your ready region." >so you'd have to wait a turn to do it. Hmm..... Optional: Get Bear Paw to fetch the Garou with The Summoning. Optional: Freak Drive. :) Recruit Garou At end of turn, bring it into the ready region At the end of your prey's turn, use your ready untapped Malkavian to play Abomination under Madness Network Get your friendly Giovanni/Sargon Fragment d00d to Compel the ally before the end of your next turn For that Gangrel/Malkavian/(Necromancy or Giovanni) deck that we all love. >OT: That Nono quote in jame's .sig made me remember the cool sword/gun >that ulysees had. i so wanted one of them when i was a kid. and the >wrist shield thing. Tried Ebay? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> And he would die if someone threw a Sewer Lid at him, or played > >> Pushing the Limit at inferior, or or or ... there are a lot of ways to > >> get rid of a Garou in combat. > > > >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) > > Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > the weak ones. You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." Who's the illiterate now? - Jason Bell

On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 19:45:28 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> >> >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) >> >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see >> the weak ones. > >You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the >difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." > >Who's the illiterate now? Spoken like a true USENET munchkin,... a CLASSIC grammar nitpick. I haven't seen one of these in a long time. Congratulations on totally ignoring the substance of the message and going DIRECTLY for the childish flame attempt. Someone able to discern the meaning behind my post would have easily understood that I don't care whether he included only Leather Jackets, only Flak Jackets, or both. It's that he was including these things in his deck at ALL, and adding additional moving parts to his sadly-flawed position that a Garou was better than an Abomination. But you? No, you successfully TOTALLY blew past all the meaning and went straight for the grammar flame. Good job! People have only been trying it for the last fifteen years; surely SOMEONE will see it your way this time...? No, guess not. Sit down, kid. You look like a dork. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <sFJ17.87884$Md.23...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) >> >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see >> the weak ones. > >You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the >difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." > >Who's the illiterate now? *sigh* Would you care to address the substance of the point made? That you're almost having to get permanents out to defend an ally (since a strong combat deck will ignore Dodge, however that might be done), thus considerably upping the cost?[0] Abomination just rushes and plays Flesh of Marble. He doesn't have to waste actions on Flak Jacket, or get it Heidelberged or Raved. [0] This is, so far as I can tell, the point being made. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Abomination just rushes and plays > Flesh of Marble. He doesn't have to waste actions on Flak Jacket, or > get it Heidelberged or Raved. Just a reminder: you cannot Heidelberg or Rave equipment to an ally, by card text. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9s6dktsnm6jocim4b...@4ax.com... > >> But allies ARE, in fact, weaker than vampires -- which is why you see > >> lots of vampires, and not that many allies. > >> > >> A Garou is a good ally, but he's only an ally. > > > >I think you missed the combatant part. Point in fact that Aggro doesnt send > >your ally to torpor. > > So? 3 points of normal damage are far more common than 1 point of > aggravated damage; it's simply easier to do. Maybe in your Meta game. Not around here, we are seeing Aggro or send to torpor cards and the occasional grapple deck. the point is mute, the abomination will be sent to torpor if he takes 1 aggro or 3 normal damage unless the abominatee transfers all 3 blood to him making the cost to create an abomination way too great. > >> But Garous WILL succumb to all those "usable only against a younger > >> vampire or ally" cards, all those "steal/burn an ally" cards (which, > >> by the way, DO get put into many decks), and when you punch them for > >> 3, they go away PERMANENTLY. > > > >Hence Dodges go good as combat defense, just like most decks out there have > >some form of combat defense/avoidance. > > So much for putting Garous in as a sideline to my deck; now I need to > put all KINDS of shit in to save them. I'm just pointing out that most decks would probably have some form of combad defense. If you have no defense for your little Abominations they will get burned or remain in torpor just as fast or faster than a garou would get burned. > Of course, I can put an Abomination in as a sideline to my deck, since > it can just use all the Protean cards that I already have in there. So now you are sidlining a deck with abominations when all you really need is plain old Garou. > >> This is the big weakness of allies. When they die, they're GONE. If > >> you don't have Necromancy, forget about getting them back. > > > >Except for Left for Dead of course. > > Oh, you mean that "not-playable-on-your-turn" master that won't save > your Garou when he rushes the wrong guy? Thats the one, I know ive had garou's die out of turn. Perhaps I just have more experience with playing Garou decks than you do. > >> >Sure an abomination can gain blood from a hunting ground, but if you left > >> >the poor guy as a Garou he would gain 1 life during untap without need of > >> >a hunting ground. If you are using your abomination to call votes or > >> > >> And he would die if someone threw a Sewer Lid at him, or played > >> Pushing the Limit at inferior, or or or ... there are a lot of ways to > >> get rid of a Garou in combat. > > > >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) > > Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > the weak ones. Not that you need all of them, but any ONE would suffice to prevent sewerlid or pushing the limit. Btw those cards I mentioned work on ALL vampires too not just sidlines for the garou. You want to see the weak allies, take a look at Werewolf pack. I dont understand some of your arguments "Garous are too strong, people will steal them from you so you should use W. Pack instead" and "Garou is too weak he needs to be turned into an abomination to be of good use". Perhaps if you didnt flip flop we could come to a consensus on this argument. My view has remained constant. These are my arguments: Abomination is not worth playing on Renegade Garou. Werewolf pack is too weak to put in any deck. So far only one point has been made that I seen as a valid argument. That point is to Use Werewolf pack in a deck to give the appearance of being a very stupid methuselah and then surprise them when you abominate the werewolf pack and have a decent fighter thats similar to the renegade Garou. > >> Garou can't prevent damage, so Carrion Crows/punch for 1 turns him > >> into a big old bleed of 5 -- while Stanislava goes from 11 blood to 9 > >> blood. The Abomination, on the other hand, plays Flesh of > >> Marble/Claws/Taste, and Stanislava hits torpor. > > > >Again, Dodge, Flack jacket, Leather Jacket, Vagabond mystic, or using the > >Garou's Natural Ability to manuever Long would stop him from falling to this > >trick. > > Boy, that's real useful. Rush someone, maneuver to long... sit and > feel small and foolish... and I notice that a couple more "save my > Garou!" cards made it into your deck. So far you have about 30 > support cards in the deck for the Garou. So far I have any ONE of the 30 cards that would defend the garou wonderfully against combat. > hint: if I have the means to kill your Garou in hand, I'm probably > going to sit and let you send him after me, and then surprise you with > your pants down. Sure wait around and ill be sure to play memories on that vampire with POT during my next master phase and proceed to rape that vampire and your other weaker vamps with my garous. > >> Masters are worth significantly more than actions. Memories of > >> Mortality is an amusing card, but I think I'd rather have a Blood Doll > >> or something USEFUL, myself. > > > >Not really A master is worth about 1 pool and an action is worth about 1 > >blood, depending of course on the Action card or the MAster Card. With a > >Garou, Memories usually guarentees the kill of the biggest baddest vamp out > >there. > > These are groundless assumptions; you give absolutely no reasons or > basis for why a Master is "1 pool" or why an action should be "1 > blood". Of course it should be one, it could be greater, but if it doesnt produce somthing of 1 pool value you might as well of put an ascendance instead of whatever master you put in there. > An excellent Master to use as a baseline is Ascendance. Free, gains > you a pool, costs you a Master Phase Action. This would indicate that > Masters should at LEAST gain you the equivalent of one pool, as > opposed to COSTING you a pool. Mr. Flip flop, which is it? Baseline a masterphase as 1 pool (ascendance) or not? First you say its groundless then you proceed to show that ascendance baselines a masterphase action as at least 1 pool. > >> Besides, after you Memories all your prey's vampires and then oust > >> him, what have you got? One measly VP, and a bunch of 100% wasted > >> Master actions. No, I don't think so. > > > >You only need to use the Memories on the "problem vampires" like Lazvernius > >or other combat monsters. So only about 4 Memories are needed in a garou > >deck. > > *snort* This is a Garou *deck* now? Not a useful comparison since > Abomination is unique and MUST be a sideline. And why it sucks as a card. > However, I will note that many, many, MANY vampires can do 3 points of > damage to your Garou. The 141 with Potence, for example, are real > good at it. It's nice to glue Lazverinus' hands together, but > seriously, now. Lets just give you a taste of your own logic: "now you need 141 vampires to kill a garou? Sounds pretty tough to me!" > >> None of them will burn him for real, because he plays the FREE COMBAT > >> CARD "Flesh of Marble" at superior, and never takes more than one > >> point of agg... meaning he might even be able to rescue HIMSELF from > >> torpor. > > > >Yeah but even with Flesh of Marble your Abomination is still going to > >torpor(possibly burnt with amaranth), which now means any vamp can take an > >action to diabliarize it. > > Torpor isn't burnt, as we've pointed out over and over again. It is out of commission for an abomination > Many, many vampires visit torpor and return. Some on a regular basis > (Ozmo). And oh, no, someone might DIABLERIZE IT! AAIEEE. OF course, > they have to survive the Blood Hunt AND get the zero-stealth diablerie > action through. Wow you must have a very non-competative metagame. Perhaps your people dont use intercept or stealth which makes those +1 stealth rescue/hunt actions unblockable and those 0 stealth diabliarie actions always blockable. In our metagame when you go to rescue a vampire its probably blocked or the ensuing hunt is blocked sending that pretty Abomination back in topor and you into a slippery slope of blood loss. > Oh, and hey, I just realized - the Abomination can play Movement of > the Slow Body while he's in torpor! Now I realize no Gangrel deck > would EVER include MotSB... ("sarcasm" sign flashing) > > Your responses are beginning to get a very hysterical tone to them. > > >> Someone will steal a Garou and use him against you. > >> Nobody will steal a Werewolf Pack. > > > >I would steal a were wolf pack if I had the card in my hand, just as fast as > >I would steal a garou. > > This statement speaks for itself. Guess you would just sit around leaving your prey with a W. Pack and hold on to that precious Far MAstery incase something better came along. Unless My predator was a Garou Deck, I would use my Far mastery on a W. Pack right away. IT would probably be the only ally comming out all game. > >> Whoa, Nellie! This is a MAJOR misconception. One pool is worth > >> significantly more than one vampire blood. When a vampire is out of > >> blood, he gets to take a free +1 stealth action to gain 1 blood. > >> There is no equivalent action for gaining pool. The closest anyone > >> can come is Art Scam, which requires you to have a !Toreador AND have > >> a card, making it vulnerable to not only intercept, but Direct > >> Intervention (can't DI a hunt). > > > > Ever hear of Parity shift, blood doll, minion tap, tribute to the master, > >Nikolus Vermulan, Lazar Debrescu, and many other cards. > > Parity Shift requires a Prince/Justicar, AND that someone have more > pool than you; an enormous set of conditions. In contrast, ANY > vampire may hunt. > > The rest are, unfortunately, not actions, as I had specified above. > (individual vampire special abilities do NOT compare with hunting, an > action even a skill-cardless Embrace can take.) No they arent all actions. Although they are all cards that turn blood into Pool at a 1:1 ratio! > Literacy in Las Vegas: not on the rise. ??? > >> This is why a 2-cap vampire with a Blood Doll is immensely valuable in > >> the endgame. This is also why Hunting Grounds by themselves are not > >> that useful, but Hunting Grounds combined with Blood Dolls are - the > >> one blood is converted into POOL, which matters a lot more. > > > >Yes you have heard of blood doll! Around here 90% of the decks contain this > >card. Therefore 1 blood = 1 pool. > > The illiteracy strikes again. You offer no response other than "it > does too!" and only a weak basis for any reasoning. A Blood Doll > allows you to convert 1 blood to 1 pool, but without the Blood Doll > your blood isn't even REMOTELY worth 1 pool. If blood *on a vampire* > was worth the same as 1 pool, more people would play with Hunting > Grounds... which they don't. Blood Doll's popularity comes from the > ability to convert vampire blood (not worth much) to pool (worth > lots). You are the one flip flopping. You say Blood isnt nearly worth a pool and then go on to say that a 2 cap with a blood doll is Awesome. I replied by saying that blood dolls make 1 blood = 1 pool and that blood dolls are in 90% of the decks around here. Is this not logical support for my argument that blood is almost equal to pool? 90% of decks have blood doll so blood:pool is at least 0.9:1.0 > >> Blood is not 1:1 equal to pool... far from it! > > > >I disagree its very close to 1:1 > > Another non-response. only a non response to your non response and I get another non response response form you. > >> Taking ANY action will STILL produce a benefit, even if it costs blood > >> - so the "action baseline cost" needs, appropriately, to be measured > >> as "zero blood and one action". You cannot mix the two; it really IS > >> like comparing oranges and kittens. > > > >> I'm not sure where you get your math, but if you have a vampire that > >> is taking no actions, you gain absolutely no benefit -- zero blood. > > > >I got my math from Calculus and Advanced Engineering Mathmatics College > >courses. However my addition is still pretty good from elementry school. > >Let me help you understand how an action is inheretly worth roughly 1 blood. > >Ok you were off to a good start, 0 actions = 0 blood.. very good. Now lets > >take an action oh, lets say, hmmm I dunno HUNTING? 1 hunting action = 1 > >gained blood. therefore if I hunted instead of Abominating a vampire My > >vampire would have 1 more blood on it. > > Another graduate of the "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four > legs, my cat is a dog" school of logic, I see. I guess you are beyond comprehending that you can baseline an action by the Hunt action where a vampire recieves 1 blood. Tell me whats your school of logic? "all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 3 legs, my cat is a dog" You are not even making sense. > As I stated above, taking an action produces a benefit. Actions have > no inherent "cost"; the ability to take the action itself is a Good > Thing. You are basing your entire idea on "well, this is what I > COULD'VE done" without realizing that very few benefits have a direct > parallel in vampire blood. doing no action gives your vampire no benifit taking a hunt action gives your vamp 1 blood Compare Abominate to Hunt. Both +1 stealth actions, Abom costs you a pool and gets an abomination (near worthless conversion IMHO), Hunt gives your vamp a blood. So if an abomination is no better than a plain garou, you can't understand how hunting instead of abominating will make you end up with 1 more pool and 1 more blood? pull out a pen and paper to help you do the addition subtraction if you need to. You will find my math to be accurate. why is that so hard for you to understand? > >Maybe now you understand that an action usually produces somthing worth > >blood/pool? The value of that somthing should be 1 blood or more, because > >if it's less than that you should have just hunted. And thats what im > >saying about Abomination. Its better just to Hunt and gain a blood than to > >Abominate because the outcome of Abomination is just not worth more than > >taking a hunt action. > > Of course, you haven't shown it - all you've shown is that Garous are > a lot weaker and require a whole bunch more support cards to save them > than an Abomination, which only requires Flesh of Marble. No, you have tried to show that Garous are much weaker claiming Aboms advantage of using Flesh of marble. Flesh of marble isnt that great of a card, 1 agg still sends your abom to torpor where 1 agg wont send a garou to torpor. To sum up why I think a Garou is better left a garou here are some PRo's and Con's Garous benefits over abomination: Gains 1 life/turn Can utilize Ally cards (memories, Vagabond..) Immune to Vampire specific Cards (temptation, coma, pulled fang ...) Treats Aggrovated Damage as normal Abominations advantage over Garou Superior Protean Can utilize Vampire Cards and actions (Taste of Vitae, Hunt, Vote..) Immune to Ally cards (far mastery, Entrancement) In my opionion a plain garou can arguably be considered better than an abomination. And if you look at the extra cost of associated with abominating a garou (1 wasted card slot + 1 action + 1 pool loss + loss of all life counters on Garou) it becomes way inneffective to abominate your garous. > I get the feeling you're going to keep saying this stuff until > someone's Abomination rips your entire deck a new asshole, aren't you? Get cracking, put that deck together and get on JOL ill put my plain garou deck against your abomination deck any day. > >> *snort* If it's so useless, you shouldn't expect more than commons > >> for them. Or maybe spare vampires. But asking for two-for-one on > >> rares? Come on, man, that means that Abominations have EXTREMELY good > >> value in your eyes! We appreciate how you're coming to see things our > >> way, though. > > > No, Rosco. I'm going to give you what YOU think it's worth, because > otherwise I'd be "overpaying" you. And because you don't think it's > worth anything, I'm going to get a hell of a deal on this transaction > from my point of view -- or I'm going to go elsewhere and leave you > STUCK with your Abomination and *nothing* in trade, because I don't > HAVE to have the Abomination. So now if im not willing to trade it cheap I value the card, but if you aren't willing to trade nicely for it you are just being business smart? I'll go ahead and call you on your flip flop logic once again here. > Basic economics lesson: A thing is worth what someone is willing to > pay for it. Its also worth what someone is willing to sell it for. And for a more accurate value of an object you could average what people would pay for it alonge with averaging what price people sell it. The average value of Abomination is fairly decent. My value of Abomination is, well you know what it is. > >If you still think Abomination is so cool, why dont you give me an Ex > >Nihilo, Week of Nightmares, or Ezmerelda for it? You sir are the one that > >doesnt value this card because you are only willing to part with an > >adaptability for it. > > I'd immediately trade you a Week of Nightmares for it (if I had one). > Not an Ex Nihilo, though; I can get more for those if I trade them to > Pat. And I like the Ravnos, so I'm keeping my Ezmereldas. =P Get ahold of one and we have a deal! Btw I have 3 total Abominations im trying to get rid of. Brad

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: D3YAwNsH...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a36647e2.01070...@posting.google.com>, salem > christ <salem_...@my-deja.com> writes > >actually, i beleive the garou ally has to be in your ready region, > > "Burn and untapped werewolf ally (such as...) in your ready region to > put this card in play." > > > >and > >i also beleive that the rulebook states that when you recuit an ally > >you place it in your uncontrolled region to show that it cannot act > >that turn. > > [6.1.5] > > "If the action is successful, the ally is placed in your uncontrolled > region, even though it is controlled, to indicate that it cannot > act...... At the end of the turn, any allies that were placed in your > uncontrolled region (to indicate that they cannot act) are moved to your > ready region." > > >so you'd have to wait a turn to do it. > > Hmm..... As i thought, it's only a reminder, so you can legaly do the recruit action and the abomination on the same turn.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 10:10:37 -0700, "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:9s6dktsnm6jocim4b...@4ax.com... >> So? 3 points of normal damage are far more common than 1 point of >> aggravated damage; it's simply easier to do. > >Maybe in your Meta game. Not around here, we are seeing Aggro or send to >torpor cards and the occasional grapple deck. So nobody plays Carrion Crows, Disguised .44s, Sewer Lids, or any of the HUGE PILES of normal-damage cards? Everyone is playing the Gangrel, Tzimisce, and Lasombra in your metagame? Or wait, maybe an Ivory Bow or two thrown in? Sounds pretty weak. Not too much S:CE or Fortitude floating around either, I guess. >the point is mute, the abomination will be sent to torpor if he takes 1 >aggro or 3 normal damage unless the abominatee transfers all 3 blood to him >making the cost to create an abomination way too great. He will only be sent to torpor from agg, because he can play Flesh of Marble and shrug off that 3 normal damage. You have lots of Flesh of Marble in your deck anyway, because you're playing a PRO deck, right? Notice how I have only mentioned ONE CARD this whole time to protect the Abomination... which the rest of your deck can use, too. If I REALLY wanted to save its ass, I would put a few Adaptabilities in there to back up the Flesh of Marble, but that means building the deck around it more than I care to. I don't think I would ever blow all 4 blood to the Abomination, unless I was playing a big-ass Gangrel Bloat deck and could spend that much off a vampire easily. But 1 blood? Sure, no problem. >> So much for putting Garous in as a sideline to my deck; now I need to >> put all KINDS of shit in to save them. > >I'm just pointing out that most decks would probably have some form of >combad defense. If you have no defense for your little Abominations they >will get burned or remain in torpor just as fast or faster than a garou >would get burned. Uh, yeah. Most Gangrel decks have Flesh of Marble/Skin of Steel as combat defense, which your Garou can't use. Flak Jackets and Dodges and shit are extra card slots ONLY for the Garou. Pain in the ass. Of course, your Abomination can use Flesh of Marble. Surprise! >> Of course, I can put an Abomination in as a sideline to my deck, since >> it can just use all the Protean cards that I already have in there. > >So now you are sidlining a deck with abominations when all you really need >is plain old Garou. Except that an Abomination kicks more ass than a Garou. It has all the Garou's combat abilities. The Garou has regeneration, and the Abomination can hunt and will go to torpor instead of being burned. Oh, and the Abomination can play PRO cards. The math says "Abomination > Garou." >> >Except for Left for Dead of course. >> >> Oh, you mean that "not-playable-on-your-turn" master that won't save >> your Garou when he rushes the wrong guy? > >Thats the one, I know ive had garou's die out of turn. Perhaps I just have >more experience with playing Garou decks than you do. I think you're going to lose more Garou on THEIR rush than you will have people rushing it. Although I might be inclined to Cryptic Mission it twice after it Rushes someone, and vaporize it. Or Shadow Twin, even. Don't get me wrong, a Garou is a strong ally. But he's just an ally, when it's all said and done. >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see >> the weak ones. > >Not that you need all of them, but any ONE would suffice to prevent sewerlid >or pushing the limit. Btw those cards I mentioned work on ALL vampires too >not just sidlines for the garou. You want to see the weak allies, take a >look at Werewolf pack. You need a LOT of Leather Jackets to save you against someone who's trying to hit back, which reduces your Garou's effectiveness because he now has to go and get a new one every other turn. Flak Jacket: costs 1 pool, meaning your Garou now costs the SAME amount of pool as an Abomination. And still gets burned from a Pushing the Limit at superior (OR from picking a fight with the Abomination, which hits for 4 all on its own). >I dont understand some of your arguments "Garous are too strong, people will >steal them from you so you should use W. Pack instead" and "Garou is too >weak he needs to be turned into an abomination to be of good use". Perhaps >if you didnt flip flop we could come to a consensus on this argument. Then you should read better. I notice that every time you bitch about "flip flop", it comes directly from you totally misstating my points. You complain that you don't understand; well, you DON'T understand, and that's my point. The two above statements are totally separate points dealing with totally different facets of owning a Garou. If you can't understand that and follow it, then you're going to spend a lot of time frothing at the mouth until you DO understand. >So far only one point has been made that I seen as a valid argument. That >point is to Use Werewolf pack in a deck to give the appearance of being a >very stupid methuselah and then surprise them when you abominate the >werewolf pack and have a decent fighter thats similar to the renegade Garou. And you totally misunderstood THIS point, which just scares me. Do you READ at all, or are you in such a fury every time you read a post that you can't comprehend what's being said? Let me restate it in small words: If you're including Abominations purely as a sideline to your deck (and by this I mean 2 Abomination cards and 2 Garou cards), I would use a couple Werewolf Packs, because: - They cost 1 less pool - If someone steals it, they only have a Werewolf Pack No good player is going to be fooled by your bringing out a Werewolf Pack. The first thing they'll think is "well, THAT'll be turned into an Abomination later", because Werewolf Pack really IS that bad. The two REAL advantages are listed above. >> Boy, that's real useful. Rush someone, maneuver to long... sit and >> feel small and foolish... and I notice that a couple more "save my >> Garou!" cards made it into your deck. So far you have about 30 >> support cards in the deck for the Garou. > >So far I have any ONE of the 30 cards that would defend the garou >wonderfully against combat. Right. Now how will you oust people, and how will you guarantee that you draw that card by the time you need it? Duh. >> hint: if I have the means to kill your Garou in hand, I'm probably >> going to sit and let you send him after me, and then surprise you with >> your pants down. > >Sure wait around and ill be sure to play memories on that vampire with POT >during my next master phase and proceed to rape that vampire and your other >weaker vamps with my garous. Hint: Pushing the Limit at inferior kills a Garou. So does Torn Signpost/Undead Strength at inferior. Not to mention that Carrion Crows doesn't come from the vampire and isn't affected by Memories of Mortality. It won't kill a Garou outright, but it will on his next Rush since he'll only regenerate to 2 life. Memories of Mortality is cute (note: 1 pool cost, meaning that you're spending an awful lot more on your Garou than you admit), but the Garou is a weenie-buster -- sooner or later you HAVE to send him after a small vampire (3-cap with pot), and you WON'T have Memories of Mortality on him. >Of course it should be one, it could be greater, but if it doesnt produce >somthing of 1 pool value you might as well of put an ascendance instead of >whatever master you put in there. Which is something ENTIRELY different than COSTING you a pool. And you also ignore the fact that putting in a NON-master card is always an option, which removes the ACTUAL cost: one Master Phase Action. >> An excellent Master to use as a baseline is Ascendance. Free, gains >> you a pool, costs you a Master Phase Action. This would indicate that >> Masters should at LEAST gain you the equivalent of one pool, as >> opposed to COSTING you a pool. > >Mr. Flip flop, which is it? Baseline a masterphase as 1 pool (ascendance) >or not? First you say its groundless then you proceed to show that >ascendance baselines a masterphase action as at least 1 pool. Your statement WAS groundless. You provided absolutely no reasoning to back it up, and you said "a master phase COSTS a pool". I provided reasoning showing that in fact, a master phase costs you a master phase action, and should GAIN you a pool - the exact opposite of what you've been saying. How difficult is that to understand? Is English your first language? >> However, I will note that many, many, MANY vampires can do 3 points of >> damage to your Garou. The 141 with Potence, for example, are real >> good at it. It's nice to glue Lazverinus' hands together, but >> seriously, now. > >Lets just give you a taste of your own logic: >"now you need 141 vampires to kill a garou? Sounds pretty tough to me!" I accept your concession that 3 points of damage is a very common occurrence in the game, and mock you openly for failing to understand the statement. Again. >> Torpor isn't burnt, as we've pointed out over and over again. > >It is out of commission for an abomination Not when he gets rescued. Such a tragedy you can't rescue a Garou. >> Many, many vampires visit torpor and return. Some on a regular basis >> (Ozmo). And oh, no, someone might DIABLERIZE IT! AAIEEE. OF course, >> they have to survive the Blood Hunt AND get the zero-stealth diablerie >> action through. > >Wow you must have a very non-competative metagame. Perhaps your people dont Yes, we're all very weak players here in Atlanta. >use intercept or stealth which makes those +1 stealth rescue/hunt actions >unblockable and those 0 stealth diabliarie actions always blockable. In our >metagame when you go to rescue a vampire its probably blocked or the ensuing >hunt is blocked sending that pretty Abomination back in topor and you into a >slippery slope of blood loss. Taking some time to decode this statement of yours (write much?): Yes, plenty of people use intercept. And yes, plenty of people use stealth. Yes, sometimes your rescue action will be blocked - probably 50% of the time. Of course, a Protean deck would NEVER be packing Earth Control, which makes +3 stealth -- beyond the reach of casual intercept. But let's just assume that when your Abomination hits torpor, he's going to stay there 50% of the time. Guess what. When a Garou gets burned, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO GET HIM BACK, EVER. HE'S GONE FOR GOOD. Tell you what. Why don't you use your calculus and determine how much better 50% is than 0%? Don't forget to show your work. >> >I would steal a were wolf pack if I had the card in my hand, just as fast >as >> >I would steal a garou. >> >> This statement speaks for itself. > >Guess you would just sit around leaving your prey with a W. Pack and hold on >to that precious Far MAstery incase something better came along. Unless My >predator was a Garou Deck, I would use my Far mastery on a W. Pack right >away. IT would probably be the only ally comming out all game. No, I would not let my prey have a Werewolf Pack, because that is effectively a bleed of 4 if I take it, and it's a bad idea to let him turn it into an Abomination, which I can no longer Far Mastery. But what you don't seem to understand is that a Garou can, and WILL be stolen cross-table. Maybe YOUR metagame isn't all so strong itself, is it? I can feel safe that nobody is going to target my Werewolf Pack without an immediate reason. >> The rest are, unfortunately, not actions, as I had specified above. >> (individual vampire special abilities do NOT compare with hunting, an >> action even a skill-cardless Embrace can take.) > >No they arent all actions. Although they are all cards that turn blood into >Pool at a 1:1 ratio! However, I was specifying ACTIONS THAT ANY VAMPIRE MAY TAKE, specifically, HUNTING. Any vampire may hunt at +1 stealth, with NO CARD REQUIRED, to gain a blood. NOBODY may take a +1 stealth cardless action to gain a pool. The closest you can come, AS I SAID BEFORE, is the !Toreador using Art Scam. All by itself, this means that pool is worth more than blood. But you'll probably ignore this OBVIOUS show of evidence, I'm sure. >> Literacy in Las Vegas: not on the rise. > >??? Sort of reinforces my statement, I'm afraid. >> >Yes you have heard of blood doll! Around here 90% of the decks contain >this >> >card. Therefore 1 blood = 1 pool. >> >> The illiteracy strikes again. You offer no response other than "it >> does too!" and only a weak basis for any reasoning. A Blood Doll >> allows you to convert 1 blood to 1 pool, but without the Blood Doll >> your blood isn't even REMOTELY worth 1 pool. If blood *on a vampire* >> was worth the same as 1 pool, more people would play with Hunting >> Grounds... which they don't. Blood Doll's popularity comes from the >> ability to convert vampire blood (not worth much) to pool (worth >> lots). > >You are the one flip flopping. You say Blood isnt nearly worth a pool and >then go on to say that a 2 cap with a blood doll is Awesome. I replied by Correct. And a 2-cap with no Blood Doll is nowhere near as useful as one WITH a Blood Doll. That's exactly what I said. But you don't seem to comprehend basic English. >saying that blood dolls make 1 blood = 1 pool and that blood dolls are in >90% of the decks around here. Is this not logical support for my argument >that blood is almost equal to pool? 90% of decks have blood doll so >blood:pool is at least 0.9:1.0 No, it is NOT logical support. It is, in fact, way out in left field. Without the card, blood is not equal to pool. So your argument really is that "Blood + Blood Doll = Pool". If you never draw the Blood Doll, then your blood isn't equal to pool. If your Blood Doll gets Suddened, then your blood isn't equal to pool. Vampires who DON'T have a Blood Doll: their blood isn't equal to pool. And if you get bled for 6, your Blood Doll won't save you, because you can only get 1 back from it per turn. Blood on a vampire is NOT equivalent to pool, by a long shot! This has been a well-known principle for some time; it's sort of amazing that you don't seem to understand it. I mean, if blood on a vamp WERE equal to pool, why does everyone play with Blood Dolls and Minion Taps and Tributes? >> Another graduate of the "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four >> legs, my cat is a dog" school of logic, I see. > >I guess you are beyond comprehending that you can baseline an action by the >Hunt action where a vampire recieves 1 blood. Tell me whats your school of >logic? "all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 3 legs, my cat is a dog" You are >not even making sense. Gaining one blood is not the same as costing one blood, as I stated above with the same Master-card crap. Any action should produce an equivalent or better than gaining one blood. But actions don't COST blood - they cost an action! If you choose to leave a vampire untapped, that doesn't COST you a blood - it's simply a neutral decision. Taking a free action like Summon Soul doesn't COST you a blood - it just costs you an action. The road simply doesn't go both ways, and trying to make it do so produces the kinds of logic that you're blowing out your ass right now. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO NUMBERS. >> Of course, you haven't shown it - all you've shown is that Garous are >> a lot weaker and require a whole bunch more support cards to save them >> than an Abomination, which only requires Flesh of Marble. > >No, you have tried to show that Garous are much weaker claiming Aboms >advantage of using Flesh of marble. Flesh of marble isnt that great of a >card, 1 agg still sends your abom to torpor where 1 agg wont send a garou to >torpor. 3 damage won't burn an Abomination. 3 damage burns a Garou. Dead even, except it's a lot easier to do 3 points of damage than it is to do 1 point of agg. Point to me. Thanks for playing! >To sum up why I think a Garou is better left a garou here are some PRo's and >Con's > >Garous benefits over abomination: >Gains 1 life/turn >Can utilize Ally cards (memories, Vagabond..) >Immune to Vampire specific Cards (temptation, coma, pulled fang ...) >Treats Aggrovated Damage as normal > >Abominations advantage over Garou >Superior Protean >Can utilize Vampire Cards and actions (Taste of Vitae, Hunt, Vote..) >Immune to Ally cards (far mastery, Entrancement) You forgot "goes to torpor instead of being burned", which is a MAJOR advantage, and the primary reason allies are weaker than vampires. >> I get the feeling you're going to keep saying this stuff until >> someone's Abomination rips your entire deck a new asshole, aren't you? > >Get cracking, put that deck together and get on JOL ill put my plain garou >deck against your abomination deck any day. That's not what I was saying, of course, but if I WERE to do that, you'd lose out of hand; it's a LOT easier to hose allies than it is to hose vampires. Plenty of Flesh of Marble in the deck means that I will be shrugging off your Garou's damage completely; plenty of Trap/Carrion Crows means that your Garou will be dying left and right, no matter what Leather Jackets, Flak Jackets, or Memories of Mortality you have floating around. And Trap/CC/Flesh of Marble works just as well against vampires! Whee! It's a shame that the Abomination can't play the Carrion Crows, but the Taste of Vitae will make up for it during the Trap/Flesh of Marble. And those Tastes will work to put blood back onto my vampires as well... Oh yeah, I can see a Garou deck being VERY rudely spanked this way. Not to mention that if I'm REALLY worried about my vampires, I'll toss in a few Adaptabilities and completely shrug off aggravated damage... damn shame. I haven't even touched my OWN Master slots yet, so I'd say a lot of Blood Dolls are in order - probably a Hunting Ground (which the Garou can't benefit from), maybe a Guardian Angel or two, who knows? *MY* master slots aren't tied up with Memories of Mortality. Equipment and Masters are nice, but the disciplines available to vampires really make them head-over-heels better than allies, even a good ally such as the Garou. >> No, Rosco. I'm going to give you what YOU think it's worth, because >> otherwise I'd be "overpaying" you. And because you don't think it's >> worth anything, I'm going to get a hell of a deal on this transaction >> from my point of view -- or I'm going to go elsewhere and leave you >> STUCK with your Abomination and *nothing* in trade, because I don't >> HAVE to have the Abomination. > >So now if im not willing to trade it cheap I value the card, but if you >aren't willing to trade nicely for it you are just being business smart? >I'll go ahead and call you on your flip flop logic once again here. I'm starting to figure this out; every time I use words with a lot of syllables in them, you start spouting "flip flop". >> Basic economics lesson: A thing is worth what someone is willing to >> pay for it. > >Its also worth what someone is willing to sell it for. And for a more Wrong answer. There are/were plenty of people trying to sell Mariana Gilbert on e-Bay for $70, and they aren't finding buyers. Therefore, Mariana Gilbert is NOT worth $70. Again, this is basic economics. Ever take one of those courses? Note that if no transaction takes place, BOTH participants lose -- but the person "selling" something loses more, because he wants to get RID of what he's got, and change his status quo. In your case, it's extreme, because you have something you consider to be worth nothing. Eventually, your "price" will come down, and I as the buyer simply have to be patient. >accurate value of an object you could average what people would pay for it >alonge with averaging what price people sell it. The average value of >Abomination is fairly decent. My value of Abomination is, well you know >what it is. Wrong. The value of a thing is what someone is willing to pay for it. Right now, the value of an Abomination is one Week of Nightmares, because that's the only known agreed transaction value. If someone is willing to give you "more" for an Abomination, then you should trade with THEM, because that'll be the NEW value. What you want to sell it for doesn't matter. Have you noticed that you asked more for it to start with? You're already coming down on your price. That's because I don't mind being stuck with a Week of Nightmares, whereas you HATE the thought of being stuck with an Abomination. Isn't economics fun? >Get ahold of one and we have a deal! Btw I have 3 total Abominations im >trying to get rid of. I'll only trade one WoN for it, though; it'll be enough of a nuisance just getting one of those. In retrospect, offering Adaptabilities is dumb if I want Abominations, since they ARE a useful card for the thing. How about Memories of Mortality? Got enough of those? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > wrote: > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> > >> >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) > >> > >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > >> the weak ones. > > > >You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the > >difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." > > > >Who's the illiterate now? > > Spoken like a true USENET munchkin,... a CLASSIC grammar nitpick. I > haven't seen one of these in a long time. Congratulations on totally > ignoring the substance of the message and going DIRECTLY for the > childish flame attempt. Hypocrite. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> >Unless he dodged, or had a Jacket (leather or Flack) > >> > >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > >> the weak ones. > > > >You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the > >difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." > > > >Who's the illiterate now? > > *sigh* > > Would you care to address the substance of the point made? I'm afraid it has gone too far for that in the case of Derek. He insisted on labeling the poster he disagreed with an illiterate because they disagreed on the value of a Jyhad card. He did this repeatedly, so I figured I'd tweak him for his behavior. Unless you wish to defend Derek's charges of illiteracy, it is unclear to me why you should stick your head in at this point. > That you're > almost having to get permanents out to defend an ally (since a strong > combat deck will ignore Dodge, however that might be done), thus > considerably upping the cost?[0] Abomination just rushes and plays > Flesh of Marble. He doesn't have to waste actions on Flak Jacket, or > get it Heidelberged or Raved. I'd actually prefer to address the larger point, that the player using Abomination requires 2 cards, 6 pool, 3 blood off the vampire, and 2 actions to bring a 4 cap into play, when he could have stopped at 1 action, 1 card, and 5 pool to have the same abilities plus regeneration. I believe the advantages of being a vampire are not sufficient for the effort, and I don't believe that I am illiterate for so believing (nor was the original poster, in my opinion). And by the way, most of this debate has focused on the difficulty of being a Garou in the world of Potence, which is just about the only discipline which can easily deal with him (unless he has a bit of equipment). Most days, if my Garou isn't headed off at the pass (recruit time), he frolics in the land of vampires until one of my opponents digs up a Big Answer or a card combo. And if my neighbor is a Potence rush, Garou just stays in my hand or is shipped off to ash heap land come discard time, as I dig for my claws. The only piece of equipment my Garou ever seems to get is a Leather Jacket, which most days makes my predator do something else for a while, and makes getting rid of him an enormous hassle. Once I gave him an Ivory Bow, that was pretty nice. That's as many cards and actions as are required for the Abomination to even be played, let alone needing the extra blood to feed him, and the Marbles as suggested. I doubt seriously that I will ever play Abomination, and I further doubt that I will ever play in a situation where an Abomination beats me though the Garou would not have. And if I'm ever unfortunate enough to play the thing, I'm sure I'll have it in my hand with no Garou in sight, and I'll feel like an idiot for being so stupid as to waste a card slot for it. Until then, I'll use my Ivory Bow or Leather Jacket on my Garou if he's around, or on another minion if he's not. But mostly, I'll rely on strategies that require other Methuselahs to burn my Garou, not a strategy where I do it for them. - Jason Bell

On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:13:20 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >I'm afraid it has gone too far for that in the case of Derek. Oh-oh! Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jason Bell: net.cop. >He insisted on labeling the poster he disagreed with an >illiterate because they disagreed on the value of a >Jyhad card. He did this repeatedly, so I figured I'd >tweak him for his behavior. Unless you wish to defend >Derek's charges of illiteracy, it is unclear to me why >you should stick your head in at this point. *snort* Will you threaten to beat me up next? Congratulations on joining my fan club. I had a couple like you for awhile; people who just couldn't handle the way I said things, and broke into tears at the thought that I might actually be MEAN to someone. And then they followed me around over and over saying, god forbid, BAD THINGS. If you don't like what I'm saying, you are perfectly welcome to killfile me. >I'd actually prefer to address the larger point, that the >player using Abomination requires 2 cards, 6 pool, >3 blood off the vampire, and 2 actions to bring a >4 cap into play, when he could have stopped >at 1 action, 1 card, and 5 pool to have the same >abilities plus regeneration. I believe the advantages >of being a vampire are not sufficient for the >effort, and I don't believe that I am illiterate for >so believing (nor was the original poster, in my >opinion). I dunno, you could've fooled me. I could've sworn that in several different places I've corrected you AND the other poster on the actual costs of an Abomination. You do need 2 cards (garou ally and Abomination). You need 5 pool, not 6 (4 for W. Pack, 1 for Abom). This has been stated in several different places, repeatedly. You do not HAVE to spend any blood off the vampire, which has also been stated in several different places. Probably you should spend 1 so the thing doesn't have to hunt, but otherwise not necessary. You can also spend a maximum of 4 blood off the vamp, not 3 - leading me to believe that you haven't read the card itself. You do require 2 actions. So far, by the way, you're answering your own statement as to why I keep calling people illiterate; ALL OF THIS SHIT YOU COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT ON YOUR OWN BY READING THE CARD, OR BY READING MY POSTS WHERE I EXPLAIN IT IN WORDS OF ONE SYLLABLE. When you make stupid, incorrect statements like the above, I'm forced to conclude one of two things; either you're too careless to actually read the card, in which case your opinions are of minimal value at best, or you're illiterate. So tell me which, already? You would think that for something you're bothering to debate and hold such strong opinions on, YOU'D ACTUALLY BOTHER TO READ THE CARD AND UNDERSTAND THE TEXT FIRST? So the REAL cost of an Abomination is 2 cards, 2 actions, 5 pool, and 1 blood off a vamp, as opposed to 1 card, 1 action, and 5 pool. SO, you're taking an extra action with an extra card that costs a blood, in order to create an Abomination, something which is noticeably better than a Garou. An Abomination has MORE abilities than a Garou, by the way. It can play cards requiring superior Protean, specifically Flesh of Marble. It can play cards requiring a vampire, specifically Taste of Vitae. And it gains the benefits of being a vampire; it can hunt, and it goes to torpor instead of being burned when you punch it for lots. >And by the way, most of this debate has focused >on the difficulty of being a Garou in the world >of Potence, which is just about the only discipline >which can easily deal with him (unless he has a bit Animalism (Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity). Obfuscate (Disguised Weapon/gun). Thaumaturgy (steal 2, press to continue, steal another 2. OR Weather Control/steal 2). Vicissitude (two Horrid Forms). Celerity (Blur with hands for 3). Quietus (Coagulate Blood, or Blood Sweat.) Obtenebration (Entombment at inferior). Want to rethink that statement? All of the above are very common to see as combat. >The only piece of equipment my Garou ever >seems to get is a Leather Jacket, which most >days makes my predator do something else Your predator can't take stealth actions and can't outfight a Garou with a Jacket? Sad. >for a while, and makes getting rid of him an >enormous hassle. Once I gave him an Ivory Bow, >that was pretty nice. A Garou with an Ivory Bow can be very nasty, yes. But if you have one of those, I will DELIBERATELY send one of my vampires to torpor to burn it... and tragically, to burn the Ivory Bow with it as well. Did you know that vampires which go to torpor keep their equipment? Garou are excellent against decks that don't hit back; they wipe the floor with them. But against decks that hit back? Well... they're not BAD, but they're certainly not all that strong anymore. >That's as many cards and actions as are required >for the Abomination to even be played, let alone >needing the extra blood to feed him, and the >Marbles as suggested. Again, I'm forced to assume that you're all illiterate. I keep repeating "Flesh of Marble/Taste of Vitae". A two card combo. Something that isn't at all unlikely to put in your deck, or to have in there already. An Abomination with 1 blood can convert itself into an Abomination with 4 blood by using this combo. And he can do it by Rushing your Garou. (well, he only gets 3 blood back, actually, since the Garou only has 3 life. But still.) Funny how nobody ever has an answer for those two cards. Are you not reading the bits where I say them? *snort* Or can't you? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:14:08 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >> Spoken like a true USENET munchkin,... a CLASSIC grammar nitpick. I >> haven't seen one of these in a long time. Congratulations on totally >> ignoring the substance of the message and going DIRECTLY for the >> childish flame attempt. > >Hypocrite. woo hoo! bonus points for me -- two in a row! i > u. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> Versus "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> the Duel continues... > >> So? 3 points of normal damage are far more common than 1 point of > >> aggravated damage; it's simply easier to do. > > > >Maybe in your Meta game. Not around here, we are seeing Aggro or send to > >torpor cards and the occasional grapple deck. > > So nobody plays Carrion Crows, Disguised .44s, Sewer Lids, or any of > the HUGE PILES of normal-damage cards? Everyone is playing the > Gangrel, Tzimisce, and Lasombra in your metagame? Or wait, maybe an > Ivory Bow or two thrown in? Even without playing High damage cards, Gangrel can still get rid of the garou with King of the Mountain, and any 2 cap small snotling Lasombra can play Entombment at inferior to burn the garou plain and simple. And as Derek pointed, any blood of acid will reduce the Garou to ashes. > >the point is mute, the abomination will be sent to torpor if he takes 1 > >aggro or 3 normal damage unless the abominatee transfers all 3 blood to him > >making the cost to create an abomination way too great. > > He will only be sent to torpor from agg, because he can play Flesh of > Marble and shrug off that 3 normal damage. You have lots of Flesh of > Marble in your deck anyway, because you're playing a PRO deck, right? (snip) > Of course, your Abomination can use Flesh of Marble. Surprise! Besides this, *nothing prevents you from playing discipline cards on your abomination*. That means : Abomination can play anything card you find useful. > >So now you are sidlining a deck with abominations when all you really need > >is plain old Garou. > > Except that an Abomination kicks more ass than a Garou. It has all > the Garou's combat abilities. The Garou has regeneration, and the > Abomination can hunt and will go to torpor instead of being burned. > Oh, and the Abomination can play PRO cards. > > The math says "Abomination > Garou." Other players also say so =) And as i pointed out, Abomination can recruit retainers, rescue someone from torpor, Play WAKES, TASTES OF VITAE and a lot of useful cards. The only useful cards a garou can play are Dodges and Traps. > >> >Except for Left for Dead of course. Left for dead is just plain shit in a deck where you use garous for rushing. If i have the mean to kill your garou, i'll let you come. i'll never rush him. i prefer rushing your other vampires so you'll come for retaliation and meet my nice combat hand. > >Not that you need all of them, but any ONE would suffice to prevent sewerlid > >or pushing the limit. Btw those cards I mentioned work on ALL vampires too > >not just sidlines for the garou. You want to see the weak allies, take a > >look at Werewolf pack. If you start fetching equipment with the garou, you start to increase its cost. If someone steals the garou, the pool loss is much painful... See below : > Flak Jacket: costs 1 pool, meaning your Garou now costs the SAME > amount of pool as an Abomination. And still gets burned from a > Pushing the Limit at superior (OR from picking a fight with the > Abomination, which hits for 4 all on its own). which is a nice argument... > >I dont understand some of your arguments "Garous are too strong, people will > >steal them from you so you should use W. Pack instead" and "Garou is too > >weak he needs to be turned into an abomination to be of good use". Perhaps > >if you didnt flip flop we could come to a consensus on this argument. no. That was never said. We said Werewolf Pack is perfect to use with abomination. We also said Garou is a bhig target for entrancement, far mastery etc... If i see you putting a werewolf pack in play, i'll guess you are playing other allies like renegade garou or gypsies. I'll wait to steal them and let you lower your pool by doing so. what harm can a werewolf pack do to me ? We also said that Abomination is a fine addition if you are use Garous. That's all. (snip) > >> hint: if I have the means to kill your Garou in hand, I'm probably > >> going to sit and let you send him after me, and then surprise you with > >> your pants down. > > > >Sure wait around and ill be sure to play memories on that vampire with POT > >during my next master phase and proceed to rape that vampire and your other > >weaker vamps with my garous. > > Hint: Pushing the Limit at inferior kills a Garou. A lot of things kills a Garou, actually. Just have a look at your opponent's deck to see if he's capable of doing so. If yes, do not recruit it. that's that simple. > Not to mention that Carrion Crows doesn't come from the vampire and > isn't affected by Memories of Mortality. It won't kill a Garou > outright, but it will on his next Rush since he'll only regenerate to > 2 life. I'll play a press after the Carrion crow just to make sure i finish the Garou. Even if i lose a vampire in the fight, he's still there, in torpor. I can rescue him or ask my ally to do it for me. Just a reminder : Abomination can *burn* vampires in combat using Pro cards. If he is wounded in the process, he goes to torpor and can be rescued. It's the exact opposite. > >> An excellent Master to use as a baseline is Ascendance. Free, gains > >> you a pool, costs you a Master Phase Action. This would indicate that > >> Masters should at LEAST gain you the equivalent of one pool, as > >> opposed to COSTING you a pool. > > > >Mr. Flip flop, which is it? Baseline a masterphase as 1 pool (ascendance) > >or not? First you say its groundless then you proceed to show that > >ascendance baselines a masterphase action as at least 1 pool. > > Your statement WAS groundless. You provided absolutely no reasoning > to back it up, and you said "a master phase COSTS a pool". I find your theory quite strange here, Brad... Why should a master necessarily give you a pool ? why is ascendance your reference here ? it's one of the most unpopular cards of whole v:tes ? > >> Torpor isn't burnt, as we've pointed out over and over again. > > > >It is out of commission for an abomination > > Not when he gets rescued. Such a tragedy you can't rescue a Garou. Not really a tragedy... But while a garou is disposable and vulnerable, Abomination is versatile and hard to kill. Abomination can also use protean combat cards (maneuvers, presses, prevention), stealth cards and *burn* his targets via wolf claws without much problem. he can even become a bigger mosnter with Shadow of the beast. When in big trouble trouble (Blood of acid+carrion), abomination just plays Earth meld for free to stay away from danger. > Yes, we're all very weak players here in Atlanta. You lack self esteem sometime =) you're not so bad, don't forget some people want to marry you ! > >use intercept or stealth which makes those +1 stealth rescue/hunt actions > >unblockable and those 0 stealth diabliarie actions always blockable. In our > >metagame when you go to rescue a vampire its probably blocked or the ensuing > >hunt is blocked sending that pretty Abomination back in topor and you into a > >slippery slope of blood loss. Ever heard of Form of mist, Earth meld (which are pretty common in Gangrel decks) or free maneuvers of Abomination ? Good ways to keep unharmed while caught during a hunt action. > Taking some time to decode this statement of yours (write much?): > Yes, plenty of people use intercept. And yes, plenty of people use > stealth. Yes, sometimes your rescue action will be blocked - probably > 50% of the time. Of course, a Protean deck would NEVER be packing > Earth Control, which makes +3 stealth -- beyond the reach of casual > intercept. But let's just assume that when your Abomination hits > torpor, he's going to stay there 50% of the time. Totally agree on that. > Guess what. When a Garou gets burned, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO GET HIM > BACK, EVER. HE'S GONE FOR GOOD. Tell you what. Why don't you use > your calculus and determine how much better 50% is than 0%? > >Guess you would just sit around leaving your prey with a W. Pack and hold on > >to that precious Far MAstery incase something better came along. Unless My > >predator was a Garou Deck, I would use my Far mastery on a W. Pack right > >away. IT would probably be the only ally comming out all game. (snip) > But what you don't seem to understand is that a Garou can, and WILL be > stolen cross-table. Maybe YOUR metagame isn't all so strong itself, > is it? I can feel safe that nobody is going to target my Werewolf > Pack without an immediate reason. True. > >> The rest are, unfortunately, not actions, as I had specified above. > >> (individual vampire special abilities do NOT compare with hunting, an > >> action even a skill-cardless Embrace can take.) > > > >No they arent all actions. Although they are all cards that turn blood into > >Pool at a 1:1 ratio! > > However, I was specifying ACTIONS THAT ANY VAMPIRE MAY TAKE, > specifically, HUNTING. Any vampire may hunt at +1 stealth, with NO > CARD REQUIRED, to gain a blood. > > NOBODY may take a +1 stealth cardless action to gain a pool. The > closest you can come, AS I SAID BEFORE, is the !Toreador using Art > Scam. > > All by itself, this means that pool is worth more than blood. But > you'll probably ignore this OBVIOUS show of evidence, I'm sure. The point was "1 blood equals 1 pool" = totally wrong statement. Let me remind you that you often die with a lot of blood on your vampires, don't you ? > >> Literacy in Las Vegas: not on the rise. > > > >??? > > Sort of reinforces my statement, I'm afraid. Lol ! =D Nasty guy > >> >Yes you have heard of blood doll! Around here 90% of the decks contain this > >> >card. Therefore 1 blood = 1 pool. no. 1 blood is different from 1 pool. I will stick on my opinion because you provide no real explanation for what you consider true. as derek says : > The road simply doesn't go both ways, and trying to make it do so > produces the kinds of logic that you're blowing out your ass right > now. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO NUMBERS. (snip) > >To sum up why I think a Garou is better left a garou here are some PRo's and > >Con's > > > >Garous benefits over abomination: > >Gains 1 life/turn GRANTED > >Can utilize Ally cards (memories, Vagabond..) SO WHAT ? You must pack them in your deck, and they are useless if Garou is not in play. > >Immune to Vampire specific Cards (temptation, coma, pulled fang ...) SO WHAT ? who plays with pulled fang ? coma is also marginal. Garou won't be tempted, rather stolen or corrupted. Don't be stupid. > >Treats Aggrovated Damage as normal SO WHAT ? opposing vampires won't try to use aggro damage anyway. > >Abominations advantage over Garou > >Superior Protean YES. And that's a big, big, advantage. Stealth, combat, and misc : Homonculus or Shadow of the beast can be played on him. > >Can utilize Vampire Cards and actions (Taste of Vitae, Hunt, Vote..) YEAH ! a taste to gain 4 blood back, A Wake to maximise his chances of getting in a fight, a Depravity to enhance permanently his hand damage, Hand of Conrad to play uber-useful potence cards; And a lot of other things i can't list there. > >Immune to Ally cards (far mastery, Entrancement) YEAH. which makes him twice less vulnerable. > You forgot "goes to torpor instead of being burned", which is a MAJOR > advantage, and the primary reason allies are weaker than vampires. OH YES. that's why he's twice stronger > >Get cracking, put that deck together and get on JOL ill put my plain garou > >deck against your abomination deck any day. > > That's not what I was saying, of course, but if I WERE to do that, > you'd lose out of hand; it's a LOT easier to hose allies than it is to > hose vampires. Plenty of Flesh of Marble in the deck means that I > will be shrugging off your Garou's damage completely; plenty of > Trap/Carrion Crows means that your Garou will be dying left and right, > no matter what Leather Jackets, Flak Jackets, or Memories of Mortality > you have floating around. And Trap/CC/Flesh of Marble works just as > well against vampires! Whee! It's a shame that the Abomination can't > play the Carrion Crows, but the Taste of Vitae will make up for it > during the Trap/Flesh of Marble. And those Tastes will work to put > blood back onto my vampires as well... Oh yeah, I can see a Garou deck > being VERY rudely spanked this way. Not to mention that if I'm REALLY > worried about my vampires, I'll toss in a few Adaptabilities and > completely shrug off aggravated damage... damn shame. > > I haven't even touched my OWN Master slots yet, so I'd say a lot of > Blood Dolls are in order - probably a Hunting Ground (which the Garou > can't benefit from), maybe a Guardian Angel or two, who knows? *MY* > master slots aren't tied up with Memories of Mortality. > > Equipment and Masters are nice, but the disciplines available to > vampires really make them head-over-heels better than allies, even a > good ally such as the Garou. totally agree on this. If you play with one or two abomination cards in your deck, you only need one or two werewolf packs : that makes about 4 slots in your deck. You don't have to dedicate it like you do for tha Garou. reyda

Just add this to the Jason Bell Files... 2 messages he posted in his first months here... And various reactions from Gomi & me =) ----------------------------- "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> versus Me.... ------------------------------ > > considering your last two sentences, you are obviously wrong =) (snip) > Since you chose to be rude when I was only trying to be > helpful, I will make it a point not to respond to your posts > in the future. > > - Jason Bell Hey, don't get upset, i didn't meant to be insulting =) I only wanted precise information (that's why i put LSJ in the subject) and your answer was very innacurate. I was just trying to point where your error was : quoting the NRA when i talk about Reaction cards. I have no interest in being nasty with you, jason. If you don't want to respond my future posts, i won't give a damn though ;) reyda ------------------------------- Jason Bell versus "Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> ------------------------------- (snip) > > >It had occurred to me that the Castle was worded > >differently than these other cards, so there might > >be another ruling for it. > > Well HOT DAMN, something occurred to you. Have a piece > of SMARTY MAN CAKE. i can see that Jason is making new friends here... be careful, Gomi, he may threaten you to "never reply to your posts".... ------------------------------- Too bad i didn't have time to make a file for Talonz51 though.... =) reyda, harpy of the eleders

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:02:45 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >Just add this to the Jason Bell Files... Heh. He's a USENET classic style. =) Fortunately, it's easy to deal with that sort, although it is a bit tedious. I suppose I could killfile him, but I hate killfiling people; almost everyone has something useful to say at SOME point or other. >2 messages he posted in his first months here... And various reactions from >Gomi & me =) I remember, yes. =) *snip* [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > > >I'm afraid it has gone too far for that in the case of Derek. > > Oh-oh! Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jason Bell: net.cop. > > >He insisted on labeling the poster he disagreed with an > >illiterate because they disagreed on the value of a > >Jyhad card. He did this repeatedly, so I figured I'd > >tweak him for his behavior. Unless you wish to defend > >Derek's charges of illiteracy, it is unclear to me why > >you should stick your head in at this point. > > *snort* Will you threaten to beat me up next? Try swallowing back whatever you snorted up and read what I wrote, and to whom I wrote it. I wondered why it was important for Coupe to enter the exchange at my tweaking of you, but not your unpleasantness towards the previous poster (unpleasantness that has continued at a consistent level otherwhere in this thread). I'm not threatening anyone, or being anyone's cop, I'm just disagreeing, challenging, and tweaking when I see things that bother me or that I disagree with. You must have worked your way into quite a state if you inferred any sort of threat to anyone from the situation. > Congratulations on joining my fan club. I had a couple like you for > awhile; people who just couldn't handle the way I said things, and > broke into tears at the thought that I might actually be MEAN to > someone. And then they followed me around over and over saying, god > forbid, BAD THINGS. And yet you seem to have absolutely no capacity whatever to take what you so effortlessly and grotesquely dish out. Your method of conversation on this forum leads quickly to insulting and "SHOUTING" as below and heads off what otherwise might be productive discussions on cards and strategy (I very well may be wrong to call you on it, as to do so seems merely to drive you to greater rage). Or perhaps that's your goal, as no "literate" person could possibly need to read anything past your first statement on any subject, as it is unassailably correct. > So far, by the way, you're answering your own statement as to why I > keep calling people illiterate; > > ALL OF THIS SH*T YOU COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT ON YOUR OWN BY READING THE > CARD, OR BY READING MY POSTS WHERE I EXPLAIN IT IN WORDS OF ONE > SYLLABLE. > > When you make stupid, incorrect statements like the above, I'm forced > to conclude one of two things; either you're too careless to actually > read the card, in which case your opinions are of minimal value at > best, or you're illiterate. So tell me which, already? Neither, actually. If you would read the post, you might be able to figure out a few things. I'll address them point by angry point as you served them: > You need 5 pool, not 6 (4 for W. Pack, 1 for Abom). This has been > stated in several different places, repeatedly. First, in two card combos, it's most helpful to have all parts be as nearly independently useful as possible, making the Garou the only logical werewolf for the Abomination (which by the way is a totally dead card without the werewolf in play, a hallmark of really crappy combos). > You do not HAVE to spend any blood off the vampire, which has also > been stated in several different places. Probably you should spend 1 > so the thing doesn't have to hunt, but otherwise not necessary. You > can also spend a maximum of 4 blood off the vamp, not 3 - leading me > to believe that you haven't read the card itself. Second, my calculation of blood cost, in order to be fair, was done to make the Abomination "whole," in the sense that it should have equal blood to the life of the lost ally. In my view, to do less would be to neglect part of the loss of burning the Garou, a loss for which I wanted to account to make a fair comparison. > SO, you're taking an extra action with an extra card that costs a > blood, in order to create an Abomination, something which is > noticeably better than a Garou. I definitely value the regeneration ability more highly than you do. I play The Rack in quite a few decks where I expect to tussle, and Palatial Estate as well in my Gangrel deck. > An Abomination has MORE abilities than a Garou, by the way. It can > play cards requiring superior Protean, specifically Flesh of Marble. > It can play cards requiring a vampire, specifically Taste of Vitae. > And it gains the benefits of being a vampire; it can hunt, and it goes > to torpor instead of being burned when you punch it for lots. > > >And by the way, most of this debate has focused > >on the difficulty of being a Garou in the world > >of Potence, which is just about the only discipline > >which can easily deal with him (unless he has a bit > > Animalism (Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity). > Obfuscate (Disguised Weapon/gun). > Thaumaturgy (steal 2, press to continue, steal another 2. > OR Weather Control/steal 2). > Vicissitude (two Horrid Forms). > Celerity (Blur with hands for 3). > Quietus (Coagulate Blood, or Blood Sweat.) > Obtenebration (Entombment at inferior). > > Want to rethink that statement? All of the above are very common to > see as combat. Sigh. How about "dedicated combat deck?" Would you concede the point then? Odd how these decks were nowhere to be found in the previous discussion about the problems with S:CE untap this vampire / continue at +1 stealth. > >The only piece of equipment my Garou ever > >seems to get is a Leather Jacket, which most > >days makes my predator do something else > > Your predator can't take stealth actions and can't outfight a Garou > with a Jacket? Sad. I'll set aside your insult of my playgroup, even though you've played exactly one game, a game you lost, against any of its members. My play group tends to find that only dedicated combat can easily take out the Garou, and with difficulty once the jacket is on. Dedicated combat tends to be worth 1 victory point, so there are rarely more than one at the table, and almost never more than two. Most tables are a pretty easy read as to whether the Garou can be a wrecking ball worthy of his 5 pool cost. > >for a while, and makes getting rid of him an > >enormous hassle. Once I gave him an Ivory Bow, > >that was pretty nice. > > A Garou with an Ivory Bow can be very nasty, yes. But if you have one > of those, I will DELIBERATELY send one of my vampires to torpor to > burn it... and tragically, to burn the Ivory Bow with it as well. Did > you know that vampires which go to torpor keep their equipment? Did you know that Garou gets an additional strike, and can use most non-discipline combat cards just like vampires can? Isn't pointless condescension fun? Perhaps for you, but I doubt it furthers the discussion in any reasonable way. Do you deliberately do this across the table? If not, then refer above to my point about why my group's games aren't non-stop grapple fests. > Garou are excellent against decks that don't hit back; they wipe the > floor with them. But against decks that hit back? Well... they're > not BAD, but they're certainly not all that strong anymore. That's why I don't make "Garou" decks. I'll influence out another Gangrel instead and bide my time for the Garou, or forsake him altogether. My Gangrel do well against quite a field of combat decks, and that little aggrivated poke takes out so many vampires, and the threat of it keeps so many more away. I just can't conceive of setting aside a block of card slots, some of which are only useful after I've put the Garou out, waited a turn, then burned him with another action. And until all this is done, I can't use other cards in that block to defend him, since those cards are for the Abomination. This is a nightmare of a deck construction outlook, and a recipe for disaster. I far prefer mine, where maybe I have a few dodges if I don't like the strike as a blocker, or if I smell out something as an attacker, some maneuvers if I don't want to see the grapple, some equpment that can be used well by any of my minions, and a few Garou, who can make their own way or employ any of these cards as well. I have far more confidence in this sort of deck than the Abomination deck you gave assurances would wipe out one with just Garou. And if your deck relies on the Werewolf Pack to get the Abomination, as you suggested previously, I would do my darndest to find the intercept to fight for your Pack's life, cause that card is poop. > >That's as many cards and actions as are required > >for the Abomination to even be played, let alone > >needing the extra blood to feed him, and the > >Marbles as suggested. > > Again, I'm forced to assume that you're all illiterate. Well that's the only position you can hold, I suppose. At least without accepting the possibility that someone besides yourself has a valid opinion about Jyhad. Just think how terrible that would be. I keep > repeating "Flesh of Marble/Taste of Vitae". A two card combo. > Something that isn't at all unlikely to put in your deck, or to have > in there already. An Abomination with 1 blood can convert itself into > an Abomination with 4 blood by using this combo. And he can do it by > Rushing your Garou. (well, he only gets 3 blood back, actually, since > the Garou only has 3 life. But still.) > > Funny how nobody ever has an answer for those two cards. Are you not > reading the bits where I say them? *snort* Or can't you? Sigh. I must not be able to read them, or comprehend them properly, as you, in nearly the previous breath, attempted to dress down another poster for having the temerity to assert that a Garou might defend himself with equipment. I surely must have misapprehended something, as the care and feeding for your pet requires an additional 2 card combo, on top of the 2 card, 2 turn, 2 action combo to even create the dude. I must have missed something greater than that, too, as a previous poster attempted to "answer" your very point through the idea that a single aggrivated damage brings the whole thing to ground (Marbles don't prevent the agg, can't taste on the way to torpor). And I must be totally inept at comprehension of any sort, because by my reading (poor as it is on account of my illiteracy), if your Abomination were to rush my Garou, Taste of Vitae would be totally unavailable for his use, as my Garou, as you have loudly and repeatedly reminded us, is not a vampire. - Jason Bell

> >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > >> the weak ones. > > > >You seem unable to distinguish or comprehend the > >difference between the conjunctions "and" and "or." > > > >Who's the illiterate now? You did call me (las vegans) illiterate, when it was infact you who was having trouble reading the english in my posts. Perhaps english is not your first language, I dunno. However, I know that math certainly isn't your strongpoint. As V:tes is a game of numbers and you seem to have trouble guaging these numbers. > Spoken like a true USENET munchkin,... a CLASSIC grammar nitpick. I > haven't seen one of these in a long time. Congratulations on totally > ignoring the substance of the message and going DIRECTLY for the > childish flame attempt. Its not so much a grammer nit pick as it is a Logical Flaw in your thinking. And and Or are logical operators also used in computer programming. You said a couple of times in your reply to my post that I need 30 cards to handle combat, when I specifically showed you about 30 different possiblities, not that you needed all of them in the deck. Be happy that Jason assumed you were illiterate rather than illogical. However, I think the latter about you. > Someone able to discern the meaning behind my post would have easily > understood that I don't care whether he included only Leather Jackets, > only Flak Jackets, or both. It's that he was including these things > in his deck at ALL, and adding additional moving parts to his > sadly-flawed position that a Garou was better than an Abomination. Dont you think that since you are adding abomination to protect your garou, I should at least have the right to add a card to mine in order to protect my garous. It would just seem fair dont you think? Then again I dont think you are into the whole logical debate stuff. > But you? No, you successfully TOTALLY blew past all the meaning and > went straight for the grammar flame. Good job! People have only been > trying it for the last fifteen years; surely SOMEONE will see it your > way this time...? Flame was deserved > No, guess not. Sit down, kid. You look like a dork. Pot calling the kettle black. Hope your balls are still clean. Brad

> >the point is mute, the abomination will be sent to torpor if he takes 1 > >aggro or 3 normal damage unless the abominatee transfers all 3 blood to him > >making the cost to create an abomination way too great. > > He will only be sent to torpor from agg, because he can play Flesh of > Marble and shrug off that 3 normal damage. You have lots of Flesh of > Marble in your deck anyway, because you're playing a PRO deck, right? I have lots of flesh of marble in my deck. But its really not that Great of a card. Unless you plan to go toe to toe with a celerity Potence deck having flesh of marble isnt that great. > Notice how I have only mentioned ONE CARD this whole time to protect > the Abomination... which the rest of your deck can use, too. If I > REALLY wanted to save its ass, I would put a few Adaptabilities in > there to back up the Flesh of Marble, but that means building the deck > around it more than I care to. > > I don't think I would ever blow all 4 blood to the Abomination, unless > I was playing a big-ass Gangrel Bloat deck and could spend that much > off a vampire easily. But 1 blood? Sure, no problem. So now you are getting a Vamp with 1 blood on it.. thats real strong. Guess you are big fan of Tariq the silent too. Maybe you should elect to have all your vamps come out with 1 blood on it. You probably put lots of tomb of the RIII in there so you xfer out vamps with only 1 blood on them. AFterall Blood on vamps is overated compared to pool. > >> So much for putting Garous in as a sideline to my deck; now I need to > >> put all KINDS of shit in to save them. > > > >I'm just pointing out that most decks would probably have some form of > >combad defense. If you have no defense for your little Abominations they > >will get burned or remain in torpor just as fast or faster than a garou > >would get burned. > > Uh, yeah. Most Gangrel decks have Flesh of Marble/Skin of Steel as > combat defense, which your Garou can't use. Flak Jackets and Dodges > and shit are extra card slots ONLY for the Garou. Pain in the ass. Thats strange, I though any vampire could use a dodge, flack jacket, or leather jacket... how weird I guess im wrong about this. Thanks for clarifying that ONLY the garou can use these disciplenless cards. > Of course, your Abomination can use Flesh of Marble. Surprise! Yeah that wonderful Flesh of Marble... its soo good. I wonder why I never get to see that card in tournaments.. hmmm. > >> Of course, I can put an Abomination in as a sideline to my deck, since > >> it can just use all the Protean cards that I already have in there. > > > >So now you are sidlining a deck with abominations when all you really need > >is plain old Garou. > > Except that an Abomination kicks more ass than a Garou. It has all > the Garou's combat abilities. The Garou has regeneration, and the > Abomination can hunt and will go to torpor instead of being burned. > Oh, and the Abomination can play PRO cards. > > The math says "Abomination > Garou." > For the last time, the abomination is not a better combatant IMHO. You keep blathering about Flesh of marble making the Abom the super unit. I point out that Abom will take 1 agg and be in torpor. Garou takes agg as normal which I think makes him a better fighter. I dont think we will ever agree on this. You go ahead and make your abomination deck and ill make my Garou deck. Lets see who ends up with the Higher ranking on VKEN. I'm in the top 20 where are you rated? > >> >Except for Left for Dead of course. > >> > >> Oh, you mean that "not-playable-on-your-turn" master that won't save > >> your Garou when he rushes the wrong guy? > > > >Thats the one, I know ive had garou's die out of turn. Perhaps I just have > >more experience with playing Garou decks than you do. > > I think you're going to lose more Garou on THEIR rush than you will > have people rushing it. Although I might be inclined to Cryptic > Mission it twice after it Rushes someone, and vaporize it. Or Shadow > Twin, even. You are thinking wrong. I lose my garou just as often when its not my turn. Both is a rarety, i rarely lose my garous because I build my deck around protecting them. Then again you are just thinking, I have experience in the matter. > >> Leather and Flak jackets too? Wow, this deck is getting just FULL of > >> "save my Garou" stuff. And he's a STRONG ally? God, I'd hate to see > >> the weak ones. > > > >Not that you need all of them, but any ONE would suffice to prevent sewerlid > >or pushing the limit. Btw those cards I mentioned work on ALL vampires too > >not just sidlines for the garou. You want to see the weak allies, take a > >look at Werewolf pack. > > You need a LOT of Leather Jackets to save you against someone who's > trying to hit back, which reduces your Garou's effectiveness because > he now has to go and get a new one every other turn. Actually they usually dont mess with the garou that has the leather until they know they have the combo to win the battle. > Flak Jacket: costs 1 pool, meaning your Garou now costs the SAME > amount of pool as an Abomination. And still gets burned from a > Pushing the Limit at superior (OR from picking a fight with the > Abomination, which hits for 4 all on its own). And I would much rather have a garou with a Flack than an abomination with out a flack. > >I dont understand some of your arguments "Garous are too strong, people will > >steal them from you so you should use W. Pack instead" and "Garou is too > >weak he needs to be turned into an abomination to be of good use". Perhaps > >if you didnt flip flop we could come to a consensus on this argument. > > Then you should read better. I notice that every time you bitch about > "flip flop", it comes directly from you totally misstating my points. > > You complain that you don't understand; well, you DON'T understand, > and that's my point. The two above statements are totally separate > points dealing with totally different facets of owning a Garou. If > you can't understand that and follow it, then you're going to spend a > lot of time frothing at the mouth until you DO understand. Maybe I should be more clear for you. I dont understand your arguments, because your arguments are not logical. You contradict yourself. You suffer from some kind of dementia. > >So far only one point has been made that I seen as a valid argument. That > >point is to Use Werewolf pack in a deck to give the appearance of being a > >very stupid methuselah and then surprise them when you abominate the > >werewolf pack and have a decent fighter thats similar to the renegade Garou. > > And you totally misunderstood THIS point, which just scares me. Do > you READ at all, or are you in such a fury every time you read a post > that you can't comprehend what's being said? Let me restate it in > small words: No fury, just amazement at your childlike mind. > If you're including Abominations purely as a sideline to your deck > (and by this I mean 2 Abomination cards and 2 Garou cards), I would > use a couple Werewolf Packs, because: > > - They cost 1 less pool > - If someone steals it, they only have a Werewolf Pack Thats great so you will probably hold onto an Abomination card for 1/2 the game or bring out a crappy W. Pack that stays a W. Pack for half the game. > No good player is going to be fooled by your bringing out a Werewolf > Pack. The first thing they'll think is "well, THAT'll be turned into > an Abomination later", because Werewolf Pack really IS that bad. The > two REAL advantages are listed above. And what do you do when someone steals the All mighty Abomination? > >> Boy, that's real useful. Rush someone, maneuver to long... sit and > >> feel small and foolish... and I notice that a couple more "save my > >> Garou!" cards made it into your deck. So far you have about 30 > >> support cards in the deck for the Garou. > > > >So far I have any ONE of the 30 cards that would defend the garou > >wonderfully against combat. > > Right. Now how will you oust people, and how will you guarantee that > you draw that card by the time you need it? > > Duh. What are you talking about here? Never mind. Whatever course of illogical argument you spout off wont make any sense anyhow. > >> hint: if I have the means to kill your Garou in hand, I'm probably > >> going to sit and let you send him after me, and then surprise you with > >> your pants down. > > > >Sure wait around and ill be sure to play memories on that vampire with POT > >during my next master phase and proceed to rape that vampire and your other > >weaker vamps with my garous. > > Hint: Pushing the Limit at inferior kills a Garou. > > So does Torn Signpost/Undead Strength at inferior. > > Not to mention that Carrion Crows doesn't come from the vampire and > isn't affected by Memories of Mortality. It won't kill a Garou > outright, but it will on his next Rush since he'll only regenerate to > 2 life. I could spout off 1,000 different 2,3,4 or 5 card combos that would kill a garou or burn an abomination.. so what? Any one of those you mention would send your 1 blood Abomination into torpor with 0 blood. > Memories of Mortality is cute (note: 1 pool cost, meaning that you're > spending an awful lot more on your Garou than you admit), but the > Garou is a weenie-buster -- sooner or later you HAVE to send him after > a small vampire (3-cap with pot), and you WON'T have Memories of > Mortality on him. Yeah sure, I HAVE to send my garou after a potence deck.. what are you smoking? > >Of course it should be one, it could be greater, but if it doesnt produce > >somthing of 1 pool value you might as well of put an ascendance instead of > >whatever master you put in there. > > Which is something ENTIRELY different than COSTING you a pool. And > you also ignore the fact that putting in a NON-master card is always > an option, which removes the ACTUAL cost: one Master Phase Action. Why dont you READ my post instead of going into your furious rage. I never said it COSTS a pool I said a master phase Is more or less WORTH 1 pool. > >> An excellent Master to use as a baseline is Ascendance. Free, gains > >> you a pool, costs you a Master Phase Action. This would indicate that > >> Masters should at LEAST gain you the equivalent of one pool, as > >> opposed to COSTING you a pool. > > > >Mr. Flip flop, which is it? Baseline a masterphase as 1 pool (ascendance) > >or not? First you say its groundless then you proceed to show that > >ascendance baselines a masterphase action as at least 1 pool. > > Your statement WAS groundless. You provided absolutely no reasoning > to back it up, and you said "a master phase COSTS a pool". > > I provided reasoning showing that in fact, a master phase costs you a > master phase action, and should GAIN you a pool - the exact opposite > of what you've been saying. OK great, so then what you are saying you did was find my statement "groundless" and then you provided backup to prove me right. I would interpret this as you agreeing that a masterphase was worth at least 1 pool.. So why even argue this point. I assumed this is common knowledge and even a man of your ignorance possessed this knowledge. So whats your point? > >> Torpor isn't burnt, as we've pointed out over and over again. > > > >It is out of commission for an abomination > > Not when he gets rescued. Such a tragedy you can't rescue a Garou. But with a card you can. > >> Many, many vampires visit torpor and return. Some on a regular basis > >> (Ozmo). And oh, no, someone might DIABLERIZE IT! AAIEEE. OF course, > >> they have to survive the Blood Hunt AND get the zero-stealth diablerie > >> action through. > > > >Wow you must have a very non-competative metagame. Perhaps your people dont > > Yes, we're all very weak players here in Atlanta. Agreed if they are anything like you. > >use intercept or stealth which makes those +1 stealth rescue/hunt actions > >unblockable and those 0 stealth diabliarie actions always blockable. In our > >metagame when you go to rescue a vampire its probably blocked or the ensuing > >hunt is blocked sending that pretty Abomination back in topor and you into a > >slippery slope of blood loss. > > Taking some time to decode this statement of yours (write much?): > Yes, plenty of people use intercept. And yes, plenty of people use > stealth. Yes, sometimes your rescue action will be blocked - probably > 50% of the time. Of course, a Protean deck would NEVER be packing > Earth Control, which makes +3 stealth -- beyond the reach of casual > intercept. But let's just assume that when your Abomination hits > torpor, he's going to stay there 50% of the time. > > Guess what. When a Garou gets burned, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO GET HIM > BACK, EVER. HE'S GONE FOR GOOD. Tell you what. Why don't you use > your calculus and determine how much better 50% is than 0%? Look, if your Garous are burning you will probably lose as with any deck concept that doesnt work. If your abominations are constantly going to torpor you are probably going to lose as well. So your point is not valid > >> >I would steal a were wolf pack if I had the card in my hand, just as fast > >as > >> >I would steal a garou. > >> > >> This statement speaks for itself. > > > >Guess you would just sit around leaving your prey with a W. Pack and hold on > >to that precious Far MAstery incase something better came along. Unless My > >predator was a Garou Deck, I would use my Far mastery on a W. Pack right > >away. IT would probably be the only ally comming out all game. > > No, I would not let my prey have a Werewolf Pack, because that is > effectively a bleed of 4 if I take it, and it's a bad idea to let him > turn it into an Abomination, which I can no longer Far Mastery. > > But what you don't seem to understand is that a Garou can, and WILL be > stolen cross-table. Maybe YOUR metagame isn't all so strong itself, > is it? I can feel safe that nobody is going to target my Werewolf > Pack without an immediate reason. More weak Players in atlanta I guess. > >> The rest are, unfortunately, not actions, as I had specified above. > >> (individual vampire special abilities do NOT compare with hunting, an > >> action even a skill-cardless Embrace can take.) > > > >No they arent all actions. Although they are all cards that turn blood into > >Pool at a 1:1 ratio! > > However, I was specifying ACTIONS THAT ANY VAMPIRE MAY TAKE, > specifically, HUNTING. Any vampire may hunt at +1 stealth, with NO > CARD REQUIRED, to gain a blood. > > NOBODY may take a +1 stealth cardless action to gain a pool. The > closest you can come, AS I SAID BEFORE, is the !Toreador using Art > Scam. > > All by itself, this means that pool is worth more than blood. But > you'll probably ignore this OBVIOUS show of evidence, I'm sure. Guess it is beyond your understanding that because you can move blood to pool and vice versa that blood = pool. What can I say other than you are just plain stupid. > >saying that blood dolls make 1 blood = 1 pool and that blood dolls are in > >90% of the decks around here. Is this not logical support for my argument > >that blood is almost equal to pool? 90% of decks have blood doll so > >blood:pool is at least 0.9:1.0 > > No, it is NOT logical support. It is, in fact, way out in left field. Ok, blood dolls dont make blood = pool.. I gotcha... *psycho* > >> Another graduate of the "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four > >> legs, my cat is a dog" school of logic, I see. > > > >I guess you are beyond comprehending that you can baseline an action by the > >Hunt action where a vampire recieves 1 blood. Tell me whats your school of > >logic? "all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 3 legs, my cat is a dog" You are > >not even making sense. > > Gaining one blood is not the same as costing one blood, as I stated > above with the same Master-card crap. Any action should produce an > equivalent or better than gaining one blood. But actions don't COST > blood - they cost an action! If you choose to leave a vampire > untapped, that doesn't COST you a blood - it's simply a neutral > decision. Taking a free action like Summon Soul doesn't COST you a > blood - it just costs you an action. If you didnt summon soul, you could have hunted instead. So the summon the soul took away the opportunity to HUNT, that means you missed out on 1 BLOOD, that means by summoning the Soul you forfeited 1 blood. > The road simply doesn't go both ways, and trying to make it do so > produces the kinds of logic that you're blowing out your ass right > now. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO NUMBERS. Actually everything can be reduced to numbers. Its just that some things are too complicated for humans to put into equations and numbers. Apparently this is a situation where I have the mental capibility of assigning values and equations, and you lack that understanding because it is too complicated for you to understand. > >> Of course, you haven't shown it - all you've shown is that Garous are > >> a lot weaker and require a whole bunch more support cards to save them > >> than an Abomination, which only requires Flesh of Marble. > > > >No, you have tried to show that Garous are much weaker claiming Aboms > >advantage of using Flesh of marble. Flesh of marble isnt that great of a > >card, 1 agg still sends your abom to torpor where 1 agg wont send a garou to > >torpor. > > 3 damage won't burn an Abomination. 3 damage burns a Garou. Dead > even, except it's a lot easier to do 3 points of damage than it is to > do 1 point of agg. Torpor is just about as good as dead man. Maybe not with the metagame of the weak atlanta players you have spoken of but in real play torpor is some bad news man. > >> I get the feeling you're going to keep saying this stuff until > >> someone's Abomination rips your entire deck a new asshole, aren't you? > > > >Get cracking, put that deck together and get on JOL ill put my plain garou > >deck against your abomination deck any day. > > That's not what I was saying, of course, but if I WERE to do that, > you'd lose out of hand; it's a LOT easier to hose allies than it is to > hose vampires. Plenty of Flesh of Marble in the deck means that I > will be shrugging off your Garou's damage completely; plenty of > Trap/Carrion Crows means that your Garou will be dying left and right, > no matter what Leather Jackets, Flak Jackets, or Memories of Mortality > you have floating around. And Trap/CC/Flesh of Marble works just as > well against vampires! Whee! It's a shame that the Abomination can't > play the Carrion Crows, but the Taste of Vitae will make up for it > during the Trap/Flesh of Marble. And those Tastes will work to put > blood back onto my vampires as well... Oh yeah, I can see a Garou deck > being VERY rudely spanked this way. Not to mention that if I'm REALLY > worried about my vampires, I'll toss in a few Adaptabilities and > completely shrug off aggravated damage... damn shame. I doubt you would ever get an abomination to work, I bet if you used Renegade GArou you might put up a fight. A W. Pack Abom deck would fail miserably. I still challenge you.. go ahead make it see how crappy it really is.. put your stupidity to the test.. > I haven't even touched my OWN Master slots yet, so I'd say a lot of > Blood Dolls are in order - probably a Hunting Ground (which the Garou > can't benefit from), maybe a Guardian Angel or two, who knows? *MY* > master slots aren't tied up with Memories of Mortality. Just let me put my Memories on your retarded Abomination and watch it die against my weak ALLY!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 04:43:12 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >>"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >> >> >I'm afraid it has gone too far for that in the case of Derek. >> >> Oh-oh! Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jason Bell: net.cop. >> >> >Jyhad card. He did this repeatedly, so I figured I'd >> >tweak him for his behavior. Unless you wish to defend >> >> *snort* Will you threaten to beat me up next? > >Try swallowing back whatever you snorted up and >read what I wrote, and to whom I wrote it. I did. Now try understanding what I wrote, and why I wrote it. >I wondered why it was important for Coupe to >enter the exchange at my tweaking of you, but I wondered why it was important for you to enter the exchange between me and the other poster. Unless, of course, you were trying to play net.cop, something which both James and I have seen before and would like to discourage... as all net.cops EVER do is provoke more flames. >not your unpleasantness towards the previous >poster (unpleasantness that has continued at >a consistent level otherwhere in this thread). >I'm not threatening anyone, or being anyone's >cop, I'm just disagreeing, challenging, and tweaking >when I see things that bother me or that I >disagree with. You must have worked your way into >quite a state if you inferred any sort of threat >to anyone from the situation. No, I've just seen it before... a lot. Usually the next thing is for you to say you'll "teach me a lesson" somehow, or make some OTHER ad hominem personal attack that has no bearing on the actual debate, and is just you playing net.cop. If it wasn't obvious, I was MOCKING YOU for being so predictable. Maybe I should use <mock> and </mock> tags in the future. > >> Congratulations on joining my fan club. I had a couple like you for >> awhile; people who just couldn't handle the way I said things, and >> broke into tears at the thought that I might actually be MEAN to >> someone. And then they followed me around over and over saying, god >> forbid, BAD THINGS. > >And yet you seem to have absolutely no capacity whatever >to take what you so effortlessly and grotesquely dish out. Um, whatever. If I couldn't take it, I wouldn't be responding to it. >Your method of conversation on this forum leads quickly >to insulting and "SHOUTING" as below and heads off what >otherwise might be productive discussions on cards and >strategy (I very well may be wrong to call you on it, as >to do so seems merely to drive you to greater rage). Oh, I'm not angry, trust me. I don't take USENET seriously at all; I treat it the same way I do anything over the computer. It's a faceless forum, which converts people into things they're not through a perceived "freedom" that comes with anonymity. Everyone does it, including yourself; so I don't waste my time taking anything said personally. The stuff that is on USENET remains on USENET, as anyone who's met me in person knows... I don't hold grudges from here to reality. Even for Mr. Andrew Davidson, should I encounter him at GenCon. ;) >Neither, actually. If you would read the post, you might be able >to figure out a few things. I'll address them point by angry >point as you served them: I'm not dealing with what you THOUGHT, I'm dealing with what you WROTE. Read what you wrote and FORGET what you thought while writing it, and you might understand. >> You need 5 pool, not 6 (4 for W. Pack, 1 for Abom). This has been >> stated in several different places, repeatedly. > >First, in two card combos, it's most helpful to have all parts >be as nearly independently useful as possible, making the Garou Not necessarily true; see below. >the only logical werewolf for the Abomination (which by the way Not necessarily true; see below. >is a totally dead card without the werewolf in play, a hallmark >of really crappy combos). Not necessarily true; see below. Jason, is it too much to ask that we deal in concretes here for awhile? The MINIMUM pool REQUIRED to get an Abomination is 5, and remains 5. You may believe fetching a Garou is better; there are tradeoffs from both sides as far as having a Garou vs. having a Werewolf Pack. You say it's best to have the cards be independently useful. I say that if you recruit a Garou for 5 pool and then, while you're waiting for the Abomination card, send him after some vampires, you're just BEGGING to get him killed or stolen, rendering your Abomination card worthless, or costing you an extra 5 pool to get ANOTHER Garou if you really want the Abomination. I say that a Werewolf Pack is largely useless, costs 1 less pool, and doesn't have a Rush or bleed to tempt you to do anything silly with it. Not to mention that it's totally worthless as a cross-table steal. You talk about cards requiring another card being the hallmark of really crappy combos? Please. That would indicate that Disguised Weapon/(weapon) was really crappy... which it's not. But if you have one without the other, it's a totally dead card... >> You do not HAVE to spend any blood off the vampire, which has also >> been stated in several different places. Probably you should spend 1 >> so the thing doesn't have to hunt, but otherwise not necessary. You >> can also spend a maximum of 4 blood off the vamp, not 3 - leading me >> to believe that you haven't read the card itself. > >Second, my calculation of blood cost, in order to be fair, was done >to make the Abomination "whole," in the sense that it should have >equal blood to the life of the lost ally. In my view, to do less would be >to neglect part of the loss of burning the Garou, a loss for which >I wanted to account to make a fair comparison. First, you should make your calculations clear. If you notice, I state WHY i'm making any assumptions when I make them, to make things understandable to the reader. This is common practice. Second, the definition of "whole" is not identical for vampires and allies. A Garou with one life will burn if he is punched for 1, while a vampire with one life will not even go to torpor. A vampire with 3 life and a Garou with 3 life are not identical, and never will be; so that part of your comparison is questionable at best. Which is why I dealt with the absolute minimums -- a vampire needs only one blood to take an action. >> SO, you're taking an extra action with an extra card that costs a >> blood, in order to create an Abomination, something which is >> noticeably better than a Garou. > >I definitely value the regeneration ability more highly >than you do. I play The Rack in quite a few decks where >I expect to tussle, and Palatial Estate as well in my Gangrel >deck. Regeneration is cute and will keep you in great shape when people only punch you for 1. When people are knocking the crap out of your minions, however, regeneration starts to mean very, very little, because your guy is GONE before he can regenerate. Again, it's EASY to hit someone for 3 with "light" combat, as I listed below. Regeneration permits the Garou to beat the crap out of decks with no combat. However, decks with combat make the regeneration moot. >> Animalism (Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity). >> Obfuscate (Disguised Weapon/gun). >> Thaumaturgy (steal 2, press to continue, steal another 2. >> OR Weather Control/steal 2). >> Vicissitude (two Horrid Forms). >> Celerity (Blur with hands for 3). >> Quietus (Coagulate Blood, or Blood Sweat.) >> Obtenebration (Entombment at inferior). >> >> Want to rethink that statement? All of the above are very common to >> see as combat. > >Sigh. How about "dedicated combat deck?" Would you >concede the point then? Odd how these >decks were nowhere to be found in the previous >discussion about the problems with S:CE untap this >vampire / continue at +1 stealth. What do you mean, "dedicated combat deck"? Jason, all of the above are what I consider LIGHT combat. Dedicated combat decks will erase the Garou in the first fight, because they'll have TONS of ways to do damage and survive. The stuff above is a bunch of 2-card combos, which are pretty easy to have just sitting around your deck waiting for a good use (well, except the Quietus stuff, but the Assamites have lots of ways to trash EVERYTHING.) None of this is going to make much of a dent in S:CE, because it's all light combat. It's in there to SUPPORT your deck. >> >The only piece of equipment my Garou ever >> >seems to get is a Leather Jacket, which most >> >days makes my predator do something else >> >> Your predator can't take stealth actions and can't outfight a Garou >> with a Jacket? Sad. > >I'll set aside your insult of my playgroup, even >though you've played exactly one game, a game >you lost, against any of its members. Jason, if you want to try to throw shit, I can pick up the gauntlet and throw it right back. The person you speak of isn't on the newsgroup (or hasn't posted that I've seen), and doesn't deserve to be bashed in public. If you want to bring that game up, please take it to email, because I have quite a few things I can say as well about it... and most of them will both surprise and embarrass you. Not the least of which being that it isn't the only game I've played against someone from your group. (if you intend to use email, please note that the address listed in these headers is still dead; let me know and I'll mail you from a 'live' one.) But I dislike speaking about people who aren't around to defend themselves. Now, as far as the insult to your playgroup; none was intended. But I'm going to ask you this question: do you normally design decks that take zero-stealth actions, have no way of increasing the stealth, and then can't do anything in a fight when they get blocked (which is going to happen, because they have no stealth)...? I even include S:CE in this, because a deck with S:CE doesn't fear a Garou. There's a total failure of logic here, and I'm trying to point it out. An untapped Garou with a Leather Jacket has no intercept, and will block zero-stealth actions. But if you're taking zero-stealth actions, either you WANT to be caught (because you're combat, or you have S:CE, or some other reason), or you DON'T want to be caught. If you DON'T want to be caught, you'll find some way to add stealth. I just can't understand the statement that an untapped Garou somehow locks down your predator. I wouldn't give two shits about an untapped Garou; either I have a deck which fights, in which case a Garou is not very impressive, or I have a deck which avoids combat, in which case a Garou is STILL not very impressive. >My play group tends to find that only >dedicated combat can easily take out the Garou, >and with difficulty once the jacket is on. Dedicated >combat tends to be worth 1 victory point, so there are >rarely more than one at the table, and almost never >more than two. Most tables are a pretty easy read >as to whether the Garou can be a wrecking ball worthy >of his 5 pool cost. The only bit I can agree with here is the last sentence. Light combat can remove the Garou fairly easily without the jacket. Once the jacket is on, you need to immediately force him to burn the jacket by hitting him for 3; now the jacket is gone, and you can get him next time. This requires some sacrifice, but it needs to be understood that ignoring a Garou with a jacket won't make him go away; you've GOT to make people burn their resources earlier than they intend to. Just sitting there and letting a Garou knock off your low-blood vampires is NOT a good play. Dedicated combat can definitely be worth more than 1 victory point, if it's played well. Oops, wait, I can agree with the bit that there's almost never more than 1 dedicated combat deck at the table as well. My bad. >> A Garou with an Ivory Bow can be very nasty, yes. But if you have one >> of those, I will DELIBERATELY send one of my vampires to torpor to >> burn it... and tragically, to burn the Ivory Bow with it as well. Did >> you know that vampires which go to torpor keep their equipment? > >Did you know that Garou gets an additional strike, and can use >most non-discipline combat cards just like vampires can? And? If I can kill him without the Ivory Bow, I can kill him WITH the Ivory Bow. Most vampires don't get additional strikes, and environmental damage (say, Carrion Crows) takes effect on the FIRST strike resolution. What this means is that if you shoot me with the Bow and I hit you for 3 points of damage on the initial strike, then we trade and it's a worthwhile sacrifice. Especially since someone else can immediately rescue my vampire, while your Garou and Bow will be gone for good. Are you talking about Dodge/additional strike for 1 agg? That's what Scorpion Sting is for. Or Immortal Grapple. Or Blurs of your own. Or or or or or... the list goes on. Most combat decks have figured out ways to get around Dodge, and how to handle 1 agg. >Isn't pointless condescension fun? Perhaps for you, but I >doubt it furthers the discussion in any reasonable way. Oh, I don't know. It certainly got you to actually RESPOND, as opposed to just playing net.cop. I find that this is somewhat effective. >Do you deliberately do this across the table? If not, then >refer above to my point about why my group's games aren't >non-stop grapple fests. uh... no... but a Garou across the table isn't an immediate threat to me, either. I'll do it to a predator/prey's Garou very rapidly, though. >> Garou are excellent against decks that don't hit back; they wipe the >> floor with them. But against decks that hit back? Well... they're >> not BAD, but they're certainly not all that strong anymore. > >That's why I don't make "Garou" decks. I'll influence out Of course, the OTHER poster is referring almost exclusively to a "Garou deck". I much prefer using Garou as a sideline, myself; either I get him and he's good, or I don't get him and he's just not there. >another Gangrel instead and bide my time for the Garou, >or forsake him altogether. My Gangrel do well against >quite a field of combat decks, and that little aggrivated >poke takes out so many vampires, and the threat of it >keeps so many more away. I just can't conceive of >setting aside a block of card slots, some of which are >only useful after I've put the Garou out, waited a >turn, then burned him with another action. And until >all this is done, I can't use other cards in that block >to defend him, since those cards are for the Abomination. >This is a nightmare of a deck construction outlook, >and a recipe for disaster. No, not really. Your agg-poke Gangrel could have plenty of Flesh of Marble, which THEY can use while waiting for the Abomination. Taste of Vitae isn't a totally worthless card for them, especially not if you're supplementing your pokes with Carrion Crows/Scorpion Sting. The total number of cards you need in that "block" are... well... four. Two "garou allies", and two Abominations. That's enough to make them a good "sideline"; if you get them in the right order, neat! if not, well, discard them and move on. This is the advantage of the Abomination, though; Flesh of Marble does just as well for your OTHER vampires. Same with Taste. You don't end up wasting any deck slots. >I far prefer mine, where maybe I have a few dodges if I >don't like the strike as a blocker, or if I smell out something >as an attacker, some maneuvers if I don't want to >see the grapple, some equpment that can be used well >by any of my minions, and a few Garou, who can make >their own way or employ any of these cards as well. It works. But it also all works with the Abomination, who has several advantages over plain old Garou. >I have far more confidence in this sort of deck >than the Abomination deck you gave assurances would >wipe out one with just Garou. And if your deck relies >on the Werewolf Pack to get the Abomination, as you >suggested previously, I would do my darndest to >find the intercept to fight for your Pack's life, cause >that card is poop. I'm willing to rely on Earth Controls at superior on the Abomination action, myself. If you can beat +3 stealth consistently, more power to you; intercept happens, bad luck for me. But I consider +3 stealth to be a good minimum for assuming that the action will get off most of the time. Even intercept decks sometimes get caught with too many of the same card in hand. >> repeating "Flesh of Marble/Taste of Vitae". A two card combo. >> Something that isn't at all unlikely to put in your deck, or to have >> in there already. An Abomination with 1 blood can convert itself into >> an Abomination with 4 blood by using this combo. And he can do it by >> Rushing your Garou. (well, he only gets 3 blood back, actually, since >> the Garou only has 3 life. But still.) >> >> Funny how nobody ever has an answer for those two cards. Are you not >> reading the bits where I say them? *snort* Or can't you? > >Sigh. I must not be able to read them, or comprehend them >properly, as you, in nearly the previous breath, attempted >to dress down another poster for having the temerity to >assert that a Garou might defend himself with equipment. (shrug) Flak Jacket doesn't save him very well. Leather Jackets save him better, but once they're gone, they're gone, and they're an action that could've been spent killing something. I hesitate to spend time or actions tooling up allies when they're so damn fragile to begin with -- better to just figure that a Garou is useful under certain circumstances, and sometimes it's good to get him and sometimes not. >I surely must have misapprehended something, as the care >and feeding for your pet requires an additional 2 card combo, >on top of the 2 card, 2 turn, 2 action combo to even create >the dude. 2-card combos are extremely easy to make "happen" in V:TES, however; in fact, the entire game is based around the interactions of cards with each other, which requires a MINIMUM of 2 cards. It's when you start looking at 4- and 5-card combos that things start to get a little iffy. >I must have missed something greater than that, too, >as a previous poster attempted to "answer" your very >point through the idea that a single aggrivated damage >brings the whole thing to ground (Marbles don't prevent >the agg, can't taste on the way to torpor). And I repeat, as I've repeated every single time this has been mentioned, my same three statements: First, 3 normal damage is more common to find than 1 agg. Second, vampires in torpor can be rescued, and 1 agg doesn't remove any blood from a vampire. An Abomination with 1 blood that was Rushed and agged into torpor can be rescued and will be able to take an action that same turn. Third, there -are- cards that protect you against agg, but I'm leaving those at the bottom of my listings in order to make things as "clean" as possible, and uncluttered with potential corner-case cards. The first two reasons should be good enough. >And I must be totally inept at comprehension of any >sort, because by my reading (poor as it is on account >of my illiteracy), if your Abomination were to rush >my Garou, Taste of Vitae would be totally unavailable >for his use, as my Garou, as you have loudly and >repeatedly reminded us, is not a vampire. Hm, lookie there, Taste of Vitae -does- say "opposing vampire", doesn't it? I guess he'll just have to hunt next turn after burning the Garou, then. Good thing he's a vampire and CAN hunt. I guess I confused it with Theft of Vitae, which -will- steal life from allies. Sloppy on my part, but predictable; as soon as I ranted about someone not reading the cards, it was about GUARANTEED that I'd miss a word somewhere in card text. Welcome to USENET. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 23:45:02 -0700, "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: >I have lots of flesh of marble in my deck. But its really not that Great of >a card. Unless you plan to go toe to toe with a celerity Potence deck >having flesh of marble isnt that great. ...this statement speaks for itself, as anyone who's ever used Flesh of Marble in combat knows. >> I don't think I would ever blow all 4 blood to the Abomination, unless >> I was playing a big-ass Gangrel Bloat deck and could spend that much >> off a vampire easily. But 1 blood? Sure, no problem. > >So now you are getting a Vamp with 1 blood on it.. thats real strong. Guess >you are big fan of Tariq the silent too. Maybe you should elect to have all >your vamps come out with 1 blood on it. You probably put lots of tomb of >the RIII in there so you xfer out vamps with only 1 blood on them. AFterall >Blood on vamps is overated compared to pool. It's a lot easier to get blood back onto vampires than it is to get pool. Again, this speaks for itself. >> Uh, yeah. Most Gangrel decks have Flesh of Marble/Skin of Steel as >> combat defense, which your Garou can't use. Flak Jackets and Dodges >> and shit are extra card slots ONLY for the Garou. Pain in the ass. > >Thats strange, I though any vampire could use a dodge, flack jacket, or >leather jacket... how weird I guess im wrong about this. Thanks for >clarifying that ONLY the garou can use these disciplenless cards. So you're putting in twice as much damage prevention/defense as normally would be in there, just to support your Garou. Good to know. >> Of course, your Abomination can use Flesh of Marble. Surprise! > >Yeah that wonderful Flesh of Marble... its soo good. I wonder why I never >get to see that card in tournaments.. hmmm. Uh, because you either don't play in enough of them, or you just don't pay attention? It's REAL common in Gangrel decks. >which I think makes him a better fighter. I dont think we will ever agree >on this. You go ahead and make your abomination deck and ill make my Garou >deck. Lets see who ends up with the Higher ranking on VKEN. I'm in the top >20 where are you rated? Oh, do you want to play this game too? Please go read my previously-posted response to Andrew Davidson for what I think of the V:EKN ratings. It was about a week, maybe a little more, ago. Someone who feels the need to claim that they're in the top 20 -really- says it all, right there. I don't think you need to say any more. How IS that size 12 sandwich? [a bunch of random assertions with no backup reasoning snipped] >> No good player is going to be fooled by your bringing out a Werewolf >> Pack. The first thing they'll think is "well, THAT'll be turned into >> an Abomination later", because Werewolf Pack really IS that bad. The >> two REAL advantages are listed above. > >And what do you do when someone steals the All mighty Abomination? Um, probably say "nice Corruption deck"? They certainly won't be doing it with Far Mastery, that's for sure... talk about coming out of left field... man... [more random one-liner assertions without backup, ad hominem attacks, and gratuitous repetition of statements snipped] >I doubt you would ever get an abomination to work, I bet if you used >Renegade GArou you might put up a fight. A W. Pack Abom deck would fail >miserably. I still challenge you.. go ahead make it see how crappy it >really is.. put your stupidity to the test.. Whatever. I just rough-outlined the deck for you; you can figure it out on your own, although it isn't going to take you long to realize that it's easy to make a deck that hoses allies, and not so easy to make a deck that hoses vampires. If it were easy to make a deck that hosed vampires, combat would win tournaments more often... which it doesn't. As far as your dorky "gamer macho" posturing, I imagine you'll eventually figure out on your own just how stupid you look. If this game were a one-on-one proposition, such a challenge might be appropriate. As it is, you look about as silly as someone saying "Cmon, man, I'll kick your ass at Diplomacy!" I blame it on pro wrestling. In the meantime, go posture in the mirror or something... this has gone on way too long, and you haven't said anything new in quite some time, so I'm simply going to move on. Hopefully you haven't torn out all your hair yet, but remember: there's always Rogaine. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ah....pissing contests. ^_^ Now I have a quandry. Do I wear an "NCL" shirt or an "Abomination" shirt to GenCon?

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Bradly Ward wrote: > So now you are getting a Vamp with 1 blood on it.. thats real strong. Guess > you are big fan of Tariq the silent too. Maybe you should elect to have all > your vamps come out with 1 blood on it. You probably put lots of tomb of > the RIII in there so you xfer out vamps with only 1 blood on them. AFterall > Blood on vamps is overated compared to pool. HEY! I'm a fan of Tariq! Really. <sits back down and grabs another handfull of popcorn> David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] He really is. It's just about Dave's only Assamite who doesn't get put on the Kiss of Ra express train to torpor. Fortitude really didn't need that card, but it makes about three of my decks quite a bit better, mostly because Ravnos might be the only clan that pairs intercept (or stealth destruction) with fortitude, maybe !Ventrue, but I've not seen a deck with them yet. Everybody seems to have their crappy yet fun to play Ravnos deck. - Jason Bell

In message <9ia5bf$5qk$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes <Re: placing allies in the uncontrolled region? >As i thought, it's only a reminder, It is a reminder that they cannot act. However, reminder or no, they are placed in a specific region. This is not the ready region. > so you can legaly do the recruit action >and the abomination on the same turn. Not possible, under the standard mechanisms. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ADa27.57861$ih.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I wondered why it was important for Coupe to >enter the exchange at my tweaking of you *shrug* Sucks to be you. Or something. For reference: I enter where I choose to. This will often, but not exclusively, mean that the issue of discussion is of direct interest to me, the thread has caught my attention, it's a slow day, I see someone spouting crap and can't resist prodding etc. This list is in no way binding etc. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D (Standard disclaimers apply.) EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <hmrikt485ugb1hrkv...@4ax.com>, evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com writes >Now I have a quandry. Do I wear an "NCL" shirt or an >"Abomination" shirt to GenCon? "Eyes of the Dead." -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <9ia5bf$5qk$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > ><Re: placing allies in the uncontrolled region? > >>As i thought, it's only a reminder, > >It is a reminder that they cannot act. However, reminder or no, they >are placed in a specific region. This is not the ready region. Correct. Any card in your uncontrolled region is not in your ready region. [2.3] >> so you can legaly do the recruit action >>and the abomination on the same turn. > >Not possible, under the standard mechanisms. Correct. This is the difference between "an ally you control" and "an ally in your ready region". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com