First Strike - what to do with it

In the light of a possible reworking of the rules (for the pre-constructed starters or perhaps Sabbat-starters) I would like to talk a bit about the First Strike rule. Please note that I don't take RPG-related stuff into account in this post, as I think that we should concentrate purely on the mechanics here. The current situation: First Strike resolves *after* S:CE and dodge. Period. This essentially means FS is a rather useless concept, as it gets beaten by the two most common anti-combat strategies: S:CE and dodge. There is only a limited number of FS cards available, and some of them are very limited (stealing/destroying equipment or hand/melee strikes only or only blocking vampire). Here is the list: - Equipment based Shattering Blow (pot) Fast Hands (cel) Blessing of Durga Syn (chi) Canine Horde (ani) - hand/melee strikes only Silence of Death (qui) - blocking vamp only Backstab (cel) The equipment based cards see infrequently use, whereas the others are underused par excellence. I've *never* seen anyone using Backstab. I considered it using myself once, but discarded the idea due to high blood cost (2) and the inability to hurt anti-combat decks (S:CE and dodge). Too much resources for almost nothing. I consider Backstab a wallpaper card. (You gain also an additional for CEL, but why would you bother with an additional strike if you intend to kill with FS??? It's quite redundant.) Silence of Death is also quite useless, Assamites are seldom played at the moment, and even if you see a deck with them, they don't have Silences in it. Quite another thing is the often-feared Muddled Vampire Hunter. With 4 hand damage, FS, built-in rush ablilty, he is the bane of many weenies. However, as he is an ally, he is also not very often seen in play. Granted, there are some ally-madness decks, but they tend not to be effective, VP-wise. What do we have: We have a concept that is rather underused (lets put it that way), but the point is, it *is* in the rule-book, which means just another thing newbies will learn and have to take into account. IMO, and in many others, this is an undesireable situation. There are 3 solutions for it: 1.) Skip the FS concept alltogether in the new rule-book. (Just like it was done with paralyze) I believe it would be possible to mimic the effect on the respective card with special text (a la wooden stake). This would slim down the rule-book and the rules are a *bit* streamlined so it would be easier for newbies to learn. 2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. 3.) Make FS beat dodge (not S:CE). This would make one exception in the rules ("dodge negates the opponent's strike, even if it was dealt with FS") obsolete, makes FS stronger, and keeps the S:CE the "combat suppressor" like it is now (and should be to *some* extent). I personally like solution 3 best, as it enhances FS, but doesn't make it overpowering at the same time. It would make the rules a little easier (for newbies at least), as FS really happens before the other strike then (S:CE would still be the exception, but that's ok, cause it stands for the power to prohibit combat altogether in the RPG (which should not be an argument, yes I know)) and so would be more intuitive than it is now (at least for newbies). To battle S:CE with FS would not be ideal IMO, I think that could better be solved with individual cards. Well, the FS-concept would be useless, even if it beat dodge, if no new cards would take advantage of it. (How much equipment will combat-avoidance decks have anyway?) The Assamites could have a Contract-based card that exploits FS in some fashion, also a slightly less useful cel-based FS card might also be cool; however, this card could be given to aus instead. To beat S:CE I would suggest a qui-card and an aus card (so Tremere and Tzimisce can participate in the anti-S:CE party, too). Well, I've posted my opinions on FS. I really think it's better to kill the concept rather than let it live on the current way. Better would be a re-write though. Carl Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

> Here is the list: > - Equipment based > Shattering Blow (pot) > Fast Hands (cel) > Blessing of Durga Syn (chi) > Canine Horde (ani) > - hand/melee strikes only > Silence of Death (qui) > - blocking vamp only > Backstab (cel) > 2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and > S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite > reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without > FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. #2 is the concept I would go with. It just makes more sense. Comments Welcome, Norman S, Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:37:10 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: >1.) Skip the FS concept alltogether in the new rule-book. (Just like it >was done with paralyze) I believe it would be possible to mimic the >effect on the respective card with special text (a la wooden stake). >This would slim down the rule-book and the rules are a *bit* streamlined >so it would be easier for newbies to learn. I dislike this idea. First Strike provides a game mechanic that can be expanded upon or used later, in some fashion. Currently it's not much, but if it opens up new avenues later through new cards, or whatever, it could be very handy. >2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and >S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite >reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without >FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. *frown* tap tap tap. Currently, the true effect this would have would mean that the Assamites could now beat minor ass on S:CE-ers. No other truly useful card exists (Tatu, i'm openly dissin' your Backstab deck, yes =), and so a new card would have to be printed before anything could REALLY happen. Also perhaps note that the Assamites don't gain much from FS with hand strikes. Muddles turns into a "THUG" instead of a 'thug', especially with an Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger. Prevent or bust? Sort of messy and probably not in anyone's best interest. ESPECIALLY with that Sengir Dagger. It worries me to make a mechanic that is indefensible except by damage prevention. IG can be run away from or hit back to. While I agree that S:CE needs to be weakened, I don't think it needs to be by making First Strike *that* much stronger. >3.) Make FS beat dodge (not S:CE). This would make one exception in the >rules ("dodge negates the opponent's strike, even if it was dealt with >FS") obsolete, makes FS stronger, and keeps the S:CE the "combat >suppressor" like it is now (and should be to *some* extent). This, however, effectively does NOTHING. Given that CEL got a First Strike card of some sort in the new expansion (which I think everyone will agree is the ONLY discipline to put it in), it just wouldn't matter. Anyone using CEL automatically beats dodge anyway, since the additional strikes can't be dodged. Just make sure that your initial strike is for hands, or for a card you want to cycle, and make the next two the ones that count. It needs to be either both, or neither, or we make no significant changes and go through a lot of work for nothing. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

prea...@utanet.at writes: >What do we have: >We have a concept that is rather underused (lets put it that way), but >the point is, it *is* in the rule-book, which means just another thing >newbies will learn and have to take into account. >IMO, and in many others, this is an undesireable situation. > >There are 3 solutions for it: > >1.) Skip the FS concept alltogether in the new rule-book. (Just like it >was done with paralyze) I believe it would be possible to mimic the >effect on the respective card with special text (a la wooden stake). >This would slim down the rule-book and the rules are a *bit* streamlined >so it would be easier for newbies to learn. > >2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and >S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite >reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without >FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. > >3.) Make FS beat dodge (not S:CE). This would make one exception in the >rules ("dodge negates the opponent's strike, even if it was dealt with >FS") obsolete, makes FS stronger, and keeps the S:CE the "combat >suppressor" like it is now (and should be to *some* extent). I don't care for any of these. There's no reason in the world to completely discard First Strike. And you screw up whatever card balance you have by tinkering with a major rule like this. Nor are these the only option. I like solution 4 best: create cards that make First Strike useful as it. Benificial creature enchantments in Magic have this problem. The original Magic game and several years of expansions flew in the face of the card disadvantage problem that beneficial creature enchantments posed to deckbuilders. Hence, in tournament play, with a few specific exceptions, players ignored beneficial creature enchantment cards in droves. Finally, after years of seeing this, the Magic designers *finally* started to use some imagination and figured out beneficial creature enchantments that either got around the card disadvantage drawback by some means (e.g. Rancor, which pops back into your hand when the creature it enchants dies) or made the creature enchantments *so* benificial that they were worth the risk of playing anyway in decks built for them (e.g. Empyrial Armor (sp?) which can be a +7/+7 or more enchantment under the right circumstances). (Not that WotC always creates a winner nowadays. Far from it, they still design a number of stupid creature enchantments. But then, they design a number of stupid Magic cards in all the categories. But at least beneficial creature enchantments aren't the slam dunk losers they once were.) WotC did not need to change the rules for all current, past, and future creature enchantments to fix this problem. And it's a good thing, too, because who knows how unbalanced some of the cards might have become had they done so. They simply kept designing until they came up with usable cards. There's no reason to believe WW couldn't do the same with First Strike. Fred

In article <8b5bfv$bh8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > Here is the list: > > - Equipment based > > Shattering Blow (pot) > > Fast Hands (cel) > > Blessing of Durga Syn (chi) > > Canine Horde (ani) > > - hand/melee strikes only > > Silence of Death (qui) > > - blocking vamp only > > Backstab (cel) > > > 2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and > > S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite > > reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without > > FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. > > #2 is the concept I would go with. It just makes more sense. Well, I think it might be a bit too powerful if FS beat both dodge and S:CE. This would need a close look to be taken. LSJ, from the viewpoint of game-balance, do you think it would be turning things upside-down? Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9259A998E89C9AE4.2A6346B2...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:37:10 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > >1.) Skip the FS concept alltogether in the new rule-book. (Just like it > >was done with paralyze) I believe it would be possible to mimic the > >effect on the respective card with special text (a la wooden stake). > >This would slim down the rule-book and the rules are a *bit* streamlined > >so it would be easier for newbies to learn. > > I dislike this idea. First Strike provides a game mechanic that can > be expanded upon or used later, in some fashion. Currently it's not > much, but if it opens up new avenues later through new cards, or > whatever, it could be very handy. I dislike it too, but it would be better to leave this rule behind if nothing is to be done with it. Better for beginners. > > >2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. Or put in other words: make dodge and > >S:CE resolve *after* strikes dealt with FS. This would be quite > >reasonable for newbies ("FS resolves before all other strikes without > >FS") and also would provide a new way to beat S:CE and dodge. > > *frown* tap tap tap. Currently, the true effect this would have would > mean that the Assamites could now beat minor ass on S:CE-ers. No > other truly useful card exists (Tatu, i'm openly dissin' your Backstab > deck, yes =), and so a new card would have to be printed before > anything could REALLY happen. Also perhaps note that the Assamites > don't gain much from FS with hand strikes. In a parallel thread, someone points out that with qui/pro you make killer vamps (*if* FS beats both S:CE and dodge). Might be true to an extent, but FS only would mean that the opposing vamp cannot strike back, he would hit torpor anyway in those corner-cases. FS beating S:CE and dodge doesn't change that. :) > > Muddles turns into a "THUG" instead of a 'thug', especially with an > Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger. Prevent or bust? Sort of messy and > probably not in anyone's best interest. ESPECIALLY with that Sengir > Dagger. Yes, Muddles would be very strong. Would he be played more often, though? How easily can he equip? He's an ally, so no stealth modifiers (apart from Cloak the Gathering). I don't know, but this would need severe playtesting. > It worries me to make a mechanic that is indefensible except by damage > prevention. IG can be run away from or hit back to. While I agree > that S:CE needs to be weakened, I don't think it needs to be by making > First Strike *that* much stronger. There would be a number of defenses almost like it is now. There is *no* difference with FS, only that you don't get to hit back if already en route to torpor. Period. pro/cel would also be indfensible? It's almost the same as qui/pro, only easier to pull off. > > >3.) Make FS beat dodge (not S:CE). This would make one exception in the > >rules ("dodge negates the opponent's strike, even if it was dealt with > >FS") obsolete, makes FS stronger, and keeps the S:CE the "combat > >suppressor" like it is now (and should be to *some* extent). > > This, however, effectively does NOTHING. You seem to have this opinion probably because in your neck of the woods S:CE is prevalent, whereas dodge is rarely seen? I can assure you that in my neck of the woods dodge is also very common. :) However, there are also limited environments to be considered... > Given that CEL got a First > Strike card of some sort in the new expansion (which I think everyone > will agree is the ONLY discipline to put it in), it just wouldn't > matter. Anyone using CEL automatically beats dodge anyway, since the > additional strikes can't be dodged. This is just plain wrong. Additional strikes *can* be dodged, just like any other strike, assuming you have also additionals. If I'd follow your reasoning, additionals would be almost as powerful as FS, so you can only use damage prevention as a defense. Are you trying to get this opinion across? > Just make sure that your initial > strike is for hands, or for a card you want to cycle, and make the > next two the ones that count. It needs to be either both, or neither, > or we make no significant changes and go through a lot of work for > nothing. I believe that FS beating dodge and S:CE is too powerful, as I think new cards for FS would be seen in future card-sets. Dropping FS would not satisfy me, but it might be better for smooth gameplay. The best solution (which would not be too unbalancing) would be FS beats only dodge. Beating S:CE would then fall to new cards for qui and aus. I would like that solution best. I would like LSJ to examine it's implications upon game-balance. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8b6odl$sn4$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > prea...@utanet.at writes: > > >What do we have: > > (skipped) > > I don't care for any of these. There's no reason in the world to completely > discard First Strike. Yes there would be. If FS is left the way it is, it's not good for new players trying to get a grip on game mechanics, esp. combat (which is very complex to begin with). It's an exception from normal game sequence, with some exceptions built into even that! > And you screw up whatever card balance you have by > tinkering with a major rule like this. Huh? Major rule? I never realised that! ;) No, honestly, do your really think that FS is a major rule? It's just one of the more exotic game mechanics, just like paralyze was. > Nor are these the only option. I like solution 4 best: create cards that > make First Strike useful as it. Hm? Making power-cards or what? If FS remains the way it is, even future cards will fail to have significant impact on deck-design. > > Benificial creature enchantments in Magic have this problem. The original > Magic game and several years of expansions flew in the face of the card > disadvantage problem that beneficial creature enchantments posed to > deckbuilders. Hence, in tournament play, with a few specific exceptions, > players ignored beneficial creature enchantment cards in droves. Finally, > after years of seeing this, the Magic designers *finally* started to use > some imagination and figured out beneficial creature enchantments that either > got around the card disadvantage drawback by some means (e.g. Rancor, which > pops back into your hand when the creature it enchants dies) or made the > creature enchantments *so* benificial that they were worth the risk of > playing anyway in decks built for them (e.g. Empyrial Armor (sp?) which > can be a +7/+7 or more enchantment under the right circumstances). Reads to me like an escalation of power. Making FS more used by creating overly powerful cards with it is a Bad Thing(tm). > > (Not that WotC always creates a winner nowadays. Far from it, they still > design a number of stupid creature enchantments. But then, they design a > number of stupid Magic cards in all the categories. But at least beneficial > creature enchantments aren't the slam dunk losers they once were.) > > WotC did not need to change the rules for all current, past, and future > creature enchantments to fix this problem. And it's a good thing, too, > because who knows how unbalanced some of the cards might have become had > they done so. They simply kept designing until they came up with usable > cards. There's no reason to believe WW couldn't do the same with First > Strike. WW doesn't have the time nor the resources to keep designing forever. VTES has to be made better play-able for newbies *now*. FS isn't a concept that is useable at the moment, it even is confusing to total newbies. To make VTES' game mechanics more easily accessable FS would either have to be eliminated, *or* FS would need to beat dodge (and *perhaps* S:CE, but this is not necessary IMO). [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > 2.) Make FS beat dodge and S:CE. > LSJ, from the viewpoint of game-balance, do you think it would be > turning things upside-down? Unknown. But there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to implement it. There are other ways to implement "beating" S:CE and Dodge without altering the mechanics of First Strike. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > The best solution (which would not be too unbalancing) would be FS > beats only dodge. Beating S:CE would then fall to new cards for qui and > aus. I would like that solution best. > I would like LSJ to examine it's implications upon game-balance. :) Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The best solution (which would not be too unbalancing) would be FS >> beats only dodge. Beating S:CE would then fall to new cards for qui >> and aus. I would like that solution best. > > Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. Quite right. Unfortunately, it is only seen in Animalism. It's a function that could certainly see more widespread use. One could certainly make a case for Obfuscate, Obtenbration and Quietus cards that have a similar effect. I've been giving some thought to how to deal with the Silence of Death/Wolf Claws combo that Joe C. brought up. At least with the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo someone has to block you...so there's a way to avoid it, don't block unless you have your own Skin of Night. With the SoD/WC combo, there's no prior requirement...meaning that it can be used in any combat regardless of how it got initiated. The first thought is maneuver to long range. However, Protean's manuevers are free as Joe pointed out and decks based on combat typically have more maneuvers than those that don't. If FS did beat Dodge/S:CE and this combo became more common, I could see people using maneuvers at least as much as S:CE leading pitch decks to be more useful... *ponders* LSJ, how much would it take for me to bribe you into making FS first? *grin* Seriously, though. Outside of trying to go to long (and adding Animalism and DotB would prevent that) the only recourse left is, as Joe mentioned, damage prevention. I'm not certain that's necessarily a bad thing. Animalism, Auspex (with a successful block), Celerity, Chimerstry, Fortitude, Protean, Quietus and Vicissitude all provide combat cards that prevent damage, convert aggravated damage to normal or reduce hand strike damage. Serpentis and Necromancy both have actions that allow future conversion of agg to normal, although Death Pact is pretty damned useless if you ask me. So...it's not like only Fortitude can deal with this. By my reckoning the only clans that might have a problem stopping this combo is Malkavian, Tremere (and their antitribu), Lasombra and Giovanni...and to a slightly less extent, Setites. Overall, that's not a bad spread of vampires that can handle the combo. At this point, First Strike is almost useless and it appears that changing it could have a fairly drastic efffect on the metagame. I'd be curious to see what environment develops out of extensive playtesting of this issue. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8b856h$div$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> The best solution (which would not be too unbalancing) would be FS > >> beats only dodge. Beating S:CE would then fall to new cards for qui > >> and aus. I would like that solution best. > > > > Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. I let this sink in. Then why do we *still* have FS? If it can be modelled by cards (like Scorpion Sting) we *don't need the FS mechanic as it is now*. Granted, there would be the need to re-write the 7 cards that currently use FS. > > Quite right. Unfortunately, it is only seen in Animalism. It's a > function that could certainly see more widespread use. One could > certainly make a case for Obfuscate, Obtenbration and Quietus cards that > have a similar effect. Well, as I said above. :) > > I've been giving some thought to how to deal with the Silence of > Death/Wolf Claws combo that Joe C. brought up. At least with the Dawn > Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo someone has to block you...so > there's a way to avoid it, don't block unless you have your own Skin of > Night. With the SoD/WC combo, there's no prior requirement...meaning > that it can be used in any combat regardless of how it got initiated. As can the cel/pro combo, which is only foiled by S:CE at the moment (but this can be circumvented by Psyche to some extent). > The first thought is maneuver to long range. However, Protean's > manuevers are free as Joe pointed out and decks based on combat > typically have more maneuvers than those that don't. If FS did beat > Dodge/S:CE and this combo became more common, I could see people using > maneuvers at least as much as S:CE leading pitch decks to be more > useful... *ponders* LSJ, how much would it take for me to bribe you > into making FS first? *grin* > > Seriously, though. Outside of trying to go to long (and adding Animalism > and DotB would prevent that) the only recourse left is, as Joe > mentioned, damage prevention. I'm not certain that's necessarily a bad > thing. Well, superior Shadow Step surely beats the combo, as will do the help of Terror Frenzy. Another thought: killing vamps (or torporizing them) won't win you the game, you still need to reduce his pool. > > Animalism, Auspex (with a successful block), Celerity, Chimerstry, > Fortitude, Protean, Quietus and Vicissitude all provide combat cards > that prevent damage, convert aggravated damage to normal or reduce hand > strike damage. Serpentis and Necromancy both have actions that allow > future conversion of agg to normal, although Death Pact is pretty damned > useless if you ask me. So...it's not like only Fortitude can deal with > this. By my reckoning the only clans that might have a problem stopping > this combo is Malkavian, Tremere (and their antitribu), Lasombra and > Giovanni...and to a slightly less extent, Setites. Overall, that's not > a bad spread of vampires that can handle the combo. > > At this point, First Strike is almost useless and it appears that > changing it could have a fairly drastic efffect on the metagame. I'd be > curious to see what environment develops out of extensive playtesting of > this issue. It *is* useless at the moment. Either we fix the rule, so FS has more bite, or we drop it, as it is not needed in the current form. At the moment it's just a mechanic that is printed in the rulebook. LSJ, please put this on your research list. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:41:32 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: >In article ><9259A998E89C9AE4.2A6346B2...@lp.airnews.net>, >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> I dislike this idea. First Strike provides a game mechanic that can >> be expanded upon or used later, in some fashion. Currently it's not >> much, but if it opens up new avenues later through new cards, or >> whatever, it could be very handy. > >I dislike it too, but it would be better to leave this rule behind if >nothing is to be done with it. Better for beginners. Except that there are cards with First Strike already printed, which is worse for beginners since now they wonder what Fast Hands and Shattering Blow do. And those are actually somewhat USEFUL cards, albeit in extreme corner-case scenarios. ("I break your Laptop.") >> *frown* tap tap tap. Currently, the true effect this would have would >> mean that the Assamites could now beat minor ass on S:CE-ers. No >> other truly useful card exists (Tatu, i'm openly dissin' your Backstab >> deck, yes =), and so a new card would have to be printed before >> anything could REALLY happen. Also perhaps note that the Assamites >> don't gain much from FS with hand strikes. > >In a parallel thread, someone points out that with qui/pro you make >killer vamps (*if* FS beats both S:CE and dodge). Might be true to an This was me. :P >extent, but FS only would mean that the opposing vamp cannot strike >back, he would hit torpor anyway in those corner-cases. FS beating S:CE >and dodge doesn't change that. :) If FS does not beat S:CE and dodge, it's not worth your while to make qui/pro vamps, because you can pay your 2 blood, gain your aggravated first-round first-strike hand damage, and the little bugger plays S:CE, a total waste of your time. If it DOES beat S:CE and dodge, you have one option: Prevent or die. This is bad. >> Muddles turns into a "THUG" instead of a 'thug', especially with an >> Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger. Prevent or bust? Sort of messy and >> probably not in anyone's best interest. ESPECIALLY with that Sengir >> Dagger. > >Yes, Muddles would be very strong. Would he be played more often, >though? How easily can he equip? He's an ally, so no stealth modifiers >(apart from Cloak the Gathering). I don't know, but this would need >severe playtesting. *cough* Let me run that one by you again. Muddles, a MALKAVIAN ONLY RETAINER, can equip at the usual +1 stealth. The only way to add stealth is through Cloak the Gathering, an Obfuscate card, which Malkavians just happen to have in spades. I suspect he gets away with it on the first try. Or, if you're REAL concerned, you have one of your Malks equip to get the card in play, then send Muddles to go and take it from him. That way the card stays in play until Muddles successfully equips. And sure, if I could get an ally who could rush someone and torporize them every time unless they had damage prevention for only 2 pool, i'd FIND ways to get him into decks. >> It worries me to make a mechanic that is indefensible except by damage >> prevention. IG can be run away from or hit back to. While I agree >> that S:CE needs to be weakened, I don't think it needs to be by making >> First Strike *that* much stronger. > >There would be a number of defenses almost like it is now. There is >*no* difference with FS, only that you don't get to hit back if already >en route to torpor. Period. pro/cel would also be indfensible? It's >almost the same as qui/pro, only easier to pull off. What defenses? I equip Muddles with the Ivory Bow. He rushes you. If First Strike beats S:CE and dodge, what do you do? You either prevent the Ivory Bow's damage, or you go to torpor. There are NO OTHER OPTIONS on your table. I maintain that this is a Bad Thing. >> >3.) Make FS beat dodge (not S:CE). This would make one exception in >the >> >rules ("dodge negates the opponent's strike, even if it was dealt >with >> >FS") obsolete, makes FS stronger, and keeps the S:CE the "combat >> >suppressor" like it is now (and should be to *some* extent). >> >> This, however, effectively does NOTHING. > >You seem to have this opinion probably because in your neck of the >woods S:CE is prevalent, whereas dodge is rarely seen? Actually, S:CE is rarely seen around here, while dodge is quite prevalent. >I can assure you that in my neck of the woods dodge is also very >common. :) >However, there are also limited environments to be considered... (shrug) OK, I consider a card-limited environment, and it still does nothing. Blur is a common CEL card. >> Given that CEL got a First >> Strike card of some sort in the new expansion (which I think everyone >> will agree is the ONLY discipline to put it in), it just wouldn't >> matter. Anyone using CEL automatically beats dodge anyway, since the >> additional strikes can't be dodged. > >This is just plain wrong. Additional strikes *can* be dodged, just like >any other strike, assuming you have also additionals. If I'd follow >your reasoning, additionals would be almost as powerful as FS, so you >can only use damage prevention as a defense. Are you trying to get this >opinion across? *sigh* Someone building a CEL deck that consistently plays a Dodge, blurs to match your 2 additional strikes, and then plays TWO MORE DODGES has got a deck that looks cool in combat and doesn't do anything else. Sure, you can generate additional strikes and use them to dodge IF you have CEL. The most-often situation, however, looks like this: Player A with combat deck rushes Player B with not-so-combat deck. Player A lays out this hideous pile of combat cards. Player B slaps down disciplineless Dodge if he's not IG'd. This is what everyone is referring to when they complain about Dodge. A CEL deck that wants to dodge will succeed, but then again, that's what CEL is for, isn't it? (And again, a deck that can consistently dodge additional strikes has really missed some focus.) It is highly safe to assume that if Player A has a CEL combat deck, that he can just generate additional strikes and player B will not be able to match them to Dodge. So making First Strike beat Dodge *only* is quite worthless, as CEL already beats Dodge. See? >I believe that FS beating dodge and S:CE is too powerful, as I think >new cards for FS would be seen in future card-sets. >Dropping FS would not satisfy me, but it might be better for smooth >gameplay. >The best solution (which would not be too unbalancing) would be FS >beats only dodge. Beating S:CE would then fall to new cards for qui and >aus. I would like that solution best. But now you have to give a First Strike card to somewhere. It would have to be to Celerity. Why would anyone play with it, instead of additional strikes which work just as well against Dodge, and BETTER against other combat decks and big vampires? Certainly it wouldn't be too unbalancing. It wouldn't actually be USEFUL either. >I would like LSJ to examine it's implications upon game-balance. :) total implications: one additional wallpaper card added to set. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> The best solutionwould be FS beats only dodge. >>> Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. > Then why do we *still* have FS? Because, if FS beat Dodge, but not S:CE, it would still go before normal strikes. Scorpion Sting/Wolf Claws does not hit before the Potence Strike of 1,000,000,001 hand damage, whereas Silence of Death/Wolf Claws does. One requires damage prevention cards to survive the combat, the other does not. > Well, superior Shadow Step surely beats the combo, as will > do the help of Terror Frenzy. Good point. I forgot about those. Scratch Lasombra from the list. > Another thought: killing vamps (or torporizing them) won't win > you the game, you still need to reduce his pool. Ayup. Of course, if there's no one left to stop you, it's that much easier. But if you have a short (2-3 cards) combat combo that sends vampires to torpor with little risk, bruise and bleed becomes even more abusive than stealth and bleed. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at writes: >In article <8b6odl$sn4$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> prea...@utanet.at writes: >> >> >What do we have: >> > (skipped) >> >> I don't care for any of these. There's no reason in the world to >> completely discard First Strike. > >Yes there would be. If FS is left the way it is, it's not good for new >players trying to get a grip on game mechanics, esp. combat (which is >very complex to begin with). It's an exception from normal game >sequence, with some exceptions built into even that! Unnecessary complexity for no good reason? All right, I guess that's arguable. We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. > >> And you screw up whatever card balance you have by >> tinkering with a major rule like this. > >Huh? Major rule? I never realised that! ;) >No, honestly, do your really think that FS is a major rule? It's just >one of the more exotic game mechanics, just like paralyze was. Perhaps my perception is colored from playing a lot of Magic, were FS is a fairly interesting rule and (IMHO) worth the complexity spent on it. Thinking about, it may not be as interesting in Jyhad except/unless you get into situations were it saves your minion damage, possibly torporizing (or in the case of an ally, fatal) damage because you've torporized or (or in the case of an ally, killed) the other minion first. In Magic, that often *is* the situation since in Magic the whole combat system is geared to single-round results with wounds being healed at the end of each turn. In Jyhad, particularly with the larger minions, you often get combat were the result is one turn of the two minions wounding each other and then parting company. So in Jyhad, you generally care about FS only if you're using aggravated damage or (as with Muddled Vampire Hunters) so much conventional damage that the opponent isn't going to strike back. Also, with something like Fast Hands or Canine Hordes where it makes a difference whether they get to use that Ivory Bow or not. Personally, yes, I think it's still worthwhile. The strikes you can use it with now may not be that impressive. But I think things like Muddled Vampire Hunter show how it can be used in a card design to add a nice element to the game. >> Nor are these the only option. I like solution 4 best: create cards >> that make First Strike useful as it. > >Hm? Making power-cards or what? If FS remains the way it is, even >future cards will fail to have significant impact on deck-design. You can't know that. In fact, I'm pretty sure in my mind that that's not true. That was the whole point of my story about creature enchantments in Magic. If you looked at what they'd started out doing with them and assumed those were the only kinds of cards you could design, then one might have said the same thing about that situation. But all it took was a little imagination and some attention to what the problem with the previous cards was all about. So it is with First Strike. I believe the reason its being ignored so much is that the designers just overcosted the existing versions. Or, with the anti-equipment stuff, they overcosted the whole design element of weapons from the game and left anti-weapon cards with little or no role to play. They just have to make adjustments in future cards. (Re: my story about how WotC finally designed some balanced creature enhancements.) >Reads to me like an escalation of power. It is. It's an an escalation of the power of some underpowered to bring them in line with useful cards - thus making the decision about which cards to play with more difficult. That's what game balance is. >Making FS more used by creating overly powerful cards with it is a Bad >Thing(tm). Or course. But who's asking for that? I just suggested they make FS cards which are _more_ powerful than the underpowered cards we have. Why would you automatically think they'd be "overly powerful"? I didn't ask anyone to turn around and tip the balance too far are in the other direction. On the other hand, at least they'll playtest new cards. You're asking them to point blank change the rules, thus in essense creating all new cards out of anything that had FS, Dodge, or S:CE in it - never mind whether anyone knows anything about what strategies and tactics might suddenly turn out to become unstopable when the players start rebuilding all their decks. My way's much safer, especially considering that I don't believe the situation is all that bad right now. I think you're way overstating to suggest that VTES is not playable for newbies. It's fine for newbies. Or at least, to the extent it isn't, this isn't the problem. Fred

In article <8b856h$div$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > The first thought is maneuver to long range. However, Protean's > manuevers are free as Joe pointed out and decks based on combat > typically have more maneuvers than those that don't. If FS did beat > Dodge/S:CE and this combo became more common [snip] > Seriously, though. Outside of trying to go to long (and adding > Animalism and DotB would prevent that) the only recourse left is, > as Joe mentioned, damage prevention. [snip] Don't forget to give some credit to the other mastermind Derek Ray. Joe Churchill V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter [ quoted text not captured ]

> So it is with First Strike. I believe the reason its being ignored so > much is that the designers just overcosted the existing versions. Or, > with the anti-equipment stuff, they overcosted the whole design > element of weapons from the game and left anti-weapon cards with > little or no role to play. They just have to make adjustments in > future cards. I would agree with this. If future First Strike cards weren't so high in cost of blood or discipline requirement or had such stringent restrictions placed on them, they would likely play a more important role in the game. Since most of the cards giving First Strike are wallpaper now, further marginalizing them isn't that big of a deal. > Or course. But who's asking for that? I just suggested they make FS > cards which are _more_ powerful than the underpowered cards we have. > Why would you automatically think they'd be "overly powerful"? I > didn't ask anyone to turn around and tip the balance too far are in > the other direction. Exactly. Giving Celerity, Necromancy, Obtenebration and Obfuscate a card that gives a FS hand strike at minor, and FS hand strike at +1 damage for 1 blood would actually be a useful thing to put in a deck. All three can combine with Potence to be used in IG decks. They would be useful against Gangrel combat decks, which typically pack lots of damage prevention anyway, and pure Potence IG decks. For that matter, Vicissitude and Animalism (or Protean) could use a card that does the same thing to be a counter to that. > You're asking them to point blank change the rules, thus in essense > creating all new cards out of anything that had FS, Dodge, or S:CE > in it - never mind whether anyone knows anything about what > strategies and tactics might suddenly turn out to become unstopable > when the players start rebuilding all their decks. This is a compelling arguement...esp. when Joe and Derek have brought up SoD/WC and Muddles/Ivory Bow (with Instant Cloaking Power from his buddies) being such abusive combos when First Strike beats everyhting. I have to admit that I am no longer as firmly entrenched in the "First Strikes First!" camp as I was two days ago. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. > > I let this sink in. > > Then why do we *still* have FS? If it can be modelled by cards (like > Scorpion Sting) we *don't need the FS mechanic as it is now*. > Granted, there would be the need to re-write the 7 cards that currently > use FS. Because First Strike and Scorpion Sting are different things. Scorpion Sting somewhat models what several people would *like* First STrike to be, not what it is. The current rules team have also noted a preference for not issuing needless errata to cards. -- James Coupe

In article <8b889i$g84$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >>> The best solutionwould be FS beats only dodge. > >>> Scorpion Sting already models this functionality. > > Then why do we *still* have FS? > > Because, if FS beat Dodge, but not S:CE, it would still go before normal > strikes. Scorpion Sting/Wolf Claws does not hit before the Potence > Strike of 1,000,000,001 hand damage, whereas Silence of Death/Wolf Claws > does. One requires damage prevention cards to survive the combat, the > other does not. Sidenote: LSJ stated that Scorpion Sting models the "FS beats dodge" concept, which I think is not quite accurate. You are mixing some things up here: we are talking about dodges and FS here, not FS and Potence-strikes. Making FS beat S:CE is a Bad Thing, can't really state why, it just seems too powerful to me. FS beating dodge was always viewed as "making no difference" before. Now it seems as a too powerful concept, too. :) How is the qui/pro approach (in regards to FS beating dodge) different than cel/pro? Right *now* you can only use damage prevention and S:CE against a dedicated cel/pro deck. No-one ever complained about that, though cel/pro is a lot more easier to pull off than qui/pro (even *if* FS beat dodge). The defenses against the qui/pro combo would also be S:CE and damage prevention. cel/pro also requires only a 2-card combo: initial strike gets dodged by opponent, then play additional strike and Wolf Claws. 2 cards, not hard to pull off. Or: Acrobatics and then Wold Claws. Also 2 cards, better against damage dealing decks (pot, pro). The only difference I can see is that qui/pro with FS beating dodge wouldn't have to fear IG. Bad Thing? There is currently not much that can be done against IG, which is often viewed as a combat trump card. > > > Well, superior Shadow Step surely beats the combo, as will > > do the help of Terror Frenzy. > > Good point. I forgot about those. Scratch Lasombra from the list. As well as the Tzimisce, Gangrel, !Gangrel, Nosferatu, !Nosferatu, Ravnos due to Terror Frenzy and Aid From Bats. (Easy combo). > > > Another thought: killing vamps (or torporizing them) won't win > > you the game, you still need to reduce his pool. > > Ayup. Of course, if there's no one left to stop you, it's that much > easier. But if you have a short (2-3 cards) combat combo that sends > vampires to torpor with little risk, bruise and bleed becomes even more > abusive than stealth and bleed. Bah, why should bruise and bleed be prohibited, whereas stealth and bleed is viewed as an integral part of the game? The *same* defences that work against s&b work against b&b. I don't view b&b as a very viable strategy. Not even if I could *almost* guarantee torporization of the blocker (which I can't). They simple don't try to block, and you get hand jam. Period. But I think we have drifted quite far away from the initial topic: FS should beat dodge in the new rule-book which hopefully comes out soon. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Then why do we *still* have FS? If it can be modelled by cards (like > > Scorpion Sting) we *don't need the FS mechanic as it is now*. > > Granted, there would be the need to re-write the 7 cards that currently > > use FS. > > Because First Strike and Scorpion Sting are different things. Scorpion > Sting somewhat models what several people would *like* First STrike to be, > not what it is. > > The current rules team have also noted a preference for not issuing > needless errata to cards. Agreed, FS and scorpion sting are different as it stands at the moment. However, FS is quite useless too, as the rule is printed now. There are 7! cards in the game that use the FS-concept, and all of them (except Muddled Vampire Hunter) are restricted in their use. Even if there would be some cards in the next set that employ FS for normal strikes, I doubt that these cards would see use, because the 2 very common anti-combat strategies beat FS: S:CE and dodge. It would not be worth the effort to deliver a strike with FS, if you can stop opponents from S:CE or dodge, as they will most likely only do 1 hand damage anyhow. ;) Again: if we leave FS the way it is now, it is a useless concept (except for cornercases, but those should be ignored in light of the general game-play). In that case, the game-play would benefit by dropping FS, just in the same way it was done with paralyze from Jyhad to VTES. If we wanted cards that have the effect of FS, that could easily be done by clever wording. Unless FS gets a boost, we don't *need* the concept. It's misleading for new players, who already have to keep dozens of other things in mind, adding that FS resolves *after* S:CE *and* dodge doesn't help. However, I still think that game-play would benefit if FS beat dodge (not S:CE), and I also don't think that there would be a big shift towards combat-decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > So it is with First Strike. I believe the reason its being ignored so > > much is that the designers just overcosted the existing versions. Or, > > with the anti-equipment stuff, they overcosted the whole design > > element of weapons from the game and left anti-weapon cards with > > little or no role to play. They just have to make adjustments in > > future cards. I agree, too. > > I would agree with this. If future First Strike cards weren't so high > in cost of blood or discipline requirement or had such stringent > restrictions placed on them, they would likely play a more important > role in the game. Since most of the cards giving First Strike are > wallpaper now, further marginalizing them isn't that big of a deal. If FS won't beat S:CE and dodge, which many players complain about (S:CE and dodge, I mean), then thing won't change even with new cards. They could just as easily foiled with the two mechanics as the current cards can. What would be the difference if I deal FS hand damage and get dodged or if I deal FS Burst of Sunlight (e.g.) and get dodged? > > > Or course. But who's asking for that? I just suggested they make FS > > cards which are _more_ powerful than the underpowered cards we have. > > Why would you automatically think they'd be "overly powerful"? I > > didn't ask anyone to turn around and tip the balance too far are in > > the other direction. Sadly, MTG has the tendency to include powercards, which is not a good thing for VTES. That's my concern. > Exactly. Giving Celerity, Necromancy, Obtenebration and Obfuscate a > card that gives a FS hand strike at minor, and FS hand strike at +1 > damage for 1 blood would actually be a useful thing to put in a deck. > All three can combine with Potence to be used in IG decks. They would > be useful against Gangrel combat decks, which typically pack lots of > damage prevention anyway, and pure Potence IG decks. For that matter, > Vicissitude and Animalism (or Protean) could use a card that does the > same thing to be a counter to that. Nice ideas. However, the FS=3rd strike problem remains. > > > You're asking them to point blank change the rules, thus in essense > > creating all new cards out of anything that had FS, Dodge, or S:CE > > in it - never mind whether anyone knows anything about what > > strategies and tactics might suddenly turn out to become unstopable > > when the players start rebuilding all their decks. Huhuh, easy now. :) I never asked anyone to point blank change rules! Of course, and I always will stand to that, if rules were to be changed, that would require *extensive* playtesting! I would never go and have such things implemented without prior testing. :) > > This is a compelling arguement...esp. when Joe and Derek have brought up > SoD/WC and Muddles/Ivory Bow (with Instant Cloaking Power from his > buddies) being such abusive combos when First Strike beats everyhting. I > have to admit that I am no longer as firmly entrenched in the "First > Strikes First!" camp as I was two days ago. Yes, I also think those are good arguments, but still I don't think that would make much of a difference to overall game play. Perhaps a minor shift to combat on the whole, but combat avoidance would still remain the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > There are 7! cards in the game that use the FS-concept, and all of them > (except Muddled Vampire Hunter) are restricted in their use. Most of which are restricted to weapons/equipment. The fact that equipment is not often played is a bigger deterrent to those cards than the mechanics of FS. > Unless FS gets a boost, we don't *need* the concept. It's misleading for > new players, who already have to keep dozens of other things in mind, > adding that FS resolves *after* S:CE *and* dodge doesn't help. > > However, I still think that game-play would benefit if FS beat dodge > (not S:CE), and I also don't think that there would be a big shift > towards combat-decks. Then new players would have to remember that FS resolves *after* S:CE and *before* dodge - which "helps" even less than the original rule (which is better stated as " A strike done with First Strike is resolved before a normal strike." or "A strike done with First Strike will hit your opponent before his strike hits you."). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

>Well, I think it might be a bit too powerful if FS beat both dodge and >S:CE. This would need a close look to be taken. Well, the good thing about a new ruling is that it could lead to First Strike being used to play early S:CE and Dodge, so that they are not beaten with decks that themselves use FirstStrike as their anti-S:CE strategy. Currently the only way around S:CE is by employing rare cards with specific non-strike effects, which does certainly unbalance things. [I would happily admit, though, that a new set of carefully thought out cards that combat S:CE and/or Dodge would improve game balance without needing a new ruling on First Strike in particular] Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London mi...@vekn.org.uk ; mi...@darkness.org.uk

>> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> Good point. I forgot about those. Scratch Lasombra from the list. > prea...@utanet.at wrote: > As well as the Tzimisce, Gangrel, !Gangrel, Nosferatu, !Nosferatu, > Ravnos due to Terror Frenzy and Aid From Bats. (Easy combo). They weren't on it to begin with (please read back). The list consisted of clans that are vulnerable to the Silence of Death/free Protean maneuvers (or DotB)/Wolf Claws combo if First Strikes resolved before S:CE and Dodge. Any clan that uses Animalism has access to Song of Serenity which reduces the opposing minion's hand damage, thereby eliminating the threat. The only clans left that are unable to deal with 1 point of agg damage are Malks, !Malks, Tremere, !Tremere, Giovanni and, to a slightly lesser extent, Setites. >> Ayup. Of course, if there's no one left to stop you, it's that much >> easier. But if you have a short (2-3 cards) combat combo that sends >> vampires to torpor with little risk, bruise and bleed becomes even >> more abusive than stealth and bleed. > > Bah, why should bruise and bleed be prohibited, whereas stealth and > bleed is viewed as an integral part of the game? Who said anything about prohibiting it? I just said that it could be more easily abusive. > The *same* defences that work against s&b work against b&b. Not true. The standard defense is either not blocking it at all (thereby clogging the hand with stealth cards) or rush combat. A well built B&B deck can handle rush combat fairly well...and one that uses a 2 card combo like SoD/WC (with FS beating S:CE and Dodge) that can be used anytime will rip apart a potence deck. >I don't view b&b as a very viable strategy. Not even if I could > *almost* guarantee torporization of the blocker (which I can't). I can. Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control. But at least with that combo you can only use it if you're being blocked, forcing you to add Superior Mettle and Skin of Steel for other occasions like that pesky rush IG deck. By making First Strike resolve before S:CE and Dodge, the SoD/WC can be used if you're blocked, if you're blocking and if you're Bum's Rushed. It's a two card combo that's extremely vicious and since you just need a handful of free Protean maneuvers to enforce it, you're free to pile in a bunch of bleed cards. > They simple don't try to block, and you get hand jam. Period. As for the hand jam, good use of master cards like Dreams of Sphinx, Barrens and Elder Library can take the sting out of that fairly quickly. Hell, it might even be worth adding Deal with the Devil. > But I think we have drifted quite far away from the initial topic: FS > should beat dodge in the new rule-book which hopefully comes out soon. Actually, this is very much involved with that discussion. I still don't remain convinced that it should beat Dodge and not S:CE as it would have little effect on the game...and I'm becoming even less convinced that First Strike should resolve before S:CE as well. I think that the answer lies in making the cost of opportunity to use the First Strike effect should be reduced to more reasonable level by putting less restriciton on when they may be used and reducing the blood cost of the cards that use it. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:53:58 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: >Sidenote: LSJ stated that Scorpion Sting models the "FS beats dodge" >concept, which I think is not quite accurate. Well, it doesn't MODEL it, but it certainly provides an effect similar to it. You play a card to gain a dodge-proof strike, it's just that it's not First Strike. >You are mixing some things up here: we are talking about dodges and FS >here, not FS and Potence-strikes. OK, I think it's time to go back and restate the basic ideas.. Proposal: Should First Strike beat S:CE/Dodge? Addition: If it does, should a CEL card granting First Strike in some form be created to make the mechanic useful? Therefore for the arguments below, we assume that First Strike *does* beat S:CE/dodge, and there is such a CEL card. The reason Potence strikes keep coming in is that in creating a new card, you need to analyze its effect against ANY sort of deck, whether it be combat-avoidance or combat-intensive. Potence provides IG, a heavy combat trump in itself, but also fairly necessary since Potence is somewhat card-intensive. >Making FS beat S:CE is a Bad Thing, can't really state why, it just >seems too powerful to me. FS beating dodge was always viewed as "making >no difference" before. Now it seems as a too powerful concept, too. :) FS beating S:CE I don't care for, for reasons above. FS beating dodge seems sort of meaningless to me - it'd be amusing, but you'd probably see a visible shift in the metagame towards S:CE and away from "dodge" as a result - IF anyone played with the First Strike card instead of additional strikes. >How is the qui/pro approach (in regards to FS beating dodge) different >than cel/pro? Right *now* you can only use damage prevention and S:CE >against a dedicated cel/pro deck. No-one ever complained about that, >though cel/pro is a lot more easier to pull off than qui/pro (even *if* >FS beat dodge). The defenses against the qui/pro combo would also be >S:CE and damage prevention. Qui/Pro beats everything. You must prevent the damage, reduce their hand damage, or die. AND, most importantly, you do not get to hit back unless you prevent. Cel/Pro falls over to S:CE (one big difference), and ALSO falls over to being hit back, which is a HUGE difference. The classic Brujah/Gangrel combat goes mostly with the Brujah playing TS/IG/Blur and pounding the Gangrel for 9 points of damage while the Gangrel whips out his Wolf Claws and pokes the Brujah's eye out. Then the Gangrel plays Skin of Steel, the Brujah plays superior Sideslip, and everyone goes away unhappy. If either person doesn't have their prevent handy, they get clobbered. Cel/Pro doesn't have easy access to Fortitude, so they don't even have the option to prevent - they will always get clobbered. When combat will result in mutual torporisation, it starts to be a judgement call on whether it's worth it or not. >cel/pro also requires only a 2-card combo: initial strike gets dodged by >opponent, then play additional strike and Wolf Claws. 2 cards, not hard >to pull off. >Or: Acrobatics and then Wold Claws. Also 2 cards, better against damage >dealing decks (pot, pro). >The only difference I can see is that qui/pro with FS beating dodge >wouldn't have to fear IG. Bad Thing? There is currently not much that >can be done against IG, which is often viewed as a combat trump card. You can always maneuver away from IG, or hit back. Qui/Pro would currently trash IG decks anyway, just because First Strike is, well, first. That's fine. But Qui/Pro needs a weakness, and that weakness is, unfortunately, S:CE and Dodge. Otherwise, it would HAVE no weakness and everyone would be forced to play with prevent cards of some form. Much like what happened when weenie bleed became all the rage - people were playing with weenies themselves OR playing with 10-12 Deflections. That was a bit of a problem, and still is, although people are figuring out better ways to deal with weenies. (And the prevalence of combat decks is making it a lot tougher for them to live.) >> > Well, superior Shadow Step surely beats the combo, as will >> > do the help of Terror Frenzy. >> >> Good point. I forgot about those. Scratch Lasombra from the list. > >As well as the Tzimisce, Gangrel, !Gangrel, Nosferatu, !Nosferatu, >Ravnos due to Terror Frenzy and Aid From Bats. (Easy combo). The point isn't how many clans DON'T have access to a way around it... it's that forcing people to play some form of prevent in their decks is a Bad Thing(tm). Also, the Tzimisce/Gangrel/Nossies may have access to Terror Frenzy/Aid from Bats, but it sort of goes against their natural strategies, since VIC, PRO, and POT all are close-range combat discplines. >> Ayup. Of course, if there's no one left to stop you, it's that much >> easier. But if you have a short (2-3 cards) combat combo that sends >> vampires to torpor with little risk, bruise and bleed becomes even >more >> abusive than stealth and bleed. > >Bah, why should bruise and bleed be prohibited, whereas stealth and >bleed is viewed as an integral part of the game? The *same* defences >that work against s&b work against b&b. I don't view b&b as a very >viable strategy. Not even if I could *almost* guarantee torporization of >the blocker (which I can't). They simple don't try to block, and you get >hand jam. Period. Hm. A well-built S&B deck isn't vulnerable to the "i don't block you" strategy, although it may get caught once or twice as a result. Just the same, a well-built B&B deck isn't vulnerable to it either, since when he has a handful of combat cards, those unblockable bleeds for 1 start to add up. And as soon as you're forced into combat somehow, you KNOW he just picked up a handful of bleed cards. I had a fairly functional PRE/POT bruise-bleed deck that I played for awhile. The trick is to remember that it's "bruise and bleed", not "kill and bleed". Don't torporise anything that moves, but just merely whack the hell out of it every time you got blocked. It packed 20 Social Charms, 8 Rushes, and enough POT combat to do, on average, 5 points of damage to anything that blocked you (enough to kill a lot of minions, actually.) I tended to play it by wasting some cards and killing the first vampire to block me, which helped encourage people not to block me. Then I bled until I ran out of bleed cards, and by then I usually had a Rush in my hand. So I Rushed my predator to cycle my combat hand, and then went back to bleeding. It worked pretty well... Shame the Tremere can't do something like this. =) >But I think we have drifted quite far away from the initial topic: FS >should beat dodge in the new rule-book which hopefully comes out soon. In your opinion. I say that FS beating dodge is a worthless and equally-confusing change (wait, so it beats this one thing but not this other thing? huh?), since you can just play additional strikes. [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at writes: >> I would agree with this. If future First Strike cards weren't so high >> in cost of blood or discipline requirement or had such stringent >> restrictions placed on them, they would likely play a more important >> role in the game. Since most of the cards giving First Strike are >> wallpaper now, further marginalizing them isn't that big of a deal. > >If FS won't beat S:CE and dodge, which many players complain about (S:CE > and dodge, I mean), then thing won't change even with new cards. They >could just as easily foiled with the two mechanics as the current cards >can. What would be the difference if I deal FS hand damage and get >dodged or if I deal FS Burst of Sunlight (e.g.) and get dodged? But what point are you trying to make? The fact that something can be beaten by Dodge makes a lot of strikes, First Strike strikes or otherwise, much riskier. One of my Gangrel decks makes a lot of use of Body Flares for stike cards but if they get dodged, well, ouch! The problem isn't with First Strike not beating Dodge, it's that any time you pay the cost of an expensive strke and it gets Dodged, you get screwed on the deal. I agree that perhaps Dodge and S:CE need to have a bit more of a downside then they do now. But I think making a few more cards like Scorpian Sting will fill the bill. I don't think it's necessary to change the relationship between a number of existing cards. >> > Or course. But who's asking for that? I just suggested they make FS >> > cards which are _more_ powerful than the underpowered cards we have. >> > Why would you automatically think they'd be "overly powerful"? I >> > didn't ask anyone to turn around and tip the balance too far are in >> > the other direction. > >Sadly, MTG has the tendency to include powercards, which is not a good >thing for VTES. That's my concern. That may be true. But if that's a fault of the designers, it doesn't matter *what* the rules are, they'll create power cards. (And in fact, I think most would pretty much agree that V:tES designers have created power cards just as Magic designers have. Maybe in somewhat different frequency but they've clearly done it.) I'm not going to accept, "because the designers will screw up" as a reasonable argument why balance can't be achieved by designing balanced cards. Fred

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > Qui/Pro beats everything. You must prevent the damage, reduce their > hand damage, or die. ...or convert the agg damage to normal. Which leads me to... > Cel/Pro doesn't have easy access to Fortitude, so they don't even > have the option to prevent - they will always get clobbered. Not true. Flesh of Marble limits damage to 1 and Adaptability converts agg to regular at minor and prevents at superior. Celerity has Sideslip (as you mentioned earlier) which, at superior, also prevents the 1 damage. Cel/Pro doesn't need Fortitude cards. > You can always maneuver away from IG, or hit back. Qui/Pro would > currently trash IG decks anyway, just because First Strike is, well, > first. Well...right now, it's third. ;) > That's fine. But Qui/Pro needs a weakness, and that weakness > is, unfortunately, S:CE and Dodge. Otherwise, it would HAVE no > weakness and everyone would be forced to play with prevent cards of > some form. Here lies the crux of the problem. S:CE is viewed as too powerful, primarily because it's too easy and cheap to pull off, resulting in the strong desire to develop something that trumps it. The thing being discussed to trump it, FS beating S:CE and Dodge, results in exactly two very specific instances that require damage prevention to trump _those_ instances, which I've given some more thought to. The first of those instances is a _unique_ ally, Muddles, equipping a _unquie_ weapon, Ivory Bow, or a Flamethrower, for a total of 3 or 6 pool, respectively. Anytime you hinge a strategy on a single vampire, it only takes someone to disable the vampire to shut you down. It's even more true of an unique ally with only one life counter. Needless to say, I view this a very fragile combo to sustain. The second, SoD/WC requires Pro/Qui which naturally occurs on only one vampire which costs 6 pool. I have had a little more time to think this one out and I realized that the mention of Protean and Quietus weenies leaves out an important fact. You have to get the discipline cards on them and you can only play one per turn under normal conditions. This results in the very likely probability that the hand will get clogged with about 3-4 master cards because you need a bunch in order to make sure they're available in your opening hand. The weenie Potence IG deck kicks out a bunch of little thugs that need no further discipline cards. This means the Pro/Qui deck is more vulnerable to Sudden Reversal and that it will take at _least_ two turns to get a single usable vampire for the combo while the Potence weenie deck can potentially produce three usable vampires on the first turn. Bum's Rush gives a maneuver, which means that the opposing vampire must have at least two maneuvers to get away...something that most non-pitch decks don't have. Multiply that times a half dozen of the little monsters coming at you on turn 3 or 4 and if any of them get you with an IG, all S:CE and Dodge in the world isn't going to save you. Keeping that in mind, you can modify the IG deck to use Dominate for bleed or Presence for bleed or voting to make the VP count a little higher. A SoD/WC deck can't be modified into a Bruise and Bleed strategy because none of the participating clans can bleed worth a sh*t without Computer Hacking. So...even after all the hoopla, SoD/WC is still not as likely to rack up the VP's which will quickly result in it becoming a vicious, yet rarely used, combo. >>>> Well, superior Shadow Step surely beats the combo, as will >>>> do the help of Terror Frenzy. >>> >>> Good point. I forgot about those. Scratch Lasombra from the list. > > The point isn't how many clans DON'T have access to a way around it... > it's that forcing people to play some form of prevent in their decks > is a Bad Thing(tm). Why? It's available in one form or another to almost all clans and every vampire in the game can use Guardian Angel, Flak Jacket and Leather Jacket. Damage prevention is widely available and I don't see any problem with people adding some Damage Prevention in addition to S:CE decks. The biggest problem is that S:CE has caused all non-IG combat decks to be generally ineffective. If this forces people to diversify their combat defense when building decks, I don't see the problem. > Shame the Tremere can't do something like this. =) They can, it just requires Fortitude. Ironically the best For-Dom-Tha dcampire for this is a Gangrel. > In your opinion. I say that FS beating dodge is a worthless and > equally-confusing change (wait, so it beats this one thing but not > this other thing? huh?), since you can just play additional strikes. This I agree with. After all that, I'm not completely sold either way on the "First Strikes First" debate but my leanings are still towards making First Strike resolve before other strikes (incl. S:CE and Dodge) are declared. [ quoted text not captured ]

(Deja locked up..so pardon me if this is a duplicate) Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> That's fine. But Qui/Pro needs a weakness, and that weakness >> is, unfortunately, S:CE and Dodge. Otherwise, it would HAVE no >> weakness and everyone would be forced to play with prevent cards of >> some form. In addtion to the weaknesses I've already thought of (listed below for clarification) I've thought of one other. The SoD/WC costs 2 blood to use which, under current official rulings, can't be gotten back from Taste because the agg damage doesn't remove any blood. If one uses small (up to 4 cap) vampires to pull off this combo they will be reduced to hunting two out of every three turns (without the use of hunting grounds or blood dolls) to maintain the needed 2 blood to use the combo. A potence weenie, even if its hunt action is blocked, can still pull off a TS/IG/US/Taste (and a maneuver, if needed) combo every single turn. > The second, SoD/WC requires Pro/Qui which naturally occurs on > only one vampire which costs 6 pool. > You have to get the discipline cards on them and you can only > play one per turn under normal conditions. This results in the > very likely probability that the hand will get clogged with > about 3-4 master cards because you need a bunch in order to make > sure they're available in your opening hand. Not to mention the maneuvers needed to keep them close if they are playing a pitch deck. > ...the Pro/Qui deck is more vulnerable to Sudden Reversal and > that it will take at _least_ two turns to get a single usable > vampire for the combo > A SoD/WC deck can't be modified into a Bruise and Bleed strategy > because none of the participating clans can bleed worth a sh*t > without Computer Hacking. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > After all that, I'm not completely sold either way on the "First Strikes > First" debate but my leanings are still towards making First Strike > resolve before other strikes (incl. S:CE and Dodge) are declared. What's wrong with the solution of leaving First Strike as is, but adding a new type of strike: call it "surprise attack." One or more cards that let you ambush a minion in such a way that you get to play and resolve one strike card before your opponent can play anything in response? -David

Amad...@compuserve.com wrote: > What's wrong with the solution of leaving First Strike as is, > but adding a new type of strike: call it "surprise attack." > One or more cards that let you ambush a minion in such a way > that you get to play and resolve one strike card before your > opponent can play anything in response? Try to explain that concept to the new players. First strike resolves after Surprise Attack, S:CE and Dodge. "So...it's not First Strike, but it's Fourth Strike?" What you're calling "surprise attack" is precisely what we're discussing doing with First Strike. It's bad enough now without muddying the water further by using both. Thanks for the input, though. It's always good to see new blood contributing to the discussion. Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:28:32 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> Cel/Pro doesn't have easy access to Fortitude, so they don't even >> have the option to prevent - they will always get clobbered. > >Not true. Flesh of Marble limits damage to 1 and Adaptability converts >agg to regular at minor and prevents at superior. Celerity has Sideslip >(as you mentioned earlier) which, at superior, also prevents the 1 >damage. Cel/Pro doesn't need Fortitude cards. well, you can't prevent the leftover 1 from Flesh of Marble, but I did forget that it was there. Adaptability looks like it's only worthwhile if you're going to be facing bunches of agg, so I wouldn't see putting TOO many of those in. Possible, yes, but I'd expect a deck would just focus on Flesh of Marbling as need be to survive... So you see either Flesh/Claws or Acrobatics/Claws. Hmm. I'm REALLY not liking the thought of giving CEL an anti-S:CE card now. =) Taking all the 3/4/5-caps with CEL and slapping PRO around on top of it... Icky. >Here lies the crux of the problem. S:CE is viewed as too powerful, >primarily because it's too easy and cheap to pull off, resulting in the >strong desire to develop something that trumps it. > >The thing being discussed to trump it, FS beating S:CE and Dodge, >results in exactly two very specific instances that require damage >prevention to trump _those_ instances, which I've given some more >thought to. Oh, I wouldn't say EXACTLY two. Those were just the ones that sprang to mind. If FS were ruled to beat S:CE and Dodge, the logical next step would be to give CEL a functional FS card, just to drag FS back into the realm of visibility. >The first of those instances is a _unique_ ally, Muddles, equipping a >_unquie_ weapon, Ivory Bow, or a Flamethrower, for a total of 3 or 6 >pool, respectively. Anytime you hinge a strategy on a single vampire, >it only takes someone to disable the vampire to shut you down. It's >even more true of an unique ally with only one life counter. Needless >to say, I view this a very fragile combo to sustain. If nobody's got prevention, he can't be killed in normal combat. As it stands now, Muddles with an Ivory Bow is already pretty nasty - but survivable via a number of means. It looks fragile at first, but for the enormous results you can get against any deck without a means of preventing, WELL worth the 3 pool to bring him out. Multiple times, if someone finally gets him. Keep in mind that I speak of the average tourney deck here. Fortitude DOES make a sufficient appearance that a Muddles deck couldn't just torporize the table, but there are an awful lot of decks that don't have some kind of prevent but are still functional. I wouldn't like to see those get the shaft. >The second, SoD/WC requires Pro/Qui which naturally occurs on only one >vampire which costs 6 pool. I have had a little more time to think this >one out and I realized that the mention of Protean and Quietus weenies >leaves out an important fact. You have to get the discipline cards on >them and you can only play one per turn under normal conditions. This >results in the very likely probability that the hand will get clogged >with about 3-4 master cards because you need a bunch in order to make >sure they're available in your opening hand. Well.. any deck i've built this way usually includes the Fragment, the Barrens, and an Elder Library to help out the ole hand jam problem. Also several Rumors of Gehenna, as that tends to pass with a little clever politicking. Since your mastercardless guys don't have crap to do in the meantime, they might as well call some votes. =) The only time the "sell Rumors for votes" thing tends to fail is when your predator is the one who has vote lock - it is never worth it for him to let your deck function. =) >The weenie Potence IG deck kicks out a bunch of little thugs that need >no further discipline cards. This means the Pro/Qui deck is more >vulnerable to Sudden Reversal and that it will take at _least_ two turns >to get a single usable vampire for the combo while the Potence weenie >deck can potentially produce three usable vampires on the first turn. Actually, that's not true - the weenie POT IG deck *does* need discipline cards to kill anything other than other weenies. Its advantage is that the only other vamps out early on are also weenies, so it's functional until it gets its own master cards. It also survives by the fact that there are a number of 4-caps with POT who can be gotten out rapidly if need be. A Pro/Qui deck, while not -as- functional without the Qui card, still doesn't actually SUCK since weenie Protean is still pretty nasty combat - just vulnerable to S:CE/Dodge. If I were desperate, I'd still send in the weenie Pro guys, just hoping to run them out of S:CE/dodge. =) >Bum's Rush gives a maneuver, which means that the opposing vampire must >have at least two maneuvers to get away...something that most non-pitch And weenie POT decks pack Fake Out, since the Bum's Rush usually gets blocked to steal the maneuver. Basically, unless you're READY for it, the weenie POT deck is gonna getcha. You just have to hope to catch it without Rush actions at some point, or hope that it has trouble between beating up its predator and its prey too much. >decks don't have. Multiply that times a half dozen of the little >monsters coming at you on turn 3 or 4 and if any of them get you with an >IG, all S:CE and Dodge in the world isn't going to save you. > >Keeping that in mind, you can modify the IG deck to use Dominate for >bleed or Presence for bleed or voting to make the VP count a little Well... this gets a lot trickier. A POT/PRE deck works well on the offensive end of things, but if it doesn't get the Rush actions it needs to kill its predator's vamps, it won't live. POT/DOM provides Deflections, so you're a little more secure, but the selection of vamps isn't quite as good as POT/PRE - you end up with a lot more inferior skills. It also runs slower than weenie POT. Weenie POT doesn't bother with bleed cards - it kills everything and bleeds for 1 in hordes. This is how I'd play the SoD/WC deck, except that since my combo only needs a Rush action + 2 cards, I'd have room for Computer Hackings as well. >So...even after all the hoopla, SoD/WC is still not as likely to rack up >the VP's which will quickly result in it becoming a vicious, yet rarely >used, combo. I dunno. Weenie POT doesn't rack up THAT many VPs, but it shows up a lot anyway - a lot more than POT/DOM or POT/PRE. And bleeding for 2 each puts a lot more strain on your prey than bleeding for 1 each. >> The point isn't how many clans DON'T have access to a way around it... >> it's that forcing people to play some form of prevent in their decks >> is a Bad Thing(tm). > >Why? It's available in one form or another to almost all clans and But it forces people to play with specific non-general-purpose cards. This discourages deck variety, pisses players off, and it's one of the reasons RtI sucked ass so badly - you had to play with Deflections or go boom, which limited you to vamps with Dominate or superior Auspex. If I have the world's greatest deck idea, but I can't make it work because I can't find a way to cram a -mandatory- "counter" card in, i'm NOT going to be happy. >every vampire in the game can use Guardian Angel, Flak Jacket and >Leather Jacket. Damage prevention is widely available and I don't see Guardian Angel costs 2 and a master slot - expensive. Flak Jacket costs 1 pool and an action to equip - almost more expensive than Guardian Angel. Leather Jacket goes away after you prevent once - icky for this situation. I'd HATE to have to start lugging around 8 cards of prevention in every deck. =/ >any problem with people adding some Damage Prevention in addition to >S:CE decks. The biggest problem is that S:CE has caused all non-IG >combat decks to be generally ineffective. If this forces people to >diversify their combat defense when building decks, I don't see the >problem. Well, weenie POT's presence has caused S:CE to be a lot less effective, resulting in a lot fewer majesty-only decks showing up at tournaments, which has resulted in other forms of combat becoming slightly more effective... which has, in the last few tournaments i've played, resulted in prevention decks becoming very strong. >> Shame the Tremere can't do something like this. =) > >They can, it just requires Fortitude. Ironically the best For-Dom-Tha >dcampire for this is a Gangrel. Shame the Tremere can't use more than two of their THA cards. =P [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > Try to explain that concept to the new players. First strike resolves > after Surprise Attack, S:CE and Dodge. > > "So...it's not First Strike, but it's Fourth Strike?" Is that the problem, that the semantics of calling it "First Strike" imply that it should occur before any other strike? I mean, I think calling a Dodge or Combat Ends a "strike" doesn't make sense, semantically, but I understand it to be just a way of representing the effect mechanically. I see First Strike the same way; it doesn't really mean "Occurs before any other possible combat effect," it means "if two guys are pounding each other, the guy with First Strike pounds first." As opposed to the normal simultaneous nature of combat damage. > What you're calling "surprise attack" is precisely what we're discussing > doing with First Strike. It's bad enough now without muddying the water > further by using both. In that case, couldn't you just fix the problem by renaming "First Strike" to something you consider less confusing? "Preemptive Strike", maybe? -David

Amad...@compuserve.com writes: >Noal McDonald wrote: >> Try to explain that concept to the new players. First strike resolves >> after Surprise Attack, S:CE and Dodge. >> >> "So...it's not First Strike, but it's Fourth Strike?" > >Is that the problem, that the semantics of calling it "First Strike" >imply that it should occur before any other strike? Some people are trying to make that argument. I think there's also clearly a desire to tinker with the combat system because of the perception that Dodge and particularly S:CE are too easy to use and that one way to balance them would be to permit the existing First Strike strikes to render them moot. I also sort of suspect that the first point is kind of overstated and is mostly being used to load up the arguments for changes. Just my opinion, I guess. Like you, I'm unimpressed by the problems caused by this issue when the game is chock full of concepts that newbies need to become familiar with to competantly play. Looking back on my own learning curve, believe me: discovering that First Strikes didn't ignore Dodges and S:CEs was very low on the list of points which caused me confusion. If you want to do something *effective* to make the game more learnable by newbies, make the rules about how and when and under what circumstances playing the various Action Mods and Reactions are legal. Clean up the card text and the rules and create consistent terminology about these things in the process. "Can I play this NOW", and "When does THIS happen?", were phrases that came up far too often while I was holding copies of these two classes of cards. Fred

> I also sort of suspect that the first point is kind of overstated and is > mostly being used to load up the arguments for changes. Just my opinion, I > guess. Like you, I'm unimpressed by the problems caused by this issue when > the game is chock full of concepts that newbies need to become familiar with > to competantly play. Looking back on my own learning curve, believe me: > discovering that First Strikes didn't ignore Dodges and S:CEs was very low > on the list of points which caused me confusion. > > If you want to do something *effective* to make the game more learnable > by newbies, make the rules about how and when and under what circumstances > playing the various Action Mods and Reactions are legal. Clean up the > card text and the rules and create consistent terminology about these > things in the process. "Can I play this NOW", and "When does THIS happen?", > were phrases that came up far too often while I was holding copies of these > two classes of cards. Well, your point is taken. But if a new rulebook is printed, it would have to be altered in all the points which *might* (and will, I'm sure) lead to confusion. If there is any single point that seems totally insignificant, but will make the rules just a little bit clearer, smoother easier to remember, I'm gladly willing to go the way and alter them. I don't want just to focus on the *big* things, and leave all the small bits as they are, still confusing, perhaps not for veteran players, but maybe for newbies trying to get a catch on the game. Keep in mind that most newbies won't have access to a group of veterans that can teach the game. S:CE states that it resolves before anything else. Good. OK. Dodge says that it negates the opponents strike. Also ok. Both S:CE and dodge are listed as special strike-types. Understandable, they are *strikes*. FS says it happens before normal strikes. Clear. So I'd guess (as a total newbie) it would happen before dodge, as dodge is also a strike. But no! Dodge has an *exception*: it even beats strikes dealt with FS. I claim that exceptions to the normal game-sequence are a bad thing for newbies. No matter what. Keeping exceptions to a minimum is a Good Thing(tm). We have the S:CE exception. Ok, that's necessary to mimic the pre-emptive power to prohibit combats (in RPG). But dodge? If it was treated as a normal strike, then it would be better for newbies, heck, we even have a "dodge"-resolve subphase or something like that (it's a long time since I last read the modified online rule-book). Now if that's not something that could be made easier, as I gather most people think it wouldn't have any impact on game-play. So why do we need the exception with dodge? There simply is no reason other "because it was designed that way" which I know LSJ would state. :) With keeping the goal of making the rules more streamlined (not simpler!) we should help newbies and alter dodge. :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8bagq7$obi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > There are 7! cards in the game that use the FS-concept, and all of them > > (except Muddled Vampire Hunter) are restricted in their use. > > Most of which are restricted to weapons/equipment. The fact that > equipment is not often played is a bigger deterrent to those cards > than the mechanics of FS. Do you think that FS would be more played if general FS cards would exist (e.g. cards that make the next strike a FS)? I believe they still wouldn't be used, as FS gets beaten by both dodge and S:CE. > > > Unless FS gets a boost, we don't *need* the concept. It's misleading for > > new players, who already have to keep dozens of other things in mind, > > adding that FS resolves *after* S:CE *and* dodge doesn't help. > > > > However, I still think that game-play would benefit if FS beat dodge > > (not S:CE), and I also don't think that there would be a big shift > > towards combat-decks. > > Then new players would have to remember that FS resolves *after* > S:CE and *before* dodge - which "helps" even less than the original > rule (which is better stated as " A strike done with First Strike is > resolved before a normal strike." or "A strike done with First Strike > will hit your opponent before his strike hits you."). No, new players would have to remember that FS is resolved before any other normal strike, with the exception of S:CE. Of course, dodge would have to be treated as a normal *strike*, without a seperate "dodge-resolution" sub-phase. If that would be dropped, it would get a little easier for newbies. Still, would game-balance be damaged if FS would beat dodge? [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > Sidenote: LSJ stated that Scorpion Sting models the "FS beats dodge" > concept, which I think is not quite accurate. I said that Scorpion Sting models the "<something> beats only dodge" functionality ("only dodge" meaning "dodge but not S:CE" in the context of the thread). Please explain how that is not quite accurate. Addendum: To have a first strike that beats dodge, the card would merely have to say "Strike: X with First Strike, this strike cannot be dodged". Which was the underlying point. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > Here lies the crux of the problem. S:CE is viewed as too powerful, > primarily because it's too easy and cheap to pull off, resulting in > the strong desire to develop something that trumps it. If S:CE is the problem, why make some other mechanic stronger to counter it (see: escalation) instead of addressing the (perceived) problem directly? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

> If S:CE is the problem, why make some other mechanic stronger to > counter it (see: escalation) instead of addressing the (perceived) > problem directly? Good question... Do you think that S:CE beating everything (except a handful cards) is not overly powerful? And what would you do to adress this S:CE problem? Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:21:03 GMT, prea...@utanet.at said: carl> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Then new players would have to remember that FS resolves *after* >> S:CE and *before* dodge - which "helps" even less than the original >> rule (which is better stated as " A strike done with First Strike is >> resolved before a normal strike." or "A strike done with First Strike >> will hit your opponent before his strike hits you."). carl> No, new players would have to remember that FS is resolved before any carl> other normal strike, with the exception of S:CE. carl> Of course, dodge would have to be treated as a normal *strike*, without carl> a seperate "dodge-resolution" sub-phase. If that would be dropped, it carl> would get a little easier for newbies. After following the arguments and counter-arguments, I've (also) modified my original stance, I now agree that having FS beat S:CE would have too many game-unbalancing effects. I think the best fix is the one proposed by many in this group, i.e. have FS beat dodge. Pros: + would make FS *slightly* more useful (without the "First Strike that cannot be dodged" future card kludges suggested by LSJ) and turn it into a useful base game mechanic. This also opens up the door to future useful FS cards. + would not break anything (or can anyone suggest any broken combos resulting from this?) + would simplify the combat rules slightly, which is a Good Thing. + would cause all the people clamoring for this to finally shut up *grin* Cons: - would be a change (albeit a small one). Since the new expansion / reprint / whatever *will* need a new, official rulebook, this is perfect time to fine-tune the rules before anything official is printed and we again have a situatiin with N+1 tons of errata and rulings. //Petri

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:12:59 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> said: LSJ> To have a first strike that beats dodge, the card would merely have LSJ> to say "Strike: X with First Strike, this strike cannot be dodged". LSJ> Which was the underlying point. Yes, but that's also a) unnecessarily complicated and wordy, both which are bad. b) does nothing to fix the old cards that only say "First Strike", leaving the whole game mechanic as less than useful. I'd *much* rather trim the rules to make an underpowered game mechanic useful than issue new cards that attempt to fix things. I think the fundamental issue is: Would having FS beat Dodge have enough pros versus cons that tweaking the rules would be worth it? So far I haven't heard any real "cons" to the idea, and lots of pros from various people. So, why wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change? Does it break something? Does it cause problems with the rules? What? We're going to have to take a look at the rules anyway with the new expansion possibly coming up. Even though it's the best set of rules this game has ever had, there are still issues that we need to resolve in order to a) get all the main player groups to use one set of rules b) make everything as simple as possible (but not simpler! :) for new players. Remember, many new players don't have experienced players to guide them. I don't think that any big changes are needed, but this is definitely the right time to examine the rules and talk about them. //Petri

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:14:41 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> said: LSJ> Noal McDonald wrote: >> Here lies the crux of the problem. S:CE is viewed as too powerful, >> primarily because it's too easy and cheap to pull off, resulting in >> the strong desire to develop something that trumps it. LSJ> If S:CE is the problem, why make some other mechanic stronger to LSJ> counter it (see: escalation) instead of addressing the (perceived) LSJ> problem directly? How would you address this problem directly? There are N sources of cheap S:CE, there is no way to take that back. The only solution is to make counters to it. I think most people here agree that non-combat is easier than combat decks, and a game-winning combat-deck is *much* harder than a game-winning non-combat (due to both the ease and prevalence of S:CE and the secondary-resource problem). However, I now agree with the viewpoint the having FS beat S:CE might be too strong (and strongly advocate the "FS beats Dodge" solution). No, this would not help against S:CE, but would move one design-flawed (underpowered) game mechanic into the "useful" range - a good thing for the game, IMHO. Combat decks need something against S:CE. New anti-S:CE cards are needed for some clans to fix that problem. "FS beats Dodge" is needed to fix a game mechanic problem. Of course, the FS fix would also benefit combat decks *slightly*, which is good. //Petri

prea...@utanet.at writes: >S:CE states that it resolves before anything else. Good. OK. >Dodge says that it negates the opponents strike. Also ok. >Both S:CE and dodge are listed as special strike-types. Understandable, >they are *strikes*. >FS says it happens before normal strikes. Clear. So I'd guess (as a >total newbie) it would happen before dodge, as dodge is also a strike. >But no! Dodge has an *exception*: it even beats strikes dealt with FS. > >I claim that exceptions to the normal game-sequence are a bad thing for >newbies. No matter what. Keeping exceptions to a minimum is a Good >Thing(tm). Well, agreed, exceptions are generally bad. But of course, every rule in every game is an "exception", right from the one that tells you to open the box and take out the playing pieces. First you establish general procedures and principals. Then you tack on exceptions to the exceptions, i.e., when there special cases. Then special cases to the special cases and so forth. What emerges is the full set of rules. The question isn't "are exceptions 'bad'" per se. Each piece of added complexity is always 'bad' if it has no reason to exist. But presumedly, they all have a reason to exist that makes the game more fun in some sense, whether it's adding to the scope of things that players can do or make the simulation (to the extent the game is a simulation) seem more 'real' or possibly other purposes. So your real point, I think, is to say that this exception doesn't add to the fun of the game sufficiently to pull its weight in added complexity. Which is fine as opinion. I might point out that either way, I think there's going to be _some_ 'exception', since S:CE and Dodge say that you 'always' ignore the other strike. So you'll be dropping the resolve-first-strike- strikes-first exception in favor of one that says, "Dodge and S:CE don't work in the case that the other strike has the first strike property". Intuitively, there's probably a better argument for that. But it's still just an argument and bottom line, these are still 'exceptions'. >Now if that's not something that could be made easier, as I gather most >people think it wouldn't have any impact on game-play. So why do we need the >exception with dodge? >There simply is no reason other "because it was designed that way" which >I know LSJ would state. :) >With keeping the goal of making the rules more streamlined (not >simpler!) we should help newbies and alter dodge. :) It absolutely has an effect on game play. It makes all the difference in the world when designing Celerity decks, IMHO (amongst others; but I think of Celerity decks first because they Dodge-with-an-additional-strike(s) all the time, thus producing offense will remaining 'untouchable' on defence; with this change, they would no longer be untouchable - HUGE difference!). And 'because it was designed that way' is a perfectly valid reason in view of the fact that there's subjective judgment about how the combat system should work. Essentially, the designers felt the game is more fun to play this way, for whatever reasons. Making rules streamlined is only one consideration. If it were the only one in existence, there's no point to creating any games. The absolutely *simplest* set of game rules (therefore the 'best' one by the measure of simplicity alone) would be a null set - that is, the simplest game in existence is to not play a game at all. Fred

> >I claim that exceptions to the normal game-sequence are a bad thing for > >newbies. No matter what. Keeping exceptions to a minimum is a Good > >Thing(tm). > > Well, agreed, exceptions are generally bad. But of course, every rule > in every game is an "exception", right from the one that tells you to open > the box and take out the playing pieces. Well, generally, I haven't seen a game yet, that incorporates that rule. :) It's maybe an unwritten rule? :) > > So your real point, I think, is to say that this exception doesn't add > to the fun of the game sufficiently to pull its weight in added complexity. > Which is fine as opinion. I might point out that either way, I think there's > going to be _some_ 'exception', since S:CE and Dodge say that you 'always' > ignore the other strike. So you'll be dropping the resolve-first- strike- > strikes-first exception in favor of one that says, "Dodge and S:CE don't > work in the case that the other strike has the first strike property". > Intuitively, there's probably a better argument for that. But it's still > just an argument and bottom line, these are still 'exceptions'. I never said that a game should have *no* exceptions (esp. VTES). I maintain that a mechanic that is not used (due to any cause) should either be made more use-able or dropped for a little simpler gameplay. That's the case with FS. *IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION*: A number of posters assumed that I meant FS to beat *both* S:CE and dodge, which is not what I proposed. I would like FS to beat dodge *but not* S:CE. > > >Now if that's not something that could be made easier, as I gather most > >people think it wouldn't have any impact on game-play. So why do we need the > >exception with dodge? > >There simply is no reason other "because it was designed that way" which > >I know LSJ would state. :) > >With keeping the goal of making the rules more streamlined (not > >simpler!) we should help newbies and alter dodge. :) It would be such a simple thing: a) rewrite the rules that dodge is treated just as a normal strike that negates the opponents strike during its *normal* strike resolution. b) state that FS resolves *before* the opponent's strike resolution. That's all that is needed. Simple, easy, intuitive, making FS a little more worthwhile. > Making rules streamlined is only one consideration. If it were the only > one in existence, there's no point to creating any games. The absolutely > *simplest* set of game rules (therefore the 'best' one by the measure of > simplicity alone) would be a null set - that is, the simplest game in > existence is to not play a game at all. This statement is plain dumb, forgive me, and it bears no meaning for our argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xpuslk...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, [ quoted text not captured ] I totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. :) Tying up loose ends, making some things actually *useable* will benefit the whole game, and new players. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7xsnxhk...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, [ quoted text not captured ] I don't view changes per se as a negative thing. I think there is still room for improvement in the rules, and we should really take advantage of it. After almost 6 years, it's rather clear that the FS mechanic is quite uesless, and not much used at all. We now know something that the original design-team couldn't, as we have tested the game for a *very* long time. :) > > Since the new expansion / reprint / whatever *will* need a new, > official rulebook, this is perfect time to fine-tune the rules before > anything official is printed and we again have a situatiin with N+1 > tons of errata and rulings. Well spoken Petri, [ quoted text not captured ]

I like the idea of FS occuring before dodge, and not S:CE. Dodge as a normal strike works against normal strikes, but not first strike (of which, S:CE is a member). Just my 2 ct.

prea...@utanet.at writes: >I never said that a game should have *no* exceptions (esp. VTES). I >maintain that a mechanic that is not used (due to any cause) should >either be made more use-able or dropped for a little simpler gameplay. >That's the case with FS. Then we're starting to argue in circles here because I answered that one, already: design new cards using existing FS that *are* useful. This is emmeniently possible - as demonstrated by a similar situation Magic had with beneficial creature enchantments. >> >With keeping the goal of making the rules more streamlined (not >> >simpler!) we should help newbies and alter dodge. :) >> *simplest* set of game rules (therefore the 'best' one by the measure >> of simplicity alone) would be a null set - that is, the simplest game in >> existence is to not play a game at all. > >This statement is plain dumb, forgive me, I'll forgive you but I'm not going to let you get away with it. There's no other way for me to respond except by saying, no, *your* statements are just plain dumb. I mean, what do you want? If you don't understand a point I've made, then say so and I'll clarify. But just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's vacuous. >and it bears no meaning for our argument. The text of yours that I quoted above seemed to indicate that you didn't see any other goal that's important in a game besides simplification. I'm sorry that I missed the parenthetical words: ("not simpler"), which I absolutely dispute. "Streamlined" *means* "simpler". It's just a more specific word used to refer to processes. The whole point of "streamlining a process" is to simplify it, nothing more nothing less. To clarify my point, which assumed that you do indeed mean "simpler is always better", I'm just driving the such a concept to its logical absurd conclusion which is that the simplest game is a "null game". Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] And after weeks of discussion I will add my agreement here. Raille

> > Then we're starting to argue in circles here because I answered that > one, already: design new cards using existing FS that *are* useful. > This is emmeniently possible - as demonstrated by a similar situation > Magic had with beneficial creature enchantments. I don't think that new FS strike cards would make much of a difference, if the mechanics were left in place. A lot of players would still refrain from using it, just because there's dodge *and* S:CE. And, btw, I also don't think that we should mimic Magic in designing cards. This is V:TES, and it's fundamentally different to the other game. > >> *simplest* set of game rules (therefore the 'best' one by the measure > >> of simplicity alone) would be a null set - that is, the simplest game in > >> existence is to not play a game at all. > > > >This statement is plain dumb, forgive me, > > I'll forgive you but I'm not going to let you get away with it. *relaxes* pfuhhh, thanks... :) > There's > no other way for me to respond except by saying, no, *your* statements > are just plain dumb. I mean, what do you want? If you don't understand > a point I've made, then say so and I'll clarify. But just because you > don't understand it doesn't mean it's vacuous. The problem is, why would you want a game with no rules at all, i.e. no game? Following that kind of logic is not productive. > > >and it bears no meaning for our argument. > > The text of yours that I quoted above seemed to indicate that you didn't > see any other goal that's important in a game besides simplification. I'm > sorry that I missed the parenthetical words: ("not simpler"), which I > absolutely dispute. "Streamlined" *means* "simpler". It's just a more > specific word used to refer to processes. The whole point of "streamlining > a process" is to simplify it, nothing more nothing less. So you think streamlining per se is something which should be avoided? Think of it that way: when you realise that something you do is really not necessary, will you keep doing that, or will you skip the step? I postulate that FS in it's current form is near useless and totally underused. Under this condition, it would be better to drop the rule, i.e. making it more streamlined. :) > > To clarify my point, which assumed that you do indeed mean "simpler is > always better", I'm just driving the such a concept to its logical > absurd conclusion which is that the simplest game is a "null game". Simpler is not always better, but sometimes it might be better. Leaving FS as it is now, is not going to help the game and newbies. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8bqhef$15v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prea...@utanet.at writes >Leaving FS as it is now, is not going to help the game and newbies. I seriously believe that this "newbies" thing that people are latching on to is seriously a nothing. If the problem is teaching people where it comes, that's just a matter for the rulesbook and teaching. The actual mechanics of the game don't affect newbies one way or the other. -- James Coupe

James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <8bqhef$15v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prea...@utanet.at writes > >Leaving FS as it is now, is not going to help the game and newbies. > > I seriously believe that this "newbies" thing that people are latching > on to is seriously a nothing. If the problem is teaching people where > it comes, that's just a matter for the rulesbook and teaching. I have to agree: are newbies actually newbie? Most coming into this game will have probably had some experiance with ccgs before, or are people continuing or coming back to the game. This game is very well balanced, with well defined rules, and a newbie would probably realize that a game with rules requires learning them. Even if all he/she knows is Pokemon.... > The actual mechanics of the game don't affect newbies one way or the Read the rulebook, read the card. Welcome to the Game!! > other. > > -- > James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

> I have to agree: are newbies actually newbie? Most coming into this > game will have probably had some experiance with ccgs before, or are > people continuing or coming back to the game. This game is very well > balanced, with well defined rules, and a newbie would probably realize > that a game with rules requires learning them. Even if all he/she knows > is Pokemon.... I have to disagree. At the EC, which was held late November last year in Vienna at a big annual gaming convention, VTES caught the eye of *many* potential players who have absolutely no idea of what a CCG is. They got to like the pictures, the cool look of the game, the setting on vampires, and perhaps they saw how much fun and interactive the game is. Such people will be part of the new audience VTES will get at the hands of WW. I sincerly believe that we need to do everything in our might to bring them *easily*, smoothly into our fold. If that means re-examining some (redundant?) rules and/or mechanics, so be it. Please just don't say "it's not worth the effort"! Every little thing that helps is worth the effort, and we have a lot of time to go over everything until the next set with a rulebook comes out. Another issue is making all rules and mechanics more playable. What's the point of having a rule that has no use in the game, will some newbies ask (e.g. withdrawal, FS). Honestly I don't give a damn for veterans having to adapt to a change again. I'm also a veteran, I adapted to the many changes over the course of (almost) 6 years, and I think we are all capable of doing that. Help beginners, make it easier for them. Not everyone has a tutor for their first couple of games. Carl > > > The actual mechanics of the game don't affect newbies one way or the > > Read the rulebook, read the card. Welcome to the Game!! [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > Another issue is making all rules and mechanics more playable. What's > the point of having a rule that has no use in the game, will some > newbies ask (e.g. withdrawal, FS). We've had the withdrawal rule come into play before. Granted, it's not a frequent event by any stretch (esp. since we rarely get to the end of our decks). All a player really have to know is that the rule (whatever it is) exists. Then, if you get to the point in the game where you think you might want to withdraw, you look up the rule. The best example of what the withdrawal rule is for was in one of our games six months ago or so: two players left, and one with an empty library (but plenty of equipment - mostly guns - in play). The player with cards left had the advantage except for the guns, which would've rapidly reduced the number of ready minions he had. So he needed some time to build up strength for an assault. He was denied that time by the other player's constant attempts to withdraw - which forced him to send a minion over every turn to get shot up. The withdrawal rules (and, to a greater extent, the Edge) seem to have been created to ensure activity and prevent the game from stagnating (at the end) as both players simply entrench and wait for the other player to stick his neck out. This isn't quite as important in a tournament game with a time limit, but has more application to the "regular" game. Even if no one ever successfully withdraws (or if no one ever successfully holds onto the Edge), the rule still serves a purpose. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "Frankly Scallop, http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I don't give a clam!" Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | -- Rhett Lobster

[ quoted text not captured ] > //Petri Okay, first of all, "Strike: X with First Strike, this strike cannot be dodged" is not unneccessarily complicated, in my opinion. The text is like 2,3 lines long and the meaning is extremely clear. Second, I feel that changing the rules to help one mechanic is silly when, as LSJ pointed out, new cards could be issued to cover the gap. This is far better, in my opinion, since it prevents the sort of foolishness that causes certain people to get fussy and split off and form splinter factions. You say you want all the main player groups to use the same set of rules; so why would you go and mimic the events that caused the major schism in the first place? As davey! has said in the past, it is simpler for newbies to put more of the rules that could be in the rule book on the cards; since in my experience many newbies try to avoid reading the entire rulebook before they play to see whether the game is worth their time. Please, let's not encourage WW to release a third edition of the basic set until we have new cards(and for me Sabbat would be new) ;), we've been waiting long enough. All these proposed rules changes would just push them in that direction. -T -- S'io credesse che mia risposta fosse a persona che mai tornasse al mondo, questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse. Ma per ciň che giammai di questo fondo non tornň vivo alcun, s'i' odo il vero, senza tema d'infamia ti rispondo. T.S. Eliot- "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"

I read quite a lot messages now but one point isn´t quite clear yet. HAS ANYONE TRIED TO PLAY WITH A FIRST STRIKE DECK WHICH CAN BEAT DODGE AND COMBAT ENDS???????????????? Did it work fantastic? Was it the long lost overwhelming deck that beats everyone? Well, I don´t think so. First of all there are not enough FS-cards. Secondly if you like to use them all you want have much intercept,... I think as many groups as possible should try playing with FS-Decks now for the next two weeks or so and see if it is really as unbalancing as you thought. Combat Phases should be: First Strike Strike Resolution Strike Strike Resolution Additional Strikes Strike Resolution Graf Metternich [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8c1nqm$3d3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prea...@utanet.at writes >Another issue is making all rules and mechanics more playable. What's >the point of having a rule that has no use in the game, will some >newbies ask (e.g. withdrawal, FS). Teach them that they do have uses. Which they do. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <8c7qmo$d9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Graf Metternich <mi...@chello.at> writes >Did it work fantastic? Was it the long lost overwhelming deck that >beats everyone? There are no decks that do this, FS or no FS. There are no decks that beat everyone. Anyone looking for them is doomed to failure. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <JjDhAxBV...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <8c7qmo$d9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Graf Metternich > <mi...@chello.at> writes > >Did it work fantastic? Was it the long lost overwhelming deck that > >beats everyone? > > There are no decks that do this, FS or no FS. > > There are no decks that beat everyone. Anyone looking for them is > doomed to failure. > Then why are so many wheening that FS beating all normal Strikes (dodges, CE,...) is soooo unbalancing the game and will make decks sooooo powerful(l)????? I don´t think it would unbalance the game, but as long as no one seems to actually "playtest" this it will remain a mysterium. Graf Metternich Writing in the morning is bad for spelling :) [ quoted text not captured ]

warning: this poster has been drinking again, so hopefully it will all remain coherent. On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 05:18:25 GMT, Graf Metternich <mi...@chello.at> wrote: >In article <JjDhAxBV...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, >James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> There are no decks that beat everyone. Anyone looking for them is >> doomed to failure. >> >Then why are so many wheening that FS beating all normal Strikes >(dodges, CE,...) is soooo unbalancing the game and will make decks >sooooo powerful(l)????? Because of the logical steps involved. * First, you alter FS to beat Dodge and S:CE. . Now you already have a problem with Quietus/Protean being overpowerful combat, although tricky to make work. BUT, this is merely the tip of the iceberg. You also have a bigger problem with the Muddled Vampire Hunter - see previous posts. * Second, since you have gone to all the trouble to alter FS, you need to make a card that uses FS so that it matters. So you make some Celerity card that grants it. (It makes no sense to give it to anything but Celerity.) . Now you are REALLY creating a problem. Celerity is the premier combat-support discipline, and ALREADY beats Dodge even without FS. Potence/Celerity needs no help, but you've just given it some, making it even more of a combat trump than it already was. You also have given decks NO combat defense against someone who plays First Strike, except to generate their OWN First Strike - meaning every deck should have Celerity. Immortal Grapple can be beaten by just maneuvering away from it - a properly built CEL/FS deck with such a card should conceivably guaranteed-kill a vampire every combat, with no recourse for the victims except something like Elysium or Fortitude (and THA/CEL will even beat up Fortitude). Making POT/CEL do this with Immortal Grapple is nowhere near as easy since you must include oodles of maneuvers. Making combat this powerful is not good. Combat decks attack secondary resources, vampires. But without those secondary resources, you can neither defend your own primary resources NOR remove someone else's primary resources. A bleed or vote deck attacks your primary resources, but while your primary resources are being depleted you lose little to none of your ability to remove OTHERS' primary resources, or defend against additional attacks. This is why it's good for combat to be a "weak third" behind bleed and vote, the other two archetypes - because making it equal is almost like making it first. And that wouldn't be good at all. >I don´t think it would unbalance the game, but as long as no one seems >to actually "playtest" this it will remain a mysterium. Nothing new is available to be playtested - therefore we are forced to indulge in idle speculation and apply as much logic as we can to things via the classic "what if?" =) -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

> >Another issue is making all rules and mechanics more playable. What's > >the point of having a rule that has no use in the game, will some > >newbies ask (e.g. withdrawal, FS). > > Teach them that they do have uses. Which they do. Hm, I have altered my opinion about withdrawal. I actually agree with LSJ, that it was designed like the edge to maintain a table dynamic. So I don't think it should be removed anymore. However, it should be just a *tad* easier to pull off. Is that possible? I mean, how often is it tried? Not very often. And how often do you succeed withdrawing? Far less often. It's just too damned hard to pull off. Granted, if you have a deck that is designed to withdraw successfully, you can do it (usually, haven't thought about it yet). But otherwise? It's an awful lot of luck involved, wouldn't you say? As to other rules which are seldom used. Why not making them a little bit more used instead of leaving them untouched? Again, would game balance suffer? Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > Help beginners, make it easier for them. Not everyone > has a tutor for their first couple of games. Carl brings up a very good point here. Currently, VTES suffers from the same fate as Linux does. It requires an "expert" to assist in getting it set up and running as a productive workstation. While there are plenty of resources out there, they are not readily apparent with a boxed distribution and requires research to locate them. Most people playing the game have experienced someone showing up to a tournament with a "killer" deck and no foreknowledge of errata. While the reprinting of the rules and cards will help, the complexity of the game is something that VTES is infamous for. There have benn several articles regarding that over the years. While some of those reviewers struck me as being unable to understand Monopoly on a good day, it does belie the fact that the rules do need to be kept as simple as possible and older errata should be trimmed as much as possible. Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at writes: >> Then we're starting to argue in circles here because I answered that >> one, already: design new cards using existing FS that *are* useful. >> This is emmeniently possible - as demonstrated by a similar situation >> Magic had with beneficial creature enchantments. > >I don't think that new FS strike cards would make much of a difference, >if the mechanics were left in place. A lot of players would still >refrain from using it, just because there's dodge *and* S:CE. There's dodge and S:CE and lots of other strikes gets used. So obviously the point that Dodge and S:CE exist, doesn't make it impossible to design other balanced types of strikes. I don't know why you keep leaning on this as a reason why FS cards will never make a difference. It isn't such a reason. It's just that FS won't make any difference when used against Dodge or S:CE. This doesn't solve the problem of Dodge or S:CE being too useful (if such a problem even exists), but you can solve that problem in other ways, e.g., more Scorpian Sting-like cards. >And, btw, I also don't think that we should mimic Magic in designing >cards. What the hell does this have to do with Magic? You are missing my point to have made such a comment. The *point* was that such problems - which were already common to both games - can be solved the same way, which is generally a good way to solve them. >The problem is, why would you want a game with no rules at all, i.e. no >game? Following that kind of logic is not productive. That was precisely my point. You can't simplyify to extreme or you have no game, i.e., nothing that's fun to do. Complexity is good where it brings a high content of fun with it. >> The whole point of "streamlining >> a process" is to simplify it, nothing more nothing less. > >So you think streamlining per se is something which should be avoided? Not per se, no. I just see it as a tradeoff. Streamline when you don't lose anything good with the complexity. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. >I postulate that FS in it's current form is near useless and totally >underused. Under this condition, it would be better to drop the rule, >i.e. making it more streamlined. :) I think this is subjective opinion and disagree with it. But we'll not likely convince each other in matters of subjective opinion. Fred

Celerity is the premier > combat-support discipline, and ALREADY beats Dodge even without FS. Celerity?? Good old fashioned Ani/Pro is much more powerful. Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) and Scorpion Sting (no Dogde allowed). With this you can already kill any CE-Deck and Dogde Deck because usually one Combat is enough to send you to torpor unless you don´t have FOR. As you see there already exists this method of you can´t do nothing (with the exceptions of Maneuvers I know, but this would apply to FS to) Graf Metternich [ quoted text not captured ]

Graf Metternich <mi...@chello.at> wrote: > Celerity?? Good old fashioned Ani/Pro is much more powerful. > Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) and > Scorpion Sting (no Dogde allowed). Dog Pack is a Gangrel card, not an animalism or protean card, and therefore does not belong in a discussion regarding the merits of combat disciplines. Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 08:10:52 GMT, Graf Metternich <mi...@chello.at> wrote: > Celerity is the premier >> combat-support discipline, and ALREADY beats Dodge even without FS. > >Celerity?? Good old fashioned Ani/Pro is much more powerful. Can't generate additional strikes effectively without Celerity. Shadow of the Wolf doesn't cut it real well. >Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) and Scorpion >Sting (no Dogde allowed). Sure, you can try that. In our experience (and Tatu has surely tried ;), the time taken to equip the Dog Pack and the limitation of only being able to kill one vampire per turn generally gets YOU killed as all the other vampires bleed or vote you into oblivion. Not to mention Dog Pack costs 2 pool. Scorpion sting is handy, but you require superior ANI to make it work, so it's Bear Paw or Gitane for you - both fairly large vamps, and slowing you down some. Compare with inferior CEL, which generates a simple additional strike with Blur. Scorpion sting isn't WALLPAPER, but Celerity outstrips Animalism OR Protean as secondary-combat by a long shot. >With this you can already kill any CE-Deck and Dogde Deck because >usually one Combat is enough to send you to torpor unless you don´t >have FOR. And killing one vampire per turn is definitely going to slow down a weenie bleed horde a lot. *sarcasm* >As you see there already exists this method of you can´t do nothing >(with the exceptions of Maneuvers I know, but this would apply to FS >to) It would, in fact, NOT apply to FS. There are plenty of long-range strikes available in the game, the simplest being "guns" and going elsewhere from there. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > * Second, since you have gone to all the trouble to alter FS, > you need to make a card that uses FS so that it matters. So you > make some Celerity card that grants it. (It makes no sense to > give it to anything but Celerity.) Actually, I could make a case for Quietus, Obfuscate, Auspex, Obtenebration, Viccisitude and Protean. > Now you are REALLY creating a problem. Celerity is the > premier combat-support discipline, and ALREADY beats Dodge > even without FS. Depends on what you want it to do. Animalism is much better at setting range, Fortitude is better at preventing damage, Protean is equal at presses. Celerity, while able to do all three at a competent level, isn't particularly exceptional at anything but dodges and additional strikes. > Immortal Grapple can be beaten by just maneuvering away from it *cough*DotB*cough* If Nosferatu could prevent damage worth a damn, they would be well nigh unstoppable in combat. > A bleed or vote deck attacks your primary resources, but while > your primary resources are being depleted you lose little to > none of your ability to remove OTHERS' primary resources, or > defend against additional attacks. Depends on the vote deck. A lot of my vote decks center around trying to burn vampires outright. > Nothing new is available to be playtested - therefore we are > forced to indulge in idle speculation and apply as much logic > as we can to things via the classic "what if?" =) What we _can_ do, is playtest using existing cards. Since they will be the template for new cards, I don't see how it's an unreasonable idea. All this talk about first strike is making me want to put together a Silence of Death/Disguised Weapon/Wooden Stake/Lucky Blow deck. That's the combo that is likely to make or break the case of FS vs. S:CE or Dodge. [ quoted text not captured ]

Just a quick comment. I think it's very interesting to note that nobody has mentioned the possibilities of playing Dodge or S:CE with First Strike, thus nullifying complaints of not being to deal with First Strike attacks effectively? The problems with changing First Strike aren't as bad as they seem... Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London mi...@vekn.org.uk ; mi...@darkness.org.uk

> > And killing one vampire per turn is definitely going to slow down a > weenie bleed horde a lot. *sarcasm* > I didn´t know that FS can kill more than one vampire a turn. :) But Noal was right, Dog Pack is a Gangrel Card (my mistake, I thought it was ANI) But I still think that FS should beat common CE-Cards. If A doesn´t have a CE-Card and plays only a Dodge and B plays additional strikes A would need an additional strike to play a CE (if he draws one) or Dodge. So why not make a CE that ends combat before Maneuvers are played (like Elysium)? Graf Metternich [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:03:22 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> * Second, since you have gone to all the trouble to alter FS, >> you need to make a card that uses FS so that it matters. So you >> make some Celerity card that grants it. (It makes no sense to >> give it to anything but Celerity.) > >Actually, I could make a case for Quietus, Obfuscate, Auspex, >Obtenebration, Viccisitude and Protean. Quietus, because it already has one and the "assassin" thing, yes. But it DOES already have one. =) Obfuscate/Auspex, neither -really- combat support disciplines.. probably shouldn't have one. OBT is an altered Obfuscate, with a few weird things tossed in. VIC is flesh manipulation - difficult to produce "first strike" out of that. =) Protean, perhaps, but wasn't qui/pro bad enough without pro/pro? ;) >Depends on what you want it to do. Animalism is much better at setting >range, Fortitude is better at preventing damage, Protean is equal at >presses. Celerity, while able to do all three at a competent level, >isn't particularly exceptional at anything but dodges and additional >strikes. But it's competent at range, prevent, and pressing WHILE ALSO having dodge and additional strikes, unlike all the others. It's definitely the best all-round combat support. >> Immortal Grapple can be beaten by just maneuvering away from it > >*cough*DotB*cough* If Nosferatu could prevent damage worth a damn, they >would be well nigh unstoppable in combat. my Nosferatu Law Firm deck was pretty vicious... 4 Nossies with fortitude also come with 2 Prince titles, a Justicar title, and Primogen. And Potence. So they called votes, and if you blocked, they smacked the hell out of you and prevented yours. If they weren't so huge they'd make a decent combat mob - still might, if someone was to use Horse Brutality. (Or just Minion Tap/Taste, really.) >> Nothing new is available to be playtested - therefore we are >> forced to indulge in idle speculation and apply as much logic >> as we can to things via the classic "what if?" =) > >What we _can_ do, is playtest using existing cards. Since they will be >the template for new cards, I don't see how it's an unreasonable idea. > >All this talk about first strike is making me want to put together a >Silence of Death/Disguised Weapon/Wooden Stake/Lucky Blow deck. That's >the combo that is likely to make or break the case of FS vs. S:CE or >Dodge. I made a DW/Stake/Lucky Blow deck recently. First problem I found - you run out of Stakes too fast. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> Actually, I could make a case for Quietus, Obfuscate, Auspex, >> Obtenebration, Viccisitude and Protean. > > Quietus, because it already has one and the "assassin" thing, > yes. But it DOES already have one. =) Yep. A bit hampered for what Assamites normally do...but it does. I wouldn't mind seeing a Quietus card that gives FS only usable at long range at minor and same as above but opponent can't use S:CE at superior. Cost one or two blood and you'd have a card that would really help out the Assamites. > Obfuscate/Auspex, neither -really- combat support disciplines.. > probably shouldn't have one. OBT is an altered Obfuscate, with a few > weird things tossed in. Obfuscate and Obtenebration are perfect for catching opponents off guard. Auspex can be used to stay a step ahead by reading the opponent's thoughts. > VIC is flesh manipulation - difficult to produce "first strike" > out of that. =) Not if you envelop your opponent in flesh. *grin* But that's more along the lines of what I was thinking of a Vic. IG type card. That would make for gruesome art, wouldn't it? > Protean, perhaps, but wasn't qui/pro bad enough without pro/pro? ;) If FS doesn't beat S:CE, I don't see a problem. Even if FS doesn't beat S:CE, I could see it being used more widely if the cards that provide FS were more useful even w/o FS and the effect cost less. > But it's competent at range, prevent, and pressing WHILE ALSO > having dodge and additional strikes, unlike all the others. > It's definitely the best all-round combat support. It certainly is the most versatile. Whether Celerity suits a certain deck or not depends on a number of factors. If Nosferatu had POT/ANI/PRE they would be more useful to make a Anathema/IG deck than the Brujah are. The Brujah have young Princes and Presence to push votes, so Celerity it is. I'd post the deck, but I can't reveal trade secrets before Origins. ;) > I made a DW/Stake/Lucky Blow deck recently. First problem I found > - you run out of Stakes too fast. =) Yep. I was thinking that I'd have to get a Brujah put some Arms Dealers in play to get the Stakes into my hand. But then that gets into too many moving parts. I try to keep deck strategies as focused as possible. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8cc824$7ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Graf Metternich <mi...@chello.at> writes >Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) It's unique, it's fragile and it's expensive. Erk. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <8cc824$7ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Graf Metternich > <mi...@chello.at> writes > >Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) > > It's unique, it's fragile and it's expensive. Erk. Dog Pack is not unique. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

In article <38EB3919...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In article <8cc824$7ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Graf Metternich > > <mi...@chello.at> writes > > >Ever considered playing with Dog Pack( no CE allowed) > > > > It's unique, it's fragile and it's expensive. Erk. > > Dog Pack is not unique. Dog Pack, Scorpion Sting, any agg hand. Tee hee hee. It's the wynn wynn wynn deck. -- Knowledge is power. Michael F. Tomkins Power corrupts. m.to...@student.canberra.edu.au Stay stupid. University of Canberra, Australia. http://student.canberra.edu.au/~u964617/