Archon Investigation: a defence

Hello, I've got some time spare so I'll have a go at defending Archon Investigation and why it is no way a broken card. We play with a 4cl so all points may not apply to no limit though I should imagine most of them will. To elaborate on a previous post I'll start by examining the individual defences each clan has against Stealth and Bleed (which is by far the hardest attack to stop for many clans ). The Problem: The best defence against S+B comes from either deflecting or intercepting. The two disciplines that are most useful to this are dominate and auspex. Therefore it stands to reason that any deck that can do one or both of these has a fairly decent counter to the tactic. Here's a break down then of clan options using these methods: Tremere: bounce, reduce and intercept Malkavian: bounce, reduce and intercept Ventrue: bounce Toreador: bounce, reduce and intercept Lasombra: bounce Tzimisce: bounce, reduce and intercept Giovanni: bounce All these clans have dominate or auspex - a very effective S+B defence and will subsequently be left out of the discussion. Nosferatu, Gangrel, Brujah, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites all lack either dominate or auspex. That is, they cannot deflect a high stealth massive bleed to oust them - a relatively easy task for a s+b deck. Three of these clans have animalism - very useful in getting that +1 from a cats guidance - but that's it. The discipline also has many good permanents such as their birdy intercept. The Ravnos are the best of these having ignis fatuus and veiled sight - blood intensive but useful anti-stealth cards. The other clans have none of this. There are also the cards: pack tactics and elder intervention for that +2 intercept against bleed actions. Clanless permanents: such as the three intercept locations and sport bikes. These all cost pool and the equipment takes time to get out. As it will often be little problem for a S+B to surpass +1 stealth, it will be of little practical use. Protected resources is a card that I have never seen but I know pretty much what it does. It ties you up in so far as bleeding is concerned and whilst certainly useful is limited in its usefulness - bleeds, albeit not very big ones - can still make it through. It is also a matter of luck as to when it comes out; when it comes through you might be past it. Rush: The brujah, nosferatu, gangrel and assamites are generally good at rush. The ravnos aren't good at rush, needing combos and the settites are just crap. Two of these clans' rush capabilities can be circum-navigated by a dodge card: the nosferatu and gangrel - if the gangrel should try the scorpian sting/aggro combo then there's rotschreck which utterly screws them. With this tactic removed the gangrel are pretty naff needing time (which they don't have) to build up. The nosferatu's only saving grace for the dodge is probably the immortal grapple. This leave the assamites and the brujah as the only really effective rushers due to their additional strikes. Even so, it will simply be a question of who is more fortunate - does the S+b have enough big bleed to knock out the brujah/assamite methusalah before the brujah/assamites knock his minions into torpor using celerity? The question can be asked: 'Well what about the S+B's predator? Won't he be hassling the S+B?'. The answer is probably not. In a four player: e.g. player A (s+b) is hassling player B so much that B cannot hassle C. Being free from B's attention, C can divert all his attention to A's predator, D - thus tying him up. The problem with these tactics though is the speed at which a s+b operates. The fact is that you simply will not have time to get all those permanents out before you're dead or on your last legs. Very quickly a S+b deck can be knocking down your pool. This naturally slows you down - simply because with less pool the prey will have less minions out and thus be less effective. The fact remains though: even if the prey does start rushing its predator, all the predator ever really needs is one big bleed through and it's all over. These then are the problems that any of these 6 clans face. The Card itself: Archon Investigation is a card that strikes fear into a S+B players heart. It's release was the lifeboon to many a player who previously had to look helplessly on, as, despite his best efforts, he was hammered out of the game by that one almighty bleed. AI doesn't stop these massive bleeds outright. Rather, if you wish to do a massive bleed there is now an element of risk. If you gamble and go for it you might be lucky and take out your opponent, if not then you've lost a vampire for the mere gain of a loss of three of your prey's pool. To do a massive bleed you're playing with fire - it could win you the game or it could seriously screw you. It remains your choice whether to bleed for massive amounts or not. It's not even as if a loss of three pool wasn't a lot! I know of no player who wouldn't (in most cases) be severely hampered by such a loss, resulting in a leaving of more minions in defence, weakening vampires by draining them of blood etc... One final point. It could be said in favour of AI being broken, 'Well perhaps you should mix one of these six clans with another clan - one that can deflect'. But why? Why should I have to not play a gangrel-nosferatu deck just because someone can bleed for loads in complete safety? The card allows better/wider deck creation opportunities - it means that the Brujah aren't forced to stick to rush combat in mortal fear of such a deck. Why shouldn't they play with the Nosferatu in a vote deck with limited combat? (stealth being used to get the votes into play, etc...). I think that's it - I think the argument's pretty conclusive, but then again I would, wouldn't I? Seeya, Peter

<snipped argument for AI> Personally I think their is no need for AI. Although as long as people are still playing with RTI I will continue to use AI to punish them. All the non bouncing clans can carry on a Bounce defence via Major boon. Granted its not nearly as effective or flexible as the traditional bounce cards, but it has its merits. If people insist on falling back on S&B (yawn IMHO) then try using a few Major boons.

On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:21:56 +0000 (GMT), CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) wrote: >Hello, > >I've got some time spare so I'll have a go at defending Archon Investigation >and why it is no way a broken card. We play with a 4cl so all points may not >apply to no limit though I should imagine most of them will. Most of your points are invalidated by the fact that under NL there are _many_ ways of dealing with S&B decks. The _Strategies_ which are effective in destroying S&B: Rush. A good rush deck(note "good") can take a S&B deck to pieces as each vampire which enters play enters torpor before it can act. Archons, Bum's Rushes, Haven Uncovered, and Ambush used with a good combat clan like brujah or gangrel ensures that your predator will be helpless. And no, S&B does not have good combat defense. This point has been argued before: if you pack heavy obedience combat defense, you will jam on that as well as your stealth, leaving your bleed ability gone. Votes: Votes are faster than S&B. Much faster. And not only that, but your prey's predator will be backing you on the votes, letting you do as much damage to your predator as is necessary. Oh, and if you're good, and if he's been bleeding you, a parity shift can work wonders. Intercept: By far the worst defense, in my opinion(at least in NL). You will break up hand jam, but if you block, the vampire you blocked is very probably dead, as long as your deck is good at combat. Bounce is a substrategy defense which you address after this. >To elaborate on a previous post I'll start by examining the individual >defences each clan has against Stealth and Bleed (which is by far the hardest >attack to stop for many clans ). Alright, note that this bases itself off of a 4CL assumption that only bounce and heavy intercept can stop S&B. This is true under 4CL. Under anything else, your statement is a complete fallacy. Once again, I am reminded why I do not play 4CL, and why other people don't play 4CL. > >The Problem: > >The best defence against S+B comes from either deflecting or intercepting. As stated above, this is just plain wrong. >The two disciplines that are most useful to this are dominate and auspex. >Therefore it stands to reason that any deck that can do one or both of these >has a fairly decent counter to the tactic. Here's a break down then of clan >options using these methods: > >Tremere: bounce, reduce and intercept >Malkavian: bounce, reduce and intercept >Ventrue: bounce >Toreador: bounce, reduce and intercept >Lasombra: bounce >Tzimisce: bounce, reduce and intercept >Giovanni: bounce These clans have the Bounce and intercept defenses. Right, so far. >All these clans have dominate or auspex - a very effective S+B defence and >will subsequently be left out of the discussion. > >Nosferatu, Gangrel, Brujah, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites all lack either >dominate or auspex. That is, they cannot deflect a high stealth massive >bleed to oust them - a relatively easy task for a s+b deck. The following do rush extremely well: Assamite Brujah Gangrel Nosferatu(to a lesser extent) The Brujah and Setites can Race; the Brujah with Bruise/Bleed; the Setites with S&B pool gain. Other clans which can race effectively are the Malkavians, the Toreador, the Ventrue, and the Lasombra. The Brujah and Setites can vote very well, along with the Toreador, the Ventrue, and the Lasombra listed above. >Three of these clans have animalism - very useful in getting that +1 from a >cats guidance - but that's it. The discipline also has many good permanents >such as their birdy intercept. The Ravnos are the best of these having ignis >fatuus and veiled sight - blood intensive but useful anti-stealth cards. The >other clans have none of this. There are also the cards: pack tactics and >elder intervention for that +2 intercept against bleed actions. And normally, if you have enough cards under NL, that's all you need. Cats (+1) + Pack Tactics(+2) + Raven Spy (+1) = +4 intercept. How much stealth is your opponent packing? If he's got enough to avoid a determined intercept deck consistently, then just don't block; he'll jam on stealth in no time. >Clanless permanents: such as the three intercept locations and sport bikes. >These all cost pool and the equipment takes time to get out. As it will >often be little problem for a S+B to surpass +1 stealth, it will be of little >practical use. Protected resources is a card that I have never seen but I >know pretty much what it does. It ties you up in so far as bleeding is >concerned and whilst certainly useful is limited in its usefulness - bleeds, >albeit not very big ones - can still make it through. It is also a matter of >luck as to when it comes out; when it comes through you might be past it. > > >Rush: > >The brujah, nosferatu, gangrel and assamites are generally good at rush. The >ravnos aren't good at rush, needing combos and the settites are just crap. >Two of these clans' rush capabilities can be circum-navigated by a dodge >card: the nosferatu and gangrel - if the gangrel should try the scorpian >sting/aggro combo then there's rotschreck which utterly screws them. Can you actually come to a conclusion as to what the mangled text on Rotshreck means without falling back on "I'm right, dammit!"? If so, your friends must be incapable of independent thought. The Gangrel are insane at rush. And the Nossies have immortal grapple, which usually spells doom when it's played around here. Never once have I seen an immortal grapple played without the opposing vampire going to torpor. >With >this tactic removed the gangrel are pretty naff needing time (which they >don't have) to build up. The nosferatu's only saving grace for the dodge is >probably the immortal grapple. Yes, and how hard is it to get enough of these? Just get about six or so, and you'll be able to kill people quite nicely. Not to mention that these bleed decks of yours seem to have about 30% combat defense.... >This leave the assamites and the brujah as the only really effective rushers >due to their additional strikes. Even so, it will simply be a question of >who is more fortunate - does the S+b have enough big bleed to knock out the >brujah/assamite methusalah before the brujah/assamites knock his minions into >torpor using celerity? Not under NL. Rush decks are dependable under NL. One other reason that CL is bad; it bases itself too much on who gets the cards they want first. NL makes sure people have the cards they want; it's how they use them that matters. > >The question can be asked: 'Well what about the S+B's predator? Won't he be >hassling the S+B?'. The answer is probably not. In a four player: e.g. >player A (s+b) is hassling player B so much that B cannot hassle C. Being >free from B's attention, C can divert all his attention to A's predator, D - >thus tying him up. Uh, no. Try balancing your attention between your prey and predator once in a while. In about half of the means of dealing with S&B, the prey of the methuselah being bled is in fact recieving _more_ attention than the predator: Race/Blood gain is one example. Votes put pressure on two players most of the time, if not more players. Rush is about the only other exception save intercept, which has always been to passive for my taste. >The problem with these tactics though is the speed at which a s+b >operates. The fact is that you simply will not have time to get all those >permanents out before you're dead or on your last legs. Very quickly a S+b >deck can be knocking down your pool. This naturally slows you down - simply >because with less pool the prey will have less minions out and thus be less >effective. The fact remains though: even if the prey does start rushing its >predator, all the predator ever really needs is one big bleed through and >it's all over. And if the prey is capable of being fast enough, which is _quite_ possible under NL, then speed is equalled, vampires are being torporized, and it's a losing game for the methuselah with the S&B deck. Trust me. I've slapped bleed decks silly with a Brujah deck, a Tremere _light_ deflection and counter deck, and my friend's vote deck. >These then are the problems that any of these 6 clans face. > > >The Card itself: > >Archon Investigation is a card that strikes fear into a S+B players heart. >It's release was the lifeboon to many a player who previously had to look >helplessly on, as, despite his best efforts, he was hammered out of the game >by that one almighty bleed. Sigh. Under 4CL, S&B is broken. Under NL, if you can't deal with it, you deserve what you get. And there's always Major boon to "save" your butt. Any deck should be able to deal with all the strategies and have a good chance of sweeping the table. When a player plays a deck which will take out one player but have no chance of winning, then I, for one, am not impressed. People can and have taken out those decks before, without the player ousting anyone. >AI doesn't stop these massive bleeds outright. Rather, if you wish to do a >massive bleed there is now an element of risk. If you gamble and go for it >you might be lucky and take out your opponent, if not then you've lost a >vampire for the mere gain of a loss of three of your prey's pool. To do a >massive bleed you're playing with fire - it could win you the game or it >could seriously screw you. It remains your choice whether to bleed for >massive amounts or not. It's not even as if a loss of three pool wasn't a >lot! I know of no player who wouldn't (in most cases) be severely hampered >by such a loss, resulting in a leaving of more minions in defence, weakening >vampires by draining them of blood etc... No crud no one wouldn't be hampered by such a major loss. AI is unfair for it's cost. And, as I have demonstrated above, it is not needed for a good deck to deal with S&B. Are there some decks that can't deal with S&B? Yes. Are they good decks? Maybe. Are they well balanced in defense? Probably not. >One final point. It could be said in favour of AI being broken, 'Well >perhaps you should mix one of these six clans with another clan - one that >can deflect'. But why? Why should I have to not play a gangrel-nosferatu >deck just because someone can bleed for loads in complete safety? The card >allows better/wider deck creation opportunities - it means that the Brujah >aren't forced to stick to rush combat in mortal fear of such a deck. Why >shouldn't they play with the Nosferatu in a vote deck with limited combat? >(stealth being used to get the votes into play, etc...). You don't have to. Just play NL, which is Jyhad. CL is not Jyhad; increasingly, CL's problems approximate those of Magic:toG. >I think that's it - I think the argument's pretty conclusive, but then again >I would, wouldn't I? Yes, and you also play 4CL, so your perspective on this matter, is as I have demonstrated, both erronious and flawed. Alec Chang Alec Chang

Alec Chang wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:21:56 +0000 (GMT), CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) > wrote: > [Major SNIP of cogent discussion on the part of both DPH and Alec Chang in regards to the brokenness or not of AI - DPH says it is not broken in 4CL, Alec says it is unnecessary in NL] > > No crud no one wouldn't be hampered by such a major loss. AI is > unfair for it's cost. And, as I have demonstrated above, it is not > needed for a good deck to deal with S&B. This is the major reason why I think AI is broken - what you get out of it is just not commensurate with its cost. Since you are already getting bled for three (or more), you just spend three, which you were going to lose anyway, in essence making AI free. And you get to BURN one of your Preds vamps. I think this makes AI broken regardless of the environment. However, I will have to side with Alec in that DPH's arguments really are dependent on a 4CL enviro, where s&b is broken. In NL, you will see that s& b can be beat so many ways that AI is unnecessary - yet because it does exist, its glaring unbalance hits you in the face. > Are there some decks that can't deal with S&B? Yes. Are they good > decks? Maybe. Are they well balanced in defense? Probably not. > > >One final point. It could be said in favour of AI being broken, 'Well > >perhaps you should mix one of these six clans with another clan - one that > >can deflect'. But why? Why should I have to not play a gangrel-nosferatu > >deck just because someone can bleed for loads in complete safety? The card > >allows better/wider deck creation opportunities - it means that the Brujah > >aren't forced to stick to rush combat in mortal fear of such a deck. Why > >shouldn't they play with the Nosferatu in a vote deck with limited combat? > >(stealth being used to get the votes into play, etc...). > > You don't have to. Just play NL, which is Jyhad. CL is not Jyhad; > increasingly, CL's problems approximate those of Magic:toG. > > >I think that's it - I think the argument's pretty conclusive, but then again > >I would, wouldn't I? > > Yes, and you also play 4CL, so your perspective on this matter, is as > I have demonstrated, both erronious and flawed. > > Alec Chang > Alec Chang Chris (Alec - you seem to be getting less and less patient with 4CLers. I liked the old amiable Alec a little better I think...)

> the predator: Race/Blood gain is one example. Votes put pressure on Everybody keeps saying that Race/Blood gain decks are viable strategically against S&B decks. I would *love* to see a deck that gets you 5 or 7 blood a turn, consistently, from say turn 3 or 4 to match the blood loss from a S&B pred and not leave your vampires in a bad place with little blood. Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:34:35 -0800, Chris Shorb <ino...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> No crud no one wouldn't be hampered by such a major loss. AI is >> unfair for it's cost. And, as I have demonstrated above, it is not >> needed for a good deck to deal with S&B. (Sigh. At this point, I was almost incoherent with peevishness. Although my point, as Chris so kindly points out, is still valid) >This is the major reason why I think AI is broken - what you get out of >it is just not commensurate with its cost. Since you are already getting >bled for three (or more), you just spend three, which you were going to >lose anyway, in essence making AI free. And you get to BURN one of your >Preds vamps. I think this makes AI broken regardless of the environment. > However, I will have to side with Alec in that DPH's arguments really >are dependent on a 4CL enviro, where s&b is broken. In NL, you will see >that s& b can be beat so many ways that AI is unnecessary - yet because >it does exist, its glaring unbalance hits you in the face. This is basically the point I was trying to make. Thank you for clarifying the main point of AI's inequity, Chris. I couldn't have said it better without stress and irritation myself. {snip my diatribe about AI and 4CL. Sigh.} >(Alec - you seem to be getting less and less patient with 4CLers. I >liked the old amiable Alec a little better I think...) Well, my apologies to anyone who's been noticing my slide from rational, pleasant discussion to raging against 4CL, and who wishes I was the old amiable Alec.(Especially you, Chris) I've been under a lot of stress lately. I hope that I haven't been too offensive, and I promise to tone it down and keep it under control as much as I can. However, I still reserve the right to call a kettle black, and I _am_ getting more annoyed with people who reiterate the same arguments without sufficient evidence and support to back them up. Wishing everyone a happy holiday season(even if I've yelled at you), Alec Chang

It seems that a lot of the defence of AI rests on the idea that without it, S&B decks will be overpowered. There seems to be a good deal of truth to this argument, because any way you slice it, a Malkavian deck bleeding thrice for three is not nearly as scary as a Malkavian deck bleeding thrice for nine. However, the argument *against* AI does not seem to be that it is ineffective at hampering S&B, or that it does not offer a viable alternate strategy for S&B-handling. The problem is that it's not precise enough -- while S&B *is* hampered by the presence of AI (which is arguably a good thing), AI also severely harms several deck concepts that are not overpowered, such as B&B. Ideally then, a 'fix' for AI will retain its good quality of putting a bit of a hobble on S&B decks, while avoiding the 'scattershot' effect of hampering B&B any further than it already it is. Perhaps some sort of hoser for being the nth vampire to bleed that turn? (this would also hurt Tap&Bleed, but I'm not sure that that's all that bad a thing either) Daniel Levine

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > the predator: Race/Blood gain is one example. Votes put pressure on > > Everybody keeps saying that Race/Blood gain decks are viable strategically > against S&B decks. I would *love* to see a deck that gets you 5 or 7 > blood a turn, consistently, from say turn 3 or 4 to match the blood loss > from a S&B pred and not leave your vampires in a bad place with little > blood. You have to keep in mind that Race/Blood Gain decks are not blocking. So the S&B deck will hand jam and most likely only get off a good bleed every third turn or so. It's pretty easy for a Blood Gain deck to keep up with that. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Pettersen wrote: > You have to keep in mind that Race/Blood Gain decks are not blocking. > So the S&B deck will hand jam and most likely only get off a good > bleed every third turn or so. It's pretty easy for a Blood Gain > deck to keep up with that. I've seen the 'The hand will Jam up (with stealth cards)'-comment before. I wonder a little about why this is said, b'cause as far as I remember, a vamp. is allowed to use all the stealth it wants, Blocked/intercepted or not. With this in mind, I can't see how one can jam a S&B hand with stealth cards. NiP

Niels Peter Gibe wrote: > > I've seen the 'The hand will Jam up (with stealth cards)'-comment > before. > I wonder a little about why this is said, b'cause as far as I remember, > a vamp. is allowed to use all the stealth it wants, Blocked/intercepted > or not. With this in mind, I can't see how one can jam a S&B hand with > stealth cards. "Players cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to counter another player's increase of stealth or intercept, though if a single card grants more than enough stealth or intercept to counter, that may be played." --Jyhad rulebook, page 28 So if you never block them, they can never play any of their stealth cards. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

> > Everybody keeps saying that Race/Blood gain decks are viable strategically > > against S&B decks. I would *love* to see a deck that gets you 5 or 7 > > blood a turn, consistently, from say turn 3 or 4 to match the blood loss > > from a S&B pred and not leave your vampires in a bad place with little > > blood. > You have to keep in mind that Race/Blood Gain decks are not blocking. So > the S&B deck will hand jam and most likely only get off a good bleed every > third turn or so. It's pretty easy for a Blood Gain deck to keep up with > that. *BONK* Wrong Answer. By the time your predator hand jams, you'll have been ousted. It's not hard to get off 7 pool bleeds the first few turns of the game before s/he starts getting enough stealth cards to cause hand jam. I'm still waiting to see a good Race/Blood gain deck... [ quoted text not captured ]

Niels Peter Gibe <n...@post1.tele.dk> writes: >I've seen the 'The hand will Jam up (with stealth cards)'-comment >before. >I wonder a little about why this is said, b'cause as far as I remember, >a vamp. is allowed to use all the stealth it wants, Blocked/intercepted >or not. With this in mind, I can't see how one can jam a S&B hand with >stealth cards. If one ignores the prohibition on playing unneeded stealth cards, then the S&B deck will never jam, that's true. --- Sadly, this rather important prohibition was left out of the rulebook when VtES was printed. It appeared in the errata section of the rules (published in the Dueslist, and posted here by Tom Wylie): Section 17 Stealth and Intercept You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to block a minion whose stealth is higher. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

All the discussion about bouncing or Major Boon-ing big bleeds is fine but in the end SOMEONE gets the big bleed whether it's the bleeders prey or someone else who's had the misfortune to run out of bounce cards at the time, and a bounced bleed often comes right back at you! Is it not even more unfair to be knocked out by a big bleed which wasn't even intended for you anyway? (This happened recently in a game where Return to Innocence was played and the prey just passed it onto his prey who was then ousted - and was deeply dis-chuffed about it too as he had about 8 pool!) Ian

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > If one ignores the prohibition on playing unneeded stealth cards, > then the S&B deck will never jam, that's true. > > --- > Sadly, this rather important prohibition was left out of the rulebook > when VtES was printed. It appeared in the errata section of the rules > (published in the Dueslist, and posted here by Tom Wylie): > > Section 17 Stealth and Intercept > You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is > attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. > Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to > block a minion whose stealth is higher. Which leads back to a question that was asked a while ago and I don't remember if it was ever resolved. The Sabbat Cardinal who can discard Master cards for intercept (Angelica I think, but I can't remember). Is the methuselah who controls her allowed to toss down as many master cards as they want to, or are they limited by the stealth on the action. Thanks jon

> "Players cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to > counter another player's increase of stealth or intercept, though if a > single card grants more than enough stealth or intercept to counter, > that may be played." > --Jyhad rulebook, page 28 Hmm, NOT in my (V:tES) rule book! NiP

Niels Peter Gibe (n...@post1.tele.dk) wrote: : > "Players cannot increase stealth or intercept beyond that needed to [ quoted text not captured ] Well, in the "corrections to the v:tes rulebook": Section 17 Stealth and Intercept You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to block a minion whose stealth is higher. So yes, the restriction still exists. -spongy

"Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> writes: >L. Scott Johnson wrote: >> Section 17 Stealth and Intercept >> You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is >> attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. >> Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to >> block a minion whose stealth is higher. >Which leads back to a question that was asked a while ago and I don't >remember if it was ever resolved. The Sabbat Cardinal who can discard >Master cards for intercept (Angelica I think, but I can't remember). Is >the methuselah who controls her allowed to toss down as many master >cards as they want to, or are they limited by the stealth on the >action. If she needs intercept, then you can burn X master cards for X intercept. X is not limited to the amount of stealth that you need. (You can't increase intercept unless you need to, but you can overshoot the need.) [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : "Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> writes: : >Which leads back to a question that was asked a while ago and I don't : >remember if it was ever resolved. The Sabbat Cardinal who can discard : >Master cards for intercept (Angelica I think, but I can't remember). Is : >the methuselah who controls her allowed to toss down as many master : >cards as they want to, or are they limited by the stealth on the : >action. : : If she needs intercept, then you can burn X master cards for X intercept. : X is not limited to the amount of stealth that you need. But how do you address my initial question on the card (way back when), namely: must you name the X and burn all of the masters at once from your hand, or can drawn masters be burnt for intercept while she is gaining intercept. (My assumption is that a single use of her ability involves choosing an X and playing those cards from the hand, and THEN replacing. But I can see the other way.) -spongy

Alec, Most of your message has been cut by the software so I won't be able to answer line by line but point by point. >Most of your points are invalidated by the fact that under NL there >are _many_ ways of dealing with S&B decks. Ok, so from the start by this statement do you mean that under 4cl you would agree with my points or that you just consider most invalidated overall? It seems from other replies that my arguments were pretty much accepted as being perfectly valid for 4cl. On this basis I will argue this post from a more general viewpoint. My message was concerned with the problems faced by the six clans: Assamite, Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Settite. This was PRETTY obvious. Please note this when I am replying to some of your later points. Right, I'll start with the pressure on each player point. You say about balencing pressure between predator or prey but I can't understand any more of your paragraph. The player WILL be tied up with you whatever you might think. If they decide to go for their prey then its even easier for the S+B - hey, fewer blockers! Therefore to reiterate: the S+B's grandprey will be free to hassle his prey (S+B's predator in a 4 player), therefore less pressure from S+B's predator. If you could rewrite that particular point clearly and concisely it would be a help. Four strategies that you commented are good at defeating S+B: Rush: A S+B doesn't have to be "good" at combat defence - it merely has to be adequate for its needs. So, if the S+B holds off a rush for turn then that's one tapped minion and I'll bleed for six. As you might have guessed this lets you get out fewer and fewer minions which screws you as no tactic will work if it doesn't have the minions. As for 30% combat defence - I think not. Although this might be necessary I would assume it to be much lower as I now hope to demonstrate. In a play circle of say four players there are a certain number of different decks lets assume. Now, if there is gangrel rush out there you're probably going to pack in the Rotshrecks (are you seriously telling me that after countless number of times the card has been brought up you still don't know what it does?) to screw it. If Brujah, then obediences or other cards such as mercy for the weak might be better. So, if the rush is stopped without doing substantial damage you are going to face a big bleed through. Basically you tailor your deck to suit the opposition. Votes: Ok, so with votes I assume that you will be doing minimal damage to his minions and instead damage to his pool. This doesn't stop the fact that he can hit you harder with his bleed. And after all those six clans are AMAZING voters aren't they? Any vote deck made with those clans must be pretty naff. Your minions also have votes as does the player opposite the S+B. There is thus no argument for votes. Intercept: You cannot intercept at all well with these clans. Is this not clear? Assuming the superior animalism for the cats guidance and an elder intervention that's +3 intercept. To employ a raven spy takes having one in hand - there won't be that many in, not being blocked, and tapping. Stealth can bypass permanents with relative ease. Therefore there is no argument for intercept in this way. Bounce: Is impossible with these clans and as such the issue was conclusively addressed. >> The best defence against S+B comes from deflecting or intercepting. "as stated above, this is just plain wrong" The best defences do indeed come from Intercepting and Deflecting - neither of which these clans can convincingly do and it is you who are wrong. I have refuted your arguments you rely on to support such a claim, above. >>Tremere: bounce, reduce and intercept >>Malkavian: bounce, reduce and intercept >>Ventrue: bounce >>Toreador: bounce, reduce and intercept >>Lasombra: bounce >>Tzimisce: bounce, reduce and intercept >>Giovanni: bounce >These clans have the Bounce and intercept defenses. Right, so far. Thankyou. >>All these clans have dominate or auspex - a very effective S+B defence and >>will subsequently be left out of the discussion. A point I have left in as it is worth noting. >>Nosferatu, Gangrel, Brujah, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites all lack either >>dominate or auspex. That is, they cannot deflect a high stealth massive >>bleed to oust them - a relatively easy task for a s+b deck. >The Brujah and Setites can Race; the Brujah with Bruise/Bleed; the >Setites with S&B pool gain. Other clans which can race effectively >are the Malkavians, the Toreador, the Ventrue, and the Lasombra. >The Brujah and Setites can vote very well, along with the Toreador, >the Ventrue, and the Lasombra listed above. The references to the clans above which are not one of the six are IRRELEVANT, i.e. Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue and Lasombra. They all provide a reliable form of defence. I am not arguing this point as noted earlier. >The following do rush extremely well: >Assamite >Brujah >Gangrel >Nosferatu(to a lesser extent) Ok, so straight away we are down to four clans out of six. Out of these the Gangrel cannot rush "extremely well" at all. They need time to build up and then they can be evil. You cannot go in aggro blazing which is one of their strengths for fear that a rotschreck may crucify you. This is a very effective defence against the gangrel and thus it makes sense that it will be used. The gangrel are "insane at rush" you say (I assume this means quite good) but you don't qualify the statement whereas I did qualify mine (both initially and again here). Could it be that I am right? The Nosferatu are very much a single hit clan - similar to the Gangrel in many ways. Their strike can be dodged if big enough. That leaves the Assamites and Brujah who are very effective rush clans indeed with the freedom the additional strikes give them. Against such clans an obedience or combat ends is obviously preferable. Not all these methods will be used to avoid clogging up the deck with useless cards, e.g. less/no need for rotschrecks if no-one playing Gangrel. >Never once have I seen an immortal grapple played without the opposing >vampire going to torpor. I have. When the other bod plays blood of acid and you don't fancy being burned. "Points about S+B being broken under CL": Why is this? No-one has explained this to me. Why should it be any more broken under CL than NL with regard to these clans that can't bounce, reduce, intercept etc...? "AI is unfair for its cost": To use an analogy, slaughtering tens of thousands of British cattle to stop BSE is unfair for its cost but necessary to make it safe for the consumer. The tactic of S+B is unfair to these six clans who have no reliable defence against a high stealth, enormous bleed, and so although AI is "unfair" for its cost it is NECESSARY. "Once again, I am reminded why I do not play 4cl, and why other people don't play 4cl" Well Alec, with your inane and increasingly hostile replies to people on this group (especially towards 4CLers as noted by C. Shorb) why should anyone care why or what you play? Also bear in mind that many people do play card limits out of preference - I'm not the only one you know. Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Your assumption is correct, TTBOMK. But, a ruling the other way would not be out of line (nor require any errata- just an explanation.) Jon? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Being ousted because someone else is playing stupidly (someone playing RtI while Deflection/T.Misdirection is possible is clearly stupid) is of course unfair. _Adding_ to the unfairness with AI isn't the solution. I have certainly been Rushed or contested when it would clearly knock me out of the game much to the detriment of the person initiating the Rush/contest. Unless you add a Sudden Reversal for stupidity there is no way to prevent this kind of unfairness. It really has nothing to do with the issue of AI. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:49:26 +0000 (GMT), CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) wrote: >Alec, > >Most of your message has been cut by the software so I won't be able to >answer line by line but point by point. > >>Most of your points are invalidated by the fact that under NL there >>are _many_ ways of dealing with S&B decks. > >Ok, so from the start by this statement do you mean that under 4cl you would >agree with my points or that you just consider most invalidated overall? Under 4 Cl, most of your points are valid. The point about S&B not being overpowered is questionable, but with Archon Investigation being legal, I could concede that point. >It seems from other replies that my arguments were pretty much accepted as being >perfectly valid for 4cl. On this basis I will argue this post from a more >general viewpoint. More general is somewhat impossible. NL has it's paradigm, in which AI is not necessary; CL has it's paradigm, where AI is necessary or S&B becomes too powerful. I assume that you believe that AI is necessary because of it's correcting effects on the unbalanced supremacy of S&B under NL. Correct me if I err in doing so. >My message was concerned with the problems faced by the six clans: Assamite, >Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Settite. This was PRETTY obvious. >Please note this when I am replying to some of your later points. Yes, it was. I was just extending the capacities of other clans to use certain strategies, as not all decks of the clans with dominate or auspex will use bounce or intercept. For instance, My Toreador Presence/Auspex bleed deck does not use bounce; usually, it doesn't need to. >Right, I'll start with the pressure on each player point. You say about >balencing pressure between predator or prey but I can't understand any more >of your paragraph. The player WILL be tied up with you whatever you might >think. If they decide to go for their prey then its even easier for the S+B >- hey, fewer blockers! Therefore to reiterate: the S+B's grandprey will be >free to hassle his prey (S+B's predator in a 4 player), therefore less >pressure from S+B's predator. If you could rewrite that particular point >clearly and concisely it would be a help. Alright. Here's what I see your point as: You have a table of four players kind of along these lines: A D B C A is the S&B deck. A pressures B. In turn, B focuses on A, leaving C free to pressure D, who then turns to focus on C, leaving A even more free to pressure B. This is a viable scenario; but it has a couple of problems. The first is that if players B and D are focusing on defense almost totally, they've already taken the first step towards losing the game. They should be able to both defend themselves and act, putting pressure on their prey. When a methuselah must turn to defence almost totally, they're in a really bad spot which is only going to get worse. Most decks are able to handle both offense and defense simultaneously. My point was that it would be possible and likely that most good decks would be able to both defend and place pressure on their prey at the same time. This may or may not be a difference between CL and NL; I don't recall my certain of my friends decks being offensive while trying to hold off my S&B deck under CL, but that's partially the way my friend plays, so I'm not sure if the enviroment makes a difference in this capacity of decks. >Four strategies that you commented are good at defeating S+B: > >Rush: > >A S+B doesn't have to be "good" at combat defence - it merely has to be >adequate for its needs. So, if the S+B holds off a rush for turn then >that's one tapped minion and I'll bleed for six. As you might have guessed >this lets you get out fewer and fewer minions which screws you as no tactic >will work if it doesn't have the minions. As for 30% combat defence - I >think not. Although this might be necessary I would assume it to be much >lower as I now hope to demonstrate. In a play circle of say four players >there are a certain number of different decks lets assume. Now, if there is >gangrel rush out there you're probably going to pack in the Rotshrecks (are >you seriously telling me that after countless number of times the card has >been brought up you still don't know what it does?) Hem. There has been no definitive ruling, as WotC has reversed itself on what Rotshreck is supposed to do several times. Reading the mangled text gives me a headache, and my friends have been bringing up the idea that it hoses the vampire who is the victim of the aggravated damage again. ie, Rotshreck is such a pain that people often just ban it so they don't have to deal with the inevitable rules arguments. And if what I read in your response is correct, you take Rotshrecks in and out of decks because of what you're playing against. If you put in a hoser card knowing what you're playing against, of course they do badly in combat. Of course you win. Does that really have any relavance to the value of the strategy on it's own, assuming that there is no sideboard? Sideboards are generally restrained to a magic idea because of this little problem with hosers. >to screw it. If Brujah, >then obediences or other cards such as mercy for the weak might be better. >So, if the rush is stopped without doing substantial damage you are going to >face a big bleed through. Basically you tailor your deck to suit the >opposition. This, as I stated before, is kind of cheating. Making a deck tailored to beat specific other decks makes one's victory almost inevitable, and takes no real skill or ability. >Votes: > >Ok, so with votes I assume that you will be doing minimal damage to his >minions and instead damage to his pool. This doesn't stop the fact that he >can hit you harder with his bleed. And after all those six >clans are AMAZING voters aren't they? You've never seen a Brujah vote deck work? My, Leeds has been denied a good deck concept. The Nosferatu don't do half badly either as long as you have Praxis Seizures and Justicar Cards. I can send you examples of both of these types of political decks if you don't believe me; I'm sure others on the group will be able to supply them if needed. >Any vote deck made with those clans >must be pretty naff. Your minions also have votes as does the player >opposite the S+B. There is thus no argument for votes. Yes, and The S&B's predator will probably back you up. Not to mention that very few S&B vampires have meaningful votes; Gilbert Duane, Greger Andersen, Leandro, Arika, and Etrius are about it. Votes are perfectly viable. >Intercept: > >You cannot intercept at all well with these clans. Is this not clear? >Assuming the superior animalism for the cats guidance and an elder >intervention that's +3 intercept. To employ a raven spy takes having one in >hand - there won't be that many in, not being blocked, and tapping. Stealth >can bypass permanents with relative ease. Therefore there is no argument for >intercept in this way. Um, you seem to be ignoring my point. Animalism: Recruit Raven spy. When S&B bleeds, untap or use a wake-type card, then elder intervention. +3 intercept isn't enough? Use the Cat's guidance. +4 isn't enough? How much stealth is your predator packing in his deck, and what does he do when you just don't block him with all those cards of stealth in his hand? Chimerstry can intercept well; the aforementioned animalism blocker can intercept well. Add in KRCG if you must, but that action will likely be blocked, and if you can't block it, then just don't ever attempt to block again. Hand Jam*(Which I'll talk about later if you don't believe that it can be effective) is a very useful tool vs. S&B. >Bounce: > >Is impossible with these clans and as such the issue was conclusively >addressed. Yes, this is true, to a point. Brujah can use Dominate, but as this is the exception, not the rule, I won't dwell on it. > >>> The best defence against S+B comes from deflecting or intercepting. >"as stated above, this is just plain wrong" > >The best defences do indeed come from Intercepting and Deflecting - neither >of which these clans can convincingly do and it is you who are wrong. I have >refuted your arguments you rely on to support such a claim, above. Except that you haven't refuted my arguments, simply brought up points which I have refuted in turn. I don't mean to be offensive here; it's just that the conclusion which you have reached is erronious because the logic you followed to reach it was flawed. I'll try to show how below. [snip] >>>Nosferatu, Gangrel, Brujah, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites all lack either >>>dominate or auspex. That is, they cannot deflect a high stealth massive >>>bleed to oust them - a relatively easy task for a s+b deck. > >>The Brujah and Setites can Race; the Brujah with Bruise/Bleed; the >>Setites with S&B pool gain. Other clans which can race effectively >>are the Malkavians, the Toreador, the Ventrue, and the Lasombra. >>The Brujah and Setites can vote very well, along with the Toreador, >>the Ventrue, and the Lasombra listed above. > >The references to the clans above which are not one of the six are >IRRELEVANT, i.e. Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue and Lasombra. They all provide >a reliable form of defence. I am not arguing this point as noted earlier. But these clans will not necessarily include that defense, as it may not be wanted or necessary. I have almost never used bleed bounce in any of my Malkavian decks, because it was not necessary at the time; similarly, my Ventrue voters ignore bleeds and gain pool off of votes and voter captivations. > >>The following do rush extremely well: >>Assamite >>Brujah >>Gangrel >>Nosferatu(to a lesser extent) > >Ok, so straight away we are down to four clans out of six. Out of these the >Gangrel cannot rush "extremely well" at all. They need time to build up and >then they can be evil. You cannot go in aggro blazing which is one of their >strengths for fear that a rotschreck may crucify you. I hate to say it, but this is fallacious. Under 4CL, even with Rotshreck being the aggro hoser, there are 12(16) protean cards giving aggravated hand damage, vs. 4 Rotshrecks in the S&B deck. Assuming Gangrel with animalism and fortitude, for scorpion stings and rapid healings, the only hope is to torporize the S&B's vampires. If the S&B deck does not use a Rotshreck on your first vampire, then you're safe. If the S&B deck _does_ use a Rotshreck on your first vampire, then your subsequent vampires cannot be Rotshrecked, and may attack and torporize with impunity. Thus, even with the threat of Rotshreck, the Gangrel deck should be able to severly damage S&B if it can get into combat. >This is a very >effective defence against the gangrel and thus it makes sense that it will be >used. The gangrel are "insane at rush" you say (I assume this means quite >good) but you don't qualify the statement whereas I did qualify mine (both >initially and again here). Could it be that I am right? Possibly; but then it could be me who's right. That's why we're having this discussion, I assume. >The Nosferatu are very much a single hit clan - similar to the Gangrel in >many ways. Their strike can be dodged if big enough. Scorpion Stings and Immortal Grapples can do wonders against decks who try to use dodge as their only combat defenses. Even under 4CL, if the deck is kept small enough, these cards can be used to great effect. >That leaves the Assamites and Brujah who are very effective rush clans indeed >with the freedom the additional strikes give them. Against such clans an >obedience or combat ends is obviously preferable. Assuming S&B, having a vampire untapped for the obedience is unlikely. S:CE, except Mercy for the weak, is unavailable, and MftW is almost impossible to use against a combat deck, especially if your vampires have been using GtU and Conditioning every bleed(as I presume from your constant "6 bleed" references"). >Not all these methods will be used to avoid clogging up the deck with useless >cards, e.g. less/no need for rotschrecks if no-one playing Gangrel. > Unless, of course, people don't let you sideboard cards in just to hose over their decks. Hosers take very little skill to use, and thus are not indicative of the real balances of the game. >>Never once have I seen an immortal grapple played without the opposing >>vampire going to torpor. > >I have. When the other bod plays blood of acid and you don't fancy being >burned. This is kind of off topic, but even a blood of acid didn't stop my vampire when a BtA was played. Lupo burned, of course. I didn't mind. > >"Points about S+B being broken under CL": > >Why is this? No-one has explained this to me. Why should it be any more >broken under CL than NL with regard to these clans that can't bounce, reduce, >intercept etc...? Because a) people don't stack the deck with hosers, instead using overall combat defense; b) rush cards are more availible in multiples, as are cards like Immortal Grapple, wolf claws, and scorpion sting. S&B is(or, perhaps, was) also "broken" under CL because all of it's essential cards were availible in redundant, different cards(ie Conditioning, Bonding and Threats for bleed modifers, and all of the stealth cards for stealth) while other strategies were restricted to only 4 bum's rushes, 4 haven uncovereds, etc, which were _not_ backed up by redundancies in other cards. This may have changed, but S&B has been long accepted as broken under 4CL because of the fact that it _must_ be dealt with in one way or other, be the way AI or everyone ganging up on the S&B deck. >"AI is unfair for its cost": > >To use an analogy, slaughtering tens of thousands of British cattle to stop >BSE is unfair for its cost but necessary to make it safe for the consumer. >The tactic of S+B is unfair to these six clans who have no reliable defence >against a high stealth, enormous bleed, and so although AI is "unfair" for >its cost it is NECESSARY. How is it necessary? I believe that I have shown that there are many other options beyond auspex intercept/bounce and dominate bounce which can deal with S&B. As long as my points are true in NL, much less CL, then AI is not necessary to deal with S&B. I don't believe that you have played NL; and although I don't want to force you to, denying that the methods I listed work under NL without personal knowledge is specious argumentation. > >"Once again, I am reminded why I do not play 4cl, and why other people don't >play 4cl" > >Well Alec, with your inane and increasingly hostile replies to people on >this group (especially towards 4CLers as noted by C. Shorb) why should anyone >care why or what you play? Also bear in mind that many people do play card >limits out of preference - I'm not the only one you know. > No, you're not, and I apologize for my unwarranted bit of obnoxiousness. I've been rather peevish lately, and I don't intend to continue making unfounded comments. Your personal choice to play CL is yours alone; however, even if CL players outnumbered NL players, I would reserve my right to have my feelings and ideas heard. Please note that I'm not trying to make this personal; I've noticed that you have begun to debate much more clearly, and I'm very glad. I hope that my arguments, not any noxious comments I may spew off in a moment of unreason are what you use to determine whether my perspective is valid. If you don't agree with me, fine. Just as long as you have evidence, and I have evidence, and we aren't falling back on dogmatic posturing, then this discussion has a point. Alec Chang

In article <58t22u$m...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) writes: >Being ousted because someone else is playing stupidly (someone playing >RtI while Deflection/T.Misdirection is possible is clearly stupid) is of >course unfair. _Adding_ to the unfairness with AI isn't the solution. >I have certainly been Rushed or contested when it would clearly knock me >out of the game much to the detriment of the person initiating the >Rush/contest. Unless you add a Sudden Reversal for stupidity there is no >way to prevent this kind of unfairness. It really has nothing to do with >the issue of AI. >--- > Eric Pettersen > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) Are you saying that it is stupid to play Return to Innocence on any methusalah with a minion with Dominate or Auspex? If you are then surely it is hard to play RTI without being 'stupid' (your definition) as it is fairly uncommon for a meth. to have no minions without Dom/Aus. Ian

In <32b2cc6e...@news.lava.net> te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: >Hem. There has been no definitive ruling, as WotC has reversed itself >on what Rotshreck is supposed to do several times. Reading the >mangled text gives me a headache, and my friends have been bringing up >the idea that it hoses the vampire who is the victim of the aggravated >damage again. That reminds me. What _is_ the new card text for Rotschreck? Or is WotC still pretending that the various rulings on it are consistent with the printed card text? -- Richard Braakman

Hi Eric, On 14 Dec 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > ianb...@aol.com wrote: > > Is it not even more unfair to be knocked out by a big bleed which wasn't > > even intended for you anyway? > > > > (This happened recently in a game where Return to Innocence was played and > > the prey just passed it onto his prey who was then ousted - and was deeply > > dis-chuffed about it too as he had about 8 pool!) > > Being ousted because someone else is playing stupidly (someone playing > RtI while Deflection/T.Misdirection is possible is clearly stupid) is of > course unfair. _Adding_ to the unfairness with AI isn't the solution. > I have certainly been Rushed or contested when it would clearly knock me > out of the game much to the detriment of the person initiating the > Rush/contest. Unless you add a Sudden Reversal for stupidity there is no > way to prevent this kind of unfairness. It really has nothing to do with > the issue of AI. > I'm not sure I agree with this. Bouncing a bleed is part of the game, I certainly don't see it as unfair. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "playing stupidly", if the bleed was bounced to someone's prey, and they were subsequently ousted by it, then it was a smart play. As far as it being stupid to play RTI while your prey can deflect, what if your prey was tapped out, and then woke and deflected? Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection is the reason RTI isn't actually broke, as you have such a high potential of scoring a victory point for your prey, and losing a vampire in the processs. I very often incorporate that ability into my decks. Why just stop a bleed when you can use it to bleed your prey, or at least tap some of your prey's minions? Algustas *****Th paths of glory lead but to the grave.***** Thomas Gray

Greetings to All, In article <32b2cc6e...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: > >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:49:26 +0000 (GMT), CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. >Hammersley) wrote: ~~~Lots of discussion of S&B defenses snipped~~~~ >>think not. Although this might be necessary I would assume it to be much >>lower as I now hope to demonstrate. In a play circle of say four players >>there are a certain number of different decks lets assume. Now, if there is > >>gangrel rush out there you're probably going to pack in the Rotshrecks (are >>you seriously telling me that after countless number of times the card has >>been brought up you still don't know what it does?) > >Hem. There has been no definitive ruling, as WotC has reversed itself >on what Rotshreck is supposed to do several times. Reading the >mangled text gives me a headache, and my friends have been bringing up >the idea that it hoses the vampire who is the victim of the aggravated >damage again. Yes, this seems obvious to some. > >ie, Rotshreck is such a pain that people often just ban it so they >don't have to deal with the inevitable rules arguments. And if what I >read in your response is correct, you take Rotshrecks in and out of >decks because of what you're playing against. If you put in a hoser >card knowing what you're playing against, of course they do badly in >combat. Of course you win. Does that really have any relavance to >the value of the strategy on it's own, assuming that there is no >sideboard? > >Sideboards are generally restrained to a magic idea because of this >little problem with hosers. Yes, I was curious about this as well. > >>to screw it. If Brujah, >>then obediences or other cards such as mercy for the weak might be better. >>So, if the rush is stopped without doing substantial damage you are going to > >>face a big bleed through. Basically you tailor your deck to suit the >>opposition. > >This, as I stated before, is kind of cheating. Making a deck tailored >to beat specific other decks makes one's victory almost inevitable, >and takes no real skill or ability. > Peter, I am a bit puzzled. I understand that your group plays 4CL with a 1CL on uniques but do you also use sideboards or somehow schedule your decks for the game so that you can tune your decks for the other player's concepts? > >>Not all these methods will be used to avoid clogging up the deck with >useless >>cards, e.g. less/no need for rotschrecks if no-one playing Gangrel. >> > >Unless, of course, people don't let you sideboard cards in just to >hose over their decks. Hosers take very little skill to use, and thus >are not indicative of the real balances of the game. > Same question from above, Peter: does your group use sideboards in addition to the card limits? That would make your environment very different from any I've played in. Of course my play groups have all been in California so maybe this is a common way to play. Has anyone else had experience using sideboards in Jyhad? I have to agree with Alec that I don't like the idea. Perhaps some of the differences in the experiences of groups is the card limits and sideboards. That would probably change the way some strategies work. >Alec Chang > Doug Dunaway

On 15 Dec 1996 15:09:15 GMT, da...@xs4all.nl () wrote: >In <32b2cc6e...@news.lava.net> te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: > >>Hem. There has been no definitive ruling, as WotC has reversed itself >>on what Rotshreck is supposed to do several times. Reading the >>mangled text gives me a headache, and my friends have been bringing up >>the idea that it hoses the vampire who is the victim of the aggravated >>damage again. > >That reminds me. What _is_ the new card text for Rotschreck? >Or is WotC still pretending that the various rulings on it >are consistent with the printed card text? > As far as I know, they're pretending that it's consistent. I think that Jon posted some reversal or other in his "rulings" a month or so ago, but I'm not absolutely certain about it. My friends and I have been playing with it as the "hoses player w/ aggravated damage" idea, but then again, we don't use sideboards(fairness issue, really). Sigh. I wish we had WotC net presence around here. Alec Chang

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, D.P. Hammersley wrote: > Alec Chang wrote: > >Most of your points are invalidated by the fact that under NL there > >are _many_ ways of dealing with S&B decks. > Ok, so from the start by this statement do you mean that under 4cl you would > agree with my points or that you just consider most invalidated overall? It > seems from other replies that my arguments were pretty much accepted as being > perfectly valid for 4cl. On this basis I will argue this post from a more > general viewpoint. This doesn't seem to be such a concession. The way I see it, this is saying, "Look, If you see S&B as a problem, it must be a CL thing, because NL has no problem with it." With this statement, agreement to your points is a possiblity, but not a definite. > My message was concerned with the problems faced by the six clans: Assamite, > Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Settite. This was PRETTY obvious. > Please note this when I am replying to some of your later points. They all have many options (see below).. [snip player pressure...] > Four strategies that you commented are good at defeating S+B: > Rush: > A S+B doesn't have to be "good" at combat defence - it merely has to be > adequate for its needs. So, if the S+B holds off a rush for turn then > that's one tapped minion and I'll bleed for six. How many times? A early large loss is expected, but an intelligent rush deck will not be blocking. With hand jam, expect a big bleed like this _once_. > As you might have guessed > this lets you get out fewer and fewer minions which screws you as no tactic > will work if it doesn't have the minions. As for 30% combat defence - I > think not. Although this might be necessary I would assume it to be much > lower as I now hope to demonstrate. Were this the case. Bleed decks have a hard time if they are jamming. Typically, their only way to escape jam is if someone is kind enough to let them. > In a play circle of say four players > there are a certain number of different decks lets assume. Now, if there is > gangrel rush out there you're probably going to pack in the Rotshrecks (are > you seriously telling me that after countless number of times the card has > been brought up you still don't know what it does?) to screw it. If Brujah, > then obediences or other cards such as mercy for the weak might be better. > So, if the rush is stopped without doing substantial damage you are going to > face a big bleed through. Basically you tailor your deck to suit the > opposition. Are you saying that you alter your decks to directly deal with exactly the decks that are at the table each game? You aren't really playing jyhad then, but a jyhad variant far different than those with house rules like CL or GT. Your variant would make the skill be in balancing how many "screw" cards you need, not in playing well. A very different game indeed. Now, the main point: We aren't agreeing that Rush is a decent defense against bleed. If you can't assume that it is, I can't convince you that all of the above clans (minus the Setites) can rush as defense. If you can't convince me that Rush is ineffectual, I can't take your arguments for much merit. We need to talk about Rush... > Votes: > Ok, so with votes I assume that you will be doing minimal damage to his > minions and instead damage to his pool. This doesn't stop the fact that he > can hit you harder with his bleed. And if you aren't blocking, the attack keeps at a low rate. Don't forget, most Vote decks are blood gaining or speed ousting (or both). Votes themselves aren't a defense, but a method to achieve a defense. > And after all those six > clans are AMAZING voters aren't they? Any vote deck made with those clans > must be pretty naff. Your minions also have votes as does the player > opposite the S+B. There is thus no argument for votes. Brujah and Setites are Amazing voters. Brujah have fast quick princes and presence, and Setites have stealthy vote capability. Again, we fall into different categories of experience. Perhaps those clans suck in CL as voters, but in NL, this simply cannot be said. > Intercept: > You cannot intercept at all well with these clans. Is this not clear? No, it's not. The Gangrel, Nosferatu, and Ravnos can all intercept well (with the Ravnos being arguably the best intercepters in the game, excepting perhaps the Tzimisce). > Assuming the superior animalism for the cats guidance and an elder > intervention that's +3 intercept. To employ a raven spy takes having one in > hand - there won't be that many in, not being blocked, and tapping. So you are saying that Raven Spies and Sports Bikes are wallpaper? Of course it takes an action to equip one, but early stealth, with its inferior obfuscate, will have problems with intercept, mostly due to obfuscate duplication. It has long been shown that Stealth and Intercept are roughly equal in footing. > Stealth > can bypass permanents with relative ease. Therefore there is no argument for > intercept in this way. Few decks can work with only temporary or only permanent intercept. So of course there is no argument for permanent only intercept. That is why good intercept uses both. > Bounce: > Is impossible with these clans and as such the issue was conclusively > addressed. Yes. > >> The best defence against S+B comes from deflecting or intercepting. > "as stated above, this is just plain wrong" > The best defences do indeed come from Intercepting and Deflecting - neither > of which these clans can convincingly do and it is you who are wrong. I have > refuted your arguments you rely on to support such a claim, above. Where? I don't see your refutation. Animalism did have a problem with intercept early on in Jyhad, but VtES did print a good card for anti-bleed: Elder Intervention. This more than puts them over the top with various Master Cards, Permanent intercept (Atonement, Bike, etc), and Transients (Cat's, Elder). If one is limited to only 4 of the Transients, I could see how there would be a problem. Without that limitation, the Transients can be reliably available. [snip] > >>Nosferatu, Gangrel, Brujah, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites all lack either > >>dominate or auspex. That is, they cannot deflect a high stealth massive > >>bleed to oust them - a relatively easy task for a s+b deck. > >The Brujah and Setites can Race; the Brujah with Bruise/Bleed; the > >Setites with S&B pool gain. Other clans which can race effectively > >are the Malkavians, the Toreador, the Ventrue, and the Lasombra. > >The Brujah and Setites can vote very well, along with the Toreador, > >the Ventrue, and the Lasombra listed above. > The references to the clans above which are not one of the six are > IRRELEVANT, i.e. Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue and Lasombra. They all provide > a reliable form of defence. I am not arguing this point as noted earlier. > >The following do rush extremely well: > >Assamite > >Brujah > >Gangrel > >Nosferatu(to a lesser extent) > Ok, so straight away we are down to four clans out of six. Out of these the > Gangrel cannot rush "extremely well" at all. They need time to build up and > then they can be evil. Come again? Bum's Rush, Wolf Claws. Torpor. Oh, but wait... > You cannot go in aggro blazing which is one of their > strengths for fear that a rotschreck may crucify you. This is a very > effective defence against the gangrel and thus it makes sense that it will be > used. So, do you pack Rotshreck in all of your decks, or only when you know that someone is playing Gangrel Combat? If you are effectively sideboarding (as it sounds like), of course Gangrel Combat becomes weak. Rotschreck (as currently ruled, not as printed or as intended) is an excellent counter to a Gangrel Rush deck. I might even put it into a deck that was weak against Agro-defense, but generally I would not because it would be a dead card. If you are playing sideboarding, the threat of it being a dead card goes away, and you can nullify the effectiveness of deck types without even having to have "real" defenses against them (thus freeing your deck to be more streamlined), typically in ways that they can't even defend against. If rotshreck is your reason that Gangrel rush is ineffectual, I would say that this is indicative of the strange way you are playing jyhad (by allowing sideboarding) rather than any fault of the Gangrel. Pre-sideboarding cuts down on the effect deck types by quite a large margin. > The gangrel are "insane at rush" you say (I assume this means quite > good) but you don't qualify the statement whereas I did qualify mine (both > initially and again here). Could it be that I am right? Not if your claim to their ineffectuality is based on Rotschreck. > The Nosferatu are very much a single hit clan - similar to the Gangrel in > many ways. Their strike can be dodged if big enough. And if not big enough, you just take small hits that lower your ability to use the big bleed cards you suggest (bleed of 6? Conditioning + GtU. 2 blood). A good Nossie deck would have presses and immortal grapples. Of course, pressing to continue with a decent strike might be more difficult in CL (easy cards like Trap and Dead-End Alley and the potence Press are less consistent). > That leaves the Assamites and Brujah who are very effective rush clans indeed > with the freedom the additional strikes give them. Against such clans an > obedience or combat ends is obviously preferable. Are you sideboarding again? If you aren't sideboarding, you need to include defenses to the possibilities of all of the above if you want to survive with a S&B deck. Beginning to see why 30% combat in a S&B deck isn't unheard of (though I think it might be excessive). > Not all these methods will be used to avoid clogging up the deck with useless > cards, e.g. less/no need for rotschrecks if no-one playing Gangrel. Ah. you are sideboarding. > >Never once have I seen an immortal grapple played without the opposing > >vampire going to torpor. > I have. When the other bod plays blood of acid and you don't fancy being > burned. Tzimisce S&B is non-existant. > "Points about S+B being broken under CL": > Why is this? No-one has explained this to me. Why should it be any more > broken under CL than NL with regard to these clans that can't bounce, reduce, > intercept etc...? See the above. This statement _relies_ on those clans being ineffectual in NL. Simply put, they aren't. Assamite Rush becomes more consistent (more and easier manuevers for aggro), Brujah adds politics to their abilities for Race or Blood Gain (already to their Rush abilities), Gangrel Rush becomes effectual if you don't allow sideboarding, Nossie have more consistent presses, Ravnos have more consistent blood return to keep themselves intercepting and get to keep one of the most disgusting Rush engines I've ever seen (Trap, Drawing out the Beast, Apparation) in a way no CL deck can, Setites can maintain politics or speed bleed for race and blood gain. > "AI is unfair for its cost": > To use an analogy, slaughtering tens of thousands of British cattle to stop > BSE is unfair for its cost but necessary to make it safe for the consumer. You analogy doesn't apply anymore than one about slaughtering in refugee camps being a good analogy to show the unfairness of AI. Apples and IBMs (I mean, Oranges). > The tactic of S+B is unfair to these six clans who have no reliable defence > against a high stealth, enormous bleed, and so although AI is "unfair" for > its cost it is NECESSARY. However, you don't have convincing proof that they don't work, except for the poor Gangrel in your own environment of "4CL, 1CL unique, sideboarding allowed". Many of your other arguments lack evidence to refute information posted here over the last 2 years regarding those clans (excepting Ravnos and Assamites) in a NL environment. While they may be valid (though I don't concede that they are) in CL, they are not in NL (the environment that this debate assumes). > "Once again, I am reminded why I do not play 4cl, and why other people don't > play 4cl" > Well Alec, with your inane and increasingly hostile replies to people on > this group (especially towards 4CLers as noted by C. Shorb) why should anyone > care why or what you play? Also bear in mind that many people do play card > limits out of preference - I'm not the only one you know. We know that. However, I believe I can safely say that Alec and I can't understand why you would want to. Numerous points (which belong on another thread) have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner to make playing in CL seem in any way preferrable. @#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as @#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as @#$ <http:cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ Reality ... GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Algustas wrote: > Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection is the reason RTI isn't actually > broke, as you have such a high potential of scoring a victory point for > your prey, and losing a vampire in the processs. That doesn't make it less broken, that makes it more risky. If this riskiness makes the card less broken, how does this sound: Gehenna's Call, Master 6 Pool Flip a Coin. If it comes up heads, oust your prey. If it comes up tails, lose another pool. This, too, is risky, but hardly fair. In this case, it virtually requires players to pack Sudden Reversals in all their decks. In the Case of Return to Innocence, any non-bouncer is in a world of hurt. > I very often incorporate > that ability into my decks. Why just stop a bleed when you can use it to > bleed your prey, or at least tap some of your prey's minions? But you shouldn't be forced to pack bounce in case someone has one card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Dec 1996 doug...@aol.com wrote: > In article <32b2cc6e...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) > writes: > >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:49:26 +0000 (GMT), CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. > >Hammersley) wrote: > >This, as I stated before, is kind of cheating. Making a deck tailored > >to beat specific other decks makes one's victory almost inevitable, > >and takes no real skill or ability. Or in the case of their environment (if it is as I understand it), makes whoever can put the best balance of "I specifically screw your deck" cards in their deck the winner. > Peter, I am a bit puzzled. I understand that your group plays 4CL with a > 1CL on uniques but do you also use sideboards or somehow schedule your > decks for the game so that you can tune your decks for the other player's > concepts? [snip] > >Unless, of course, people don't let you sideboard cards in just to > >hose over their decks. Hosers take very little skill to use, and thus > >are not indicative of the real balances of the game. > Same question from above, Peter: does your group use sideboards in > addition to the card limits? That would make your environment very > different from any I've played in. Of course my play groups have all been > in California so maybe this is a common way to play. Has anyone else had > experience using sideboards in Jyhad? I have to agree with Alec that I > don't like the idea. I've only ever heard of it being suggested once for tournaments. The idea was quickly shot down. Note my recent repost about Jyhad Sideboards. > Perhaps some of the differences in the experiences of groups is the card > limits and sideboards. That would probably change the way some strategies > work. More to the point, it would cripple certain strategies that had stronger hosers. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That kind of phrase is exactly what I don't like about the Rotschreck situation. What is "hoses"? My dictionary says it has something to do with socks, or with spraying water. If the rulings can't get any more specific than vague American slang, then I don't consider this card to have a text at all. >Sigh. I wish we had WotC net presence around here. I'm glad we don't. The Rules Team comes up with one silly ruling after another. The last thing I want is more of them. What *I* wish is that Richard Garfield had some free time to check up on what happened to Jyhad. -- Richard Braakman

ianb...@aol.com wrote: > In article <58t22u$m...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) > writes: > > >Being ousted because someone else is playing stupidly (someone playing > >RtI while Deflection/T.Misdirection is possible is clearly stupid) is of > >course unfair. _Adding_ to the unfairness with AI isn't the solution. > >I have certainly been Rushed or contested when it would clearly knock me > >out of the game much to the detriment of the person initiating the > >Rush/contest. Unless you add a Sudden Reversal for stupidity there is no > >way to prevent this kind of unfairness. It really has nothing to do with > >the issue of AI. > > Are you saying that it is stupid to play Return to Innocence on any > methusalah with a minion with Dominate or Auspex? If you are then surely > it is hard to play RTI without being 'stupid' (your definition) as it is > fairly uncommon for a meth. to have no minions without Dom/Aus. Playing RtI while your prey has the ability to Deflect/Misdirect/AI it is at best a big crapshoot -- it certainly couldn't be called smart play. Any deck _designed_ to use RtI had better have some method of seeing its prey's hand (Aura Reading, inferior Pulse, Revelations, Owl Companion) or undoing the bleed (M1K Faces) or it might as well be playing roulette. No one _forces_ you to use RtI on a bleed. Using it when it can be AI'ed or passed on to the grandprey is bad play. [ quoted text not captured ]

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >Right, I'll start with the pressure on each player point. You say about >balencing pressure between predator or prey but I can't understand any more >of your paragraph. The player WILL be tied up with you whatever you might >think. If they decide to go for their prey then its even easier for the S+B >- hey, fewer blockers! Therefore to reiterate: the S+B's grandprey will be >free to hassle his prey (S+B's predator in a 4 player), therefore less >pressure from S+B's predator. If you could rewrite that particular point >clearly and concisely it would be a help. This is not an S+B problem. Any deck which goes exclusively after either predator or prey obviously grants advantages or disadvantages to its neighbors. Being the prey of an intercept combat deck, for example, is a highly desirable situation if you don't rely on equipment (I almost always love it.) If your prey is all-out S+B and your predator all-out intercept combat, you almost have a won game. In the reverse, you almost can put your hand down and read a book. I find games are more interesting when all decks have both offensive and defensive components. Unfortunately, Jyhad's immediate redraw favors highly concentrated decks, and those all-offense and all-defense decks often have pretty good track record. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

da...@xs4all.nl () writes: >In <32b4c603...@news.lava.net> te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: >>As far as I know, they're pretending that it's consistent. I think >>that Jon posted some reversal or other in his "rulings" a month or so >>ago, but I'm not absolutely certain about it. My friends and I have >>been playing with it as the "hoses player w/ aggravated damage" idea, >>but then again, we don't use sideboards(fairness issue, really). >That kind of phrase is exactly what I don't like about the Rotschreck >situation. What is "hoses"? My dictionary says it has something to >do with socks, or with spraying water. If the rulings can't get any >more specific than vague American slang, then I don't consider this >card to have a text at all. The slang has posed problems before (with the Anathema ruling). The slang, in this case, was just used by a Net.Rep as a quick echo of the official rule. The official rule is more exact than the American Slang: 4) Rotschreck should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to inflict aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor. During the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of untapping the vampire." -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Confidence occurs when you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | are ignorant of the facts. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Corrupter, On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, The Corrupter wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Algustas wrote: > > > Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection is the reason RTI isn't actually > > broke, as you have such a high potential of scoring a victory point for > > your prey, and losing a vampire in the processs. > > That doesn't make it less broken, that makes it more risky. If this > riskiness makes the card less broken, how does this sound: > > Gehenna's Call, Master 6 Pool > Flip a Coin. If it comes up heads, oust your prey. If it comes up > tails, lose another pool. This example has very little in common with RTI. In the first place, RTI is a minion card, without stealth, and blockable by any minion you have in play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that RTI will oust your prey, even if successfull. > > This, too, is risky, but hardly fair. In this case, it virtually > requires players to pack Sudden Reversals in all their decks. In the > Case of Return to Innocence, any non-bouncer is in a world of hurt. > Why? Why is RTI more dangerous than a well designed bleed deck, using small vampires with Govern The Unaligned and Conditioning? The Dominate bleeds are far more dangerous than RTI, they are useable repeatedly by much smaller minions. If you can defend against them, you can defend against RTI. If you can't defend against them, then you are probably in big trouble anyway. > > I very often incorporate > > that ability into my decks. Why just stop a bleed when you can use it to > > bleed your prey, or at least tap some of your prey's minions? > > But you shouldn't be forced to pack bounce in case someone has one card. > Agreed. You shouldn't be forced to, and in fact, you aren't forced to. There are lots of viable defences against bleed decks that do not involve bouncing, see your own articles for numerous examples :) Algustas *****In the space of two days I had evolved two plans, wholly distinct, both of which were equally feasible. The point I am trying to bring out is that one does not plan and then try to make circumstances fit those plans. One tries to make plans fit the circumstances.***** George S. Patton

With respect to Peter's gaming group we do not as such ban side-boards but many of us just dont bother using them as we believe they are a bit unecessary either. Just another lurker

>Same question from above, Peter: does your group use sideboards in >addition to the card limits? That would make your environment very >different from any I've played in. Of course my play groups have all been >in California so maybe this is a common way to play. Has anyone else had >experience using sideboards in Jyhad? I have to agree with Alec that I >don't like the idea. >Perhaps some of the differences in the experiences of groups is the card >limits and sideboards. That would probably change the way some strategies >work. Hi Doug, Sorry I've taken a while to reply, I've been a little busy. In our group there are four regular players - sometimes more. Each player has at least two decks which we've all played against before or know what its going to be like as we have very little secrecy between our decks both from experience and openness. On the whole we don't use sideboards unless someone has a deck or tactic that will work especially well in a particular game. So, for example, if someone is using a lot of aggravated damage then a rotschreck or two might go in. If someone can bleed for a lot then an AI or more deflections or Haven Uncovereds might go in. If malkies then a few Malky dementias etc... It depends of course the extent to which you define a sideboard I suppose but that's how we use them. Peter

In article <594u31$r...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) writes: >> Are you saying that it is stupid to play Return to Innocence on any >> methusalah with a minion with Dominate or Auspex? If you are then surely >> it is hard to play RTI without being 'stupid' (your definition) as it is >> fairly uncommon for a meth. to have no minions without Dom/Aus. > >Playing RtI while your prey has the ability to Deflect/Misdirect/AI it is >at best a big crapshoot -- it certainly couldn't be called smart play. >Any deck _designed_ to use RtI had better have some method of seeing its >prey's hand (Aura Reading, inferior Pulse, Revelations, Owl Companion) or >undoing the bleed (M1K Faces) or it might as well be playing roulette. > >No one _forces_ you to use RtI on a bleed. Using it when it can be AI'ed >or passed on to the grandprey is bad play. Fair point, I agree with you here, I concede to your argument. Ian PS There are always those who are going to go for the 'I think that's the biggest bleed we've had so far' record and AI does give them food for thought! :)

Algustas wrote: > > Hi Corrupter, > > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, The Corrupter wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Algustas wrote: > > > > > Deflection/Telepathic Misdirection is the reason RTI isn't actually > > > broke, as you have such a high potential of scoring a victory point for > > > your prey, and losing a vampire in the processs. > > > > That doesn't make it less broken, that makes it more risky. If this > > riskiness makes the card less broken, how does this sound: > > > > Gehenna's Call, Master 6 Pool > > Flip a Coin. If it comes up heads, oust your prey. If it comes up > > tails, lose another pool. > > This example has very little in common with RTI. In the first > place, RTI is a minion card, without stealth, and blockable by any minion > you have in play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that RTI will oust your > prey, even if successfull. Hi Algustus, now here is were I come to Adrians defence I play an Ventrue Antitribu Unblockable bleed deck, it has 4 RtI,8 Day operations, and lots of bounce,Bleed and dmg prevention. The deck plays very well, and please don't retort by trying to point out flaws in the deck I play it and already know them ;), now our group has not banned RtI, yet but it is a bit powerful. > > > > This, too, is risky, but hardly fair. In this case, it virtually > > requires players to pack Sudden Reversals in all their decks. In the > > Case of Return to Innocence, any non-bouncer is in a world of hurt. > > > Why? Why is RTI more dangerous than a well designed bleed deck, > using small vampires with Govern The Unaligned and Conditioning? The > Dominate bleeds are far more dangerous than RTI, they are useable > repeatedly by much smaller minions. If you can defend against them, you > can defend against RTI. If you can't defend against them, then you are > probably in big trouble anyway. This is also true and a big problem in the game, Bleed is just to common through out the game that it takes away from other aspects of the game like politics and, and combat. Errol T

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Algustas wrote: (and dammit, I had a response written that night when the connection died :) > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, The Corrupter wrote: [Re: Algustus's assertion that Deflection "fixes" RTI] > > That doesn't make it less broken, that makes it more risky. If this > > riskiness makes the card less broken, how does this sound: > > Gehenna's Call, Master 6 Pool > > Flip a Coin. If it comes up heads, oust your prey. If it comes up > > tails, lose another pool. > This example has very little in common with RTI. In the first > place, RTI is a minion card, without stealth, and blockable by any minion > you have in play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that RTI will oust your > prey, even if successfull. In the first place, a deck with RTI will not have no way to get the card through. If using stealth, it has been shown that there is roughly a 50% chance that an interceptor can stop. If using unblockable actions, it can only be deflected. Basicly, use of an RTI is going to work not all the time, just as a coin flip will sometimes come up tails. In the RTI deck, this chance can be reduced with good construction. Secondly, by the time a successful RTI hits someone, it _is_ likely to oust them. At midgame, it is not unusual for a prey to have less than 10 pool. If the RTI deck has not been on the attack, and instead has been on the defense, the prey won't likely know what could hit them ("Why should I have been worried that I was only at 9 pool? She hadn't even touched me until that 1st bleed!"). > > This, too, is risky, but hardly fair. In this case, it virtually > > requires players to pack Sudden Reversals in all their decks. In the > > Case of Return to Innocence, any non-bouncer is in a world of hurt. > Why? Why is RTI more dangerous than a well designed bleed deck, > using small vampires with Govern The Unaligned and Conditioning? The > Dominate bleeds are far more dangerous than RTI, they are useable > repeatedly by much smaller minions. If you can defend against them, you > can defend against RTI. If you can't defend against them, then you are > probably in big trouble anyway. There is a _very_ big difference. A weenie bleed deck gives you a hint that you are going to be bled for a bit over the game. It bleeds you. Each time it does, it gives you the opportunity to stop it (deflect, block, reduce). At the end of a turn of weenie bleed, you can expect more the next turn, and take action to stop it (rush, blood gain). The major key is that the attacks are drawn out into multiple moments of jeopardy. You now know that there is a threat, and it is drawn out of several turns for you to respond to. You can even begin to respond to the threat when the vampire first hits the table (clues like Dominate/Presence/Obfuscate combinations make it a good bet). RTI gives no warning. And what's more a deck doesn't need to be an RTI deck to use it effectively. Unless you now what is hitting you, your predator might as well have Gehenna's Call (above) and a weighted coin. All of the moments of jeopardy (above) are packed into one punch. And what can you do? Rush: Too late. The RTI has already happened. Intercept: You need to be able to succeed NOW. At least with S&B you didn't need to be able to intercept at all moments. Intercept works great with Day Operation, etc... Blood Gain: Likely the best chance. Often, however, a blood gain deck without apparent pressure on it is willing to expend more, putting it in range for RTI. Bounce: You need it to happen NOW. Once again, all the moments of jeopardy and threats of ousting that should come over the course of your predator's lifetime hit you at once with the playing of a single card. Race: They need to have already ousted their prey when RTI hits. Every single defense is either too late (Rush/Race) or needs to have its entire existence on the line because of one offensive action total. And this action is reusable. Unless they know that they have a predator that has RTIs in their deck, things are grim indeed. > > > I very often incorporate > > > that ability into my decks. Why just stop a bleed when you can use it to > > > bleed your prey, or at least tap some of your prey's minions? > > But you shouldn't be forced to pack bounce in case someone has one card. > Agreed. You shouldn't be forced to, and in fact, you aren't > forced to. There are lots of viable defences against bleed decks that do > not involve bouncing, see your own articles for numerous examples :) And what are they to do? The rush deck has to start out attacking his predator before he even knows its a threat? Every time? The blood gain deck can never get below 10 pool? The intercept deck has to always have enough intercept to stop every action? The Bouncer has to always have a bounce? The racer has to already have ousted his prey before the RTI hits? When RTI is included in decks that can exploit it (not even in a pure RTI deck), it is deadly. RTI demands that you have defenses for it NOW at the playing time of its users choice. If you don't, you are probably dead. No one card should substitute for the entire lifespan of a viable predator. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Errol, On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Errol T wrote: > Algustas wrote: [Corrupters example of hypothetically broken master card deleted] > > This example has very little in common with RTI. In the first > > place, RTI is a minion card, without stealth, and blockable by any minion > > you have in play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that RTI will oust your > > prey, even if successfull. > > Hi Algustus, now here is were I come to Adrians defence I play an Ventrue > Antitribu Unblockable bleed deck, it has 4 RtI,8 Day operations, and lots > of bounce,Bleed and dmg prevention. The deck plays very well, and please > don't retort by trying to point out flaws in the deck I play it and > already know them ;), now our group has not banned RtI, yet but it is a > bit powerful. > It's truly hard to imagine the Corrupter needing someone to come to his defense in a debate :) Anyway, when I point out a flaw in a deck design in these kinds of arguments, it is only to expose a weak argument, not to trash the way someone plays the game. I will continue to point out weaknesses in decks if the decks are used as example of why something is broken - it doesn't mean that I am trashing the way you play, just pointing out that maybe something is or is not quite the way it was presented. As far as your deck concept goes, it sounds fine to me, I doubt if it is any more dangerous than a fast bleed deck, so still doesn't make a case for RTI being broken. [Corrupters comments about non-bouncers hurt by RTI deleted] > > Why? Why is RTI more dangerous than a well designed bleed deck, > > using small vampires with Govern The Unaligned and Conditioning? The > > Dominate bleeds are far more dangerous than RTI, they are useable > > repeatedly by much smaller minions. If you can defend against them, you > > can defend against RTI. If you can't defend against them, then you are > > probably in big trouble anyway. > > This is also true and a big problem in the game, Bleed is just to common > through out the game that it takes away from other aspects of the game > like politics and, and combat. > I don't find bleed decks to be overpowering in my games, vote decks have much greater flexability in avoiding hand jams and tend to win more games in our groups, actually fast combo decks seem to do the best (you block my vote, I majesty and bleed you with Legal Manipulations). Algustas *****Only when a new development is so significant as to render the existing strategies useless, should a change be made.*****Star General game manual

> It's truly hard to imagine the Corrupter needing someone to come > to his defense in a debate :) Anyway, when I point out a flaw in a deck > design in these kinds of arguments, it is only to expose a weak argument, > not to trash the way someone plays the game. I will continue to point out > weaknesses in decks if the decks are used as example of why something is > broken - it doesn't mean that I am trashing the way you play, just > pointing out that maybe something is or is not quite the way it was > presented. As far as your deck concept goes, it sounds fine to me, I > doubt if it is any more dangerous than a fast bleed deck, so still > doesn't make a case for RTI being broken. > LARGE SNIP Hi Algustus, Yes I know you of all people on this news group would never trash someone, I usally end up doing that because of my lack in patience. I guess I agree with you in that RtI is not broken one reason I have not pushed to hard to ban it in our group, BUT I do feel that the cards can be grossly unfair take for example a game we were playing were I ousted my Predator with Day Ops and RtI only because I felt he was a bigger threat than my prey, I knew he did'nt have bleed bounce, Boom! gone. One card should not make that kind of impact on a game, Bleed decks work on there opponent over a few rounds RtI can kill in one. Normally I do not have a problem with cards having certain impacts (ie Archon Investigation,Rotescherck), but RtI attacks completely different, the previous examples cause the loss of a Vamp RtI cause you to sit on the side lines and watch a game you were once in control of. Errol T

I just wanted to add that this card is even worse for the end-game. When there are only two Methuselahs left there really isn't anything you can do when you are hit with Day Op and RTI. Where is your "it's OK because of bleed-bounce" argument now? It is unstoppable. RtI is completely unfair! -- ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

> I don't find bleed decks to be overpowering in my games, vote >decks have much greater flexability in avoiding hand jams and tend to win >more games in our groups, actually fast combo decks seem to do the best >(you block my vote, I majesty and bleed you with Legal Manipulations). > Algustas I dont think you understand the power in RtI. This is ONE CARD that in the right moment can oust another player with a 14 bleed (if its an inner circle). I know Ventrue combos that force the bleed go through without bouncing or blocking. (Misdirection - the sleeping mind, Direct Intervention is the only defence, and you know whats said about that card.) There are many decks that CANT do ANYTHING about surviving a 14 bleed with 13 blood left, there are even more decks that make that 14 bleed impossible to block.

961217235509...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> <32BB07...@compusmart.ab.ca> <Pine.SOL.3.91.961222...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> <32BF92...@compusmart.ab.ca> Organization: University of Alberta Distribution: : I guess I agree with you in that RtI is not broken one reason I have : not pushed to hard to ban it in our group, BUT I do feel that the cards can : be grossly unfair take for example a game we were playing were I ousted my : Predator with Day Ops and RtI only because I felt he was a bigger threat : than my prey, I knew he did'nt have bleed bounce, Boom! gone. One card : should not make that kind of impact on a game, Bleed decks work on : there opponent over a few rounds RtI can kill in one. Normally I do not : have a problem with cards having certain impacts (ie Archon : Investigation,Rotescherck), but RtI attacks completely different, the : previous examples cause the loss of a Vamp RtI cause you to sit on the : side lines and watch a game you were once in control of. : : Errol T Hi Errol: I'm going to chime in now. I was the Tzimisce predator that got ousted over a Settite prey. Incidently the Settite went on to win but that's another story. I don't have a problem with RtI. Granted it's a very powerful card but it gives heavy bleeding to clans that normally don't have this option (Gangrel, Nosferatu). I mean many clans using medium vampires can get the same effect with a dominate bleed combo (GtU/+1 bleed inherant/Conditioning comes to mind) The problem I believe is Day Op or Horrific Countenance or Concoction of Vitality. I've heard the use of "fundamental of the game" being thrown around in arguements surrounding Thoughts Betrayed (not that this card doesn't have problems). Doesn't not being able to block no matter how much intercept you have constitute breaking a fundamental of the game? I mean without an unblockable action modiefier, my Tzimisce deck wouldn't have had a problem blocking (Dragos with 4 Raptors, 1 Raven Spy, 2 Revenants and superior auspex) but with an unblockable action you take that option away from me. So which is more broken Day Op or RtI? Jeff Dai

On 25 Dec 1996 20:47:33 GMT, jd...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Jeff Dai) wrote: >I don't have a problem with RtI. Granted it's a very powerful card but it >gives heavy bleeding to clans that normally don't have this option >(Gangrel, Nosferatu). I mean many clans using medium vampires can get the >same effect with a dominate bleed combo (GtU/+1 bleed >inherant/Conditioning comes to mind) Yes, but RTI will usually not be used unless it is going to be abused. I've never seen a gangrel deck using it which didn't plan on pulling out the largest vampire possible, minion tapping them down to 5 blood, and then bleeding w/ RTI- Day Operation. >The problem I believe is Day Op or Horrific Countenance or Concoction of >Vitality. I've heard the use of "fundamental of the game" being thrown >around in arguements surrounding Thoughts Betrayed (not that this card >doesn't have problems). Doesn't not being able to block no matter how >much intercept you have constitute breaking a fundamental of the game? It may, but think on this. Has a Day Operation ever ousted a player who was at 12 pool on it's own, without other broken cards? (No) Has a RTI, without other broken cards (I assume here that stealth is not "broken")? Yes. Unblockability is not broken as long as there is no action which will have a truly huge effect on the game. Most of the above have equitable costs and effects; they only become truly broken when combined with other broken cards, like Fame, Force of Will, and RTI. >I mean without an unblockable action modiefier, my Tzimisce deck wouldn't >have had a problem blocking (Dragos with 4 Raptors, 1 Raven Spy, 2 >Revenants and superior auspex) but with an unblockable action you take >that option away from me. That's not the point being addressed, I'm afraid, although it was good of you to bring it up. The thing is, no action should _always_ have such a large effect on the game when used so that you _must_ block it or die. That's one very clear defintition of broken. >So which is more broken Day Op or RtI? RTI. As expressed above. Alec Chang

Hi Errol, On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Errol T wrote: > I guess I agree with you in that RtI is not broken one reason I have > not pushed to hard to ban it in our group, BUT I do feel that the cards can > be grossly unfair take for example a game we were playing were I ousted my > Predator with Day Ops and RtI only because I felt he was a bigger threat than > my prey, I knew he did'nt have bleed bounce, Boom! gone. One card should not > make that kind of impact on a game, Bleed decks work on there opponent over a > few rounds RtI can kill in one. Normally I do not have a problem with cards > having certain impacts (ie Archon Investigation,Rotescherck), but RtI attacks > completely different, the previous examples cause the loss of a Vamp RtI > cause you to sit on the side lines and watch a game you were once in control > of. > I understand what you are saying, but this game has always pivoted on just one action at the right time. Have you ever seen a Brujah vote deck rearange the table with Kindred Restructure? I don't know how many games I have seen won & lost by that single action... Algustas *****The urge toward simplification and order keeps us going and inspires us in the midst of chaos. Chaos is the beginning; simplicity is the end.***** M. C. Escher

Hi Staffan, On 25 Dec 1996, staffan.bengtsson wrote: > I dont think you understand the power in RtI. This is ONE CARD that in the > right moment can oust another player with a 14 bleed (if its an inner circle). Well, I have only seen two games were someone managed to bring out an IC member, and both times they were ousted before they could use it. Every four turns you hit someone for 14 pool loss, at the expense of being defenseless (in other words, you get to do it once), meanwhile a well designed deck is costing you 12 to 18 pool a turn... > I know Ventrue combos that force the bleed go through without bouncing or > blocking. > (Misdirection - the sleeping mind, Direct Intervention is the only defence, > and you know whats said about that card.) I'm not familiar with "The Sleeping Mind", but is there no way to block it or deflect with a wakey? What does it do? > > There are many decks that CANT do ANYTHING about surviving a 14 bleed with > 13 blood left, there are even more decks that make that 14 bleed impossible > to block. > Can these decks survive long enough to do this trick? Even if they do, they have done far less damage than a well designed bleed or voted deck would have in the same amount of time. It may seem shocking, because it happens all at once, but it still is not as effective as a well designed deck. Algustas *****While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.***** Douglas MacArthur, 1951

Algustas wrote: SNIPPED Stafans comment Hi Algustas, I will first apologize for the misspelling of the name last posting. > Well, I have only seen two games were someone managed to bring > out an IC member, and both times they were ousted before they could use > it. Every four turns you hit someone for 14 pool loss, at the expense of > being defenseless (in other words, you get to do it once), meanwhile a > well designed deck is costing you 12 to 18 pool a turn... > IC members make an appreance on a regular basis at our games, Jeff can back me up on this point, and they do moderatly well when they do, My Toreador Blood Machine got Alexandra out twice in 2 games and won both times. Snipped more of Stafans comments > > I'm not familiar with "The Sleeping Mind", but is there no way to > block it or deflect with a wakey? What does it do? For the Record Sleeping Mind Cost 1 pool from vampire Requires DOM Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Choose a tapped vampie. The chosen vampire cannot attempt to block this action. SUP: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Minoins cannot untap during this action, and tapped minions cannot block this action. So Algustas, I really have no idea why Stafan brought this card up it's relivance(sp?) to his argument is again kind of abscured. > Can these decks survive long enough to do this trick? Even if > they do, they have done far less damage than a well designed bleed or > voted deck would have in the same amount of time. It may seem shocking, > because it happens all at once, but it still is not as effective as a > well designed deck. > Algustas Well designed seems to be a relative term on this group, everyones opinion varies on this subject ;) Errol T

Jeff Dai wrote: > SNIPPED all my babble on RtI etc,etc > Hi Errol: > > I'm going to chime in now. I was the Tzimisce predator that got ousted > over a Settite prey. Incidently the Settite went on to win but that's > another story. >LOL, had to throw that in id ya ;) > I don't have a problem with RtI. Granted it's a very powerful card but it > gives heavy bleeding to clans that normally don't have this option > (Gangrel, Nosferatu). I mean many clans using medium vampires can get the > same effect with a dominate bleed combo (GtU/+1 bleed > inherant/Conditioning comes to mind) > > The problem I believe is Day Op or Horrific Countenance or Concoction of > Vitality. I've heard the use of "fundamental of the game" being thrown > around in arguements surrounding Thoughts Betrayed (not that this card > doesn't have problems). Doesn't not being able to block no matter how > much intercept you have constitute breaking a fundamental of the game? > > I mean without an unblockable action modiefier, my Tzimisce deck wouldn't > have had a problem blocking (Dragos with 4 Raptors, 1 Raven Spy, 2 > Revenants and superior auspex) but with an unblockable action you take > that option away from me. > > So which is more broken Day Op or RtI? In a sense both, I agree with you on the Unblockable action point, even without RtI my Ventrue Unblockable can be a menance, but RtI makes it worse, I'm sure you remember Kevin being ousted by me with to RtI's and 2 Day Ops in one turn, it brings back the point I some one made on this string about when this combo comes down to 2 person games. Errol T

In article <32C38F...@compusmart.ab.ca>, etre...@compusmart.ab.ca says... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't see why RtI is broken ? , i guess it's becouse in my group we play defencively ( survival comes first ) and that's why in my area everybody plays with deflections , archon investigations , my enemy's enemy etc..... , to be honest RtI made unblockable directed at me has won ME a few games :) ( deflection ) . I don't know if it's true everywhere but since the release of SABBAT every dek in my area is about 40 % combat or more ( becouse bleeds are almost impossible to get thru + with prisci + other sabbat titles votes are hard to push thru too ) here is a few examples of cards that can protect u from bleeds : THE SABBAT : My enemy's enemy Redirection Telepathic Counter Telepatic Misdirection These are the most obvious ones and perhaps most effective .There is also two master cards that help defending against bleeds , one is Archon Investigation ( obviously ) and the other is ( forgot the name - know that it prevents people from bleeding u 4 more than 2 pool ) i think somethink like Protected Resources. ho...@intergate.bc.ca :)and they tell me that it's just a game:)

> staffan.bengtsson wrote: > > I don't find bleed decks to be overpowering in my games, vote > >decks have much greater flexability in avoiding hand jams and tend to win > >more games in our groups, actually fast combo decks seem to do the best > >(you block my vote, I majesty and bleed you with Legal Manipulations). > > Algustas > There are many decks that CANT do ANYTHING about surviving a 14 bleed with > 13 blood left, there are even more decks that make that 14 bleed impossible > to block. Part of this problem stems from the play style and ferocity of Algustas' playgroup. Within such a group, RTI decreases in power because of the following: 1. Rush decks deny any Methuselah vamps large enough to use RTI effectively (or disgustingly). 2. Speed of play also denies a Meth the time to bring out and use a very large vampire (VLV), since many smaller vampires could be twice as effective. 3. The predominance of small bleed encourages the use of bounce. The danger of killing the wrong person is very real. 4. The loss of a vampire is devastating in a vicious game. RTI's drawback means a lot in Algustas's environment. These 4 major effects upon RTI mean that RTI is just another card in this environment. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, used to slower games and lighter bleeds, RTI is just as much a problem as it was before. Not all of us can play like Algustas' group, and not all of us would wish to. To me, RTI is broken because it has an immediate, direct, major and unpreventable effect on the game. It can only be stopped by a few cards, which will often be unavailable. It is also a bad role model for cards like Spiridonas and Archon Investigation. -Nathan Harada

Michal Kranc wrote: > I don't see why RtI is broken ? , i guess it's becouse in my group we > play defencively ( survival comes first ) and that's why in my area everybody > plays with deflections , archon investigations , my enemy's enemy etc..... , to > be honest RtI made unblockable directed at me has won ME a few games :) ( > deflection ) . I don't know if it's true everywhere but since the release of > SABBAT every dek in my area is about 40 % combat or more ( becouse bleeds are > almost impossible to get thru + with prisci + other sabbat titles votes are > hard to push thru too ) here is a few examples of cards that can protect u from > bleeds : > > THE SABBAT : My enemy's enemy > Redirection > Telepathic Counter > Telepatic Misdirection > > These are the most obvious ones and perhaps most effective .There is also two > master cards that help defending against bleeds , one is Archon Investigation ( > obviously ) and the other is ( forgot the name - know that it prevents people > from bleeding u 4 more than 2 pool ) i think somethink like Protected > Resources. Hi Michal, The cards mentioned above were all avaliable to us before Sabbat with the exception of My enemys enemy, all like you say good defense, But are hardly the best defense, the best defense targets directly at an opponents week points and I hardly call simply avoidence a reliable defense. Errol T

In article <32C4D0...@compusmart.ab.ca>, etre...@compusmart.ab.ca says... [ quoted text not captured ] i belive that u are missing the point . RtI is a bleed card and therefore is gonna be directed at u by your predator ( most of the time ) agreed ? if u are telling me that deflecting a RtI ( what u get is basically a huge bleed directed at your prey + only costs u one BLOOD + a vampire of your predator burns ) is a poor defence then u are a fool ! u are totally missing the point of what the essence of this game is about , u can't expect to "attack" everybody and u can't presume that your opponents deck will have weak points ( that's what happes when u play against decks that concentrate on a single strategy to win a game ex:stealth/bleed,combat ) that u will be able to explore . Also , since when do u consider your predator your primary opponent ????? , the point here is to use the resources that your predator sends against u to "attack" your prey . U say that all the cards that i mentioned been here allready , yes they have . Just goes to show u how foolish some people are , just becouse a card is not a rare and been around for a long time does not mean that it is not useful . All of those cards will COMPLETELY protect u from the "dangers" of RtI. I totally fail to see the point that u people are trying to make here , this card sucks !! , that's why it's a card 4 suckers , becouse if u play with it against a well desighned deck and hope that it will actually "hit" your prey then u really are a sucker !!!! I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). PS: It still amazes me that anyone would actually play with those unless they have posessions.

> I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks > that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). Braindead?!? I would *love* for you to post your "tournament" deck here just so I can watch as the thing get completely torn apart by everyone on the NG. Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ quoted text not captured ] I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). PS: It still amazes me that anyone would actually play with those unless they have posessions.

Michal Kranc wrote: > >Hi Michal, The cards mentioned above were all avaliable to us before > >Sabbat with the exception of My enemys enemy, all like you say good > >defense, But are hardly the best defense, the best defense targets > >directly at an opponents week points and I hardly call simply avoidence a > > reliable defense. > > > >Errol T > > i belive that u are missing the point . RtI is a bleed card and > therefore is gonna be directed at u by your predator ( most of the time ) > agreed ? > No not agreed, I have had it directed at me by grand predators and by preys, if you have been playing this game long enough then you would mabe understand how a grand predator or grand prey affects yourself I watch my cross table opponents more than my own Pred prey sometimes, I have directed RtI at opponents who have know affect on me what so ever just because I might view the as a threat later. > if u are telling me that deflecting a RtI ( what u get is basically a > huge bleed directed at your prey + only costs u one BLOOD + a vampire of your > predator burns ) is a poor defence then u are a fool ! u are totally missing > the point of what the essence of this game is about , Hmmmmm, read my post again Michal and don't call me a fool, I have played this game since its release and know its "Essence" I did not say that it was a poor defense but that it was not the "Be all, of End all". u can't expect to > "attack" everybody and u can't presume that your opponents deck will have weak > points If you knew the game as well as you say you do then you know that every deck in this game has week points targeting those weeknesses in any opponent has won me more games than I can count, knowing your opponent, wins even more. ( that's what happes when u play against decks that concentrate on a > single strategy to win a game ex:stealth/bleed,combat ) that u will be able to > explore . > Also , since when do u consider your predator your primary opponent > ????? , Funny Michal I don't recall making this statement but since you opened the door... I hit my Predator first weeking that person allows me to concentrate more on my prey. Don't try to poke holes in this theory I have played it this way and has proven effective enough. I say 2 years is enough for me. the point here is to use the resources that your predator sends against > u to "attack" your prey . > > U say that all the cards that i mentioned been here allready , yes they > have . Just goes to show u how foolish some people are , just becouse a card > is not a rare and been around for a long time does not mean that it is not > useful . All of those cards will COMPLETELY protect u from the "dangers" of > RtI. Yeah great and now I have to stick to clans that have those disciplines yeah sounds like fun to me! > > I totally fail to see the point that u people are trying to make here , > this card sucks !! , that's why it's a card 4 suckers , becouse if u play with > it against a well desighned deck and hope that it will actually "hit" your prey > then u really are a sucker !!!! > > I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks > that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). > Excuse me! I don't play Braindead decks I play a wide selection of decks, that helps me stay competitive, I don't ever recall telling you what decks I do play, you never asked and I resent the remark. I challenge you to post your decks that are "So great and Wonderful" My guess is you won't. > PS: It still amazes me that anyone would actually play with those unless they > have posessions. I fail to see what you are trying to say with all your feebleminded soap box ramblings, I have stated that I don't like the card but am not convinced its broken enough to the point you do, I do agree with you that the card needs more crackers than Mr.Cristie can make because of the cheese level it has. Errol T

> > I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks > that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). Hmmm, I'm not sure you've seen any of the decks I play... > PS: It still amazes me that anyone would actually play with those unless they > have posessions. There are numerous ways to determine what cards are in a prey's hand. It's also possible to tap their minions (or wait until they're tapped), and play it in combination with Sleeping Mind. If none of your prey's vampires have minor dominate or superior Auspex, you have no problems. Use the Soul Gem if your worried about losing vampires, and your prey's not going to be using Deflection if the game's down to two players. Possesion's a good card to play with this, of course :-) TJH

Currently i'am playing my G+N's deck ( posted as <<>>Improved Giovanni Deck<<>>have a go at that :) , geee are u guys touchy or what :) :) In article <01bbf546$d1eb5f80$0758...@Chris.apdi.net>, cbo...@apdi.net says... > >> I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks >> that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). > [ quoted text not captured ]

Thanks for feedback In article <tjh-291296...@port48.annex6.nwlink.com>, t...@nwlink.com says... > >> >> I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks >> that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat ). > [ quoted text not captured ]

An eloquent rebuttal on the part of Errol T.... And it didn't even touch on the fact that despite the fact that bounce will allow you to use the RtI to your advantage, it is a single card whose massive effect in the game can be generated at a very cheap cost. I for one honestly don't care who ultimately gains the advantage for the RtI (through bleed bounce, etc.) , the real point most opponents to the card have is that NO ONE should be able to generate that kind of bleed for so little investment. Mr. Kranc's defense lies within the game's context, but the card itself breaks the game's own ideal of cost being (near) equal to effect. If your environment has lots of bleed bounce, the result you ultimately get is a bleed which is still underpriced that bounces around the table to a random target, and ousts that player (the one unfortunate enough to not draw his fifth Deflection). Mr. Kranc, I'd take a second look at what this card's effect on your play environment has been. With your argument thus far, you have suggested that there is a significant amount of bleed bounce in your group (ca. 75 to 80% ???), this itself is an indication of the slanted effect that broken cards will have on a game environment. I believe you'll find that play environment is open to more possible deck constructions if RtI is banned as a house rule than if it continues to be included in your group... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Player 1: Day Op, RtI...Hah!! Player 2: Deflection...Hah!!!! Player 3: Archon Investigation....Hah!!!!!!! Player 4: Sudden Reversal...HAH!!!!!!! Isn't it a fun game...... What'd you expect to find down here...some snappy quote? HAH!

Michal Kranc wrote: [clip] here is a few examples of cards that can protect u from > bleeds : > > THE SABBAT : My enemy's enemy > Redirection > Telepathic Counter > Telepatic Misdirection > > These are the most obvious ones and perhaps most effective These are completely worthless when there are 2 Meth.'s in a game and the RtI bleed is coming from an IC member! .There is also two > master cards that help defending against bleeds , one is Archon Investigation ( > obviously ) and the other is ( forgot the name - know that it prevents people > from bleeding u 4 more than 2 pool ) i think somethink like Protected > Resources. Protected resources is good only if you are playing a deck that never bleeds (otherwise the PR card is burned when you bleed). I don't think anyone is arguing that RtI is OK because the Vamp burns if successful. I think we all know that is no real loss in a deck designed to exploit RtI. So what you must be saying is that an unblockable bleed of over 10 is perfectly fine because there is one card, AI, that can stop it (when only 2 players remain). I must then ask if a bleed 2 times capacity OK as long as AI exists? 10 times? I think your line of reasoning forces you to say that is still appropriate. I think the Corrupter mentioned one time (something similar in effect to) that it's like having a single unblockable action card that says "bleed for entire amount in prey's pool. Would you think a card like this is OK as long as the prey has the opportunity to play an AI? Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

Michael Kranc wrote: "I totally fail to see the point that u people are trying to make here, this card sucks !! , that's why it's a card 4 suckers , becouse if u play with it against a well desighned deck and hope that it will actually "hit" your prey then u really are a sucker !!!!" Ok. If you are playing a deck that has Deflections, then RTI means nothing to you. If, on the other hand, you are not playing a deck with Deflections, then RTI will crush you like a bug. Many, many, many sucessful decks existed before the introduction of RTI that used no Deflection at all. Their defenses came from Rush combat, Blood Gain, or outracing their Predator. These decks did just fine without Bleed Bouncing. Now add RTI. With RTI, you can reliably oust your prey in one action even when they are at well over 10 pool, which used to be a fairly safe point to be at. The S+B Malks could do it really quick, but they are very vulnerable to combat, and you know it is coming. Some other decks could oust you when you are at 12 or so pool in one turn, but again, it takes multiple actions and you usually can see it coming (you know they are a vote deck or they have been building up bleed mods). With RTI, you can come out of left feild and whack your prey from 12 pool to nothing with a single vampire in a single action, unless your prey has Bleed Bounce. As a result of RTI, it becomes necessary to play Bleed Bounce where you did not have to before (or AI or DI, both of which are wack in their own right). Any single card that warps the playing field to such an extent is plain brown wrong. Then he wrote: "I can't wait 'till i play in a tournament against the braindead decks that u people play ( stealth/bleed , all combat )." Broad based legless insults aimed at your reading audience adds very little weight to your argument and goes a long way towards gaining a reputation as an idiot.\ Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I guess they don't hate birds." -The President's Daughter

In article <5a7no5$i...@camel4.mindspring.com>, guenh...@mindspring.com says... [ quoted text not captured ] I'am finally starting to see your point , yeah i know took me a while . Since we're on the subject of broken cards do u guys consider any other cards "broken" ? The only one that i consider broken is THOUGHTS BETRAYED . I think that RtI is "overpowered , and unfair " rather then "broken" , i personally also question the creation of all the cards that make actions "unblockable" - why give cards such abilities ? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ SOME ARE BORN TO SWEET DELIGHT. ~ ~ SOME ARE BORN TO ENDLESS NIGHT. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "Vampire" Mike <>email at: ho...@intergate.bc.ca always willing to trade :)

> Well, I have only seen two games were someone managed to bring >out an IC member, and both times they were ousted before they could use >it. Every four turns you hit someone for 14 pool loss, at the expense of >being defenseless (in other words, you get to do it once), meanwhile a >well designed deck is costing you 12 to 18 pool a turn... Eh!? How do your group really play this game!?! There is nearly always an inner Circle into play when we are playing. I always bring Leandro into play first when playing my malkavian deck, and it have yet never been defeated. >> I know Ventrue combos that force the bleed go through without bouncing or >> blocking. >> (Misdirection - the sleeping mind, Direct Intervention is the only defence, >> and you know whats said about that card.) > I'm not familiar with "The Sleeping Mind", but is there no way to >block it or deflect with a wakey? What does it do? You can deflect the bleed since you can use reactions, but 9 clans can't deflect since they neither have auspex or Dominate. The Sleeping mind affects all tapped vampires. Tapped vampires can not attempt to block the action and no tapped vampires may untap during the action. > Can these decks survive long enough to do this trick? Even if >they do, they have done far less damage than a well designed bleed or >voted deck would have in the same amount of time. It may seem shocking, >because it happens all at once, but it still is not as effective as a >well designed deck. The point with a bleed deck is that its a DECK. You shouldn't be able to do the same with ONE CARD that a whole deck is built on. Well designed Bleed decks cant bleed for 11, they rather bleed for 6 each of two vampires. And then they need 4 cards (2 govern the Unaligned and 2 conditioning) and superior dominate. I COULD add ONLY 4 RtI into my Brujah Deck. Then I would have a well designed combat deck that can misdirect and bleed for 10. I would never again use my Malkavian deck after that. I have seen many players become ousted by this card alone. I know one deck that two times per game bleeds for 11 with Kementiri and then gains 5 blood from her with "Redeem the Lost Soul".

>SNIPPED Stafans comment >Hi Algustas, I will first apologize for the misspelling of the name last >posting. Thanks then if you would spell MY name right (StafFan) =) >Sleeping Mind >Cost 1 pool from vampire Requires DOM >Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Choose a >tapped vampie. The chosen vampire cannot attempt to block this action. >SUP: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced. Minoins >cannot untap during this action, and tapped minions cannot block this >action. >So Algustas, I really have no idea why Stafan brought this card up it's >relivance(sp?) to his argument is again kind of abscured. With this card and misdirection you cant block the action at all thats the point. There is lots of ways to make RtI impossible to survive, and noone should be forced to put block cards or defelctions into decks, just to survive one single card.

>Hi Michal, The cards mentioned above were all avaliable to us before >Sabbat with the exception of My enemys enemy, all like you say good >defense, But are hardly the best defense, the best defense targets >directly at an opponents week points and I hardly call simply avoidence a > reliable defense. They are also unuseable by the 9 clans that dont have auspex or dominate.

Hi Staffan, On 31 Dec 1996, staffan.bengtsson wrote: [My comments about loosing lots of pool when you have no vampires available for defense deleted] > Eh!? How do your group really play this game!?! > There is nearly always an inner Circle into play when we are playing. > I always bring Leandro into play first when playing my malkavian deck, and > it have yet never been defeated. I can almost guarantee that if Leandro was the first vampire you put in play with my group, you would be ousted quickly. The typical successful minion action results in a loss of 4 to 6 pool from the prey, or torporizes a vampire. It's pretty hard to keep a minion action from being successful if you don't have any minions out yourself, so by the time you get Leandro out, your predator has taken at least three seperate minion actions, net loss 12-18 pool, plus the 11 you put on Leandro, so you probably don't even have time for a minion tap. That would only buy you one more turn anyway, although, if your lucky she had a sneak and bleed deck, so she might have a stealth card hand jam, but I wouldn't bet my unlife on it... [The Sleeping Mind comments deleted] > > Can these decks survive long enough to do this trick? Even if > >they do, they have done far less damage than a well designed bleed or > >voted deck would have in the same amount of time. It may seem shocking, > >because it happens all at once, but it still is not as effective as a > >well designed deck. > > The point with a bleed deck is that its a DECK. You shouldn't be able to > do the same with ONE CARD that a whole deck is built on. > Well designed Bleed decks cant bleed for 11, they rather bleed for 6 each > of two vampires. And then they need 4 cards (2 govern the Unaligned and > 2 conditioning) and superior dominate. > I have acknowledged that one card shouldn't make up for a well designed deck. Fortunately, RTI comes nowhere near to being as effective as a well designed deck. With your above Leandro example, you could bleed for 15 on the fourth turn with Leandro, then have no minions in play again. An efficent bleed deck would have done the same or more to you by then, and still be doing it next turn. It does not make up for a well designed deck, it doesn't even come close... > I COULD add ONLY 4 RtI into my Brujah Deck. Then I would have a well designed > combat deck that can misdirect and bleed for 10. > I would never again use my Malkavian deck after that. > A well designed combat deck that has RTI and minion taps when ever you need them? sounds like a lot of non-combat cards for a well designed combat deck, it would sound more convincing if you could post this "well designed" combat deck... I can't imagine a well designed combat deck that would want to throw away Don Cruez, just to oust one prey. What do you do about the rest of the table? Maybe it would be worth it if your prey was the last opponent left, but how did you get there hanging on to cards like misdirection and RTI? > I have seen many players become ousted by this card alone. I know one deck > that two times per game bleeds for 11 with Kementiri and then gains 5 blood > from her with "Redeem the Lost Soul". I don't doubt that this card can oust people. I've never played in a Jyhad game where somebody didn't play a card to oust someone else. This particular card just doesn't come close to being as dangerous as a well designed deck... Algustas *****People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them***** Eric Hoffer

>Yes, but RTI will usually not be used unless it is going to be abused. >I've never seen a gangrel deck using it which didn't plan on pulling >out the largest vampire possible, minion tapping them down to 5 blood, >and then bleeding w/ RTI- Day Operation. I have seen basilia susessfully bleed for 11... 2 times... +2 stealth... Once the one bleeding with her also gained 5 blood with a redeem the lost soul.

> >Right, and you have to untap to use a reaction card. So effectively, you > >cannot even try to deflect any action (RTI) > >that uses The Sleeping Mind if all your vamps are tapped. > WwEF does not untap you. It allows you to block or play reaction cards. > So you can still deflect an RTI after a Sleeping Mind. Hmm, this is actually good to know. I thought that WwEF was essentially that same as untapping. Hell, in this case, what good is The Sleeping Mind then except to put down Animalism untaps? [ quoted text not captured ]

> You can deflect the bleed since you can use reactions, but 9 clans can't > deflect since they neither have auspex or Dominate. > The Sleeping mind affects all tapped vampires. Tapped vampires can not > attempt to block the action and no tapped vampires may untap during the > action. Right, and you have to untap to use a reaction card. So effectively, you cannot even try to deflect any action (RTI) that uses The Sleeping Mind if all your vamps are tapped. Sorrow [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: [ bouncing RTI by another poster snipped ] >Right, and you have to untap to use a reaction card. So effectively, you >cannot even try to deflect any action (RTI) >that uses The Sleeping Mind if all your vamps are tapped. WwEF does not untap you. It allows you to block or play reaction cards. So you can still deflect an RTI after a Sleeping Mind. Btw, I'm not trying to defend RTI, I was just pointing out the mistake. :) Mike

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: [ how WwEF does not untap ] >Hmm, this is actually good to know. I thought that WwEF was essentially >that same as untapping. >Hell, in this case, what good is The Sleeping Mind then except to put down >Animalism untaps? Because Sleeping Mind does not allow blocking, not untapping. You can untap all you want, but you can't block the action no matter what. At superior, vampires can't untap either. Mike

> I can almost guarantee that if Leandro was the first vampire you >put in play with my group, you would be ousted quickly. The typical >successful minion action results in a loss of 4 to 6 pool from the prey, >or torporizes a vampire. It's pretty hard to keep a minion action from >being successful if you don't have any minions out yourself, so by the >time you get Leandro out, your predator has taken at least three seperate >minion actions, net loss 12-18 pool, plus the 11 you put on Leandro, so >you probably don't even have time for a minion tap. That would only buy >you one more turn anyway, although, if your lucky she had a sneak and >bleed deck, so she might have a stealth card hand jam, but I wouldn't bet >my unlife on it... We dont play that way. A friendly playturn could take hours of fun playing, and the more people that joins, the more fun. High Bleeds and overkill cards are usually not respected in my town 8and we are over 15 people playing this game regulary). To bleed for 12-18 pool the first two rounds you need a weenie deck. Weenie decks is used in Tournaments, and preferably left on the shelter when friends play for a good time. Please respect that Vampire isnt Magic. Vampire is supposed to be fun, and you can do alot much more than just try to fast bleed all your opponents to death. > I have acknowledged that one card shouldn't make up for a well >designed deck. Fortunately, RTI comes nowhere near to being as effective >as a well designed deck. With your above Leandro example, you could bleed >for 15 on the fourth turn with Leandro, then have no minions in play >again. An efficent bleed deck would have done the same or more to you by >then, and still be doing it next turn. It does not make up for a well >designed deck, it doesn't even come close... If i bleed the forth turn my prey is dead. I recive 6 pool + 6 pool with minion tap + 5 pool with a redeem the lost soul. If you havnt seen anyone gain that much from doing just this (minion tap, RtI, Redeem The lost soul) then I can say I have. > A well designed combat deck that has RTI and minion taps when >ever you need them? sounds like a lot of non-combat cards for a well >designed combat deck, it would sound more convincing if you could post >this "well designed" combat deck... Lot of non-combat cards!? Come-on... I have about 20-30 non combat cards in my Brujah deck right now, and two of them are misdirection... I could easliy add 4 cards without problem to get a lesser combat deck. > I can't imagine a well designed combat deck that would want to >throw away Don Cruez, just to oust one prey. What do you do about the >rest of the table? Maybe it would be worth it if your prey was the last >opponent left, but how did you get there hanging on to cards like >misdirection and RTI? I would gladely offer all my vampires to out my prey and his prey in one turn. > I don't doubt that this card can oust people. I've never played >in a Jyhad game where somebody didn't play a card to oust someone else. >This particular card just doesn't come close to being as dangerous as a >well designed deck... Lately, the card I have seen most people ousted on is RtI... I had fun plaing vampire before, but right now I only play Rage since Vampire have gotten to much like Magic TG. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Right, and you have to untap to use a reaction card. So effectively, you >cannot even try to deflect any action (RTI) >that uses The Sleeping Mind if all your vamps are tapped. With the Wake cards you can play reaction card and attemps to block as you were untapped. I hope you dont untap your vampire when you play a Wake With Evening Refreshness.. I just HATE when people do that... They dont untap.... Nothing on the cards says anything about untap, Im going nuts... ARGH.

On 4 Jan 1997, staffan.bengtsson wrote: [Re: Someone talking about a harsh play environment (BTW, Staffan, please don't cut off _who_ wrote what when you quote)] > We dont play that way. A friendly playturn could take hours of fun playing, > and the more people that joins, the more fun. High Bleeds and overkill cards > are usually not respected in my town 8and we are over 15 people playing this > game regulary). Why aren't they expected? > To bleed for 12-18 pool the first two rounds you need a weenie deck. Weenie > decks is used in Tournaments, and preferably left on the shelter when friends > play for a good time. The level that people play at (intensity) has nothing to do with fun. That's relatively subjective for each person. In my own experience, however, in a good group, "fun" decks and tournament decks are one and the same, not because people play their tournament decks for fun, but that the fun decks are certainly tournament worthy. > Please respect that Vampire isnt Magic. Vampire is supposed to be fun, and > you can do alot much more than just try to fast bleed all your opponents > to death. Please respect that others can play as they want. I, for example, do not at all like CL in Jyhad by any means (I think they are silly and unneccesary) but I would never say to a CL player, they can't play that way. I can debate about what is a better way to play and back up my arguments with evidence. For something as subjective as "what's fun" this simply cannot be done. [On to real debate] > > A well designed combat deck that has RTI and minion taps when > >ever you need them? sounds like a lot of non-combat cards for a well > >designed combat deck, it would sound more convincing if you could post > >this "well designed" combat deck... > Lot of non-combat cards!? Come-on... I have about 20-30 non combat cards > in my Brujah deck right now, and two of them are misdirection... > I could easliy add 4 cards without problem to get a lesser combat deck. I would have to call you on that one. Unless your deck is huge, each step you take away from 10-15% non-combat in a combat deck _is_ a loss, unless one is playing permanent based combat. Since you are talking about a brujah deck, I would do that is the case. So, unless your deck is roughly 200 cards large, you likely have to much non-combat to be a competitive Brujah Combat deck or you fight in a combat-weak environment. > > I can't imagine a well designed combat deck that would want to > >throw away Don Cruez, just to oust one prey. What do you do about the > >rest of the table? Maybe it would be worth it if your prey was the last > >opponent left, but how did you get there hanging on to cards like > >misdirection and RTI? Good point. > I would gladely offer all my vampires to out my prey and his prey in one > turn. I would if they were the last players or if it would seal my victory, but you don't seem to be saying this. > > I don't doubt that this card can oust people. I've never played > >in a Jyhad game where somebody didn't play a card to oust someone else. > >This particular card just doesn't come close to being as dangerous as a > >well designed deck... This is worthy of a full post, so I'll leave it alone for now and respond to it on another one. @#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as @#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as @#$ <http:cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ Reality ... GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?