Cards People Hate

In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like removed from the game. To make it easier for me to compile the votes, please place your vote in the very last line of your post, in the format "I vote X", where X is a single crypt or library card. Also, please use the same header for all replies containing votes. I won't count split votes or votes I have to hunt for, but if someone else wants to go through the trouble, they're welcome to. I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. Here's a partial list of cards that have drawn complaints on the newsgroup. Note that I am not complaining about these cards myself, I'm just listing them as a spur to discussion. Naturally, I expect other cards to receive votes as well. Anarch Revolt Anson Anthelios, the Red Star Baltimore Purge Brinksmanship Direct Intervention Golconda Protect Thine Own Recalled to the Founder Sensory Deprivation Slaughterhouse Succubus Club For me, the Succubus Club is what I'd like to see disappear, because it enables give-everything-away deals. I really hate to see it used by a poorly positioned player to spite others, and seeing it used to carve up the table in tournaments also annoys me. I vote Succubus Club.

On 15 Sep 2004 09:15:59 -0700, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote: I hate cards that simply burn vampires. Protect Thine Own, Goratrix Advanced, Recalled to the Founder, Kherebutu, Dauntain Black Magician, Goratrix Advanced. I hate some more and some less. My top hated card though remains the same since some years; the one that does it in a non-directed fashion. I vote Protect Thine Own. Bye, Daneel

I vote Twisting the Knife.

I hate cards that generate "sit on your hands and watch me play" effects the most. I vote Memories of Mortality

[ quoted text not captured ] sure, agree I vote Succubus Club too MD

I hate a single card that can be substituted for an entire defense strategy. I vote Deflection.

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:2qrgtsF...@uni-berlin.de... > I vote ARIKA I'll bet you play with locations.

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:km02d.92281$yh.9646@fed1read05... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, with permanents, adn lots of minions. And without deflections if I can avoid them. But I hate her because it also incarnates all type of decks I dislike: Heavy stealth bleed, minion tap-voter at stealth, protect thine own... And almost always all this at once.

I've got to vote Anson. Robert M. Sachs V:EKN Prince of Naperville, IL Asst. ST, College of DuPage by Night http://hometown.aol.com/CODByNight "Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now, controls the past." ~ Zach de la Rocha

Protect Thine Own -Peter

I haven't seen it in awhile, but... I vote Protect Thine Own

> I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting > up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. Perfectionist - Instantly wallpapered the other archetypes. -- -Snapcase

> > I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting > > up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. > > Perfectionist - Instantly wallpapered the other archetypes. No it didn't. Perfectionist requires no reaction cards being played, by anyone. A stealth bleeder would be far better off with Capatalist for eg. Perfectionist is good, but doesn't "Instantly wallpaper other archetypes". I hate Anarch Revolt or Antideluvian Awakening - indescriminate damage to the table blows chunks.

I vote Fame I see it nearly every table I play. It appears in 90% of combat decks. It makes everyone lose pool indiscriminately. It cannot be removed unless the vampire burns or the Meth is ousted. It makes your vampires a tasty target for diablerie. Combined with Tension & Dragonbound its just *shudder* Most of all I'm just damn sick of seeing it on the table. James

Snapcase <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bb2c3155...@news.optonline.net>... > > I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting > > up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. > When not played by me: Dramatic Upheaval. W

I vote Succubus Club.

"James Scott" <tem...@internode.on.net> wrote in message news:41494d43$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net... > I vote Fame > It cannot be removed unless the vampire burns or the Meth is ousted. Nit: it is unique, so could be contested away. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:75bdf7ed.04091...@posting.google.com... > In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like > removed from the game. Name: True Faith [BL:R2] Cardtype: Master Cost: 1 pool Unique master. Put this card on a non-infernal mortal ally you control, or pay 2 pool to put this card on any non-infernal minion you control. Actions requiring Dominate [dom] or Presence [pre] cannot be directed at this minion. In combat, any damage this minion inflicts on an infernal minion is aggravated. Infernal minions cannot block or strike this minion. Burn this card if this minion becomes infernal. Name: Etienne Fauberge [Anarchs:U2] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Ravnos Group: 3 Capacity: 8 Discipline: ANI CEL CHI FOR Independent: (D) actions directed at Etienne cost 1 additional blood. When in combat with Baali or Followers of Set, Etienne's hand damage is aggravated. Name: Matthias [BL:R2] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Salubri Group: 2 Capacity: 7 Discipline: nec AUS FOR OBE Independent: While Matthias is ready, Baali and Followers of Set get -1 bleed when bleeding you. +1 intercept. Scarce. Name: Petra [Gehenna:U] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Nosferatu Group: 4 Capacity: 5 Discipline: aus ANI OBF Camarilla: Damage Petra inflicts on Baali is aggravated. A vampire burns an additional blood whenever he or she uses a press to continue combat with Petra. Name: Tracker's Mark [BL:C1] Cardtype: Combat Clan: Salubri antitribu Burn Option Play when the opposing minion burns blood or life due to damage. Put this card on the opposing minion. The Salubri antitribu gets +1 intercept when attempting to block the minion with this card. If the vampire with this card is Tremere or Baali, this Salubri antitribu can enter combat with the vampire with this card as a (D) action. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action. A vampire can play only one Tracker's Mark each combat. Greetings, Damnans

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.04091...@posting.google.com>... >(...) > Here's a partial list of cards that have drawn complaints on the > newsgroup. Note that I am not complaining about these cards myself, > I'm just listing them as a spur to discussion. Naturally, I expect > other cards to receive votes as well. It's interesting see people selecting playable and valueable cards like Arika, Deflections, Protect Thine Own, Direct Intervention, etc. Despite there are the so called Power cards among them, none is a "play and win immediatly card" and all have pros and cons to play it. Rather then selecting these intersting cards, i prefer to choose some cards most people *really* hate: - Eyes of the Dead - Anachronism - Faithful Servant - Immaculate Vitae - Imperial Decree - Mercy for the Weak - Mummify - The Damned - The Treatment - Phobia - Weakness - and other wallpaper people don't play for years...! .- Luis Duarte (Portugal)

I vote Sensory Deprivation. Eric

Although I hate hate hate stealth-bleed, I can see it is a valid, effective strategy (ruins the game for others, but hey, wrong place to rant :). The only in"duh"vidual cards I would like banned are sniper cards e.g. Kindred restructure and Dramatic upheaval. Sit with 11 cap, obedience, life boon, awe, snipe. Thats right up there in the enjoyment stakes as papercuts or mouth ulcers.

I vote Anthelios, the Red Star and Baltimore Purge.

"Luis Duarte" <luis....@netcabo.pt> wrote in message <snip> > Rather then selecting these intersting cards, i prefer to choose some > cards most people *really* hate: > - Eyes of the Dead > - Anachronism I play this in many gun decks with little or no combat defense (other than being at long range).Works ok since the errata to concealed. > - Faithful Servant > - Immaculate Vitae > - Imperial Decree This is not intierly wallpaper. I've played it in a few multirush decks featuring for instance Arika, Gwendelyn or Alexandra. > - Mercy for the Weak > - Mummify > - The Damned > - The Treatment > - Phobia > - Weakness > - and other wallpaper people don't play for years...! The rest I've never seen played, except once for Mercy for the weak /henrik isaksson

> I vote ARIKA I do too vote Arika. JPh

LSJ wrote: > Nit: it is unique, so could be contested away. And in my experience, gets contested all the time. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

>It's interesting see people selecting playable and valueable cards >like Arika, Deflections, Protect Thine Own, Direct Intervention, etc. >Despite there are the so called Power cards among them, none is a >"play and win immediatly card" and all have pros and cons to play it. > >Rather then selecting these intersting cards, i prefer to choose some >cards most people *really* hate: >- Eyes of the Dead >- Anachronism >- Faithful Servant >- Immaculate Vitae >- Imperial Decree >- Mercy for the Weak >- Mummify >- The Damned >- The Treatment >- Phobia >- Weakness >- and other wallpaper people don't play for years...! I hate bad cards ... collectively. I see cards that people never play as a tremendous waste. But, I can't see hating any one card that is so bad that it never sees play. And, the poll mentions what card you'd remove from the game; cards that never see play are essentially removed from the game already.

luis....@netcabo.pt (Luis Duarte) wrote in message news:<e0b52d78.04091...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Those aren't cards I hate - those are cards I _pity_... :P > .- Luis Duarte (Portugal) My current hate card: Anthelios, the Red Star. -John Flournoy

I hate people who hate cards. And I do hate myself. ;-) As I already stated many times, I hate cards : - that burn vampires : Protect, Judgement : CS - that target a certain category of minions and therefore discourage you to play them (usually anything non-camarilla) : Protect, J : CS (in no way would I include wards that give, for example, a + intercept against this sect or that). - and most of all "shut up" cards, meaning that all the usual counter strategies can't apply : Rötschreck, Kiss of Râ, Direct Intervention (can counter any minion card, no matter what you had carefully planned it just fail, and : SHUT UP !) and I have to add Protect (although it can be intercepted, once the political action passes you can lose your biggest minion no matter what hand you pack, contrarily to any other way to assault a given vampire). I of course vote Protect. -------------- Orpheus

> and I have to add Protect (although it can be > intercepted, once the political action passes you can lose your biggest > minion no matter what hand you pack, contrarily to any other way to assault > a given vampire). > Delaying Tactics and Vox Domini are usable from your hand. > shut up ;)

as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.04091...@posting.google.com>... > I vote Anthelios, the Red Star and Baltimore Purge. What I think is that all cards exist for a reason. We have discussed in my group many times about all kinds of cards that are overpowered-useless-too much concentrated on something, cards that shouldn't exist etc. But the human mind has always found a way to do even the most outrageous, the most rediculous, the most irritating. What I want to say is that I, personally, don't hate any cards in general. I hate cards played on me, not BY me. I feel safe when I play deflection , but I hate when I have put all my effort, 12 action modifiers to keep the action unblockable and my prey deflects my bleed. Even worse, when my grand-predator played direct intervention on a deflection I played . That action cost me to lose the game. So, some times it not the cards I hate , but it is the things other players think as a strategy, general idea of the game etc. Last but not least, let's not forget: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Kaisharga, brand new prince of Thessaloniki -To bleed or not to bleed? That is the Question!

My vote are for: Anthelios Direct Intervention Protect Thine Own Best deranges! RavATwoFaces

>In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like >removed from the game. To make it easier for me to compile the votes, >please place your vote in the very last line of your post, in the >format "I vote X", where X is a single crypt or library card. Also, >please use the same header for all replies containing votes. I won't >count split votes or votes I have to hunt for, but if someone else >wants to go through the trouble, they're welcome to. What with my all consuming negativity, I can't help but think about this. And, for other reasons, I don't think I can just vote without much verbiage. >I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting >up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. This paragraph seems entirely out of place. What's the point of voting for a card to be removed but not to be banned? Of course, I'd never stop at banning one card. I'm quite fond of suggesting banning around 20 cards at a shot for a given CCG, but I'll keep to your guidelines and vote what I think is the least appropriate card to the game. Some comments on cards I considered: >Anarch Revolt It's unpleasant for all of the reasons that people have spent thousands of posts on but not completely stupid. >Baltimore Purge Maybe there aren't more decks because the card is hard to get and with more people playing the decks we'd see the greatest abuses. But, IME, it's trickier than it looks to ruin games and waste everyone's time. >Brinksmanship Deck destruction is antifun, but it's not the only thing and this isn't common enough or effective enough. >Protect Thine Own Might be my second choice. Unlike my actual vote, I've been affected by this. Completely stupid, but, even though I see it, I don't see it often enough to vote for it over the "winner". I found the vote for Fame interesting in that its absence might be really good for me, but I'm not sure it's good for the game. >For me, the Succubus Club is what I'd like to see disappear, because >it enables give-everything-away deals. I really hate to see it used by >a poorly positioned player to spite others, and seeing it used to >carve up the table in tournaments also annoys me. I don't recall ever seeing a Succubus Club in play during a tournament. I don't recall anyone ever using one in any game I played even when it was in play, but it's possible. But, I try not to rely entirely on my own experiences when there's compelling reasons not to. >I vote Succubus Club. I vote Succubus Club.

[ quoted text not captured ] Read again : "once the political action passes". Implying : no delaying (which anyway would only most of the time save you for one turn) and no "vote fail" (another "shut up card ?! ;-) . My point being : even if you get succesfully rushed (and you can always try to block) by Wynn you have a chance of surviving, depending on what combat hand you pack. If a vote (that can be done cross-table with no chance for you to block except if you pack Eagle's Sight effects) called PTO passes, you lose Monçada or Thetmès or whoever no matter what's in your hand, no matter if you have a Secure Haven, etc !!! Get the point ? > > shut up > ;) >>weep... B) Orpheus

> Some comments on cards I considered: > >Anarch Revolt > > It's unpleasant for all of the reasons that people have spent thousands of > posts on but not completely stupid. Just three words : Make It Unique !!! > >Baltimore Purge > > Maybe there aren't more decks because the card is hard to get and with more > people playing the decks we'd see the greatest abuses. But, IME, it's trickier > than it looks to ruin games and waste everyone's time. It's very tricky to win with it, and playing just to wrong tables isn't very interesting. Agreed. Also, in a competitive environment, people tend to play midcaps or weenies, and therefore you spend a lot of efforts with big vampires to burn / capture smaller ones... > >Brinksmanship > > Deck destruction is antifun, but it's not the only thing and this isn't common > enough or effective enough. Some tournies have been won with it. Well, it's another winning strategy. Without Brinksmanship, milling is useless and wrongs tables without winning ; this card gives a meaning to it all... > >Protect Thine Own > > Might be my second choice. Unlike my actual vote, I've been affected by this. > Completely stupid, but, even though I see it, I don't see it often enough to > vote for it over the "winner". Understood. I see it way too often in my book, though. > I found the vote for Fame interesting in that its absence might be really good > for me, but I'm not sure it's good for the game. It's good for fighting decks, and I think that now they have enough tools for winning, not just ruin a few player's tables... > >For me, the Succubus Club is what I'd like to see disappear, because > >it enables give-everything-away deals. I really hate to see it used by > >a poorly positioned player to spite others, and seeing it used to > >carve up the table in tournaments also annoys me. GIving all away is a problem. But now, so is transfer out. Anything looking like this choice, THAT should be forbidden by the rules. > I don't recall ever seeing a Succubus Club in play during a tournament. I > don't recall anyone ever using one in any game I played even when it was in > play, but it's possible. But, I try not to rely entirely on my own experiences > when there's compelling reasons not to. Then what are your reasons against the Succubus ? ------------- Orpheus

>Then what are your reasons against the Succubus ? I would think it was obvious: other people's horrendous experiences with the card. If I struggled to see how competitive environments would produce such experiences, it would be a different story, but I can easily imagine how abuses like those that have been documented would arise.

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:414b31d8$0$29465$636a...@news.free.fr... > > Some comments on cards I considered: > > >Anarch Revolt > > > > It's unpleasant for all of the reasons that people have spent thousands of > > posts on but not completely stupid. > > Just three words : Make It Unique !!! NO =)

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.04091...@posting.google.com>... > In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like > removed from the game. To make it easier for me to compile the votes, > please place your vote in the very last line of your post, in the > format "I vote X", where X is a single crypt or library card. Also, > please use the same header for all replies containing votes. I won't > count split votes or votes I have to hunt for, but if someone else > wants to go through the trouble, they're welcome to. > > I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting > up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. [snip] I hate anti-play cards. If I could choose two, they would be Direct Intervention and Sudden Reversal. I'll choose the one I see the most around here: I vote Sudden Reversal. cheers, Luiz Colon

I vote for Direct Intervention. John Eno Prince of Pittsburgh, PA

I hate Obedience. :o) One reaction card that helps against all types of rushdecks. MIGHTY. And it leaves you so disappointed. Want to smack Etrius and he just smiles on you. That doesn't mean I want it banned at all (actually I don't want to see any card banned and think, you can handle most cards if you can convince the table to gang up against the player who play it, call me naive).

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:49:47 +0200, "Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] you're point about PTO would seem to correlate better with 'once wynn has rushed your guy and burned him, there is nothing you can do, no matter what is in your hand' the polling and the combat being the same sort of stages in the two options. i don't think your comparison is fair. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

> you're point about PTO would seem to correlate better with 'once wynn > has rushed your guy and burned him, there is nothing you can do, no > matter what is in your hand' > > the polling and the combat being the same sort of stages in the two > options. > > i don't think your comparison is fair. Well, Salem, I do think it is : - when you play PTO, you make sure your deck packs enough stealth to pass it, and some vote pushing ; only Delayings and such will stop you (for one turn), and maybe not even that (see Approximation of Loyalty). Once the vote passes, a vampire dies, no matter his blood, titles, disciplines etc. - when you play Wynn, you make sure to pack some IG, maneuvers or anti, Torn Signpost, maybe Carrion Crows and of course Claws. Passing the rush without getting intercepted is very comparable to passing the vote, except that the vote might pass cross-table, while a rush will be directed. But even if you have the perfect combat hand, if your opponent gets one single For card, you won't be able to kill him right away (it depends on the blood on him, etc) ; he might even hurt you more than you do him, except of course if you alos have a For or Flesh of Marble card ; even if you send him to torpor, you'll need extra actions or cards to burn him, and you might lose a minion in the action if you don't have vote lock. Not to mention that PtO works on someone with a Haven. So I think the two are comparable, and PtO is way overpowered (not to mention unfair) compared to any other way to burn a vampire. ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:75bdf7ed.04091...@posting.google.com... > In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like > removed from the game. ... i'd like a direct intervention that costs 2 pool instead of one. Good fix, would not harm it too much =)

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:414cc8eb$0$21771$626a...@news.free.fr... (...) > Not to mention that PtO works on someone with a Haven. > > So I think the two are comparable, and PtO is way overpowered (not to > mention unfair) compared to any other way to burn a vampire. You really hate this card, don't you ? =) rush the I.C... pack enough different vamps to make the protect not so harmful. play delaying tactics. Or even better, play necromancy, possess your PTOed vampire and laugh at the face of death with an attitude =)

"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2qtfa6F...@uni-berlin.de... > Name: Tracker's Mark come on ! this card harms the baali, like a chainsaw harms a werewolf pack...

Here's the votes so far. Tied for first, with four votes each: Protect Thine Own Succubus Club An unexpected third place, with two votes: Arika The pack of fourth placers, one vote each: Anson Anthelios, the Red Star Chainsaw Deflection Direct Intervention Dramatic Upheaval Fame Memories of Mortality Obedience Perfectionist Sensory Deprivation Sudden Reversal Twisting the Knife

I vote Immortal Grapple, Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking. And Karsh. -- johannes walch

With no doubt : Succubus Club !

Why we shold vote for banning ANY cards? Are there some cards that DOMINATE in tournament winning decks? No, these decks are very different. So, what's the point of the topic? To allow everybody express his hateness? Look, I was constantly intercepted by Eagle's Sight, my vampires were drained by Seeds of Corruption and Cryptic Missions, and I really *HATE* rush in all forms, especially built-in rush (Theo Bell, Beast etc), but I will NEVER vote to ban any cards just because I hate them. By the way, some of the "hated" cards were quite surprising to me. If you think that Arika is overpowered, just recall she is Inner Circle member, and her capacity is 11. What did you expect from such vampire? One can easily subdue two meduim vampires (5+6) instead of Arika, and she has to compensate lack of actions somehow. Do you wish to exterminate Inner Circle members from tournament play? The same could be said about Protect Thine Own. This card is really devastating if it's played by Inner Circle member against large non-Camarilla vampire, it can be blocked, and the referendum may fail. Sometimes all the parts assemble: Arika plays PTO on Cailean with added stealth, and it's quite painful, but nobody can have many IC members, and nobody can have many PTOs, and stealth cards occupy the place that could be used by more powerful cards. Let's make this world A better place to live, Stop to hate! Learn to forgive... Scorpions

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.04092...@posting.google.com>... > Here's the votes so far. > > Tied for first, with four votes each: > Protect Thine Own > Succubus Club > > An unexpected third place, with two votes: > Arika > > The pack of fourth placers, one vote each: > Anson > Anthelios, the Red Star Except that Anthelios was nominated three times (all last week): by me, Henrik Klippstr?m, and RavATwoFaces. So it'd be in third place, with Arika fourth. -John Flournoy

I vote Recalled to the Founder, because burn effects are nasty, and this cards is worse to thematic clan decks than it is to more efficient mixed clan decks. Rogar

"Rogar" <MYNICKN...@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:slrncl0qgd.1m7s...@toad.stack.nl... > I vote Recalled to the Founder, because burn effects are nasty, and this > cards is worse to thematic clan decks than it is to more efficient > mixed clan decks. The idea that mono-clan is less efficient than mixed has been brought up before. See the portion of the thread surrounding http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T5Psc.27789%24fF3.711147%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net Is there any new evidence/argument that mono-clan is weaker rather than stronger than diluted-clan? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

LSJ wrote: > Is there any new evidence/argument that mono-clan is weaker > rather than stronger than diluted-clan? New evidence, or a lack of it, doesn't seem relevant to his point. If you accept that mono-clan *is* weaker, then it becomes a card that affects the weaker half of a dichotomy more severely. -- David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rb976F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Um, exactly. And if you accept that weenies are weaker than the more versatile elder vampire decks, then Aranthebes, et al., become cards that affect the weaker half of a dichotomy more severely. But blind acceptance of such a position (or really, of any position) is not warranted. When the evidence seems to indicate that one's assumptions are invalid, then one should investigate the assumptions (since conclusions drawn on invalid assumptions aren't worth the bits they're printed on). And thus my request for any new evidence to support the assumption that the seemingly stronger mono-clan paradigm is actually weaker. If your goal for this newsgroup is one of unquestioning acceptance (and I don't think it is, given your history of posts, present conversation excluded), then I apologize for interjecting questioning into it. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > And thus my request for any new evidence to support > the assumption that the seemingly stronger mono-clan > paradigm is actually weaker. "I vote Recalled to the Founder, because burn effects are nasty, and this cards is worse to thematic clan decks than it is to more efficient mixed clan decks." "More efficient mixed clan decks". I get the feeling one of us is not getting what he's saying. That sounded to me like he was saying mono-clan decks are weaker, the point from which my first post naturally followed. > If your goal for this newsgroup is one of unquestioning > acceptance (and I don't think it is, given your history > of posts, present conversation excluded), then I > apologize for interjecting questioning into it. No, not at all. I just didn't think the assertion that clan decks are weaker than mixed crypt decks required any supporting. -- David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rbajbF...@uni-berlin.de... > LSJ wrote: > > > And thus my request for any new evidence to support > > the assumption that the seemingly stronger mono-clan > > paradigm is actually weaker. > > "I vote Recalled to the Founder, because burn effects are nasty, and > this cards is worse to thematic clan decks than it is to more efficient > mixed clan decks." > > "More efficient mixed clan decks". I get the feeling one of us is not > getting what he's saying. That sounded to me like he was saying > mono-clan decks are weaker, the point from which my first post naturally > followed. That's what I got from it, too, yeah. And it immediately caught my attention (as it did when someone else raised the idea before) as something that ran contrary to my experience. Similar to the reaction I would have had if he had refered to Aranthebes's effect being worse to weenie decks than it is to more efficient mid-cap decks. > > If your goal for this newsgroup is one of unquestioning > > acceptance (and I don't think it is, given your history > > of posts, present conversation excluded), then I > > apologize for interjecting questioning into it. > > No, not at all. I just didn't think the assertion that clan decks are > weaker than mixed crypt decks required any supporting. The conversation in the thread surrounding the link I gave should suggest otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > That's what I got from it, too, yeah. Well, damn. That only leaves us with..... > And it immediately caught my attention (as it did when someone > else raised the idea before) as something that ran contrary > to my experience. Similar to the reaction I would have had if > he had refered to Aranthebes's effect being worse to weenie decks > than it is to more efficient mid-cap decks. .... this radical notion. OK, I see that you think mono-clan decks are stronger than mixed crypt clans. I don't think I'm going to go down that road. At least the confusion is cleared up. > The conversation in the thread surrounding the link I gave should > suggest otherwise. The bit between Norm and Daneel? Daneel's position seemed much better supported to me than Norm's (but I still love ya big guy!). But really, it honestly never occured to me as one of those postitions that even *needed* debate (much like, oh, PTO). But obviously I was wrong about that. -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > .... this radical notion. OK, I see that you think mono-clan decks are > stronger than mixed crypt clans. I don't think I'm going to go down > that road. Unless "going down that road" is today's mystery action that results in Ancient Hearts being banned. Is it? If you tell me does it automatically change? -- David Cherryholmes

I think it was LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>, who once wrote: > "Rogar" <MYNICKN...@phreaker.net> wrote in message > news:slrncl0qgd.1m7s...@toad.stack.nl... > > I vote Recalled to the Founder, because burn effects are nasty, and this > > cards is worse to thematic clan decks than it is to more efficient > > mixed clan decks. > > The idea that mono-clan is less efficient than mixed has been > brought up before. See the portion of the thread surrounding > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T5Psc.27789%24fF3.711147%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net > > Is there any new evidence/argument that mono-clan is weaker > rather than stronger than diluted-clan? What I was referring to, was keeping a crypt strictly mono-clan, when mixing in a few out-of-clans with good abilities and/or disciplines (like Jimmy Dunn in a Brujah deck) would make the crypt better. Hence the use of the word 'thematic'. I never intended to claim that clan-based decks are worse than discipline-based decks. I used to build strict mono-clan decks all the time, one for each clan and such, but I have become more lenient lately. Still, a lot of my decks focus on clans, so there's my annoyance with Recalled to the Founder. Rogar

Anarch Revolt Anarch Revolt and Anarch Revolt :p

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rbbi3F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Mystery actions automatically fail if the mystery is demystified. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rbbe4F...@uni-berlin.de... > .... this radical notion. OK, I see that you think mono-clan decks are > stronger than mixed crypt clans. I don't think I'm going to go down > that road. At least the confusion is cleared up. Well, I'd say that focussing on a single clan offers benefits, but yeah. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2rbeapF...@uni-berlin.de... > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:2rbbe4F...@uni-berlin.de... > > .... this radical notion. OK, I see that you think mono-clan decks are > > stronger than mixed crypt clans. I don't think I'm going to go down > > that road. At least the confusion is cleared up. > > Well, I'd say that focussing on a single clan offers benefits, but > yeah. Sure it does: you can play with clan cards. But focusing on two disciplines (or one, or three, whatever) offers benefits of its own: cheaper vampires with the disciplines you need, mainly. In my experience, mono-clan decks are by no means "stronger" than mixed-clan decks. They may be "about as strong" but they certainly don't seem to be getting benefits that "obviously" outweigh the price they pay in terms of reduced vampire choice. Just as one example, think about a Malkavian-only stealth bleed deck using [Dem Obf Aus], compared to one that also uses !Malkavians and the same disciplines. Korah, Dolphin Black, Artemis, and Yorik (among possible others) can greatly improve the effectiveness of the crypt here. This is true with a lot of discipline combinations (and single-discipline decks too, for that matter). Are there amazing benefits to single-clan decks that I'm missing here? There aren't all that many clan-requiring cards, I think, that are so wonderful that reducing your ability to use them is a serious blow to your deckbuilding. Josh not too pure

LSJ wrote: > Well, I'd say that focussing on a single clan offers benefits, but > yeah. Playing a 10 cap offers benefits, but I don't think that's the question. -- David Cherryholmes

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2rbfc0F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] That's sufficient for the purpose of questioning why mixed clan decks are "obviously" (your word) "more efficient" (Rogar's words) than clan-focused decks, right. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rbft5F...@uni-berlin.de... > LSJ wrote: > > > Well, I'd say that focussing on a single clan offers benefits, but > > yeah. > > Playing a 10 cap offers benefits, but I don't think that's the question. Right. I was clearing up that questioning the position that mixed clan decks are fundamentally better than thematic mono-clan decks is not the same as the words you chose for me: "mono-clan decks are stronger than mixed crypt clans." -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mechadick" <mech...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 397ee008.04092...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Please read the first post of the thread more carefully. You don't have the right to choose three cards. Please choose one... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<e904e39f.04092...@posting.google.com>... > ...Anthelios was nominated three times (all last week): by > me, Henrik Klippstr?m, and RavATwoFaces. So it'd be in third place, > with Arika fourth. Nobody gets more than one vote in this referendum. I counted your vote, John. The other gentlemen you mention cast multiple votes: Henrik also voted for Baltimore Purge, and RavAThreeOpinions ( :) ) also voted for Direct Intervention and Protect Thine Own. I'll count their votes if they want to narrow their hate to one card each.

> The bit between Norm and Daneel? Daneel's position seemed much better > supported to me than Norm's (but I still love ya big guy!). But really, > it honestly never occured to me as one of those postitions that even > *needed* debate (much like, oh, PTO). But obviously I was wrong about that. Apparently, I am having another one of my acid flashbacks, where am I debating Daneel? I have been known to lose track of a thread here and there, but you and Scott make it sound so much more exciting. Perhaps I should jump back into it.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rbbe4F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Argh! I forgot the thread. I would have postulated in theory that mono clan are more strong than mono dicipline given equal capacity vampires. The problem isn't between the two. The problem is that there aren't enough weenies of a given clan to equal to the same number of weenies that can sport the same discipline. Mono-clan is vastly superior to mono discipline. Alas, a day late and a dollar short.......

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:13:53 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > That's sufficient for the purpose of questioning why mixed > clan decks are "obviously" (your word) "more efficient" (Rogar's words) > than clan-focused decks, right. Opinion is (IMHO) a result of former analysis and/or an unconscious weighing of former experiences and speculation. Saying (for example) that The Deadliest Sin is obviously better than Eyes of the Dead can be such an opinion, which is not really undermined by the contradicting statement that "Eyes of the Dead can be played by Akhenaten whereas The Deadliest Sin cannot." In reality it all comes down to the weight attached to the various cons and pros (because playing mono-clan decks admittedly has both). According to my assessment and experience mono-clan decks are less competitive in general. Or, to rephrase it in a more general sense, most deck types gain more from focusing on disciplines, titles, special abilities or any combination of these than from focusing on a clan. My dislike of universal mono-clan hosers is mostly based on the fact that contrary to the above paragraph, most theme decks are clan-based (as players may derive special gratification from playing/winning with a thematic deck). While I in no way believe that such trade-off of optimal performance for personal utility should be encouraged, I also see little point in punishing it. A lot of players care less about winning and more about playing. That, and cards that hose weenies work fine against most of the stronger clan-based decks (Palla Grande, Brujah Debate, etc). -- Bye, Daneel

I think it was Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>, who once wrote: > My dislike of universal mono-clan hosers is mostly based on the fact that > contrary to the above paragraph, most theme decks are clan-based (as > players may derive special gratification from playing/winning with a > thematic deck). While I in no way believe that such trade-off of optimal > performance for personal utility should be encouraged, I also see little > point in punishing it. A lot of players care less about winning and more > about playing. This is exactly the reason why I voted Recalled to the Founder. Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining. :) Rogar

Emmit Svenson wrote: > In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like > removed from the game. To make it easier for me to compile the votes, > please place your vote in the very last line of your post, in the > format "I vote X", where X is a single crypt or library card. Also, > please use the same header for all replies containing votes. I won't > count split votes or votes I have to hunt for, but if someone else > wants to go through the trouble, they're welcome to. > > I'm not calling for any card to be banned from the game, just setting > up a format for people to vent about their least favorite cards. > > Here's a partial list of cards that have drawn complaints on the > newsgroup. Note that I am not complaining about these cards myself, > I'm just listing them as a spur to discussion. Naturally, I expect > other cards to receive votes as well. > > Anarch Revolt > Anson > Anthelios, the Red Star > Baltimore Purge > Brinksmanship > Direct Intervention > Golconda > Protect Thine Own > Recalled to the Founder > Sensory Deprivation > Slaughterhouse > Succubus Club > > For me, the Succubus Club is what I'd like to see disappear, because > it enables give-everything-away deals. I really hate to see it used by > a poorly positioned player to spite others, and seeing it used to > carve up the table in tournaments also annoys me. > > I vote Succubus Club. I posted a similar poll on our forum (http://minilien.com/?ZGsCB53GAC), and we collected 43 votes so far. Here's the breakdown of the poll: Succubus Club 23%[ 10 ] Sensory Deprivation 16% [ 7 ] Protect Thine Own 16% [ 7 ] Direct Intervention 13% [ 6 ] Anarch Revolt 6% [ 3 ] Slaughterhouse 4%[ 2 ] Baltimore Purge 4% [ 2 ] Golconda 2% [ 1 ] Anthelios, the Red Star 2% [ 1 ] Anson 2% [ 1 ] Other 6% [ 3 ] Total Votes : 43 Miller Delmardigan http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr/en

I come late to this party. The most commonly used card in the game - why? Because it's broken. Broken broken broken. I vote Blood Doll. -- chris shorb

i don't play much, but... giant's blood.

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.04091...@posting.google.com>... > In this thread, players may vote on which card they would most like > removed from the game. Sudden Reversal. I am bored to tears with blanket, no limit, denial. G