Order of strikes [was 28/9 rulings]

I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience and Elysium: the Arboretum]. Now, no-one can accuse me of being an indiscriminate banner and fixer, and i don't intend to start being one now. So i have a proposal for the rules team. If we [Michael and I] can prove, from JOL statistics, that the assamites as a clan, and celerity as a discipline, are significantly underpowered with respect to other clans and disciplines, will you at least consider making the change? We wouldn't expect you to make it on the basis of exhortation, but we WOULD hope you'd consider it on the basis of evidence. BTW we haven't done those calculations yet, so i genuinely do not know what the answer will be, and if the result is NOT significant i certainly won't push for any rules change. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First > Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the > kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm > sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, > which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better > against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience > and Elysium: the Arboretum]. It's only a "fix" if something is broken (unbalanced or not functioning as intended). And that doesn't seem to be the case. Assamites have Psyche!, Hidden Lurker and (to a lesser extent) Rapid Thought to help them deal with S:CE. > Now, no-one can acccuse me of being an indiscriminate banner and fixer, and i > don't intend to start being one now. So i have a proposal for the rules team. > If we [Michael and I] can prove, from JOL statistics, that the assamites as a > clan, and celerity as a discipline, are significantly underpowered with > respect to other clans and disciplines, will you at least consider making the > change? Unlikely, since "proving" that a whole clan/discipline is underpowered is much more difficult than "proving" a card is underpowered. And even so, proving that a clan is underpowered doesn't prove that the order of strike resolution is unbalancing. (Hasn't someone already "proven", from JOL statistics, that one or two of the clans wins disproportionately? Would you also argue then some change to the basic rules of the game to impeed them?) Also, being underpowered is not one of the criteria for errata: see Concealed Weapon and a host of Locations from Dark Sovereigns. A better plan of attack would be to show that Strike: Combat Ends (and/or Dodge) is overpowered when allowed to resolve before First Strike and that reversing the order doesn't unbalance the situation in the other direction (that is, doesn't make First Strike overpowered). Particular attention should be paid to Muddled Vampire Hunter, since he would be much better if the strike order were changed, and he's alreay pretty good. This is something I've already looked at and found no cause to alter the order of strike resolution from the original design. S:CE can be annoying, certainly, but it doesn't seem to be overpowered. But you are free to try your hand at showing otherwise, of course. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6uq81r$l1v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > If we [Michael and I] can prove, from JOL statistics, that the assamites as a > clan, and celerity as a discipline, are significantly underpowered with > respect to other clans and disciplines, will you at least consider making the > change? I'd love to see the Assamites get a little boost, but I think this sort of thing (changing rules or cards to help a "weak" clan) would be an even worse precendent than rewriting cards. The problem with the Assamites is that there is one card that will _ALWAYS_ them you if someone else is using it: Drawing Out the Beast. The Assamites are excruciatingly weak at close range, especially without Disguised nasty weapons. Fortunately in my playgroup, the metagame hasn't yet dictated that they start using it. My current Assamite deck might do it, though. It's the most effective I've made, and it's kinda weird that it works. It will be in October's Assamite newsletter. > We wouldn't expect you to make it on the basis of exhortation, but we > WOULD hope you'd consider it on the basis of evidence. BTW we haven't done > those calculations yet, so i genuinely do not know what the answer will be, > and if the result is NOT significant i certainly won't push for any rules > change. The difference is that you are arguing for the changing of things because of the apparent weakness of them. I'd rather keep things the way they are rather than potentially throwing the whole thing out of whack. This sort of proposal would need at least a few months of playtesting before I'd even stop cringing at the thought. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: <snipped most of an excellent discussion about game-altering rules changes> > This is something I've already looked at and found no cause to alter the > order of strike resolution from the original design. S:CE can be annoying, > certainly, but it doesn't seem to be overpowered. But you are free to try > your hand at showing otherwise, of course. My main argument in favor of bumping the priority on First Strike is that there are too many counters against First Strike versus how difficult it actually is to get First Strike into play. Consider that Dodge beats it (and is a skilless card, not to mention all the other dodges in the game), S:CE beats it (and is commonly available to any clan with Presence, which is available to 4 clans and is one of the most common skills for a vampire), Fortitude also beats it handily (in the case of the Muddled Vampire Hunter), and to get a MVH into play still requires an action that can be blocked and even the D action of the MVH can be blocked without intercept. Also, the First Strike celerity attack is conditional and many First-Strike attacks don't do damage, but rather destroy/steal equipment - again, very conditional. Why even bother having First Strike if it is so difficult to play with and currently, the only "tourney worthy" First Strike card is the MVH and he is really not as good a card as Majesty is, in my opinion. All I ask is, have you playtested the game with the rules changed to see if it becomes more balanced? I have playtested retty thoroughly with my group - a group that makes heavy use of S:CE - and have found that S:CE still maintains its effectiveness and that First Strike is actually a playable defense now rather than a "oh man do I wish I played Potence for Immortal Grapple INSTEAD" type of strategy.

<snipped discussion of avoidance of change to rules> > Last, and also least, it just plain doesn't make sense in the > "game-world" for S:CE or dodge to *not* beat first strike. Remember > that these vampires aren't just standing around when they're not > striking. They are dodging and soaking as well. In combat, punches fly > at nearly the same time. Thus, a vampire punching really fast might hit > another before he can fire that gun, but no matter how fast he punches > he won't be faster than someone who is just continuously dodging unless > that opponent is completely surprised (such as with Hidden Lurker or > Fast Reactions). In RPG mechanics, if you have the first action, and > all your opponent is doing is dodging, they still get to roll the dodge, > even if they wouldn't be able to attack if you crippled them with your > first shot. As for S:CE, well, a vampire with Majesty doesn't have to > spend time activating it, it's just on. And Earth Melding could > logically happen while the other vampire is just running up towards you > (maneuvers phase). Now this I TOTALLY disagree with . . . you say that a card called "Fast Reaction" makes common sense that it can beat "Dodge" but something called "First Strike" doesn't make sense to beat it??? What does the ability need to be called? FIRSTEST Strike?? First Strike means I strike first, before anything (at least that is what people who don't play the game say to me when they hear me mention the ability). Why can't I strike fast enough to be able to beat someone dodging out of the way? We are talking super-human vampires here . . . a vamp with celerity isn't FASTER than a vamp without it (i.e. Dodge is skilless)???? And as for Majesty . . . "turn it on"? To me it seems like a vampire with presence (and sue me - I don't play V:TM to know the game mechanics of it) must use that "presence" to inspire this "majesty" so that the victimized vamp is in such awe that she/he would not want to strike the majestic vmap. Well . . . that really FAST vamp gets the smack in just before the "awe-inspiring majestic stare" takes place. If Majesty is so "fast", then why is it a combat card? If it is always "on" it should be played even before range is determined . . . and in regards to Earth Meld - yeah it could happen before I run up, but First Strike could be argued to make me run up FASTER and get there while you are partially or even barely entering the earth . . . Myron Mychal

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:08:13 GMT, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First >Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the >kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm >sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, >which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better >against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience >and Elysium: the Arboretum]. I haven't paid a great deal of attention to which cards strike with First Strike and which don't, so I'm going to be slightly confused on this. The problem with all this seems to come from Muddles though. He does 4 at close with First Strike, and has one life. He costs, um, (looking) 2 and comes with a built-in Bum's Rush. Like a few people have already said, he's a good card to BEGIN with. now, if First Strike beats out S:CE and S:Dodge, any vamp with cap less than 4, or any vampire who happens to be reduced to less than 4 (via minion taps, other rushes, or whatever) has one defense against Muddles; maneuvers. I don't think decks with S:CE and S:Dodge pack maneuvers on a consistent basis; at least I can't figure out why they would. This makes Muddles -awfully- damn good for only 2 pool, especially as a side bonus to the classic sneak'n'bleed deck (which just happens to be Malkavian...) -- it's difficult to include effective combat in that deck without diluting either the 'sneak', or the 'bleed'. Now not only are you being bled for lots at +3 stealth, Muddles is potentially offing one of your blockers each turn. Yucko. I don't want to break Muddles and fix other things. :I -- Derek (replying by email? correct the spelling on my domain. :)

Derek S. Ray wrote: > I haven't paid a great deal of attention to which cards strike with > First Strike and which don't, so I'm going to be slightly confused on > this. The problem with all this seems to come from Muddles though. > He does 4 at close with First Strike, and has one life. He costs, um, > (looking) 2 and comes with a built-in Bum's Rush. Like a few people > have already said, he's a good card to BEGIN with. I absolutely agree . . . he is a good card to begin with, but his Rush can be blocked very easily and he doesn't have a whole lot of combat cards to support him. > now, if First Strike beats out S:CE and S:Dodge, any vamp with cap > less than 4, or any vampire who happens to be reduced to less than 4 > (via minion taps, other rushes, or whatever) has one defense against > Muddles; maneuvers. Okay . . . two points to make here. First - vampires with Fortitude can easily stop the damage he deals as well. Secondly, "Fake Out" is just as skillless and common as "Dodge". > I don't think decks with S:CE and S:Dodge pack > maneuvers on a consistent basis; at least I can't figure out why they > would. This makes Muddles -awfully- damn good for only 2 pool, Only awefully damn good AGAINST a deck depending on S:CE. Against a combat deck, they'd still get crushed. > especially as a side bonus to the classic sneak'n'bleed deck (which > just happens to be Malkavian...) -- it's difficult to include > effective combat in that deck without diluting either the 'sneak', or > the 'bleed'. Now not only are you being bled for lots at +3 stealth, > Muddles is potentially offing one of your blockers each turn. Yucko. Well, he can still be blocked and any gun can easily dispatch him. There are way too many defenses against First Strike and people are constantly trying to find ways to get around S:CE. There just isn't a parity in the tactics. S:CE beats all strikes and First Strike doesn't beat any of the strikes that you would like it to beat. > I don't want to break Muddles and fix other things. :I Probably the best argument against changing this rule and I agree that one of my favorite card games has already been cut to pieces with Errata, clarifications and changes already . . . but if I didn't love the game as much as I do, I would never consider a change to it that I didn't think made sense. All I can say to the nay-sayers of this fix of First AStrike is do not condemn it until you have playtested it like my group has. We have played it to death and find that it enhances the game a lot - it balances it tremendously. We have yet to come to a game and say "Aw damn - not that First Strike crap again!" yet we ALWAYS found ourselves bemoaning S:CE in this way and we still do (even the guy at our table who actually HAS 10 Immortal Grapples still moans about S:CE because it is so hard to beat up on . . . That is my argument . . . playtest it first before you dismiss the change out of hand.

In article <3610F86E...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com wrote: > My main argument in favor of bumping the priority on First Strike > is that there are too many counters against First Strike versus > how difficult it actually is to get First Strike into play. Consider > that Dodge beats it (and is a skilless card, not to mention all the > other dodges in the game), S:CE beats it (and is commonly > available to any clan with Presence, which is available to 4 clans and > is one of the most common skills for a vampire), Fortitude also beats > it handily (in the case of the Muddled Vampire Hunter), and to get > a MVH into play still requires an action that can be blocked and even > the D action of the MVH can be blocked without intercept. To be honest, on a personal level, I think the current strike order is non-sensical. If you take First Strike out, then it's not such a big deal. First Strike would be more appropriately called "First Strike only if no one plays S:CE or dodges, in which case it is Last Strike." If it was going to be called First Strike, it should really have been the first strike. Maybe "First Attack" would have been better because it only does you any good if the other person is hitting back or doing some other non-defensive strike. Nonetheless, I don't think it should be changed. In my mind, it'd be kind of like changing the Paralyze rules - their hardly used, but changing them could throw them out of whack. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6uq81r$l1v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com writes >This seems to me to be the >kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. But you would propose altering explicit rules text when the rule is not broken/overpowered/abusive as it currently is? Since you do not like huge rewrites, why create another one when it is not necessary? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <36110A14...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >Derek S. Ray wrote: > >> I haven't paid a great deal of attention to which cards strike with >> First Strike and which don't, so I'm going to be slightly confused on >> this. The problem with all this seems to come from Muddles though. >> He does 4 at close with First Strike, and has one life. He costs, um, >> (looking) 2 and comes with a built-in Bum's Rush. Like a few people >> have already said, he's a good card to BEGIN with. > >I absolutely agree . . . he is a good card to begin with, but his Rush can be >blocked very easily and he doesn't have a whole lot of combat cards to support >him. Anything discipline is good - fake out, dodge, dead end alley, boxed in and so forth. Also, I see people tool him up with cool cards too - Leather Jacket, Flak Jacket etc. 3 pool for a weenie hoser (Leather Jacket, Flak Jacket and Muddles) isn't a lot to pay and it'll bring down big vampires in a couple of turns. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3610FB7D...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >First Strike means I strike first, before anything (at least >that is what people who don't play the game say to me when they hear me mention >the ability). Yes, but the people who aren't physically striking, by virtue of not having to move, strike faster still. Problem? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Yes, but the people who aren't physically striking, by virtue of not > having to move, strike faster still. > > Problem? That is a good point . . . I must concur. I just don't see why the game designers bothered to included the First Strike ability if it was going to be so weak. Just one of the problems I have with the game. And I am not here to make sweeping changes, I just noticed that "First Strike" as a game mechanic is so weak and so rare to be seen that it should either not be in the game or should have been changed from the beginning to make if effective. It's like the withdraw rule. You can only do it when you are running out of cards, must announce it, cannot lose pool or blood from vamps and cannot even enter combat! There is only one type of deck that can do these things . . . so why bother including the rule??? I would have said that the Methuselah could withdraw if his/her library was near-empty and she/he lost no pool, but I would certainly allow vampires to defend/protect while the Methuselah attempts his/her escape. Then the mechanic would be playable and usab;e (abusable? I don't know - haven't tried this one yet) . . . but there are glaring holes in the rules for good mechanics that could make the game more interesting if they were only more balanced . . . Just my opinion . . . I like to play the game regardless of tourneys. We still allow Madness of the Bard and all the other "banned" cards around here because we like to play with the cards we spent money on. We like to make the game fun. Look what the tourney scene did to Magic - in my opinion, it took a lot of the fun of the game out of it. I am just a card player taht would like to play with all of his cards . . . and I love using my Rotschreck cards too . . . But a good argument nonetheless which the players in my group never considered. Thanks James Myron Mychal

Derek S. Ray <lor...@mindsprung.com> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:08:13 GMT, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >>I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First >>Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the >>kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm >>sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, >>which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better >>against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience >>and Elysium: the Arboretum]. > >I haven't paid a great deal of attention to which cards strike with >First Strike and which don't, so I'm going to be slightly confused on >this. The problem with all this seems to come from Muddles though. >He does 4 at close with First Strike, and has one life. He costs, um, >(looking) 2 and comes with a built-in Bum's Rush. Like a few people >have already said, he's a good card to BEGIN with. Hmmm, do people actually think Muddles is a good card? I think he sucks. Takes an action, two pool, and dies in a pinch. And if the defender has _any_ sort of combat defense at all, he does nothing. >less than 4, or any vampire who happens to be reduced to less than 4 >(via minion taps, other rushes, or whatever) has one defense against >Muddles; maneuvers. I don't think decks with S:CE and S:Dodge pack >maneuvers on a consistent basis; at least I can't figure out why they Or fortitude, and in any event I hardly see a problem with such a slow and expensive card being able to hurt small vampires. Most decks have at least some larger vampires, and pure weenie decks plan on taking loses anyway. Deck with S:CE have a very good reason to include maneuvers. Immortal Grapple. One could easily argue that there is little point in playing S:CE without maneuvers, since any serious combat deck will ussually ignore S:CE by itself. >would. This makes Muddles -awfully- damn good for only 2 pool, >especially as a side bonus to the classic sneak'n'bleed deck (which >just happens to be Malkavian...) -- it's difficult to include >effective combat in that deck without diluting either the 'sneak', or >the 'bleed'. Now not only are you being bled for lots at +3 stealth, >Muddles is potentially offing one of your blockers each turn. Yucko. That's the thing -- Muddles isn't effective combat. The 2 most common combat defense, fortitude and S:CE, stop him cold. Even maneuvers stop him cold... -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Chris Berger wrote in message <36120722...@cco.caltech.edu>... >legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> >> I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First >> Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the >> kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm >> sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, >> which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better >> against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience >> and Elysium: the Arboretum]. >> >You think that altering explicit rules which have been in effect as long >as the game is better than altering explicit card text that was made >more recently and has been shown to be unbalancing? SNIP >Last, and also least, it just plain doesn't make sense in the >"game-world" for S:CE or dodge to *not* beat first strike. Remember >that these vampires aren't just standing around when they're not >striking. They are dodging and soaking as well. In combat, punches fly >at nearly the same time. Thus, a vampire punching really fast might hit >another before he can fire that gun, but no matter how fast he punches >he won't be faster than someone who is just continuously dodging unless >that opponent is completely surprised (such as with Hidden Lurker or >Fast Reactions). In RPG mechanics, if you have the first action, and >all your opponent is doing is dodging, they still get to roll the dodge, >even if they wouldn't be able to attack if you crippled them with your >first shot. As for S:CE, well, a vampire with Majesty doesn't have to >spend time activating it, it's just on. And Earth Melding could >logically happen while the other vampire is just running up towards you >(maneuvers phase). > > -Chris OK just my Malkavian two-cents, in my opinion combat strikes should resolve: S:CE S:First Strike S:Dodge Other Strikes and such according to the rules. I don't fee that first strike should be able to beat S:CE and I think the above argument about the RPG world is useful here. However I think a first fast hit could easily happen before the opponent could dodge. The way the rules currently are, first strike is almost useless. I would like to see first strike gain a bit of power. That's all for now. I apologize for any lack of coherency, I am trying to quick get this out and don't have time to go thought this right. Sorry, McEwen the Mad

In article <6urbrv$77r$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > Or fortitude, and in any event I hardly see a problem with such a slow > and expensive card being able to hurt small vampires. Most decks > have at least some larger vampires, and pure weenie decks plan on taking > loses anyway. Expensive compared to what? A permanent that can knock out one non-combatical weenie each turn for 2 pool is unparalleled. Yes, weenie decks (and I'm discounting weenie combat decks here) can take losses, but one vampire a turn is too many to lose. How many weenie decks can, after exhausting their inactive regions, consistantly gain a minion a turn? The blood cost in rescuing or embracing, or the pool cost to influence is enormous compared to the 2 pool cost of Mr. Muddles. And how is he slow? He's one turn slower than your smallest Malkavian to bring into play. He can only take one action a turn, but that's fairly normal. > That's the thing -- Muddles isn't effective combat. The 2 most common > combat defense, fortitude and S:CE, stop him cold. Even maneuvers > stop him cold... > Only fortitude beats Muddles; the avoidance by maneuvers and S:CE strategies push. And a push where one minion has to use resources (transient cards) while Muddles uses no resources is a slight win for the vampire hunter, IMO. If you're going to claim that the MVH doesn't beat combat decks, fine. It shouldn't. If a 2-pool ally can consistantly beat combat decks, then combat has problems. Also, don't forget one other subtle thing that the Muddled gives you: political influence. He is a major threat to a lot of decks, and you can trade his attack. Now that cross table bleed is out, it's a way to get cross-table influence. Dan [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First > Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the > kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm > sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, > which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better > against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience > and Elysium: the Arboretum]. > You think that altering explicit rules which have been in effect as long as the game is better than altering explicit card text that was made more recently and has been shown to be unbalancing? > Now, no-one can accuse me of being an indiscriminate banner and fixer, and i > don't intend to start being one now. So i have a proposal for the rules team. > If we [Michael and I] can prove, from JOL statistics, that the assamites as a > clan, and celerity as a discipline, are significantly underpowered with > respect to other clans and disciplines, will you at least consider making the > change? We wouldn't expect you to make it on the basis of exhortation, but we > WOULD hope you'd consider it on the basis of evidence. BTW we haven't done > those calculations yet, so i genuinely do not know what the answer will be, > and if the result is NOT significant i certainly won't push for any rules > change. > Personally, I would endorse the change if and only if you could show that combat as an entire strategy is too weak and that the "deficiency" of first strike is a large factor in this. This of course, under 7/7 rulings. I'm pretty sure you cannot do this for a couple of reasons. a) 7/7 have not been around long enough. Non-JOL non-tournament anecdotes are all fine and good, but the closest thing we have to a level, skill-based playing field is JOL, with tournaments coming second. There has not, however, been enough data from these sources to show all that much. And, since combat decks are improved under 7/7 (at least IMO), there could be a large difference. b) Combat decks are, in fact, not that weak. You can say that a certain clan is weak, or a discipline is weak (celerity isn't), but that's not really any concern of the rules team. As long as one clan or discipline doesn't completely dominate all others (no pun intended, but now that I notice, it's a good pun...), that's a problem for deck-builders not rules-makers. You're never forced to make a one-clan deck, so Assamites compared to Ventrue or whatever isn't a valid comparison. Combat versus bleed is an okay comparison, and here I don't think that combat is really inferior, and if it is, I doubt making meaningless changes to first strike rules will really change that. In fact, I tend to feel that one-clan decks are harmful to the game, and one-discipline decks nearly so. So, any whining about the inability to make decks for a clan (e.g. City Gangrel) will be met with my unbridled opposition. It seems to me to be akin to whining that Well-Aimed Car is just too weak to build a deck around and arguing that it should be changed to be usable first round and/or at close range. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6urn1u$ari$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <adz...@dartmouth.edu> wrote: >In article <6urbrv$77r$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: [snipped: my text] > Expensive compared to what? A permanent that can knock out one >non-combatical weenie each turn for 2 pool is unparalleled. Yes, weenie >decks (and I'm discounting weenie combat decks here) can take losses, but one >vampire a turn is too many to lose. How many weenie decks can, after >exhausting their inactive regions, consistantly gain a minion a turn? The >blood cost in rescuing or embracing, or the pool cost to influence is >enormous compared to the 2 pool cost of Mr. Muddles. And how is he slow? >He's one turn slower than your smallest Malkavian to bring into play. He can >only take one action a turn, but that's fairly normal. Heh. All it takes is the occasional Zip Gun. And are you actually conceding that Muddles is only usefull against all weenie decks? Or did you just not address that part of my argument... Also, he's slow because he takes an _action_ to bring into play with which you could have done something usefull. Like bleed for 5 or 6. Furthmore, he can't use any of the discipline cards that make up the rest of your strategy. He is slow in the way that _all_ equipment and allies are slow. >> That's the thing -- Muddles isn't effective combat. The 2 most common >> combat defense, fortitude and S:CE, stop him cold. Even maneuvers >> stop him cold... > > Only fortitude beats Muddles; the avoidance by maneuvers and S:CE >strategies push. And a push where one minion has to use resources (transient >cards) while Muddles uses no resources is a slight win for the vampire >hunter, IMO. If you're going to claim that the MVH doesn't beat combat >decks, fine. It shouldn't. If a 2-pool ally can consistantly beat combat >decks, then combat has problems. I disagree. Spending an action and 2 pool for a "push" is _not_ a good trade off. Certainly Muddles won't beat a combat deck, my contention is that it won't affect _any_ deck with any amount of combat defense -- which most decks have at least some of. [ quoted text not captured ]

Myron Mychal wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > Yes, but the people who aren't physically striking, by virtue of not > > having to move, strike faster still. > > > > Problem? > > That is a good point . . . I must concur. This was pretty much my point when I said that First Strike shouldn't beat S:CE or dodge when you look at "game-world" mechanics. The only effects that simulate hitting someone when they aren't aware of the attack are Fast Reactions and Hidden Lurker. Otherwise, the opposing minion is aware of the attack and if he's doing nothing but dodging will still probably get away (unless of course, you strike like a Scorpion...). > I just don't see why the game designers > bothered to included the First Strike ability if it was going to be so weak. Just > one of the problems I have with the game. And I am not here to make sweeping > changes, I just noticed that "First Strike" as a game mechanic is so weak and so > rare to be seen that it should either not be in the game or should have been > changed from the beginning to make if effective. > Well, it's certainly rare. I still don't believe it's that weak. Combat decks have to deal with dodge and S:CE. And then they need to deal with those who can fight back. If First Strike weren't so rare, it'd be a very useful tool in beating down "fight back." > It's like the withdraw rule. You can only do it when you are running out of cards, > must announce it, cannot lose pool or blood from vamps and cannot even enter > combat! There is only one type of deck that can do these things . . . so why > bother including the rule??? I would have said that the Methuselah could withdraw > if his/her library was near-empty and she/he lost no pool, but I would certainly > allow vampires to defend/protect while the Methuselah attempts his/her escape. > Then the mechanic would be playable and usab;e (abusable? I don't know - haven't > tried this one yet) . . . but there are glaring holes in the rules for good > mechanics that could make the game more interesting if they were only more balanced > . . . > Yes, I've always hated the conditions for withdrawal. Although, withdrawals still happen... especially if playing for ante (only happens in league games as far as I know, and I haven't seen that many leagues out there). Unfortunately, withdrawal is basically only an option when both players agree. I think that withdrawal was not really meant to be something that happened much, but mainly a mechanic to discourage stagnant games. And to finish a game when no one can cause any harm to anyone else (it can happen...). > Just my opinion . . . I like to play the game regardless of tourneys. We still > allow Madness of the Bard and all the other "banned" cards around here because we > like to play with the cards we spent money on. We like to make the game fun. > Madness of the Bard is only banned in tournaments, and that only because it puts non-native speakers at a disadvantage (this disadvantage is actually arguable, but a case can be made that non-native speakers *may* be at a disadvantage). Personally, I love playing Madness on the few occasions that I play a Malk deck. It really pisses people off... 8) -Chris

Myron Mychal wrote: > > Now this I TOTALLY disagree with . . . you say that a card called "Fast Reaction" > makes common sense that it can beat "Dodge" but something called "First Strike" > doesn't make sense to beat it??? What does the ability need to be called? > FIRSTEST Strike?? First Strike means I strike first, before anything (at least > that is what people who don't play the game say to me when they hear me mention > the ability). Why can't I strike fast enough to be able to beat someone dodging > out of the way? We are talking super-human vampires here . . . a vamp with > celerity isn't FASTER than a vamp without it (i.e. Dodge is skilless)???? > As I said somewhere else, Fast Reactions and Hidden Lurker emulate an attack that the opposing minion is not aware of. As long as he is aware of an attack, he may not be able to hit you before you smack him, but he may be able to avoid your fist. A vamp with celerity is faster than a vamp without it, but celerity (or even First Strike spelled out) doesn't give you surprise. It simply means you can strike a bit faster (and celerity allows you to strike *more* if you play the right cards). If all he's doing is trying to get away, he doesn't have to wait for your punch before he can react. > And as for Majesty . . . "turn it on"? To me it seems like a vampire with > presence (and sue me - I don't play V:TM to know the game mechanics of it) must > use that "presence" to inspire this "majesty" so that the victimized vamp is in > such awe that she/he would not want to strike the majestic vmap. Well . . . that > really FAST vamp gets the smack in just before the "awe-inspiring majestic stare" > takes place. If Majesty is so "fast", then why is it a combat card? If it is > always "on" it should be played even before range is determined . . . and in > regards to Earth Meld - yeah it could happen before I run up, but First Strike > could be argued to make me run up FASTER and get there while you are partially or > even barely entering the earth . . . > Actually, Majesty never has to be turned on. It is in fact always on. The reasons that it is not a permanent card are: a) Game balance - that would be nasty powerful, b) Possession of the discipline - not all vampires with presence would normally have access to Majesty, it is a 5th level discipline (the highest most vampires can ever get). Since there are only 2 levels of a discipline in the game, and a card can be played with either level, this is somewhat simulated by the requirement of having the card in hand when needed, c) Not infallible - while automatic, Majesty is not infallible. A vampire would normally be able to make a willpower(I think) roll to avoid the effects. Since your crypt cards don't have the necessary stats on them, this is simulated to a point by the fact that another Majesty card must be used each time the Majestic vampire "uses" the ability. -Chris

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:25:57 -0500, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: > >> I haven't paid a great deal of attention to which cards strike with >> First Strike and which don't, so I'm going to be slightly confused on >> this. The problem with all this seems to come from Muddles though. >> He does 4 at close with First Strike, and has one life. He costs, um, >> (looking) 2 and comes with a built-in Bum's Rush. Like a few people >> have already said, he's a good card to BEGIN with. > >I absolutely agree . . . he is a good card to begin with, but his Rush can be >blocked very easily and he doesn't have a whole lot of combat cards to support >him. OK, so Muddles didn't get into combat with the person you wanted him to get into combat with... he's still in combat :P and he still does his 4. Put more Muddles in your deck or be selective with your rushing (don't rush when you KNOW they'll just block with their 5 and off Muddles, maybe. They have to spend blood off the vamp sometime) ... Muddles has his uses. And for 2, he's awful cheap about it. If you must include combat cards with him, give him Fake Outs or Dodges, but I hesitate to include any of those in a serious Malkavian deck. Just let the Malks do their thing and if Muddles gets beaten up a couple times, oh well. ;) He discards great too. =) > >> now, if First Strike beats out S:CE and S:Dodge, any vamp with cap >> less than 4, or any vampire who happens to be reduced to less than 4 >> (via minion taps, other rushes, or whatever) has one defense against >> Muddles; maneuvers. > >Okay . . . two points to make here. First - vampires with Fortitude can easily >stop the damage he deals as well. Secondly, "Fake Out" is just as skillless and >common as "Dodge". just as a note, I don't see either Fake Out or Dodge (the disciplineless ones) in use at all in my playgroup... nor would I really expect to anywhere I played. Lots of better cards to accidentally stick in a deck. As far as Fortitude is concerned; when choosing to bring Muddles out or discard him, whether or not something like Fortitude is on the table will have a great impact, yes. If Muddles will OBVIOUSLY be useless, I just won't bother spending the pool; and since there are only 3 of him in the deck, he isn't gonna hand jam me too much, barring blistering bad luck and getting all 3 on top of the library. If I see fit to bring him out anyway and there's fortitude damage prevention on the table, I just won't rush those vamps. -shrug- Heck, I'll even make deals. "Don't bleed me next turn and I'll Muddle Gideon Fontaine and give you some breathing room." If I haven't got anyone to rush that he might win against, I won't bring him out. =) Anyway. the original point is that just because Fortitude stops him doesn't mean that it isn't still unbalanced; so far now it's fortitude or maneuvers to be safe from Muddles. Icky icky. > >> I don't think decks with S:CE and S:Dodge pack >> maneuvers on a consistent basis; at least I can't figure out why they >> would. This makes Muddles -awfully- damn good for only 2 pool, > >Only awefully damn good AGAINST a deck depending on S:CE. Against a combat deck, >they'd still get crushed. the "classic" Potence combat that starts out with immortal grapple? Muddles wins if the vampire doesn't have 4 blood to avoid going to torpor - his is a hand strike. He can safely rush Hasina Kesi, Dr. Dre, KoKo, and a few others. He can safely rush ANY potence minion who happens to have whiffed on their Taste of Vitae draw and is temporarily down to 3 blood. My Potence deck doesn't have a minion above 6 cap in it... that's not a lot of breathing room. > >> especially as a side bonus to the classic sneak'n'bleed deck (which >> just happens to be Malkavian...) -- it's difficult to include >> effective combat in that deck without diluting either the 'sneak', or >> the 'bleed'. Now not only are you being bled for lots at +3 stealth, >> Muddles is potentially offing one of your blockers each turn. Yucko. > >Well, he can still be blocked and any gun can easily dispatch him. There are way >too many defenses against First Strike and people are constantly trying to find >ways to get around S:CE. There just isn't a parity in the tactics. S:CE beats >all strikes and First Strike doesn't beat any of the strikes that you would like >it to beat. What are you rushing a guy with a gun for anyway? =) if everyone has guns, ignore them and sneak sneak sneak. If you have a dedicated intercept deck somewhere (which often carry guns), your Malk S&B deck is hosed anyway unless it can outsneak the stuff... in which case ignore the guns since you don't get into combat and he's wasting actions getting guns. =) Fast Hands and Shattering Blow both deal with equipment, BTW; I don't generally see people with S:CE or S:Dodge using equipment... if you have a gun, THAT's your defense, not S:CE. Or maybe even your offense. >> I don't want to break Muddles and fix other things. :I > >Probably the best argument against changing this rule and I agree that one of my >favorite card games has already been cut to pieces with Errata, clarifications >and changes already . . . but if I didn't love the game as much as I do, I would >never consider a change to it that I didn't think made sense. All I can say to >the nay-sayers of this fix of First AStrike is do not condemn it until you have >playtested it like my group has. We have played it to death and find that it >enhances the game a lot - it balances it tremendously. We have yet to come to a >game and say "Aw damn - not that First Strike crap again!" yet we ALWAYS found >ourselves bemoaning S:CE in this way and we still do (even the guy at our table >who actually HAS 10 Immortal Grapples still moans about S:CE because it is so >hard to beat up on . . . Egad. How much S:CE do y'all commonly put in your decks in your group? =) And how do they avoid hand jam when they're between decks that don't do combat... or when their predator says "pooh on that" and just defends for a bit to force hand jam and see if you discard a bunch for free? =) 10 Immortal Grapples is, as several Rush deck proponents would point out, probably going to be 10 dead vampires who didn't get to S:CE. > >That is my argument . . . playtest it first before you dismiss the change out of >hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <3610FB7D...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal > <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes > >First Strike means I strike first, before anything (at least > >that is what people who don't play the game say to me when they hear me mention > >the ability). > > Yes, but the people who aren't physically striking, by virtue of not > having to move, strike faster still. > > Problem? > Ah, the motionless dodge - It all becomes so clear... Actually, for what it is worth I don't really think any change is needed (or necessary). Martin.

In article <6urtmo$f7g$1...@news.NERO.NET>, Jasper Phillips <phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> writes >I disagree. Spending an action and 2 pool for a "push" is _not_ a good >trade off. Certainly Muddles won't beat a combat deck, my contention >is that it won't affect _any_ deck with any amount of combat defense -- >which most decks have at least some of. However, Muddles will help to draw that combat defence out. If a deck's combat defence is not "fight back" then Muddles can be a very effective way of drawing it out, especially if the rest of your deck is also combat oriented (with CI's to get out malkie stuff or even a cool malkie combat deck (harder to do)). Then you have a repeated rush that doesn't use up resources which you can use again and again. Assuming the opposing deck isn't hitting you back hard and you can kit Muddles up with a Flak Jacket, he's pretty cool. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6uq81r$l1v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I'd like to enthusiastically endorse Michael Beer's proposal for making First >Strike resolve first, before Strike:Combat ends. This seems to me to be the >kind of fix we SHOULD be making, instead of altering explicit card text. I'm >sure Michael is right to say that it will finally make the Assamites SCARY, >which is what they should be, and generally to make combat decks better >against combat- avoidance decks [which in any case will still have Obedience >and Elysium: the Arboretum]. I'd rather this suggestion hadn't been made. But as a fervent supporter of the 7/7 rulings who also said that those rulings were not going to be the start of errating and changing every card in sight, let me say: No. There's no outstanding need for this change, as nice as it may be. We need to draw the line on changes somewhere, and it's back over there with the broken cards, not over here with the underpowered and slightly nonsensical cards. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

In article <361216ED...@student.uq.edu.au>, Martin Jamieson <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> writes >> Yes, but the people who aren't physically striking, by virtue of not >> having to move, strike faster still. >> >> Problem? >> > >Ah, the motionless dodge - It all becomes so clear... I was more referring to Majesty et al - the Strike: Combat Ends lot - but if I'm having to reach you and smack you one, and you're moving away from me, then I think that, no matter how fast you can punch me, I'm still nowhere near you cos I leapt out of the way with my dodge. Not going towards you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > OK, so Muddles didn't get into combat with the person you wanted him > to get into combat with... he's still in combat :P and he still does > his 4. Put more Muddles in your deck or be selective with your Though he may still be in combat, he isn't exactly assured of "doing his 4" as you might think he is. > rushing (don't rush when you KNOW they'll just block with their 5 and > off Muddles, maybe. They have to spend blood off the vamp sometime) > ... Muddles has his uses. And for 2, he's awful cheap about it. Well, Ascendance also has its uses as we have seen in the "all Master" deck posted here, and I know very well how to use an MVH even with the tourney-rules for First Strike. My argument stems around the fact that a commonly available ability (that of S:CE) has such a powerful effect and an ability like FIrst Strike which is highly conditional and nowhere near as commonly available has such a weak effect. I guess I used the MVH as an example because as the rule stands, he is the "most playable" card with First Strike. Maybe instead of changing the rules for when strikes occur, they should have made a lot more cards with "First Strike" on the level of a Muddled Vampire Hunter. > If you must include combat cards with him, give him Fake Outs or > Dodges, but I hesitate to include any of those in a serious Malkavian > deck. Just let the Malks do their thing and if Muddles gets beaten up > a couple times, oh well. ;) He discards great too. =) Good point. It still seems interesting to me that you justify it all by including more cards like Fake Out and Dodge to make the MVH "work" whereas a single S:CE is all that is needed in a a combat defense strategy utilizing S:CE. > just as a note, I don't see either Fake Out or Dodge (the > disciplineless ones) in use at all in my playgroup... nor would I > really expect to anywhere I played. Lots of better cards to Hmmm - before Sabbat came into fruition, how did the Tremere players in your playgroup get maneuvers on the first round of combat?? Or did the Tremere players in your area simply stay at close range all the time? Did anyone in your area ever make a weenie deck with equipment? The skill-less cards come in very handy in such a deck. How do Nosferatu decks that cannot afford to get a lot of "Behind You" work if they like to use ranged Potence strikes combined with Animalism? How about a combat defense deck that doesn't use Presence? Dodge seems to be very handy in that case. Or does everyone just play the same decks over and over again?? > accidentally stick in a deck. As far as Fortitude is concerned; when Who said I "accidentally" stick in Fake Outs and Dodges in my decks? I try to put cards in for a purpose and the purpose of using Fake Out is to get a maneuver when your disciplines don't offer maneuvers on a common basis. And Dodge gives me combat avoidance if I can't seem to find another way. That is why they require no discipline, so that anyone can do some of the basis "moves" in the game. > choosing to bring Muddles out or discard him, whether or not something > like Fortitude is on the table will have a great impact, yes. If > Muddles will OBVIOUSLY be useless, I just won't bother spending the > pool; and since there are only 3 of him in the deck, he isn't gonna > hand jam me too much, barring blistering bad luck and getting all 3 on > top of the library. If I see fit to bring him out anyway and there's > fortitude damage prevention on the table, I just won't rush those > vamps. -shrug- Heck, I'll even make deals. "Don't bleed me next > turn and I'll Muddle Gideon Fontaine and give you some breathing > room." If I haven't got anyone to rush that he might win against, I > won't bring him out. =) Agreed - all of those are sound strategies and certainly the way I would play the Muddled Vampire Hunter. However, I believe that 3 copies of him are not warranted unless his First Strike ability WERE more useful. > Anyway. the original point is that just because Fortitude stops him > doesn't mean that it isn't still unbalanced; so far now it's fortitude > or maneuvers to be safe from Muddles. Icky icky. Okay - so how many ways are there to really get past a boatload of Majesties?? Immortal Grapple . . . Hidden Lurker . . . Dog Pack . . . but you aren't saying Icky Icky to that. Especially considering that Majesty is a common and Immortal Grapple and Dog Pack are rares. Certainly there are other strategies to stop Majesty (i.e. wait until they hand jam, MAYBE a Fast Reaction or a Psyche! will work for you), but I can also afford to you that a gun will stop the MVH, anyone can equip with a Flak/Leather Jacket and any vamp with 4+pool will still kill him. I just do not think that First Strike is worth it unless it CAN stop Dodge/S:CE. > the "classic" Potence combat that starts out with immortal grapple? > Muddles wins if the vampire doesn't have 4 blood to avoid going to > torpor - his is a hand strike. He can safely rush Hasina Kesi, Dr. > Dre, KoKo, and a few others. He can safely rush ANY potence minion > who happens to have whiffed on their Taste of Vitae draw and is > temporarily down to 3 blood. My Potence deck doesn't have a minion > above 6 cap in it... that's not a lot of breathing room. Hmmm . . . Thrown Gate anyone?? Skill-less Dodge, anyone?? Hmm - even Bum's Rush the MVH and use the maneuver. Any good deck with Immortal Grapple will have some way of getting maneuvers if for no other reason than to assure that an Immortal Grapple will take place. And by your above reasoning of "I would never Rush a vamp with Fortitude" I believe that the Potenceplayer would never Immortal Grapple your hunter much either. > What are you rushing a guy with a gun for anyway? =) if everyone Maybe the same reason that a Potence player is Immortal Grappling your MVH?? And maybe they didn't HAVE the gun before I rushed? Zip Guns and Disguised/Cocncealed Weaponds aren't all that uncommon considering it helps you to avoid "wasting" an equip action. > Fast Hands and Shattering Blow both deal with equipment, BTW; I don't > generally see people with S:CE or S:Dodge using equipment... if you > have a gun, THAT's your defense, not S:CE. Or maybe even your > offense. I know they both deal with equipment - I was stating that most of the cards that allow First Strike are highly conditional . . . i.e. you need equipment out there to make Fast Hands and Shattering Blow useful > Egad. How much S:CE do y'all commonly put in your decks in your > group? =) And how do they avoid hand jam when they're between decks > that don't do combat... or when their predator says "pooh on that" and > just defends for a bit to force hand jam and see if you discard a > bunch for free? =) 10 Immortal Grapples is, as several Rush deck > proponents would point out, probably going to be 10 dead vampires who > didn't get to S:CE. Well . . . when you have a weenie Presence bleeder or a weenie Presence voter, it is easy to see a LOT of Majesties in a single game and players here are intelligent enough to also play with Barrens/Fragment of the Book of Nod to avoid those hand jams when they need to. And in many cases, the S:CE is used defensively too, so against non-combat decks, they'll block any political/local actions that they can and use their majesties to simply end combat. Trust me - we have all mastered the ability of abusing S:CE to the fullest. Recall that it took a rule change somewhere to prevent repeated actions cause THAT isn't exactly in the Jyhad rulebook. Before that rule, it was easy to see Gideon Fontaine attempt 2 or even 3 directed bleed actions within a turn with only his single skill!! A lot of that has to do with the nature of the untap effect of Majesty but a good deal of it also has to do with the fact that he is invincible in combat! And a lot of guys here metagame against Immortal Grapple because it is so good against S:CE so when the Immortal Grapple player faces a combat deck without the Immortal Grapples, the IG player gets slaughtered a lot simply because the other player had 1 or 2 combat cards where the IG player had IG's. Myron Mychal

James Coupe wrote: > However, Muddles will help to draw that combat defence out. If a deck's > combat defence is not "fight back" then Muddles can be a very effective > way of drawing it out, especially if the rest of your deck is also > combat oriented (with CI's to get out malkie stuff or even a cool malkie > combat deck (harder to do)). Then you have a repeated rush that doesn't > use up resources which you can use again and again. Assuming the > opposing deck isn't hitting you back hard and you can kit Muddles up > with a Flak Jacket, he's pretty cool. Yes - most allies are really good when kitted up (especially in my Memories of Mortality deck *grin*) and the MVH does draw combat out for certain . . . we just need more "First Strike" cards that have this type of impact. Consider that it is not only the First Strike that makes the MVH deadly - it's the rush AND the 4 damage too . . . now if we could find a playable way of giving First Strike to minions that are capable of doing their own thing, I would probably shut up about my complaints about the weakness of First Strike as a strategy.

Chris Berger wrote: > This was pretty much my point when I said that First Strike shouldn't > beat S:CE or dodge when you look at "game-world" mechanics. The only > effects that simulate hitting someone when they aren't aware of the > attack are Fast Reactions and Hidden Lurker. Otherwise, the opposing > minion is aware of the attack and if he's doing nothing but dodging will > still probably get away (unless of course, you strike like a > Scorpion...). Well . . . to me the term "First Strike" means that it happens before the opponent can even blink . . . perhaps the cards that would be good First Strike cards should have really swoopy-cool names like "Gotcha!!!" or "SURPRISE!!!" > Well, it's certainly rare. I still don't believe it's that weak. Have you ever built a deck around the First Strike ability that did not include Muddled Vampire Hunters? I do have a celeritous deck based around backstab that is pretty effective if it is allowed to beat S:CE and a lot less effective and practically unplayable if it isn't. > Yes, I've always hated the conditions for withdrawal. Although, > withdrawals still happen... especially if playing for ante (only > happens in league games as far as I know, and I haven't seen that many > leagues out there). Unfortunately, withdrawal is basically only an Wow! What kind of deck did THAT happen in? It HAD to be a heavy Auspex deck with Telepathic Counters because I can't see any other kind of deck being able to meet all of the criteria of withdrawal/ > option when both players agree. I think that withdrawal was not really > meant to be something that happened much, but mainly a mechanic to > discourage stagnant games. And to finish a game when no one can cause > any harm to anyone else (it can happen...). I guess it can happen, but it is pretty rare here for a predator to "agree" to letting a player withdraw. We want our victory points. > Madness of the Bard is only banned in tournaments, and that only because > it puts non-native speakers at a disadvantage (this disadvantage is > actually arguable, but a case can be made that non-native speakers *may* > be at a disadvantage). Personally, I love playing Madness on the few > occasions that I play a Malk deck. It really pisses people off... 8) I guess that makes sense, but it seems that most of the strategy talk around here centers on tournament play since people are really vehement in voicing their opinions to house rules *laugh* . . . or am I wrong in that assumption?? I love to play the Madness because it shuts up a lot of people around here that have no gift for rhyme but seemingly like to talk a lot during the game. It is fun. But we also have political actions to determine who gets the last slice of pizza when we order it also . . . and you wouldn't believe the number of Bribes that get played for such votes . . . not to mention "Business Pressure" *s* I love this game Myron Mychal

In article <36125688...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes > >I know they both deal with equipment - I was stating that most of the cards that >allow First Strike are highly conditional . . . i.e. you need equipment out >there to >make Fast Hands and Shattering Blow useful But when they *do* come up, they are highly useful. Bang, there goes the Ivory Bow, Sengir dagger or Flamethrower you were hitting me with. You lose pool (loss of equipment which cost pool) and can't hit me with it. High opportunity cost for high gain when useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <36125688...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal > <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes > > > >I know they both deal with equipment - I was stating that most of the cards that > >allow First Strike are highly conditional . . . i.e. you need equipment out > >there to > >make Fast Hands and Shattering Blow useful > > But when they *do* come up, they are highly useful. Bang, there goes > the Ivory Bow, Sengir dagger or Flamethrower you were hitting me with. > You lose pool (loss of equipment which cost pool) and can't hit me with > it. > > High opportunity cost for high gain when useful. True - no question about it. And I imagine that if someone is playing a high-capacity Toreador-only deck that votes its way to victory could really get hosed heavily by Tragic Love Affair (then again, maybe not). But the card is very conditional. Does anyone have Tragic Love Affair in their deck? How about Nosferatu Putrescence?? S:CE and Dodge are useful in ANY combat. Fast Hands and Shattering Blow are useful only in combat with weapons and it is arguable that other combat cards that are useful in any combat are more useful than FH or SB in a given combat too. What I am trying to say is that the conditonality of their use doesn't make them a key strategy in a deck - merely an occasional "if this happens then I'll" scenario. I like to see varied combat strategies. Certainly I would never totally take away S:CE and Dodge. I like to have several different options in deckbuilding and I think that more would be possible if First Strike were a viable strategy. Certainly at least one other combat deck type could be developed. Myron Mychal

In article <3612577A...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >we just need more "First Strike" cards that have this type of impact. >Consider that it is not only the First Strike that makes the MVH deadly - >it's the rush AND the 4 damage too Yup. The first strike is not the be all and end all, the rest of his abilities are cool too. So why all the fuss about changing First Strike at the moment? I just don't see the need.... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36126EFA...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >What I am >trying to say is that the conditonality of their use doesn't make them a key >strategy in a deck - merely an occasional "if this happens then I'll" scenario. Prayer cards, as Chris Berger called them. (You pray for them to come up when you need them.) Put a couple of them in and hope they come up if you need them. However, as to only sometimes useful. There are many cards that fit this category. Arson, say. There is no way I can build a deck around location destruction. Intercept, if no-one is playing any stealth. Stealth, if no-one is playing intercept. Sudden Reversal, if no-one plays masters. Protected Resources, if no-one is playing bleed. Hell, MOST cards in the game have a little bit of an aspect of that to them. Personally, for fast hands, canine hoard, shattering blow et al to be useful, I'd rather equipment was more useful than making first strike better etc. If equipment was better and more well used, you'd have more ways to deal with equipment in your deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <3612577A...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal > <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes > >we just need more "First Strike" cards that have this type of impact. > >Consider that it is not only the First Strike that makes the MVH deadly - > >it's the rush AND the 4 damage too > > Yup. The first strike is not the be all and end all, the rest of his > abilities are cool too. So why all the fuss about changing First Strike > at the moment? I just don't see the need.... Why should there be a need? There isn't much other discussion going on in here and maybe I should just post my Smiling Jack deck to get some talk going on it and you all can ask me why I play with such ROTTEN cards ;) But I have found in playtesting, that the game improves with a change in the First Strike rule. It's not a be-all end-all improvement, but it certainly isn't a degeneracy and any improvement to an already great game is a good thing in my book. Start a discussion as to why a certain deck is good/bad and I'll be happy to jump in on that one too. Myron Mychal

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:04:24 -0500, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: OK, I think we've got a bit lost on the whole thing. My original point was that Muddles is balanced now, and if you let him beat out S:CE and S:Dodge, then the only defense against him is to maneuver or, as you pointed out, use Fortitude. Some of your responses are assuming that I think Muddles is all that CURRENTLY, and I don't. =) He's amusing right now. I would like to see more First Strike cards on Muddles' level right now, yes. But the original point is slightly different. =) > >> OK, so Muddles didn't get into combat with the person you wanted him >> to get into combat with... he's still in combat :P and he still does >> his 4. Put more Muddles in your deck or be selective with your > >Though he may still be in combat, he isn't exactly assured of "doing his 4" as you >might think he is. He would be if you let him beat out S:CE and S:Dodge. Either of those would still please me, though, since Muddles just made him burn one more card. > >> If you must include combat cards with him, give him Fake Outs or >> Dodges, but I hesitate to include any of those in a serious Malkavian >> deck. Just let the Malks do their thing and if Muddles gets beaten up >> a couple times, oh well. ;) He discards great too. =) > >Good point. It still seems interesting to me that you justify it all by including >more cards like Fake Out and Dodge to make the MVH "work" whereas a single S:CE is >all that is needed in a a combat defense strategy utilizing S:CE. Unh-uh! I would NEVER include Fake Out or Dodge in my deck just for Muddles! See below. He works fine without those. Leather Jacket or Flak Jacket though? I'd consider it; those can be stuck on other people. But Muddles is awful slow anyway (1, bring out malkavian, 2, bring out muddles, 3, muddles gets jacket, 4, muddles finally acts.. icky.) so he really IS still a supplement. >> just as a note, I don't see either Fake Out or Dodge (the >> disciplineless ones) in use at all in my playgroup... nor would I >> really expect to anywhere I played. Lots of better cards to > >Hmmm - before Sabbat came into fruition, how did the Tremere players in your >playgroup get maneuvers on the first round of combat?? Or did the Tremere players in Movement of the Mind. I have about .. mm.. lots. =) Jyhad card, too. My first deck was Tremere. =) >your area simply stay at close range all the time? Did anyone in your area ever make Blood Fury and Cauldron of Blood are close-range cards. Not all combat is conducted at long range with Tremere, although you're asking for it a l'il bit if you don't include a Taste of Vitae with your close range cards. =) Besides, I'll suffer through -some- damage to get to a 2nd round with Tremere. This obviously falls over to Potence Rush, but a LOT of decks fall over to Potence Rush. >a weenie deck with equipment? The skill-less cards come in very handy in such a >deck. How do Nosferatu decks that cannot afford to get a lot of "Behind You" work if My friend Pat has a weenie intercept deck with equipment. He has no disciplineless cards involved, and his deck is just outright nasty. I have a weenie deck with equipment, and I find it's too much of a nuisance to get the equipment ONTO your weenies without people gratuitously blocking you - but Pat went at it with a different approach than I did, too. >they like to use ranged Potence strikes combined with Animalism? How about a combat >defense deck that doesn't use Presence? Dodge seems to be very handy in that case. >Or does everyone just play the same decks over and over again?? Everyone in our group has a LOT of standing decks that get picked up and cycled as necessary - all with QUITE a bit of variety. Our playgroup generally goes after "stuff that hasn't been seen before", or "stuff that worked MISERABLY last time and has been fixed up to go good now". You should really see some of the awful crazed stuff people have made effective... and once a deck gets boring, it gets disassembled and changed for the next "wouldn't it be neat if I could make... THIS combo work?" There are lots of ways to make a combat defense deck not involving Presence. Protean has Earth Meld OR Form of Mist. Dominate has Obedience and Seduction to avoid being in combat in the first place. Celerity has Sideslip. Fortitude has Skin of Steel. Obfuscate may never actually get INTO combat except against a Rush deck. Thaumaturgy and Potence are nasty combat deterrents on their own. Animalism could use Drawing out the Beast and Aid from Bats, and if they were blocking, use Cat's Guidance. Auspex's pile of Intercept cards are designed to get INTO combat. What do you need Dodge for? =) Dominate may be the weakest discipline out there since Obedience can be very tricky. > >> accidentally stick in a deck. As far as Fortitude is concerned; when > >Who said I "accidentally" stick in Fake Outs and Dodges in my decks? I try to put I "accidentally" put discipline cards in decks instead of Fake Outs and Dodges :) It's a turn of phrase I use. Nothing personal intended. >cards in for a purpose and the purpose of using Fake Out is to get a maneuver when >your disciplines don't offer maneuvers on a common basis. And Dodge gives me combat >avoidance if I can't seem to find another way. That is why they require no >discipline, so that anyone can do some of the basis "moves" in the game. And that's why they're also not replaceable 'til after combat. Icky. Some people have made it work. I always seem to end up one crucial card short when I use Fake Out and Dodge. > >> choosing to bring Muddles out or discard him, whether or not something >> like Fortitude is on the table will have a great impact, yes. If >> Muddles will OBVIOUSLY be useless, I just won't bother spending the >> pool; and since there are only 3 of him in the deck, he isn't gonna >> hand jam me too much, barring blistering bad luck and getting all 3 on >> top of the library. If I see fit to bring him out anyway and there's >> fortitude damage prevention on the table, I just won't rush those >> vamps. -shrug- Heck, I'll even make deals. "Don't bleed me next >> turn and I'll Muddle Gideon Fontaine and give you some breathing >> room." If I haven't got anyone to rush that he might win against, I >> won't bring him out. =) > >Agreed - all of those are sound strategies and certainly the way I would play the >Muddled Vampire Hunter. However, I believe that 3 copies of him are not warranted >unless his First Strike ability WERE more useful. With First Strike beating S:CE and S:Dodge, I'll put a LOT of Muddles in the deck and make SURE I always have him out unless I'm short pool, since then he'll kick WAY too much bootie. >> Anyway. the original point is that just because Fortitude stops him >> doesn't mean that it isn't still unbalanced; so far now it's fortitude >> or maneuvers to be safe from Muddles. Icky icky. > >Okay - so how many ways are there to really get past a boatload of Majesties?? >Immortal Grapple . . . Hidden Lurker . . . Dog Pack . . . but you aren't saying Icky >Icky to that. Especially considering that Majesty is a common and Immortal Grapple >and Dog Pack are rares. Certainly there are other strategies to stop Majesty (i.e. >wait until they hand jam, MAYBE a Fast Reaction or a Psyche! will work for you), but Fast Reaction works BEAUTIFULLY against S:CE. So does Hidden Lurker. From Fast Reaction card text: "the first round of this combat, the acting minion cannot use any strikes." That includes S:CE and S:Dodge. If you've never seen heavy S:CE come at you from your predator before, you need to play against our resident Freak Drive person (whom Legbiter will undoubtedly remember). Anyway: Hidden Lurker is the same but says "blocking minion". Psyche works well also, since they may NOT have two in their hand and aren't guaranteed to draw one - and the minute they don't, there should be one less vampire who can Majesty sitting around. =) >I can also afford to you that a gun will stop the MVH, anyone can equip with a >Flak/Leather Jacket and any vamp with 4+pool will still kill him. I just do not >think that First Strike is worth it unless it CAN stop Dodge/S:CE. > >> the "classic" Potence combat that starts out with immortal grapple? >> Muddles wins if the vampire doesn't have 4 blood to avoid going to >> torpor - his is a hand strike. He can safely rush Hasina Kesi, Dr. >> Dre, KoKo, and a few others. He can safely rush ANY potence minion >> who happens to have whiffed on their Taste of Vitae draw and is >> temporarily down to 3 blood. My Potence deck doesn't have a minion >> above 6 cap in it... that's not a lot of breathing room. > >Hmmm . . . Thrown Gate anyone?? Skill-less Dodge, anyone?? Hmm - even Bum's Rush Thrown Gate doesn't belong in Immortal Grapple decks. Nor does Dodge. Torn Signposts, Increase/Undead Strength, Decapitate, Disarm, Burning Wrath... these all belong. Thrown Gate belongs in a Thrown Objects deck, which is NOT the deck I was speaking of, and a deck that is BASED on the idea of getting to long range will annihilate Muddles, obviously.. >the MVH and use the maneuver. Any good deck with Immortal Grapple will have some way block the rush, just like with Muddles' rush. Bum's rush isn't at stealth either. And if someone fears my Muddles so much that he rushes him -- then I just paid 2 pool for an effective distraction since he could've been rushing my vampires instead. >of getting maneuvers if for no other reason than to assure that an Immortal Grapple >will take place. And by your above reasoning of "I would never Rush a vamp with >Fortitude" I believe that the Potenceplayer would never Immortal Grapple your hunter >much either. So I can use Muddles to tap out a minion of a Potence Rush deck, or to leave untapped and potentially block one of their Rushes? =) Nice 2 pool there, i MUST say! >> What are you rushing a guy with a gun for anyway? =) if everyone > >Maybe the same reason that a Potence player is Immortal Grappling your MVH?? And It's not that he's going to immortally grapple my MVH, it's that MVH is actually EFFECTIVE against Immortal Grapple, forcing someone who undoubtedly has a very narrow, focused, close-range deck to come up with a way to remove Muddles. >maybe they didn't HAVE the gun before I rushed? Zip Guns and Disguised/Cocncealed >Weaponds aren't all that uncommon considering it helps you to avoid "wasting" an >equip action. Disguised Weapon is the only way to go for guns, IMO. Concealed weapon if you have the house rule that it's disciplineless. If you Rush someone and they Disguised Weapon a gun, oh well. All tricks have to fail somewhere. If I bring out a NEW muddles and rush the same Methuselah who just disguised-weapon a gun LAST time... well... i would personally assume that he was gonna do it again even if I rushed a different minion. >> Fast Hands and Shattering Blow both deal with equipment, BTW; I don't >> generally see people with S:CE or S:Dodge using equipment... if you >> have a gun, THAT's your defense, not S:CE. Or maybe even your >> offense. > >I know they both deal with equipment - I was stating that most of the cards that >allow First Strike are highly conditional . . . i.e. you need equipment out there to >make Fast Hands and Shattering Blow useful Yup. I still toss 2-3 in deck... just in case. ;) > >> Egad. How much S:CE do y'all commonly put in your decks in your >> group? =) And how do they avoid hand jam when they're between decks >> that don't do combat... or when their predator says "pooh on that" and >> just defends for a bit to force hand jam and see if you discard a >> bunch for free? =) 10 Immortal Grapples is, as several Rush deck >> proponents would point out, probably going to be 10 dead vampires who >> didn't get to S:CE. > Er, just reading down, I also wanted to point out that the original topic was Muddles, not "is S:CE beatable." =) That said... >Well . . . when you have a weenie Presence bleeder or a weenie Presence voter, it is >easy to see a LOT of Majesties in a single game and players here are intelligent >enough to also play with Barrens/Fragment of the Book of Nod to avoid those hand >jams when they need to. And in many cases, the S:CE is used defensively too, so >against non-combat decks, they'll block any political/local actions that they can and >use their majesties to simply end combat. Trust me - we have all mastered the >ability of abusing S:CE to the fullest. Recall that it took a rule change somewhere >to prevent repeated actions cause THAT isn't exactly in the Jyhad rulebook. Before >that rule, it was easy to see Gideon Fontaine attempt 2 or even 3 directed bleed >actions within a turn with only his single skill!! A lot of that has to do with the >nature of the untap effect of Majesty but a good deal of it also has to do with the >fact that he is invincible in combat! ...immortal grapple.. run them out of S:CE... Gideon is a 3-cap weenie so DoTB and Weather Control put a major dent in him, especially if he's using Majesty untap... Dawn op + DoTB is a rude awakening for anyone using S:CE... >And a lot of guys here metagame against Immortal Grapple because it is so good >against S:CE so when the Immortal Grapple player faces a combat deck without the >Immortal Grapples, the IG player gets slaughtered a lot simply because the other >player had 1 or 2 combat cards where the IG player had IG's. Do you see the rock-scissors-paper here? I do. Immortal Grapple beats S:CE. Ranged combat beats immortal grapple. S:CE beats ranged combat. If your metagame leans one way, make a deck to hammer that style and lean it back the other way. Lots of sneak & bleed? Make weenie celerity intercept and pillage for awhile. Lots of combat? Make an S:CE deck. Lots of S:CE? Make an Immortal Grapple deck, or any of the other ways to beat S:CE. What's wrong with that? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > OK, I think we've got a bit lost on the whole thing. My original > point was that Muddles is balanced now, and if you let him beat out > S:CE and S:Dodge, then the only defense against him is to maneuver or, > as you pointed out, use Fortitude. Some of your responses are > assuming that I think Muddles is all that CURRENTLY, and I don't. =) > He's amusing right now. I would like to see more First Strike cards > on Muddles' level right now, yes. But the original point is slightly > different. =) True. I agree that the Muddled Vampire Hunter is indeed a fun card and I think that the First Strike nature of his attack does make him fun primarily because of his other abilities (especially the 4 damage). > He would be if you let him beat out S:CE and S:Dodge. Either of those > would still please me, though, since Muddles just made him burn one > more card. I really don't see what the big deal of making someone burn a card is in V:tES. The card gets replaced - possibly by something even more useful. THe cards are there as a resource and meant to be used. There is no "decking" rule in V:tES. I just used a Dodge/Majesty to stall an attack from a potent minion - that's what those cards are in the deck for! They get replaced and maybe another crucial part of my strategy is in full gear now. If I were the player of the Muddled, I'd rather get that attack through. What if MVH didn't exist at all? What would people then say about First Strike?? > Unh-uh! I would NEVER include Fake Out or Dodge in my deck just for > Muddles! See below. He works fine without those. Leather Jacket or I never said to include them JUST for Muddled. I said that a deck that needs maneuvers to work its strategy that cannot find them in its own disciplines can grab Fake Outs. > Flak Jacket though? I'd consider it; those can be stuck on other > people. But Muddles is awful slow anyway (1, bring out malkavian, 2, > bring out muddles, 3, muddles gets jacket, 4, muddles finally acts.. > icky.) so he really IS still a supplement. I agree . . . I'd rather be doing other things than blowing so many turns to get such tricks off. > Movement of the Mind. I have about .. mm.. lots. =) Jyhad card, > too. My first deck was Tremere. =) All right - now what about vamps that don't have the superior in Thaumaturgy? MoM's inferior is REALLy inferior in a Tremere deck designed to use Thaumaturgy to its fullest. Not that I wouldn't use it, but sometimes you need to get to long and you don't have superior Thaumaturgy. I used both Movements and Fake Outs in my Tremere decks but now a nice Sabbat card fixed this problem for the Tremere. > >your area simply stay at close range all the time? Did anyone in your area ever make > > Blood Fury and Cauldron of Blood are close-range cards. Not all > combat is conducted at long range with Tremere, although you're asking > for it a l'il bit if you don't include a Taste of Vitae with your > close range cards. =) Besides, I'll suffer through -some- damage to > get to a 2nd round with Tremere. This obviously falls over to Potence > Rush, but a LOT of decks fall over to Potence Rush. I understand that, but a lot of good Tremere attacks are at range and being at range gives them a modicum of defense against strong melee decks. Don't get me wrong - I love getting off a round-2 cauldron, but I also like being at range with my Tremere because they have so many good first-round ranged options. > My friend Pat has a weenie intercept deck with equipment. He has no > disciplineless cards involved, and his deck is just outright nasty. I > have a weenie deck with equipment, and I find it's too much of a > nuisance to get the equipment ONTO your weenies without people > gratuitously blocking you - but Pat went at it with a different > approach than I did, too. Well, I suppose it would be fair to state that we play with Concealed Weapon being discipline-less, so my deck tends to take advantage of that fact with Fake-Outs and Grenades and even allies like the Outcast Mage. I'd like to hear more about that intercept deck - sounds really interesting!! > Everyone in our group has a LOT of standing decks that get picked up > and cycled as necessary - all with QUITE a bit of variety. Our > playgroup generally goes after "stuff that hasn't been seen before", As does mine - I made a "Memories of Mortality" deck just for this purpose. > or "stuff that worked MISERABLY last time and has been fixed up to go > good now". You should really see some of the awful crazed stuff > people have made effective... and once a deck gets boring, it gets > disassembled and changed for the next "wouldn't it be neat if I could > make... THIS combo work?" Yes - we have a guy that built a deck around Trick of Danya and Cairo Int'l Airport and one time, he got the "GOD draw" and had his prey in a position where he couldn't even bring out a vampire . . . only happened once (and of course I was the prey with a BAD BAD crypt draw AND I got only one transfer) and he loved it . . . never won another game with the deck but he still tries to tweak it - he got really lucky and the tactic really impressed a lot of people. It was fun to see once. > There are lots of ways to make a combat defense deck not involving > Presence. Protean has Earth Meld OR Form of Mist. Dominate has > Obedience and Seduction to avoid being in combat in the first place. > Celerity has Sideslip. Fortitude has Skin of Steel. Obfuscate may > never actually get INTO combat except against a Rush deck. > Thaumaturgy and Potence are nasty combat deterrents on their own. > Animalism could use Drawing out the Beast and Aid from Bats, and if > they were blocking, use Cat's Guidance. Auspex's pile of Intercept > cards are designed to get INTO combat. What do you need Dodge for? > =) Dominate may be the weakest discipline out there since Obedience > can be very tricky. This is very true - MANY skills have combat defense and I believe I misspoke when I made my statement about Presence. We just seem to get a LOT of Majesty floating around out here and our group has boxes and boxes of cards but there are not that many Immortal Grapples to go around . . . > >Who said I "accidentally" stick in Fake Outs and Dodges in my decks? I try to put > > I "accidentally" put discipline cards in decks instead of Fake Outs > and Dodges :) It's a turn of phrase I use. Nothing personal > intended. Gotcha . . . another misread by me *s* > And that's why they're also not replaceable 'til after combat. Icky. Well - Wakes are not replaceable until after combat (and actually not until the Untap phase now), but still useful in a lot of decks. > Some people have made it work. I always seem to end up one crucial > card short when I use Fake Out and Dodge. *laugh* . . . I have been there . . . had a handful of Fake Outs once too . . . soo I had my Renegade Garou enter combat and maneuver and cancel his own maneuvers just to refill my hand . . . a little trickier with Dodge, I guess . . . > >Agreed - all of those are sound strategies and certainly the way I would play the > >Muddled Vampire Hunter. However, I believe that 3 copies of him are not warranted > >unless his First Strike ability WERE more useful. > > With First Strike beating S:CE and S:Dodge, I'll put a LOT of Muddles > in the deck and make SURE I always have him out unless I'm short pool, > since then he'll kick WAY too much bootie. Well, I'd like to see a MVH kick some real bootie instead of some prince yawning and telling me to bow down before him . . . yeah RIGHT Anson . . . take your 4 and go to torpor for a change *laugh* > Fast Reaction works BEAUTIFULLY against S:CE. So does Hidden Lurker. We tend to prefer the lurker because a lot of S:CE gets used in "defense" around here, so Fast Reactions don't get a chance to be played enough - just a metagame choice I guess. > From Fast Reaction card text: "the first round of this combat, the > acting minion cannot use any strikes." That includes S:CE and > S:Dodge. If you've never seen heavy S:CE come at you from your I am familiar with the card *s* > predator before, you need to play against our resident Freak Drive > person (whom Legbiter will undoubtedly remember). Anyway: Hidden > Lurker is the same but says "blocking minion". Psyche works well > also, since they may NOT have two in their hand and aren't guaranteed > to draw one - and the minute they don't, there should be one less > vampire who can Majesty sitting around. =) I guess my luck with Psyche! is very much akin to your luck with Fake Out/Dodge. I just never seem to have the right combo of cards to make the Psyche! work when I get it or I get it when he DOES have that second Majesty. > Thrown Gate doesn't belong in Immortal Grapple decks. Nor does Dodge. True . . . but I would argue that maneuvers certainly do belong . . . and actually, an occasional ranged strike for the times when you can't get an Immortal Grapple are not too uncommon. Recall - we don't have that many Immortal Grapples around here (well, I do, but I knew Majesty was going to be a pain someday when a lot of the players in our group were really interested in trading for Dominate Kine, Arcane Library and Eco Terrorists *grin*) > Torn Signposts, Increase/Undead Strength, Decapitate, Disarm, Burning > Wrath... these all belong. Thrown Gate belongs in a Thrown Objects > deck, which is NOT the deck I was speaking of, and a deck that is > BASED on the idea of getting to long range will annihilate Muddles, > obviously.. True - very true . . . but if you are splashing Flak Jackets for the occassional MVH, then SOME Potence decks are splashing Sewer lids or Gates for the occasional ranged attacker. > block the rush, just like with Muddles' rush. Bum's rush isn't at > stealth either. And if someone fears my Muddles so much that he > rushes him -- then I just paid 2 pool for an effective distraction > since he could've been rushing my vampires instead. Ahh, but maybe your vampires on the table are a little bit harder to Rush anyway . . . again - this one is situational . . . but a good point nonetheless. > So I can use Muddles to tap out a minion of a Potence Rush deck, or to > leave untapped and potentially block one of their Rushes? =) Nice 2 > pool there, i MUST say! Okay - but what is Muddle going to do against the vote deck out there and the bleed deck and the celeritous deck . . . he'll watch . . . maybe even get stolen . . . > It's not that he's going to immortally grapple my MVH, it's that MVH > is actually EFFECTIVE against Immortal Grapple, forcing someone who > undoubtedly has a very narrow, focused, close-range deck to come up > with a way to remove Muddles. Maybe I am not a proficient IG player, but I would think that the combat player would plan for contingencies . . . and in a lot of games that we playtest, the action to summon the Hunter often gets blocked. > Disguised Weapon is the only way to go for guns, IMO. Concealed > weapon if you have the house rule that it's disciplineless. If you > Rush someone and they Disguised Weapon a gun, oh well. All tricks > have to fail somewhere. If I bring out a NEW muddles and rush the > same Methuselah who just disguised-weapon a gun LAST time... well... i > would personally assume that he was gonna do it again even if I rushed > a different minion. Well - that is what I like . . . there are good counters to the strategy available to most any deck archetype . . . except S:CE . . . I guess I seem to feel that S:CE has answers for most types of combat strategy and the current MVH can be answered by lots of different strategy . . . seems imbalanced to me . . . > Yup. I still toss 2-3 in deck... just in case. ;) Okay . . . but they are useful regardless of the "First Strike" . . . the First Strike nature is merely a bonus . . . now if there were more cards that had First Strike at inferior and provided some really interesting results, then I would really like to use them. > Er, just reading down, I also wanted to point out that the original > topic was Muddles, not "is S:CE beatable." =) That said... True > ...immortal grapple.. run them out of S:CE... Gideon is a 3-cap weenie > so DoTB and Weather Control put a major dent in him, especially if > he's using Majesty untap... Dawn op + DoTB is a rude awakening for > anyone using S:CE... Okay . . . I have 10 Immortal grapples in my possession and it took a LOT of effort to get them . . . what is the "poor-man's" way of dealing with it for a potence deck? And DoTB is really nice unless you do have a lot of combat decks in the game where that extra +1 hand damage can really hurt you! > >And a lot of guys here metagame against Immortal Grapple because it is so good > >against S:CE so when the Immortal Grapple player faces a combat deck without the > >Immortal Grapples, the IG player gets slaughtered a lot simply because the other > >player had 1 or 2 combat cards where the IG player had IG's. > > Do you see the rock-scissors-paper here? I do. > > Immortal Grapple beats S:CE. > Ranged combat beats immortal grapple. > S:CE beats ranged combat. > > If your metagame leans one way, make a deck to hammer that style and > lean it back the other way. Lots of sneak & bleed? Make weenie > celerity intercept and pillage for awhile. Lots of combat? Make an > S:CE deck. Lots of S:CE? Make an Immortal Grapple deck, or any of > the other ways to beat S:CE. > > What's wrong with that? I think I would just like one of the "rock paper scissors" techniques to not have to be based around a rare card is all . . . if there were a common defense (a defense as COMMON as S:CE) to replace Immortal Grapple, I'd probably stop my moaning about the weakness of First Strike. Everyone love to say how good Immortal Grapple is, but it is still a rare and I like the fact that it seemed like most COMMON cards in Jyhad were the really good ones . . . but you raised excellent points all around . . . great discussion . . . Myron Mychal

Myron Mychal wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > This was pretty much my point when I said that First Strike shouldn't > > beat S:CE or dodge when you look at "game-world" mechanics. The only > > effects that simulate hitting someone when they aren't aware of the > > attack are Fast Reactions and Hidden Lurker. Otherwise, the opposing > > minion is aware of the attack and if he's doing nothing but dodging will > > still probably get away (unless of course, you strike like a > > Scorpion...). > > Well . . . to me the term "First Strike" means that it happens before the opponent can > even blink . . . perhaps the cards that would be good First Strike cards should have > really swoopy-cool names like "Gotcha!!!" or "SURPRISE!!!" > Well, the game mechanic doesn't support that, otherwise First Strike would be declared before maneuvers. We have two cards in the game that indicate a surprise attack. That is, the opponent cannot react to the attack becase he doesn't know it's coming (FR and HL). First strike does not work this way. The strike hits just fractions of a second before the opposing minion's strike (how long do you think a round of combat takes, anyway?). To get the effect you want, the card would be something more along the lines of: "The opposing minion does not get his or her initial strike this round, but gets an additional strike that does not count against his or her additional strike for the round." First strike is not that. > > Well, it's certainly rare. I still don't believe it's that weak. > > Have you ever built a deck around the First Strike ability that did not include Muddled > Vampire Hunters? I do have a celeritous deck based around backstab that is pretty > effective if it is allowed to beat S:CE and a lot less effective and practically > unplayable if it isn't. > How many cards can give any generic attack first strike? Muddles and Backstab, right? Backstab is way overcosted. That seems good enough for me. If the cost were 0, then the card would be good. Why not just play *that* as a house rule? Well, whatever, play how you want... > > Yes, I've always hated the conditions for withdrawal. Although, > > withdrawals still happen... especially if playing for ante (only > > happens in league games as far as I know, and I haven't seen that many > > leagues out there). Unfortunately, withdrawal is basically only an > > Wow! What kind of deck did THAT happen in? It HAD to be a heavy Auspex deck with > Telepathic Counters because I can't see any other kind of deck being able to meet all of > the criteria of withdrawal/ > You misunderstand. I have actually never seen a withdrawal happen unless both players agreed. I *have* however seen withdrawal play a huge part in games. One example: The game had stagnated. There were three players left, but no player dared bleed, lest he be simply blocked and then ousted by his predator (all of us had low pool). I announced my intention to withdraw. Now, my predator was forced to make a decision. Let me withdraw, or risk getting ousted. He tried to bleed me with a single vampire. I blocked, and my withdrawal attempt was lost. Then, on my prey's turn, he bled with all of his vampires and ousted my predator, after which I ousted him (even with his new 6 pool). So, while withdrawal didn't happen, it played a huge part in a stagnant game. Personally, I think withdrawal should be allowed even if your library isn't exhausted, although I suppose that raises the problem that players can withdraw successfully on their first turn (useful in tourneys if you just need 1 VP to get to the final). > > option when both players agree. I think that withdrawal was not really > > meant to be something that happened much, but mainly a mechanic to > > discourage stagnant games. And to finish a game when no one can cause > > any harm to anyone else (it can happen...). > > I guess it can happen, but it is pretty rare here for a predator to "agree" to letting a > player withdraw. We want our victory points. > You misunderstand again. This mostly happens when only two players are left. Since these are league games where this has happened, we are playing for ante. One example: My opponent and I each had about 5 pool left and were pretty even in terms of minions. I had anted a Body Flare, while he anted a Surprise Influence. My deck used protean, but I had no need for Surprise Influence, as my deck had the best political power in the league. He, on the other hand, sorely needed that SI for vote protection but didn't use protean. So, I offered to withdraw, if he would let me. He pondered for a bit. I warned him, "If you do not accept this offer now, I won't make it again later if you start losing..." Since the game was even and neither one of us was sure of a victory, he agreed. We then agreed to discard each turn until one of us had a depleted library and then that person would withdraw. We didn't actually play out the rest of the game, but agreed that I had withdrawn and we ended the game with 2VP's each. > > Madness of the Bard is only banned in tournaments, and that only because > > it puts non-native speakers at a disadvantage (this disadvantage is > > actually arguable, but a case can be made that non-native speakers *may* > > be at a disadvantage). Personally, I love playing Madness on the few > > occasions that I play a Malk deck. It really pisses people off... 8) > > I guess that makes sense, but it seems that most of the strategy talk around here > centers on tournament play since people are really vehement in voicing their opinions to > house rules *laugh* . . . or am I wrong in that assumption?? > Well strategy talk around here revolves around official rules. Tournament play is sort of important, and people don't generally discuss cards that aren't used in tournaments, but that's not a hard and fast rule. If you were to make a paralyzation deck, people wouldn't yell at you and say "NOT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!" Tournaments, while fun and useful for cross-playgroup interaction, are not the be-all and/or end-all of Jyhad. -Chris

James Coupe wrote: > >Ah, the motionless dodge - It all becomes so clear... > > I was more referring to Majesty et al - the Strike: Combat Ends lot - > but if I'm having to reach you and smack you one, and you're moving away > from me, then I think that, no matter how fast you can punch me, I'm > still nowhere near you cos I leapt out of the way with my dodge. Not > going towards you. > Yeah I know, just couldn't resist the jibe. Like I said I don't see anything wrong with the way it is and always has been. The time that a round of combat takes is pretty short anyway and having first strike therefore doesn't really send the punch (or whatever) in that much quicker, so if I was running scared and wanted to dodge then I don't think I'd wait until the punch was just about to score a hit on my nose before I ducked or whatever. Martin.

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:47:50 -0500, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: > *snip for brevity* > >> He would be if you let him beat out S:CE and S:Dodge. Either of those >> would still please me, though, since Muddles just made him burn one >> more card. > >I really don't see what the big deal of making someone burn a card is in V:tES. The card >gets replaced - possibly by something even more useful. THe cards are there as a >resource and meant to be used. There is no "decking" rule in V:tES. I just used a >Dodge/Majesty to stall an attack from a potent minion - that's what those cards are in >the deck for! They get replaced and maybe another crucial part of my strategy is in full >gear now. If I were the player of the Muddled, I'd rather get that attack through. Hm. I guess I look at it a little differently. Yeah, the card gets replaced. But the cards are a finite resource, and I know that in the decks I have that run Majesty, I keep VERY close track of how many I've got left in the deck... ie, i put 10 in this one, I've had to play 5 so far, do I want to take another weenie Presence bleed action with this guy that WILL be blocked and play my 6th right now, knowing that I may not draw my 7th and then be in a world of hurt even though i'm untapped? I don't know whether other people do this sort of thing or not, but I know that in a 90 card deck you're never guaranteed to draw the -right- card. I have a 'thrown objects' deck that I play right now that does -real- well against Majesty despite having no significant counters to it other than Psyche! -- but that's because I have an ungodly number of throwable objects in it, and enough Rushes/Havens so that all four minions can Rush on the same turn. If you're depending on Majesty to survive against me, and I'm making you wipe out four of them a turn, you'll eventually not draw one and lose a vampire, since you're only cycling one card per combat and I'm using up maybe 1 strike card. And if I -ever- see you not have Majesty on a given combat, I'll even speculative-rush with everyone left if I have to in the hopes of drawing enough strike cards to maybe "get" another vamp of yours. That's what I see frequently enough to make me not worry TOO much about S:CE being in front of my combat deck. Unless too much of your deck is Majesty, and then you may have trouble moving forward on your own since you have no action cards. =) > >What if MVH didn't exist at all? What would people then say about First Strike?? That fast hands and shattering blow are nice to include in the event equipment is sitting next to you? =) >> Unh-uh! I would NEVER include Fake Out or Dodge in my deck just for >> Muddles! See below. He works fine without those. Leather Jacket or > >I never said to include them JUST for Muddled. I said that a deck that needs maneuvers >to work its strategy that cannot find them in its own disciplines can grab Fake Outs. Yeah, but you said I said to include them just for Muddles. =) Which I didn't. ;) Fake Out ... weeeeeelll ok =) I just don't like cards that I don't get to replace. =) *snip* >> Movement of the Mind. I have about .. mm.. lots. =) Jyhad card, >> too. My first deck was Tremere. =) > >All right - now what about vamps that don't have the superior in Thaumaturgy? MoM's >inferior is REALLy inferior in a Tremere deck designed to use Thaumaturgy to its >fullest. Not that I wouldn't use it, but sometimes you need to get to long and you >don't have superior Thaumaturgy. I used both Movements and Fake Outs in my Tremere decks >but now a nice Sabbat card fixed this problem for the Tremere. vamps without a Thaumaturgy superior are the ones who play Burst of Sunlight when some nice 9-cap decides to block them - I don't ever bring out Thaumaturgy inferior if I can help it as anything other than a token blocker, Charnas summoner, or Cryptic Mission person, and I have a few skill cards in the deck so that hopefully I can make them superior. =) I mean, inferior Thaumaturgy is just that- inferior. >> >your area simply stay at close range all the time? Did anyone in your area ever make >> >> Blood Fury and Cauldron of Blood are close-range cards. Not all >> combat is conducted at long range with Tremere, although you're asking >> for it a l'il bit if you don't include a Taste of Vitae with your >> close range cards. =) Besides, I'll suffer through -some- damage to >> get to a 2nd round with Tremere. This obviously falls over to Potence >> Rush, but a LOT of decks fall over to Potence Rush. > >I understand that, but a lot of good Tremere attacks are at range and being at range >gives them a modicum of defense against strong melee decks. Don't get me wrong - I love >getting off a round-2 cauldron, but I also like being at range with my Tremere because >they have so many good first-round ranged options. A lot of good Tremere attacks are at 2nd round range though. THAT is when you want to be sure to have the maneuver. =) And i'm not sure entirely about the "so many good first round ranged options" thing here... Shotgun Ritual is neat, but... I took to sticking IR Goggles in the deck. Slightly expensive in terms of time. Lots better as far as maneuvers go, makes sure you get some strike cards in your hand. Thaumaturgy has enough trouble with hand jam as it is that I'd be scared of sticking enough maneuvers for rounds 1 *and* 2 in the deck. I'd likely get a hand with a bunch of maneuvers and no first-round attacks. =) > >> My friend Pat has a weenie intercept deck with equipment. He has no >> disciplineless cards involved, and his deck is just outright nasty. I >> have a weenie deck with equipment, and I find it's too much of a >> nuisance to get the equipment ONTO your weenies without people >> gratuitously blocking you - but Pat went at it with a different >> approach than I did, too. > >Well, I suppose it would be fair to state that we play with Concealed Weapon being >discipline-less, so my deck tends to take advantage of that fact with Fake-Outs and >Grenades and even allies like the Outcast Mage. I'd like to hear more about that >intercept deck - sounds really interesting!! concealed weapon being disciplineless -does- make a bit of a difference in all of this, yes. =) *snip about deck types, etc. and such* >This is very true - MANY skills have combat defense and I believe I misspoke when I made >my statement about Presence. We just seem to get a LOT of Majesty floating around out >here and our group has boxes and boxes of cards but there are not that many Immortal >Grapples to go around . . . True, it is rare. But there are a lot of sneaky ways around Majesty as well as the straightforward Immortal Grapple pummel-em-senseless approach. Besides, if you have vote deck trouble, just intercept all his votes and don't worry about his Majesty; you didn't necessarily want to kill him outright, you just didn't want him to be voting at all =) >> And that's why they're also not replaceable 'til after combat. Icky. > >Well - Wakes are not replaceable until after combat (and actually not until the Untap >phase now), but still useful in a lot of decks. We don't see that many Wakes anymore unless they have intercept to go along with 'em. I mean, why Wake and try to block something you can't stop anyway? =) Only one of my decks has any Wakes in it, and that's the Tremere deck where there's a l'il bit of "old hairy eyeball" floating around to make it worthwhile. Other decks just leave one minion untapped if things look grim (and are blockable), or in the case of the Rush deck, tap out and work via intimidation and removal of "bad" predator vampires. =) >> Some people have made it work. I always seem to end up one crucial >> card short when I use Fake Out and Dodge. > >*laugh* . . . I have been there . . . had a handful of Fake Outs once too . . . soo I had >my Renegade Garou enter combat and maneuver and cancel his own maneuvers just to refill >my hand . . . a little trickier with Dodge, I guess . . . er... you DO know you can't do that? Can't use maneuvers to cancel your own maneuvers just to draw cards... =) and can't draw cards to replace with Fake Out til after combat =) A lot trickier than you think! >> With First Strike beating S:CE and S:Dodge, I'll put a LOT of Muddles >> in the deck and make SURE I always have him out unless I'm short pool, >> since then he'll kick WAY too much bootie. > >Well, I'd like to see a MVH kick some real bootie instead of some prince yawning and >telling me to bow down before him . . . yeah RIGHT Anson . . . take your 4 and go to >torpor for a change *laugh* It'd be nice to see him kick bootie yeah, but it wouldn't be nice to see him -that- overpowered. Then it's DEFINITELY worth putting a Flak/Leather Jacket on him. >> predator before, you need to play against our resident Freak Drive >> person (whom Legbiter will undoubtedly remember). Anyway: Hidden >> Lurker is the same but says "blocking minion". Psyche works well >> also, since they may NOT have two in their hand and aren't guaranteed >> to draw one - and the minute they don't, there should be one less >> vampire who can Majesty sitting around. =) > >I guess my luck with Psyche! is very much akin to your luck with Fake Out/Dodge. I just >never seem to have the right combo of cards to make the Psyche! work when I get it or I >get it when he DOES have that second Majesty. Then you just made him burn two Majesties for one Rush. Your next vampire can Rush and has that much more chance that he didn't draw three Majesties in a row. ;) Your next vampire after THAT has LOTS of chance that he didn't draw FOUR. In all seriousness, you might just have a slightly unfocused deck. I usually don't have trouble drawing all the strike cards I need in my Rush deck; the only question would be if I had an Immortal Grapple or not. And facing Majesty, as soon as I know I am, I hang onto the 'perfect combo' and just discard other stuff (or don't discard) until the time when he DOES run out of Majesty, so then I can Psyche! and dump four cards from my hand and go "HA! GOTCHA." >> Thrown Gate doesn't belong in Immortal Grapple decks. Nor does Dodge. > >True . . . but I would argue that maneuvers certainly do belong . . . and actually, an >occasional ranged strike for the times when you can't get an Immortal Grapple are not too >uncommon. Recall - we don't have that many Immortal Grapples around here (well, I do, hmm. i'd like to defer to James Hamblin and some of the other close-range Rush gurus on this one, but I wouldn't like to put Sewer Lids in an Immortal Grapple deck on the unfortunate chance that I'd draw the Sewer Lid when I needed the Torn Signpost or Increased Strength, OR when I didn't have the maneuver in hand, worse! Not to mention that I wouldn't want to waste the maneuver cards to go to long range when I knew he was just going to play Majesty. I wouldn't want to put Gates by themselves in a Grapple deck just because you're stuck with the strike if you use the maneuver, and a Gate isn't a hand strike. So you can't Gate to close range again and Grapple (well, you CAN, i guess, but you negated your own strike and I hope you have a good Blur handy), and a Gate by itself is only 2 points of damage, even assuming superior POT. A Rush deck needs to do more than 2 points of damage to be effective, so I wouldn't want to waste a Rush if I wasn't going to torporize a vampire. Rather just bleed and see if he blocks (not bloody likely if he knows what you're playing), and discard 'til you get at least the start of the right combo. =) >but I knew Majesty was going to be a pain someday when a lot of the players in our group >were really interested in trading for Dominate Kine, Arcane Library and Eco Terrorists >*grin*) > >> Torn Signposts, Increase/Undead Strength, Decapitate, Disarm, Burning >> Wrath... these all belong. Thrown Gate belongs in a Thrown Objects >> deck, which is NOT the deck I was speaking of, and a deck that is >> BASED on the idea of getting to long range will annihilate Muddles, >> obviously.. > >True - very true . . . but if you are splashing Flak Jackets for the occassional MVH, >then SOME Potence decks are splashing Sewer lids or Gates for the occasional ranged >attacker. rather put another Flash in than a gate or Lid, and get to close range where all my cards are useful again ;) >> block the rush, just like with Muddles' rush. Bum's rush isn't at >> stealth either. And if someone fears my Muddles so much that he >> rushes him -- then I just paid 2 pool for an effective distraction >> since he could've been rushing my vampires instead. > >Ahh, but maybe your vampires on the table are a little bit harder to Rush anyway . . . >again - this one is situational . . . but a good point nonetheless. in a Malkavian sneak & bleed deck? My vampires are HIGHLY vulnerable to Rush. That's the only deck I could really see Muddles being of -good- use to; providing token combat to a completely non-combat deck. Weenie Malkavian intercept with guns? Don't waste 2 pool on Muddles, buy a .44 instead since Muddles doesn't intercept. >> So I can use Muddles to tap out a minion of a Potence Rush deck, or to >> leave untapped and potentially block one of their Rushes? =) Nice 2 >> pool there, i MUST say! > >Okay - but what is Muddle going to do against the vote deck out there and the bleed deck >and the celeritous deck . . . he'll watch . . . maybe even get stolen . . . Stolen by a Presence Entrancement or Dominate Far Mastery? Maybe. Risks you gotta take. against the celery deck, if he doesn't beat S:Dodge, he won't come out. If he DOES beat s:dodge, he's way too strong a deterrent. >> It's not that he's going to immortally grapple my MVH, it's that MVH >> is actually EFFECTIVE against Immortal Grapple, forcing someone who >> undoubtedly has a very narrow, focused, close-range deck to come up >> with a way to remove Muddles. > >Maybe I am not a proficient IG player, but I would think that the combat player would >plan for contingencies . . . and in a lot of games that we playtest, the action to summon >the Hunter often gets blocked. That's the best way to deal with ANY problematic situation, be it equipment, votes, or allies. But the action to summon Muddles is +1 stealth, so you have to have intercept handy. =) Focused IG decks don't (shouldn't) have intercept since they ought to be tapping out obliterating vampires, removing the need for intercept since nobody is left to take actions. =) >Well - that is what I like . . . there are good counters to the strategy available to >most any deck archetype . . . except S:CE . . . I guess I seem to feel that S:CE has >answers for most types of combat strategy and the current MVH can be answered by lots of >different strategy . . . seems imbalanced to me . . . Muddles -is- limited-use, but then again so are all allies... 'cept maybe Renegade Garou, but he costs *5*. I just don't want to see Muddles made into a monster that only costs 2 pool in the name of fixing some other cards that aren't hurting all THAT badly. >> Yup. I still toss 2-3 in deck... just in case. ;) > >Okay . . . but they are useful regardless of the "First Strike" . . . the First Strike >nature is merely a bonus . . . now if there were more cards that had First Strike at >inferior and provided some really interesting results, then I would really like to use >them. Heck no. The First Strike is the only reason I put 'em in the deck. I don't necessarily want your weapon; I want you to NOT shoot ME with it. I don't want your Sport Bike, I just want YOU to not have it anymore. First Strike helps oodles on this, but more really with Fast Hands, where if I'm going to try to Fast Hands someone, it's because he has something I'm worried about or that might get in my way, like a gun. (for casual information, the deck Fast Hands lives in is a brujah Thrown Objects deck; so if it DID pick up a .44 or Submachine gun, I probably WOULD use 'em for additional strikes whenever I didn't have the cards in-hand. But anyway.) >> ...immortal grapple.. run them out of S:CE... Gideon is a 3-cap weenie >> so DoTB and Weather Control put a major dent in him, especially if >> he's using Majesty untap... Dawn op + DoTB is a rude awakening for >> anyone using S:CE... > >Okay . . . I have 10 Immortal grapples in my possession and it took a LOT of effort to >get them . . . what is the "poor-man's" way of dealing with it for a potence deck? And >DoTB is really nice unless you do have a lot of combat decks in the game where that extra >+1 hand damage can really hurt you! 10 should be fine. James Hamblin and a couple others could give you detailed *good* advice, which mine may not be ;), about potence decks and IG - but 10, as I mentioned above, should be 10 dead vampires. Just narrow your deck down to where you always have the close-range combat cards, and then whenever you draw an IG you get to beat someone silly. DoTB shouldn't really be used unless you intend to get to long range, S:CE *yourself*, Skin of Steel, or in some way avoid the hand damage. =) And I certainly wouldn't Draw Out against any combat deck. But from what it sounds like to me, your problem isn't that there's combat on the table, it's that there isn't a LOT of combat on the table and tehre IS a lot of S:CE. [rock-paper-SNIP] >> What's wrong with that? > >I think I would just like one of the "rock paper scissors" techniques to not have to be >based around a rare card is all . . . if there were a common defense (a defense as COMMON >as S:CE) to replace Immortal Grapple, I'd probably stop my moaning about the weakness of >First Strike. Everyone love to say how good Immortal Grapple is, but it is still a rare >and I like the fact that it seemed like most COMMON cards in Jyhad were the really good >ones . . . but you raised excellent points all around . . . great discussion . . . There is a small problem with the rareness, yes, but it's also a very good card, so I can't support it being TOO un-rare. I mean, if you notice, it got errata'd to only extend through one round. =) In Sabbat, IG is an Uncommon card, I believe, so that can help a great deal as far as filling out your IG stuff - but Sabbat is sort of expensive, too. (shrug) The only stock Jyhad clan that has a real *problem* with S:CE, to me, are the Tremere - and they can (if they MUST) use Thoughts Betrayed, but that's a Dark Sovereigns card. Good discussion, yes. =) I wish one of the Rush gurus would leap in here though and help out with some of those points. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray (lor...@mindsprung.com) wrote: : On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:47:50 -0500, Myron Mychal : <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: : >True - very true . . . but if you are splashing Flak Jackets for the : >occassional MVH, : >then SOME Potence decks are splashing Sewer lids or Gates for the : >occasional ranged : >attacker. : rather put another Flash in than a gate or Lid, and get to close range : where all my cards are useful again ;) Yes. The effective Potence pure-rush combat deck that uses Immortal Grapples and close-range combat does not usually want to throw in Gates or Lids, even if they could sometimes be useful. A Flash to make the rest of your deck work the way it's supposed to is usually much better. A Malkavian deck (stealth and bleed or whatever) usually has much more flexibility in putting in 'prayer' cards like Muddled Vampire Hunter than a pure-rush combat deck does in putting in 'prayer' cards like Computer Hacking, Inveraray Scotland, Laptop Computer, Thrown Sewer Lid, etc. This is because the pure-rush combat deck relies on relatively large multi-card combos to be effective. Things that can't be played in those combos under normal circumstances tend to cause crippling hand jams and can severely reduce the effectiveness of the deck. Any kind of non-combat deck can usually much better afford to have a few 'prayer' cards that are only *really* useful under certain conditions, because the main focus of the deck doesn't revolve around large combos with intensive card cycling. That's why Muddled Vampire Hunter is more playable to a Malk stealth-bleed deck than Thrown Sewer Lid is to an Immortal Grapple pure-rush combat deck. : >Okay . . . I have 10 Immortal grapples in my possession and it took a : >LOT of effort to : >get them . . . what is the "poor-man's" way of dealing with it for a : >potence deck? And : >DoTB is really nice unless you do have a lot of combat decks in the : >game where that extra : >+1 hand damage can really hurt you! : 10 should be fine. James Hamblin and a couple others could give you : detailed *good* advice, which mine may not be ;), about potence decks : and IG - but 10, as I mentioned above, should be 10 dead vampires. : Just narrow your deck down to where you always have the close-range : combat cards, and then whenever you draw an IG you get to beat someone : silly. Ten Immortal Grapples is an acceptable number in 80 cards; it could be a little light for 90. Yes, Immortal Grapple is rare (except for being uncommon in Sabbat) but they have historically not been all that hard to get ahold of. (Or at least, they weren't for my group. On the other hand, we did buy quite a lot of cards.) Mark Korshavn sells them for no more than $1.00 apiece when he has them, I think. Probably the most effective poor-man's way to deal with Strike:Combat Ends in Potence is to use weenies, so that you can just Rush and Rush again, until they run out of S:CE. Unless they're playing a huge percentage of S:CE, they *will* run out because they can't cycle their hand fast enough while you're rushing them. If they *are* playing a huge percentage of S:CE, then the metagame is not currently ripe for a non-Immortal Grapple potence combat deck. Play a non-combat deck and let them choke on their S:CE hand jams. : DoTB shouldn't really be used unless you intend to get to long range, : S:CE *yourself*, Skin of Steel, or in some way avoid the hand damage. : =) And I certainly wouldn't Draw Out against any combat deck. But : from what it sounds like to me, your problem isn't that there's combat : on the table, it's that there isn't a LOT of combat on the table and : tehre IS a lot of S:CE. Drawing Out the Beast is probably best in a Gangrel combat deck, where you can just prevent the extra hand damage if you need to. It's handy for the Gangrel in that it does damage even against S:CE, which the Gangrel otherwise have a tough time doing. : [rock-paper-SNIP] : >I think I would just like one of the "rock paper scissors" techniques to : >not have to be : >based around a rare card is all . . . if there were a common defense : >(a defense as COMMON : >as S:CE) to replace Immortal Grapple, I'd probably stop my moaning about : >the weakness of : >First Strike. Everyone love to say how good Immortal Grapple is, but : >it is still a rare : >and I like the fact that it seemed like most COMMON cards in Jyhad were : >the really good : >ones . . . but you raised excellent points all around . . . great : >discussion . . . : There is a small problem with the rareness, yes, but it's also a very : good card, so I can't support it being TOO un-rare. I mean, if you : notice, it got errata'd to only extend through one round. =) In : Sabbat, IG is an Uncommon card, I believe, so that can help a great : deal as far as filling out your IG stuff - but Sabbat is sort of : expensive, too. (shrug) The only stock Jyhad clan that has a real : *problem* with S:CE, to me, are the Tremere - and they can (if they : MUST) use Thoughts Betrayed, but that's a Dark Sovereigns card. : Good discussion, yes. =) I wish one of the Rush gurus would leap in : here though and help out with some of those points. ;) Hope this was at least a little helpful. ;-) Yeah, it would be nice if Immortal Grapple had originally been, say, uncommon instead of rare. (Common might have been a little too prolific for such a special-purpose card - only good for Potence combat decks that like short range.) But you can't have everything... The real problem, I think, is that Strike:Combat Ends did turn out to be a little more handy than it should've been, considering how easy it is to come by. It would have been a better design decision, I think, if disciplineless Dodge were not so far inferior to Majesty, Earth Meld, et al. As for my take on the whole First Strike thing: I would prefer not to see First Strike reruled to beat Dodge and S:CE. I think it would be going too far in alterations of rules for insufficient purpose. (I think we've already gone awfully close to that in some of the changes - ultra-slow Wake replacement I don't think was necessary; similarly making Immortal Grapple last only one round; etc.) New rulings and errata, in my opinion, should be made basically only for clearly overpowered cards. Trying to make wallpaper into playable things is something best left to house rules in individual playgroups, I think. It's a worthy cause, but there's just too much wallpaper to try and fix it all - it would add excessively to the new card texts for people to remember. (Again, the line beyond which even we 7/7 supporters don't want to go. ;-) I mean, there are only two cards in existence that even produce First Strike as an effect (as opposed to things like Canine Horde that have First Strike as an incidental attribute) as far as I can tell: Backstab and Silence of Death. They both pretty much suck. This is both because First Strike isn't that good, and because they're just plain overcosted (since First Strike isn't that good). But there were lots of other sucky cards in that expansion too, and I don't think they should get any special preference on being improved... (regarding the 'the mechanic is weak and rare' point - in the Jyhad rulebook, I believe there's a combat effect called 'Close Quarters' listed. It means that there's no maneuvering for the rest of combat; it'll all be at close range. This effect was never used on a single card, and it was probably removed from the VTES rulebook... Sometimes, the game designers just don't think things out carefully enough.) Josh 'and an almost fanatical devotion to the Immortal Grapple...'

Derek S. Ray wrote: <snipped a lot of redundant text for brevity also> > Hm. I guess I look at it a little differently. Yeah, the card gets > replaced. But the cards are a finite resource, and I know that in the > decks I have that run Majesty, I keep VERY close track of how many > I've got left in the deck... ie, i put 10 in this one, I've had to True - very true. And not just with Majesty. In a vote deck, I keep track of how many of my key cards - be they votes or Majesties or Bewitching Orations - have gone by, so each card is a precious limited resource. > draw the -right- card. I have a 'thrown objects' deck that I play > right now that does -real- well against Majesty despite having no > significant counters to it other than Psyche! -- but that's because I > have an ungodly number of throwable objects in it, and enough > Rushes/Havens so that all four minions can Rush on the same turn. If This is how I have been dealing with Majesty decks of late. I usually can find a way to get their hand full of votes and presence bleeds to nab one or two of their vamps with mine. However, it is sometimes a double-edged sword with this strategy, because I often find that the presence-heavy Methuselah will take his losses in vamps and then on his turn, direct those presence-bleeds at my untapped self. I certainly do that when I am playing with directed presence bleeds, but isn't all that just part of the fun of this game? *s* > vamp of yours. That's what I see frequently enough to make me not > worry TOO much about S:CE being in front of my combat deck. Unless > too much of your deck is Majesty, and then you may have trouble moving > forward on your own since you have no action cards. =) I have had few problems in dealing with S:CE in my group now. I have tried every tactic from Hidden Lurkers to Memories of Mortality with Renegade Garous. There are certainly many intricacies in dealing with combat defense, but if combat were so easy to begin with, nobody would play a defensive deck at all. Excellent points all around, Derek. > >What if MVH didn't exist at all? What would people then say about First Strike?? > > That fast hands and shattering blow are nice to include in the event > equipment is sitting next to you? =) True . . . I think part of my stand is based on the effectiveness of First Strike in Magic. It is a premier ability in that game, and maybe subconsciously, I like to think of speedy strikes as being premier in V:tES. And I still play with Fast Hands/Shattering Blow in my decks with First Strike as it stands (not to mention Canine Horde). > >I never said to include them JUST for Muddled. I said that a deck that needs maneuvers > >to work its strategy that cannot find them in its own disciplines can grab Fake Outs. > > Yeah, but you said I said to include them just for Muddles. =) Which > I didn't. ;) Fake Out ... weeeeeelll ok =) I just don't like cards > that I don't get to replace. =) I just reread your past posts and you are absolutely right . . . I guess I implied that, and man you gotta TRY 'em *laugh* . . . I am sure you have, otherwise you wouldn't bemoan your bad luck at getting a handful of irreplaceable cards *s* . . . but sometimes a well-timed Fake-Out on an ally is sweet . . . people never expect someone using an ally to play cards during combat (well, I wouldn't say NEVER, but it is a nice surprise) . . . I am just a guy that hates having wallpaper cards, I guess . . . > vamps without a Thaumaturgy superior are the ones who play Burst of > Sunlight when some nice 9-cap decides to block them - I don't ever > bring out Thaumaturgy inferior if I can help it as anything other than > a token blocker, Charnas summoner, or Cryptic Mission person, and I > have a few skill cards in the deck so that hopefully I can make them > superior. =) I mean, inferior Thaumaturgy is just that- inferior. Okay . . . I see your point. And it's nice that we can have different views on a Tremere deck. I actually use that Master Card to give my vamps superior Thaumaturgy already (and I also believe that inferior celerity is REALLY inferior too). One of my Tremere Thaumaturgy decks tried to rely on the weenie Tremere so I could use LOTS of minions to get into combat, so I relied pretty heavily on inferior Thaumaturgy to the point where I included a few Fake-Outs and Boxed-Ins in my deck. > A lot of good Tremere attacks are at 2nd round range though. THAT is > when you want to be sure to have the maneuver. =) And i'm not sure > entirely about the "so many good first round ranged options" thing > here... Shotgun Ritual is neat, but... Okay . . . point taken . . . I was specifically referring to "Theft of Vitae" as a good first round ranged strike. Of course all of their best strikes are for the second round . . . but I always felt that I should have SOMETHING good to do that first round other than press to get to the second round. > I took to sticking IR Goggles in the deck. Slightly expensive in > terms of time. Lots better as far as maneuvers go, makes sure you get > some strike cards in your hand. Thaumaturgy has enough trouble with > hand jam as it is that I'd be scared of sticking enough maneuvers for > rounds 1 *and* 2 in the deck. I'd likely get a hand with a bunch of > maneuvers and no first-round attacks. =) True . . . and using Rutor's Hand on occassion speeds up the use of IR Goggles. My deck actually had a LOT of Theft of Vitae in it and focused less on the second round. My main goal was steal their blood and if I should get the second-round combos off, they will be DEAD. And that is why I had a lot of little vamps. Rush and steal, rush and steal while replenishing my hand and lookee there! Some second-round strikes and all the presses/maneuvers I need . . . Rush, steal and BURN! But a press-heavy Tremere deck acan also work well . . . I just wanted to try something new. ANd the Fake Outs worked well because I would have multiple combats during my turn and my hand would get replenished between each combat . . . even if I were just rushing in to maneuver and steal one or two blood, i'd do it. The deck worked well . . . and was fun to play. > True, it is rare. But there are a lot of sneaky ways around Majesty > as well as the straightforward Immortal Grapple pummel-em-senseless > approach. Besides, if you have vote deck trouble, just intercept all > his votes and don't worry about his Majesty; you didn't necessarily > want to kill him outright, you just didn't want him to be voting at > all =) The voters here are smart though. They use Natasha Volfcheck and Rebekka (that +1 stealthy PRE Tremere) and I even have a Toreador vote deck that uses Toreador Grand Ball, but yes - I use intercept to stop votes too. I just like to smack the snot out of the voter when I do it - again, a different style of play - I love this game. > We don't see that many Wakes anymore unless they have intercept to go > along with 'em. I mean, why Wake and try to block something you can't > stop anyway? =) Only one of my decks has any Wakes in it, and that's > the Tremere deck where there's a l'il bit of "old hairy eyeball" > floating around to make it worthwhile. Other decks just leave one > minion untapped if things look grim (and are blockable), or in the > case of the Rush deck, tap out and work via intimidation and removal > of "bad" predator vampires. =) Ahhh . . . come play against my Smiling Jack deck *grin* . . . I posted it here yesterday. We see a lot of Wakes here (and I use a lot) not only to untap to block, but to untap to bounce/counter a bleed. I guess it's all in the Metagame. > er... you DO know you can't do that? Can't use maneuvers to cancel > your own maneuvers just to draw cards... =) and can't draw cards to > replace with Fake Out til after combat =) A lot trickier than you > think! I have been playing for a long time and read and reread TONS of errata but never saw that you cannot cancel your own maneuvers . . . it makes sense I guess . . . (and boiy do I feel like a newbie for posting that tactic in public) . . . WOW! I'll have to tell my playgroup. And with regard to not replacing after combat - well I know we played correctly with that rule . . . what I meant was that the garou would go after a minion he could easily defeat with his abilities alone and after emptying my hand (illegally now that you told me) of cards, my hand would be replenished after he got back from doing his dirty work. > It'd be nice to see him kick bootie yeah, but it wouldn't be nice to > see him -that- overpowered. Then it's DEFINITELY worth putting a > Flak/Leather Jacket on him. Well . . . we have played with him that way and it turned out to balance the game. People in our group were leery of equipping him so much for fear of him being stolen (we play with enough of those thefty cards that it does make a difference), but we never found him to be overpowered and people tried and tried (self included) to abuse him. Even the combat-avoidance people were still fine WITHOUT changes to their decks because a lot of them play with Elysium-the Arboretum or even better . . . Mariel, Lady-Thunder . . . okay let's end that nasty combat before Muddles smacks me and oh - kill your Muddles . . . it really was fun and gave the guys who couldn't afford Immortal Grapples and such a nice alternative against S:CE and Dodge . . . > Then you just made him burn two Majesties for one Rush. Your next > vampire can Rush and has that much more chance that he didn't draw > three Majesties in a row. ;) Your next vampire after THAT has LOTS > of chance that he didn't draw FOUR. In all seriousness, you might Maybe I am just not building a rush deck THAT focused . . . perhaps I am just not a rush guru. I always had the bad luck of having 4 Bum's Rushes in my hand, lots of strike, but no Immortal Grapple . . . or lots of Immortal Grapple and strikes, but no rushes . . . maybe my balance of the types of cards weren't good . . . maybe my choices for minions weren't good either . . . I think I need to get smacked around by a good rush deck and see what it takes . . . then again, maybe I should convince myself that Gangrel aren't a great combat clan either (though my Rush decks tended to be Nosferatu and Brujah, I like making Gangrel combat decks a lot). > just have a slightly unfocused deck. I usually don't have trouble > drawing all the strike cards I need in my Rush deck; the only question > would be if I had an Immortal Grapple or not. And facing Majesty, as > soon as I know I am, I hang onto the 'perfect combo' and just discard > other stuff (or don't discard) until the time when he DOES run out of > Majesty, so then I can Psyche! and dump four cards from my hand and go > "HA! GOTCHA." How easily does that perfect combo seem to come for you? I mean - I get it a lot of times only to be bled to death by a cross-table bleed or a really successful turn from my predator. Maybe my Metagame just isn't conducive to a Rush deck taking the upper hand. > hmm. i'd like to defer to James Hamblin and some of the other > close-range Rush gurus on this one, but I wouldn't like to put Sewer > Lids in an Immortal Grapple deck on the unfortunate chance that I'd > draw the Sewer Lid when I needed the Torn Signpost or Increased > Strength, OR when I didn't have the maneuver in hand, worse! Not to > mention that I wouldn't want to waste the maneuver cards to go to long > range when I knew he was just going to play Majesty. I tended to use Barrens and Fragment of the Book of Nod in many combat decks so I could have versatility and ditch cards that aren't useful during the current game turns for me. Certainly I see your point . . . if you are playing a potence combat deck, you either go long or stay close . . . you want to make your hand as efficient as possible in killing enemy vamps. I am new here, so maybe there are lots of players here that can have such tight, focused decks because of the groups they play in, but our games tend to be won by versatile decks . . . then again, maybe I just need to really focus-focus-focus on a type of rush tactic and "stick to my guns" - as silly as that sounds in a Potence-based deck *S* > points of damage, even assuming superior POT. A Rush deck needs to do > more than 2 points of damage to be effective, so I wouldn't want to > waste a Rush if I wasn't going to torporize a vampire. Rather just > bleed and see if he blocks (not bloody likely if he knows what you're > playing), and discard 'til you get at least the start of the right > combo. =) All very good points again . . . > rather put another Flash in than a gate or Lid, and get to close range > where all my cards are useful again ;) Once again - you got me on that one . . . > >Ahh, but maybe your vampires on the table are a little bit harder to Rush anyway . . . > >again - this one is situational . . . but a good point nonetheless. > > in a Malkavian sneak & bleed deck? My vampires are HIGHLY vulnerable > to Rush. That's the only deck I could really see Muddles being of > -good- use to; providing token combat to a completely non-combat deck. > Weenie Malkavian intercept with guns? Don't waste 2 pool on Muddles, > buy a .44 instead since Muddles doesn't intercept. I meant that OTHER vampires might be harder to rush with the Muddles, and I agree . . . Muddles is there to keep your bleeders safe or to get a good bleed through when you are out of stealth. > >Okay - but what is Muddle going to do against the vote deck out there and the bleed deck > >and the celeritous deck . . . he'll watch . . . maybe even get stolen . . . > > Stolen by a Presence Entrancement or Dominate Far Mastery? Maybe. > Risks you gotta take. against the celery deck, if he doesn't beat > S:Dodge, he won't come out. If he DOES beat s:dodge, he's way too > strong a deterrent. Hmmmm . . . well, we have tried playing him this way, and as I said, he didn't become the god of combat that you think he might have. We still continue to play this way and we'd be happy to invite you to Chicago to play in our group and show us just how nasty he'd kick our butts *grin* . . . Just teasing with you, Derek. > That's the best way to deal with ANY problematic situation, be it > equipment, votes, or allies. But the action to summon Muddles is +1 > stealth, so you have to have intercept handy. =) Focused IG decks > don't (shouldn't) have intercept since they ought to be tapping out > obliterating vampires, removing the need for intercept since nobody is > left to take actions. =) Well, there is never a game that goes by in our group where somebody doesn't have a KRCG Radio Station or similar intercepting permanent out on the board and yes, my IG deck had no intercept . . . it had Rush . . . if there was a threatening minion on the board to me, I'd rush it instead of block it . . . I actually had some stealth in my deck to make sure the rush could get through . . . > Muddles -is- limited-use, but then again so are all allies... 'cept > maybe Renegade Garou, but he costs *5*. I just don't want to see > Muddles made into a monster that only costs 2 pool in the name of > fixing some other cards that aren't hurting all THAT badly. Well . . . he still isn't a monster, so no worries *s* . . . and we may be changing it to be that First Strike beats Dodge but NOT combat ends because one player (who likes to pack a 100-card deck with upwards of 15 Majesties) was really complaining one night . . . nice to see someone who is USING Majesty complaining for a change *laugh* . . . but we seem to be inclined to agree with the "spirit" of the rule that the S:CE RPG mechanics seem to be "faster" than First Strike . . . > Heck no. The First Strike is the only reason I put 'em in the deck. Okay . . . but I usually think of the First Strike as a nice bonus if it is there. M main reason is that I know the weapon will be gone, even if it gets one use against me. > 10 should be fine. James Hamblin and a couple others could give you > detailed *good* advice, which mine may not be ;), about potence decks > and IG - but 10, as I mentioned above, should be 10 dead vampires. > Just narrow your deck down to where you always have the close-range > combat cards, and then whenever you draw an IG you get to beat someone > silly. Your advice has been good advice, Derek . . . and you are the one answering the post. I think I just need to try concentrating on each card I put into a Rush Deck the next time I build one . . . and knowing my luck, everyone will be playing a combat deck that night *s* . . . > DoTB shouldn't really be used unless you intend to get to long range, > S:CE *yourself*, Skin of Steel, or in some way avoid the hand damage. True - my main use for it is in a Fortitude/Animalism deck that uses Animalism at long range or just prevents away all of your damage. > =) And I certainly wouldn't Draw Out against any combat deck. But I made the mistake of doing thatt once . . . never again. > from what it sounds like to me, your problem isn't that there's combat > on the table, it's that there isn't a LOT of combat on the table and > tehre IS a lot of S:CE. Usually, someone is playing defense presence/dominate bleed or defensive presence vote and we have a LOT of cross-table interaction in every game because our players KNOW that it screws up strategies. Makes it really hard to focus. > There is a small problem with the rareness, yes, but it's also a very > good card, so I can't support it being TOO un-rare. I mean, if you > notice, it got errata'd to only extend through one round. =) In Another errata that has slipped through my fingers . . . I need a list that is current and COMPLETE to rely on. I have so many versions of rulings and thing get reversed so damn often that I am getting lost in the important stuff. > Sabbat, IG is an Uncommon card, I believe, so that can help a great I have a few packs of Sabbat and I did not know its commonality had been reduced . . . and after reading this, I just bought a BUNCH of boxes of Sabbat (for other reasons too, of course). > deal as far as filling out your IG stuff - but Sabbat is sort of > expensive, too. (shrug) The only stock Jyhad clan that has a real > *problem* with S:CE, to me, are the Tremere - and they can (if they > MUST) use Thoughts Betrayed, but that's a Dark Sovereigns card. Thoughts Betrayed has become the staple for Tremere combat decks around here for that very reason. I hope you don't think I am limiting myself ot Jyhad-only cards here, because our group certainly has a lot of cards from all expansions. No problem for me to get a hold of cards (other than Sabbat - I never bought a lot and they are hard to find now, but I like I said, I just got a BUNCH of them). > Good discussion, yes. =) I wish one of the Rush gurus would leap in > here though and help out with some of those points. ;) Sure! Any discussion would be great! Though I think this thread is getting REALLY long and the subject seems to have changed a little . . . but hey . . . it's not like the newsgroup is getting flooded with a bunch of messages . . . well, okay - I have been a busy poster these past few days *s* Myron Mychal

Arrgh...this is all too long... [snip snip snip snip] In article <0DD6BE1F708B5A3A.BDAF1B1F83BB4C6F.B97B3FA829353A5D@library- proxy.airnews.net>, lor...@mindsprung.com (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:04:24 -0500, Myron Mychal > <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > > >Derek S. Ray wrote: > > >Hmmm - before Sabbat came into fruition, how did the Tremere players in your > >playgroup get maneuvers on the first round of combat?? Or did the Tremere players in Celerity? Classic Tha/Cel...Flash + Thaumaturgy = pure goodness > > Movement of the Mind. I have about .. mm.. lots. =) Jyhad card, > too. My first deck was Tremere. =) > > Thrown Gate doesn't belong in Immortal Grapple decks. Nor does Dodge. > Torn Signposts, Increase/Undead Strength, Decapitate, Disarm, Burning > Wrath... these all belong. Thrown Gate belongs in a Thrown Objects > deck, which is NOT the deck I was speaking of, and a deck that is > BASED on the idea of getting to long range will annihilate Muddles, > obviously.. While not a combat guru...I'm getting there. Naw...Thrown Gate doesn't belong in an IG deck. Although Thrown Gate + Increased Strength works well in thrown objects. Well, since I haven't yet built a purely potence rush deck, the other discipline should have some way around it...Animalism -- DotB, Celerity -- dodge + additional strike, Auspex/Obfuscate -- Fast Reaction/Hidden Lurker... Regarding poor-man's IG, Go with Ani/For/Pot. Kinda tricky, but...let's see here. Badger, Zack North, Angus, Basilia, Wynn, Lucretia, Selma...just from the original set, plus probably one or two others from it that I can't think of...DotB + Potence + Scorpion Sting + For Prevent...kinda flimsy combo, but there it is...you can also do without Scorpion Sting, but it helps... Xian -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Chris Berger wrote: <snipped discussion of the FIrst Strike game mechanic and HL/FR> > How many cards can give any generic attack first strike? Muddles and > Backstab, right? Backstab is way overcosted. That seems good enough > for me. If the cost were 0, then the card would be good. Why not just > play *that* as a house rule? Well, whatever, play how you want... Maybe that would be a good house rule . . . we might try that. Thanks. > You misunderstand. I have actually never seen a withdrawal happen > unless both players agreed. I *have* however seen withdrawal play a > huge part in games. One example: The game had stagnated. Ahh, I see . . . we have never had a game stagnate that far. Most of our games tend to end before someone runs out of cards and the few times it has happened, the other Methuselahs were not in such a precarious position as in your game. Certainly the withdraw rule played a very important part in your game then. > You misunderstand again. This mostly happens when only two players are > left. Since these are league games where this has happened, we are > playing for ante. One example: My opponent and I each had about 5 pool Again, a situation that I am not familiar with as I do not play in a league, only with my group. Makes perfect sense to me now, and a good tactic. > Well strategy talk around here revolves around official rules. And official rules are really only important for tournaments anyway, aren't they? I mean - isn't that the nature of "official"? > Tournament play is sort of important, and people don't generally discuss > cards that aren't used in tournaments, but that's not a hard and fast > rule. If you were to make a paralyzation deck, people wouldn't yell at > you and say "NOT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!" Tournaments, while fun and useful > for cross-playgroup interaction, are not the be-all and/or end-all of > Jyhad. True . . . and I guess that is why I mention our house rules . . . to see if other people feel the same way/play the same way and to see how it has effected their games . . . it's always good to get more sample points of data if you are playing with a modification to the rules . . . several playtest groups are certainly better than one playtest group. Not to mention, other than GenCon, I have yet to see a Jyhad tournament offering in my area. ANd I'd liek to get my playgroup to play by all the official rules as they stand so that if we ever DO go to a tournament, I'll be playing by the same rules that everyone else is . . . I got really hacked off that in a tournament, some guy played with Crusher and said that his built-in Dodge ability didn't count as a "strike" (what the heck else COULD it be????) and he came with 8 guys from his play group that all played with the same rule, so it ended up that our table had to play that way (since 4 of the 5 guys agreed to it, being from the same group) . . . grrrr . . . that was a pain in the ass . . . And here I am advocating a rules change . . . oh well . . . such is the irony . . . but we are trying to get the official rules in our group and since we always have enough time for two games, we are thinking of having one be played via "house rules" and the other via "tourney rules" . . . that way, we can still have fun and play with all our cards, yet still be informed players who can participate in a tournament or in intelligent discussion like in this newsgroup. Myron Mychal

McEwen the Mad wrote: > > OK just my Malkavian two-cents, > in my opinion combat strikes should resolve: > S:CE > S:First Strike > S:Dodge > Other Strikes and such according to the rules. > > I don't fee that first strike should be able to beat S:CE and I think the > above argument about the RPG world is useful here. However I think a first > fast hit could easily happen before the opponent could dodge. The way the > rules currently are, first strike is almost useless. I would like to see > first strike gain a bit of power. I agree with you. It would be nice to see First Strike beat a dodge. It would make more sense though if this had been the rule all along and a celerity card could have been produced (Dodge: First Strike). It would make it a bit better than the disciplineless dodge. I don't really think the change is *nessesary* and don't really like lots of changes to the game in general, but I wouldn't be opposed to this. Kevin PS. I definately don't think First Strike should beat S:CE. That would change to many stratagies that have been around since the beginning.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Yes. The effective Potence pure-rush combat deck that uses Immortal > Grapples and close-range combat does not usually want to throw in Gates or > Lids, even if they could sometimes be useful. A Flash to make the rest > of your deck work the way it's supposed to is usually much better. And I guess that Nosferatu decks would prefer "Behind You" > Any kind of non-combat deck can usually much better afford to have a > few 'prayer' cards that are only *really* useful under certain conditions, > because the main focus of the deck doesn't revolve around large combos > with intensive card cycling. That's why Muddled Vampire Hunter is more > playable to a Malk stealth-bleed deck than Thrown Sewer Lid is to > an Immortal Grapple pure-rush combat deck. And that is probably why my rush decks haven't been effective - I need to take out the fluff cards and really go for the combos. > Ten Immortal Grapples is an acceptable number in 80 cards; it could be > a little light for 90. Yes, Immortal Grapple is rare (except for Really? WOW! That seems to be a heavy devotion to one card! How many Rush cards do you add? > being uncommon in Sabbat) but they have historically not been all that > hard to get ahold of. (Or at least, they weren't for my group. On > the other hand, we did buy quite a lot of cards.) Mark Korshavn sells > them for no more than $1.00 apiece when he has them, I think. Well . . . I plan on taking heavy advantage of the reduced commonality of the card in Sabbat . . . I just got 3 boxes *s* > Hope this was at least a little helpful. ;-) It has been very helpful! Thanks! > The real problem, I think, is that Strike:Combat Ends did turn out to be > a little more handy than it should've been, considering how easy it is > to come by. It would have been a better design decision, I think, if > disciplineless Dodge were not so far inferior to Majesty, Earth Meld, > et al. And that has been my problem with it . . . just too easy to use. > (regarding the 'the mechanic is weak and rare' point - in the Jyhad > rulebook, I believe there's a combat effect called 'Close Quarters' > listed. It means that there's no maneuvering for the rest of combat; > it'll all be at close range. This effect was never used on a single > card, and it was probably removed from the VTES rulebook... Sometimes, > the game designers just don't think things out carefully enough.) ANd I did say that I would have been perfectly happy with them just removing "First Strike" altogether . . . I think they just need another expansion to make it work *s* Myron Mycahl

In article <3613BC88...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com wrote: > > Yes. The effective Potence pure-rush combat deck that uses Immortal > > Grapples and close-range combat does not usually want to throw in Gates or > > Lids, even if they could sometimes be useful. A Flash to make the rest > > of your deck work the way it's supposed to is usually much better. > > And I guess that Nosferatu decks would prefer "Behind You" No, Drawing Out the Beast is much better. It counters weapons and any combat defense that depends on maneuvers to get away from your hands. The +1 hand damage the other vampire gets only comes into play if you are facing another heavy hitter. In that case, they want to be at close range anyway. > And that is probably why my rush decks haven't been effective - I need to take > out the fluff cards and really go for the combos. It depends on the style you go for. If you want your average combat to be Torn Signpost + Drawing Out the Beast + Immortal Grapple + Undead Strength, you need to figure 4 cards per combat. Other types of decks don't need as many cards to make their actions work for their goals. > > Ten Immortal Grapples is an acceptable number in 80 cards; it could be > > a little light for 90. Yes, Immortal Grapple is rare (except for > > Really? WOW! That seems to be a heavy devotion to one card! How many Rush > cards do you add? Yep, 10 of 'em in an 80 card deck. It's really only necessary against S:CE, dodges, and Tremere. I think the common mix of get into combat cards for a 90 card deck is 6 Haven Uncovered and 8 or 10 Bum's Rushes. > ANd I did say that I would have been perfectly happy with them just removing > "First Strike" altogether . . . I think they just need another expansion to > make it work *s* First Strike was just a poor choice of words. When you are have two people actually trying to hurt each other, First Strike matters. But when one of the participants isn't willing, having First Strike or not doesn't matter. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Mark Langsdorf (mark.la...@amd.com) wrote: [Re: Suggestions to Modify First Strike Rules] : I'd rather this suggestion hadn't been made. But as a fervent supporter : of : the 7/7 rulings who also said that those rulings were not going to be the : start : of errating and changing every card in sight, let me say: No. There's no : outstanding need for this change, as nice as it may be. We need to draw the : line on changes somewhere, and it's back over there with the broken cards, : not over here with the underpowered and slightly nonsensical cards. I agree to you that the suggestion should not be followed, and that a line must be drawn as far as issuing errata, etc. Still, I think that the recent critique of the current setup have some value, potentially. This assumes the possibility of a future expansion. Remember that the rules can always be broken/altered/modified by card text. "First Strike" is one thing that could easily be enhanced in a future expansion. I do not mean printing better "First Strike" cards as I mean printing cards that would allow all First Strike cards to be more valuable. All in all, I think a hypothetical future expansion would do well to similarly address other underpowered/underrepresented aspects of the game. Again, I would not want to see more powerful allies or weapons that would make current weapons and allies worse wallpaper than they are already. Rather I would like to see cards that help *all* allies become a viable part of the game while ensuring they remain fairly balanced relative to each other. A disciplineless version of Disguised Weapon would be an example of this. As far as First Strike, it could easily work differently if, say, a master card in play says it does...and this would require no additions to the errata list. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:22:58 -0500, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: > >This is how I have been dealing with Majesty decks of late. I usually can find a way to get >their hand full of votes and presence bleeds to nab one or two of their vamps with mine. >However, it is sometimes a double-edged sword with this strategy, because I often find that >the presence-heavy Methuselah will take his losses in vamps and then on his turn, direct >those presence-bleeds at my untapped self. I certainly do that when I am playing with >directed presence bleeds, but isn't all that just part of the fun of this game? *s* Hmm. Cross-table bleeding was kicked out in the 7/7 rulings for just this sort of reason; you should only ever have to worry about your predator and your prey. Assuming everyone has 3 minions: If you have three minions out, Rush with 3, knock off two of your predator's vampires, and knock out one of your prey's, your predator can Legally Manipulate/aire of elation you, sure, but he can only do it once and since combat decks only spend pool to bring out vampires, you can absorb ONE bleed with little difficulty, since eventually he's going to have to turn his attention to his OWN predator, or be ousted himself. And since you did bother to knock off one of your prey's, you are in good shape. Moving slowly, but in good shape. Eventually your predator will decide that going after you is too dangerous to his own health and will stop and defend for a bit. Then you tap out against your prey and the race is on; can your predator "get" you, while short on minions and without ousting himself, before you 'get' your VP and 6 more pool? With cross table bleeding in, you have to worry about your predator and, probably, your grandprey, since he's bound to notice that he's NEXT in line in front of the Vampire Parts Mill. Since combat decks aren't famous for their pool gain, you end up with two bleeding predators and get ousted cheesily, and your grandprey gets the boot from HIS predator for being a dummy and wasting actions to go cross table. =) >True . . . I think part of my stand is based on the effectiveness of First Strike in Magic. >It is a premier ability in that game, and maybe subconsciously, I like to think of speedy >strikes as being premier in V:tES. And I still play with Fast Hands/Shattering Blow in my >decks with First Strike as it stands (not to mention Canine Horde). They're still pretty damn good. Very few people EXPECT to see them, and that helps a lot since the card itself doesn't come with any warning; just "Surprise! I'm going to Fast Hands you instead of maneuver and blur!" =) >I just reread your past posts and you are absolutely right . . . I guess I implied that, and >man you gotta TRY 'em *laugh* . . . I am sure you have, otherwise you wouldn't bemoan your >bad luck at getting a handful of irreplaceable cards *s* . . . but sometimes a well-timed >Fake-Out on an ally is sweet . . . people never expect someone using an ally to play cards >during combat (well, I wouldn't say NEVER, but it is a nice surprise) . . . I am just a guy >that hates having wallpaper cards, I guess . . . ya know, i should really try to make an "allied mob" deck sometime, thinking about it. =) I dunno. Could be tricky. but it'd be fun as hell to abuse. =) >Okay . . . I see your point. And it's nice that we can have different views on a Tremere >deck. I actually use that Master Card to give my vamps superior Thaumaturgy already (and I >also believe that inferior celerity is REALLY inferior too). One of my Tremere Thaumaturgy >decks tried to rely on the weenie Tremere so I could use LOTS of minions to get into combat, >so I relied pretty heavily on inferior Thaumaturgy to the point where I included a few >Fake-Outs and Boxed-Ins in my deck. heehhe... that would be amusing to see, the weenie Tremere horde. =) Actually, I think inferior celerity isn't QUITE as bad as inferior thaumaturgy; you can still blur for 1 additional if you hafta, and Flash works as a maneuver -or- press at short. But to really get lots of use out of it, yeah, you need Superior. Although I think the only discipline I really think works at inferior is Animalism. =) >Okay . . . point taken . . . I was specifically referring to "Theft of Vitae" as a good first >round ranged strike. Of course all of their best strikes are for the second round . . . but >I always felt that I should have SOMETHING good to do that first round other than press to >get to the second round. Theft is great, especially if you're using vamps who operate one or two blood down; they get to steal the 2 and then take 2 themselves, net loss of 0. Then you get the 2nd round. =) >also work well . . . I just wanted to try something new. ANd the Fake Outs worked well >because I would have multiple combats during my turn and my hand would get replenished >between each combat . . . even if I were just rushing in to maneuver and steal one or two >blood, i'd do it. The deck worked well . . . and was fun to play. Which is the important thing. I don't know if I'd have the patience to play a "straight" sneak & bleed deck -- without the Muddles, Madness Network, Game of Malkav, and all the other nifty Malkavian toys that are in there. =) >The voters here are smart though. They use Natasha Volfcheck and Rebekka (that +1 stealthy >PRE Tremere) and I even have a Toreador vote deck that uses Toreador Grand Ball, but yes - I >use intercept to stop votes too. I just like to smack the snot out of the voter when I do it >- again, a different style of play - I love this game. +1 stealth, smush-1 stealth. sport bike, enhanced senses, spirit's touch, cat's guidance, KRCG radio... Nossie vote decks now. Those are rude. "lalala, oops! lost in crowds... dear me, i'm superior, aren't I? that's +3 stealth on this action." >Ahhh . . . come play against my Smiling Jack deck *grin* . . . I posted it here yesterday. >We see a lot of Wakes here (and I use a lot) not only to untap to block, but to untap to >bounce/counter a bleed. I guess it's all in the Metagame. Probably a lot to do with it, yeah. >I have been playing for a long time and read and reread TONS of errata but never saw that you >cannot cancel your own maneuvers . . . it makes sense I guess . . . (and boiy do I feel like >a newbie for posting that tactic in public) . . . WOW! I'll have to tell my playgroup. And >with regard to not replacing after combat - well I know we played correctly with that rule . >. . what I meant was that the garou would go after a minion he could easily defeat with his >abilities alone and after emptying my hand (illegally now that you told me) of cards, my hand >would be replenished after he got back from doing his dirty work. Hehe. "woops!" Although on my first attempt to play a Protean sneak & bleed, i completely forgot that you can't play multiple action modifiers on the same card.. ie can't earth control twice =) OOPS. >Maybe I am just not building a rush deck THAT focused . . . perhaps I am just not a rush >guru. I always had the bad luck of having 4 Bum's Rushes in my hand, lots of strike, but no >Immortal Grapple . . . or lots of Immortal Grapple and strikes, but no rushes . . . maybe my >balance of the types of cards weren't good . . . maybe my choices for minions weren't good >either . . . I think I need to get smacked around by a good rush deck and see what it takes . >. . then again, maybe I should convince myself that Gangrel aren't a great combat clan either >(though my Rush decks tended to be Nosferatu and Brujah, I like making Gangrel combat decks a >lot). heh. I'm not a Rush guru either, I just have been focussing VERY closely on that recently while trying to tune the thrown objects deck. So I've read through James Hamblin's, Peter Bakija's, and Josh Duffin's rush decks, and you just missed the Great Rush Debate here a month or so ago (which was quite educational). =) The bad luck may happen; I played a couple nights ago and after beating up two vampires had four bum's rushes and three psyche!'s in my hand.... I was sitting between an evil Tremere deck and -another- Rush deck, so didn't get to play any of my psyches (didn't need to) and ended up using all my strike cards when the OTHER rush deck came at me. =) That was both amusing and painful at the same time, and i sort of piddled away quietly after that while trying to dump cards. =) Ended up sacrificing a vampire on a speculative rush and using Psyche as presses to keep going from round to round and get more cards moving, and just went downhill after that. All three of the close-range decks I mentioned above should be available from dejanews somewhere though, if you want to have a look at them. >How easily does that perfect combo seem to come for you? I mean - I get it a lot of times >only to be bled to death by a cross-table bleed or a really successful turn from my >predator. Maybe my Metagame just isn't conducive to a Rush deck taking the upper hand. Fairly common... I'm not picky about what I Blur with, and I target the biggest vampire I can kill while I have the cards. Oftentimes I can use a second rush to off a 3-cap weenie or something, and that'll cycle some other cards and get me the ones I need again. It doesn't have to be a PERFECT combo in this deck; it just has to be a bunch of strikes, and I've got a lot of those in here. =) You mentioned the cross-table bleed. again, that makes things really messy; if you're a combat deck focusing on beating up your prey, it really wrecks game balance to have someone cross-table decide that they don't like Rush decks. If a really good turn comes from your predator, weeeelll, maybe you wanna focus on your predator a touch more next game and make sure he's on the defensive to HIS predator before you go after your own prey. Or maybe you just got unlucky, or maybe he just got a good library draw, or maybe HE was waiting for the perfect moment. =) Any of these can happen, and from my predator, I wouldn't worry about it as 'broken'. But I just really don't like the idea of cross-table bleeds in the first place since they so very rarely help you win. =) >I tended to use Barrens and Fragment of the Book of Nod in many combat decks so I could have >versatility and ditch cards that aren't useful during the current game turns for me. >Certainly I see your point . . . if you are playing a potence combat deck, you either go long >or stay close . . . you want to make your hand as efficient as possible in killing enemy >vamps. I am new here, so maybe there are lots of players here that can have such tight, >focused decks because of the groups they play in, but our games tend to be won by versatile >decks . . . then again, maybe I just need to really focus-focus-focus on a type of rush >tactic and "stick to my guns" - as silly as that sounds in a Potence-based deck *S* Heh. Focus is good in -any- deck, although apparently someone won the DragonCon tourney here in Atlanta with what's been described as a "toolbox" deck. Yikes! >Hmmmm . . . well, we have tried playing him this way, and as I said, he didn't become the god >of combat that you think he might have. We still continue to play this way and we'd be happy >to invite you to Chicago to play in our group and show us just how nasty he'd kick our butts >*grin* . . . Just teasing with you, Derek. heheh. I dunno. =) I'd welcome the opportunity to figure out a way to abuse Muddles, and if I lived in Michigan, I might take ya up on it. ;) But i'm not much of a deck builder, actually; most of mine fail the first -several- times through, and take a lot of tweaking and beating on with a stick to fix so that they're functional. >> Muddles -is- limited-use, but then again so are all allies... 'cept >> maybe Renegade Garou, but he costs *5*. I just don't want to see >> Muddles made into a monster that only costs 2 pool in the name of >> fixing some other cards that aren't hurting all THAT badly. > >Well . . . he still isn't a monster, so no worries *s* . . . and we may be changing it to be >that First Strike beats Dodge but NOT combat ends because one player (who likes to pack a >100-card deck with upwards of 15 Majesties) was really complaining one night . . . nice to >see someone who is USING Majesty complaining for a change *laugh* . . . but we seem to be >inclined to agree with the "spirit" of the rule that the S:CE RPG mechanics seem to be >"faster" than First Strike . . . Dodge, maybe not so bad to beat ONLY that. I envision it as two people standing arm's length apart talking smack; one person is preparing in his mind to save himself from a physical attack (Dodge), and one person is thinking "I can grab that gun in his belt", or "if I put a stick through his sport bike's spokes, he'll go flying"... so the first person moves, the second guy isn't expecting an attack against his STUFF, and first strike succeeds that way. >Your advice has been good advice, Derek . . . and you are the one answering the post. I >think I just need to try concentrating on each card I put into a Rush Deck the next time I >build one . . . and knowing my luck, everyone will be playing a combat deck that night *s* . Shouldn't matter too much if you build a -good- one. =) Although the Gangrel will poke you in the eye if you Immortal Grapple them. =) > >Usually, someone is playing defense presence/dominate bleed or defensive presence vote and we >have a LOT of cross-table interaction in every game because our players KNOW that it screws >up strategies. Makes it really hard to focus. Blah. cross table blah blah yuck. =) It messes up -any- potentially effective deck, is what it does, and makes people be forced to play with lots of Wakes and lots of deflections just in case their grand-prey bleeds them for laughs. =) (Pardon my soapbox - i'm off it now) Besides, I like the thought that my grand-prey or grand-predator is a potential ally, not a potential enemy. =) "If I keep him off your back for a couple turns, you WILL call that Rumors of Gehenna vote and include me, right? If not, I might just have to defend against my predator for awhile and give him some breathing room to oust you..." Or just turn to your grand predator and ask "Um, are you gonna ever go after him or are you gonna let him sweep the table?" >Another errata that has slipped through my fingers . . . I need a list that is current and >COMPLETE to rely on. I have so many versions of rulings and thing get reversed so damn often >that I am getting lost in the important stuff. Hm. Somewhere posted recently on the group is the current website for rulings, etc. I wish I knew what it was off the top of my head. >Thoughts Betrayed has become the staple for Tremere combat decks around here for that very >reason. I hope you don't think I am limiting myself ot Jyhad-only cards here, because our >group certainly has a lot of cards from all expansions. No problem for me to get a hold of >cards (other than Sabbat - I never bought a lot and they are hard to find now, but I like >I said, I just got a BUNCH of them). Funny you should say that... all of my decks are Jyhad-only at the moment, except for the Tremere one which has two Rutor's Hands in it my friend lent me. =) That's part of the appeal of the game to me, is that it's possible to make disgustingly effective decks from the basic set. Although it'd be nice to have some vampires like Jimmy Dunn and Beast :( >Sure! Any discussion would be great! Though I think this thread is getting REALLY long and >the subject seems to have changed a little . . . but hey . . . it's not like the newsgroup is >getting flooded with a bunch of messages . . . well, okay - I have been a busy poster these >past few days *s* too much Activity > just plain activity > no activity. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6v0phh$lk2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mboh...@shout.net> wrote: >In article <3613BC88...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, > mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com wrote: [snip] >> And I guess that Nosferatu decks would prefer "Behind You" > >No, Drawing Out the Beast is much better. It counters weapons and any >combat defense that depends on maneuvers to get away from your hands. >The +1 hand damage the other vampire gets only comes into play if you >are facing another heavy hitter. In that case, they want to be at close >range anyway. Well, except that with DotB you need to have considerably bigger vampires, and you'll take extra damage. It's definitly more powerfull though, since it's infallible, and you can play it if your opponent doesn't maneuver. >> And that is probably why my rush decks haven't been effective - >> I need to take >> out the fluff cards and really go for the combos. That was the problem I had when I started playing rush. If you water it down too much, you can kick alot of ass occasionally, and then wait a few turns for your hand to sort itself back out. >> > Ten Immortal Grapples is an acceptable number in 80 cards; it could be >> > a little light for 90. Yes, Immortal Grapple is rare (except for >> >> Really? WOW! That seems to be a heavy devotion to one card! How many Rush >> cards do you add? > >Yep, 10 of 'em in an 80 card deck. It's really only necessary against >S:CE, dodges, and Tremere. I think the common mix of get into combat cards >for a 90 card deck is 6 Haven Uncovered and 8 or 10 Bum's Rushes. The standard I've seen posted in tournament succesfull decks (and what works for me) is 12 Bum's Rush and 3 or 4 Haven Uncovered in a 90 card deck. You can only fit so many HU's in before you have too many masters. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Myron Mychal wrote: "And I guess that Nosferatu decks would prefer "Behind You"" In a good Pot/Obf deck, sure, however, Behind You is simply not as good as Flash in a Pot IG deck due to its single use. Flash is usaable as both a Manuver or a Press, menaing that it will still be cyclable when your opponent doesn't bother manuvering. However, as the Pot/Obf deck really doesn't have much other option, it is still a viable card. "And that is probably why my rush decks haven't been effective - I need to take out the fluff cards and really go for the combos." Correct. The more focused the Rush deck is, the better it goes. There really isn't much room for wasted, "Hail Mary" type cards, as the Rush deck needs to be extremely fluid and consistent. Every Sewer Lid/Goofy Ally/Computer Hacking that you put into your Rush deck is one more card that will stop your ability to fight dead when you draw it in combat. "Really? WOW! That seems to be a heavy devotion to one card! How many Rush cards do you add?" Assuming 90 cards, you really need about 12 Immortal Grapples for consitiencies sake (especially now that IG only lasts one round). As for Rush cards, the current industry standard is about 12 Bum's Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. Some folks like Ambush instead of Bum's Rush, but I find its conditionality to be a bit too limiting. "Well . . . I plan on taking heavy advantage of the reduced commonality of the card in Sabbat . . . I just got 3 boxes *s*" Heh heh. Immortal Grapples a plenty! "And that has been my problem with it . . . just too easy to use." Not with good IG decks around. The S:CE becomes a pretty much useless card (in a meta sense) when players have good Rush decks. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "If we can focus, keep discipline, and not have quite as many mysterious deaths, Sunnydale is gonna _RULE_!" -Bobby

Mike Bohlman wrote: "No, Drawing Out the Beast is much better. It counters weapons and any combat defense that depends on maneuvers to get away from your hands. The +1 hand damage the other vampire gets only comes into play if you are facing another heavy hitter. In that case, they want to be at close range anyway." While a very good point, building a Pot/Ani deck is much harder than building the Pot/Obf deck, due to the vampire selection. A Pot/Obf deck has at its disposal (not counting the single discipline Pot vamps like KoKo and Hasina): Duck (3) pot, obf Agatha (4) POT, obf Agripina (4) pot, OBF Sammy (4) pot, obf Olivia (5) POT, OBF Nigel (5) POT, obf and half of those have POT to boot. The Pot/Ani vamps available close to the same cost are are: Raziya (3) pot, ani Sammy (4) pot, ani Shane (4) pot, ani Tiberius (5) pot, ani Grendel (5) pot, ani Nigel (5) POT, ANI Of these, only Nigel has POT (which is _very_ important to the Rush deck, far more than either OBF or ANI), and paying 5 points for either Tiberius or Grendel in a Pot/Ani Rush deck is a real waste. Not to say that Pot/Ani isn't a really good combat combination, but to make a good Pot/Ani deck, you need bigger (and consequently slower) vampires, and you really should throw Song of Serenity into the mix to break even with the DotB damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

Myron Mychal (mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Yes. The effective Potence pure-rush combat deck that uses Immortal : > Grapples and close-range combat does not usually want to throw in Gates or : > Lids, even if they could sometimes be useful. A Flash to make the rest : > of your deck work the way it's supposed to is usually much better. : And I guess that Nosferatu decks would prefer "Behind You" Possibly, yes. Animalism (Drawing Out the Beast) is also good, but as Peter was saying, pot/obf allows you to use smaller vamps more easily than pot/ani. (Or pot/ani/obf. Or pot/ani/obf/dom/for. ;-) : > Any kind of non-combat deck can usually much better afford to have a : > few 'prayer' cards that are only *really* useful under certain conditions, : > because the main focus of the deck doesn't revolve around large combos : > with intensive card cycling. That's why Muddled Vampire Hunter is more : > playable to a Malk stealth-bleed deck than Thrown Sewer Lid is to : > an Immortal Grapple pure-rush combat deck. : And that is probably why my rush decks haven't been effective - I need to take : out the fluff cards and really go for the combos. Yeah, it might help. It's also true that you don't necessarily have to play tons of cards each combat to be a successful combat deck - but it is usually necessary to play cards faster than non-combat decks to be effective. : > Ten Immortal Grapples is an acceptable number in 80 cards; it could be : > a little light for 90. Yes, Immortal Grapple is rare (except for : Really? WOW! That seems to be a heavy devotion to one card! How many Rush : cards do you add? That *is* a heavy devotion to one card. In my pot/cel pure-rush combat decks, there is a great reliance on a few of the most effective cards: Immortal Grapple, Torn Signpost, Bum's Rush, etc. In a 90-card pure-rush deck, I think 12 Rush/4 Haven Uncovered is pretty good, although I think I might have as much as 14 Rush/4 Haven in my deck at the moment (20% rush, which is somewhat high - 15% is probably more typical). I personally like Ambush quite a bit too, although Peter doesn't (due to only working against tapped vamps). I wouldn't go as high as half Ambush half Bum's Rush, but 2:1 Bum's Rush:Ambush I think would be fairly reasonable. Typically I find there are enough tapped vamps around that Ambush is usually playable. : Well . . . I plan on taking heavy advantage of the reduced commonality of the : card in Sabbat . . . I just got 3 boxes *s* Good move. : > The real problem, I think, is that Strike:Combat Ends did turn out to be : > a little more handy than it should've been, considering how easy it is : > to come by. It would have been a better design decision, I think, if : > disciplineless Dodge were not so far inferior to Majesty, Earth Meld, : > et al. : And that has been my problem with it . . . just too easy to use. Yeah. I think one of the larger mistakes the designers originally made was that combat turned out to be a weaker strategy than they might have expected. There are a whole lot of combat cards in Jyhad, but making a combat deck that wins games is quite a bit more difficult than making a non-combat deck that wins games. And many of the combat cards are wallpaper or nearly wallpaper because they just don't work against the readily available combat defenses. I think making Strike:Combat Ends too good (and too easy to use) was part of the problem there. Josh ...I'm gonna do my best swan dive into shark-infested waters...