banning cards in Jyhad

Glancing at the new DCI floor rules updates, I noticed to my dismay that RtI is now banned. Now, I realize that I haven't had much playing experience, but I thought banning cards was something that should be reserved for Jyhad's inbred cousin, Magic: The Unbalancing. Am I missing something here? apathy= --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-- "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" Alfred North Whitehead --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-- http://www-personal.umich.edu/~skywise AD&D, Jyhad/V:tES and other high weirdness --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--

Apathy wrote: <<Glancing at the new DCI floor rules updates, I noticed to my dismay that RtI is now banned. Now, I realize that I haven't had much playing experience, but I thought banning cards was something that should be reserved for Jyhad's inbred cousin, Magic: The Unbalancing. Am I missing something here?>> I wouldn't worry about it. There have always been a few banned cards in the set: -Ante cards -Cards that used outmoded rules (Paralyze) -Cards that simply didn't work in a tournament (Monocle and Madness of the Bard) As far as I can tell, RTI is the first card banned for its effect on play, but if any card deserved it, it was RTI. There was an attempt to fix it with unweildy errata, which apparently didn't work. Thus, the only real option was to ban it. I have great faith that this isn't going to set a precident of "ban everything", as it really isn't needed. RTI was just wrong, and with the errata, most other cards are perfectly acceptable at this point. It seems unlikely that there will be a string of bannings. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I dunno, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." -Homer

PDB6 <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote: : As far as I can tell, RTI is the first card banned for its effect on play, but : if any card deserved it, it was RTI. There was an attempt to fix it with : unweildy errata, which apparently didn't work. Thus, the only real option was : to ban it. I suppose "banned for its effect on play" was what I meant; banning things like the monocle and ante cards made perfect sense. : I have great faith that this isn't going to set a precident of "ban : everything", as it really isn't needed. RTI was just wrong, and with the : errata, most other cards are perfectly acceptable at this point. It seems : unlikely that there will be a string of bannings. I hesitate to open up what I sense is a very old can of worms, but why was RtI so abusive? Yes, its hard to counter in conjunction with Day Op, and yes it can oust your prey in one swell foop, but it seems to be fundamentally a combo card, and therefore hard to set up and use effectively. Also not grotesquely hard to counter, although the simplest ways seem to lean towards DI and AI, which are rather RtI-specific and unlikely to be included in decks not aiming to shut down RtI. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:01:50 GMT, apathy <sky...@umich.edu> wrote: >I hesitate to open up what I sense is a very old can of worms, but why was >RtI so abusive? Yes, its hard to counter in conjunction with Day Op, and >yes it can oust your prey in one swell foop, but it seems to be fundamentally >a combo card, and therefore hard to set up and use effectively. Also not >grotesquely hard to counter, although the simplest ways seem to lean towards >DI and AI, which are rather RtI-specific and unlikely to be included in decks >not aiming to shut down RtI. RtI's card text: (cost, 4 blood... largely meaningless.) Requires a ready vampire. (D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if this action is successful. The big boo-boo here is "where X is the capacity" - even Spiridonas has to actually have the blood ON him to pull off his megableed. Anyone else just has to have 4 blood and Fortitude - meaning you bring out your IC member with Fortitude and superior Dominate, probably Arika. IC members bleed for 3 to start with. +11 for Arika makes 14, and modify the bleed with Conditioning for a bleed of 17. Day Op it. Kaboom. Deflect or die. That's only a 3-card combo for a bleed of 17. Add a minion tap for 6 as your master phase action, and you have bled for 17, unblockably, using 4 cards and spending 5 pool. This is so abusive of the carefully thought-out "cost to effect" ratio in Jyhad, it's not even funny. Defenses? Well, pack Deflections, but those require two things: either dominate or superior Auspex (for Telepathic Misdirection), and you MUST have the card in your hand. If you're a Rush deck, you can rush Arika first and hope like hell you can pound at least 8 blood off of her - but look out for that pesky Obedience, which I'd certainly put in an RtI deck. Better forget combat. Direct Intervention - neat idea, but you'll just get hit next time around by the NEXT RtI card in the deck. That only kills one instance of it, unfortunately - and it's a 'prayer' card, so you don't usually include very many of them in your deck. Archon Investigation - very neat idea, but even more of a "prayer" card since if nobody bleeds you for more than 3, it wastes space. Much more popular while RtI was NOT banned, but why should I HAVE to include enough of any card to ensure drawing it in my first 10 cards just so that I will live? Oh, there's also "have enough pool to survive the bleed". Well, Arika just happens to have superior OBF - so you pack a few Lost in Crowds and bleed for 6 each turn with those Conditioning modifiers that you ALREADY HAVE IN YOUR DECK until you knock them down enough so that an RtI ousts them. Added advantage - this has a tendency to make people waste Deflections on smaller bleeds. The problem here is, it IS possible to make decks that successfully defend against bleed WITHOUT using Deflections - Animalism untap comes to mind. Day Opping a bleed for 6 is painful to those decks, yes, but it comes at a price - the vampire is in torpor, munch fodder, and it's only a bleed for 6. Why should we force everyone to pack Deflections because the guys who designed Ancient Hearts had a horribly bad idea? =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

In article <1FD3D31493C1E31F.3CFE85485130916D.967EBCC633612D6D@library- proxy.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] I agree with the ban because it is better than a card rewrite. But i beg to differ with the assertion that rti was a horribly bad idea. This card gave the Nossies REAL tournament punch, which they formerly lacked, and more importantly it made playing big vampires a REALLY interesting prospect. i'm often accused of being more interested in quirky card combos than in strategy [and there is a lot of truth in that accusation], but i think this time i am seeing the strategic point of rti better than some of you strategists! > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:48:54 GMT, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >I agree with the ban because it is better than a card rewrite. But i beg to >differ with the assertion that rti was a horribly bad idea. This card gave >the Nossies REAL tournament punch, which they formerly lacked, and more >importantly it made playing big vampires a REALLY interesting prospect. i'm >often accused of being more interested in quirky card combos than in strategy >[and there is a lot of truth in that accusation], but i think this time i am >seeing the strategic point of rti better than some of you strategists! Except it also boosted any other clan with big vampires as well as the Nosferatu, making no significant benefit to one or the other. (Although granted, it was one of the nicer ways the Nossies could actually get some bleed when they got done sneaking around and knocking your block off.) I would almost have wished for errata saying "Bleed. This vampire may burn X additional blood during this action to gain +X bleed.", and of course alter that 'burn this vampire' to 'remove this vampire from the game' to knock out potential pesky Soul Gem loops. The previous deck would then still be able to bleed for 12, but not without it costing them 11 pool OR the time required to Minion Tap/5th Tradition someone first... but I'm sure there is a way to abuse that errata floating around somewhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

apathy wrote: > > Glancing at the new DCI floor rules updates, I noticed to my dismay that > RtI is now banned. Now, I realize that I haven't had much playing experience, > but I thought banning cards was something that should be reserved for Jyhad's > inbred cousin, Magic: The Unbalancing. Am I missing something here? Monocle was banned from DCI play because it was "ripe for abuse". [Duelist #7] Now Return to Innocence is added to the banned list, for the same reason. -- 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

From LSJ: > Monocle was banned from DCI play because it was "ripe for abuse". [Duelist #7] From Me: Hehe, I'm just feeling evil and wondering what everyone's favorite abusing of the Monacle was. Vince

In article <7df8tp$jm1@simba>, [ quoted text not captured ] Lady LEgbiter's Monocle/Malkavian Game deck is BEAUTIFUL and EVIL, just like her. It's been posted, at least the concept has. I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7dd0q4$199$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com writes >I agree with the ban because it is better than a card rewrite. But i beg to >differ with the assertion that rti was a horribly bad idea. This card gave >the Nossies REAL tournament punch, which they formerly lacked, and more >importantly it made playing big vampires a REALLY interesting prospect. i'm >often accused of being more interested in quirky card combos than in strategy >[and there is a lot of truth in that accusation], but i think this time i am >seeing the strategic point of rti better than some of you strategists! Yes, it did help, say, the Nosferatu or the Assamites who were trash. But it did more than help the Ventrue, it made them nearly unbeatable :( -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <7df8tp$jm1@simba>, Vince Johnson <john...@tcnj.edu> writes >Hehe, I'm just feeling evil and wondering what everyone's favorite abusing >of the Monacle was. There was a particularly horrid question, which LSJ now refuses to answer since Monocle has been banned, involving truth values relating to actions which I take - not asking questions about questions and so forth - which was one of the main reasons for it being banned - a kind of "If I bleed you, will you block me?" Except it was far more vicious and horrifying. Of course, it's fun for more, erm, personal questions, at times. [ quoted text not captured ]