Okay, we all know that when designers create cards, they often cannot magically
predict that some future cards may mess up the functionality of the cards
they're creating (hence Card Text Migrations and their "Some cards have been
printed in more than one set, and some of those cards have had their functions
alter slightly or changed dramatically."). However, it still baffles me at
times why some times *are* changed while some things *aren't*.
The reason why I'm posting this was that I was just looking up the text of
Delaying Tactics to follow up on a ruling and I noticed some interesting quirks
about the card text. Most notably:
#1. All of the references concerning the acting minion refer to him as a
"vampire." Of course up till Bloodlines, only vampires have been able to call
votes (now we have a Herald of Topheth using a Charming Lobby). So first off
what happens if a Delaying Tactics wants to be played on a Herald's vote? My
gut reaction is that it can't, but looking at the card text, perhaps the vote
is cancelled, the untap and returning the card is ignored (since he's not a
vampire), and the "same political action" prohibition is maintained as well?
#2. Also, it seems odd that if Gideon calls a KRC that is Delayed, even though
Democritus, Mary the Black, and Smudge cannot call another KRC that turn ("same
political action"), a Herald of Topheth still can, since Delaying Tactics right
now prevents the Methusaleh's *vampires* from calling the same political
action. Once again, it seems pretty clear that Delaying Tactics was designed to
prevent any of the Methusaleh's minions from calling that vote (and I'm pretty
sure one of the printings had that text) but a while back, White Wolf decided
to try to clean things up and since there was no way for allies to call votes
at the time, they kept the text to "vampires." And now here comes the Herald
who manages to slip under the radar. (Boy I hate that card! This card has
perhaps created a record number of rule-breaking, rule-changes, or
rule-whatevers! Grrr...).
So what I'm pretty much saying is that it *seems* that due to the Herald (an
ally who can call a vote), Delaying Tactics does not seem to serve the same
functionality that the designer intended (and I don't want to go on and on
about who can interpret "designer's intent" and all).
On a slightly different note, I've always been a bit annoyed by the FN change
to Alamut. In the original AH edition, you could tap it to give an ally votes.
But then FN changed it to just vampires. At the time, I thought "ok, no big
deal. Yeah, I can't have my Hell Hound vote anyway, but it seems like they're
just trying to streamline things and avoid corner-cases like voting allies or
something." And then comes the Herald of Topheth, who can vote (Dread Gaze, BO,
etc.). So I'm just a bit curious *why* Alamut was changed in Final Nights. Why
*shouldn't* it be able to be used with Heralds?
Halcyan 2
On 17 Jun 2002 01:16:49 GMT, (Halcyan 2) asked about Delaying
Tactics:
>#1. All of the references concerning the acting minion refer to him as a
>"vampire." Of course up till Bloodlines, only vampires have been able to call
>votes (now we have a Herald of Topheth using a Charming Lobby). So first off
>what happens if a Delaying Tactics wants to be played on a Herald's vote?
The political action is cancelled, and stays in the ash heap. This
portion of the text refers only to the political action, and mentions
nothing about the actor. The Herald is not untapped and the
restriction about playing it again is not applied.
>#2.>On a slightly different note, I've always been a bit annoyed by the FN change
>to Alamut. In the original AH edition, you could tap it to give an ally votes.
>But then FN changed it to just vampires. At the time, I thought "ok, no big
>deal. Yeah, I can't have my Hell Hound vote anyway, but it seems like they're
>just trying to streamline things and avoid corner-cases like voting allies or
>something." And then comes the Herald of Topheth, who can vote (Dread Gaze, BO,
>etc.). So I'm just a bit curious *why* Alamut was changed in Final Nights. Why
>*shouldn't* it be able to be used with Heralds?
Because mixing the Baali, Heralds, Assamites, Alamut, and Voting in
the same deck is sure to be a handicap that even the most competent
among us will shun. None of the Assamite allies should have any
influence over a vampiric vote, and that was why it was changed.
Heralds and Baali are in the game only to serve as a handicap for
thoses people that need them against their regular gaming groups.
Paying a pool to untap the Baali, paying 3 pool to recruit the Herald,
paying a fifth pool to keep it from burning during your influence
phase all before it can act is a pretty serious handicap when you
could just have used Antoinette DuChamp or Igo the Hungry for one
pool.
There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
play.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
[snip]
>
> There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
> only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
> play.
>
I agree with TheLasombra in that the Baali are handicapped. The cost
of one pool per turn per Baali is too much.
Perhaps the blood could be burnt off the Baali rather than from the
pool? (I realise it doesn't make as much sense thematically).
Chris.
"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message
news:5a63bace.02061...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
>
> >
> > There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
> > only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
> > play.
> >
>
> I agree with TheLasombra in that the Baali are handicapped. The cost
> of one pool per turn per Baali is too much.
The cost is not too much . Look at how strong vampires they are.
One avoids hand jam, the others gives you the edge no matter what, the other
reduces your prey's size by one etc... They are quite great. You don't have
to play a mono baali deck, just fit them where you want to. Look also at
their discipline points which are above the standard. Think also you can use
strong cards like the condemnations,concordance or conflagration...
> Perhaps the blood could be burnt off the Baali rather than from the
> pool? (I realise it doesn't make as much sense thematically).
it *does* make sense thematically since it's the methuselah struggling
against demonic forces to keep the baali interested in his jyhad matters and
not go perform some ritual involving sacrifice of chikens to curse certain
soccer team =)
In message <3d0d3f1d...@text.giganews.com>, The Lasombra
<thela...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Paying a pool to untap the Baali,
Pedantry:
Paying a pool not to tap the Baali.
(The point is still valid, but this one really, really needs to be
understood by people.)
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote:
> There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
> only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
> play.
You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such utter nonsense.
If it wasn't for the Infernal mechanism, the Baali would be gossly
overpowered.
Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and back it
up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines. Name
another clan that has access to a card that can be used to interecept
or increase a bleed. Name another clan that permanently cause the
controller of a vampire to lose a pool if it is blocked after
permanently giving it -1 stealth.
It is because of the raw power of Baali, that people (including
myself) are putting efforts into making competitive decks centered
around them.
FWIW, I just missed getting into the finals of the Toronto tournament
on Saturday using a Baali (w Setites) deck that's about half way
through its development cycle because of a 3 way tie for 5th place and
I had the lowest tournament points. By the time Origins gets here, I
intend to prove that I can qualify for the nationals using a Baali
deck. (even though I've already qualified using the Loyalty of
Lunatics deck) That is, assuming that I don't opt to win the sealed
deck tournament with Beast instead. ;-)
Regards,
Noal
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message
news:<20020616211649...@mb-mr.aol.com>...
> So what I'm pretty much saying is that it *seems*
> that due to the Herald (an ally who can call a
> vote), Delaying Tactics does not seem to serve
> the same functionality that the designer intended
> (and I don't want to go on and on about who can
> interpret "designer's intent" and all).
It could equally well be the designer of the Herald's intent that it
interacts in the way that it does with Delaying Tactics.
Unless a designer says otherwise, it is best to assume that the
printed card texts and their interactions are the designer's intent.
Are you saying that current designers should not contradict the intent
(if they know) of previous designers? If so, how does the game
change? How can new cards be anything other than old cards with new
pictures and names?
* lehrbuch
>thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote:>> There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
>> only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
>> play.>
>You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such utter nonsense.
>If it wasn't for the Infernal mechanism, the Baali would be gossly
>overpowered.
Okay.
>Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and back it
>up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines.
Tzimisce. Gangrel, !Gangrel including nondiscipline cards (Computer Hacking).
Assamites including nondiscipline cards, though to be effective at stealth
bleed I wouldn't bother with the Tastes of Death. Then, there are ineffectual
ways to do it like Giovanni with Torment the Soul.
But, anyway, I wouldn't rate this as particularly important. If I'm going to
bleed at stealth, whether I can hit people or not isn't usually one of my
concerns. Though, I do think my tournament Baali deck is better with
Conflagrations than without.
Name
>another clan that has access to a card that can be used to interecept
>or increase a bleed. Name another clan that permanently cause the
>controller of a vampire to lose a pool if it is blocked after
>permanently giving it -1 stealth.
No bleed bounce. Not all that inexpensive vampires. Limited number of vamps
with dai/DAI in the game. Unless you get tricky, you have to push forward hard
which seems to be out of favor table politicswise in a lot of places.
>It is because of the raw power of Baali, that people (including
>myself) are putting efforts into making competitive decks centered
>around them.
There are some decklists I've seen that are nifty. There's no decklist I've
seen that I'd consider tier 1, 1.5.
>FWIW, I just missed getting into the finals of the Toronto tournament
>on Saturday using a Baali (w Setites) deck that's about half way
>through its development cycle because of a 3 way tie for 5th place and
>I had the lowest tournament points. By the time Origins gets here, I
>intend to prove that I can qualify for the nationals using a Baali
>deck. (even though I've already qualified using the Loyalty of
>Lunatics deck) That is, assuming that I don't opt to win the sealed
>deck tournament with Beast instead.
Good. People should try challenging strategies to see if they can elevate the
game by discovering something others haven't.
But, it was amusing to hear The Lasombra pan them so.
IMO, they are conceptually bad, as most extremes are. Their cards and specials
are really powerful, too much so without a drawback. But, their drawback
screws them by being so severe, which preserves balance but isn't the way I'd
design for a game.
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0da353$0$10645$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
What's the background story for the Baali? Are there any good web
links? I don't know that much about them, and I assume that there are
a few other people that don't know who they are or where they came
from.
Does anyone have a decent Baali deck that they have posted or are
willing to post? (web links) Even if the Baali only make a guest
appearance, it would be cool to see some decks where they are
definitely worth the cost (handicap?)
Cheers,
Howard
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:O4MzzQvd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3d0d3f1d...@text.giganews.com>, The Lasombra
> <thela...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Paying a pool to untap the Baali,
>
> Pedantry:
>
> Paying a pool not to tap the Baali.
this is no pedantry dear James =)
some people may think that the baali are immune to, say, sensory
deprivation. But this is not true.
reyda
dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote:
> > There is no good strategic reason to play Baali over the other clans,
> > only the challenge of the handicap continues to allow them to see
> > play.
>
> You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such utter nonsense.
> If it wasn't for the Infernal mechanism, the Baali would be gossly
> overpowered.
>
Indeed.
>
> It is because of the raw power of Baali, that people (including
> myself) are putting efforts into making competitive decks centered
> around them.
>
Someone in my playgroup is trying to make a Huitzil-great Beast - TOGP
deck. It does need some tweaking but is fearsome when it takes off.
Minion Tapped Huitzilopochtli + For skillcard, equip with Soul Gem
Freak Drive + Call the Great Beast.
Great Beast enters Play, Huitzil burns, triggering the soul Gem. a
Camm Justicar enters play.
Great Beast has NEC and possesses Huitzil back and gets his Soul Gem
back.
Here is IMO the inherent design flaw: Huitzil needs another (for)
skill card to keep repeating this trick. Ideas anyone?
BTW, 2 questions regarding this deck:
1. The Great Beast is unique. Does this mean the Minion with the name
'Great Beast' or do Call the Great Beast cards in play contest with
the minion. I guess not, but just to be sure.
2. Can The great Beast Call the Great Beast (Great Beast phone
home...)? He burns before contesting, right?
Jeroen
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d0da353$0$10645$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
> "Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message
> news:5a63bace.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]>> The cost is not too much . Look at how strong vampires they are.
>
> One avoids hand jam, the others gives you the edge no matter what, the other
> reduces your prey's size by one etc...
Reduces your prey's size by one what? cm, inch,... :-) Could be nice
for fat V:TES players. No need for a diet, just sit as the prey of a
Baali deck.
In message <3d0ead28$0$21748$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Paying a pool not to tap the Baali.>
>this is no pedantry dear James =)
>some people may think that the baali are immune to, say, sensory
>deprivation. But this is not true.
No, indeed not. However, in The Lasombra's case - where it was merely
referencing the additional cost in general - it was pedantic, IMO.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f0d2397.02061...@posting.google.com...
> BTW, 2 questions regarding this deck:
> 1. The Great Beast is unique. Does this mean the Minion with the name
> 'Great Beast' or do Call the Great Beast cards in play contest with
> the minion. I guess not, but just to be sure.
this card represents a unique vampire once there is more than 10 counter on
it, but it seems you can have multiples call of the great beat in play =)
card text :
"When this card has more than 10 ritual counters, burn this Baali and choose
three Disciplines; this card becomes a *unique* clanless independent
infernal vampire with 9 capacity, 4 strength and 3 bleed. The Great Beast
has the chosen three Disciplines at superior."...
> 2. Can The great Beast Call the Great Beast (Great Beast phone
> home...)? He burns before contesting, right?
yes , right, but he has to be a baali to do the action ;)
"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f0d2397.0206...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
if it were centimeters, that would be very bad for me : i'm already quite
small, i would have to rush mainyu asap =)
In message <3d0ef805$0$17630$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>this card represents a unique vampire once there is more than 10 counter on
>it, but it seems you can have multiples call of the great beat in play =)
No.
* All "Call the Great Beasts" become the same unique vampire and
will contest accordingly.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C0CEBAD.E5B1318C%40white-wolf.com
[LSJ 20011204]
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:+eHfKSzw...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3d0ef805$0$17630$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >this card represents a unique vampire once there is more than 10 counter
on
> >it, but it seems you can have multiples call of the great beat in play =)
>
> No.
>
> * All "Call the Great Beasts" become the same unique vampire and
> will contest accordingly.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C0CEBAD.E5B1318C%40white-wolf.com
So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
In message <3d0efc0f$0$2471$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> * All "Call the Great Beasts" become the same unique vampire and
>> will contest accordingly.
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C0CEBAD.E5B1318C%40white-wolf.com>
>So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
No, the vampires will contest with each other.
Call the Great Beast:
"...this card becomes a unique clanless..."
The Call the Great Beast action card is not unique. You could have five
in play, if you wanted.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:LPaCe11F...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3d0efc0f$0$2471$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> * All "Call the Great Beasts" become the same unique vampire and
> >> will contest accordingly.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C0CEBAD.E5B1318C%40white-wolf.com
> >
> >So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
>
> No, the vampires will contest with each other.
>
> Call the Great Beast:
>
> "...this card becomes a unique clanless..."
thank you ! that's exactly what i pointed in my previous post =)
> The Call the Great Beast action card is not unique. You could have five
yes, that's also what i stated in my previous post. your answer was quite
unwitty, and this is uncommon indeed ;)
> reyda wrote...
>
> > James Coupe wrote...> >
> > In message <3d0d3f1d...@text.giganews.com>, The Lasombra
> > <thela...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >Paying a pool to untap the Baali,
> >
> > Pedantry:
> >
> > Paying a pool not to tap the Baali.
>
> this is no pedantry dear James =)
> some people may think that the baali are immune to, say, sensory
> deprivation. But this is not true.
>
> reyda
What are you guys talking about? How does the blood payment work for
the Baali? Is it "pay a pool to untap" or something else
altogether... and how is this effected by various cards like Sensory
Deprivation? Just wondering...
Thanks,
Howard
HD wrote:
> What are you guys talking about? How does the blood payment work for
> the Baali? Is it "pay a pool to untap" or something else
> altogether... and how is this effected by various cards like Sensory
> Deprivation? Just wondering...
During his or her untap phase, a Methuselah who controls an infernal
minion burns one pool or taps that infernal minion. [BL 3.6]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"HD" asked:
> What are you guys talking about?
See section 3.6 of the Bloodlines rules sheet, here:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/BLrules.html> How does the blood payment work for the Baali?
During his or her untap phase, a Methuselah who controls
an infernal minion burns one pool or taps that infernal minion.
> Is it "pay a pool to untap" or something else altogether...
You untap all of your cards at the start of the untap phase (unless
card text prevents, of course). At the end of the untap phase, if
you have not paid 1 pool for each Baali whom you wish to remain
untapped, you will have to tap them.
> and how is this effected by various cards like Sensory
> Deprivation?
It doesn't interact with Sensory Deprivation in any way.
During his or her untap phase, a Methuselah who controls
an infernal minion burns one pool or taps that infernal minion.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:268b3c67a6383a3566f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > and how is this effected by various cards like Sensory
> > Deprivation?
>
> It doesn't interact with Sensory Deprivation in any way.
>
> During his or her untap phase, a Methuselah who controls
> an infernal minion burns one pool or taps that infernal minion.
Hence my statement : people who don't really figure how to pay the infernal
cost (thinking "pay one pool to untap" instead of "pay one pool not to tap")
might think you can untap a baali afflicted by sensory deprivation or mind
numb or whatever...
so the reminder is *always* welcome =)
reyda
In message <3d0f08f9$0$17632$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
>>
>> No, the vampires will contest with each other.
>>
>> Call the Great Beast:
>>
>> "...this card becomes a unique clanless...">
>thank you ! that's exactly what i pointed in my previous post =)
No, it's not.
The action card does not contest a vampire in any way. The vampire that
the action card eventually creates will contest a similarly created
vampire. The action card does not contest a vampire.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:fmWXUe92...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
Just a reminder =)
Jeroen asked this :
> 1. The Great Beast is unique. Does this mean the Minion with the name
> 'Great Beast' or do Call the Great Beast cards in play contest with
> the minion. I guess not, but just to be sure.
to which i replied :
this card represents a unique vampire once there is more than 10 counter on
it, but it seems you can have multiples call of the great beat in play =)
(further explanation, not part of my previous post : it means that you can
have as many great beasts you want on the table, but once one reaches the 10
counter limit, it is now a vampire, which is unique and do contest. But the
so called Great Beast will not contest the other action cards.)
is it so difficult or is my english so crappy ? =)
i think there is some misunderstanding there !
"lehrbuch" <ri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fee5473.02061...@posting.google.com...
> halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message
> news:<20020616211649...@mb-mr.aol.com>...
> > So what I'm pretty much saying is that it *seems*
> > that due to the Herald (an ally who can call a
> > vote), Delaying Tactics does not seem to serve
> > the same functionality that the designer intended
> > (and I don't want to go on and on about who can
> > interpret "designer's intent" and all).
>
> It could equally well be the designer of the Herald's intent that it
> interacts in the way that it does with Delaying Tactics.
>
Doesn't the Herald play the Charming lobby "As a vampire" ? With the ruling
on Rafastio Ghouls and Burst of Sunlight, the ally acts as a vampire through
the play of the card. So, throughout the entire Charming Lobby action (and
subsequent referendum) the Herald would be acting as a vampire, so
technically, couldn't you play a delaying tactics and get the same results
as when playing it against a vampire calling a vote? Just curious...
In message <3d0f4f74$0$12948$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>i think there is some misunderstanding there !
You stated:
> >So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
This suggests that you believe the vampire will contest with an action
card. This is not the case. The Great Beast vampire will contest with
another Great Beast vampire.
It will not contest with a Great Beast action card currently in play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:N56jT9GH...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3d0f4f74$0$12948$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >i think there is some misunderstanding there !
>
> You stated:
>
> > >So a vampire will contest with an action card ? how disturbing...
>
> This suggests that you believe the vampire will contest with an action
> card. This is not the case. The Great Beast vampire will contest with
> another Great Beast vampire.
=) this was just a trait of irony from the offensive little prick =)
who can believe an action card will contest a vampire card ? =p
> It will not contest with a Great Beast action card currently in play.
i know, i know...
In message <3d0f596a$0$12949$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>=) this was just a trait of irony from the offensive little prick =)
Irony shouldn't be attempted without the help of a trained professional.
Preferably one that knows the difference between sarcasm and irony, too,
which are two entirely different things.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:nKZZvFKI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3d0f596a$0$12949$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >=) this was just a trait of irony from the offensive little prick =)
>
> Irony shouldn't be attempted without the help of a trained professional.
are you ready to give me lessons ?
> Preferably one that knows the difference between sarcasm and irony, too,
> which are two entirely different things.
You are right (for the first time of this thread, maybe ?) and it is my
mistake.
I used the french acceptation for irony, which may be different from the
english one.
defined in the littré, it says "Sarcasme : bitter and insulting irony". As i
didn't want to be bitter or insulting, i guess i didn't have to use the word
sarcasm here. I don't really knowif it's different in english , so if you
can light my fire, you are welcome.
"Jon Stahler" asked:
> Doesn't the Herald play the Charming lobby "As a vampire" ?
Yes.
He can't play Delaying Tactics as a vampire though, and Delaying
Tactics doesn't have any way to treat him as anything other than
the ally he is.
> With the ruling
> on Rafastio Ghouls and Burst of Sunlight, the ally acts as a
> vampire through the play of the card.
Right.
Burst of Sunlight, and only Burst of Sunlight, treats him as
a vampire. All other cards (ie the ones he didn't play) treat
him as the ally he is.
> So, throughout the entire Charming Lobby action (and
> subsequent referendum) the Herald would be acting as a vampire, so
> technically, couldn't you play a delaying tactics and get the same results
> as when playing it against a vampire calling a vote?
No.
Only the cards he plays "as a vampire" treat him as a vampire.
[ quoted text not captured ]
cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote:
>>Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and back
it
>>up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines.>
> Tzimisce. Gangrel, !Gangrel including nondiscipline cards (Computer Hacking).
> Assamites including nondiscipline cards, though to be effective at stealth
> bleed I wouldn't bother with the Tastes of Death.
Without permanents, none of these clans can bleed for more than 3.
Gangrel and Assamites can't bleed for more than 2. That's not what I
call "effective." You need more than stealth for stealth/bleed.
Without permanents, Baali can bleed for 5 (Legal Manip/Sense the Sin)
and with PRE get that pool back that you lost from untapping them.
Even more, they have better permanents for bleed.
> But, anyway, I wouldn't rate this as particularly important. If I'm going to
> bleed at stealth, whether I can hit people or not isn't usually one of my
> concerns. Though, I do think my tournament Baali deck is better with
> Conflagrations than without.
As IG decks became popular in tournaments, I've seen a lot of ranged
damage rush (or intercept) combat decks lately, most of which have
effective means of dealing with S:CE. Even if they don't, they don't
fear blocking you because you won't damage them. However, if you throw
ranged agg, most people are going to be a lot more hesitant to block
you, meaning less need for stealth and combat cards and more bleed
cards.
One other thing I've been surprised than people haven't done is
destroy vampires that have been deflected to you. If they're in torpor
or burned, they can't be deflected to you. Granted, that puts less
pressure on your predator, but if he's deflection happy, that will
contribute to hand jam. By using agg damage, you can either discourage
someone from getting chippy after you've been deflected or deal with
those who are bleeding you.
> No bleed bounce.
True. Banner of Neutrality is semi-useful at best. Major Boon is
probably a card that I'll have to add to the deck at some point. As it
is, I've been using the Setite's Golconda Towers and lots of Blood
Dolls.
> Not all that inexpensive vampires.
The 7 and 8 caps are quite good, though. I paired them up with 5 cap
Setites and the Setite Archon. It's made for a good mid-cap crypt.
> Limited number of vamps with dai/DAI in the game.
With the power of Daimonion, that's for the best.
> Unless you get tricky, you have to push forward hard which seems to be out of
> favor table politicswise in a lot of places.
Since you generally can only get 2 Baali on the table at once, you
really have to pace yourself. I've been using Temptation to get
multiple actions or action/untap to block.
> There are some decklists I've seen that are nifty. There's no decklist I've
> seen that I'd consider tier 1, 1.5.
Give it time. After I'm confident I've made the Baali deck as
competetive as possible, I'll be happy to judge its performance.
> Good. People should try challenging strategies to see if they can elevate
> the game by discovering something others haven't.
As I mentioned, I'm using Temptations to compensate and Setites are a
better match for the Baali than the !Salubri using Blessing of the
Name.
> But, it was amusing to hear The Lasombra pan them so.
That was really odd.
> IMO, they are conceptually bad, as most extremes are.
But only because of their Infernal trait. How much of an obstacle it
is depends on the deck designer, I should think.
> Their cards and specials are really powerful, too much so without a drawback.
Which is what my original point was. Glad we agree! :-D
> But, their drawback screws them by being so severe, which preserves balance
> but isn't the way I'd design for a game.
...and once you've effectively dealt with that drawback, they're very
scary.
The Lasombra wrote:
> >Does anyone have a decent Baali deck that they have posted or are
> >willing to post? (web links)
Don't forget the Baali deck that won a tournament:
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k2oakland
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
>>>Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and back>it>>>up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines.>>
>> Tzimisce. Gangrel, !Gangrel including nondiscipline cards (Computer>Hacking).>> Assamites including nondiscipline cards, though to be effective at stealth
>> bleed I wouldn't bother with the Tastes of Death.>
>Without permanents, none of these clans can bleed for more than 3.
>Gangrel and Assamites can't bleed for more than 2. That's not what I
>call "effective." You need more than stealth for stealth/bleed.
A good volume of bleeds for 2-3 is a lot more consistent than tossing around
5s; at least, it seems so nowadays. For Tzimisce, inferior Vicissitude is all
that's required. Not a whole lot of stealth, but then, how many people
register that they can easily bleed for 3 without tooling up? Gangrel/!Gangrel
would need PRO for the requisite (per the question) ranged Body Flare, but
that's not that hard for the Gangrel. Tried Assamite stealth bleed with a
couple ToDs and wasn't happy; required more moving parts than a simple deck
would like; so, I could take that off the list of "effective".
Thing is, I've seen Tzimisce and Gangrel, 1.5 discipline bleed decks that can
consistently get out at least 4 vamps, which makes frequent 2-3 bleeds
possible. And, of course, these decks could fit in some offensive combat
without effort.
>Without permanents, Baali can bleed for 5 (Legal Manip/Sense the Sin)
>and with PRE get that pool back that you lost from untapping them.
Bleeds of 5 have their own problems, such as getting bounced. But, I found
that I really didn't like having to throw around 5 bleeds with Baali as losing
a Baali in a Baali deck (to something like Archon Investigation) hurts more
than losing some Dominate dweeb swinging for 5.
>Even more, they have better permanents for bleed.
D'habi Revenant? The one deck I've seen where I'd be comfortable playing this
was one of the Baali Embrace decks. I have issues with taking the time for the
action and having the card take up space in the hand. Also will put them up to
a 4 bleed with Sense the Sin. I guess one key thing to having them work (in
the normal bleed deck) is hope the other players don't play AI.
I'd much rather play Tzimisce with Living Manses than try to add permanent
bleed onto the printed Baali.
>As I mentioned, I'm using Temptations to compensate and Setites are a
>better match for the Baali than the !Salubri using Blessing of the
>Name.
BotN does help in one regard. Two intercept is more likely to stop some
annoying things people try to do to you than one. In theory, it means your
only bad match ups are serious stealth decks and serious combat decks.
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<89d143a0db72d897f63...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Here is what I find disturbing by what you just stated, Lasombra.
Within the rulebook (written) rules it is stated that allies can not
call referendums, but the Herald can do so through the use of Charming
Lobby. Now through whatever logic that allows the Herald to play a
referendum, I was certain it was due to the Herald playing Charming
Lobby "as a vampire of 5 capacity" and not as a simple ally. Now you
have gone and just told me it isn't. So now I am again at a loss as
to how a Herald is able to play a discipline card and call a
referendum as an ally and not as a vampire (which is required to play
both discipline cards and call referendums). This is especially in
light of Charming Lobby's statement of "Call a referendum." which an
ally is not able to do as an ally.
I know all about the "cards override the rulebook rules" statement in
the rules, however, I do not see how Charming Lobby allows an ally to
call a referendum as a ally when the rules clearly states otherwise,
unless the ally is calling it "as a vampire of X capacity".
Michael Eichler
Prince of Ramstein
(Never liked the bloody rule allowing allies to play discipline cards
that require them to be placed "on the acting vampire" when it is an
ally playing the card)
"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message
news:9c15fdd3.02061...@posting.google.com...
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<89d143a0db72d897f63...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > "Jon Stahler" asked:> > > So, throughout the entire Charming Lobby action (and> > > subsequent referendum) the Herald would be acting as a vampire, so
> > > technically, couldn't you play a delaying tactics and get the same
results
> > > as when playing it against a vampire calling a vote?
> >
> > No.
> > Only the cards he plays "as a vampire" treat him as a vampire.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Here is what I find disturbing by what you just stated, Lasombra.
> Within the rulebook (written) rules it is stated that allies can not
> call referendums, but the Herald can do so through the use of Charming
> Lobby. Now through whatever logic that allows the Herald to play a
> referendum, I was certain it was due to the Herald playing Charming
> Lobby "as a vampire of 5 capacity" and not as a simple ally. Now you
> have gone and just told me it isn't.
The Herald *does* play Charming Lobby "as a vampire of 5
capacity".
However, *only* that Charming Lobby (and other cards the Herald
plays "as a vampire") will treat the Herald "as a vampire". To
everything else in the world (including all cards played by
other players), he remains an ally.
This is why Delaying Tactics doesn't treat him "as a vampire".
Only cards the Herald himself plays will treat the Herald "as
a vampire".
Josh
was a vampire
was not a vampire
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aeqnf4$9c4c8$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hello Josh,
I know you know exactly how I feel about this whole ruling, but that
is beside the point.
Unfortunately, that is not what I have read and understood from LSJ's
original post.
"For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of
the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card
and the resolution of a strike card..."
This tells me that if the Herald uses Charming Lobby "as a vampire of
5 capacity", then it is treated as a vampire throughout the entire
action. Thus, a Delaying Tactics should have the proper effect as the
Herald (an ally, normally) calls a referendum using Charming Lobby (as
a vampire of 5 capacity) and would remain acting as a vampire of 5
capacity until the conclusion of the referendum called using a
Charming Lobby.
That is, unless LSJ is considering the called referendum during a
Charming Lobby a continuing effect granted by the card or an effect
given by the card in play. But that does not seem to make sense for
Charming Lobby. It would make sense for Rutor's Hand or Shadow of the
Beast.
But let us also consider this, what happens when we start having
allies that can play Fortitude cards "as a vampire of X capacity"?
Will the Action Modifiers "Daring the Dawn", "Dawn Operation" and "Day
Operation" affect the playing ally?
"Daring the Dawn" gives aggravated damage to the playing -vampire-
after the action is complete. Would this also apply to an ally
playing "as a vampire of x capacity"?
"Dawn Operation" states if the action is blocked, all damage in the
resulting combat is aggravated. Would the ally be treated "as a
vampire of x capacity" during such a combat or as an ally in
determining damage effects (torpor for aggravated or normal for
aggravated)?
"Day Operation" just sends the user into torpor after the action takes
place. Does this mean the ally playing it "as a vampire of x
capacity" would be sent to torpor after the action is complete?
From the reading of what LSJ has written, the answers are not readily
apparent as he only makes mention of card effects concerning Action
and Combat cards, unless something new has been put forward that I
have not read yet.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ramsteiner wrote:
> "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
> are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of
> the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card
> and the resolution of a strike card..."
> This tells me that if the Herald uses Charming Lobby "as a vampire of
> 5 capacity", then it is treated as a vampire throughout the entire
> action.
It should tell you that the Charming Lobby treats the Herald as a vampire.
It says nothing about the ally being treated as a vampire for other
effects.
> Thus, a Delaying Tactics should have the proper effect as the
> Herald (an ally, normally) calls a referendum using Charming Lobby (as
> a vampire of 5 capacity) and would remain acting as a vampire of 5
> capacity until the conclusion of the referendum called using a
> Charming Lobby.
No. There are no effects lying around that enable DT to be played on
the Herald "as if the Herald were a vampire".
> But let us also consider this, what happens when we start having
> allies that can play Fortitude cards "as a vampire of X capacity"?
> Will the Action Modifiers "Daring the Dawn", "Dawn Operation" and "Day
> Operation" affect the playing ally?
Any card that the ally plays "as a vampire" (or anyone else plays that
treat the ally "as a vampire") would treat the ally as a vampire, yes.
> "Daring the Dawn" gives aggravated damage to the playing -vampire-
> after the action is complete. Would this also apply to an ally
> playing "as a vampire of x capacity"?
Yes.
> "Dawn Operation" states if the action is blocked, all damage in the
> resulting combat is aggravated. Would the ally be treated "as a
> vampire of x capacity" during such a combat or as an ally in
> determining damage effects (torpor for aggravated or normal for
> aggravated)?
Probably not. If it were worded differently ("all damage done to this
vampire and to any other vampires in the resulting combat is aggravated")
then maybe.
> "Day Operation" just sends the user into torpor after the action takes
> place. Does this mean the ally playing it "as a vampire of x
> capacity" would be sent to torpor after the action is complete?
Yes.
> From the reading of what LSJ has written, the answers are not readily
> apparent as he only makes mention of card effects concerning Action
> and Combat cards, unless something new has been put forward that I
> have not read yet.
It makes mention of "all parts of the resolution of the play of
the appropriate cards" (see the quote you cited above).
[ quoted text not captured ]
cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20020618193254...@mb-mm.aol.com>...
> >>>Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and back
> it
> >>>up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines.
> >>
Well if you're playing S&B why back it up with Ranged aggravated
damage if you get blocked you weren't playing S&B the way it's suposed
to.
> >> Tzimisce. Gangrel, !Gangrel including nondiscipline cards (Computer
> Hacking).
> >> Assamites including nondiscipline cards, though to be effective at stealth
> >> bleed I wouldn't bother with the Tastes of Death.
> >Without permanents, none of these clans can bleed for more than 3.
> >Gangrel and Assamites can't bleed for more than 2. That's not what I
> >call "effective." You need more than stealth for stealth/bleed.
(snip)
Although the Baali are cool they have the same problem as most Sarce
BL's they tend to become a target if you've centered you're deck
around having atleast one Baali on the table you're strategy becomes
very fragile and you're not likely to get more Baali influenced out
besides for they're cost paying 2 or 3 pool to keep you're minions
from tapping is suicide.
Cards like ToGP Hostile Take over Sensory Deprevation and Pentex
Subversion are
a few card most likely to hit the baali in you're active region then
you're Settis or what ever you play them with.
As single vampires the Baali are good but they're cost is too much and
I can't say that the cards Dai provides give you new means of playing
obf pres fact still remains that it's best used for bleeding or voting
and I don't see any reason why you'd want to be playing Baali for
that, except maybey for the chalenge.
Emile
"We are an ape with a symbiotic relationship to a mushroom"
"Ramsteiner" <michael...@ramstein.af.mil> wrote in message
news:9c15fdd3.02062...@posting.google.com...
> Hello Josh,
>
> I know you know exactly how I feel about this whole ruling, but that
> is beside the point.
Yes, I know. :-)
> Unfortunately, that is not what I have read and understood from LSJ's
> original post.
>
> "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
> are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of
> the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card
> and the resolution of a strike card..."
>
> This tells me that if the Herald uses Charming Lobby "as a vampire of
> 5 capacity", then it is treated as a vampire throughout the entire
> action. Thus, a Delaying Tactics should have the proper effect as the
> Herald (an ally, normally) calls a referendum using Charming Lobby (as
> a vampire of 5 capacity) and would remain acting as a vampire of 5
> capacity until the conclusion of the referendum called using a
> Charming Lobby.
Not so. This is not what the ruling means or was ever intended
to mean. I had the same confusion when the ruling was first
made, and LSJ answered the question here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=3CD159D1.8D23
7915%40white-wolf.com
The ruling is only saying that *the cards it plays* treats it
as a vampire. The "resolution of the play of the appropriate
cards" refers only to the effects of *those cards themselves*;
it does not include other cards involved in the action or
strike or what-have-you that those cards create/affect.
Josh
was never a vampire
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D11C33D...@white-wolf.com>...
> Ramsteiner wrote:
> > "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
> > are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of
> > the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card
> > and the resolution of a strike card..."
> > This tells me that if the Herald uses Charming Lobby "as a vampire of
> > 5 capacity", then it is treated as a vampire throughout the entire
> > action.
>
> It should tell you that the Charming Lobby treats the Herald as a vampire.
> It says nothing about the ally being treated as a vampire for other
> effects.
>
I really don't follow the stream of thought on that. If, per the
ruling, the ally becomes subseptible to vampiric effects because is
plays a card "as a vampire of x capacity". Why would the "vampire
benefits/vulnerabilities" being granted to the ally only apply upon
the cards it plays and not cards that other minions could play
specifically against vampires during those actions? Sort of sounds
one sided to me. Is the ally an ally or is it a vampire during the
play of cards when it plays cards "as a vampire of x capacity"?
> > Thus, a Delaying Tactics should have the proper effect as the
> > Herald (an ally, normally) calls a referendum using Charming Lobby (as
> > a vampire of 5 capacity) and would remain acting as a vampire of 5
> > capacity until the conclusion of the referendum called using a
> > Charming Lobby.
>
> No. There are no effects lying around that enable DT to be played on
> the Herald "as if the Herald were a vampire".
>
What about the action the Herald played? If it plays a card "as a
vampire of 5 capacity", then it is acting as a vampire. It would seem
to follow that effects from other minions could affect with card
effects that specifically target vampires as the Herald is currently
acting as a vampire during the course of the action. Sort of like
transforming yourself into living sand. If hit with enough heat/fire
at one time, you would become subseptible to turning to glass whereas
if you were just a normal flesh and blood you would be char-broiled.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, so action modifiers is part of the resolution of the play of the
appropriate card(s). Why wouldn't reaction cards also be part of the
resolution of the play of the appropriate card(s). Don't reaction
card affect the course of the resolution of play by introducing
obstacles to the committed action? During a referendum action, if the
action modifier Bewitching Oration enhances the acting vampire's or
acting "as a vampire"'s vote for the referendum; doesn't the reaction
Kindred Coercion affect the refendum's votes through the cancelation
of some of the voters?
But now to something different. The last segment of the statement "as
a vampire of x capacity", specifically "of x capacity"; what does it
mean?
Does it mean that the ally is limited to cards it can afford to pay as
a vampire of like capacity in blood (life) cost? Example: Shadow
Court Satyr has the text "...as a vampire of 1 capacity..." when
dealing with a discipline card it can use. If the Satyr is played
with Decapitate, would it be able to use it in a combat?
Or does it something else all together? Or maybe nothing at all,
except for the Herald who can now play Voter Captivation.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aet9kj$9ehvp$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi Josh,
The URL didn't go through for me. If it works on your end, then I am
being blocked from viewing it via my server.
Changing server's is not an option as I have no other server to switch
to.
Until later
Michael Eichler
Ramsteiner wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Ramsteiner wrote:
> > > "For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
> > > are treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of
> > > the appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card
> > > and the resolution of a strike card..."
> > > This tells me that if the Herald uses Charming Lobby "as a vampire of
> > > 5 capacity", then it is treated as a vampire throughout the entire
> > > action.
> >
> > It should tell you that the Charming Lobby treats the Herald as a vampire.
> > It says nothing about the ally being treated as a vampire for other
> > effects.
> >
> I really don't follow the stream of thought on that. If, per the
> ruling, the ally becomes subseptible to vampiric effects because is
> plays a card "as a vampire of x capacity". Why would the "vampire
He doesn't.
Per the ruling, the ally plays *the card* as a vampire.
> benefits/vulnerabilities" being granted to the ally only apply upon
> the cards it plays and not cards that other minions could play
> specifically against vampires during those actions? Sort of sounds
> one sided to me. Is the ally an ally or is it a vampire during the
> play of cards when it plays cards "as a vampire of x capacity"?
Because the card is played as if he were a vampire.
Other cards that are not played as if he were a vampire do not treat
him as a vampire.
> > > Thus, a Delaying Tactics should have the proper effect as the
> > > Herald (an ally, normally) calls a referendum using Charming Lobby (as
> > > a vampire of 5 capacity) and would remain acting as a vampire of 5
> > > capacity until the conclusion of the referendum called using a
> > > Charming Lobby.
> >
> > No. There are no effects lying around that enable DT to be played on
> > the Herald "as if the Herald were a vampire".
> >
> What about the action the Herald played? If it plays a card "as a
> vampire of 5 capacity", then it is acting as a vampire. It would seem
> to follow that effects from other minions could affect with card
> effects that specifically target vampires as the Herald is currently
> acting as a vampire during the course of the action. Sort of like
> transforming yourself into living sand. If hit with enough heat/fire
> at one time, you would become subseptible to turning to glass whereas
> if you were just a normal flesh and blood you would be char-broiled.
Remember: card text has priority over WoD flavor/backstory. The game
would be unplayable as anything other than a cooperative story-telling
pastime otherwise.
He doesn't transform himself into living sand nor into a vampire.
He plays the card as a vampire.
> [...]> > > From the reading of what LSJ has written, the answers are not readily
> > > apparent as he only makes mention of card effects concerning Action
> > > and Combat cards, unless something new has been put forward that I
> > > have not read yet.
> >
> > It makes mention of "all parts of the resolution of the play of
> > the appropriate cards" (see the quote you cited above).
>
> Ok, so action modifiers is part of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate card(s). Why wouldn't reaction cards also be part of the
? If the "appropriate card(s)" are the action modifiers, sure.
> resolution of the play of the appropriate card(s). Don't reaction
Modifiers and Reactions are restricted in the same way as each other.
If they aren't played "as a vampire" then they don't treat the ally as
a vampire.
> card affect the course of the resolution of play by introducing
> obstacles to the committed action? During a referendum action, if the
> action modifier Bewitching Oration enhances the acting vampire's or
> acting "as a vampire"'s vote for the referendum; doesn't the reaction
> Kindred Coercion affect the refendum's votes through the cancelation
> of some of the voters?
If the KC is played as if the ally were a vampire, sure.
The Herald can play BO as a vampire (since it requires presence).
He could even play Dread Gaze as a vampire on a referendum called
by another Methuselah's minion.
If some effect allowed Kindred Coercion to be played on the Herald
as if he were a vampire, then it could be played as if he were a
vampire. Currently, there is no such effect.
> But now to something different. The last segment of the statement "as
> a vampire of x capacity", specifically "of x capacity"; what does it
> mean?
He plays card as a vampire of X capacity.
If the card requires him to have a certain capacity (e.g. Death of My
Conscience) or wishes to compare his capacity to the target (e.g.,
Seduction), then the stated capacity is used to determine if the card
can be played or if the target is legal.
> Does it mean that the ally is limited to cards it can afford to pay as
> a vampire of like capacity in blood (life) cost? Example: Shadow
No. Life is not limited by capacity.
> Court Satyr has the text "...as a vampire of 1 capacity..." when
> dealing with a discipline card it can use. If the Satyr is played
> with Decapitate, would it be able to use it in a combat?
Sure.
> Or does it something else all together? Or maybe nothing at all,
> except for the Herald who can now play Voter Captivation.
Capacity would still not limit his life in that case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ramsteiner wrote:
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=3CD159D1.8D23
> > 7915%40white-wolf.com> The URL didn't go through for me. If it works on your end, then I am
> being blocked from viewing it via my server.
You have to use the whole URL - Josh's news poster split the long line
(and using just the first line of the URL won't work).
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=3CD159D1.8D237915%40white-wolf.com
Or try this shorter URL for the same message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD159D1.8D237915%40white-wolf.com[ quoted text not captured ]
> Although the Baali are cool they have the same problem as most Sarce
> BL's they tend to become a target if you've centered you're deck
> around having atleast one Baali on the table you're strategy becomes
> very fragile and you're not likely to get more Baali influenced out
> besides for they're cost paying 2 or 3 pool to keep you're minions
> from tapping is suicide.
So? All you need is one, really, and Contagion makes sure that you're
not the only one takin' the pain.
> Cards like ToGP Hostile Take over
How much would you bid for a minion that costs 1 every turn or stays
tapped?
> Sensory Deprevation and Pentex
> Subversion are
> a few card most likely to hit the baali in you're active region then
> you're Settis or what ever you play them with.
Pentex when you have other vamps with Obfuscate? Not a good plan,
usually. Sensory Deprivation? Use Blessing of the Name. Baali don't
untap in that deck anyway, Sens Dep is a non-issue.
> As single vampires the Baali are good but they're cost is too much and
> I can't say that the cards Dai provides give you new means of playing
> obf pres
Sure it does, you add Bum's Rush and Conflagration to an otherwise
usual stealth bleeder.
> fact still remains that it's best used for bleeding or voting
> and I don't see any reason why you'd want to be playing Baali for
> that, except maybey for the chalenge.
Originally, I played Baali cause they were challenging. Then I
realized that Giotto bleeds, freak drive, bum's rush, Conflagration is
a totally new angle. No hand jam, either.
Something like
Basil
2 Lena Rowe
Nepata
Hadrian Garrick
Count Ormonde
Sir Mariott D'Urban
5 Giotto Verducci
With lots of stealth, bleed, Presence masters, and Ambush + Freak
Drive + Conflagration, it's pretty formidable. Usual S+B, but
ass-kickings in place of Deflections. Give Baali a try, they're not
as bad as some clans.
"I've seen Ahrimanes win a tournament"
--Brian
(snip)
> Sure it does, you add Bum's Rush and Conflagration to an otherwise
> usual stealth bleeder.
>
> > fact still remains that it's best used for bleeding or voting
> > and I don't see any reason why you'd want to be playing Baali for
> > that, except maybey for the chalenge.
>
> Originally, I played Baali cause they were challenging. Then I
> realized that Giotto bleeds, freak drive, bum's rush, Conflagration is
> a totally new angle. No hand jam, either.
Well sure Bum's Rush and Conflagration is nifty but couldn't I replace
those cards with bleed cards which would make for a more competative
deck
> Something like
> Basil
> 2 Lena Rowe
> Nepata
> Hadrian Garrick
> Count Ormonde
> Sir Mariott D'Urban
> 5 Giotto Verducci
>
> With lots of stealth, bleed, Presence masters, and Ambush + Freak
> Drive + Conflagration, it's pretty formidable. Usual S+B, but
> ass-kickings in place of Deflections. Give Baali a try, they're not
> as bad as some clans.
I'm planning on making a Baali deck just not sure what it's going to
do yet I have 4 Call the Great Beast so I'm probably going for a Beast
deck.
A few months ago we had a tourny here in Holland and Tobias had a deck
idea using fear of the Void below and a card discard loop I've also
been thinking about that but there isn't a card that provides you with
a press every round except the meathook but that's only at short range
if anybody knows of a way to make such a loop I'd be realy interested.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> A few months ago we had a tourny here in Holland and Tobias had a deck
> idea using fear of the Void below and a card discard loop I've also
> been thinking about that but there isn't a card that provides you with
> a press every round except the meathook but that's only at short range
> if anybody knows of a way to make such a loop I'd be realy interested.
How about a Trap?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Since you're really replying to my post, I'll feel free to respond.
ebo...@hotmail.com (Emile Bosman) wrote:
>>>>> Name another clan that effectively pull off stealth bleed and
back
>>>>> it up with ranged aggravated damage using in-clan disciplines.>
> Well if you're playing S&B why back it up with Ranged aggravated
> damage if you get blocked you weren't playing S&B the way it's suposed
> to.
Noal's Theory of Stealth Bleed: If you can reliably inflict aggravated
damage or large amounts of regular damage, your opponents will be less
likely to try to block.
Corollary: If your opponents are less likely to block, you will need
less cards for stealth (which jam the hand), freeing up the card slots
for more powerful bleeds and better defense (which are more easily
cycled).
The biggest weakness with typical S&B is Rush Combat. While Baali
can't deal well with a weenie IG deck, it can fight back against the
ranged combat decks (Assamite decks, Carrion Crows/Aid From Bats
decks, etc.) I've seen a lot of lately.
> Although the Baali are cool they have the same problem as most Sarce
> BL's they tend to become a target if you've centered you're deck> around having at least one Baali on the table
Most decks center around having at least one vampire of some clan or
another on the table. ;-) As with any non-weenie deck, I usually get
out about 3 or 4 vampires on the table and if one or more takes a hit,
it's gonna suck and may even spell doom.
However, because of the reputation of the Infernal trait, Baali are
less likely to be targeted than Setites, Malks, !Malks, etc.
> you're strategy becomes very fragile and you're not likely to get more
> Baali influenced out besides for they're cost paying 2 or 3 pool to keep
> you're minions from tapping is suicide.
Not planning to compensate for that pool loss is suicide. However, I
do plan for it. Blood Dolls and Legal Manips pay for it. Temptations
make paying to untap unnecessary once they're low in blood (from the
aforementioned Blood Dolls and Legal Manips). Golconda Towers cashes
out a vampire that has become useless.
> Cards like ToGP Hostile Takeover
These cards aren't designed so much to purchase someone's vampire as
it they are designed to make a person pay a lot of pool for the
privelege of keeping it and, as such, they suck for any non-weenie
deck. So either pack SRs to counter them or use the pool you just got
to bring out another one.
> Sensory Deprevation
Also sucks for any non-weenie deck. Can be intercepted. See Sense the
Sin.
> and Pentex Subversion
Easily gotten rid of with other vampires using stealth, such as the
Setites that I pair the Baali with.
> As single vampires the Baali are good but they're cost is too much and
> I can't say that the cards Dai provides give you new means of playing
You're welcome to your opinion. However, I will prove you wrong with
the future tournament track record of my Baali/Setites deck. As
mentioned previously, it's still in the development cycle, but I'm
pleased with it's progress. See the recent Toronto Tournament Report
thread, "Toronto Tournament Report 6/15/02 - He Meddles Again!" for
details.
Regards,
Noal
> The biggest weakness with typical S&B is Rush Combat. While Baali
> can't deal well with a weenie IG deck, it can fight back against the
> ranged combat decks (Assamite decks, Carrion Crows/Aid From Bats
> decks, etc.) I've seen a lot of lately.
Actually, the Baali have one of the best anti combat cards in the game:
Fear the Void Below. It makes IG combat moot and, unless they are
denied a strike, they can always S:CE out. I'm not sure why the Baali
have to fear Rush Combat...?
Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden
On 24 Jun 2002, Emile Bosman wrote:
> Well sure Bum's Rush and Conflagration is nifty but couldn't I replace
> those cards with bleed cards which would make for a more competative
> deck
Maybe, but I think the days of pure speed bleed ala "Malk decks" are
over. Sure, their first prey is still pretty reliably doomed,
but it's all about the table wins now and I think they get smeared
mid-game. To survive and take the game they need to account
for minions to their right and left tooling up with the permenant elements
of intercept walls, which ranged agg rush - available as a two card combo
- should be able to provide. There's also a large benefit gained from
making an early, flashy rush in terms of actions that you might not've
been able to block but that never got played because your predator (or
worse, that guy cross-table who thinks your PB:M is there for him) doesn't
see you as a helpless target. I also think one good early rush on your
predator is about all you need, on average, to tip him upstream without
castrating him, freeing you up in terms of minion actions and deck space
to focus on your prey.
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham, NC
In message <U4%R8.458$mp2.2...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow
<jcb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Actually, the Baali have one of the best anti combat cards in the game:
>Fear the Void Below. It makes IG combat moot and, unless they are
>denied a strike, they can always S:CE out. I'm not sure why the Baali
>have to fear Rush Combat...?
Erm, how does it make IG rush combat moot? The round *defaults* to
long. A well-played IG deck is usually packing some maneuvers, too.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >Actually, the Baali have one of the best anti combat cards in the game:
> >Fear the Void Below. It makes IG combat moot and, unless they are
> >denied a strike, they can always S:CE out. I'm not sure why the Baali
> >have to fear Rush Combat...?
> Erm, how does it make IG rush combat moot? The round *defaults* to
> long. A well-played IG deck is usually packing some maneuvers, too.
Because they usually aren't packing *that* many. They can't afford to.
Potence only combat decks rely on the BR for the maneuver and *might*
pack a few "Fake Outs". Celerity/Potence decks will pack some Flash
and Pursuit, but they can't afford that many. Perhaps 9?
Fear the Void Below also has a maneuver at outferior plus there's also
Behind You and Swallowed by the Night at OBF. Not counting the initial
FtVB, each round the combat deck is going to need 2 maneuvers for the
first one you play making your vamps very difficult to catch and making
the combat deck more or less moot.
Sorrow
---
I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me.
They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course!
There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!"
So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy
In message <JF0S8.475$mp2.2...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow
<jcb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Erm, how does it make IG rush combat moot? The round *defaults* to
>> long. A well-played IG deck is usually packing some maneuvers, too.>
>Because they usually aren't packing *that* many. They can't afford to.
>Potence only combat decks rely on the BR for the maneuver and *might*
>pack a few "Fake Outs". Celerity/Potence decks will pack some Flash
>and Pursuit, but they can't afford that many. Perhaps 9?
Bum's Rush is also packing a useful maneuver, if unblocked. Leaving a
Baali untapped is generally foolish (except for the first time out, of
course) and with no intercept or bounce to hand, Wakes aren't that great
for them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message
<Pine.GSO.4.21.02062...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>,
David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> mumbled something about:
>On 24 Jun 2002, Emile Bosman wrote:
>>> Well sure Bum's Rush and Conflagration is nifty but couldn't I replace
>> those cards with bleed cards which would make for a more competative
>> deck>
>Maybe, but I think the days of pure speed bleed ala "Malk decks" are
>over. Sure, their first prey is still pretty reliably doomed,
>but it's all about the table wins now and I think they get smeared
>mid-game. To survive and take the game they need to account
I'm not sure. I think that if you've included a sufficiently viable
"long-term" element to your monster bleed deck, or just a good alternate
plan in case chucking around bleeds of 5 at 3 stealth isn't going to fly
(and realize that sometimes it WON'T), then stealth bleed is still the
most efficient and consistent way to win.
Putting 10 each in your deck of Govern, Condition, Lost in Crowds, and
Faceless Night won't work anymore, of course. But if you hybridize your
deck sufficiently, and manage to NOT look like a stealth/bleed deck
until you obliterate your first prey for 12 pool in one turn, then
you're going to be well on your way.
Stealth vote is right behind; it falls short because of the vote-lock
problem. If you can't gain or maintain vote lock, your deck is
constantly teetering on the edge of success.
>been able to block but that never got played because your predator (or
>worse, that guy cross-table who thinks your PB:M is there for him) doesn't
>see you as a helpless target. I also think one good early rush on your
>predator is about all you need, on average, to tip him upstream without
>castrating him, freeing you up in terms of minion actions and deck space
>to focus on your prey.
I don't know about this, either. If I think my prey's trying to turn me
into a speed bump, I lean even FURTHER to the left than I normally
would, and I make him either waste too many resources killing me, or
(more often than not) NOT kill me in the hopes that I'll die fast
enough, leaving me room to grab a VP.
I rarely wall up these days; it's often exactly what my prey wants me to
do, and if he wants that, he must be weak against me in some fashion.
So I put pressure on any weakness I perceive. (In general, there's a
point beyond which walling up simply delays your own demise; I prefer to
"go for it" at that point, because sometimes you can pull off a miracle
and draw into the hand you need... and sometimes your predator can end
up with all his minions Sense Depped out of nowhere. It also puts a
small amount of pressure on your grandpredator to "help you now or face
the consequences", if you're suffering from the got-rushed-backwards
syndrome.)
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Derek Ray wrote:
> David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> mumbled something about:> >Maybe, but I think the days of pure speed bleed ala "Malk decks" are> >over. Sure, their first prey is still pretty reliably doomed,> I'm not sure. I think that if you've included a sufficiently viable> "long-term" element to your monster bleed deck, or just a good alternate
> plan in case chucking around bleeds of 5 at 3 stealth isn't going to fly
> (and realize that sometimes it WON'T), then stealth bleed is still the
> most efficient and consistent way to win.
But those long term elements and alternate plans take cards, and the
presence of these cards morph the deck into something other than "pure
speed bleed." There is a guy in my play group who still hauls out his
Malk deck from back in the day, when he gets tired of playing one of his
decks o' many weeners, and he still insists that it be nothing but stealth
and bleed. No combat defense, no wakes, no deflections.... nothing
else. He's of the mind that anything else just slows the deck down. He
usually creams one guy and then dies to rush, or votes, or sufficiently
tooled up intercept. That's what I was speaking towards.
> Putting 10 each in your deck of Govern, Condition, Lost in Crowds, and
> Faceless Night won't work anymore, of course. But if you hybridize your
> deck sufficiently, and manage to NOT look like a stealth/bleed deck
> until you obliterate your first prey for 12 pool in one turn, then
> you're going to be well on your way.
Agreed. And a straight stealth bleed deck will have a hard time looking
like anything else. Maybe it could pull off "I'm a stealth bleed deck
holding real still," but it won't look like anything other than what it
is.
> Stealth vote is right behind; it falls short because of the vote-lock
> problem. If you can't gain or maintain vote lock, your deck is
> constantly teetering on the edge of success.
I played my bribes deck last night for the first time in a while. Sat down
between a weenie presence, praxis seizure predator and an
IC prey. I went down eventually, but bribed a lot of votes through,
including a Dramatic Upheaval. I'm not sure I agree with the importance
of vote lock, but certainly nobody is going to give you the oust; you need
Plan B for that.
> >I also think one good early rush on your
> >predator is about all you need, on average, to tip him upstream without
> >castrating him, freeing you up in terms of minion actions and deck space
> >to focus on your prey.
>
> I don't know about this, either. If I think my prey's trying to turn me
> into a speed bump, I lean even FURTHER to the left than I normally
> would, and I make him either waste too many resources killing me, or
> (more often than not) NOT kill me in the hopes that I'll die fast
> enough, leaving me room to grab a VP.
That's why it's one rush. Just one. You still let your predator do
predator things to you and you take your lumps, but if all the players are
actually putting pressure on their prey then he should be focused
elsewhere by midgame. No, there's nothing certain about that, but it's
not a bad rule of thumb. And of course a predator with disposable minions
couldn't care less, but I wouldn't bother doing it to them.
> I rarely wall up these days; it's often exactly what my prey wants me to
> do, and if he wants that, he must be weak against me in some fashion.
> So I put pressure on any weakness I perceive. (In general, there's a
> point beyond which walling up simply delays your own demise; I prefer to
> "go for it" at that point, because sometimes you can pull off a miracle
> and draw into the hand you need... and sometimes your predator can end
> up with all his minions Sense Depped out of nowhere. It also puts a
> small amount of pressure on your grandpredator to "help you now or face
> the consequences", if you're suffering from the got-rushed-backwards
> syndrome.)
I don't think an early rush will just take over your predator's mind and
turn him into a wall. I do think that you've shown you are capable of
torporing his minions, of which he now has one less. He's still going to
do to you whatever it is he was going to do, but with a little less volume
and a little less to defend himself with. The main point is to keep your
backwards-action under the radar, like dropping a Blood Doll as opposed to
a Minion Tap. What I want is to get an effect without actually getting my
predator into the mindset of "I'm getting ousted backwards."
[ quoted text not captured ]