Okay, I've been kicking around an idea for a while and it's quickly become
very popular. It's also an excellent way to meet in the middle about the
candidates for Banning. It's called the "Half Rule" and it goes amazingly
well with the some of the most valuable/broken cards without banning. It's
easy to explain, easy to remember and best of all, it takes little intellect
to apply.
All cards that will be under the "Half Rule" simply have "Half the net
effect" (Rounded down in all cases)
The biggest candidates for Errata/banning/collecting are RTI, TOR, and Mind
Rape. Let me give you the skinny on how and why it works with these cards:
Return to Innocence: Half the capacity of the Vamp rounded down. This makes
it much less desirable to use, but still a potential "Bleed deck bleed" for a
considerable sacrifice (E.G. a nine cap vampire would get you a +4 bleed for
his own demise). It still would retain it's value on it's own merits, but
with much less "sudden death" quality.
Tomb of Ramseys III: twice the transfers needed for a pool from the blood
bank. This eliminates the Eco terriorist effect (You do the math). But still
encourages larger vampires for long run. Of course, to even make back your
money on it, you'd have to leave it in play longer, thus risking contesting
much more than before. Basicly, it becomes a variation of info highway for a
single vampire that could need it.
Mind Rape: Half the counters (One). I know, I know, this gets hosed the most
(Hell, I traded my butt off for them myself!!!). But there would be no more
abuses of master phase actions against MRed Vamps, and of course, you would
prefer to rape them when they are untapped-- good luck. However, it still
retains it's value for eliminating a blocker for sure, and possibly netting
some special ability or tactical advantage from the younger vampire.
Rotschrek is not so heavily debated right now, but if I had my way-- it would
go under the half rule by requiring at least 2 agg damage. That, IMHO, would
balance it out.
The biggest winners are the newbies. For you see it doesn't take much
imagination or memory to apply the rule. And best of all, you don't have to
rewrite the entire card, just remember the "Half effect" and the rest sinks
in quick. Those decks built around the abusive cards mentioned are still
playable even if they are a lot less combo effective. Those just joining the
club won't have to completely redesign the decks they had to use, if they
liked the cards too.
PLEASE HEAR ME OUT ON THIS ONE POINT-- Those, like myself, who completely
disagree with so much of the new rules have no right to judge LSJ or EKN for
their loyalty to this game. LSJ deserves a lot of credit for the extensive
amount of work he has put in the game, even if we want to bash him on the 7/7
rulings. There is certainly no need to get personal.
On the other side of the token, I think LSJ and EKN needs to understand that
making such broad sweeping changes in the game all at once, and without some
public forum is a deadly precident that will bring morale down considerably.
This is a Collectable Card Game.
I think the "Half Rule" would be easy to remember, take almost no errata, and
would finally end the war between the factions of Collectors and Equalizers
What do you say Players? Can we strike up this compromise?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Okay, I've been kicking around an idea for a while and it's quickly become
>very popular. It's also an excellent way to meet in the middle about
>the candidates for Banning. It's called the "Half Rule" and it goes
>amazingly well with the some of the most valuable/broken cards without
>banning. It's easy to explain, easy to remember and best of all, it
>takes little intellect to apply.
>
> All cards that will be under the "Half Rule" simply have "Half
>the net effect" (Rounded down in all cases)
[details of halving Tomb, etc., clipped]
Sounds workable. How would the "Half Rule" work on Thoughts Betrayed?
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
[ quoted text not captured ]
The opposing minion must tear in half any card he wants to play during
combat and play either half of it. The other half must stay in his or
her hand.
BTW... I was wondering when all the whining about the New Improved
Rules(TM) would cease. I remember when the newsgroup was interesting...
-Chris
(not in a good mood this evening)
In article <6o9g2m$4p9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Okay, I've been kicking around an idea for a while and it's quickly become
> very popular. It's also an excellent way to meet in the middle about the
> candidates for Banning. It's called the "Half Rule" and it goes amazingly
> well with the some of the most valuable/broken cards without banning. It's
> easy to explain, easy to remember and best of all, it takes little intellect
> to apply.
{CLIP}
I don't normally like to post. But I had to say that this is the most
intellegent idea I've seen posted yet. I'll using the "Half Rule" with my
group from now on, it solves a lot of problems we've had before. No offense,
Mr. Johnson, but this is also a heckuva lot easier to utilize and explain
then all that errata. Thanks Dave.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35A97E91...@cco.caltech.edu>,
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Eric Pettersen wrote:
> >
> > rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >Okay, I've been kicking around an idea for a while and it's quickly become
> > >very popular. It's also an excellent way to meet in the middle about
> > >the candidates for Banning. It's called the "Half Rule" and it goes
> > >amazingly well with the some of the most valuable/broken cards without
> > >banning. It's easy to explain, easy to remember and best of all, it
> > >takes little intellect to apply.
> > >> > > All cards that will be under the "Half Rule" simply have "Half
> > >the net effect" (Rounded down in all cases)
> >
> > [details of halving Tomb, etc., clipped]
> >
> > Sounds workable. How would the "Half Rule" work on Thoughts Betrayed?
> > ---
> The opposing minion must tear in half any card he wants to play during
> combat and play either half of it. The other half must stay in his or
> her hand.
>
> BTW... I was wondering when all the whining about the New Improved
> Rules(TM) would cease. I remember when the newsgroup was interesting...
>
> -Chris
> (not in a good mood this evening)
>
I don't blame you Chris, but as one who also feels this game has the checks
and balances already to deal with these cards, we have to work out something
with everyone else who wants them eliminated. I'm sure we can both agree
that RTI, TORIII, and MR could at least be leveled a little more for
tournaments. But I don't want outlandish errata either. I honestly
feel in the circumstance of Betrayed Thoughts, there are too many common
remedies. It's just not broken in my opinion when you can use Equipment,
action modifier effects (Uncontrollable Rage, etc.), Reaction effects (Rat's
warning, spirit's touch, etc.), Ally/Location effects (Survivalist, etc.),
Retainer effects (Wolf Companion, etc.), inherent vampire abilities, and
out-of- turn masters to gain combat abilities. I would first like to assert
that it takes very little imagination to get around TB when building a deck,
but if you would want my idea of how the "half rule" would apply, My first
thought would be that you could not draw any cards to replace those you have
in your hand. Thus it has the effect of keeping the opposing minion from
using any "further cards" in combat than the ones she began with. But I
wouldn't say that is necessarily the best appication of the rule to it, just
what comes to mind.
Dave the Romantic
Prince of Denver
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <6ocgb6$f5r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> tournaments. But I don't want outlandish errata either. I honestly
> feel in the circumstance of Betrayed Thoughts, there are too many common
> remedies. It's just not broken in my opinion when you can use Equipment,
> action modifier effects (Uncontrollable Rage, etc.), Reaction effects (Rat's
> warning, spirit's touch, etc.), Ally/Location effects (Survivalist, etc.),
> Retainer effects (Wolf Companion, etc.), inherent vampire abilities, and
> out-of- turn masters to gain combat abilities.
Let's just say you have all of this stuff, and you come up against my
Lasombra combat deck that packs Thoughts Betrayed.
First Round:
Enter Combat: Thoughts Betrayed
Before Range: Shadow Step to set range to close
Strike: Entombment
End of Combat: Decapitate or Amaranth
How exactly are you going to use permanent cards to get around that?
Oh, I also put in Arms of the Abyss for dodge with additional strike, so
vampires with permanent dodge abilities are also toast. The only thing
you can do is stay out of combat, and you aren't going to be able to do
that forever.
How about the Tremere:
First Round:
Enter Combat: Thoughts Betrayed
Before Range: Trap
Strike: Theft of Vitae
Presses: You use permanent presses to end, I use a card based press to
continue.
Repeat ad infinitum until I get you to where I can burn you.
A properly built deck that utilizes Thoughts Betrayed should burn or
diablerize the opposing vampire in EVERY combat. Mind you, this is not
an easy task, so you may have yet to see a properly built deck of this
type.
Mike
[ quoted text not captured ]
rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6ocgb6$f5r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> But I don't want outlandish errata either. I honestly
>feel in the circumstance of Betrayed Thoughts, there are too many common
>remedies. It's just not broken in my opinion when you can use Equipment,
>action modifier effects (Uncontrollable Rage, etc.), Reaction effects
(Rat's
>warning, spirit's touch, etc.), Ally/Location effects (Survivalist, etc.),
>Retainer effects (Wolf Companion, etc.), inherent vampire abilities, and>out-of- turn masters to gain combat abilities. I would first like to assert
>that it takes very little imagination to get around TB when building a
deck,
>but if you would want my idea of how the "half rule" would apply, My first
>thought would be that you could not draw any cards to replace those you
have
>in your hand. Thus it has the effect of keeping the opposing minion from
>using any "further cards" in combat than the ones she began with. But I
>wouldn't say that is necessarily the best appication of the rule to it,
just
>what comes to mind.
Peter Bakija (hah! got the name right!) has a nice thread going right
now under the title "Direct Intervention" which explains why TB is still a
problem even if I can build a counter to it in a deck. The problem is I'm
not countering a strategy - I'm countering a card. (Of course, the same
could be said for Immortal Grapple. But then again, I'm beginning to think
IG is busted too, though not as severely as TB).
-Mark Langsdorf
Jyhad Archivist
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/
In article <6od6gm$ad4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6ocgb6$f5r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> rmtc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > (snipped)[ quoted text not captured ]
Well Mike, I think that in general TB is not broken, becuse there
are so many things that can counter it. First thing that comes in mind
is the Elysium. Other things are weapons, and the other already mentioned
stuff.
But I have to agree that your deck would be very annoying, though I doubt
that you can pull off this combo every combat. Once or twice a game perhaps,
and then it would be o.k.
-Carl
PS: Hast Du meine Einladung gelesen? Falls nicht: 20-22 November. Ich hoffe
Du hast Zeit und Geld. Du waerst wahrscheinlich der einzige Amerikaner bei
diesem Turnier (aus Gruenden, die ich jetzt nicht nennen kann).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <6of6u8$gsa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> In article <6od6gm$ad4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Let's just say you have all of this stuff, and you come up against my
> > Lasombra combat deck that packs Thoughts Betrayed.
> >
> > First Round:
> > Enter Combat: Thoughts Betrayed
> > Before Range: Shadow Step to set range to close
> > Strike: Entombment
> > End of Combat: Decapitate or Amaranth> Well Mike, I think that in general TB is not broken, becuse there> are so many things that can counter it. First thing that comes in mind
> is the Elysium. Other things are weapons, and the other already mentioned
> stuff.
Ok, here's some more details about my Lasombra deck to try to convince
you. :) You can use the Elysium once per turn. So I need to vampires to
effectively burn one. The Shadow Step forces range to my choice, close, so it
doesn't really matter if you've got a weapon or not: we are going to be at
close range. Entombment and Thoughts Betrayed is pretty blood intensive
if I don't do the Amaranth. Variations include:
Arms of the Abyss (Dodge w/ Additional Strike) + Pulled Fangs
Arms of the Abyss + Disarm
What protection do you have here? Leather Jacket and Flak Jacket. That's
why I have Trap in the deck, too. I could throw in some Lucky Blows, too.
What about Blood Hunts after diablerie? I don't usually start to diablerize
until I've got any of the opposing big voters in Torpor or burned already. I
have the Sabbat Cardinal (and a Bishop, I think) which I usually get out. So
I only have to eliminate a few voters before I can diablerize with impunity.
In case you try to block the rush with some weenie to save your big vampire,
I use Shadow Body to S:CE and continue as if unblocked.
This deck is extremely efficient and would be more so if I had more Disarms.
:)
> But I have to agree that your deck would be very annoying, though I doubt
> that you can pull off this combo every combat. Once or twice a game perhaps,
> and then it would be o.k.
I don't have to pull it off every combat. Unless I'm facing a weenie deck,
I only need to pull it off about 4 or 5 times. Once I can diablerize with
impunity, there is nothing that can stop it. The last game I played with it,
I either burned or diablerized EVERY other vampire that landed on the table
my prey's first vampire Keminitri.
One last thing, the Thoughts Betrayed is only really necessary when facing
a Celerity-based deck. Arms of the Abyss works to make sure the Entombment
doesn't get dodged. To be honest, Entombment (and Coma especially) are pretty
powerful.
> PS: Hast Du meine Einladung gelesen? Falls nicht: 20-22 November.
Ja, ich habe sie gelesen. Ich versuchte eine Nachricht an dir zu schicken,
aber sie ist zurueckgekommen. Der Empfaenger-Account existiert nicht oder
so was. Ich versuche es mal wieder.
Mike
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <6ofq3a$aag$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
What's more broken, PF or TB? If people complain even about WwEF, I assume
they complain about everythin, just to say that they have different opinions
on some cards. I haven't seen PF being abused, but I have seen TB being
abused. We decided to restrict TB to 2 per deck a long time ago. But today
no-one in our club complains about TB, so we lifted the restriction.
If the majority of you thinks these cards are broken (we aren't talking
about MR, TOR, RTI, DI!!!!) I can only shake my head. I'm not afraid of
change, but if a few cry loud, LSJ changes the cards. And if someone
cries louder, will he change them back?
Sorry, but I'm not convinced they are broken, but I have to accept the
changes if I want to use these cards in an official tournament.
-Carl
PS: Mike, Du kannst mir deswegen kein mail schicken, weil ich eigentlich
keine email Adresse habe. Falls Du mir Nachrichten uebermitteln willst,
bitte ich Dich, sie an Alexander Racher zu schicken, seine Adresse steht
im V:TES players registry. Danke!
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> If the majority of you thinks these cards are broken (we aren't talking
> about MR, TOR, RTI, DI!!!!) I can only shake my head. I'm not afraid of
> change, but if a few cry loud, LSJ changes the cards. And if someone
> cries louder, will he change them back?
No changes were made based on how loudly one group cried, regardless
of the size of the group. Hopefully that will continue to be the case.
The posts made on the newsgroup (by the so-called criers) served
to bring the cards under scrutiny. And sometimes even included
logic-based arguments. And some even contained suggested fixes.
The cards, arguments, and fixes were then reviewed and playtested
before any decisions to change a card were made.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
In article <35AC9C...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > If the majority of you thinks these cards are broken (we aren't talking
> > about MR, TOR, RTI, DI!!!!) I can only shake my head. I'm not afraid of
> > change, but if a few cry loud, LSJ changes the cards. And if someone
> > cries louder, will he change them back?
>
> No changes were made based on how loudly one group cried, regardless
> of the size of the group. Hopefully that will continue to be the case.
>
> The posts made on the newsgroup (by the so-called criers) served
> to bring the cards under scrutiny. And sometimes even included
> logic-based arguments. And some even contained suggested fixes.
>
> The cards, arguments, and fixes were then reviewed and playtested
> before any decisions to change a card were made.
This last sentence seem ominiously familiar. When playtesting AH and
Sabbat, the guys in charge of playtesting and coordinating said the
same. They said they had tested everything to the utmost. Look at
the poor results. I hope you did better. Did you do it better?
DID YOU?
Of course you did, you are the RT, you have the means to do so....
-Carl
(That was not meant as a lashing out, mind you)
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > > if a few cry loud, LSJ changes the cards. And if someone
> > > cries louder, will he change them back?> > The cards, arguments, and fixes were then reviewed and playtested
> > before any decisions to change a card were made.
>
> This last sentence seem ominiously familiar. When playtesting AH and
> Sabbat, the guys in charge of playtesting and coordinating said the
> same. They said they had tested everything to the utmost.
You claimed that the changes were made based on volume of
complaint. I replied that that is not true.
Neither statement carries any substance in and of itself (as
you note).
> Look at
> the poor results. I hope you did better. Did you do it better?
> DID YOU?
No need to shout.
If you find any line of abuse opened by the new rulings, or any
undue ambiguity, misstatement, or omission in them, please feel
free to berate the RT for that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <35AE03...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> > > > if a few cry loud, LSJ changes the cards. And if someone
> > > > cries louder, will he change them back?
> > > The cards, arguments, and fixes were then reviewed and playtested
> > > before any decisions to change a card were made.
> >
> > This last sentence seem ominiously familiar. When playtesting AH and
> > Sabbat, the guys in charge of playtesting and coordinating said the
> > same. They said they had tested everything to the utmost.
>
> You claimed that the changes were made based on volume of
> complaint. I replied that that is not true.
>
> Neither statement carries any substance in and of itself (as
> you note).
>
> > Look at
> > the poor results. I hope you did better. Did you do it better?
> > DID YOU?
>
> No need to shout.
>
> If you find any line of abuse opened by the new rulings, or any
> undue ambiguity, misstatement, or omission in them, please feel
> free to berate the RT for that.
>
Sorry for shouting. I was just in the mood and wanted to be rude. Sorry
again.
I'm still in a bad mood....
I'll leave it at that. I accept your statements as they are. I think
there's nothing more to say about that subject.
So I can go on to another unanswered question- :)
Who is in charge of the 2nd edtion rules? How many are
working on them, what did you mean with your message a few days
back (about testing them, etc...)?
Please answer my questions this time.
Thanks
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote:
> Who is in charge of the 2nd edtion rules? How many are
> working on them, what did you mean with your message a few days
> back (about testing them, etc...)?
WotC is ultimately in charge.
I am involved, of course.
The message a few days ago stands by itself.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes:
>If you find any line of abuse opened by the new rulings, or any
>undue ambiguity, misstatement, or omission in them, please feel
>free to berate the RT for that.
Heh. Now _there's_ something that didn't need to be said.... :)
Fred