Spoiler Discussions *CONTAINS SPOILER TEXT*

Uriel !Salubri, G4, cap 8 AUS FOR VAL ani obe Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing minion plays with an open hand. Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her with Sennadurek. Hide the Heart Reaction, aus/val, no cost [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion may burn 1 blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the Heart may be played ay [val] each action. [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a staple in !salubri wall decks. Death Seeker Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each round. This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri deck, G4 most likely. Baroque Samedi, G5, cap 7 NEC THA aus for obf Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire who is not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN (assuming it's THN, not THA). Off Kilter Action, Samedi, no cost +1 stealth action Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. Otherwise, you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. Under my Skin Action Modifier, obf/thn, 1 blood [obf] +1 stealth [thn] +1 stealth and put this card on this vampire. On any action after this one, this vampire may burn this card to get +1 stealth. [THN] As [thn] above, but for +2 stealth when played. Liking it. Not that G2 Samedi needed stealth. The 1 cost is a challenge. Isanwayen Kiasyd, G4, cap 6 DOM MYT OBT Sabbat: While ready Isanwayen may tap to give you an additional master phase action. Recuing him from torpor costs an additional blood. Cold iron vulnerability. Hmm, seems pretty balanced. Extra MPA, but taps him/it/her. All in clans at SUP. G4 - that's good. Wider View Master, no requirements, 1 pool Master: Trifle Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove a crypt card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per turn. It's very nice however even so. Tinglestripe Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost Weapon. [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike only once each round. [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver each combat. I like the card name. I'm not sure I would play it however. Rusticus Gargoyle, G5, cap 4 VIS for Camarilla. Tremere Slave: Flight. Ok, decent soldier. Voices of the Castle Reaction, tha/vis, no cost [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom this vampire is enslaved. [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. Yes, this is good. Although sensing some ability bleed here. Intercept for Thau? Lead Fist Combat, tha/vis, no cost [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. [vis] As [tha] above, an once this round this vampire can burn a blood to get a press, only usable to continue combat. [VIS] As [vis] above, but at +2 damage. Because Tupdogs weren't strong enough... What's your opinion of the new cards? best - chris love the availability of Villeins. I'll have 16 more after I open my box of starters. Yay.

On Feb 1, 8:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. The next Off Kilter? This card strikes me as totally solid with, ya know, Freak Drive and stealth. Go bleed at stealth. Get the edge. Freak. Off Kilter to gain 2 pool. Repeat. I mean, like, ok, not as effective as, well, Kindred Spirits, but still seems reasonable. > Lead Fist > Combat, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. > [vis] As [tha] above, an once this round this vampire can > burn a blood > to get a press, only usable to continue combat. > [VIS] As [vis] above, but at +2 damage. > > Because Tupdogs weren't strong enough... Well, really, what is this gonna do that Torn Signpost/Immortal Grapple wasn't? Is this going to replace either of those? I mean, I'm not saying this is a bad card, but I don't think it is going to make Tupdogs any scarier. -Peter

On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Uriel > !Salubri, G4, cap 8 > AUS FOR VAL ani obe > Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing > minion plays > with an open hand. > > Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her > with Sennadurek. Bingo! Inferior obe actually makes including a bunch of Agent of Power in the deck totally worth it. Oh, did I mention that he completely pairs up with Saulot with the exception of dai/THA, but who needs those nearly unusable disciplines. :) > Hide the Heart > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > may burn 1 > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > Heart may > be played ay [val] each action. > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > against any Methuselah by 2. > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > staple in !salubri wall decks. Should be called "Hide the Heart that I JUST CUT OUT OF YOUR STILL BLEEDING CORPSE AFTER I PERFORMED SEVERAL UNMENTIONABLES TO IT THAT CAN BE FOUND IN THE KAMA SUTRA", or D.I. for Valeren. one or the other > Death Seeker > Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool > Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is > played (no > cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each > round. > > This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri > deck, G4 most likely. This card combined with Powerbase Tshwane pretty much say "melee weapon combat is the shizzow" <insert glowing red poker> > Baroque > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > NEC THA aus for obf > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > who is > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. Bolt on some skill cards (i.e fortitude and something else) and you have the making of a pretty decent multirush vampire. > The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* > underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty > decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN > (assuming it's THN, not THA). > > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. I am thinking this is the Art Scam module of Samedi Breed deck. What can the the edge be used for....hmm maybe the second sentance of this card to gain an EXTRA POOL!!! > Under my Skin > Action Modifier, obf/thn, 1 blood > [obf] +1 stealth > [thn] +1 stealth and put this card on this vampire. On any > action > after this one, this vampire may burn this card to get +1 > stealth. > [THN] As [thn] above, but for +2 stealth when played. > > Liking it. Not that G2 Samedi needed stealth. The 1 cost > is a challenge. It's totally good. How about perfectionist or anyone of a lot of other ways to get blood. Permastealth is strong! > Isanwayen > Kiasyd, G4, cap 6 > DOM MYT OBT > Sabbat: While ready Isanwayen may tap to give you an > additional master > phase action. Recuing him from torpor costs an additional > blood. Cold > iron vulnerability. > > Hmm, seems pretty balanced. Extra MPA, but taps him/it/her. > All in clans at SUP. G4 - that's good. Especially if you can figure out how to untap him, like say with a Rutor's Hand or some other untappy stuff. > Wider View > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > Master: Trifle > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > top card > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > a crypt > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > turn. It's very nice however even so. It's totally solid, see Ascendance. > Tinglestripe > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > Weapon. > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > only once > each round. > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > maneuver each > combat. > > I like the card name. I'm not sure I would play it however. I am seeing weenie celerity with Agent of Power to get Free Desert Eagles...err I mean Tinglestripes. > Rusticus > Gargoyle, G5, cap 4 > VIS for > Camarilla. Tremere Slave: Flight. > > Ok, decent soldier. Rusty Gate is awesome. Armor of Terra/Force of Will anyone? > Voices of the Castle > Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > this > vampire is enslaved. > [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > > Yes, this is good. Although sensing some ability bleed here. > Intercept for Thau? This is one of two cards in the game that give intercept to another minion. It is also the only intercept reaction card that you can play twice during the same action. > Lead Fist > Combat, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. > [vis] As [tha] above, an once this round this vampire can > burn a blood > to get a press, only usable to continue combat. > [VIS] As [vis] above, but at +2 damage. > > Because Tupdogs weren't strong enough... It's good, but not in a Tupdog way. at the end of the first round of combat a Tupdog should be empty if it isn't in torpor. It seems like a slightly worse slam. Good for putting vis on guys with tha so they can press to the second round for the Walk of Flame.

XZealot wrote: >> Voices of the Castle >> Reaction, tha/vis, no cost >> [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. >> [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom >> this vampire is enslaved. >> [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > > This is one of two cards in the game that give intercept to another > minion. It is also the only intercept reaction card that you can play > twice during the same action. [1.6.3.6] "A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than once during a single action." Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

[ quoted text not captured ] I think he means that the PLAYER can play it more than once, not the Minion. That's what I took to be the reference of "you" in his sentence. And on that reading, he's right: the blocking minion can play it once at, say, tha, and the gargoyle can play it at vis, giving the Tremere in question +2 intercept from 2 plays of the same card.

On 2 феб, 03:54, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > Wider View > > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > > Master: Trifle > > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > > top card > > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > > a crypt > > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > > turn. It's very nice however even so. > > It's totally solid, see Ascendance. Am I totaly misinterpreting this card because I think you can use it in every influence phase onwards to cycle crypt cards you don't need for a cost of 1 transfer making it cycle up to 4 crypt cards in a turn? multiple copies of something in the uncontrolled...no problemo...BAM! new vampire comes down...still not good enough...BAM! another one comes down, another one bites the dust.... large crypts here I come!! this card seems interesting to me.

librarian wrote: > Uriel > !Salubri, G4, cap 8 > AUS FOR VAL ani obe > Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing > minion plays > with an open hand. > > > Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her > with Sennadurek. 8-cap with one vote and nice, but not winning ability. Can see play only for inferior Obeah - that's not easy to obtain! > > Hide the Heart > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > may burn 1 > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > Heart may > be played ay [val] each action. > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > against any Methuselah by 2. > > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > staple in !salubri wall decks. Weak card - just burns one blood. > > Death Seeker > Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool > Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is > played (no > cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each > round. > > This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri > deck, G4 most likely. This should cost 1 blood, not 1 pool. Too expensive for a combat card, especially for a card that needs a strong support to achieve something. > > Baroque > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > NEC THA aus for obf > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > who is > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. > > The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* > underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty > decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN > (assuming it's THN, not THA). Simply unplayable. Who's going to build a rush on NEC/THA/for? > > Under my Skin > Action Modifier, obf/thn, 1 blood > [obf] +1 stealth > [thn] +1 stealth and put this card on this vampire. On any > action > after this one, this vampire may burn this card to get +1 > stealth. > [THN] As [thn] above, but for +2 stealth when played. > > > Liking it. Not that G2 Samedi needed stealth. The 1 cost > is a challenge. This is actually very, very good, even if your Samedi has OBF. Do you know an Obf modifier that would provide +2 stealth and then +1 stealth for a different action? Under My Skin will be a staple in all future Samedi decks. It allows you to free some slots previously occupied by stealth cards. > Wider View > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > Master: Trifle > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > top card > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > a crypt > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > turn. It's very nice however even so. "Very nice" isn' enough. This is *uber-powerful* even if can be used only once per turn. You spend only a trifle and 1 pool to optimize your crypt draw, and when you don't need that anymore, you will gain 2 pool. Thus, you can freely put 3-4 Wider Views in every deck. I wonder, is it a starter-only card or not? > Tinglestripe > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > Weapon. > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > only once > each round. > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > maneuver each > combat. > > I like the card name. I'm not sure I would play it however. What??? You get almost a Magnum for free and still not sure? :) > > Lead Fist > Combat, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. > [vis] As [tha] above, an once this round this vampire can > burn a blood > to get a press, only usable to continue combat. > [VIS] As [vis] above, but at +2 damage. > > Because Tupdogs weren't strong enough... Weak card. You will get a press from Grapple, and you will need a maneuver much more. Best regards, Ector

On Feb 2, 7:32 am, "Ivan ." <ivanjel2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > Wider View > > > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > > > Master: Trifle > > > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > > > top card > > > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > > > a crypt > > > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > > > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > > > turn. It's very nice however even so. > > Am I totaly misinterpreting this card because I think you can use it > in every influence phase onwards to cycle crypt cards you don't need > for a cost of 1 transfer making it cycle up to 4 crypt cards in a > turn? multiple copies of something in the uncontrolled...no > problemo...BAM! new vampire comes down...still not good enough...BAM! > another one comes down, another one bites the dust.... large crypts > here I come!! this card seems interesting to me. No, you're right. It doesn't have the "during X do Y" template, therefore you can use it as many times as you like (limited by your transfers of course).

On Feb 2, 2:51 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > Hide the Heart > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > may burn 1 > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > Heart may > be played ay [val] each action. > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > against any Methuselah by 2. > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > staple in !salubri wall decks. The val ability doesn't strike me as that powerful, though against a minion low on blood/life this can be enough to stop him. I like superior however. Reducing the bleed against some other methuselah can definitely change a game. > Death Seeker > Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool > Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is > played (no > cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each > round. > > This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri > deck, G4 most likely. Nice one. > > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. Don't think this can trump the cemetary for poolgain as it is a bit more uneffective (compare it to Art Scam for example). > > Under my Skin > Action Modifier, obf/thn, 1 blood > [obf] +1 stealth > [thn] +1 stealth and put this card on this vampire. On any > action > after this one, this vampire may burn this card to get +1 > stealth. > [THN] As [thn] above, but for +2 stealth when played. > > Liking it. Not that G2 Samedi needed stealth. The 1 cost > is a challenge. Despite the 1 cost still strong as it essentially gives stealth to two actions. > Tinglestripe > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > Weapon. > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > only once > each round. > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > maneuver each > combat. > > I like the card name. I'm not sure I would play it however. Seems very playable for a Kiasyd combat deck of which there aren't many (yet). I don't think this would work in a CEL deck with Agent of power as I would assume you need those disciplines when using it in combat. > Voices of the Castle > Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > this > vampire is enslaved. > [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > Nice and versatile.

On 2 Lut, 03:54, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > Uriel > > !Salubri, G4, cap 8 > > AUS FOR VAL ani obe > > Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing > > minion plays > > with an open hand. > > > Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her > > with Sennadurek. > > Bingo! Inferior obe actually makes including a bunch of Agent of > Power in the deck totally worth it. Oh, did I mention that he > completely pairs up with Saulot with the exception of dai/THA, but who > needs those nearly unusable disciplines. :) How? You need to have Agent of Power and card you want to use at superior. IMHO inferior obe is worth nearly nothing. I don't understand how is he especially good with Sennadurek? > > Isanwayen > > Kiasyd, G4, cap 6 > > DOM MYT OBT > > Sabbat: While ready Isanwayen may tap to give you an > > additional master > > phase action. Recuing him from torpor costs an additional > > blood. Cold > > iron vulnerability. > > > Hmm, seems pretty balanced. Extra MPA, but taps him/it/her. > > All in clans at SUP. G4 - that's good. > > Especially if you can figure out how to untap him, like say with a > Rutor's Hand or some other untappy stuff. He don't have tha, he dont have for. Untaping him will be difficult, especially in master phase. He might be good tough for masters out of turn. > > Wider View > > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > > Master: Trifle > > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > > top card > > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > > a crypt > > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. Someone said it is overpowered. First of all it takes time to get it and it takes time to influence out vampire. It is strong if you are secure. Good card imho. Someone else said it is "welcome big crypts". How so? How does it supports big crypts? So you can use it longer for searching your crypt for this one wanted vampire? It is imho good especially for bloodlines (who are limited to ~5 vampires per group) when you have your 2-3 minions on the table it is easier to look for another one if you have pool to influence another one. > > Tinglestripe > > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > > Weapon. > > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > > only once > > each round. > > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > > maneuver each > > combat. > > I am seeing weenie celerity with Agent of Power to get Free Desert > Eagles...err I mean Tinglestripes. >What??? You get almost a Magnum for free and still not sure? :) First of all it isn't gun. So you will not use DBR, scatershoot or any other nice ammo with it. Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any other additional strikes have to be used with different weapon (of if you would like you can "shot" for 1 and then blurr and again 1 and 2 damage. No... it isn't cool at all. I like this card but most likely I'll never use it. Earth swords are much better option for myt combat.

On Feb 2, 6:07 am, Satrapa <jedrzej.komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Tinglestripe > > > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > > > Weapon. > > > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > > > only once > > > each round. > > > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > > > maneuver each > > > combat. > Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any Card text above indicates only once regardless of level: "[MYT] As above..."

On 2 Lut, 02:51, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Uriel > !Salubri, G4, cap 8 > AUS FOR VAL ani obe > Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing > minion plays > with an open hand. > > Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her > with Sennadurek. I don't see synergy between those two. It's quite good vampire, i want to know what !Salubri is G5. > Hide the Heart > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > may burn 1 > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > Heart may > be played ay [val] each action. > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > against any Methuselah by 2. > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > staple in !salubri wall decks. Great against allies, otherwise only decent blood denial at inferior. But it's bleed reduction on superior. G4-G5 VAL FOR aus !Salubri will love this card. > Death Seeker > Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool > Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is > played (no > cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each > round. > > This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri > deck, G4 most likely. Not bad, but in low quantities. If it would be free it would be very powerful. > Baroque > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > NEC THA aus for obf > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > who is > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. > > The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* > underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty > decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN > (assuming it's THN, not THA). Good vampire. 7 cap with perma rush and two superior in-clan disciplines is not bad deal. If only Thn will get a boost. > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. Very good design, will see a lot of use in some decks. Obviously played AFTER the bleed. > Under my Skin > Action Modifier, obf/thn, 1 blood > [obf] +1 stealth > [thn] +1 stealth and put this card on this vampire. On any > action > after this one, this vampire may burn this card to get +1 > stealth. > [THN] As [thn] above, but for +2 stealth when played. > > Liking it. Not that G2 Samedi needed stealth. The 1 cost > is a challenge. Good card, will see play. > Isanwayen > Kiasyd, G4, cap 6 > DOM MYT OBT > Sabbat: While ready Isanwayen may tap to give you an > additional master > phase action. Recuing him from torpor costs an additional > blood. Cold > iron vulnerability. > > Hmm, seems pretty balanced. Extra MPA, but taps him/it/her. > All in clans at SUP. G4 - that's good. Very good vampire, one of the best Kiasyds up to date. I already see possibility to get another master phase action. > Wider View > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > Master: Trifle > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > top card > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > a crypt > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > turn. It's very nice however even so. Hmm, i already sense change in crypt creation. Good. > Tinglestripe > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > Weapon. > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > only once > each round. > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > maneuver each > combat. > > I like the card name. I'm not sure I would play it however. Not bad, not great either. > Rusticus > Gargoyle, G5, cap 4 > VIS for > Camarilla. Tremere Slave: Flight. > > Ok, decent soldier. Very good Gargoyle. > Voices of the Castle > Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > this > vampire is enslaved. > [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > > Yes, this is good. Although sensing some ability bleed here. > Intercept for Thau? Best bleed reduction in the game. > Lead Fist > Combat, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. > [vis] As [tha] above, an once this round this vampire can > burn a blood > to get a press, only usable to continue combat. > [VIS] As [vis] above, but at +2 damage. > > Because Tupdogs weren't strong enough... It does not help tupdogs, they already have POT. Why WW create cards that make FOR VIS POT pointless ? All could be done playing VIS for. > What's your opinion of the new cards? > > best - > > chris > > love the availability of Villeins. I'll have 16 more after > I open my box of starters. Yay. Good stuff.

> > Off Kilter > > Action, Samedi, no cost > > +1 stealth action > > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > > Otherwise, > > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. > > Don't think this can trump the cemetary for poolgain as it is a bit > more uneffective (compare it to Art Scam for example). Enticement?

On Feb 2, 2:25 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Hide the Heart > > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > > may burn 1 > > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > > Heart may > > be played ay [val] each action. > > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > > against any Methuselah by 2. > > Weak card - just burns one blood. Well, really, it reduces bleeds by 2. And if you need to cycle it against a non bleed action, it burns one blood. If you have a bunch of them, your predator runs out of blood very quickly, and then when they are low on blood, their actions start failing. Seems totally reasonable to me. > > Baroque > > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > > NEC THA aus for obf > > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > > who is > > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. > > Simply unplayable. Who's going to build a rush on NEC/THA/for? A) The "THA" is probably actually "THN" (he is a Samedi after all). B) The Samedi have a lot of good combat cards. Well, ok, possibly good combat cards. Built in rush is a good way to get some mileage out of them. > "Very nice" isn' enough. This is *uber-powerful* even if can be used > only once per turn. You spend only a trifle and 1 pool to optimize > your crypt draw, and when you don't need that anymore, you will gain 2 > pool. Thus, you can freely put 3-4 Wider Views in every deck. > I wonder, is it a starter-only card or not? You can do it as many times per turn as you want. It isn't "during X do Y". I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. "Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down the world or anything. -Peter

> Death Seeker > Combat, !Salubri, costs 1 pool > Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is > played (no > cost is paid). A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each > round. > > This and the other 2 cards make me want to build a !Salubri > deck, G4 most likely. This card costs 1 blood, not 1 pool.

On Feb 1, 5:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. The first thing I thought when I saw this card was a Samedi/Serpentis deck with Enticement. I gain pool, my prey looses it. Enticement Type: Action Requires: Serpentis Requires the Edge. [ser] (D) Burn the Edge to cause your prey to burn 2 pool. (This action is directed at your prey.) Your minions cannot attempt bleed actions for the remainder of the turn. [SER] As above, but your prey burns 3 pool.

[ quoted text not captured ] That already was very viable with Sargon, who doesn't even need a card to get the edge and even has Serpentis, but somehow it just doesn't work right. Furthermore FoS and Samedi don't mix very well together :(

> That already was very viable with Sargon, who doesn't even need a card > to get the edge and even has Serpentis, but somehow it just doesn't > work right. Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, but Sargon did Sargon gain you one pool each time? Not exactly a show stopper, but seems better than that idea. >Furthermore FoS and Samedi don't mix very well together :(- OBF for in some cases.

On Feb 2, 2:57 pm, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] well you would be using midcaps at least for that (no real lowcaps for samedi) so this strategy could be a bit below those vamps :) Assuming you don't have the edge. you can use 2 cards and 2 vamps to gain 1 pool and have your prey lose 3. Would be the same with legal manipulations and 1 minion (though that can be delflected). Con is that you cannot bleed after the enticement and would thus need another Off Kilter again. But 5000 points for the more flunky deck :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup, my first thought too.

> First of all it isn't gun. So you will not use DBR, scatershoot or any > other nice ammo with it. > Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any > other additional strikes have to be used with different weapon (of if > you would like you can "shot" for 1 and then blurr and again 1 and 2 > damage. No... it isn't cool at all. I like this card but most likely > I'll never use it. Earth swords are much better option for myt combat. Who tells about MYT combat? It will be ineffective anyway, as there is nothing decent besides Swords. But Tinglestripe is very good AGAINST combat. Just for one card you get a maneuver each combat. This can save your S&B Kyasids, even if you will have no Combat Ends. >Well, really, it reduces bleeds by 2. And if you need to cycle it >against a non bleed action, it burns one blood. If you have a bunch of >them, your predator runs out of blood very quickly, and then when they >are low on blood, their actions start failing. Seems totally >reasonable to me. I will never play a bunch of bleed reduction cards, especially when my vampires have AUS to play Telepathic Misdirection. It's just a slightly better Telepathic Counter. But the ability of reducing bleed against other player can be very important. And this can even justify playing a bunch of Hide the Hearts. > B) The Samedi have a lot of good combat cards. Well, ok, possibly good > combat cards. Built in rush is a good way to get some mileage out of > them. IMHO, "good combat cards" are cards that trump opposing combat. They either torporize enemy vamps despite dodges and combat ends or protect your vamp against some very dangerous enemy cards. There are no good combat cards for THN or Samedi. >I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. >"Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the >important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more >playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. >Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down >the world or anything. OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good card. Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to change something. This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies.

On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. > >"Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the > >important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more > >playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. > >Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down > >the world or anything. > > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > card. > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but > all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to > change something. > This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you > need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the > only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. I think I agree that this card is going to prove overpowered. It seems like it would probably be a good master card... but as a trifle, it's just too much.

On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Baroque > > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > > NEC THA aus for obf > > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > > who is > > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. > > > The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* > > underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty > > decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN > > (assuming it's THN, not THA). > > Good vampire. 7 cap with perma rush and two superior in-clan > disciplines is not bad deal. If only Thn will get a boost. Two? I count to one at superior (THN, assuming it's that rather than THA) and two at inferior (for, obf). NEC is not a clan discipline for the Samedi, although a few of them have it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Um, Samedi have four in-clan disciplines. FOR NEC OBF THN as far as i remember.

On Feb 2, 11:10 am, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Um, Samedi have four in-clan disciplines. FOR NEC OBF THN as far as i > remember. Correct. http://white-wolf.com/vtes/blsam.html

On 2 helmi, 17:35, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > card. > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but > all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to > change something. > This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you > need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the > only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. Staple, yes. Definitely. Uber-powerful? No way.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, guess I shouldn't be surprised. Not the first time clan disciplines in VtES differ from those in VtM.

On Feb 1, 10:22 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > >> Voices of the Castle > >> Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > >> [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > >> [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > >> this vampire is enslaved. > >> [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > > > This is one of two cards in the game that give intercept to another > > minion. It is also the only intercept reaction card that you can play > > twice during the same action. > > [1.6.3.6] > "A minion cannot play the same reaction card > more than once during a single action." BING! BING! BING! WE HAVE A WINNER! Much like Cloak the Gathering, Voices of the Castle may be played twice by two separate minions, once by the gargoyle at vis and the second time by the tre/!tre at tha. This makes it potentially one of the best intercept cards in the game, much like Cloak the Gathering is one of the best stealth cards in the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] You can only use it once per turn to move one vampire into your uncontrolled region, but it is still quite good.

[ quoted text not captured ] Necromancy was one of the Samedi's clan Disciplines in VtM, too.

>> The first thing I thought when I saw this card was a Samedi/Serpentis >> deck with Enticement. I gain pool, my prey looses it. >> >> Enticement >> Type: Action >> Requires: Serpentis >> Requires the Edge. >> [ser] (D) Burn the Edge to cause your prey to burn 2 pool. (This >> action is directed at your prey.) Your minions cannot attempt bleed >> actions for the remainder of the turn. >> [SER] As above, but your prey burns 3 pool. > That already was very viable with Sargon, who doesn't even need a card > to get the edge and even has Serpentis, but somehow it just doesn't > work right. Furthermore FoS and Samedi don't mix very well together :( Sargon doesn't have Serpentis. And that deck is actually quite playable because Sargos *does* have obf and pre. Furthermore Enticement doesn't need a setite, just serpentis and similarly Off Kilter requires *just* Samedi. Plus the two clans share obfuscate so I don't see how you could put together a decent obf crypt with some shared off-clan disciplines to gain 1 pool and hurt your prey. It might be feasible, but it depends a bit on the new Samedi crypt cards. If all else fails you can just go with Abdelsobek (who even has nec!) and Ogwon and play a for/obf crypt with some random serpentis thrown in.

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:96cae65e-3224-4692...@f11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... (...presumedly about Wider View and I don't know who wrote the previous text; Dude, PLEASE include more context in your quoted text so we can tell who's saying what about what!) >>I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. >>"Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the >>important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more >>playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. >>Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down >>the world or anything. > > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > card. > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but > all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to > change something. > This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you > need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the > only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. I think what you're not taking into account is that there's no guarantee you'll draw Wider View when it can do all these wonderful things for you. How many will you include in your deck? At some point, such a card takes up too much deckspace for what it's worth if your crypt otherwise functions reasonably well. And if you don't put more than a couple in, you often won't draw it when you really need it. It's an awful lot like Info Highway or Zillah's Valley in that in that it would be really powerful if you could only guarantee you could draw it in your opening hand. But you can't. It is true that unlike IH and ZV it's not worthless if drawn later on but you're wrong about it being "strictly better than Ascendance". Ascendance neither requires a seed pool to play (meaning you can't play Wider View if you have only 1 pool) nor 4 transfers to function. Fred

On Feb 2, 10:35 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Who tells about MYT combat? It will be ineffective anyway, as there is > nothing decent besides Swords. But Tinglestripe is very good AGAINST > combat. Just for one card you get a maneuver each combat. This can > save your S&B Kyasids, even if you will have no Combat Ends. I don't know who you are responding to in this paragraph, but it isn't me. > I will never play a bunch of bleed reduction cards, especially when my > vampires have AUS to play Telepathic Misdirection. It's just a > slightly better Telepathic Counter. Ok, that's you. There has been more and more vaiable bleed reduction introduced into the game, and this is just another example. Why not use this *and* Telepathic Misdirection? You can reduce a bleed, bounce a bleed, and occasionally make actions fail (or run your predator out of blood). Seems completely reasonable to me. > IMHO, "good combat cards" are cards that trump opposing combat. Well, that is certainly a humble opinion. > There are no good combat cards for THN or Samedi. Huh. That is also a humble opinion (you know what IMHO means, right?) The Samedi have combat cards. Are they the best in the game? No, but they are ok. You have a deck that has the guy with the built in rush and some opportunistic Compressions or Witherings? You have a good way to cycle combat cards, you have a good opportunistic combat ability. > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > card. > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Ector, I'm not going to say you have a history of rampant over- reaction and overstating your case but, uh, well, no, I am going to say that. The card is pretty good. Not all decks are going to use it, as a lot of decks (most decks?) are designed to not care what minions it draws-- all vampires in the crypt are worth playing. Some decks care what specific minions it has in play, and this card will help them, sure. But how many are in the deck so that you draw one early and often like you need to? And what are they displacing? > Imagine you've included > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more useful. > This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you > need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the > only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. Uh, yeah, of course. Once again--overstate your case much? -Peter

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > >> Voices of the Castle > > >> Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > > >> [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > > >> [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > > >> this vampire is enslaved. > > >> [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > BING! BING! BING! WE HAVE A WINNER! > Much like Cloak the Gathering, Voices of the Castle may be played > twice by two separate minions, once by the gargoyle at vis and the > second time by the tre/!tre at tha. This makes it potentially one of > the best intercept cards in the game, much like Cloak the Gathering is > one of the best stealth cards in the game. I accidentally found myself in this spoiler thread. Honestly I did mis-click something. But Norm, this is hardly a new concept for a card. Have you forgotten Tourette's Voice and Babble (or, to a lesser extent Draba and Ignis Fatuus) so quickly?

On Feb 2, 8:51 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with > dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in > your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the > game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but > then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more > useful. Well, it *is* a trifle, which means if you have a good 80-card deck, then adding 6 of them to it doesn't do much (unless you're already trifle heavy).

On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Off Kilter > Action, Samedi, no cost > +1 stealth action > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > Otherwise, > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. Powerbase: Zurich would seem to be a no-brainer. I can see a mix of this card, PB: Zurich and Night Moves, along with some freak drives, being a fairly solid pool-gainer - especially since Off-Kilter can be played by embraces (who can in turn be veiled.) -John Flournoy

On Feb 2, 5:01 am, xcver <bernd.schw...@firstdata.de> wrote: > > Off Kilter > > Action, Samedi, no cost > > +1 stealth action > > Gain 1 pool. If you do not have the Edge, you get the Edge. > > Otherwise, > > you may burn the Edge to gain 1 additional pool. > > > Funny. I'm not predicting this seeing a lot of use, unless > > there is something for the Samedi that the Edge can be used for. > > Don't think this can trump the cemetary for poolgain as it is a bit > more uneffective (compare it to Art Scam for example). Yes and no; the Cemetery typically also involves devoting Master phases to make it effective such as Coroners Contacts and Info Highway etc. It can definitely outpace Off Kilter, but Off Kilter I expect can be played just as well as Cemetary in a deck that's just using one or two. -John Flournoy

> > > > Tinglestripe > > > > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > > > > Weapon. > > > > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > > > > only once > > > > each round. > > > > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > > > > maneuver each > > > > combat. > > Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any > > Card text above indicates only once regardless of level: "[MYT] As > above..." If this wording is correct "As above, OR" can be understand as either full myt effect or effect written after "or" Logically (I'm writing about mathematical logic) if only once should apply to both myt and MYT it should either be written before myt or repeated after "or" in MYT. With little transcription to mathematic notation it would look like this: (For each mytherceria level) *this card is considered weapon with no cost) & ( (at myt can be used once each round to deal 2R damage as a strike) or (if used at MYT (can be used once each round to deal 2R damage as a strike) or (can be used to deal 1R damage as a strike with optional maneuver) ) ). So far all cards with same requirement or restrain that are the same to all effects regardless discipline or discipline level was used had it written before all effects or repeated in all effects. So either this wording isn't correct or your (official) interpretation of how this card works is different than result specified by card text. >Who tells about MYT combat? It will be ineffective anyway, as there is >nothing decent besides Swords. But Tinglestripe is very good AGAINST >combat. Just for one card you get a maneuver each combat. This can >save your S&B Kyasids, even if you will have no Combat Ends. If this card would replace combat cards in deck it have one of 2 flaws. 1 - you have to take an action to equip with this weapon 2 - you have to take concealed weapon (or similar card) to use it without taking an action to equip In first case it takes away from you action that could be used to bleed, hunt, etc. and can be blocked (if Tinglestripe was meant to use as something against intercept combat it is only a way to for it to enter combat with you - and most likely without any way of your defense). In second case to be sure that you will be able to use it on time without taking an action it requires enough cards (if you want to have it reasonably quick) not to be worth effort. Either way if you are sure that it is good protection against combat decks I have to have meta full of brilliant combat decks because all of them have ways to overcome single maneuver (or fight at both ranges) and danger of receiving 2 damage don't impress or endanger them at all (due to much higher damage followed by taste of vitae, damage prevention or at least good blood gain).

"Legendre" <gla...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8ce6395a-9e4a-4d10...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] From a standpoint of master phase actions, that's fine. However, putting 6 master cards, whether trifle or not, impedes card flow in a deck. If you play decks that depend on running through a fair number of cards during your turn, you don't want to be drawing master cards that you can't play until your next turn. If you put 6 of them in your deck, you will draw them at bad times. Also, there's an issue about card slots in your overall deck. It weakens a deck to put a card in it that doesn't do enough in and of itself or doesn't support that theme of the deck and the methods that you're using to stay alive and/or oust your prey. There's a lot of cards in the game which are just "good" in a generic sense: cards like The Barrens, Elder Library, Giant's Blood (in non-weenie decks), Carlton Van Wyck, Heart of Nizchetus, Life in the City, Storage Annex, and probably more I'm not thinking about. And this says nothing about cards that _could_ be good if drawn at the right time in the right game like Pentex Subversion and Golconda. But you can't just build decks out of cards that are generically "good"; or at least I haven't seen anyone win with such a philosophy in its purest sense. I believe Wider View will probably fall into that category of card: if it solves a real problem with your crypt often enough to strengthen your deck more than weaken it, fine. I don't believe it's good enough to just throw into every deck. Fred

On Feb 2, 12:31 pm, Satrapa <jedrzej.komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any > > > Card text above indicates only once regardless of level: "[MYT] As > > above..." > > If this wording is correct "As above, OR" can be understand as either > full myt effect or effect written after "or" Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike only once each round. Or strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver each combat. Note that it doesn't say "this strike can be used only once", but rather "this weapon". Which makes it equivalent to: (Strike: 2R damage.) OR (Strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver each combat). This weapon can be used as a strike only once each round. > >Who tells about MYT combat? It will be ineffective anyway, as there is > >nothing decent besides Swords. But Tinglestripe is very good AGAINST > >combat. Just for one card you get a maneuver each combat. This can > >save your S&B Kyasids, even if you will have no Combat Ends. > > If this card would replace combat cards in deck it have one of 2 > flaws. That wasn't a quote from me.

On Feb 2, 1:25 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Hide the Heart > > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > > may burn 1 > > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > > Heart may > > be played ay [val] each action. > > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > > against any Methuselah by 2. > > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > > staple in !salubri wall decks. > > Weak card - just burns one blood. > Hide the Heart is AMAZING. At val, it cancels any ally's action, or any hunt, and also has a good chance of cancelling actions that cost blood when attempted by vampires that are low on blood. It is also a superior bleed reducer that gets around one of the two biggest problems of bleed reducers - i.e. it can always be cycled at inferior on any action, assuming you're not being bled enough to need the superior (the other biggest problem is that bleed reduction is card- intensive, which continues to be a problem with this, but "reduce by 2" isn't unreasonably inefficient in that regard). Considering that it's hard to get enough superior disciplines on !Sal, which makes Auspex bounce hard to use, I'm pretty sure that this and Aversion are all the bleed defense you'll ever need. And it doubles as blood denial! > > > Wider View > > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > > Master: Trifle > > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > > top card > > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > > a crypt > > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > > I'm assuming this is do x to y, so can only be used once per > > turn. It's very nice however even so. > > "Very nice" isn' enough. This is *uber-powerful* even if can be used > only once per turn. You spend only a trifle and 1 pool to optimize > your crypt draw, and when you don't need that anymore, you will gain 2 > pool. Thus, you can freely put 3-4 Wider Views in every deck. > I wonder, is it a starter-only card or not? > I don't hold with uber-powerful, but definitely a new staple. I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks if I had enough copies.

On Feb 2, 10:52 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Never herd of 'em. :) Babble is good, but Tourette's Voice is ever-so-forgettable due to all the Daughters being nearly incapable of blocking/generating intercept

[ quoted text not captured ] In the non-revised VtM, yup, but there they don't have Fortitude. It's interesting to see how the Malkavians got their clan disciplines changed in VtES as per what happened in VtM, the !Ventrue didn't despite it being due to a printing error, and the Samedi get both their old and their new clan disciplines. Is there some particular reason for this kind of thing not being consistent, by the way, or is it just due to different developers?

On Feb 2, 5:07 am, Satrapa <jedrzej.komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 Lut, 03:54, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > > Uriel > > > !Salubri, G4, cap 8 > > > AUS FOR VAL ani obe > > > Sabbat bishop: In combat, the controller of the opposing > > > minion plays > > > with an open hand. > > > > Really a nice card. And G4, huzzah. So you can play her > > > with Sennadurek. > > > Bingo! Inferior obe actually makes including a bunch of Agent of > > Power in the deck totally worth it. Oh, did I mention that he > > completely pairs up with Saulot with the exception of dai/THA, but who > > needs those nearly unusable disciplines. :) > > How? You need to have Agent of Power and card you want to use at > superior. IMHO inferior obe is worth nearly nothing. I don't > understand how is he especially good with Sennadurek? Inferior obe is awesome for Vitae Block and Spirit Marrionette, and gets much better when you bump them up to superior. > > > Isanwayen > > > Kiasyd, G4, cap 6 > > > DOM MYT OBT > > > Sabbat: While ready Isanwayen may tap to give you an > > > additional master > > > phase action. Recuing him from torpor costs an additional > > > blood. Cold > > > iron vulnerability. > > > > Hmm, seems pretty balanced. Extra MPA, but taps him/it/her. > > > All in clans at SUP. G4 - that's good. > > > Especially if you can figure out how to untap him, like say with a > > Rutor's Hand or some other untappy stuff. > > He don't have tha, he dont have for. Untaping him will be difficult, > especially in master phase. He might be good tough for masters out of > turn. CrimethInc at Tha untaps him no problem once he becomes an anarch. > > > Wider View > > > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > > > Master: Trifle > > > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > > > top card > > > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > > > a crypt > > > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > > > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. > > Someone said it is overpowered. First of all it takes time to get it > and it takes time to influence out vampire. It is strong if you are > secure. Good card imho. > Someone else said it is "welcome big crypts". How so? How does it > supports big crypts? So you can use it longer for searching your crypt > for this one wanted vampire? It is imho good especially for bloodlines > (who are limited to ~5 vampires per group) when you have your 2-3 > minions on the table it is easier to look for another one if you have > pool to influence another one. It's good for any deck where you are including multiple copies of any of your vampires. > > > Tinglestripe > > > Equipment, requires Mytherceria, no cost > > > Weapon. > > > [myt]Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike > > > only once > > > each round. > > > [MYT] As above, or strike: 1R damage, with an optional > > > maneuver each > > > combat. > > > I am seeing weenie celerity with Agent of Power to get Free Desert > > Eagles...err I mean Tinglestripes. > >What??? You get almost a Magnum for free and still not sure? :) > > First of all it isn't gun. So you will not use DBR, scatershoot or any > other nice ammo with it. > Secondly. It can be used only once each round on inferior myt, so any > other additional strikes have to be used with different weapon (of if > you would like you can "shot" for 1 and then blurr and again 1 and 2 > damage. No... it isn't cool at all. I like this card but most likely > I'll never use it. Earth swords are much better option for myt combat. Correct, but you can use the best ammo card in the game, Target: Vitals. The once each round is something I didn't notice, but it is still quite good. Especially since you can use it with Concealed Weapon.

> Voices of the Castle > Reaction, tha/vis, no cost > [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. > [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom > this > vampire is enslaved. > [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. OMG! Stealth Bleed is ruined! The whole strategy is worthless! No One will ever be able to Stealth Bleed again EVER!

On 2 helmi, 03:51, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Hide the Heart > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > may burn 1 > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > Heart may > be played ay [val] each action. > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > against any Methuselah by 2. > > Hmm, action fails. That's a new one. I'm seeing this as a > staple in !salubri wall decks. What's that? GtU bleed when you have one blood? Oh, snap. Awe until your empty? Dang. If it is as written, I love the fact that you can play it whenever. > Wider View > Master, no requirements, 1 pool > Master: Trifle > Put this card in play. You may use a transfer to move the > top card > from your crypt to your uncontrolled region and then remove > a crypt > card in your uncontrolled region from the game. You may use four > transfers to burn this card and gain 2 pool. Umm. Yeah. 's good. Appreciate the Ascendance effect. > > love the availability of Villeins. I'll have 16 more after > I open my box of starters. Yay. I hear you. Last night I played a Minion Tap for eight. Gained four. Was miffed. -Otto

On Feb 2, 12:13 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it *is* a trifle, which means if you have a good 80-card deck, > then adding 6 of them to it doesn't do much (unless you're already > trifle heavy). Sure--some decks will do exactly that, and it'll probably work fine for those decks. But still, you now have a lot of master cards in your deck. That they are trifles helps cycle them when you have them during your master phase, but when you draw them in the middle of a turn instead of something that actually helps you win, they'll be slowing you down. Don't get me wrong--Wider View *is* a good card and *will* see play. But I don't think it is shaking the foundations of the game or anything. As noted, a lot of decks (probably the majority of decks) aren't that concerned with what particular minions they draw in a given game--as long as you get an average draw of your crypt, you'll do ok. There are some decks that want specific minions, sure. And Wider View will certainly help them out. But not without an added cost. -Peter

On Feb 2, 1:13 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I don't hold with uber-powerful, but definitely a new staple. I would > probably use this in ~50% of my decks if I had enough copies. Yeah, I don't even know if 50% is true on my end. Thinking of the decks I have in circulation currently, maybe 2 or 3 of the 12 or so I have working right now could benefit from Wider View--the rest have crypts that are mostly interchangeable. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I think Wider View would be a pretty good way to search for Advanced vampire cards for merging, without having to tap for Epiphany or Gift of Experience. You won't be forced to devote 5-6 crypt cards of the same vampire just to merge it, you can settle for 2-3 (most of them aren't good enough as a superstar anyway). This should make those Advanced vampires a little more playable! But yeah I think Peter's right. Are you guys really devoting 6 master card slots to Ascendance/Effective Management in your current decks? Instead of Dreams of the Sphinx and Blood Dolls? Then Wider View is sure to replace all of them!

[ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect. (assuming spoiler text is correct). It has no "during X do Y" template, so you can use it as many times as you want / are able. If you have one transfer, you can use it once in your influence phase. If you have 8 transfers, you can use it 8 times in your influence phase. It's good. Really good.

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly, and the difference between Babble and VotC is that if you block with Dem, you don't have too much combatty stuff to back it up. While if you block with VotC, you have Tha and Visceratika to back it up, and maybe Pot too... best - chris

Ector wrote: > > I wonder, is it a starter-only card or not? > >> I'm wondering that about all of the cards? I think not, judging by this from the WW page: "All the new cards in the preconstructed decks are also found in the boosters," Understandably, there is some confusion due to some early promotional text released by Potomac. best - chris

Ector wrote: > Hide the Heart > > Reaction, aus/val, no cost > > [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. > > [val] The action ends (unsuccessfully). The acting minion > > may burn 1 > > blood to cancel this card as it is played. Onle one Hide the > > Heart may > > be played ay [val] each action. > > [VAL] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, or tap to reduce a bleed > > against any Methuselah by 2. > >> Well, really, it reduces bleeds by 2. And if you need to cycle it >> against a non bleed action, it burns one blood. If you have a bunch of >> them, your predator runs out of blood very quickly, and then when they >> are low on blood, their actions start failing. Seems totally >> reasonable to me. > I will never play a bunch of bleed reduction cards, especially when my > vampires have AUS to play Telepathic Misdirection. It's just a > slightly better Telepathic Counter. > But the ability of reducing bleed against other player can be very > important. And this can even justify playing a bunch of Hide the > Hearts. Hey Ector - good to have you back! We haven't had a fun controversy in a while :-) I like the flexibility. Action fails, or reduce bleed. You can even sprinkle in some Tele Counter too. The big thing about having minions burn blood is that they have a tougher time playing SCE (except broken Earth Meld), as well as Skin of Rock, Rolling w/Punches at FOR, Hidden strength etc etc; and eventually you will catch them, and they can't do anything about it. The other thing, is you can do table management because it can effect anyone at the table. I'm not sure it fits in with my play-style either, but I think it's decent, and like I said originally, I'm going to build a !Salubri deck 2nd (probably BB will be my first build). best - chris

Legendre wrote: > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >>> I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. >>> "Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the >>> important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more >>> playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. >>> Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down >>> the world or anything. >> OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, >> which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is >> strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good >> card. >> Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw >> optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included >> some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to >> draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but >> all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to >> change something. >> This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you >> need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the >> only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. > > I think I agree that this card is going to prove overpowered. It > seems like it would probably be a good master card... but as a trifle, > it's just too much. Like the Heart of Cheating, it's a hand optimizer, the hand in this case is your crypt. Just to pile on the goodness factor, it's not unique, it's not a location. I'll have to try it out and see it in play before I declare it game-breaking, but it seems to definitely be on the good side. best - chris

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 2, 10:35 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> Who tells about MYT combat? It will be ineffective anyway, as there is >> nothing decent besides Swords. But Tinglestripe is very good AGAINST >> combat. Just for one card you get a maneuver each combat. This can >> save your S&B Kyasids, even if you will have no Combat Ends. > > I don't know who you are responding to in this paragraph, but it isn't > me. > >> I will never play a bunch of bleed reduction cards, especially when my >> vampires have AUS to play Telepathic Misdirection. It's just a >> slightly better Telepathic Counter. > > Ok, that's you. There has been more and more vaiable bleed reduction > introduced into the game, and this is just another example. Why not > use this *and* Telepathic Misdirection? You can reduce a bleed, bounce > a bleed, and occasionally make actions fail (or run your predator out > of blood). Seems completely reasonable to me. > >> IMHO, "good combat cards" are cards that trump opposing combat. > > Well, that is certainly a humble opinion. > >> There are no good combat cards for THN or Samedi. > > Huh. That is also a humble opinion (you know what IMHO means, right?) > > The Samedi have combat cards. Are they the best in the game? No, but > they are ok. You have a deck that has the guy with the built in rush > and some opportunistic Compressions or Witherings? You have a good way > to cycle combat cards, you have a good opportunistic combat ability. > >> And who knows what other THN goodness will be in the new set. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. I don't have too many superstar decks, and usually, I have a back-up vamp (like in my Lazverinus deck, I've got Ignacio Giovanni). Would I take up a card slot/potential MPA(albeit trifle) just to go search for Laz? Maybe. Perhaps the key is to look at this as a quicker Short Term Investment, and therefore better...? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] And as someone mentioned upthread, OffKilter can chain fairly effectively. best - chris

On Feb 2, 7:30 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Exactly. I don't have too many superstar decks, and > usually, I have a back-up vamp (like in my Lazverinus deck, > I've got Ignacio Giovanni). Would I take up a card > slot/potential MPA(albeit trifle) just to go search for Laz? > Maybe. Sure. Maybe. In some decks? Absolutely. But not all of them. Not by a long shot. > Perhaps the key is to look at this as a quicker Short Term > Investment, and therefore better...? Uh, perhaps? If used for nothing but pool gain, it is a trifle that costs 4 transfers for a gain of 1 pool. Certainly better than Ascendance in most cases. But not something I'd include in decks just to gain the 1 pool. -Peter

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hkaegi$qji$2...@news.eternal-september.org... > Ector wrote: > >> I wonder, is it a starter-only card or not? > > I'm wondering that about all of the cards? I think not, > judging by this from the WW page: > > "All the new cards in the preconstructed decks are also > found in the boosters," Erm, well, also the fact that all of the new library cards mentioned are listed in the subsequent library card checklist and tagged with a 'C' (for 'common'). If they were starter- only cards, one would be tempted to ask, "common what?" Other starter-only cards, such as King's Favor in the Guruhi starter in Legacies of Blood are tagged P(x) where '(x)' is the initial of the precon deck ('G' for Guruhi) and contain no 'R', 'U', or 'C' legend for the new card in question at all. I think it's fair to say that the Heirs to the Blood library cards in Heirs to the Blood precons are all Heirs to the Blood booster commons as well. And, likewise, the vampires are all Heirs to the Blood booster vampires. Fred

xcver wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:57 pm, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org> > wrote: >>> That already was very viable with Sargon, who doesn't even need a card >>> to get the edge and even has Serpentis, but somehow it just doesn't >>> work right. Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - >> Yeah, but Sargon did Sargon gain you one pool each time? Not exactly >> a show stopper, but seems better than that idea. >> >>> Furthermore FoS and Samedi don't mix very well together :(- >> OBF for in some cases > > well you would be using midcaps at least for that (no real lowcaps for > samedi) so this strategy could be a bit below those vamps :) Assuming > you don't have the edge. you can use 2 cards and 2 vamps to gain 1 > pool and have your prey lose 3. Would be the same with legal > manipulations and 1 minion (though that can be delflected). Con is > that you cannot bleed after the enticement and would thus need another > Off Kilter again. But 5000 points for the more flunky deck :) Yes, I can't wait to see my pred or prey busting out Sargon and Lithrac. So many moving parts. I will be sad to see my x-table opponent playing it however... At least if my grand pred plays it, I don't have to worry too much about getting bounced to. best - chris

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message > news:96cae65e-3224-4692...@f11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >>I don't know if "uber-powerful" is really the phrase here. > >>"Pretty solid" is reasonable. You can burn out your crypt to find the > >>important minion you want. Makes superstar decks that much more > >>playable (which is nice). You can get rid of it to gain a pool. > >>Flexible, reasonably useful in the right deck. Unlikely to burn down > >>the world or anything. > > > > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > > card. > > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? Imagine you've included > > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. What if you rely on Governs, but > > all vampires you draw have equal capacity? You play Wider View to > > change something. > > This card is uber-powerful. You will get exactly the vampires you > > need. This will allow brilliant "vampire combo" decks. Actually, the > > only decks that DON'T need Wider View are the disciplineless weenies. > > I think what you're not taking into account is that there's no guarantee > you'll draw Wider View when it can do all these wonderful things for > you. How many will you include in your deck? At some point, such a > card takes up too much deckspace for what it's worth if your crypt > otherwise functions reasonably well. And if you don't put more than a > couple in, you often won't draw it when you really need it. It's an > awful lot like Info Highway or Zillah's Valley in that in that it would > be really powerful if you could only guarantee you could draw it in your > opening hand. But you can't. It is true that unlike IH and ZV it's > not worthless if drawn later on but you're wrong about it being "strictly > better than Ascendance". Ascendance neither requires a seed pool to > play (meaning you can't play Wider View if you have only 1 pool) nor > 4 transfers to function. Wider View is great if you need to improve your crypt draw - even in late game, unlike Info Highway or Zilla's Valley. You may keep a copy of some vampire in your uncontrolled region until you draw Wider View and then, if you can, influence another vampire. If your crypt draw is good, you will get +1 pool for a trifle and 4 transfers. You're right that sometimes you will need the transfers even if you won't influence new vampires (for moving blood to your pool, for instance), but in most cases you will find a turn when transfers will be completely useless for you. I guess I shouldn't use the hyper-expressive words like "uber- powerful", but this card is going to be played a lot and will find a way into many different decks. That doesn't happen very often in a game with so long history and so large card pool as VTES, and when it happens, that's really exciting!

> I don't know who you are responding to in this paragraph, but it isn't > me. Sorry for that. I just tried to avoid the number of posts and forgot about the hierarchical structure of this group. I really prefer "linear" forums. > > I will never play a bunch of bleed reduction cards, especially when my > > vampires have AUS to play Telepathic Misdirection. It's just a > > slightly better Telepathic Counter. > > Ok, that's you. There has been more and more vaiable bleed reduction > introduced into the game, and this is just another example. Why not > use this *and* Telepathic Misdirection? You can reduce a bleed, bounce > a bleed, and occasionally make actions fail (or run your predator out > of blood). Seems completely reasonable to me. A good decks should stop their predators and oust their preys. Bleed reduction cards can slow down (not stop) some predators (not all of them) and do completely nothing to your prey. That's why I don't like them. > > IMHO, "good combat cards" are cards that trump opposing combat. > > Well, that is certainly a humble opinion. > > > There are no good combat cards for THN or Samedi. > > Huh. That is also a humble opinion (you know what IMHO means, right?) Yes, I know that. My "humble" means exactly the following: "I acknowledge that I can be wrong and will thank you very much if you prove that." That looks humbly enough for me. But if you're going to discuss my personal habits or other silliness, I'm not going to participate in that. > The Samedi have combat cards. Are they the best in the game? No, but > they are ok. You have a deck that has the guy with the built in rush > and some opportunistic Compressions or Witherings? You have a good way > to cycle combat cards, you have a good opportunistic combat ability. A good combat deck is a deck that easily overcomes dodges and Combat Ends. Do I have to explain that to you? I guess not. As long as you don't have a *reliable* (not opportunistic) way to torporize, you don't need a rushing vampire. After all, you are paying pool for that ability, right? > > OK. If you don't need new vampires, you just get +1 pool for a trifle, > > which is "unlikely to burn the world". But even this "cycling" is > > strictly better than Ascendance, which is a clear sign of a very good > > card. > > Do you really fail to understand how important is crypt draw > > optimization, even for non-superstar decks? > > Ector, I'm not going to say you have a history of rampant over- > reaction and overstating your case but, uh, well, no, I am going to > say that. > > The card is pretty good. Not all decks are going to use it, as a lot > of decks (most decks?) are designed to not care what minions it draws-- > all vampires in the crypt are worth playing. Some decks care what > specific minions it has in play, and this card will help them, sure. > But how many are in the deck so that you draw one early and often like > you need to? And what are they displacing? 1). I don't have to "draw one early". My second copy of some vampire can wait in my uncontrolled region until I draw Wider View. 2). While all vampires may be worth playing, some of them are better than the others. Probably, even much better. And getting these vampires would be very advantageous. Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? Call it "staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much better than just "good". Dreams isn't "good", it's amazing and it changes the whole game! Same about Villein and Wider View. I would put Wider View into every deck that has at least 3 copies of some vampire to replace the second copy with something else. I would put it into every deck having a great difference in capacity to avoid "all heavies" or "all weenies" situations. Having looked through the last 10 decks from the TWDA, I would put Wider Views into 8 of them. Ricardo Marta's !Ventrues and Scott Gomes' Assamites aren't going to get much from it, but all the others are. > > Imagine you've included > > some vamps with Dominate for Deflections, but how can you be sure to > > draw one? Easily - play Wider View. > > Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with > dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in > your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the > game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but > then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more > useful. 3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to get a vampire with Dominate. And I can avoid spoiling my crypt with extra Dom-vampires to increase the chances of getting one. This is huge.

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:16498deb-8b91-4140...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > Wider View is great if you need to improve your crypt draw - even in > late game, unlike Info Highway or Zilla's Valley. You may keep a copy > of some vampire in your uncontrolled region until you draw Wider View > and then, if you can, influence another vampire. > If your crypt draw is good, you will get +1 pool for a trifle and 4 > transfers. You're right that sometimes you will need the transfers > even if you won't influence new vampires (for moving blood to your > pool, for instance), but in most cases you will find a turn when > transfers will be completely useless for you. One other nit: It appears to me to be totally incompatible with the pool gain usage of cards like Art Museum unless you've got Info Highway out. > I guess I shouldn't use the hyper-expressive words like "uber- > powerful", but this card is going to be played a lot and will find a > way into many different decks. That doesn't happen very often in a > game with so long history and so large card pool as VTES, and when it > happens, that's really exciting! It's a good card, no question. Fred

On 3 Lut, 10:25, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in messagenews:16498deb-8b91-4140...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > One other nit: > > It appears to me to be totally incompatible with the pool gain usage of > cards like Art Museum unless you've got Info Highway out. > > Fred Unless you spend one turn using WW (move 1 to a vamp), and second turn transferring back 2 blood from vampire to your pool.

On 3 helmi, 11:25, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > One other nit: > > It appears to me to be totally incompatible with the pool gain usage of > cards like Art Museum unless you've got Info Highway out. How so? You only need 2 transfers to move 1 pool back. That leaves 2 transfers to fish for a vampire of the appropriate clan in case you're mixing two or more clans.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I >will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of >good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to >get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? Call it >"staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much >better than just "good". Staple and uber-powerful are utterly different things. Lost in Crowds is a staple of stealth-bleed decks, but not uber-powerful. Immortal Grapple is a staple of rush combat, but not uber-powerful. Bewitching Oration is a staple of political decks, but not uber-powerful. That you might want to put multiples of a given card in a particular deck(s) because it's useful does not make the card uber-powerful. Well-designed common cards work like that all the time. Replacing one word with the other is unlikely to help, and more than likely to confuse. >> Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with >> dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in >> your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the >> game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but >> then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more >> useful. >3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no >guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to >get a vampire with Dominate. Immediately jumping on Wider View to solve this problem is likely to paper over cracks that you would be better off addressing in the crypt. Addressing those *as well* as considering Wider View is likely to help. 3 copies of a card in a 90 card deck makes it quite difficult to draw early. Decks that rely on a specific combination of vampires being available in their crypt and choke without them really need the vampires early. Cycling into the card halfway through turn 4 is less helpful when - at that point - you could often just be drawing another vampire yourself, and using your Trifle to play Villein instead. Useful tool? Yes. Easily mis-used tool? Potentially. Uber-powerful? I don't see it. Your signal-to-noise ratio on identifying uber-powerful cards suggests that you might want to re-evaluate your position. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I > >will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of > >good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to > >get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? Call it > >"staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much > >better than just "good". > > Staple and uber-powerful are utterly different things. Lost in Crowds > is a staple of stealth-bleed decks, but not uber-powerful. Immortal > Grapple is a staple of rush combat, but not uber-powerful. Bewitching > Oration is a staple of political decks, but not uber-powerful. That you > might want to put multiples of a given card in a particular deck(s) > because it's useful does not make the card uber-powerful. Well-designed > common cards work like that all the time. > > Replacing one word with the other is unlikely to help, and more than > likely to confuse. Please remember that English isn't my native language, so the word "staple" didn't even come into my mind :( Anyway, your definition of "staple" completely differs from from the word I'd like to use for Wider View. IGs and Bewitchings are "meat" for certain more-or less "tasty" decks, while Wider View is a "spice" that's going to improve a HUGE number of DIFFERENT decks. Such cards are very rare, that's why I wrote "uber-powerful". > > >> Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with > >> dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in > >> your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the > >> game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but > >> then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more > >> useful. > >3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no > >guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to > >get a vampire with Dominate. > > Immediately jumping on Wider View to solve this problem is likely to > paper over cracks that you would be better off addressing in the crypt. > Addressing those *as well* as considering Wider View is likely to help. That's exactly what I'm advocating. > 3 copies of a card in a 90 card deck makes it quite difficult to draw > early. Decks that rely on a specific combination of vampires being > available in their crypt and choke without them really need the vampires > early. Cycling into the card halfway through turn 4 is less helpful > when - at that point - you could often just be drawing another vampire > yourself, and using your Trifle to play Villein instead. > > Useful tool? Yes. > Easily mis-used tool? Potentially. > Uber-powerful? I don't see it. Decks that rely on a specific vampires will generally have several copies of them. I didn't propose to rely solely on Wider Views, but it helps to improve your draw. If you have 4 Anneke and 4 Anson, you still can get a draw without one of them - and Wider View will fix it. You may need a little Toreador for Grand Ball, and Wider View will provide that. It's a spice that makes almost every meal better.

James Coupe wrote: > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I > >will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of > >good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to > >get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? Call it > >"staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much > >better than just "good". > > Staple and uber-powerful are utterly different things. Lost in Crowds > is a staple of stealth-bleed decks, but not uber-powerful. Immortal > Grapple is a staple of rush combat, but not uber-powerful. Bewitching > Oration is a staple of political decks, but not uber-powerful. That you > might want to put multiples of a given card in a particular deck(s) > because it's useful does not make the card uber-powerful. Well-designed > common cards work like that all the time. > > Replacing one word with the other is unlikely to help, and more than > likely to confuse. Please remember that English isn't my native language, so the word "staple" didn't even come into my mind :( Anyway, your definition of "staple" completely differs from from the word I'd like to use for Wider View. IGs and Bewitchings are "meat" for certain more-or less "tasty" decks, while Wider View is a "spice" that's going to improve a HUGE number of DIFFERENT decks. Such cards are very rare, that's why I wrote "uber-powerful". > > >> Or, you can include 5 or 6 of the vampires in your crypt with > >> dominate, which isn't that hard. And again, how many Wider View are in > >> your deck? 3-4? You will often not draw any for the first half of the > >> game. 6-8? You'll get one when you need one a lot of the time, but > >> then you have 6-8 cards in your deck that could be something more > >> useful. > >3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no > >guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to > >get a vampire with Dominate. > > Immediately jumping on Wider View to solve this problem is likely to > paper over cracks that you would be better off addressing in the crypt. > Addressing those *as well* as considering Wider View is likely to help. That's exactly what I'm advocating. > 3 copies of a card in a 90 card deck makes it quite difficult to draw > early. Decks that rely on a specific combination of vampires being > available in their crypt and choke without them really need the vampires > early. Cycling into the card halfway through turn 4 is less helpful > when - at that point - you could often just be drawing another vampire > yourself, and using your Trifle to play Villein instead. > > Useful tool? Yes. > Easily mis-used tool? Potentially. > Uber-powerful? I don't see it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >Please remember that English isn't my native language, so the word >"staple" didn't even come into my mind :( Staple is, in fact, the word you just told us to use instead of uber- powerful. "Call it "staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you," I can only assume that the word staple did come into your mind. >Anyway, your definition of "staple" completely differs from from the >word I'd like to use for Wider View. IGs and Bewitchings are "meat" >for certain more-or less "tasty" decks, That's because that's what staple means. "a basic or necessary item of food: She bought flour, sugar, salt, and other staples. " In CCG terms, it's the necessary basic building blocks that other more elaborate cards rest on, just as in cookery it's the basic ingredients and not exotic unknowns. >while Wider View is a "spice" >that's going to improve a HUGE number of DIFFERENT decks. Such cards >are very rare, that's why I wrote "uber-powerful". Again with the hyperbole. Can you crank yourself down from shrill, uncritical acclamation to somewhere around enthusiastically interested? There are plenty of decks that aren't so dependent on their crypt draw, because their inventors design a very flexible deck. An identi-kit swarm bleed or weenie stealth bleed deck isn't going to need this. A variety of decks may well decide the master phase action is better spent on something else (even with a Trifle). Many such decks will be able to carry on just fine, with or without Wider View. Star vampire decks may still need to think carefully about Pentex Subversion, and other debilitating master cards. If you're using up your master phase actions on other things, do you still have enough Wash or Bleeding the Vine (or whatever else) on hand to cope? Star vampire decks, which really, really need that star out, are especially vulnerable to such ploys. Where Wider View may be more interesting is in decks that would *like* a particular vampire, but don't need it - rather than those which are built around a particular vampire(s). A good example might be some of the Spirit Marionette decks of old. Rob Treasure had an interesting one that had something like 9 copies of assorted Dominate weenies, and 3 copies of Matthias - a decent chance of coming up early, but not even close to guaranteed. However, the deck was designed so that - as far as possible - it could devolve into being a Dominate swarm bleed deck. (The fallback level of Spirit Marionette working well here.) If it pulled Matthias later on, that was obviously fine too. A couple of copies of Wider View could potentially such a deck by *not* being added in significant multiples. You don't *need* the 'star' vampire, but it would be nice. So you pull Wider View at some point and potentially get to bring the star out, but the deck functions perfectly well without him or her. Compare your reaction to Wider View, about how huge numbers of decks are going to need it, with your similar reaction to Victor Pelletier, where everyone was going to need 50 copies. Funny how that one didn't work out how you predicted. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ector already admitted that "uber" was a bad choice of words and gave a very good explanation of why he mistakenly used it. Why do you keep rubbing it in?

James Coupe wrote: > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >Please remember that English isn't my native language, so the word > >"staple" didn't even come into my mind :( > > Staple is, in fact, the word you just told us to use instead of uber- > powerful. > > "Call it "staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you," > > I can only assume that the word staple did come into your mind. Only from this discussion *after* my initial post. > >Anyway, your definition of "staple" completely differs from from the > >word I'd like to use for Wider View. IGs and Bewitchings are "meat" > >for certain more-or less "tasty" decks, > > That's because that's what staple means. > > "a basic or necessary item of food: She bought flour, sugar, salt, and > other staples. " > > In CCG terms, it's the necessary basic building blocks that other more > elaborate cards rest on, just as in cookery it's the basic ingredients > and not exotic unknowns. > > >while Wider View is a "spice" > >that's going to improve a HUGE number of DIFFERENT decks. Such cards > >are very rare, that's why I wrote "uber-powerful". > > Again with the hyperbole. Can you crank yourself down from shrill, > uncritical acclamation to somewhere around enthusiastically interested? > > There are plenty of decks that aren't so dependent on their crypt draw, > because their inventors design a very flexible deck. An identi-kit > swarm bleed or weenie stealth bleed deck isn't going to need this. A > variety of decks may well decide the master phase action is better spent > on something else (even with a Trifle). Many such decks will be able to > carry on just fine, with or without Wider View. While that's true, that doesn't nullify the fact that Wider View is going to minimize the chance of "bad crypt draws" for a little price and actually improve many different kinds of decks. Such cards are quite rare in VTES. > Star vampire decks may still need to think carefully about Pentex > Subversion, and other debilitating master cards. If you're using up > your master phase actions on other things, do you still have enough Wash > or Bleeding the Vine (or whatever else) on hand to cope? Star vampire > decks, which really, really need that star out, are especially > vulnerable to such ploys. > > > Where Wider View may be more interesting is in decks that would *like* a > particular vampire, but don't need it - rather than those which are > built around a particular vampire(s). A good example might be some of > the Spirit Marionette decks of old. Rob Treasure had an interesting one > that had something like 9 copies of assorted Dominate weenies, and 3 > copies of Matthias - a decent chance of coming up early, but not even > close to guaranteed. However, the deck was designed so that - as far as > possible - it could devolve into being a Dominate swarm bleed deck. > (The fallback level of Spirit Marionette working well here.) If it > pulled Matthias later on, that was obviously fine too. > > A couple of copies of Wider View could potentially such a deck by *not* > being added in significant multiples. You don't *need* the 'star' > vampire, but it would be nice. So you pull Wider View at some point and > potentially get to bring the star out, but the deck functions perfectly > well without him or her. I really cannot understand your point. Are you trying to say that good decks work well even without "star vampires"? Well, but this doesn't contradict the fact that having star vampire is much better than lacking it :) Frankly, your "signal to noise ratio" is decreasing dangerously. > > Compare your reaction to Wider View, about how huge numbers of decks are > going to need it, with your similar reaction to Victor Pelletier, where > everyone was going to need 50 copies. Funny how that one didn't work > out how you predicted. Really? I've found 14 tournament-winning decks with Victor just from Jan 01, 2009. Some of them have 4 copies of Victor. As long as I never said that people are going to play *ONLY* Victor, it's safe to assume that my prediction was quite accurate :)

On Feb 3, 3:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Sorry for that. I just tried to avoid the number of posts and forgot > about the hierarchical structure of this group. I really prefer > "linear" forums. Yeah, there is no problem at all incresing the number of posts--just respond to the posts that you are responding to. It makes following the discussion a lot easier. > A good decks should stop their predators and oust their preys. Bleed > reduction cards can slow down (not stop) some predators (not all of > them) and do completely nothing to your prey. That's why I don't like > them. No one is saying you have to like them. But they *are* useful, and a nice, flexible, free card that reduces a bleed by 2 or you or anyone else, cancels actions by allies, and burns blood off your opponents can hardly be called "bad". > But if you're going to discuss my personal habits or other silliness, > I'm not going to participate in that. I'm not really interested in that either. But when you open with "In My Humble Opinion" and follow it up with incredibly unhumble proclamations, it seems like it is just begging to get commented on. > A good combat deck is a deck that easily overcomes dodges and Combat > Ends. Do I have to explain that to you? I guess not. > As long as you don't have a *reliable* (not opportunistic) way to > torporize, you don't need a rushing vampire. After all, you are paying > pool for that ability, right? Dude. Really. The minion is reasonably good, discipline wise, and comes with built in rush. With a clan that has a lot of combat cards. How is this *bad*? Again, are the THN combat cards earth shattering? No. But if you have Compressions (or Trap/Withering) in your deck, which isn't horrible (or Groaning Corpse, which is quite good), and have an opportunistic target, you can rush them. Without a rush card. You are saying "'Cause THN combat can't instantly torporize someone, it is bad to have built in rush". Which is kind of preposterous. Give him a gun (which he can get easily with obfuscate or Hag's Wrinkles) and you have a solid blood depletion system for your opponents. Built in rush is *never* a bad ability. Ever. Heck, even on Jozz. > 1). I don't have to "draw one early". My second copy of some vampire > can wait in my uncontrolled region until I draw Wider View. > 2). While all vampires may be worth playing, some of them are better > than the others. Probably, even much better. And getting these > vampires would be very advantageous. All of which are true. No one is saying Wider View isn't a good card. It is a good card. But you are here proclaiming that it is "uber powerful" and shaking the foundations of the game, and will be put in every deck ever. I'm here pointing out that this is a vast overstatement. The card is good. And will see play. But not in every deck. Even close. 'Cause a lot of decks don't care. And even as a trifle, it still takes up card slots and master slots. > Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I > will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of > good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to > get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? Yes. And I said in the next message "I have, like, 2 or 3 decks in 12 already built that it would be useful in." Why aren't you quoting *that* as supporting evidence? And I suspect he was overstating the case as well. > Call it > "staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much > better than just "good". Dreams isn't "good", it's amazing and it > changes the whole game! Dreams doesn't change the whole game. It generates some pool or puts some cards in your hand. > Same about Villein and Wider View. > I would put Wider View into every deck that has at least 3 copies of > some vampire to replace the second copy with something else. I would > put it into every deck having a great difference in capacity to avoid > "all heavies" or "all weenies" situations. Great! Good luck with that. How many are going in each deck? What are you taking out to make room for them? > 3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no > guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to > get a vampire with Dominate. And I can avoid spoiling my crypt with > extra Dom-vampires to increase the chances of getting one. This is > huge. I suspect it is less huge than you seem to think it is. -Peter

On Feb 2, 1:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 12:31 pm, Satrapa <jedrzej.komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If this wording is correct "As above, OR" can be understand as either > > full myt effect or effect written after "or" > > Strike: 2R damage. This weapon can be used as a strike only once each > round. Or strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver each combat. > > Note that it doesn't say "this strike can be used only once", but > rather "this weapon". > > Which makes it equivalent to: > > (Strike: 2R damage.) OR (Strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver > each combat). This weapon can be used as a strike only once each > round. Slight tangent - is the myt/MYT requirement only used to put it into play, or also to strike with it? I assume, based on Inscription, the former. If, as expected, it's only used to put it into play, does a vampire playing a Tinglestripe at MYT get a weapon that can always be used for either, or does the player pick one of the two effects that the Tinglestripe in question will have available? (In other words, do you lock it into being 2R or 1R with maneuver, or do you have the choice each use of the weapon?) - D.J.

suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote: >Ector already admitted that "uber" was a bad choice of words and gave >a very good explanation of why he mistakenly used it. Why do you keep >rubbing it in? Because despite that, he told us how HUGE numbers of decks are going to be improved by it, just like he needed huge quantities of Victor Pelletier. Retracting a word and then just replacing it with an equally dumb, equally hyperbolic, equally unfounded response is dumb. It would be *really* nice if Ector would do us all a favour and learn from his mistakes. Instead, he just keeps making them, again and again and again and again and again and again. Why does he keep doing so? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 2, 9:31 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes, I can't wait to see my pred or prey busting out Sargon > and Lithrac. So many moving parts. I will be sad to see my > x-table opponent playing it however... Dude! I'm *already* building that deck! How can it possibly be bad? -Peter

On Feb 3, 8:19 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > While that's true, that doesn't nullify the fact that Wider View is > going to minimize the chance of "bad crypt draws" for a little price > and actually improve many different kinds of decks. Such cards are > quite rare in VTES. Yes. Yes it is. No one is saying otherwise. Wider View is a good card. It will see play. People will be enthusiastic about including it in decks, certainly for a while. But still, it isn't anything than another good master card that is going to compete for precious master slots. And a lot of decks aren't going to need it, as they don't really care if they get a particular vampire. It is a good card. It is going to see play. But not in every deck. And it isn't going to bust open the damn that is holding back decks that should be good yet aren't. It is going to take decks that are already good and improve them a bit (at a cost). It is probably going to see more play for a while than is actually warranted. Really. You are getting flak here, primarily, for the incredibly over- reaction you are having. As you have, historically, done that. A lot. And it has always turned out that after the fact, you may have been overstating your case a bit. And here it looks like you are doing it again, and so you are getting hassled for it. Just, like, turn it down a few notches. Say "Wow! Wider View is awesome! I can think of a bunch of decks that it will improve! Cool!" instead of "This is the BEST CARD EVER PRINTED! It will DEMOLISH ALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAME!" Really, just turn it down from, like, 11 to 7 and you'll be ok. > I really cannot understand your point. Are you trying to say that good > decks work well even without "star vampires"? Well, but this doesn't > contradict the fact that having star vampire is much better than > lacking it :) No, he is saying that not all decks will want to use this card. And even some decks that you would think would want to use this card probably don't need too many of them. > Really? I've found 14 tournament-winning decks with Victor just from > Jan 01, 2009. Some of them have 4 copies of Victor. As long as I never > said that people are going to play *ONLY* Victor, it's safe to assume > that my prediction was quite accurate :) Oh, Ector. -Peter

On Feb 3, 8:26 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > > (Strike: 2R damage.) OR (Strike: 1R damage, with an optional maneuver > > each combat). This weapon can be used as a strike only once each > > round. > > Slight tangent - is the myt/MYT requirement only used to put it into > play, or also to strike with it? I assume, based on Inscription, the > former. Right. cf. Femur of Toomler, Contrast Sword of Judgment. > If, as expected, it's only used to put it into play, does a vampire > playing a Tinglestripe at MYT get a weapon that can always be used for > either, or does the player pick one of the two effects that the > Tinglestripe in question will have available? (In other words, do you > lock it into being 2R or 1R with maneuver, or do you have the choice > each use of the weapon?) Choice. cf. Nightstick.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's what I'd expected, but figured it was worth asking for clarification. Thanks - - D.J.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 3, 3:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Sorry for that. I just tried to avoid the number of posts and forgot > > about the hierarchical structure of this group. I really prefer > > "linear" forums. > > Yeah, there is no problem at all incresing the number of posts--just > respond to the posts that you are responding to. It makes following > the discussion a lot easier. OK, it was my fault. Haven't been here for a while :) Glad to discuss cards with you again, folks! > > A good decks should stop their predators and oust their preys. Bleed > > reduction cards can slow down (not stop) some predators (not all of > > them) and do completely nothing to your prey. That's why I don't like > > them. > > No one is saying you have to like them. But they *are* useful, and a > nice, flexible, free card that reduces a bleed by 2 or you or anyone > else, cancels actions by allies, and burns blood off your opponents > can hardly be called "bad". Time will tell. But, honestly, I expected something better for a not- much-popular Discipline. > > But if you're going to discuss my personal habits or other silliness, > > I'm not going to participate in that. > > I'm not really interested in that either. But when you open with "In > My Humble Opinion" and follow it up with incredibly unhumble > proclamations, it seems like it is just begging to get commented on. Peter, I usually have my opinion which is ALWAYS completely debatable. I'm not a champion, a guru, an overmind or something like that, and I can be wrong. That's indicated by "IMHO". I simply hate to write long clauses like "It seems to me..." or "I'm not completely sure, but it looks like..." thousand times. If I will be wrong, I will learn something, which is good. If not, you will learn something, which (I suppose) is also good. So why not discuss things in a civilized way? > > A good combat deck is a deck that easily overcomes dodges and Combat > > Ends. Do I have to explain that to you? I guess not. > > As long as you don't have a *reliable* (not opportunistic) way to > > torporize, you don't need a rushing vampire. After all, you are paying > > pool for that ability, right? > > Dude. Really. The minion is reasonably good, discipline wise, and > comes with built in rush. With a clan that has a lot of combat cards. > How is this *bad*? Again, are the THN combat cards earth shattering? > No. But if you have Compressions (or Trap/Withering) in your deck, > which isn't horrible (or Groaning Corpse, which is quite good), and > have an opportunistic target, you can rush them. Without a rush card. > You are saying "'Cause THN combat can't instantly torporize someone, > it is bad to have built in rush". Which is kind of preposterous. Give > him a gun (which he can get easily with obfuscate or Hag's Wrinkles) > and you have a solid blood depletion system for your opponents. Built > in rush is *never* a bad ability. Ever. Heck, even on Jozz. Who said it's a bad ability? The need to pay for it - that's bad. Nothing comes for free. Do you remember "vampire points" or CAC tournaments? :) I was just trying to say that I'd prefer something better for my "points". Jorge de la Muerte and Tangine also have 7-cap, two clan disciplines at superior and three other at inferior + some ability, but their abilities are better. +1 bleed is always good, even conditional, and dealing 1 damage (with OBF) can change the whole game. The most important thing: both abilities don't require additional cards except for stealth that you're going to have a lot anyway. Rush, on the other hand, can be dangerous, and generally requires additional cards. Considering the fact that THN combat cards aren't very good, and the most popular NEC combat card is Spiritual Intervention, I'd say that inbuilt rush is almost "wasted vampire points" here. > > 1). I don't have to "draw one early". My second copy of some vampire > > can wait in my uncontrolled region until I draw Wider View. > > 2). While all vampires may be worth playing, some of them are better > > than the others. Probably, even much better. And getting these > > vampires would be very advantageous. > > All of which are true. No one is saying Wider View isn't a good card. > It is a good card. But you are here proclaiming that it is "uber > powerful" and shaking the foundations of the game, and will be put in > every deck ever. I'm here pointing out that this is a vast > overstatement. The card is good. And will see play. But not in every > deck. Even close. 'Cause a lot of decks don't care. And even as a > trifle, it still takes up card slots and master slots. Sure. But still, it will make a huge impact on the game. It will provide a great boost to the decks that CARE about their crypt draw :) > > Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I > > will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of > > good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to > > get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? > > Yes. And I said in the next message "I have, like, 2 or 3 decks in 12 > already built that it would be useful in." Why aren't you quoting > *that* as supporting evidence? > > And I suspect he was overstating the case as well. Why should I use *your* words as an argument? We have a discussion here. You have your opinion, I have mine. You bring your arguments, I bring mine. I think that every card that's even considered to be put into 50% of somebody's decks is very-very-powerful, and that's why I wrote "uber-powerful". > > Call it > > "staple", if my word "uber-powerful" confuses you, but it's much > > better than just "good". Dreams isn't "good", it's amazing and it > > changes the whole game! > > Dreams doesn't change the whole game. It generates some pool or puts > some cards in your hand. It generates pool, it generates transfers, it increases your hand for the whole turn, and it doesn't require specific clan or something. It's so popular that it really changes the whole game. > > Same about Villein and Wider View. > > I would put Wider View into every deck that has at least 3 copies of > > some vampire to replace the second copy with something else. I would > > put it into every deck having a great difference in capacity to avoid > > "all heavies" or "all weenies" situations. > > Great! Good luck with that. How many are going in each deck? What are > you taking out to make room for them? Both answers depend on the deck. If the deck utterly needs a good crypt draw, it can have 3-5 Wider Views. If it just wants to get the fourth vamp without spending 4 transfers and a pool, there can be just 1-2. It's much better to spend 1 pool and a trifle and then get 2 pool than just spend 1 pool :) > > 3-4 will be enough, and sometimes even too much. I certainly have no > > guarantee to draw them in time, but they still impove my chances to > > get a vampire with Dominate. And I can avoid spoiling my crypt with > > extra Dom-vampires to increase the chances of getting one. This is > > huge. > > I suspect it is less huge than you seem to think it is. As usual, time will tell.

Hello I like this extension very much, I really do (cap8 DoC I have been dreaming that since bloodlines came out) just one point I would like to underline, in my opinion, and people can agree or disagree with that I have no problem. LSJ, bloodlines are very specific clans and there is not one day without people who asks cards to make them balance to other clans. I am wondering why the best bloodline [I say best in terms of tournament results] that is to say Ahriman [for reckon, 3GW14 french national championship entrance 2010, 2GW10 european championship entrance 2006, and many more] would get such a powerful card as "blessing of the beast". Is there any designer intent behind that? Why would you not give a good card like that to a bloodline that has troubles achieve coherence and results such as samedis... (good job on strengthening !salubri though) Yours faithfully TTC

James Coupe wrote: > suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Ector already admitted that "uber" was a bad choice of words and gave > >a very good explanation of why he mistakenly used it. Why do you keep > >rubbing it in? > > Because despite that, he told us how HUGE numbers of decks are going to > be improved by it, just like he needed huge quantities of Victor > Pelletier. Retracting a word and then just replacing it with an equally > dumb, equally hyperbolic, equally unfounded response is dumb. Isn't Victor Pelletier popular? Wasn't it used in 14 tournament- winning decks for one year, two of them even sporting 4 copies? I managed to get my 4 copies only for a high price, as NOBODY WANTED TO TRADE. Where was the 'mistake' you're talking about? Actually, it's your behaviour looks dumb here. > It would be *really* nice if Ector would do us all a favour and learn > from his mistakes. Instead, he just keeps making them, again and again > and again and again and again and again. Why does he keep doing so? > Because "he" never admits he's wrong until somebody proves that :) As most of the normal people do.

"suoli" <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0843b548-630a-4a08...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I was just pointing out that to get your two pool back (your original seed plus your one pool profit), you'd have to forgo the profit from Art Museum (Arcane Library, Nosferatu Kingdom, etc.) for that turn. Actually, though, now that I think about it, you just tap the AL and leave the profit on the uncontrolled vampire for a turn, then transfer it back the next turn. So never mind... Fred

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> > Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I >> > will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of >> > good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to >> > get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? >> >> Yes. And I said in the next message "I have, like, 2 or 3 decks in 12 >> already built that it would be useful in." Why aren't you quoting >> *that* as supporting evidence? >> >> And I suspect he was overstating the case as well. >Why should I use *your* words as an argument? We have a discussion >here. You have your opinion, I have mine. You bring your arguments, I >bring mine. I think that every card that's even considered to be put >into 50% of somebody's decks is very-very-powerful, and that's why I >wrote "uber-powerful". Not really, and certainly not without more information. If I play a lot of Auspex walls, with mixed Toreador guns, with Tremere and Thaumaturgy, with weenie vampires, with Anneke and an Assault Rifle as a huge monster and so on, then when Telepathic Tracking was printed, it would probably be a good card for many of my decks. Certainly, I'd probably consider it for a lot of them, and maybe include it quite a few. Is Telepathic Tracking an uber-powerful card? No, it's just that its utility is skewed by my deck-building preferences and, presumably, my meta-game. Similarly, a player who likes rush combat is going to consider Dragonbound for quite a lot of their decks. That one person thinks it's useful for a lot of their decks often says a lot more about their decks than it does about the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 3, 9:10 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Time will tell. But, honestly, I expected something better for a not- > much-popular Discipline. It is a good card that supliments solid defense strategies for a wallish kind of clan. And hoses the Imbued. All good. > Peter, I usually have my opinion which is ALWAYS completely debatable. > I'm not a champion, a guru, an overmind or something like that, and I > can be wrong. That's indicated by "IMHO". I simply hate to write long > clauses like "It seems to me..." or "I'm not completely sure, but it > looks like..." thousand times. You don't need to. But when you start out with "IMHO" and then post things that are not remotely humble opinions, someone is likely going to mention that. You could have just said "THN cards blow" and that would have been fine. I was just pointing out what was likely unintentional irony in your statement. As it was funny. > Who said it's a bad ability? You said "he is a horrible vampire" (I belive the actual phrase was "simply unplayable"). I said "he seems perfectly reasonable". You went to to explain how a Samedi with built in rush is bad, as THN combat is horrible. I went on to explain how built in rush is always a good ability. And here we are. > The need to pay for it - that's bad. > Nothing comes for free. Do you remember "vampire points" or CAC > tournaments? :) I was just trying to say that I'd prefer something > better for my "points". Sure. But built in rush in general, and a Samedi with built in rush in particular, is good. > Rush, on the other hand, can be dangerous, and generally requires > additional cards. Considering the fact that THN combat cards aren't > very good, and the most popular NEC combat card is Spiritual > Intervention, I'd say that inbuilt rush is almost "wasted vampire > points" here. And I'd say you are wildly off base with that assessment. The Samedi can fight--they have For and Thn, both of which are, at the very least, better for fighting than not. Are they as goot at fighting as, say, the Brujah? Of course not. But they have in one of their main disciplines a lot of combat cards. That aren't great, no (well, again, the new Groaning Corpse is fantastic), but are playable. If you have a deck with the Samedi. And you have some combat cards in there. A guy with built in rush is *always* going to be worth playing. If you use him to rush and kill someone once per game, he is worth it. Are people going to be building all Samedi permarush decks out of him? Probably not. But if you are using the Samedi, and you are using some THN combat cards (or heck, guns), a guy with built in rush is going to be a welcome addition. > Sure. But still, it will make a huge impact on the game. It will > provide a great boost to the decks that CARE about their crypt > draw :) I don't think that is as big of an impact as you are making out. Which is where the crux of the issue lies. It will be a card that is certainly helpful in a situation where you really want to get the right vampires in play, yes. But this isn't going to make the game flip over or anything. It just means that some decks that were previously somewhat random in their ability to function will be less random. I'll point out that there has been a master card in the game that lets you go get a specific vampire out of your crypt since, like, 1995. And it rarely sees play. As it is bad. But the effect is strong if you want a specific vampire. If getting a specific vampire in play was as good as you seem to make it out, this card would have seen a lot more play over the years, bad or no. > Why should I use *your* words as an argument? We have a discussion > here. You have your opinion, I have mine. You bring your arguments, I > bring mine. I think that every card that's even considered to be put > into 50% of somebody's decks is very-very-powerful, and that's why I > wrote "uber-powerful". 'Cause you were quoting a random assessment as proof of your case, when that random assessment was no more valid than any other random assessment. It is dubious defense. And I think your assessment of "powerful" is off here. Lots of cards go in 50% of someone's decks (On the Qui Vive, Vessel). That aren't super powerful. Just good and utilitarian. Vessel (or Blood Doll) is good and utilitarian. And shows up a lot as a result. Same with Wake and on the Qui Vive (as other good examples). These cards are not super powerful. They are just good. And fit in a lot of decks as they are generically useful. Wider View is god, but less likely to be useful (and by "useful" I mean "provide enough of a tangible benefit to be worth the effort to include" as opposed to "it can be put in a deck, put in play, and not have to be discarded, and have some sort of effect that is probably beneficial") for any particular deck than Vessel or On the Qui Vive. Decks that can benefit from it will do so. Most decks can't really and as a result won't. > It generates pool, it generates transfers, it increases your hand for > the whole turn, and it doesn't require specific clan or something. > It's so popular that it really changes the whole game. Yeah, see, this is where I think your argumentitive style breaks down. Dreams is a good card. It sees a lot of play. People like it and use it a lot. It does not provide anything that something else can't do (increased hand size, pool generation, extra transfers). It existing did not "change the game" in any appreciable way. It is good. It gets use. But it isn't doing anything particularly revolutionary. Wider View is vastly more exciting, in terms of providing new capabilities to the game, than Dreams is. And I don't see Wider View as "changing the game" either. It is handy. It'll see play. It'll help decks that can benefit from it. Just like any other good new card. > Both answers depend on the deck. If the deck utterly needs a good > crypt draw, it can have 3-5 Wider Views. If it just wants to get the > fourth vamp without spending 4 transfers and a pool, there can be just > 1-2. It's much better to spend 1 pool and a trifle and then get 2 pool > than just spend 1 pool :) See, I don't know that it is, as it takes up a master slot and card play. Yes, you could put a Wider View in any deck ever, and play it just to get a vampire--but is this going to benefit you more than even a Vessel? Probably not. A Vessel (also a trifle) is likely going to generate you more pool in the long run (and possibly deny your prey some pool). And you'll end up far more ahead by simply playing a Vessel than a Wider View unless you really need the crypt cycling. Which is why I think your assessment of the card is off--yes, decks that really want to crypt cycle to get the exact right guys are going to really benefit from this card. But most decks are going to be better off with some other card in that master slot, if even only a Vessel. > As usual, time will tell. True enough. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Orian, I would consider starting a new thread with this post, and put LSJ's initials in the subject line. best - chris

On Feb 3, 9:21 am, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I am wondering why the best bloodline [I say best in terms of > tournament results] that is to say Ahriman [for reckon, 3GW14 french > national championship entrance 2010, 2GW10 european championship > entrance 2006, and many more] would get such a powerful card as > "blessing of the beast". Seriously? Commit (n) Spiritus cards that are in your hand, right now, when you play this master that you found room for in your deck somehow, to *only* be playable by that particular Ahrimane, and in return get to draw (n) new cards? That strikes you as powerful enough to comment on? Decent, sure. But powerful? It's not one of the ones that stood out to me, looking over the set. If you're playing a star-Ahrimane deck, it's solid, but then how many Spiritus cards is that getting you? - D.J., wondering what he's not seeing.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Ector already admitted that "uber" was a bad choice of words and gave >> >a very good explanation of why he mistakenly used it. Why do you keep >> >rubbing it in? >> >> Because despite that, he told us how HUGE numbers of decks are going to >> be improved by it, just like he needed huge quantities of Victor >> Pelletier. Retracting a word and then just replacing it with an equally >> dumb, equally hyperbolic, equally unfounded response is dumb. >Isn't Victor Pelletier popular? Wasn't it used in 14 tournament- >winning decks for one year, two of them even sporting 4 copies? Sure. This backs up what *everyone else* said. Good, useful, not overpowered, not necessary to win. Could be used in particular decks, just like multiple War Ghouls. Still not needed to win. You told us how you needed 50 copies and how you'd have to spend $1000 buying them, when you didn't need 50 copies. You told us how you couldn't live without him - you seriously told us that. Your posts are there for everyone to see. > I >managed to get my 4 copies only for a high price, as NOBODY WANTED TO >TRADE. Where was the 'mistake' you're talking about? That you claimed you needed 50 copies. Actually, you only got 4. And you didn't even need those 4, as the many other decks winning tournaments reveal. Needed: 50-70. Acquired: 4. Worlds ended: 0. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 3, 4:47 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Seriously? Commit (n) Spiritus cards that are in your hand, right > now, when you play this master that you found room for in your deck > somehow, to *only* be playable by that particular Ahrimane, and in > return get to draw (n) new cards? That strikes you as powerful enough > to comment on? > I've certainly been stuck with hands like Nose of the Hound, Nose of the Hound, Nose of the Hound, (non-combat card), (non-combat card), (non-combat card), (non-combat card) often enough that I would consider playing it. But for me, the Spiritus card that stands out is Ears of the Hare. Kevin Walsh

[ quoted text not captured ] Harbringers of Skulls and Nagaraja have worse problems than Samed ... wait, those guys have FOR NEC OBF THN ? Ok, HoS and N are bit better, but all of them share one not very good discipline - necromancy. Which could use some boost possibly. Or at least some combo discipline card that require AUS NEC or FOR NEC.

On Feb 3, 3:38 pm, Kevin Walsh <hjal...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote: > I've certainly been stuck with hands like Nose of the Hound, Nose of > the Hound, Nose of the Hound, (non-combat card), (non-combat card), > (non-combat card), (non-combat card) often enough that I would > consider playing it. But for me, the Spiritus card that stands out is > Ears of the Hare. Oh, it's certainly a handy card. But I think what DJ is reacting to is the assertion that it is somehow super (over?) powered. -Peter

On Feb 3, 3:38 pm, Kevin Walsh <hjal...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, I'd consider *playing* it, and I see the utility, totally. It'd probably show up, at least a few copies, in any deck I build packing a bunch of Spiritus. But yeah, as far as Ahrimanes/Spiritus cards go, it's not one that jumps out at me as "whoa, powerful." - D.J.

On Feb 3, 8:39 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > DEMOLISH ALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAME! Man oh man, do I want that on a t-shirt. Is your sweatshop currently in session, Peter? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Ooh! Come somewhat warmer weather, the sweatshop will be in business! -Peter

On Feb 3, 7:30 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ooh! Come somewhat warmer weather, the sweatshop will be in business! Excellent. Drop me a private line once we can make this happen. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Just imagine you're buying a car, and one of the cars you consider buying has a feature that you're very unlikely to use. Will you argue that a car with that feature (which definitely takes some place and costs something) is better than a car without it? :) I still think that the vampire is bad because it's very difficult to use effectively enough to make it worth its price. The inbuilt rush may help occasionally, but "occasionally" is not enough. > > And I think your assessment of "powerful" is off here. Lots of cards > go in 50% of someone's decks (On the Qui Vive, Vessel). That aren't > super powerful. Just good and utilitarian. Vessel (or Blood Doll) is > good and utilitarian. And shows up a lot as a result. Same with Wake > and on the Qui Vive (as other good examples). These cards are not > super powerful. They are just good. And fit in a lot of decks as they > are generically useful. Wider View is god, but less likely to be > useful (and by "useful" I mean "provide enough of a tangible benefit > to be worth the effort to include" as opposed to "it can be put in a > deck, put in play, and not have to be discarded, and have some sort of > effect that is probably beneficial") for any particular deck than > Vessel or On the Qui Vive. > > Decks that can benefit from it will do so. Most decks can't really and > as a result won't. I strongly disagree that "most decks can't benefit" from Wider View. On the contrary, most decks can. Comparing to On the Que Vive isn't "fair", since the latter isn't a master card, but comparing to Vessel is. Let's compare, then. 1). Vessel can burn a Blood Doll. This is great, but nowadays people are playing much less Blood Dolls due to Villeins and Vessels, so you can't be sure to see them played by your prey. But when it works, it's good. 2). Vessel can move one blood from your vampire to your pool per turn, acting as a pool gain source. Wider View is worse in a long run, but it's better as "emergency source", providing +1 pool on the same turn. Vessel net cost is -1 pool on the turn you play it, 0 pool on the next turn and +1 pool only two turns after. 3). Vessel can refill blood on your vampire. Wider View cannot. 4). Wider View can get you the "better" vampire than those you have. This can be extremely important if you direly need this vampire, somewhat important if you need just a host for Governs instead of another copy of some fatty, good bonus if you just need a fourth vampire to influence, or unimportant al all. 5). Sooner or later, Wider View will provide you +1 pool. For free, as you wouldn't use those transfers anyway. Not for blood of your vampire. I'd say that there are decks where Wider View is much more valuable than Vessel, and there are decks where Vessels are better. But even the latter decks will probably find 1-2 slots for Wider View. > > It generates pool, it generates transfers, it increases your hand for > > the whole turn, and it doesn't require specific clan or something. > > It's so popular that it really changes the whole game. > > Yeah, see, this is where I think your argumentitive style breaks down. > Dreams is a good card. It sees a lot of play. People like it and use > it a lot. It does not provide anything that something else can't do > (increased hand size, pool generation, extra transfers). It existing > did not "change the game" in any appreciable way. It is good. It gets > use. But it isn't doing anything particularly revolutionary. Wider > View is vastly more exciting, in terms of providing new capabilities > to the game, than Dreams is. And I don't see Wider View as "changing > the game" either. It is handy. It'll see play. It'll help decks that > can benefit from it. Just like any other good new card. IMHO, every card that's going to appear in vast amount of decks changes the game. Thus, the game was changed with Villein and Vessel. Now it will be changed again with Wider View.

[ quoted text not captured ] You seem to remember my words very well, but only SEEM TO. Because I actually said that our *playgroup* needs 50-70 copies, not myself. We've got something about 25 copies, and that's not enough. There are many players here who would like to get more, but they cannot. That isn't going to destroy the world, right, but that's obviously bad. Such good and popular vamps as Victor shouldn't be promos. If you tried to demonstrate my sins or incompetence here, you've failed.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >You seem to remember my words very well, but only SEEM TO. The bit about how you were going to die? I assume you must have got better. The wonders of medical science, eh? >Because I >actually said that our *playgroup* needs 50-70 copies, not myself. It's usually pretty unlikely that an entire playgroup turns up wanting to play a Victor Pelletier deck at a casual session or a tournament. You know what people do? They lend a friend their cards. They play with proxies (in casual environments). Doing friendly, helpful things like this is good! It fosters community spirit, it helps your friends, it lets you play against deck types. Loan someone a whole deck - it's fun to play around with someone else's design, and see it from the other side. I'd be genuinely surprised if any one-day tournament in V:TES history had 70 copies of Victor used, even if you added up *everyone's* deck. And you still - somehow - don't understand the difference between "need" and "want". I *want* more War Ghouls. I *want* more Twilight Rebellion. I would really like a few more copies of Fee Stakes, because I didn't buy much Anarchs. I don't *need* them. I just play a different deck instead. In the days of Return to Innocence and Tomb of Rameses (and possibly Legacy of Pander) destroying tables, it was certainly arguable that I either needed those cards or needed to craft a deck specifically to withstand those cards. There is no similar imbalance in the game such that playing Victor will guarantee you success against people who choose not to play him. You can just as easily play an Obf/Dem stealth-bleed deck, or a weenie vote deck, or a Stanislava dom/pro deck, or Giovanni power-bleed, or Ravnos Week of Nightmares, or No Secrets From Tsunda, or Lasombra breed-boon, or Enkidu star vampire, or Arika/Queen Anne, or Assamite Loss bleed (with Quietus backup), or Abombwe wall, or weenie Auspex, or Imbued, or Tzimisce War Ghoul, or Free States Rant/Temptation, or Gangrel with Garou, or Speed Nephandus, or Matthias Spirit Marionette, or... All of these have the potential to do really very well indeed. If you don't have the cards for any of those, play any of the hundreds of other decks that can be contructed that don't *need* Victor. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >Just imagine you're buying a car, and one of the cars you consider >buying has a feature that you're very unlikely to use. Will you argue >that a car with that feature (which definitely takes some place and >costs something) is better than a car without it? :) You need to distinguish between "that you're very unlikely to use" and "than everyone is very unlikely to use". I'm unlikely to buy a car that has special consideration for installing baby seats. It's unlikely that such a car would appeal to me, if there was a substantial price differential. All things being equal, I'll buy the cheaper car without it. That is very, very different from saying that the car is or isn't better than another car. Other people may well use it, and value it. Having that variety can be helpful. >I still think that the vampire is bad because it's very difficult to >use effectively enough to make it worth its price. The inbuilt rush >may help occasionally, but "occasionally" is not enough. You could actually use him as a "star" vampire for a deck (and add Wider View to help out). With Obfuscate, he's able to disguise out a large weapon. Or using Thanatosis, he can use Hag's Wrinkles to equip it and untap (at 2 stealth). Rush vampire, add Olid Loa and you have near-guaranteed long- range combat. Potentially decent short-chain combat - perma-weapon, perma-rush, play Olid Loa on the combat. Possible Ashes to Ashes as defence and blood gain. With his inferior Auspex, he could play Aura Reading. A potentially quite handy setup. Will he be great in every Samedi deck? Unlikely. You don't generally want vampires to be great in every deck, though. You want the players to have interesting choices. When every crypt turns into the same crypt, things get boring. For players who like exploring unusual strategies (of which you will always have some), it's also important to have some cards available that are good but not mainstream. I'm not talking about *bad* cards, like Eyes of the Dead, but unusual cards - like making a Ventrue infernal with Daimoinon, or a couple of Setites with Dementation. >5). Sooner or later, Wider View will provide you +1 pool. For free, as >you wouldn't use those transfers anyway. Not for blood of your >vampire. However, in the time before you burn it, Wider View means you're 1 pool down. That's 1 pool closer to death, 1 pool closer to Foreshadowing Destruction hitting superior. If you've stacked your deck with several, you might even draw it while you have one in play. Do you then go 2 pool down now, to go 2 pool up later? Not the nicest decision. Interestingly, this reasonably fine-grained pool-fiddling might make it interesting for Parity Shift players. Play them to drop your pool, and burn them when you're unconcerned (or in trouble). >IMHO, every card that's going to appear in vast amount of decks >changes the game. You have yet to demonstrate "vast amount of decks" for Wider View. Being able to generate a potentially massive amount of pool in one go (Tap, Villein, possibly Tribute, possibly Grooming), even at the cost of your vampires' blood, is difficult to sacrifice. Hand-cycling cards (such as the Barrens and Dreams) can be immensely useful, allowing you to lunge at the right time. Pentex Subversion and Direct Intervention are immense cards. Blood Doll and Vessel are both great. What are you going to sacrifice? It's really not clear that, even for decks where Wider View is a strong candidate for inclusion, it's going to oust other master cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It is a master that creates a second hand, for an intercept already very powerful deck. It is like, let's say, a super visit from the capucin because you can still play with your normal hand and redraw cards in addition of the stuck cards that will be probably 4 cards +.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's very solid and will see some play. As in next gen ahrimane deck, there will be even more spiritus cards. Plus, it's great way to store those vulture's buffets and EF, not to mention wakes from spiritus, falcon's eyes and the new card that grant +2 intercept.

On Feb 4, 3:45 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Just imagine you're buying a car, and one of the cars you consider > buying has a feature that you're very unlikely to use. Will you argue > that a car with that feature (which definitely takes some place and > costs something) is better than a car without it? :) Yes. Yes I will. Especially if the feature is a good one in general. And I certainly wouldn't say "That car has cruise control? It is virtually undriveable!" > I still think that the vampire is bad because it's very difficult to > use effectively enough to make it worth its price. The inbuilt rush > may help occasionally, but "occasionally" is not enough. It's a point. Tops. It could be inferior viscisitude instead. And again, the Samedi are a clan that, at least in theory, fight. They have a lot of combat cards. They have master cards that let them attack folks and prevent damage. They are, in theory, a clan that can fight. Are they super good at this? No. It is true. Most of their combat cards are too expensive. They don't have a way to relaibly deal with S:CE or even dodge. All of these things are true. But giving them a guy who spends a point of their abilities on built in rush only helps this situation. Again--give the guy a gun. Or the Ivory Bow. Or heck--a smattering of Withering and the new, incredibly good Groaning Corpse (close range Carrion Crows that can stack...) and go beat someone up when the opportunity arises. Permarush is a *strong* ability. Even stupid 2 cap Jozz with a gun is a good threat. I'm kind of at a loss as to how you are looking at a reasonably solid mid cap vampire that comes with combat disciplines (fortitude, thanatosis, even obfuscate for disguised weapons), built in rush, and are like "Man. He sucks. I can't believe they made him spend a point on that crappt ability." Do most of the thanatosis combat cards blow? Yes, they do. But there is at least one new thanatosis combat card that is excellent (Groaning Corpse). And even if his combat package is simply a magnum or walking sticks and fortitude, built in rush is a good ability. > I strongly disagree that "most decks can't benefit" from Wider View. > On the contrary, most decks can. Comparing to On the Que Vive isn't > "fair", since the latter isn't a master card, but comparing to Vessel > is. Let's compare, then. Clearly, you do disagree. But still, I think your assessment is off. Most decks (and by "most", I mean "more than not") have no need for the card---their crypt is full of average minions that all work, and most of the time, an average crypt draw works just fine. And they aren't going to benefit significantly by using a card slot or a master action to play this card. So they'll use something else that is more beneficial instead. Some decks will benefit greatly from this deck. So they will use them. Possibly a lot of them. And they'll be great. But that isn't all decks. Nor is it most decks. It is likely "a few" decks. > 4). Wider View can get you the "better" vampire than those you have. See, I *really* think you are overstating the importance of this. Most decks build their crypt such that they get good vampires on an average draw. And including master cards to get a "better" vampire isn't necessary. And isn't going to improve the deck. At least not more than a more effective card in that slot. > I'd say that there are decks where Wider View is much more valuable > than Vessel, and there are decks where Vessels are better. But even > the latter decks will probably find 1-2 slots for Wider View. Ok. Your assessment here is "Every deck ever will have 1-2 Wider View in it" if I understand you correctly. And as I follow your argument, that really seems to be what you think. Yeah, *really* unlikely. Again, as noted, I have 12+ decks in circulation currently. I can think of a couple that want to use Wider View in them (a Cock Robin/ Baron Diudone multi action deck that has 4 of both of them and then 4 random weenies. Having a few Wider View in the deck will help make sure I have the two important guys early, and will help fish out a weenie late in the game, so always worth playing; maybe a Trochomancy deck that really wants Sennadurek). I can imagine that in the future, I'll build a few decks that really want o benefit from Wider View, just 'cause it exists now. I can't imagine that everyone in the world is immediately going to make room for 1-2 Wider Views in every deck that they have suddenly. As the benefits just aren't that great in most decks. > IMHO, every card that's going to appear in vast amount of decks > changes the game. > Thus, the game was changed with Villein and Vessel. Now it will be > changed again with Wider View. Yes. Clearly you think this. And I suspect that you are incorrect. -Peter

On Feb 4, 6:11 am, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It is a master that creates a second hand, for an intercept already > very powerful deck. It is like, let's say, a super visit from the > capucin because you can still play with your normal hand and redraw > cards in addition of the stuck cards that will be probably 4 cards +. Yes. It is a good card. No one is saying "Blessing of the Beast is bad! Horrible card!" It is totally reasonable. If not downright solid. But of all the cards in the set, that *that* is the one that you singled out as something worth questioning as overpowered is what seems to be confusing. I mean, ya know, clearly, you are very good at this game. And maybe you'll use this card and kill everyone 'cause it is so wildly overpowered for a clan that is already very good. But most people simply aren't seeing Blessing of the Beast as anything other than "a pretty good card". -Peter

On Feb 3, 7:25 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Chris Berger said: "I would probably use this in ~50% of my decks". I > > will go even further, as I like to play decks with several copies of > > good vampires. And you're trying to say that a card that's going to > > get into half of somebody's decks or more, is just "good"??? > > Yes. And I said in the next message "I have, like, 2 or 3 decks in 12 > already built that it would be useful in." Why aren't you quoting > *that* as supporting evidence? > > And I suspect he was overstating the case as well. > Umm... obviously he wouldn't quote someone as evidence who disagrees with him! Where did you learn to internet, anyway? I doubt I was overstating by much, but that's because I like to build star vamp decks, and I love trifles because I tend to be on the high side of acceptable Master card ratio. I am also the only person I know that has run out of Effective Managements, though a lot of those are in weenie decks where Wider View is not so good. There are a lot of people who use Dreams of the Sphinx in nearly every deck. I am not one of those people, because I always find better uses for my master cards, but IMHO Wider View is about as good as Dreams of the Sphinx. Less raw power, but compensates by being a trifle.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 4, 3:45 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Just imagine you're buying a car, and one of the cars you consider > > buying has a feature that you're very unlikely to use. Will you argue > > that a car with that feature (which definitely takes some place and > > costs something) is better than a car without it? :) > > Yes. Yes I will. Especially if the feature is a good one in general. > And I certainly wouldn't say "That car has cruise control? It is > virtually undriveable!" Unbelievable. I'm going to call all car dealers in your neighbourhood to inform them that you're going to appreciate cars with inbuilt baths and pillars a-la Baroque :) As for me, I'm not going to pay for things I'll never need. > > I still think that the vampire is bad because it's very difficult to > > use effectively enough to make it worth its price. The inbuilt rush > > may help occasionally, but "occasionally" is not enough. > > It's a point. Tops. It could be inferior viscisitude instead. And > again, the Samedi are a clan that, at least in theory, fight. They > have a lot of combat cards. They have master cards that let them > attack folks and prevent damage. They are, in theory, a clan that can > fight. Are they super good at this? No. It is true. Most of their > combat cards are too expensive. They don't have a way to relaibly deal > with S:CE or even dodge. All of these things are true. But giving them > a guy who spends a point of their abilities on built in rush only > helps this situation. Again--give the guy a gun. Or the Ivory Bow. Or > heck--a smattering of Withering and the new, incredibly good Groaning > Corpse (close range Carrion Crows that can stack...) and go beat > someone up when the opportunity arises. Permarush is a *strong* > ability. Even stupid 2 cap Jozz with a gun is a good threat. Well, are YOU going to give him a gun or Ivory Bow and play that deck at the tournament? Come on. We both know that even a deck with all possible support (several guns, some Disguised Weapons etc.) will be inferior to CEL-decks, as there are no additional strikes or Psyche! If you just put one gun/Bow for "occasional" rush, it will hardly come in time. Thus, while the rush ability itself can be good, the vampire is bad. As the old proverb says: "There are no good cards, there are only good decks" :) > > I strongly disagree that "most decks can't benefit" from Wider View. > > On the contrary, most decks can. Comparing to On the Que Vive isn't > > "fair", since the latter isn't a master card, but comparing to Vessel > > is. Let's compare, then. > > Clearly, you do disagree. But still, I think your assessment is off. > Most decks (and by "most", I mean "more than not") have no need for > the card---their crypt is full of average minions that all work, and > most of the time, an average crypt draw works just fine. And they > aren't going to benefit significantly by using a card slot or a master > action to play this card. So they'll use something else that is more > beneficial instead. Some decks will benefit greatly from this deck. So > they will use them. Possibly a lot of them. And they'll be great. But > that isn't all decks. Nor is it most decks. It is likely "a few" > decks. I dislike playing with the words in such way. How much is "few"? How much is "most"? Is Villein played by "most" decks nowadays or just in "few"? :) My prediction is: at least 40% of TWD decks will have Wider View. Actually, I believe in 60%, since the card itself will make "star" decks much more attractive, but let's say 40% to avoid possible future harassment from Mr. Coupe. While 40% isn't "most", it's definitely "a lot", not "few". > > 4). Wider View can get you the "better" vampire than those you have. > > See, I *really* think you are overstating the importance of this. Most > decks build their crypt such that they get good vampires on an average > draw. And including master cards to get a "better" vampire isn't > necessary. And isn't going to improve the deck. At least not more than > a more effective card in that slot. Now YOU are saying the word "most" :) Getting a better vampire may not be *necessary*, but in most cases it's *desirable*. That's why Wider View will be much more popular than you think. > > I'd say that there are decks where Wider View is much more valuable > > than Vessel, and there are decks where Vessels are better. But even > > the latter decks will probably find 1-2 slots for Wider View. > > Ok. Your assessment here is "Every deck ever will have 1-2 Wider View > in it" if I understand you correctly. And as I follow your argument, > that really seems to be what you think. Yeah, *really* unlikely. > Again, as noted, I have 12+ decks in circulation currently. I can > think of a couple that want to use Wider View in them (a Cock Robin/ > Baron Diudone multi action deck that has 4 of both of them and then 4 > random weenies. Having a few Wider View in the deck will help make > sure I have the two important guys early, and will help fish out a > weenie late in the game, so always worth playing; maybe a Trochomancy > deck that really wants Sennadurek). I can imagine that in the future, > I'll build a few decks that really want o benefit from Wider View, > just 'cause it exists now. I can't imagine that everyone in the world > is immediately going to make room for 1-2 Wider Views in every deck > that they have suddenly. As the benefits just aren't that great in > most decks. Not EVERY deck will benefit from Wider View. But the following decks will do: 1). Every deck with at least 3 copies of a single vampire - to get that vampire if it didn't appear or to exchange the second copy for something useful. 2). Every deck with large difference in capacity (say, from 2-cap to 10-cap) to fix the "all-fatties" or "all-weenies" situations. I've already told you that 8 of the 10 last TWDs match these criteria. 80%. Is that "most" for you or not? :)

On Feb 4, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Unbelievable. I'm going to call all car dealers in your neighbourhood > to inform them that you're going to appreciate cars with inbuilt baths > and pillars a-la Baroque :) > As for me, I'm not going to pay for things I'll never need. Fine. I generally don't pay for things I don't need either. That doesn't mean that things I don't need are bad. Using the car metaphor, I don't like cruise control. I don't want cruise control. That my car has cruise control doesn't make it a bad car. Nor did it mean I wasn't going to buy the car. > Well, are YOU going to give him a gun or Ivory Bow and play that deck > at the tournament? Come on. Maybe I will. I have made Samedi decks that have fighting elements in them. Having a guy with built in rush would certainly help such a plan. > We both know that even a deck with all > possible support (several guns, some Disguised Weapons etc.) will be > inferior to CEL-decks, as there are no additional strikes or Psyche! > If you just put one gun/Bow for "occasional" rush, it will hardly come > in time. Ok. Now we are back to the always popular "That sucks 'cause it isn't dominate" argument (and yes, to be clear, I know you aren't talking about dominate. It is a metaphor.) People who are using the Samedi will, from time to time, use them for combat. As they have Thn and For, both of which are combat related. And Obf, which lets them get weapons. And master cards that help them in combat. Check. Assuming that the Samedi are, from time to time, going to be used for combat, having a solid mid cap minion with built in rush is going to be beneficial to that particular exercise. Are there other combat strategies that are more effective? Yes, yes there are. And yet 'cause of how this game works, people try different stuff. 'Cause it is fun. And they like trying creative, entertaining ways to do things. And don't always play dominate (see--the dominate metaphor pays off...). You started this particular sub discussion by describing Baroque as "virtually unplayable". I hope by now that, at the very least, you see that such a description is a vast overstatement, right? > I dislike playing with the words in such way. How much is "few"? Not many. > How much is "most"? More than half. > Is Villein played by "most" decks nowadays or just in "few"? :) Fewer than most. As the majority of decks don't want to gain pool like that. > My prediction is: at least 40% of TWD decks will have Wider View. > Actually, I believe in 60%, since the card itself will make "star" > decks much more attractive, but let's say 40% to avoid possible future > harassment from Mr. Coupe. While 40% isn't "most", it's definitely "a > lot", not "few". Witness! > Now YOU are saying the word "most" :) I say most all the time. Most means "more than 50%". The majority. More than half. Most decks in the game aren't going to appreciably benefit from including a Wider View. Some certainly will. But not most. > Getting a better vampire may not be *necessary*, but in most cases > it's *desirable*. That's why Wider View will be much more popular than > you think. Sure. But other things are desireable too. And they also take up card slots and MPAs. You need to choose which is more desireable. > I've already told you that 8 of the 10 last TWDs match these criteria. > 80%. Is that "most" for you or not? I haven't looked at the decks. And that you think they could benefit from this card doesn't mean that they necessarily can, or would want to. -Peter

On Feb 4, 10:52 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I doubt I was overstating by much, but that's because I like to build > star vamp decks, and I love trifles because I tend to be on the high > side of acceptable Master card ratio. Oh, sure--I can certainly see that someone who likes superstar decks and lots of masters (or any number of other particular habits) would see Wider View and have a very positive reaction to it. But I suspect that most people don't have 50% of their decks as decks that want to use Wader View suddenly (which was kind of where I was going with the "overstating the case" angle :-) -Peter

On Feb 3, 10:47 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 3, 9:21 am, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I am wondering why the best bloodline [I say best in terms of > > tournament results] that is to say Ahriman [for reckon, 3GW14 french > > national championship entrance 2010, 2GW10 european championship > > entrance 2006, and many more] would get such a powerful card as > > "blessing of the beast". > > Seriously? Commit (n) Spiritus cards that are in your hand, right > now, when you play this master that you found room for in your deck > somehow, to *only* be playable by that particular Ahrimane, and in > return get to draw (n) new cards? That strikes you as powerful enough > to comment on? > > Decent, sure. But powerful? It's not one of the ones that stood out > to me, looking over the set. If you're playing a star-Ahrimane deck, > it's solid, but then how many Spiritus cards is that getting you? > > - D.J., wondering what he's not seeing. I agree with Ori that Blessing of the Beast is one of the best (and strongest cards) of the set. Let's see what Blessing of the Beast does for you: - It's easily cyclable (at the cost of a master phase action). It's free. As long as you have one Ahrimane without a Blessing of the Beast, you can simply play a Blessing (choosing 0 Spiritus cards), making the Blessing immediately burn. - At the very least, you can use it to effectively get extra discard phase actions. Get rid of 5 Spiritus cards you don't plan to play, in order to draw into the cards (Presence bleed, or Political actions) you need for the oust. - Even stronger is if you actually intend to play the Spiritus cards. Blessing is a bit weaker for action cards since it's harder to play a whole bunch of them (and you lock those cards on to your one minion). But it's far better for cards you can more easily play (action modifiers, reactions, and combat). Blessing can then easily increase your effective hand size by 3 or 4 (6 if you can manage it). Elder Library costs a pool and is unique. Storage Annex isn't immediately available. Effects that offer you an additional pool of cards are extremely powerful (see the amazing Shilmulo Tarot or Mokole Blood for example). Of course those specific cards are locked on to your specific minions, put each one of your Ahrimanes can have their own Blessing of the Beast. This lets you cycle through your deck at an immense rate (without actually "discarding" the cards, like you would with Fragment of the Book of Nod). People love the Heart of Nizchetus for all the hand cycling it does for you (and that's with putting the cards on the bottom of your library). Imagine a Heart effect that keeps those cards available for you to play! There's a reason why Hukros pays at least two points for a similar special. Furthermore, this card is especially powerful for toolbox decks. How many times have you sat there with your intercept/combat deck with a handful of intercept (but no good combat) or a handful of red (with no way to get into combat). Blessing lets you clear your hand of combat (to draw into the intercept. And then when you fight you can still use all those combat cards). Or clear your hand of intercept (and draw into all that combat). Similarly if you have a bruise bleed deck (which Ahrimanes can do, storing the Spiritus combat to draw Presence bleed) or a stealth bleed deck (which Ahrimanes can do, storing the Spiritus stealth to draw Presence bleed), or a political deck with stealth (which Ahrimanes cna do, storing Spiritus stealth to draw PA's and Presence push). With Blessing of the Beast, you can quickly thin your deck while still having access to all those cards. So I concur with Ori. In fact, I think one could make many legitimate arguments that Blessing of the Beast is the best Ahrimanes card period.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 4, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> > >> Is Villein played by "most" decks nowadays or just in "few"? :) > > Fewer than most. As the majority of decks don't want to gain pool like > that. > >> I think one reason Villein hasn't stormed the tourney scene yet (ie being in "most" decks) is due to it being hard to get. With it being a starter card reprint, I think we will see it a lot more often. Lasombra has explicitly said he doesn't put them in his decks because he can sell them for so much. But now that a) he isn't selling cards, and b) they are much more available, I bet he will start dropping them into more decks. Now of course most folks don't sell singles, but where before a player might crack a KoT pack, get a Villein and immediately flip it on eBay, now they might actually start playing with it. best - chris

By the way, did everyone notice the new key word Moon Sigil?

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I think that the absolutely mandatory superstar vampire decks - that _must_ pull that vampire early - won't do so well out of it, given that you basically need to pull that vampire OR YOU DIE. So you end up having to include rather more of them than you want to be drawing. Where it may do better is decks like single Bloodlines, where you end up with - say - 5 different vampires. 3*2 + 2*3. However, you don't mind which ones come out so much. You can always pull out two different vampires, and it's possible that you pull out four different vampires. But you bring out, say, two Daughters (where you don't especially mind which two you get), and then get to cycle for a third and fourth later in the game - so you only need a small number of Wider View in the deck. This means that, potentially, Bloodlines decks can get relatively better, because they don't need to bulk up with other clans (annoyingly) and have a potentially better/swifter chance at bringing out three or four vampires. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Feb 4, 12:36 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >Oh, sure--I can certainly see that someone who likes superstar decks > >and lots of masters (or any number of other particular habits) would > >see Wider View and have a very positive reaction to it. But I suspect > >that most people don't have 50% of their decks as decks that want to > >use Wader View suddenly (which was kind of where I was going with the > >"overstating the case" angle :-) > > Actually, I think that the absolutely mandatory superstar vampire decks > - that _must_ pull that vampire early - won't do so well out of it, > given that you basically need to pull that vampire OR YOU DIE. So you > end up having to include rather more of them than you want to be > drawing. > Eh, somewhat... The thing is that superstar decks usually play only 4 of the vampire. Unfortunately, that still leaves a ~14% chance (assuming I didn't forget how to calculate that) of not getting your star vamp, so 1 in 6 games, you don't get him. Some superstar decks use 5 of the vamp, but that can lead to getting too many copies, and the increase in probability isn't really *that* huge. So when you play with only 4, sometimes you have to pay to see one, or you have to play Effective Management. Wider View is much better than Effective Management for the deck, and so it will definitely help. It also helps when you draw 3 copies of your star vamp, so you can go fish for a different guy. The fact that it's a trifle means that, unless it's a very master heavy deck, you can include quite a few of them. I think the number on Info Highway is something like 6-8 in 90 to be somewhere around 50% reliable, and people will do that on occasion. It's easier with a trifle. The thing is, Ascendace is really not that bad. It's just not as good as other masters you could be using, and that's why people don't play Ascendance. Having a card which could be extremely useful, or can backup as an Ascendance when you don't need it - that's really good, so you can use a lot of them if you can find room. Not broken, don't get me wrong. But good.

> Eh, somewhat... The thing is that superstar decks usually play only 4 > of the vampire. Unfortunately, that still leaves a ~14% chance > (assuming I didn't forget how to calculate that) of not getting your > star vamp, so 1 in 6 games, you don't get him. Some superstar decks > use 5 of the vamp, but that can lead to getting too many copies, and > the increase in probability isn't really *that* huge. So when you > play with only 4, sometimes you have to pay to see one, or you have to > play Effective Management. Wider View is much better than Effective > Management for the deck, and so it will definitely help. It also > helps when you draw 3 copies of your star vamp, so you can go fish for > a different guy. > > The fact that it's a trifle means that, unless it's a very master > heavy deck, you can include quite a few of them. I think the number > on Info Highway is something like 6-8 in 90 to be somewhere around 50% > reliable, and people will do that on occasion. It's easier with a > trifle. The thing is, Ascendace is really not that bad. It's just > not as good as other masters you could be using, and that's why people > don't play Ascendance. Having a card which could be extremely useful, > or can backup as an Ascendance when you don't need it - that's really > good, so you can use a lot of them if you can find room. > > Not broken, don't get me wrong. But good. 5 copies of a vampire in a 12 card crypt is ideal if you really need that vampire in the opening draw. I think the next best composition is 5 in 13, followed by 4 in 12.

Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >Eh, somewhat... The thing is that superstar decks usually play only 4 >of the vampire. Unfortunately, that still leaves a ~14% chance >(assuming I didn't forget how to calculate that) of not getting your >star vamp, so 1 in 6 games, you don't get him. Yup, agreed. Well, I see a mix of 4 and 5, but leaving that aside. >Some superstar decks >use 5 of the vamp, but that can lead to getting too many copies, and >the increase in probability isn't really *that* huge. So when you >play with only 4, sometimes you have to pay to see one, or you have to >play Effective Management. Wider View is much better than Effective >Management for the deck, and so it will definitely help. It also >helps when you draw 3 copies of your star vamp, so you can go fish for >a different guy. > >The fact that it's a trifle means that, unless it's a very master >heavy deck, you can include quite a few of them. I think the number >on Info Highway is something like 6-8 in 90 to be somewhere around 50% >reliable, and people will do that on occasion. This is what I was talking about. For decks that centre on having the vampire out, 6-8 copies of Wider View may well be about right. But that's a LOT of cards. I think the number of decks that are willing to fork over 8 master card slots, even Trifles, to one card that isn't about large pool gain (Villein, Doll etc.) is pretty low. Even with the Trifle aspect, drawing into yet another Wider View in late game, when you really want a Villein, is going to be upsetting. I would imagine that at least some deck builders will decide, fairly reasonably, that they'd rather do better in the 5/6 games than have to fiddle with their library for the 1/6. We know people do this for other problems - like running no combat defence because it makes stealth-bleed cycle better, and just accepting the bruises when they sit near a combat deck. Life in the City has sometimes had people fawn over it. It's turning up in some TWDA decks, because it's a potentially good card. Some decks, but not lots. When it does turn up, there's a fair variation between 1-5 and 6+. At a quick glance, the consistency of higher numbers seems to be slightly higher in older decks, and more mixed in more recent decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 4, 1:36 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Where it may do better is decks like single Bloodlines, where you end up > with - say - 5 different vampires. 3*2 + 2*3. However, you don't mind > which ones come out so much. You can always pull out two different > vampires, and it's possible that you pull out four different vampires. > But you bring out, say, two Daughters (where you don't especially mind > which two you get), and then get to cycle for a third and fourth later > in the game - so you only need a small number of Wider View in the deck. Bingo. This is, presumably, why the card was released with a Bloodlines set, even though it doesn't explicitly have anything to do with Bloodlines. Similarly, Wider View will help out imbued decks, since imbued decks have the problems of very limited crypt choices and lack of poolgain. View helps out with both. John Eno

On Feb 3, 3:23 am, Viking <incendium.als...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 5:10 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2 Lut, 17:01, Viking <incendium.als...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Baroque > > > > > Samedi, G5, cap 7 > > > > > NEC THA aus for obf > > > > > Independent: Baroque can enter combat with a younger vampire > > > > > who is > > > > > not Giovanni or Nosferatu as a (D) action. > > > > > > The Not Gio/Nos clause makes this vamp *slightly* > > > > > underpowered. Take that away, and I'm thiking he's pretty > > > > > decent. Of course, he gets to fight with NEC and THN > > > > > (assuming it's THN, not THA). > > > > > Good vampire. 7 cap with perma rush and two superior in-clan > > > > disciplines is not bad deal. If only Thn will get a boost. > > > > Two? I count to one at superior (THN, assuming it's that rather than > > > THA) and two at inferior (for, obf). NEC is not a clan discipline for > > > the Samedi, although a few of them have it. > > > Um, Samedi have four in-clan disciplines. FOR NEC OBF THN as far as i > > remember. > > Oh, guess I shouldn't be surprised. Not the first time clan > disciplines in VtES differ from those in VtM. they got nec in vtm and in MET they could buy nec at ooc costs without a teacher.

On Feb 4, 12:37 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I think one reason Villein hasn't stormed the tourney scene > yet (ie being in "most" decks) is due to it being hard to > get. Oh, sure, but my point was not that Villein wasn't being used, just that most decks don't necessarily want to use Villein (availability or no). I mean, yeah, now that everyone has 10, I expect them to show up a lot. But I still don't think that they will be endemic. 'Cause a lot of decks don't use vampires that are big enough to make it worth using Villein (instead of Vessel/Blood Doll/Tribute or whatever). Like, in the past year (2 years?) on JOL(where owning cards isn't an issue), I have certainly seen Villeins, but rarely in more than one deck per game. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] True dat. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course, one of Imbued main pool-gain mechanisms is through transfers (Travis/Church). But you are right, it will help. best - chris

Chris Berger wrote: > Eh, somewhat... The thing is that superstar decks usually play > only 4 of the vampire. Unfortunately, that still leaves a ~14% > chance (assuming I didn't forget how to calculate that) of not > getting your star vamp, so 1 in 6 games, you don't get him. Some > superstar decks use 5 of the vamp, but that can lead to getting too > many copies, and the increase in probability isn't really *that* > huge. 4 in 12 = ~86%, ~1 in 7 games you don't get the superstar 5 in 12 = ~93%, ~1 in 14 games you don't get the superstar It's a bit more than double, which is why I am loathe to run 4 in 12, although I know several players who swear by 4 in 12. Lasombra, though, likes to run 3 in 12, which he claims works well for him. > I think the number on Info Highway is something like 6-8 in 90 > to be somewhere around 50% reliable, and people will do that on > occasion. 5 in 90 = 45% chance to get the card in your first 10 cards 6 in 90 = 52% chance to get the card in your first 10 cards 7 in 90 = 57% chance to get the card in your first 10 cards 8 in 90 = 63% chance to get the card in your first 10 cards It goes down ~4% for each card less than 10. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

Orange Devil wrote: > 5 copies of a vampire in a 12 card crypt is ideal if you really need > that vampire in the opening draw. I think the next best composition > is 5 in 13, followed by 4 in 12. 4 in 12 = ~86%, ~1 in 7 games you don't get the superstar 5 in 13 = ~90%, ~1 in 10 games you don't get the superstar 5 in 12 = ~93%, ~1 in 14 games you don't get the superstar I guess it's whatever threshold you feel comfortable with. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >4 in 12 = ~86%, ~1 in 7 games you don't get the superstar >5 in 12 = ~93%, ~1 in 14 games you don't get the superstar > >It's a bit more than double, which is why I am loathe to run 4 in 12, >although I know several players who swear by 4 in 12. Lasombra, >though, likes to run 3 in 12, which he claims works well for him. IME, 3 in 12 typically results in different thinking about how the deck devolves and copes without the star. The star can still be highly wanted, but the deck is constructed to withstand that vampire not being available right away. So a vote deck can still be a good vote deck, even if the Justicar isn't available to call Alastor - and you can still manually bring out the equipment, if you want (assuming you didn't pick something with onerous requirements). Or your Toreador wall deck would really quite like Anneke to come out, but you're still using Eagle Sight for other vampires (which Anneke can play for intercept, if she wants). Judicious construction of a library that excels with the star but functions perfectly adequately without is key here. This sort of construction can be much more resilient to several obvious problems in the game. Pentex Subversion, Banishment, combat etc. can take out a key vampire for quite a period of time (which is highly problematic). But also, cards that can temporarily evade certain key minions can be annoying - the wall that doesn't focus exclusively on Anneke may be in a much better position to handle Seduction or Call of the Hungry Dead. I have, multiple times, seen players playing a star deck who put all their blood in one basket, so to speak. Good players can avoid this, even with a 5-in-12 construction, but the thoughts that go "Must get Nergal out, must make Nergal strongest vampire ever" can be ever-so seductive. Then someone plays AI on you. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No, I don't see any overstatements here. I've browsed TWD for all decks with Samedi, and found out the following decks: 1). Troggie AUS/FOR intercept - not exactly Samedi deck, it's Troggie with !Ventrues. 2). Reanimated Corpse decks. 3). Stealth-bleed decks. 4). Shambling Hordes decks. 5). One Samedi Anarch wall deck (based on cel/for/TNH). I don't see a place for Baroque in any of these decks. And I don't see any good deck (able to win a tournament) with him. That means he's UNPLAYABLE. Playing "for fun" isn't my cup of tea. > > I dislike playing with the words in such way. How much is "few"? > > Not many. Then how much is "many"? :) > > I've already told you that 8 of the 10 last TWDs match these criteria. > > 80%. Is that "most" for you or not? > > I haven't looked at the decks. And that you think they could benefit > from this card doesn't mean that they necessarily can, or would want > to. Then please take a look! 1). Jan 16 (Shawn Stanley). Crypt has radically different capacity. Wider View will help to get Lutz or Stavros. The deck currently uses Tupdogs for crypt cycling :) 2). Jan 16 (Hugh Angseesing). 4 Nana Buruku. Wider View is obviously needed. 3). Jan 09 (Scott Gomes). All different Assamites. This deck isn't benefit much from WV. 4). Jan 09 (Thomas Solway). 4 Giovanni del Georgio, 3 Philippe Rigaud, 3 Kay Polerno. This decks needs WV very much - I guess, 3-4 copies at least. 5). Jan 10 (John Bell). OBF weenies with 5 pairs of vampires in the crypt. 1-2 WVs will be very helpful to get rid of the unwanted copies. 6). Jan 10 (Antonio Cobo Quenca). 4 Cybele, 4 Aksinya Daclau. 'Nuff said. 7). Jan 09 (Roger Carhult). 8 (!) Aisata Swanou. I'd like to get a weenie, too :) 8). Dec 05 (Ricardo Marta) DOM/for. This can play without WV, though it would be great to get an older vamp for Governs. 9). Dec 27 (Alexander Beskman) 4 pairs of vampires + 3 Gratiano. WV will greatly help. 10). Dec 29 (Cory Busch-Kendall) 4 Little Tailors. Obviously needed. Thus, we have two deck (#3 and #8) that don't need Wider Views, all other do. It's 80%, or "most" in your book :)

XZealot wrote: >> Voices of the Castle >> Reaction, tha/vis, no cost >> [tha] This vampire burns 1 blood to get +1 intercept. >> [vis] +1 intercept, or give +1 intecept to a vampire to whom >> this >> vampire is enslaved. >> [VIS] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. > > > OMG! Stealth Bleed is ruined! The whole strategy is worthless! No > One will ever be able to Stealth Bleed again EVER! zing! :D -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Feb 5, 4:17 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > No, I don't see any overstatements here. I've browsed TWD for all > decks with Samedi, and found out the following decks: Ok, dude? The game is not about nothing but "what is in the TWDA". I realize you have a desire for the game to be SERIOUS!!!! (as noted in your previous missives), but the reality of the situation is that, like, more than half the cards in the game (i.e. most) will never end up in the TWDA. Ever. That doesn't mean that they are badly designed. Or "virtually unplayable". It just means that some things work better in competition than others (i.e. Dominate). And players tend to stick to what they know works (i.e. Dominate) when playing in competition. And yet people build decks without Dominate (et. al.) and play them in not competition all the time. Heck, some people build decks without Dominate (et. al.) and play them *in* competition all the time. They just don't win that much. But they have a good time anyway. Will Baroque tear up the tournament field and sweep games in the next championship? That is highly unlikely. True. So if your point is "I'm not gonna play Baroque in any tournaments any time soon", then sure. That is a reasonable statement. But that doesn't seem to be your point, which started out as "Baroque is virtually unplayable". Which isn't remotely correct. Or true. > I don't see a place for Baroque in any of these decks. And I don't see > any good deck (able to win a tournament) with him. That means he's > UNPLAYABLE. Playing "for fun" isn't my cup of tea. Then you are playing a completely different game than most people involved in this environment. And consequently, no one is ever going to understand what you are talking about. Yes. People like competetive play. And lots of people involved in this game play competetively. I play competetively (i.e. I'm not someone arguing with you from the standpoint of "But I want my Werewolf Pack deck to not ever get killed by Malkavians!"), but again, the game isn't *designed* from the standpoint of "what will or will not get into the TWDA". The game is designed from the standpoint of "Is this balanced? Will this make the game more interesting?" Baroque is a card that is both balanced and will (assuming you like playing with the Samedi and trying to fight with them) make the game more interesting. Claiming such a card is "unplayable" makes all the rest of your arguments seem rooted in shaky ground. If you want people to take your arguments more seriously, you *really* need to think about where you are starting from, and work accordingly. Making grand, absolutist pronouncements that are rooted in questionable theory just makes the rest of your discussion fall apart. > Thus, we have two deck (#3 and #8) that don't need Wider Views, all > other do. It's 80%, or "most" in your book :) Your assessment of "need" Wider View is likely way off. Much like your assessment of "Stealth Bleed is Dead 'cause of Bowl of Convergence!" was way off. -Peter

> > So I concur with Ori. In fact, I think one could make many legitimate > arguments that Blessing of the Beast is the best Ahrimanes card period. This card totally makes Hukros broken!

On Feb 5, 9:17 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > No, I don't see any overstatements here. I've browsed TWD for all > decks with Samedi, and found out the following decks: ... > 2). Reanimated Corpse decks. .... > 4). Shambling Hordes decks. ... > > I don't see a place for Baroque in any of these decks. Uh, why not? He has the key discipline for both those decks at superior. He has Obfuscate and Fortitude. 7 is pretty much the perfect capacity for a Shambling Hordes deck, as he can play two with no cards played, or three with Charisma/Houngan/Perfectionist. And he can Press the Flesh to turn them into super-Shambling Hordes with Fortitude when they get killed. Okay, he can't cloak them, but he can recruit them and he can Veil their Legions. Kevin Walsh

On Feb 5, 4:35 pm, Kevin Walsh <hjal...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote: > Uh, why not? 'Cause he pays a point for built in rush! Which makes him unplayable! Why would anyone want a Samedi with built in rush! What a total waste... -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] You should read the whole thread, I've already replied to that. Yes, they got Necromancy in VtM 2nd ed, and no, they didn't keep it in Revised, where it was replaced by Fortitude. And it's kind of strange that they would get both the new and the old clan disciplines in VtES, but apparently they do.

[ quoted text not captured ] I dunno, i was never interested in Samedi clan. I'm sure that i read something about NEC OBF THN as their discipline set, and i read about FOR NEC OBF THN as their discipline set (it was site LSJ provided). I'll learn about them more, as my knowledge is small in their case.