Madness Network + Rotschreck is too good!

Last time I played Anneke with Alastors and Assault Rifles my predator had a very interesting variant of Madness Network deck. He had the Network when my Anneke successfully played Alastor. After my minion phase his Zoe rushed Anneke with Nose of the Hound, played Disquised Weapon for Ivory Bow (I tried to cancel the Bow with Direct Intervention, but it was my turn!), then declared strike from the Bow and played Rotschreck. Anneke got into torpor, and he had another vampire to diablerize her and grab her Assault Rifle. Now please tell me, is it possible to defend my primary vampires from the Madness Network + Rotschreck combo? Yes, there are cards that disable or cancel Rotschreck (Sire's Index Finger, new Reflex cards, Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking), but you still need to deal with the aggravated damage somehow. Yes, there are cards that disable weapons (Immortal Grapple, Drawing Out the Beast and so on), but it's possible to deal aggravated damage without them (Burst of Sunlight, for instance). Now I'm going to build a deck with Count Germaine, as he seems to be the only possible answer to this madness besides the ABO/FOR Akunanse deck. Madness Network and Rotscreck are very powerful cards, but their combo is broken, IMHO, and something should be done about it. At least, "normal" usage of Rotschreck require an intercept deck, and the victim can try to resque the vampire on the same turn. With Madness Network, the victim can be immediately diablerized or burned with Sacrificial Lamb. Possible suggestions: a). Fix Madness Network to enable only bleed actions. "After another Methuselah has finished all of his or her minion phase actions, any untapped Malkavians (going clockwise) can take {BLEED} actions". This would be enough for most Malkavian tricks like getting pool for the Edge. b). Fix Rotschreck to affect only the acting vampires. "Put this card on {THE ACTING} vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage on him or her". Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > Now please tell me, is it possible to defend my primary vampires from > the Madness Network + Rotschreck combo? Obediance (if it isn't your turn). Destroy the Madness Network. Madness Network/Rotschreck is a viscious technology that has been around for a while. And while is is fairly grim, in terms of torporizing folks, you can only play Rotschreck one time around the table, and such decks are very difficult to actually win games with. -Peter

Hey there, First of all, normal use of Rötschreck does not require intercept at all. It doesn't say anywhere on Rötschreck that you have to play it whean "a minion you control" attempts do deal aggravated damage. So yes, this means you can play Rötschreck when someone else's minion is in combat with a third person. Next: you're entirely correct in saying that the amount of readily available solutions to this combo is somewhat limited, though I'd say by no means is it unbeatable. All of those solutions (burning the Madness Network,Sudden Reversal,Psyche,Tel. Tracking etc) are perfectly viable, and frequently played. Also, the combo is maybe a bit powerful, but remember it only works once every X turns, as Rötschreck is a Master out of turn, hence, between 2 of a player's turns, he can only pull it off once. On top of that, you state correctly "you still need a solution to the aggravated damage "anyway: which means that your deck either packs a solution to aggro, or it doesn't, in which case the difference is minimal.No defense form the aggravated, and your vamp will go down anyway, Rötschreck or no. I think that, allthough not too bad, you're overrating the combo. It's been around for very very long, and so far, has not managed to overturn the games metagame, has not managed to become the all-unbalancing-trick, has not even strongly (imo) influenced metagame,has not become a frequently played stereotype, simply because it's a very circumstantial thingie, and requires quite some setup. Yes, he can do this, but only once outside of his turn, and he's still got a whole lot of other stuff to do before it will win him the table. So, to be honest, I don't think it's "broken" at all. Just my 0,5 Eruocents /jo

How many times had you tried to burn the Madness Network (as a D action) ? I realise that the other player could use Rotschreck out-of-turn, but only once, which is its primary limitation as far as I can see. The stunt you describe is always available to Malkavians once Madness Network is out, which is why it should be burned as a priority as soon as it appears, although it is surprising how often it remains on the table in our games (along with Toreador Grand Ball).

[ quoted text not captured ] Ector, learn to accept defeat. White Wolf cant fix cards only because you lost a game :)) other people tried to explain this to you already, regarding Michael Luther or Bowl of Convergence.. you are talking about a 5 cards combo - nose of the hound, disguised weapon, ivory bow, madness network, rotschreck. and a second vampire and some stealth cards to diablerize. how many times you can reliably pull this off? you can cancel the whole effort with just ONE card - Obedience. Or block the rush with Carlton. Or lure Zoe into using at least 3 stealth and then simply untap Anneke with 2nd Tradition (Nose of the Hound will fizzle, because Anneke will be no longer tapped). :))

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1142339399....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] And thus you can see, no fix is really needed... You got meta-game scroo-d by running a "one big vampire" deck, thats all. It happens... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:1142336917.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Last time I played Anneke with Alastors and Assault Rifles my predator > had a very interesting variant of Madness Network deck. He had the > Network when my Anneke successfully played Alastor. After my minion > phase his Zoe rushed Anneke with Nose of the Hound, played Disquised > Weapon for Ivory Bow (I tried to cancel the Bow with Direct > Intervention, but it was my turn!), then declared strike from the Bow > and played Rotschreck. Anneke got into torpor, and he had another > vampire to diablerize her and grab her Assault Rifle. Generally speaking, if a predator puts out a Madness Network , make it a #1 priority to get that MadNet _gone_. Most Malk decks don't include it because its a fun little extra option, instead they include it because it enables the primary function of their deck. Burning the MadNet is an outstanding defensive move, since it will disable some, or most, of their intended forward motion. Burning the MadNet also has the added benefit of not impacting your predator's defensive capabilities overmuch. A non-stealth/bleed MadNet deck without its MadNet will tend to wall up, or you might even induce IPS (Ineffectual Predator Syndrome) allowing you to focus on your forward game a bit, until they draw into the next MadNet, anyways... DaveZ Atom Weaver

I think there is a general thing about Rötschreck. Its a master card that is played from the hand and directly affects combat. There are another couple of these now but not a common thing. In addition the effect of Rötschreck compared to its cost is high (people no doubt will say that a master phase action is a high cost to which I would say if you had a master card that put a vampire in torpor would you use a master phase action for it...). Because it comes out of the hand people don't see it coming and on your turn you couldn't do anything about it, the anti frenzy cards have obviously been added to fix this but are still only narrowly accessible. As a result of these things it has always been an oddity. If you plan your deck to cope with lots of sort of combat , and you can out manuver a grapple deck, out dodge a gun deck or whatever being 'taken' by a block, sunlight, Rötschreck combo was always particularly painful. And there really isn't a generic way out. Quoting Obedience as the counter is weak as its one card with a limited playability. The obvious way forward is to have other master cards that affect combat and then Rötschreck becomes one of many and its so not such a shock when your shiny new copy of Enkidu ends up in torpor after a scrap with Basil and a white phosphorous grenade. One other change I would like to see would be that any effect in combat that triggered the Rötschreck actually resolve. So if you Burst of Sunlighted then sure the oponent might be on their way to Rötschreck torpordom but you would still have to handle 1 point of agrevated damange yourself. I think that would actually be a more logical conclusion

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Ector wrote: > > Now please tell me, is it possible to defend my primary vampires from > > the Madness Network + Rotschreck combo? > > Obediance (if it isn't your turn). Destroy the Madness Network. Obedience works against rushes even on your own turn. It's a reaction card, so it cares only about who controls the acting minion, not about whose turn it is.

jibbajibba wrote: > As a result of these things it has always been an oddity. If you plan > your deck to cope with lots of sort of combat , and you can out manuver > a grapple deck, out dodge a gun deck or whatever being 'taken' by a > block, sunlight, Rötschreck combo was always particularly painful. Why is Rotschreck an oddity? It's just part of a combo. If you see Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. It's just a combo like many other combos out there, it has counters which you may or may not have access to. You know it's coming so you have to adjust your tactics to try and deal with it as best you can.

Shade wrote >Why is Rotschreck an oddity? It's just part of a combo. If you see >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. It's just a combo like many >other combos out there, it has counters which you may or may not have >access to. You know it's coming so you have to adjust your tactics to >try and deal with it as best you can. My point is that its a master card. That is what makes it different. Yes I agree that a Tremere deck might well pack that combo but if you compare Burst of sunlight & Rötschreck to say Coma you can see why the former is a much tougher prospect. It exists beyond the confines of the particular minion you are fighing agains and its much tougher to deal with. Not saying its broken just saying that the fact that (until the counter frenzy cards) it was impossible to do anything with once it was played was an oddity when you loook at the way other card mechanics work. I don't think it will remain that way for long and I expect to see a few more out-of-turn combat master cards in the next few expansions. I would still like that burst of sunlight to resolve though ....

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Ector wrote: > > Now please tell me, is it possible to defend my primary vampires from > > the Madness Network + Rotschreck combo? > > Obediance (if it isn't your turn). Destroy the Madness Network. Really good idea, but my vampire must be untapped or Waked to play Obedience. What if I play without Dominate? Destroy the Madness Network? Do you think that Malks with aggravated weapons and Madness Network would play without intercept? What if my deck doesn't have stealth at all? Good advices, but not to the topic. Should everybody play Obediences or a lot of stealth? The topic is: whether the combo is overpowered or not. > Madness Network/Rotschreck is a viscious technology that has been > around for a while. And while is is fairly grim, in terms of > torporizing folks, you can only play Rotschreck one time around the > table, and such decks are very difficult to actually win games with. > Really? I lost that game in five turns. And my predator's deck can be significantly improved. Madness Network + Victoria = +3 pool per turn. Yours, Ector

jibbajibba napsal: > Shade wrote > >Why is Rotschreck an oddity? It's just part of a combo. If you see > >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - > >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. It's just a combo like many > >other combos out there, it has counters which you may or may not have > >access to. You know it's coming so you have to adjust your tactics to > >try and deal with it as best you can. > > My point is that its a master card. That is what makes it different. so what? Pentex Subversion is a master card, yet it provides effect similar to Riddle Phantastique or Sensory Deprivation..Misdirection is a master card, with effect similar to Mind Numb or Art Traumatic Essence..Effective Management is the same as Clothos Gift.. etc. etc. etc. I really dont see your point. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wolflord wrote: > Hey there, > First of all, normal use of Rötschreck does not require intercept at > all. It doesn't say anywhere on Rötschreck that you have to play it > whean "a minion you control" attempts do deal aggravated damage. So > yes, this means you can play Rötschreck when someone else's minion is > in combat with a third person. Thanks for this comment, though I didn't talk about "a minion you control" :) But does this mean that anybody would put Rotschrecks in his deck just to play them when somebody else would attempt to deal aggro damage? In this case I'd consider this a Cheating:Colusion :) NORMALLY players use Rotschreks in combats after successful blocking. > Next: you're entirely correct in saying that the amount of readily > available solutions to this combo is somewhat limited, though I'd say > by no means is it unbeatable. > All of those solutions (burning the Madness Network,Sudden > Reversal,Psyche,Tel. Tracking etc) are perfectly viable, and frequently > played. So, if I had no Sudden Reversal in my hand, and I don't play Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking (after all, not every deck plays them, right?) the only option I have is burning Madness Network. And if I have no stealth, I would be blocked and torporized the same way. There are NO good solutions in this situation - you could just say "play a weenie deck", if this may be considered a "solution". I hate weenie decks. > Also, the combo is maybe a bit powerful, but remember it only works > once every X turns, as Rötschreck is a Master out of turn, hence, > between 2 of a player's turns, he can only pull it off once. > On top of that, you state correctly "you still need a solution to the > aggravated damage "anyway: which means that your deck either packs a > solution to aggro, or it doesn't, in which case the difference is > minimal.No defense form the aggravated, and your vamp will go down > anyway, Rötschreck or no. There are a lot of solutions against ONLY aggro damage. Dodge, Combat Ends, damage prevention, abilities of Jalan-Aajav and Karsh. And there are solutions against weapons, but there are almost no solutions against BOTH. That's why something should be fixed. > I think that, allthough not too bad, you're overrating the combo. It's > been around for very very long, and so far, has not managed to overturn > the games metagame, has not managed to become the > all-unbalancing-trick, has not even strongly (imo) influenced > metagame,has not become a frequently played stereotype, simply because > it's a very circumstantial thingie, and requires quite some setup. > Yes, he can do this, but only once outside of his turn, and he's still > got a whole lot of other stuff to do before it will win him the table. > So, to be honest, I don't think it's "broken" at all. > OK, maybe I should say "too brutal". Any non-weenie deck will fall miserably to this "circumstantial thingie". Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > Really good idea, but my vampire must be untapped or Waked to play > Obedience. What if I play without Dominate? Sometimes you get screwed. > Destroy the Madness Network? Do you think that Malks with aggravated > weapons and Madness Network would play without intercept? What if my > deck doesn't have stealth at all? So they are going to have: A) Enough Madness Networks to have them when they need them. B) Enough Rotschrecks to be able to play one each turn. C) Enough Rush to be able to Rush all the time when needed. D) Enough sources of aggrivated damage to be able have it when needed. and E) Enough intercept to be able to block all the Kill Madness Network actions. *and* F) Be able to deal with all the other strategies that are coming for them? This is what we like to call a tenuious deck structure. At best. > Good advices, but not to the topic. Should everybody play Obediences or > a lot of stealth? The topic is: whether the combo is overpowered or > not. It is not. And Obediance is directly to the topic--it is a viable trump to the suggested offense. As is ousting the deck before it gets set up. Or killing them--you were facing Ivory Bow. Ivory Bow is easily foiled by many common weapon hosers (IG, DoTB). Or block the Rushes on your important guys--does he have all of the above *and* stealth too? > Really? I lost that game in five turns. And my predator's deck can be > significantly improved. Madness Network + Victoria = +3 pool per turn. Yes. Really. You got hosed. Sometimes you get hosed. You were taken by surprise by a viscious but very complicated and difficult to maintain combat trump. Which happens. But Madness Network/Rotschrek combat has been around for a long time, and hardly has been dominating the game scene. Why? 'Cause it is really hard to pull off and maintain for the length of a game. Sure, once and a while, it'll work out, and once and a while it'll totally hose someone who is relying heavily on a single vampire. But that describes lots of decks. How is the incredibly tenious set up for Madness Network/Rush/Aggro Damage/Rotschrek that much more devestating than, say, Rush/DotB/IG/Undead Strength/Disarm? Yeah, your opponent could have Skin of Steel and foil you. The Rotshcreck gets foiled by Obediance or hosing the weapon. At least the second case can happen more than once a turn. And you don't have to get a Madness Network into play to do it. And you don't have to have your deck jammed with Masters that gum up your hand. -Peter

Ector wrote: > So, if I had no Sudden Reversal in my hand, and I don't play Psyche! > and Telepathic Tracking (after all, not every deck plays them, right?) > the only option I have is burning Madness Network. Or Obediance. Or foiling the weapon. Or burning the Madness Network. > And if I have no > stealth, I would be blocked and torporized the same way. He can only play Rotschreck one time around the table. It seems likely that one vampire might get torporized (how many Rotschrecks are in there in the first place? 15?) and then every time he blocks someone trying to get the Madness Network (assuming he can), then he gets one of his own vampires torporized (Malkavians aren't well known for combat defense. Especially Malkavians using decks packed with cards to make the Madness Network/Rotshreck combat work). > There are NO good solutions in this situation - There are lots of times you are in a situation with no good solution--you are a Malk S+B deck and your predator is an IG Rush deck. What is the good solution? You are a Malk S+B deck and your prey has 15 Deflections. What is the good solution? The Madness Network/Rotschreck is a strong yet difficult combat trump. But no more killer than many other combat trumps. And harder to pull off consistiently. > There are a lot of solutions against ONLY aggro damage. Dodge, Combat > Ends, damage prevention, abilities of Jalan-Aajav and Karsh. And there > are solutions against weapons, but there are almost no solutions > against BOTH. That's why something should be fixed. No more so than that something should be fixed to foil Drawing out the Beast and Immortal Grapple, which totally kills most combat defense and offense (Including Ivory Bow/Rotschreck). It is a brutal combination of cards that sometimes totally shuts you down. But lots of things do that. > OK, maybe I should say "too brutal". Any non-weenie deck will fall > miserably to this "circumstantial thingie". No it won't. How does it oust you? How does it avoid getting ousted? It can only torp someone with Rotschreck one time around the table--if it does it to its prey, it can't do it to its predator. These decks are only bearly viable in a "I can consistiently win games" kind of way, otherwise they would be dominating competetive play. But they aren't. -Peter

Alias wrote: > Ector, > learn to accept defeat. White Wolf cant fix cards only because you lost > a game :)) other people tried to explain this to you already, regarding > Michael Luther or Bowl of Convergence.. Alias, Learn to read what people are saying and respond to what they are saying, not to the stupid things you just imagine. Yes, I was wrong with the Michael Luther, since I didn't understand that Inner Circles are somewhat overpowered and his ability only makes them slightly less overpowered. And I can believe that Bowl of Convergence was needed to weaken stealth-bleed decks etc. etc. But would you strain your mind to explain me - who can play large vampires against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? > you are talking about a 5 cards combo - nose of the hound, disguised > weapon, ivory bow, madness network, rotschreck. and a second vampire > and some stealth cards to diablerize. how many times you can reliably > pull this off? What 5 cards are you talking of? Only Madness Network, weapon and Rotschreck are essential, and the deck can normally play until it find the cards. Would you dare to block his bleed, even if he doesn't have the rush card? This deck can keep silent, bleed for 1 to get the Edge, get pool for Victoria and cycle its cards until the needed cards come. Obviously, there are several Madness Networks, several aggro weapons (Ivory Bows, Improvised Flamethrowers...), several rush cards etc. etc. you can cancel the whole effort with just ONE card - > Obedience. Or block the rush with Carlton. But HOLY SHIT!!! Can you just for a minute rise upon the given situation and think about the whole game? What if I don't play Dominate at all? And how many Carltons do I need to have him in time? > Or lure Zoe into using at least 3 stealth and then simply untap Anneke > with 2nd Tradition (Nose of the Hound will fizzle, because Anneke will > be no longer tapped). :)) Good advice... what if Zoe rushed with normal Bum's Rush? What if I just blocked her (after all, Anneke should block somebody!) If I'd played Venere Carboni in a voting deck, you'd advice me to play Drawing Out the Beast, since he has Animalism, right? :) Just fix that whiner!!! I really don't know why do you refuse to think about the problem and post such things instead. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: who can play large vampires > against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? Anyone with animalism(DotB), abombwe(reflex), celerity(Psyche!), auspex(TT), dominate(Obedience), dementation(Voice of Madness), sire's index finger, allies to block with, or a large number of other trumps can play large vampires against the combo. Alternatively, once can defend oneself more indircetly with Illegal Search and Seizure, Peace Treaty, or the like. To your second question, no. Not all players are tired from weenie decks. > > you are talking about a 5 cards combo - nose of the hound, disguised > > weapon, ivory bow, madness network, rotschreck. and a second vampire > > and some stealth cards to diablerize. how many times you can reliably > > pull this off? > What 5 cards are you talking of? Only Madness Network, weapon and > Rotschreck are essential, and the deck can normally play until it find > the cards. Would you dare to block his bleed, even if he doesn't have > the rush card? Oh noes! I have to get bled for one so my vampire doesn't die! > This deck can keep silent, bleed for 1 to get the Edge, get pool for > Victoria and cycle its cards until the needed cards come. Obviously, > there are several Madness Networks, several aggro weapons (Ivory Bows, > Improvised Flamethrowers...), several rush cards etc. etc. > > you can cancel the whole effort with just ONE card - > > Obedience. Or block the rush with Carlton. > But HOLY SHIT!!! Can you just for a minute rise upon the given > situation and think about the whole game? What if I don't play Dominate > at all? And how many Carltons do I need to have him in time? Then look at the options you do have. It's possible your deck doesn't have any, in which case you probably lose - much like a deck with no intercept or vote defence probably loses to heavy politics. But the options to defend yourself *exist*, even if they aren't in your deck, and most of them are useful even when they aren't trumping Rotschreck. > Yours, > Ector

On 14 Mar 2006 03:48:37 -0800, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Madness Network and Rotscreck are very powerful cards, but their combo > is broken, IMHO, and something should be done about it. At least, > "normal" usage of Rotschreck require an intercept deck, and the victim > can try to resque the vampire on the same turn. With Madness Network, > the victim can be immediately diablerized or burned with Sacrificial > Lamb. Man, you are seriously wrong here. I mean, it's like saying that Smiling Jack is broken because it once made you burn 15 pool during your untap. When certain effects are much more potent combined ("combo"), you should make it a priority to prevent them from reaching alignment. What you need to understand is that removing the Madness Network can save you a lot of trouble. If your predator blocks it, it's still your turn. Not to mention that he may need to tap his Malks. > Possible suggestions: I guess the only advice that can be given is play some more, and learn that there is no über deck; combo-heavy trick decks usually sacrafice their common sense to achieve their end, becoming vulnerable to a number of threats. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > Madness Network and Rotscreck are very powerful cards, but their combo > is broken, IMHO, and something should be done about it. You're a retard. This has been around forever and the solution to these decks is the same now as it always has been: Burn the Madness Network. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFxhjtQZlu3o7QpERAk8mAJwLf2Ye0ev1zNs6z+F0LAFoArjnCgCfZAAN 7GplY85WsQ8YbLuEasTMp6w= =QqGb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ector wrote: > Last time I played Anneke with Alastors and Assault Rifles my predator > had a very interesting variant of Madness Network deck. He had the > Network when my Anneke successfully played Alastor. After my minion > phase his Zoe rushed Anneke with Nose of the Hound, played Disquised > Weapon for Ivory Bow (I tried to cancel the Bow with Direct > Intervention, but it was my turn!), then declared strike from the Bow > and played Rotschreck. Anneke got into torpor, and he had another > vampire to diablerize her and grab her Assault Rifle. The newsgroup has been over this with you many times before, but maybe this time it'll actually sink in: Just because you lost to a card or combination of cards doesn't mean they need to be depowered. Sometimes, you lose. John Eno

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Sometimes you get screwed. And I generally take it easy if I know that I've got screwed due to my mistake (bad play or bad deck construction). But this time is another case. > > Destroy the Madness Network? Do you think that Malks with aggravated > > weapons and Madness Network would play without intercept? What if my > > deck doesn't have stealth at all? > > So they are going to have: > > A) Enough Madness Networks to have them when they need them. > B) Enough Rotschrecks to be able to play one each turn. > C) Enough Rush to be able to Rush all the time when needed. > D) Enough sources of aggrivated damage to be able have it when needed. > > and > > E) Enough intercept to be able to block all the Kill Madness Network > actions. > > *and* > > F) Be able to deal with all the other strategies that are coming for > them? > > This is what we like to call a tenuious deck structure. At best. A). The deck can play without Madness Network as a "normal" intercept deck with weapons and some rush actions, until it find the Network. Note that the deck can abuse Fragment of the Book of Nod to cycle cards. B). He doesn't need to play Rotschreck each turn. Killing key vampires and making some deals will grant almost full control on the game. If you can burn any vampire, block any action (with Eagle's Sight), and you have some votes... C). Again, he doesn't need to rush each turn. And it's possible to play Alastor with Lucian or Maris Streck to fetch a cheap weapon and get permanent rush. D). What about 2 Ivory Bows and 4 Improvised Flamethrowers, for instance? What about fetching them with Alastor or Magic of the Smith (for Lucian)? E). But who usually tries to burn the Network? Only his predator and, possibly, his prey. As long as they aren't playing weenie decks they won't have too many actions AND their vampires would be too important to lose them. One Bowl will provide +2 intercept if needed, and with Second Traditions you can get +4 with a few cards. Don't forget Maris Streck's special, too. And you may return the burned Networks with Anthelios, Res Star. OK, maybe, I'm too optimistic here, but I've played much more bizarre decks than this one. This deck is going to be very powerful, especially with Lucian, Gilbert Duane and Governs. > > Good advices, but not to the topic. Should everybody play Obediences or > > a lot of stealth? The topic is: whether the combo is overpowered or > > not. > > It is not. And Obediance is directly to the topic--it is a viable trump > to the suggested offense. As is ousting the deck before it gets set up. > Or killing them--you were facing Ivory Bow. Ivory Bow is easily foiled > by many common weapon hosers (IG, DoTB). Or block the Rushes on your > important guys--does he have all of the above *and* stealth too? OK, I had no Obediences in that deck, only Majesties. Obedience is better when you block, but Majesty helps when you are blocked without the Grand Ball or rushed without Second Traditions. Most of the time... My vamps have inferior Dominate, so Obedience leaves opponent's minions untapped, and there are some decks with large vampires here (Xaviar, Lazverinus etc) that are immune to Anneke's Obedience. I don't have Potence for IG or Animalism for DotB. Yes, I know that Nosferatu are the best :) And yes, he rushed via Nose of the Hound (+1 stealth), and Anneke decks usually have no Wakes, just Second Traditions, so I couldn't block with some cheaper vamp. > Yes. Really. You got hosed. Sometimes you get hosed. You were taken by > surprise by a viscious but very complicated and difficult to maintain > combat trump. Which happens. Yes, I've got hosed. I wouldn't call this deck's combo more complicated than, say, a standard Tremere combo (Theft + Apportation + Walk of Flame), and it isn't too difficult to maintain, though. For instance, maintaining Anarch Revolts is much more difficult. The real problem (for me) is that I'm forced to design a special deck against this combo - NONE of my favorite decks will handle it. (I don't think that Obediences would radically change the situation, though they may save my vampire a few times). But my problems really doesn't matter here. > But Madness Network/Rotschrek combat has > been around for a long time, and hardly has been dominating the game > scene. Why? 'Cause it is really hard to pull off and maintain for the > length of a game. Sure, once and a while, it'll work out, and once and > a while it'll totally hose someone who is relying heavily on a single > vampire. But that describes lots of decks. I assume that large vampires should be PLAYABLE. Yes, there are decks that can rush them and try to torporize, some decks play Sensory Deprivation or Pentex Subversion and so on, but in most cases they can be protected with Fortitude cards or with some help from the other players. But Madness Network + Rotschreck is another case. There are just few cards in the whole game that will save you, and most of the cards were designed for combat-heavy decks (IG, DotB, Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking, Abombwe cards, etc. etc.) If you play these cards, you must be a combat monster yourself! Noncombat decks can protect themselves with Obedience, Alpha Glint or Elysium, but that's all! This combo easily beats all "half-combat" packages like Vicissitude or Thaumaturgy cards (even with Rotschreck!), Celerity + guns and so on. And that is no good for the game. > How is the incredibly tenious set up for Madness Network/Rush/Aggro > Damage/Rotschrek that much more devestating than, say, > Rush/DotB/IG/Undead Strength/Disarm? Yeah, your opponent could have > Skin of Steel and foil you. The Rotshcreck gets foiled by Obediance or > hosing the weapon. At least the second case can happen more than once a > turn. And you don't have to get a Madness Network into play to do it. > And you don't have to have your deck jammed with Masters that gum up > your hand. > > -Peter The difference is huge. To play Rush/DotB/IG/Undead Strength/Disarm, your minion should have ani/POT and FIVE cards for each rush. To play Madness Network/aggro weapon/Rotschreck, you need NO disciplines and only two cards in your hand: Rush and Rotschreck. Moreover, you can torporize even witout Rotschreck most of the time! Yours, Ector

Ok so let me get this straight... YOU are playing a combat trump deck (Anneke blocks everything with assault rifle) and you are complaining because you faced anoher deck that happened to be able to handle your combat? Besides, Anneke has aus, cel AND dom, so she can play tele tracking, psyche, and obedience. And if your playing an assault rifle deck, you should be packing psyches anyway. So just accept it that you were whooped and construct your deck better next time. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] This guy is a Troll. He makes up arguments about how strong this deck is by changing what was in the deck to enforce just how broken he thinks this combo is. First he gets torpored and diablerized with a four card combo and 2 actions. Then it becomes a 'what if it was this card' situation after that for each argument given to him for proper defense against such a deck. He wants big vamps to be "PLAYABLE" and the next thing we know is that Maris and Lucian (PLAYABLE big vamps apparently) are calling Alastor and searching for agg weapons with Magic of the Smith while rushing and gaining tons of intercept, not to mention that Victoria is bloating and Anthelios is recurring the Network to perpetuate the situation. As someone already mentioned, you should have included Psyche!s in your deck anyway which would have trumped the Rotschreck easily. No going out of your way to defend against this 'broken combo' just a simple common card that you should have had in there already. Stop trolling.

Ector napsal: > Alias wrote: > > > Ector, > > learn to accept defeat. White Wolf cant fix cards only because you lost > > a game :)) other people tried to explain this to you already, regarding > > Michael Luther or Bowl of Convergence.. > Alias, > Learn to read what people are saying and respond to what they are > saying, not to the stupid things you just imagine. I tried. With all patience left in me, after reading similar threads started by you in the past. > Yes, I was wrong with the Michael Luther, since I didn't understand > that Inner Circles are somewhat overpowered and his ability only makes > them slightly less overpowered. And I can believe that Bowl of > Convergence was needed to weaken stealth-bleed decks etc. etc. But > would you strain your mind to explain me - who can play large vampires > against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? are you tired from weenie decks? play Atonement, Aranthebes, Ancilla Empowerment..whatever more *constructive* than arguing about madness network on usenet :) > > > you are talking about a 5 cards combo - nose of the hound, disguised > > weapon, ivory bow, madness network, rotschreck. and a second vampire > > and some stealth cards to diablerize. how many times you can reliably > > pull this off? > What 5 cards are you talking of? Only Madness Network, weapon and > Rotschreck are essential, and the deck can normally play until it find > the cards. and how do you equip the weapon? how do you enter combat? Would you dare to block his bleed, even if he doesn't have > the rush card? No, I wouldnt. why? I would never block a stupid bleed for one, if it means risking my key vampire. > This deck can keep silent, bleed for 1 to get the Edge, get pool for > Victoria and cycle its cards until the needed cards come. Obviously, keep silent? yes, maybe at a table full of clueless begginers. any serious player will immediately recognize whats going on and act accordingly. > there are several Madness Networks, several aggro weapons (Ivory Bows, > Improvised Flamethrowers...), several rush cards etc. etc. ...and several bleed defense cards, several combat defense cards, vote defense cards, several ways to oust prey..and everything with brilliant cardflow.. simply godlike :)) > > you can cancel the whole effort with just ONE card - > > Obedience. Or block the rush with Carlton. > But HOLY SHIT!!! Can you just for a minute rise upon the given > situation and think about the whole game? What if I don't play Dominate > at all? And how many Carltons do I need to have him in time? it really doesnt have to be Carlton, but any expendable blocker with one intercept :) if there is no dominate, there is psyche!, telepathic tracking, DotB..do I really have to give you ALL examples? :) > > > Or lure Zoe into using at least 3 stealth and then simply untap Anneke > > with 2nd Tradition (Nose of the Hound will fizzle, because Anneke will > > be no longer tapped). :)) > Good advice... what if Zoe rushed with normal Bum's Rush? What if I > just blocked her (after all, Anneke should block somebody!) > If I'd played Venere Carboni in a voting deck, you'd advice me to play > Drawing Out the Beast, since he has Animalism, right? :) Just fix that > whiner!!! > I really don't know why do you refuse to think about the problem and > post such things instead. I cant think when Im laughing! :)) > > Yours, > Ector

This working yet? I tried a couple eloquent refutation posts, but they got lost in the land of server error. The short of it is this--Ector. Post a deck that you think can do all the stuff you seem to think this magical and unstoppable Madness Network/Rotschreck deck can do. Crypt, deck list and all. And we'll see where it goes from there. -Peter

lactamaeon wrote: > Ector wrote: > who can play large vampires > > against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? > > Anyone with animalism(DotB), abombwe(reflex), celerity(Psyche!), > auspex(TT), dominate(Obedience), dementation(Voice of Madness), sire's > index finger, allies to block with, or a large number of other trumps > can play large vampires against the combo. Alternatively, once can > defend oneself more indircetly with Illegal Search and Seizure, Peace > Treaty, or the like. DotB, Abombwe, Psyche!, TT are usually played by the heavy combat decks. What if I don't play such deck? Does a Toreador voting deck need Psyche! just to protect against Rotschrecks? Obedience: good only for heavy intercept decks - what if THEY block you? Voice of Madness: almost the same, but worse, as you need to BLOCK. Sire's Index Finger: must have! Unfortunately, it's unique, so it can protect only one vampire on the table :( Allies to block with: most decks can recruit Carlton (unique) and some cheap fodder. Madness Network player can wait until Carlton block somebody and then rush. Getting +1 stealth isn't too difficult for Malks. Most of the decks with large vampires have NO decent protection against MN + Rotschrecks. > > > you are talking about a 5 cards combo - nose of the hound, disguised > > > weapon, ivory bow, madness network, rotschreck. and a second vampire > > > and some stealth cards to diablerize. how many times you can reliably > > > pull this off? > > What 5 cards are you talking of? Only Madness Network, weapon and > > Rotschreck are essential, and the deck can normally play until it find > > the cards. Would you dare to block his bleed, even if he doesn't have > > the rush card? > > Oh noes! I have to get bled for one so my vampire doesn't die! For one? What about Kindred Spirits or inferior Govern? > Then look at the options you do have. It's possible your deck doesn't > have any, in which case you probably lose - much like a deck with no > intercept or vote defence probably loses to heavy politics. But the > options to defend yourself *exist*, even if they aren't in your deck, > and most of them are useful even when they aren't trumping Rotschreck. > It's LIKELY I have no options, not just "possible", if I don't play a heavy combat deck or a heavy intercept with Obediences. That's the problem. BTW, a deck with no intercept or vote defence can eat the heavy politics for lunch - a weenie rush, for instance :) Yours, Ector

Hello Ector, I know how frustrating it can be to lose a game to a seemingly all-powerful combo. > Most of the decks with large vampires have NO decent protection against > MN + Rotschrecks. If your big cap deck doesn't have stealth/unblockability, multiple actions/untap, grapple, psyche, or TT, then it's probably an error in deckbuilding. Simply take an action to get rid of the Madness Network. Do they block and play Rötschreck? If so, they can't play another one for the whole round. Rescue your vampire on your turn - no chance for them to diablerize. If you want, use another vamp to take another action at the Madness Network. If other people at the table feel it's a threat, they can take actions, too. And since the Malks have already played a Rötschreck this turn, they can't put another Madness Network in play. Then again, you can always use Tranquility. ;) Note that no one has posted, "Yes, I agree with you, Ector." :) Perhaps you can reconsider, given that it's unlikely everyone else is wrong? Ira

Klai...@gmail.com wrote: > Ok so let me get this straight... YOU are playing a combat trump deck > (Anneke blocks everything with assault rifle) No, I'm not. Anneke can't block everything. And she needs Assault Rifle just as a "peacemaker". She rarely torporizes vampires and the deck almost never diablerizes them. > and you are complaining > because you faced anoher deck that happened to be able to handle your > combat? Two misses: first, I'm not "complaining", and the second, "able to handle" is a completely inappropriate term. "Always handles" would be much better :) > Besides, Anneke has aus, cel AND dom, so she can play tele > tracking, psyche, and obedience. And if your playing an assault rifle > deck, you should be packing psyches anyway. So just accept it that you > were whooped and construct your deck better next time. ;) Looks like you consider my intercept/voting deck a heavy combat deck :) Intercept decks rarely have Psyche!, since their primary goal is stopping the dangerous actions, not torporising the vampires. Yours, Ector

Daneel wrote: > On 14 Mar 2006 03:48:37 -0800, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Madness Network and Rotscreck are very powerful cards, but their combo > > is broken, IMHO, and something should be done about it. At least, > > "normal" usage of Rotschreck require an intercept deck, and the victim > > can try to resque the vampire on the same turn. With Madness Network, > > the victim can be immediately diablerized or burned with Sacrificial > > Lamb. > > Man, you are seriously wrong here. I mean, it's like saying that Smiling > Jack is broken because it once made you burn 15 pool during your untap. > When certain effects are much more potent combined ("combo"), you should > make it a priority to prevent them from reaching alignment. Smiling Jack eats the entire table, so it's generally easy enough to remove it. Likewise, the Leandro's ability often leads to removing Leandro, but Arika's ability harms only your prey, and the other players may feel themselves safe (at least for a couple of turns). > What you need to understand is that removing the Madness Network can > save you a lot of trouble. If your predator blocks it, it's still your > turn. Not to mention that he may need to tap his Malks. Yes, you (and Derek Ray) are right. Each Madness Network should be burned at once! > > I guess the only advice that can be given is play some more, and learn > that there is no über deck; combo-heavy trick decks usually sacrafice > their common sense to achieve their end, becoming vulnerable to a > number of threats. Did I say that the deck with Madness Network is an "uber-deck"? The game just needs some universal defense against the combo, not just the cards that are usable only in specific decks. Without the defense, a level of interaction between players decreases. They just burn your vampire as though it were a puny creature of MTG :) Yours, Ector

Klai...@gmail.com wrote: > Ok so let me get this straight... YOU are playing a combat trump deck > (Anneke blocks everything with assault rifle) No, I'm not. Anneke can't block everything. And she needs Assault Rifle just as a "peacemaker". She rarely torporizes large vampires and the deck almost never diablerizes them. > and you are complaining > because you faced anoher deck that happened to be able to handle your > combat? Two misses: first, I'm not "complaining", and the second, "able to handle" is a completely inappropriate term. "Always handles" would be much better :) And it always handles most other combat packages except for the most heavy combat decks, which is TOO GOOD for a 20-card package. > Besides, Anneke has aus, cel AND dom, so she can play tele > tracking, psyche, and obedience. And if your playing an assault rifle > deck, you should be packing psyches anyway. So just accept it that you > were whooped and construct your deck better next time. ;) Looks like you consider my intercept/voting deck a heavy combat deck :) Intercept decks rarely have Psyche!, since their primary goal is stopping the dangerous actions, not torporising the vampires. But you're probably right, I should rebuild the deck and make a heavy intercept with Obediences or heavy combat with Psyche! Yours, Ector

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Ector, > If your big cap deck doesn't have stealth/unblockability, multiple > actions/untap, grapple, psyche, or TT, then it's probably an error in > deckbuilding. Intercept decks with large vampires regularly play without these cards. I've seen Lucas Halton decks without them. And if you even have the cards for untap, your vampire still can try to burn Madness Network only once per turn. > Simply take an action to get rid of the Madness Network. Do they block > and play Rötschreck? If so, they can't play another one for the whole > round. Rescue your vampire on your turn - no chance for them to > diablerize. If you want, use another vamp to take another action at > the Madness Network. If other people at the table feel it's a threat, > they can take actions, too. Yes, you're right here. It would be extremely difficult to convince the table in the threat, since Madness Network itself doesn't affect their game, but it would be much better to burn it immediately. > > Then again, you can always use Tranquility. ;) Ten copies of it? :) > Note that no one has posted, "Yes, I agree with you, Ector." :) > Perhaps you can reconsider, given that it's unlikely everyone else is > wrong? > The people's ATTITUDE is clear - they are experienced players, they learned to deal with the combo, and they don't like "whining". But their arguments is really weak, IMHO. If the Rotschreck would be playable on your turn - that would be obviously unbalanced, but if another card provides the same opportunity, this is somehow considered "normal". I can't understand this, but you are right - the further discussion is pointless. Yours, Ector

Robert Scythe wrote: > This guy is a Troll. He makes up arguments about how strong this deck > is by changing what was in the deck to enforce just how broken he > thinks this combo is. First he gets torpored and diablerized with a > four card combo and 2 actions. Then it becomes a 'what if it was this > card' situation after that for each argument given to him for proper > defense against such a deck. I'm amazed with a strength of your "arguments" :) An opportunity of playing Rotschreck for the own actions is overpowered. All my "what if" are just responses to different "use that" advices and claims that the Madness Network deck based on this combo cannot be good enough. I don't agree with that. Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that I consider overpowered in the game. > He wants big vamps to be "PLAYABLE" and > the next thing we know is that Maris and Lucian (PLAYABLE big vamps > apparently) are calling Alastor and searching for agg weapons with > Magic of the Smith while rushing and gaining tons of intercept, not to > mention that Victoria is bloating and Anthelios is recurring the > Network to perpetuate the situation. Muahaha, isn't that funny? Obviously, I meant big vampires of the other players. Yes, some of my card suggestions may be funny, but other players' suggestions are funny too. Including your suggestion of Psyche! > As someone already mentioned, you > should have included Psyche!s in your deck anyway which would have > trumped the Rotschreck easily. No going out of your way to defend > against this 'broken combo' just a simple common card that you should > have had in there already. Stop trolling. In case you don't know, Anson + Anneke decks almost never play Psyche! You should write "Obedience", but in our metagame it isn't as good as in yours, since there are large rushers (Xaviar, Lazverinus, Enkidu etc.) I should probably just change the deck. But that isn't the point of discussion! What if I play a Ventrue voting deck? I have Presence for Majesty and Fortitude for damage prevention, so I can defend my large vampires from nearly all combat strategies, but Madness Network + Rotschreck kill them easily. Hope wou won't suggest playing Obediences or Tranquility in the case. Just realize that a deck with so slim combat package as MN + Rotschreck should NOT be so unstoppable. Yours, Ector.

Robert Scythe wrote: > This guy is a Troll. He makes up arguments about how strong this deck > is by changing what was in the deck to enforce just how broken he > thinks this combo is. First he gets torpored and diablerized with a > four card combo and 2 actions. Then it becomes a 'what if it was this > card' situation after that for each argument given to him for proper > defense against such a deck. I'm amazed with a strength of your "arguments" :) An opportunity of playing Rotschreck for the own actions is overpowered. All my "what if" are just responses to different "use that" advices and claims that the Madness Network deck based on this combo cannot be good enough. I don't agree with that. Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that I consider overpowered in the game. > He wants big vamps to be "PLAYABLE" and > the next thing we know is that Maris and Lucian (PLAYABLE big vamps > apparently) are calling Alastor and searching for agg weapons with > Magic of the Smith while rushing and gaining tons of intercept, not to > mention that Victoria is bloating and Anthelios is recurring the > Network to perpetuate the situation. Muahaha, isn't that funny? Obviously, I meant big vampires of the other players. Yes, some of my card suggestions may be funny, but other players' suggestions are funny too. Including your suggestion of Psyche! > As someone already mentioned, you > should have included Psyche!s in your deck anyway which would have > trumped the Rotschreck easily. No going out of your way to defend > against this 'broken combo' just a simple common card that you should > have had in there already. Stop trolling. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network > deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that > I consider overpowered in the game. You should. You would learn a lot. A while ago, there was a guy in this newsgroup complaining about Dragonbound, and how it was overpowered and ruining the game. If he had actually *played* a deck that uses Dragonbound, he would immediately have seen how costly and dangerous it actually is, for the player who uses it in his deck. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting personal? I find it quite annoying.

Ector wrote: Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? > > no

Ector wrote: > The real problem (for me) is that I'm forced to design a special deck > against this combo - NONE of my favorite decks will handle it. ector i have a simply solution for your problem, build better decks, but don´t expect ww to change the cards in vtes so your decks work better!. s.

In message <1142374333.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >A). The deck can play without Madness Network as a "normal" intercept >deck with weapons and some rush actions, until it find the Network. >Note that the deck can abuse Fragment of the Book of Nod to cycle >cards. This isn't true. To be a useful out of turn rush deck, the deck needs to be pulling rush cards on a reliable basis (more so than an intercept deck does). These will be clogging up its hand, or be being used. Further, the most successful such decks in the past have relied heavily on 2nd Tradition: Domain and [1/2] Malkavian Princes, which gets them a big fat +2 intercept. This is often enough, but it is hardly impossible for you to get around. This is not a normal intercept deck. A normal intercept deck can generate a lot more intercept than that, when it needs to. The Madness Network deck can't be wasting its slots on (for example) permanent newspapers in the same way as an Intercept deck can - it needs to have a fair hunk of Madness Network and Rotschreck in the deck, both competing for master slots. Then you remember it has to have pool gain, so you're very probably throwing a few Blood Dolls or Minion Taps in there as appropriate. And depending on the deck creator's tastes, there may well be a Metro Underground or two in there. Popular incarnations of the deck involve Carrion Coffin or Homunculus - which you can attempt block, or DI. >B). He doesn't need to play Rotschreck each turn. Killing key vampires >and making some deals will grant almost full control on the game. If >you can burn any vampire, block any action (with Eagle's Sight), and >you have some votes... Okay, so now we're at a different stage again. First of all, he has a good deck. But then he also has extremely good table manipulation and deal making skills. When a player with a good deck and good skills comes to the table, you get your arse handed to you on a plate if you don't raise your game. This includes having the ability to make counter deals, to negotiate cross-table and so on. He can only play Rotschreck once. At that point, you play the cards you've been holding back and throw down that Parity Shift or Banishment or the Bum's Rush to take out their vampire (if you're a combat deck) or the Reality to lock them down, or the Spirit Marionette to kick his head in, or whatever. And you make your own deals. Your deck has its own benefits to offer. If you want to make deals with other players, make them - can you make a better offer? You can very probably make a good offer, if you've made a good deck. Or you can scaremonger, and point out how the table will fall, so that people gang up with you on him - "Oh yeah, if you rush him and he Rotschrecks you, I'll rescue you afterwards on my turn, no trouble. 1 blood each? That's cool. And I'll send some KRC damage wherever you want, too. That okay?" And a Madness Network deck should never be able to outvote a solid politics deck - multiple Ventrue princes with a well-timed Ventrue HQ, weenie crusades, discarding a political action from your hand, and so on. There aren't enough solid titled vampires for this deck. And you can always get the Edge. Two titles plus the Edge (on any Methuselah inclined to support you due to your superior table manipulation skills) equals vote dominance for the relevant Blood Hunt. >C). Again, he doesn't need to rush each turn. And it's possible to play >Alastor with Lucian or Maris Streck to fetch a cheap weapon and get >permanent rush. So now you need to be passing a vote as well. Is there anything this deck can't do? Vox Domini, Delaying Tactics, voting it down with other voters, blocking the action, Direct Intervention, Vox Senis, Scalpel Tongue. This is yet another avenue of attack. And being able to draw Alastor with any regularity requires card slots. What defence does your deck have to ANY common strategies if it's still struggling to cause problems? >D). What about 2 Ivory Bows and 4 Improvised Flamethrowers, for >instance? What about fetching them with Alastor or Magic of the Smith >(for Lucian)? What about them? >E). But who usually tries to burn the Network? Only his predator and, >possibly, his prey. Or anyone his prey and predator have made deals with. If you're going to whine that the Madness Network player is controlling the table with deals, make your own deals - there's nothing inherent to the Madness Network deck that makes it impossible to make deals against it, or to counter its offer of a deal, with carrots or your own sticks. >As long as they aren't playing weenie decks they >won't have too many actions AND their vampires would be too important >to lose them. One Bowl will provide +2 intercept if needed, OH NO THE BOWL OF CONVERGENCE AGAIN. END OF THE WORLD. (Block the action? DI the card?) >and with >Second Traditions you can get +4 with a few cards. How many copies of either are in the deck? How many of the vampires are untapping to do anything else with an out of turn rush? These are big vampires, and you can leverage your own speed - since the deck can't reliably afford the card slots for Info Highway or Zillah's Valley, in most incarnations. >Don't forget Maris >Streck's special, too. >And you may return the burned Networks with Anthelios, Res Star. And you can return your Sudden Reversals and Direct Interventions to your hand, to stop a Madness Network being played or to DI an Alastor, or to... And if he's using his master phase action, he CAN'T do that after a Rotschreck, so it goes round another turn. Then he uses it. Then he can't play it that turn, because he's used his master phase action. Then you go round again, and he gets to play it. What on earth are you doing with your deck in that time? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1142350619....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Shade <sha...@gmail.com> writes: >If you see >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. Really? I can't remember the last time I saw someone put that combo together (there have probably been throw-away includes in a deck, mind). Most of the time I see Tremere doing a Xian-esque bruise-bleed deck - because Tremere intercept doesn't oust people as reliably, and so they need to go forward, so they don't want Burst of Sunlight in their hand on their own turn. And if you want to torporise people, you probably want Fame - and other intercept decks can get people into torpor more reliably (Gangrel, Tzimisce etc.) with first round agg damage that doesn't have such nasty side effects. Funny the way these things go so differently for different people. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142352541.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >Shade wrote >>Why is Rotschreck an oddity? It's just part of a combo. If you see >>Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - >>burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. It's just a combo like many >>other combos out there, it has counters which you may or may not have >>access to. You know it's coming so you have to adjust your tactics to >>try and deal with it as best you can. > >My point is that its a master card. That is what makes it different. How's that so different, though? Absolution of the Diabolist and Gangrel Conspiracy were, in many ways, essentially part of a diablerie combo for some decks, the Osebo have Battle Frenzy, Left for Dead can turn up in ally decks, a large number of master cards have combat effects (Police Department, Elysium) or defensive effects specific to a minion (Guardian Angel, say). It's not like there aren't plenty of ways of getting master cards involved in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"jibbajibba" <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Just a general point: why can't you guys quote relevant portions of the original message, and the person you're replying to? I find it quite annoying. And besides, if you can't take the occassional raised voice or heated argument, you need to stay away from Usenet. By *Usenet standards*, this newsgroup is an exceptionally polite place, full of people with exellent manners. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142376906.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >lactamaeon wrote: >> Ector wrote: >> who can play large vampires >> > against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? >> >> Anyone with animalism(DotB), abombwe(reflex), celerity(Psyche!), >> auspex(TT), dominate(Obedience), dementation(Voice of Madness), sire's >> index finger, allies to block with, or a large number of other trumps >> can play large vampires against the combo. Alternatively, once can >> defend oneself more indircetly with Illegal Search and Seizure, Peace >> Treaty, or the like. >DotB, Abombwe, Psyche!, TT are usually played by the heavy combat >decks. What if I don't play such deck? Does a Toreador voting deck need >Psyche! just to protect against Rotschrecks? False dichotomy. What is the Toreador voting deck doing *other than* voting? It's going to have some sort of combat defence in there, most likely. Seeing a deck be a voting deck with a sideline of Celeritous guns is hardly unheard of. Big Toreadors with Dominate also isn't unheard of - I've seen that done several times and *extremely* well put together, which gives you Obedience (which they were using extremely effectively to defend Anson, Anneke and Alexandra). Garfield told us that when he created the game, he wanted the best decks to combine more than one of the three parts of the game he'd created - bleed, vote and combat. How you choose to do that, how you choose to make your deck a winner - that's the difference between a good player and a great player. You should be thinking "What decks will cause me trouble? How do I weather the storm? How do I recover if I miss that card combo?" Worried about weenie decks being all over you before you can get your first vampire out? White Wolf aren't going to errata cards for that either, but you may well want to think about how to deal with it. Strong, effective combat that kills you to death is not some abstract concept. If you're worried about intercept decks, you think about how to evade them. If you're worried about rush decks, you think about how to stop them. In either case, you think "How am I going to get my vampires back when I'm done?" [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142358394.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Alias wrote: >> Ector, >> learn to accept defeat. White Wolf cant fix cards only because you lost >> a game :)) other people tried to explain this to you already, regarding >> Michael Luther or Bowl of Convergence.. >Alias, >Learn to read what people are saying and respond to what they are >saying, not to the stupid things you just imagine. Ector, given your record on ignoring what people say about strategies you think are overpowered, you shouldn't be lecturing on this. You have repeatedly ignored people over all sorts of issues in favour of whatever it is you think they should have said. >Yes, I was wrong with the Michael Luther, since I didn't understand >that Inner Circles are somewhat overpowered and his ability only makes >them slightly less overpowered. And I can believe that Bowl of >Convergence was needed to weaken stealth-bleed decks etc. etc. But >would you strain your mind to explain me - who can play large vampires >against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? The question isn't large vampire vs weenie. Any large vampire deck that brings out one vampire and expects nothing to go wrong is a sitting duck. This is why so many single-vampire-strategy decks bring out a host of weenies to do things like rescue the vampire when it's been beaten up in combat. Similarly, a big vampire deck will have the same trouble against Pentex Subversion or Sensory Deprivation - if they don't have support vampires to help out. Madness Network / Rotschreck is NOT unique in this respect, or close to it. Big vampire decks die if they don't think "Oh, I wonder what happens if my vampire gets rolled over by a deck that gets the jump on me." To compensate, they get much more powerful vampires, titles, bleed modifiers, dual-discipline cards to exploit, and so on. They have drawbacks, however, like "What happens if I get pummelled by a multi- rush deck in my first turn out?" and "What happens if Michael Luther stops me passing votes properly?" And multi-rush decks often have a central vampire who is very far from being a weenie, who will rush you three times in one turn and then do it again next turn if they have to, and they get a lucky break on the card flow. This isn't weenies vs large vampires, or even close to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142377949....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Klai...@gmail.com wrote: >> Besides, Anneke has aus, cel AND dom, so she can play tele >> tracking, psyche, and obedience. And if your playing an assault rifle >> deck, you should be packing psyches anyway. So just accept it that you >> were whooped and construct your deck better next time. ;) >Looks like you consider my intercept/voting deck a heavy combat deck :) >Intercept decks rarely have Psyche!, since their primary goal is >stopping the dangerous actions, not torporising the vampires. An *intercept* deck that doesn't have torporising vampires as a primary function is pretty darn tenuous - you can't block everything, so you have to weaken them severely. Especially when the vampire plays Majesty, untaps and comes after you with something else. Psyche! is a great card for intercept cards! Perhaps you are confusing intercept decks with "a deck that uses an intercept sideline to defend against other things" and are building inappropriate decks, as a result. Really, intercept decks want to be able to torporise things. Not indiscriminately, and not all the time - they need subtlety to play them! - but if you can't reliably, solidly attempt to torporise people when they come for you: Your arse -------------------------> Plate [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142406369.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hello Ector, >> If your big cap deck doesn't have stealth/unblockability, multiple >> actions/untap, grapple, psyche, or TT, then it's probably an error in >> deckbuilding. >Intercept decks with large vampires regularly play without these cards. >I've seen Lucas Halton decks without them. And if you even have the >cards for untap, your vampire still can try to burn Madness Network >only once per turn. "Your vampire" are the key words in this sentence. Why do you only have one vampire out? [ quoted text not captured ]

Janne Hägglund wrote: > "jibbajibba" <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: > > > Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting > > personal? > > I find it quite annoying. > > > Just a general point: why can't you guys quote relevant portions of the > original message, and the person you're replying to? > I find it quite annoying. Too many examples to quote them all. > And besides, if you can't take the occassional raised voice or heated > argument, you need to stay away from Usenet. A voice raised in defense of the topic is fine, a voice rasied merely to belittle a previous poster is, well childish. > By *Usenet standards*, this newsgroup is an exceptionally polite place, > full of people with exellent manners. That is because most usernet groups are used by 14 year old American kids that just learnt how to swear. I trust we are above that. But, rather like this thread, I digress. Rotschreck, tough card.

Janne Hägglund wrote: > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > > > Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network > > deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that > > I consider overpowered in the game. > > > You should. > > You would learn a lot. Probably, you're right. I will try to make some decks and discuss them at the newsgroup. This will bring me much more than a discussion where almost nobody talks about the theme. > > A while ago, there was a guy in this newsgroup complaining about Dragonbound, > and how it was overpowered and ruining the game. If he had actually *played* > a deck that uses Dragonbound, he would immediately have seen how costly and > dangerous it actually is, for the player who uses it in his deck. > What a coincidence! I'm currently working on a Dragonbound deck with advanced Beckett that will compensate for the card loss :) Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] YES!!! That's the #1 question I always unable to answer at this newsgroup. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] Stefan, A novice like me must be happy to get an advice from a champion, but does your post qualify as an advice, really? :) Yours, Ector

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142350619....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Shade > <sha...@gmail.com> writes: > >If you see > >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - > >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. > > Really? I can't remember the last time I saw someone put that combo > together (there have probably been throw-away includes in a deck, mind). Sure I wasn't suggesting packing a bunch of them but a couple of rotschrecks and burst of sunlights in a Tremere / !Tremere deck I would have thought was pretty common. And we were talking about combos not winning... I'm sure people have won with Tremere / !Tremere but so far such a win has eluded me :-)

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142352541.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, > jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: > >Shade wrote > >>Why is Rotschreck an oddity? [snip] > > > >My point is that its a master card. That is what makes it different. > > How's that so different, though? I agree with James, I'm not really following the distinction. It's still played from the hand like the majority of combat cards and as an out of turn master it has additional restrictions that other combat cards don't have.

Ector wrote: > In > this case I'd consider this a Cheating:Colusion :) NORMALLY players use > Rotschreks in combats after successful blocking. And here is another point. Correct. Normally, people use Rotschreck after blocking. How is the Madness Network/Rotschreck *really* that much more horrible than a "normal" kind of "I block you and play Rotschreck" situation? The Madness Network lets you avoid DI and SR, but those are pretty much prayer defenses anyway. If, in your case, Zoe had blocked Aneke calling Alastor, or whatever, the exact same thing would have happened. Madness Network allows a bit more whamdiggery, and gets you diablerized a bit quicker, but the end result is pretty similar. -Peter

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142358394.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >Alias wrote: > >> Ector, > >> learn to accept defeat. White Wolf cant fix cards only because you lost > >> a game :)) other people tried to explain this to you already, regarding > >> Michael Luther or Bowl of Convergence.. First of all: thanks a lot for the time you spent on your posts! I should adapt to the game once more and learn something new. > >Alias, > >Learn to read what people are saying and respond to what they are > >saying, not to the stupid things you just imagine. > > Ector, given your record on ignoring what people say about strategies > you think are overpowered, you shouldn't be lecturing on this. You have > repeatedly ignored people over all sorts of issues in favour of whatever > it is you think they should have said. You're probably right about me, but did you read Alias's post? A civilized discussion should NEVER fall down to such personal things (i.e. "Don't post that sillyness again!"). I'm quite sane, and I would never post things unless I really think that something is wrong. And even if I was wrong several times, does it matter NOW? Sorry for "lecturing" again :) > >Yes, I was wrong with the Michael Luther, since I didn't understand > >that Inner Circles are somewhat overpowered and his ability only makes > >them slightly less overpowered. And I can believe that Bowl of > >Convergence was needed to weaken stealth-bleed decks etc. etc. But > >would you strain your mind to explain me - who can play large vampires > >against this combo? Aren't all players tired from weenie decks? > > The question isn't large vampire vs weenie. Any large vampire deck that > brings out one vampire and expects nothing to go wrong is a sitting > duck. This is why so many single-vampire-strategy decks bring out a > host of weenies to do things like rescue the vampire when it's been > beaten up in combat. > > Similarly, a big vampire deck will have the same trouble against Pentex > Subversion or Sensory Deprivation - if they don't have support vampires > to help out. Yes, I know this, and all my decks have such support. After all, Toreador Grand Ball needs a little Toreador. Moreover, I've got some Third Traditions. The support vampires can help in resquing from torpor if the action to burn the Network get blocked. But I wonder, if the Network is so powerful that it should be immediately burned, is that good? I want to ask a question that I cannot answer myself: why the crosstable players should burn Madness Network? The Network player doesn't bleed them, rush them or harm them in any way. And it ousts pretty slowly. Some players wrote that "clever players should burn the Network". In my playgroup, unfortunately, they tend to deal with the Network player or even help him! Thanks in advance, Ector.

Ector wrote: > Two misses: first, I'm not "complaining", and the second, "able to > handle" is a completely inappropriate term. "Always handles" would be > much better :) And it always handles most other combat packages except > for the most heavy combat decks, which is TOO GOOD for a 20-card > package. Ector, i think your whole arguments are based on a false assumption. You think, a vampire has to be save not going to torpor. That is not possible in VTES. A deck playing big guys, that cannot handle going to torpor will lose. You have to have a plan, what to do if your main vampire goes to torpor. So the usual Wall/Rotshreck combo is strong, but usually you are able to rescue your vampire or let another player rescue him. The Madness Network and rush is stronger, but it is more complicated. The best defence IMO is having small vampires to throw between the attack. The triple A deck will usually burn the Network with its Grand Ball. Frank

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay I wasn't goign to bother but as its respond or finsih this business continuity document .... :-) Now these are just my opinions and as such they are biased. And up front i will admit that for about 8 years we played Rotschreck in a totally different manner because we didn't like it as written (we played on a vampire as they tried to inflict aggrevated damage, so it was effectively an aggrevated damage counter card) Reasons why I think its an oddity are - i) Its a master card that affects combat, so what I hear you cry. This is not a major difference but it is an oddity. There are a few more now, I forget the names, and I expect them to be increasingly common as its an area of the game where there is room for expansion. Really only important in as much as it affects point (ii) below. ii) As its a master card there is no minion restriction. Any vamp, even ones that aren't yours, can be in combat and you can play Rotschreck. All you need is a bit of aggrevated damage. iii) The effect of Rotschreck is major but it has no cost. If a minion card from a discipline had the effect of Rotschreck it would cost 2 or 3 blood from a vamp (eg Coma). Now its limited because its an out of turn master so really usable only in blocking, or corner cases like the madness network, so I am not saying its broken, but it is an oddity. iv) The effect of Rotschreck suspends all other effects by ending combat. A combat card that ends combat and sends the oposing vampire to torpor is a tough card, makes majesty look positively feeble. v) As it CE but isn't a strike it allows an expoit which is that cheap agrevated damage, which usually has a downside of your own vamps taking damage, burst of sunlight, white phosporous grenade, homemade flamethrower etc, doesn't do your vamps any harm. Now expoiting a loophole in the rules of the game can be seen as creative desk design or hole to be plugged depening on your position. vi) Now this one a lot of true card players won't like but I will throw it in anyway. In RPG terms Rotschreck is a vampire's innate fear of things that cause agg damage usually fire and sunlight. I would say that it makes no logical sense why it's a master card (these were supposed to be the sublte manipulations of the Methusalah behind the scenes controling that corporation, or unleashing the power of the Society of Leopold) and no logical sense why it shouldn't be used on your own turn, after all if your vampires are afraid of sunlight when they are attacking me why aren't they afraid when I am attacking them. Now this restriction is due to the OOT master nature of Rotschreck but lets be honest back in card design in the mists of time it wasn't made a OOT master for that reason it was made one so that it could be played in combat as OOT master was the only mechanism in place to allow a master card to affect combat. So its an oddity :-) Now these are just my opinions and I am not saying Rotschreck is broken but it is tough, and if you were doing a value for money assessment of cards it would be at the top end of the list.

>"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message > >news:1142423660.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > >Stefan Ferenci wrote: >> ector i have a simply solution for your problem, build better decks, but >> don´t expect ww to change the cards in vtes so your decks work better!. >> >> s. > >Stefan, >A novice like me must be happy to get an advice from a champion, but >does your post qualify as an advice, really? :) > >Yours, >Ector The problem appears to be Ector that you do not like the other, more concrete prices of advice that have been given to you, such as the inclusion of other cards. The deck you were playing in the original post is an ideal candidate for Telepathic Tracking or Psyche! as both increase the effectiveness of your assualt rifle (giving you the maneuver again). And both would allow you to escape Rots. by being able to S:CE on the second round. Other decks have other options open to them but I do not deal in hypotheticals. Every deck that is built must consider what is likely to come against it in terms of combat. If you choose to ignore or are unable to include the Rots. foiling cards then yes your deck will be vulnerable to this type of deck. But that is the choice of deck building and metagaming. You weight the chance of facing rots. against the cost of including cards to deal with it. It is a fundemental danger of building a deck around a single large vampire. You cannot defend against all combat trump. And when you get hit, it hurts big time. Hope this helps, John P. Winnipeg

Ector wrote: > The people's ATTITUDE is clear - they are experienced players, they > learned to deal with the combo, and they don't like "whining". No, no. I love whining. If something should rightfully be complained about, it should be complained about till it gets fixed. But in general, if you start complaining about something, and the general consensus among people who seem to know what they are talking about, and can articulate their rational well, seems to be "Yeah, it really isn't a problem", they might be on to something. >But their arguments is really weak, IMHO. If the Rotschreck would be > playable on your turn - that would be obviously unbalanced, Why would that be obviously unbalanced? You can still only play one per time around the table. It is a serious hoser, sure. But lots of things are. I can build a deck that can, on every action, rush you and play Drawing out the Beast/Torn Signpost/Immortal Grapple/Blood Fury/Wolf Claws that'll vaporize everything it touches. But it isn't going to win much, as it is tenious, at best. Just like Madness Network/Rotshreck. -Peter

Ector wrote: > I want to ask a question that I cannot answer myself: why the > crosstable players should burn Madness Network? 'Cause it might be in their best interest to do so, especially if they are likely to run into Madness Network guy soon--if my predator had his main, big vampire killed by Madness Network/Rotschreck, and my predator is going to be ousted soon as a result? Probably a good idea for me to get the Madness Network. Especially as he can't play Rotschreck again till his next turn. -Peter

I'm a little disappointed that with all of this anti-frenzy strategy talk no one has suggested playing nothing but True Brujah decks w/ 3-4 Path of the Scorched Heart in each one. It's the best anti-frenzy card evar! ;) Merlin Editor of the True Brujah Newsletter, admittedly biased

"jibbajibba" <jibba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1142418559.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Janne Hägglund wrote: > > "jibbajibba" <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: > > > Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting > > > personal? I find it quite annoying. > > > > Just a general point: why can't you guys quote relevant portions of the > > original message, and the person you're replying to? > > I find it quite annoying. > > Too many examples to quote them all. The please cite _some_ examples so people will know what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just a pointless accusation guranteed to cause resentment as surely as it will fail to bring any desired improvement in behavior. People can respond to specifics; they're not going to do anything about a general statement of angst. And I would say you're pretty much tilting at windmills, here. One guy makes a smartassed remark in order to make his point crystal clear; someone else thinks it's a silly point and responds in kind and they're off and running. As long as they keep to the subject and don't get derailed into making entire posts about personalities, it's more or less standard stuff in Usenet. The usual rule is, "Don't post if you're not wearing your flame-retardent underwear." Fred

""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote in message news:m33bhkd...@nothung.homelinux.net... > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >> Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network >> deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that >> I consider overpowered in the game. > > > You should. > > You would learn a lot. > Aye. Jose, A VTES player in Charlotte used to drive a tank in the Army... He said you notice all the flaws in the thing a lot more from the inside... Take what you think is cheesy tech for a test drive sometime. Its the best way to discover where its shortcomings are. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:1142407747....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Robert Scythe wrote: >> As someone already mentioned, you >> should have included Psyche!s in your deck anyway which would have >> trumped the Rotschreck easily. No going out of your way to defend >> against this 'broken combo' just a simple common card that you should >> have had in there already. Stop trolling. > In case you don't know, Anson + Anneke decks almost never play Psyche! Psyche is one of the more or less perfect defense options for Rotschrek. Even if that Rot deck never hits the table, you're Anneke/Alastor/Assault Rifle is re-setting the optional maneuver on the Assault Rifle with superior Psyche!, and get a crack at another big hit with the gun. If the Rot deck does show up as your predator, they'll be has effectively wasted Master Phase Actions on a one-for-one basis with the Psyches in your deck... Ector, you really, _really_, REALLY have to get over your myopic view on what is or is not "appropriate" for a deck. Psyche! is your perfect solution (one of a multitude)... that you won't accept it is not an established criterium for issuing errata. DZ AW

DZ said - > Aye. Jose, A VTES player in Charlotte used to drive a tank in the Army... > He said you notice all the flaws in the thing a lot more from the inside... Still wouldn't like to face one armed only with an assault rifle :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] your right , and i am sorry about that (a sucky night shift is a sad excuse, well). so you think rötschreck/madness network is overpowered! ok lets talk about it, first: you really should play one of these yourself, because than you´ll realise how vulnerable these decks are really. it is a very common mistake not to try early enough to destroy important cards on the table, i am always amazed when people don´t remove path, bj , madness network and the like asap, usually they start way to late. so your first strategy should be destroying the network! iagree that doing that alone might be impossible but given the fact that a madness network/rotschreck deck is such a huge threat in your area you should find 3 more than willing helpers. he will only be able to rotschreck one vamp, if the others cant deal with an ivory bow, then you are maybe hosed, but that happens in vtes (ever been the only not combat deck on a table no fun), on the other hand i doubt that a deck could really handle the concentrated attacks of 4 players. i also agree that in a perfect world with a perfect card flow and a hand size around 12, a deck like that could (in the right setting) kill everything, block everything, and sweep, but in reallity its virtually impossible to build a deck that. i am under the impression that you are blaming madness network/rotschreck for a totally different problem, the fact that in vtes it is way harder to win with a deck based around high cap vamps, than with a deck based around mid cap vamps or weenies! nobody is going to argue about that, but thats the state of the game currently, like it or not. one last thing i think psyche should be included in a torrie/alastor deck, totally solving your problem with madness network/rotschreck s.

Ector wrote: > Janne Hägglund wrote: <<SNIP>> > > A while ago, there was a guy in this newsgroup complaining about Dragonbound, > > and how it was overpowered and ruining the game. If he had actually *played* > > a deck that uses Dragonbound, he would immediately have seen how costly and > > dangerous it actually is, for the player who uses it in his deck. > > > What a coincidence! I'm currently working on a Dragonbound deck with > advanced Beckett that will compensate for the card loss :) I think the main problem with Dragonbound is not the -1 hand size, although it's a hindrance. The problem is that it very often does or threatens to do pool damage to somebody else than it's intented target (e.g. prey of the player who played it) - vampires lie in the less favoured part of the uncontrolled region of the crosstabble methuselahs during most games. This tends to cause "unnecessary" rescue actions etc. (in addition to direct pool damage), which generally screw up the table balance/dynamics and helps someone else win. And rush deck that has to go upstream only ends up helping it's grandpredator even more than usual by playing Dragonbound. "Handle with care" :) I suppose Mr. Hägglund meant this. If You (Ector) also meant this (I don't know if the smiley was ironic), please ignore this post. Best, Heikki P.

> If the Rotschreck would be playable on your turn - that would be > obviously unbalanced, but if another card provides the same > opportunity, this is somehow considered "normal". The game is built on the idea of card combinations working well together. So, yes, that's "normal." One final thought: If you still feel this combination is too powerful, try playing the deck (or build a similar one.) I think you will find that it's difficult to get the GW, even with a powerful combat trick. Ira

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > Janne Hägglund wrote: > > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > > > > > Probably, I shouldn't discuss the optimal build of the Madness Network > > > deck, since I'm not going to play it. I never play cards or combos that > > > I consider overpowered in the game. > > > > > > You should. > > > > You would learn a lot. > Probably, you're right. I will try to make some decks and discuss them > at the newsgroup. This will bring me much more than a discussion where > almost nobody > talks about the theme. No. Don't construct a deck and talk about it. Construct a deck and *play* it. Playing a deck against live opponents is *the* best way of finding and understanding the weak points and vulnerabilities it has. And then, when someone plays a similar deck against you, you know a dozen different ways to screw his game. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

In message <WAVRf.37627$mi7....@newsfe13.lga>, John P. <jtpa...@mts.net> writes: >The deck you were playing in the original post is an ideal candidate for >Telepathic Tracking or Psyche! as both increase the effectiveness of your >assualt rifle (giving you the maneuver again). Warning - Telepathic Tracking at superior doesn't give you the maneuver again. It's the same combat. At inferior, it does, of course - but that doesn't help you against Rotschreck. A nice versatile card, though, and an example of the great things you can do that *also* foil Rotschreck without being there to only foil Rotschreck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142432127.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >Reasons why I think its an oddity are - >i) Its a master card that affects combat, so what I hear you cry. This >is not a major difference but it is an oddity. There are a few more >now, I forget the names, and I expect them to be increasingly common as >its an area of the game where there is room for expansion. Really only >important in as much as it affects point (ii) below. Huh? What do you mean there are a few more now? Set that Rotschreck appeared in first: Jyhad. Master cards in that set (according to monger.vekn.org): 89 Master cards in that set that affected combat: 17. Brujah Frenzy Master 27. Elysium: The Arboretum Master 28. Fame Master 31. Frenzy Master 55. Minor Boon Master 57. Mob Connections Master 59. Police Department Master 67. Rötschreck Master 73. Spawning Pool, The Master 74. Storm Sewers Master 83. Vampiric Disease Master I make that 11. Then if you add the cards that deal with equipment (weapons!) and torpor and entering combat, you get a few more. 3. Al's Army Apparatus Master 5. Anarch Troublemaker Master 19. Chantry Master 37. Haven Uncovered Master 38. Hostile Takeover Master 39. Illegal Search and Seizure Master 84. Vast Wealth Master 86. Vulnerability Master 8 more. 19 / 89 is over 20% of the master cards that affect combat. In the very first set. Combat has NEVER been an area where master cards weren't supposed to go. Indeed, there aren't many areas in the game at all where master cards or minion cards (or event cards, these days) aren't supposed to go AT ALL. They often deal with certain themes and strategies in quite different ways, but all of the big strategies are touched by minion cards AND master cards, and quite a few are touched by Event cards (though there are far fewer event cards around, of course). >ii) As its a master card there is no minion restriction. Any vamp, even >ones that aren't yours, can be in combat and you can play Rotschreck. >All you need is a bit of aggrevated damage. Elysium: The Arboretum had the same effect in Jyhad. Minor Boon still does, though is rarely seen. >iii) The effect of Rotschreck is major but it has no cost. Not true. All cards have a cost. Rotschreck, amongst other things, costs you an Out of Turn master card slot - which costs you a master phase action, and any other OoT cards that turn, which restricts deck choices. >If a minion >card from a discipline had the effect of Rotschreck it would cost 2 or >3 blood from a vamp (eg Coma). Not true. See also Disarm - you just need to get a bit of extra damage, and boom, torpor. (But there are costs here too!) >iv) The effect of Rotschreck suspends all other effects by ending >combat. No, it doesn't. Telepathic Tracking, Psyche! and so on can all be played here, pre-empting the torpor effect and potentially continuing combat (or starting a new one). >A combat card that ends combat and sends the oposing vampire to >torpor is a tough card, makes majesty look positively feeble. Majesty can be played many times each turn, though, by multiple vampires. Commonly played effects are often weaker than harder to use cards. Being hard to use is part of the cost of the card, and so effects are often upgraded to compensate. >v) As it CE but isn't a strike it allows an expoit which is that cheap >agrevated damage, which usually has a downside of your own vamps taking >damage, burst of sunlight, white phosporous grenade, homemade >flamethrower etc, doesn't do your vamps any harm. Now expoiting a >loophole in the rules of the game can be seen as creative desk design >or hole to be plugged depening on your position. You're confusing "rules of the game" with "card text". The rules of the game say nothing about White Phosphorus Grenade burning - that's what card text does. >vi) Now this one a lot of true card players won't like but I will throw >it in anyway. In RPG terms Rotschreck is a vampire's innate fear of >things that cause agg damage usually fire and sunlight. The design team chose not to create a distinction between fire based effects and non-fire based effects. If you're going to argue the RPG here, argue also that the Rotschreck has very little to do with torpor, and that the card game's incarnation of torpor and aggravated damage has very little to do with the RPG's either. >Now this restriction is due to the OOT master nature of Rotschreck but >lets be honest back in card design in the mists of time it wasn't made >a OOT master for that reason it was made one so that it could be played >in combat as OOT master was the only mechanism in place to allow a >master card to affect combat. So its an oddity :-) Rubbish, and ignores the cards that were made at the same time! Mob Connections and Police Department are both master cards that affect combat. Elysium: The Arboretum is a master card that effects combat. These are put in play and activated later. You could equally have treated it as a "hoser" - found in quite few cards in the V:TES set - such that it was placed on a vampire and made them particularly frightened of aggravated damage, but was played in advance (making the vampire a scaredy cat). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142441246.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] A Bowl of Convergence and Michael Luther could take a tank any day. They're so overpowered it's not funny. LSJ - I demand you errata them to prevent them being used to attack US Army tanks at once. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142418559.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >Janne Hägglund wrote: >> Just a general point: why can't you guys quote relevant portions of the >> original message, and the person you're replying to? >> I find it quite annoying. > >Too many examples to quote them all. The correct behaviour in such an instance is to, typically: - quote one or two (and then say "This isn't just about these remarks, or this post but...") or - snip the relevant section from a post, and write a one line summary e.g. if I'd given an extremely lengthy way of achieving some specified goal and the details weren't important to you but you wanted to address the point then cutting them out and writing something like: <snip - detailed example of how to make lasagne using a Soul Gem, Lucita and a Sport Bike> Well gosh, that was possible after all. That makes me wonder, though. Do you have a recipe for meatloaf using Etrius? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: > In message <1142441246.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: > >DZ said - > >> Aye. Jose, A VTES player in Charlotte used to drive a tank in the > >> Army... He said you notice all the flaws in the thing a lot more from > >> the inside... > > > >Still wouldn't like to face one armed only with an assault rifle :-) > > A Bowl of Convergence and Michael Luther could take a tank any day. > They're so overpowered it's not funny. > > LSJ - I demand you errata them to prevent them being used to attack US > Army tanks at once. Bah, you Americans are just frustrated, because the Gangrel use Flesh of Marble to prevent all but one damage from your nukes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142422770.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Well then, let's start with you. Why did you post personal attacks in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec .games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9db12cadc20e9cd0>? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142350619....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Shade > <sha...@gmail.com> writes: > >If you see > >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - > >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. > > Really? I can't remember the last time I saw someone put that combo > together (there have probably been throw-away includes in a deck, mind). I saw a deck based around it at one of the NAQ tournaments last year (Origins, I think?) but it might have been the highly stylish one that was Anarch/Diversion/Burst of Sunlight. And I've probably seen one or two aside from that in the last year or two, but I don't remember them doing well. > Most of the time I see Tremere doing a Xian-esque bruise-bleed deck - Sweeeet. "Xian-esque" ...I like that. Do other people win with it? Matt Morgan claims they can't. YMMV. Heh. > because Tremere intercept doesn't oust people as reliably, and so they > need to go forward, so they don't want Burst of Sunlight in their hand > on their own turn. Plus, Dominate is good (TM). Yeah, I don't think I've ever built a Tremere Rotschreck deck. Maybe a couple thrown in for fun, but not a wholly intercept/Rotschreck angle. Mostly because, you know, intercept + combat = difficult. Xian sounds kind of like Dangeresque

Ector wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Madness Network/Rotschreck is a viscious technology that has been > > around for a while. And while is is fairly grim, in terms of > > torporizing folks, you can only play Rotschreck one time around the > > table, and such decks are very difficult to actually win games with. > > > Really? I lost that game in five turns. And my predator's deck can be > significantly improved. Madness Network + Victoria = +3 pool per turn. Yeah, but did the Rotschreck deck win the game? You losing != Rotschreck deck winning, necessarily. And again, is the Rotschreck deck going to win the next game, or the game after that? Rotschreck, yes, can nuke 1 large vampire. Once each time around the table. Maybe. So if you have a deck that depends on one vampire, maybe you should plan for it. Or not, and take your lumps when you get them. Xian you losing != Rotschreck + Madness Network too strong

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > are. I can build a deck that can, on every action, rush you and play > Drawing out the Beast/Torn Signpost/Immortal Grapple/Blood Fury/Wolf > Claws that'll vaporize everything it touches. But it isn't going to win > much, as it is tenious, at best. Just like Madness Network/Rotshreck. Adaptability! Or...Sock Puppet damage prevention! I mean, uh...DI! Hahahaha! Dude, you have 7 vampires in 2/3 for that combo, and 5 in groups 3/4. I say you build it! Too bad they're all 8 cap and up. Though you would have the chance to use the rarely-used Enzo Giovanni. At the other end of the spectrum, Eze! Xian just messin' with ya

In message <1142445019.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, hp <hes...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think the main problem with Dragonbound is not the -1 hand size, >although it's a hindrance. If you can afford the slots, Visit from the Capuchin fixes that part, and is a potentially good card for inclusion in a deck anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142422770.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >jibbajibba wrote: > >> Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting > >> personal? > >> I find it quite annoying. > > > >YES!!! That's the #1 question I always unable to answer at this > >newsgroup. > > Well then, let's start with you. > > Why did you post personal attacks in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec > .games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9db12cadc20e9cd0>? > I just explained that: Alias obviously didn't try to "help me" or participate in the discussion. He just wanted me to shut up. But yes, you're right, I should just ignore his post. I'm really sorry for being out of temper and I will try to avoid writing such responses in future. Yours, Ector

In message <1142426961.9...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >But I wonder, if the Network is so powerful that it should be >immediately burned, is that good? It's not "so good", it's just a very strong enabling card. Pulling away enabling cards is the key to stopping a lot of strategies. Some years ago, before Temptation of Greater Power was changed, there was a spate of very strong Temptation of Greater Power decks, typically using Fifth Tradition, Sheldon and Minion Tap. There were many cries of "Oh my God, Temptation of Greater Power is so broken" - and some of these concerns were reasonably well-founded (in LSJ's opinion) in that it was altered to once per game. However, prior to its fixing, there were a number of extremely potent ways of dealing with it. How many of these involved taking out Temptation of Greater Power? A few lucky Sudden Reversals did happen, of course, but that's not the key. What enables the ToGP deck to win? First of all, it has to play ToGP. Okay, that makes the Justicar a target. Any deck reliably able to bring about torpor and burning of vampires is doing well, or Banishment. That covers a lot of combat and political decks. Various trick decks will do well, or not, as the case may be. It largely rules out stealth-bleed decks. And what else enables the ToGP to win? Pool gain. Which you can stop - by burning its vampires, taking their blood (Free States Rant, say), etc. And by blocking its refuelling actions. And you get a second chance with the lucky Sudden Reversals on the Minion Tap (or Blood Doll, to taste). Here, targeting the ToGP is the last link in the chain - same as Rotschreck is the last link in the out-of-turn combat chain. There are many potential earlier links to target. And you know what happens when you target earlier links in a combo - hand jam. Madness Network isn't that powerful a card in and of itself - it's just the keystone for a number of more powerful strategies. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: > sounds kind of like Dangeresque Your plan can't fail. You have Dominate *and* Reynaldo by your side... -Peter

Xian wrote: > Dude, you have 7 vampires in 2/3 for that combo, and 5 in groups 3/4. > I say you build it! Too bad they're all 8 cap and up. Though you > would have the chance to use the rarely-used Enzo Giovanni. At the > other end of the spectrum, Eze! Are there any? I checked the monger for vampires with any level of Ani, Pot, Pro, and Tha at the same time, and came up with nothing--who can do that? Like, I can get 3 of them, and then tack on the 4th, but that is even *more* dubious... -Peter

Shade wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > In message <1142350619....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Shade > > <sha...@gmail.com> writes: > > >If you see > > >Tremere or !Tremere then the chances are your going to see the block - > > >burst of sunlight - Rotschreck combo. > > > > Really? I can't remember the last time I saw someone put that combo > > together (there have probably been throw-away includes in a deck, mind). > > Sure I wasn't suggesting packing a bunch of them but a couple of > rotschrecks and burst of sunlights in a Tremere / !Tremere deck I would > have thought was pretty common. That's a bad call. I wouldn't bother with either Burst of Sunlight or Rotschreck without the proper infrastructure. If you simply must do aggravated damage on your turn whip up the Ivory Bow with a Magic of the Smith. > And we were talking about combos not winning... I'm sure people have > won with Tremere / !Tremere but so far such a win has eluded me :-) Magic of the Smith is good. Dominate is good. -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Continental Qualifier May 20, 2006

Ector wrote: > Did I say that the deck with Madness Network is an "uber-deck"? The > game just needs some universal defense against the combo, not just the > cards that are usable only in specific decks. Without the defense, a > level of interaction between players decreases. They just burn your > vampire as though it were a puny creature of MTG :) Again, lots of things do that--brutal, trumpy Rush combat; Cryptic/Society; Eldest Command Undeath; plain brown use of Rotschreck without Madness network. Why is Madness Network/Rotschreck that much worse than any of these? Yes, I know it is a two card combo that burns your IC member (well, really, Network, Rush, source of aggro damage, and Rotschreck. And then someone successfully diablerizing too.) But to be able to pull it off reliably, your whole deck becomes suspect. If you can't pull it off reliably, it is a prayer angle that is rarely going to work. Again, please, put together a deck like this on paper and show it to us. And I'm sure we'll all find lots and lots of holes in the deck. 'Cause that is how decks like that work. -Peter

""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote in message news:m3acbrh...@nothung.homelinux.net... > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: > >> In message <1142441246.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >> >DZ said - >> >> Aye. Jose, A VTES player in Charlotte used to drive a tank in the >> >> Army... He said you notice all the flaws in the thing a lot more from >> >> the inside... >> > >> >Still wouldn't like to face one armed only with an assault rifle :-) >> >> A Bowl of Convergence and Michael Luther could take a tank any day. >> They're so overpowered it's not funny. >> >> LSJ - I demand you errata them to prevent them being used to attack US >> Army tanks at once. > > > Bah, you Americans are just frustrated, because the Gangrel use Flesh of > Marble to prevent all but one damage from your nukes. > Faux Pas!!! James is a Brit, Janne... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht news:1142407747....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Robert Scythe wrote: > > You should write "Obedience", but in our metagame it isn't as good as > in yours, since there are large rushers (Xaviar, Lazverinus, Enkidu > etc.) I should probably just change the deck. Sounds like the Malk player choses the right deck in the right environment. Good on him. But that doesn't make Rotschreck an overpowered card. It just means that maybe the decks in your play group are predictable. Would the Malk player stand any chance against a ani/pot rusher, frex or any weenie deck? Doesn't any one-star deck break down on eg, Pentex Subversion? That's what people are trying to say: you can get screwed by seating, that doesn't make the deck that does it broken. > But that isn't the point of discussion! What if I play a Ventrue voting > deck? I have Presence for Majesty and Fortitude for damage prevention, > so I can defend my large vampires from nearly all combat strategies, > but Madness Network + Rotschreck kill them easily. Hope wou won't > suggest playing Obediences or Tranquility in the case. Just realize > that a deck with so slim combat package as MN + Rotschreck should NOT > be so unstoppable. Rock-paper-scissors, my man. some decks types are eaten alive by some others, who are doomed against yet another,.... another example (really happened) I was playing a weenie pot deck and my predator played a cel gun deck. with only 2 gates and 3 thrown sewerlids (wich he dodged), my vamps were constantly sent into torpor. Does that make cel-gun overpowered?

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Ector wrote: > > In > > this case I'd consider this a Cheating:Colusion :) NORMALLY players use > > Rotschreks in combats after successful blocking. > > And here is another point. Correct. Normally, people use Rotschreck > after blocking. How is the Madness Network/Rotschreck *really* that > much more horrible than a "normal" kind of "I block you and play > Rotschreck" situation? The Madness Network lets you avoid DI and SR, > but those are pretty much prayer defenses anyway. > What a pleasure to discuss ANY topic with a clever and civilized person! Actually, I'm thinking about this for a whole day (yes, I started prior to your post), and the point is very interesting. When the vampires get into combat, the difference between acting and blocking vampires are really minimal. The acting vampire can play Rotschreck first, though, and the opposing vampire won't have a chance to play it. Sometimes this may be crucial. But the real difference lies outside the combat itself. Cards that your minions play while acting are valued more than the "same" reactions. Bewitching Oration is far more popular than Dread Gaze. Similarly, "+1 stealth" ability cost 2 "vampire points" - twice as much as the "+1 intercept" ability. Winning the game isn't easy if you just react and don't act yourself. Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: 1). One the best advantages of Rotschreck is fear. Spending a MPA in combat isn't easy, and no deck would be able to perform such feats regularly, but almost every deck would think twice if he's likely to meet Rotschreck. In normal circumstances you cannot play it on your turn, and the other intercept decks can block your vampires without fear. And as long as your combat package is built around Rotschreck, you wouldn't pose a serious threat without it. This makes pushing your actions (and winning the game) very difficult. But if you can play Rotschreck during YOUR OWN actions, blocking you becomes extremely risky, and this advantage is huge. Most decks cannot handle Rotschreck and they will generally avoid blocking you (until you declare some really dangerous action, of course, but nevertheless). 2) You can assassinate key vampires much easier if you can rush them and play Rotschreck, or make them block your action instead of blocking them.If you can use Rotschreck only after a successful block, this forces you to play an intercept deck (spend a lot of card slots to the intercept reactions), and you may need Eagle's Sight to block some actions, etc. etc. Rush is much simpler - just play one card, and that's all. You will never block a vampire that never performs an action, but you can rush him. 3). You can immediately diablerize the rushed vampire with a fodder vamp or when you have vote superiority. You cannot do the same with an intercept deck: the active player may resque the vampire.or just block you... And you would suffer in combat without the possibility of playing Rotschreck. Now I realize that my first proposed variant (changing Madness Network) will be only partial solution, as the fear factor would still exist. Best way is fixing Rotschreck. Yours, Ector

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > Rock-paper-scissors, my man. some decks types are eaten alive by some > others, who are doomed against yet another,.... another example (really > happened) I was playing a weenie pot deck and my predator played a cel gun > deck. with only 2 gates and 3 thrown sewerlids (wich he dodged), my vamps > were constantly sent into torpor. Does that make cel-gun overpowered? Yes, yes it does. Just add a clause to Concealed Weapon: Vanpires with Celerity cannot use this card. Get back to the old school days when a Torrie could kick your ass if only she could equip that .44!

David Zopf wrote: > "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message > news:1142407747....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Robert Scythe wrote: > > >> As someone already mentioned, you > >> should have included Psyche!s in your deck anyway which would have > >> trumped the Rotschreck easily. No going out of your way to defend > >> against this 'broken combo' just a simple common card that you should > >> have had in there already. Stop trolling. > > In case you don't know, Anson + Anneke decks almost never play Psyche! > > Psyche is one of the more or less perfect defense options for Rotschrek. > Even if that Rot deck never hits the table, you're Anneke/Alastor/Assault > Rifle is re-setting the optional maneuver on the Assault Rifle with superior > Psyche!, and get a crack at another big hit with the gun. If the Rot deck > does show up as your predator, they'll be has effectively wasted Master > Phase Actions on a one-for-one basis with the Psyches in your deck... > > Ector, you really, _really_, REALLY have to get over your myopic view on > what is or is not "appropriate" for a deck. Psyche! is your perfect > solution (one of a multitude)... that you won't accept it is not an > established criterium for issuing errata. > Yes, you must be right there! I cannot explain why I considered Psyche! only a "card that trumps S:CE". It's really good with a gun even without any S:CE or Rotschrecks. Thanks a lot! I'm currently using Pursuits and Side Strikes in my deck, and it would be difficult to find additional slots for Psyche! Maneuvers and dodges are needed, too. Looks like I should make a "peaceful" deck with Obediences or a heavy combat deck with all these cards. Yours, Ector

> Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: ---snip--- Yes. Rotschreck + Madness Network is better than just Rotschreck, and you're correct in identifying the reasons for this. However, this in itself is not a good argument to ban or change either card. Torn Signpost is good. Torn Signpost + Immortal Grapple is a lot better. Govern the Unaligned is really good. Govern the Unaligned + Lost in Crowds is even better. Govern the Unaligned + Lost in Crowds + Conditioning is better still. Cards interact, and complimentary combinations are better than individual cards. That's how the game works. Get over it. This is going to be only post in this thread. I would recommend to others that you simply stop replying, and refuse to reply to any future unfounded complaints that Ector raises. There is no good reason that this idiotic thread has grown to over 90 posts.

CthuluKitty escreveu: > > Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: > ---snip--- > This is going to be only post in this thread. I would recommend to > others that you simply stop replying, and refuse to reply to any future > unfounded complaints that Ector raises. There is no good reason that > this idiotic thread has grown to over 90 posts. Actually, as much as I understand your point and as strange as it seems, there are some. First, it encourages other players, specially ones that are getting used to the many possibilities this game has, to think twice before naming anything "broken" before testing it themselves or trying other cards they didn't think/know about or even new strategies other than the staples. Note that Ector himself seems to realize now that Psyche! is not just a S:CE-trump card, or at least he says he does. Also note that most of the time, this kind of complaint comes when a staple, tournament-winning deck is trumped by something "strange". In this light, this thread is not that far from the "viable trick deck overflow" started just a few days ago. Second, it's an opportunity for experienced players to share some history about the game. Any time an issue like this raises its ugly head, I learn something about the banning of RTI or how Concealed Weapon used to be in the old days or whatever. Even someone who has been playing for 3-4 years can learn something this way. In this regard, no other V:tES forum available is as rich as this one. And third - sorry, Ector, can't resist that - it is fun to see the whole uproar...

> Are there any? I checked the monger for vampires with any level of Ani, > Pot, Pro, and Tha at the same time, and came up with nothing--who can > do that? Ani Dom Obf Tha :-)

Ector wrote: > What a pleasure to discuss ANY topic with a clever and civilized > person! Actually, I'm thinking about this for a whole day (yes, I > started prior to your post), and the point is very interesting. Hey--I try. > When the vampires get into combat, the difference between acting and > blocking vampires are really minimal. The acting vampire can play > Rotschreck first, though, and the opposing vampire won't have a chance > to play it. Sometimes this may be crucial. I suppose. But it seems really quite unlikely. If you block someone, they are acting. So unless they are a (arguably quite rare) Madness Network, the acting vampire can't play Rotschreck. Do you really findyourself in situations where one player is like "Man! I wanted to play my Rotschreck, but you played yours first! Dag-nabbit!" Like, yeah, I see Rotschreck in play occasionally. But not so much that I've ever seen anyone get denied playing a Rotschreck by someone else playing one first. > Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: It is certainly more powerful in the sense that folks don't see it coming. And that you get to play it first. But both of these are pretty much protracted advantages. The card does the same thing in either case--it sends someone to torpor and trumps most common defenses. The (not insignificant) advantage to playing Rotschreck in a reactive deck rather than a Madness Network Rush deck is the lack of fragile infrastructure--you can make a perfectly reasonable Malkavian deck that has a handfull of aggro dealing weapons, disguised weapons, and some Rotschrecks without compromising the functioning of the deck at all. Make the same deck so that it can OOT Rush reliably (i.e. it is something for your opponents to worry about as opposed to being something that happens once per game occasionally), and it has a lot of tenious card chains and things that you need a lot of that aren't useful to have a lot of except that they ensure that you draw them early and often. > 1). One the best advantages of Rotschreck is fear. Spending a MPA in > combat isn't easy, and no deck would be able to perform such feats > regularly, but almost every deck would think twice if he's likely to > meet Rotschreck. Not really. You can live in fear of Rotschreck as it is always a possibility, or you can play your game, accept that sometimes you get hosed, and not worry about it. > In normal circumstances you cannot play it on your > turn, and the other intercept decks can block your vampires without > fear. They can still do that. And if the Rotschreck is being played reactively, you trade "can block vampires without fear" for "can't take actions without fear". You get in a fight, however, with someone who can Rotshreck you, and you are getting hosed. > But if you can play Rotschreck during YOUR OWN actions, blocking you > becomes extremely risky, and this advantage is huge. Lots of decks are extremely risky to block--Kiss of Ra does the exact same thing as Rotschreck, but with less infrastructure. Yes, using the Network lets you play Rotschreck on your, which makes it risky to block you. So does havaing Kiss of Ra. So does lots of things. > Most decks cannot > handle Rotschreck and they will generally avoid blocking you (until you > declare some really dangerous action, of course, but nevertheless). Most decks can't handle Kiss of Ra. Kiss of Ra doesn't need fixing either. > 2) You can assassinate key vampires much easier if you can rush them > and play Rotschreck, or make them block your action instead of blocking > them. Not really. Eagle's Sight and/or Enhanced Senses and you can usually block whomever you want. > If you can use Rotschreck only after a successful block, this > forces you to play an intercept deck (spend a lot of card slots to the > intercept reactions), and you may need Eagle's Sight to block some > actions, etc. etc. If you want to use Rotshcreck after a Rush, this forces you to play an incredibly tenious Malkavian OOT Rush deck. I'd rather play the intercept deck, honestly. > Rush is much simpler - just play one card, and that's all. You can't hear me, but I'm laughing. A lot. Really. Yes. You are correct. In theory, getting in a fight with the minion of your choice with a Rush card is easier than blocking the minion of your choice. But Rush is never "much simpler" than anything. Especially actually being good at winning games. > 3). You can immediately diablerize the rushed vampire with a fodder > vamp or when you have vote superiority. True. This is a significant benefit of the OOT Rush deck. But then you also need vote superiority to keep your vampires from burning, yet another cog in the machine. This being said, you block their last action, and they can't save themselves from torpor. Sure, someone could rescue cross table. But then someone could burn the Network cross table too. > Now I realize that my first proposed variant (changing Madness Network) > will be only partial solution, as the fear factor would still exist. > Best way is fixing Rotschreck. There is no need. Again, this combo has been around for a long time (heck, I think one even may be in the TWDA from some number of years back), and they aren't dominating play. At all. Yes, such decks sometimes totally hose you. But lots of things can do that. They also have trouble winning games, just like lots of other decks that can totally hose you sometimes. -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > This is going to be only post in this thread. I would recommend to > others that you simply stop replying, and refuse to reply to any future > unfounded complaints that Ector raises. There is no good reason that > this idiotic thread has grown to over 90 posts. I dunno--as Fabio pointed out, I think this discussion has some merits to reccomend it. Yeah, it has gotten somewhat ugly in some corners, but that is a flaw with the system (i.e. unmoderated public discussion forum) rather than the specific discussion--Ector might be over reacting, or might be just wrong, but in any case, his argument brings up interesting points and might serve to illuminate some important points to onlookers. What the size of this thread has done, however, is illustrate why (ro refer back to a thread about quoting relevant text and the vagaries of newsreaders from a few weeks/months back) people like newsreaders that delete read messages (i.e. why someone would purposefully remove the old messages they have already read that some folks like to rely on for the context of their messages in a threaded newsreader)--this thread is long and active, and finding the second (or third or fourth) most recent new message is difficult to find. If the messages I already read vanished after I read them? This would be a much easier to navigate thread, regardless of the size. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Madness Network allows a bit > more whamdiggery... You, sir, get all the points in the world for the use of this word. "Whamdiggery," indeed. John Eno

James Coupe wrote: "<hess...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think the main problem with Dragonbound is not the -1 hand size, >although it's a hindrance. If you can afford the slots, Visit from the Capuchin fixes that part, and is a potentially good card for inclusion in a deck anyway." I was trying to imply that the -1 hand size is not the problem (as it can be compensated/offset, as You mention, or ignored.). The problem is that Dragonbound often ends up damaging unintented targets - I agree that "potentially good" is an accurate definition. Thanks for clarifying, anyway. Heikki P.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:$gIwi+Gz...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <WAVRf.37627$mi7....@newsfe13.lga>, John P. > <jtpa...@mts.net> writes: >>The deck you were playing in the original post is an ideal candidate for >>Telepathic Tracking or Psyche! as both increase the effectiveness of your >>assualt rifle (giving you the maneuver again). > > Warning - Telepathic Tracking at superior doesn't give you the maneuver > again. It's the same combat. Check. You want Telepathic Tracking to go with the Carrion Crows, Apparition, Armor of Caine's Fury, Torn Signpost sort of cards you already played and want to keep their effect going. Psyche! at superior goes with permanents that give you once-per-combat bennies. Fred (adjusting his IR Goggles!)

In message <1142456732.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <1142422770.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >> >jibbajibba wrote: >>> > Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting >>> > personal? >>> > I find it quite annoying. >> > >> >YES!!! That's the #1 question I always unable to answer at this >> >newsgroup. >> >> Well then, let's start with you. >> >> Why did you post personal attacks in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec >> .games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9db12cadc20e9cd0>? >> >I just explained that: Alias obviously didn't try to "help me" or >participate in the discussion. He just wanted me to shut up. >But yes, you're right, I should just ignore his post. So then. Now you know why people can't discuss stuff without getting personal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142469675.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >Ector wrote: >> Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: > >It is certainly more powerful in the sense that folks don't see it >coming. That rather depends. A reactive intercept deck (say, Tzimisce) packing Rotschreck in moderate quantities (4-6?) gets a strong element of surprise. It doesn't play it every combat, and doesn't want to, but wants to draw into one by the time it gets into a difficult or critical combat. Block, bam. But everything else has been done with normal Tzimisce combat. Malkavians coming out with Madness Network typically signals one of two things - untap and repeated bleed, or Out of Turn rush. In HUGE neon lights. >> 1). One the best advantages of Rotschreck is fear. Spending a MPA in >> combat isn't easy, and no deck would be able to perform such feats >> regularly, but almost every deck would think twice if he's likely to >> meet Rotschreck. > >Not really. You can live in fear of Rotschreck as it is always a >possibility, or you can play your game, accept that sometimes you get >hosed, and not worry about it. This is actually a rather too common mistake made by players - I'm guilty of it rather too often. You put together a deck with a good, solid combo for your own actions, be it vote, rush, bleed or miscellaneous. In play, you come across an evil nemesis. You can't bleed because you'll get killed. So you hole up, and don't go forward. You value your minions lots and lots in play - but not enough to give you the teeth to deal with them *in the deck* or enough to think "Well, Zack North can go to torpor at worse, but I'll get through with Badger and Chandler which will mean he can't do it again next turn because..." I've seen this sort of play of "OMG I'M SCREWED I CAN'T DO ANYTHING" made by a *lot* of players, even those in the very top tier once in a while when experimenting with a new deck or a clan they don't play etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> writes: > ""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote in message > news:m3acbrh...@nothung.homelinux.net... > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: > > > >> In message <1142441246.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > >> jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: > >> >DZ said - > >> >> Aye. Jose, A VTES player in Charlotte used to drive a tank in the > >> >> Army... He said you notice all the flaws in the thing a lot more from > >> >> the inside... > >> > > >> >Still wouldn't like to face one armed only with an assault rifle :-) > >> > >> A Bowl of Convergence and Michael Luther could take a tank any day. > >> They're so overpowered it's not funny. > >> > >> LSJ - I demand you errata them to prevent them being used to attack US > >> Army tanks at once. > > > > > > Bah, you Americans are just frustrated, because the Gangrel use Flesh of > > Marble to prevent all but one damage from your nukes. > > > > Faux Pas!!! James is a Brit, Janne... Damnation! His fiendishly clever ploy of mentioning *US Army* tanks has succeeded. I am now a social pariah. I shall live out the rest of my miserable days as a red listed Sewer God, unable to take (D)-actions. And I won't even have a cool special ability. After someone finally puts me out of my misery, I will reincarnate as a game-breaking and fun-draining combo (like Anson/Anarch Revolt/Minion Tap/ Golconda) and spread frustration and despair wherever I go. Then LSJ will rewrite a key card, leaving me so toothless I can't even get Ector worked up. After that my destiny shall be so utterly soul-draining and horrific, I cannot bear to write about it. I only dare to hint it involves Magic cards... -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Daneel skrev: > > Man, you are seriously wrong here. I mean, it's like saying that Smiling > Jack is broken because it once made you burn 15 pool during your untap. > When certain effects are much more potent combined ("combo"), you should > make it a priority to prevent them from reaching alignment. Might not be the best of comparisions :) The attritiontype-decks have already seen one of their main engines changed. Anarch Revolt now comes with a built-in counter -- not because it was broken, but because an Untap/Master/Influence/Discard -phase deck pretty much went against the idea of the game. Should there be a tournament-winning orgy where Smiling Jack played a vital role combined with tons of complaints that the card makes the game unplayable, unplayable, mind you, not broken, then I'm certain that card will change as well. Sten During *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Ector wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <1142422770.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > > >jibbajibba wrote: > > >> Just a general point why can't you guys discuss stuff without getting > > >> personal? > > >> I find it quite annoying. > > > > > >YES!!! That's the #1 question I always unable to answer at this > > >newsgroup. > > > > Well then, let's start with you. > > > > Why did you post personal attacks in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec > > .games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9db12cadc20e9cd0>? > > > I just explained that: Alias obviously didn't try to "help me" or > participate in the discussion. He just wanted me to shut up. > But yes, you're right, I should just ignore his post. I'm really sorry > for being out of temper and I will try to avoid writing such responses > in future. > > Yours, > Ector Ector, yes, I was personal - by the definition: judging a person on the basis of their previous posts. In your case, as a whining, trolling, "cry wolf", overconfident person, who thinks that his sole experience is valid and relevant enough to be applied globally, by making errata to cards he doesnt like. Yes, it is personal, its my prejudice and its not fair. Anyway, honestly I DID read all your posts carefully and DID try to give you advice. But this 100+ posts useless thread unfortunately proves my former opinion, that it is wasted time. Again, you werent able to convince a SINGLE person, you didnt *ever* admit your mistake, and you are again using your typical style of so called "polymorphic argumenting". you say something, someone says you are wrong, you dont defend your original arguments, but instead polymorph them into something completely else, somebody says you are wrong again, you polymorph again..first its Anneke vs. Zoe, then its small vampires vs. large vampires, then me vs. you :)) etc etc. I wonder how you can ever ask for politedness with such an attitude. you were given a whole load of reasonable and polite advice from a lot of different people. But you dont listen. That is rude in MY opinion.

Alias wrote: > Ector, > > yes, I was personal - by the definition: judging a person on the basis > of their previous posts. In your case, as a whining, trolling, "cry > wolf", overconfident person, who thinks that his sole experience is > valid and relevant enough to be applied globally, by making errata to > cards he doesnt like. > > Yes, it is personal, its my prejudice and its not fair. And this is a false prejudice, though it may SEEM true. First of all, I NEVER "whine". Win or loss are doesn't matter much for me, and most of the time I serve as a judge, not as a player. But I really love this game, and if some card or combo seems "unfair" to me, I am trying to change it. And I'm not overconfident. > Anyway, honestly I DID read all your posts carefully and DID try to > give you advice. But this 100+ posts useless thread unfortunately > proves my former opinion, that it is wasted time. Again, you werent > able to convince a SINGLE person, you didnt *ever* admit your mistake, > and you are again using your typical style of so called "polymorphic > argumenting". you say something, someone says you are wrong, you dont > defend your original arguments, but instead polymorph them into > something completely else, somebody says you are wrong again, you > polymorph again..first its Anneke vs. Zoe, then its small vampires vs. > large vampires, then me vs. you :)) etc etc. Should you really read my posts, you wouldn't write this. I admitted that I was wrong in this thread, for instance. And I admitted that Psyche! would be good in a deck with Anneke - but David Zopf had to explain me why. I may be wrong million times, but I participate in any discussion to learn something new. Or to say something new - even a newbie may add something new sometimes. If you just throw "use Psyche!", I won't understand it. Not every card is appropriate in every deck, like DotB won't be appropriate in a voting deck with Venere Carboni. But if you explain that Psyche! is appropriate, I will thank you for the information, even though the primary theme of the discussion is different. And if you really don't want to participate in a discussion, do I force you to? > I wonder how you can ever ask for politedness with such an attitude. > you were given a whole load of reasonable and polite advice from a lot > of different people. But you dont listen. That is rude in MY opinion. No, I DO listen them all. Maybe, I don't understand them properly, but I'm trying. Besides that, there are many irrelevant posts (judging by the discussion theme). Yours, Ector

"Plus, Dominate is good (TM). " With apologies to The Rembrants: So no one told you V:TES had to be like this Your deck's sucks hard, no decent cards will ever come into your fist And now you're stuck between two neebie geeks They've got black tees, clan pins And smell like they haven't washed for weeks and.. Dominate's busteeeeeeed When the Deflections fall like rain Dominate's busteeeed 'cos it's got Mind Rape Dominate's busteeeed And it'll destroy yoooooooou You transferred down to ten and just got bled for eight On the end of a bleed-bounce chain Things are going great The newsgroup warned there'd be games like these But it didn't tell you you'd be forced to make Desperate cross-table pleas Dominate's busteeeeeeed When the Deflections fall like rain Dominate's busteeeed 'cos it's got Mind Rape Dominate's busteeeed And it'll destroy yoooooooou No one will ever help you Not even try a rescue Seems the only one who knows How to play this game's me My grand pred's always bleeding At zero stealth, then laying Conditioning Whilst my predator smirks and declares blocking Even at my best I'm screwed by you, yeah And now you're stuck between two neebie geeks They've got black tees, clan pins And smell like they haven't washed for weeks and.. Dominate's busteeeeeeed....

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: (a load of bollocks) Everyone is telling you you're wrong about this. And you ARE wrong. You are not listening to ANYONE. You are not better than everyone else. You are not smarter than everyone else. You are not seeing things others do not. You are just wrong. You ARE a retard, a whiner, and a bedwetter. This strategy was not broken in 1998. Rotschreck had far fewer counters then. This strategy is not broken now. Deal with it. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEGV/stQZlu3o7QpERAnDDAJ0YmbI22AeLVB5wfx4G4J3cyh8R2ACfWhJJ 5Gsqw3ZRCBH8Tgxn2vI0WK4= =DvlF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:441934e0$0$8837$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > The attritiontype-decks have already seen one of their main engines > changed. Anarch Revolt now comes with a built-in counter -- not because > it was broken, but because an Untap/Master/Influence/Discard -phase deck > pretty much went against the idea of the game. 1. What on earth is an "Untap/Master/Influence/Discard-phase" deck and what "idea of the game" did it pretty much go against? 2. I got the distinct impression that Anarch Revolt was altered because using mass quanitites of them, while not unbalanced in the sense of producing overly-successful decks, had too much of an overpowering affect on a game and caused the result to be too random. > Should there be a tournament-winning orgy where Smiling Jack played a > vital role combined with tons of complaints that the card makes the > game unplayable, unplayable, mind you, not broken, then I'm certain > that card will change as well. Since Smiling Jack is pure advantage to the Methuselah who owns it, it could never get altered for the same reason that Anarch Revolt did. Hint: there were never any "tournament-winning orgies" involving Anarch Revolt. Fred

mgreen02 wrote: > "Plus, Dominate is good (TM). " > > With apologies to The Rembrants: > > -- snip -- That's just beautiful :-)

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: > "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message > news:441934e0$0$8837$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > > The attritiontype-decks have already seen one of their main engines > > changed. Anarch Revolt now comes with a built-in counter -- not because > > it was broken, but because an Untap/Master/Influence/Discard -phase deck > > pretty much went against the idea of the game. > > 1. What on earth is an "Untap/Master/Influence/Discard-phase" deck and > what "idea of the game" did it pretty much go against? Anson + Anarch Revolt + Minion Tap + Golconda. A deck that totally ignores the minion phase. It takes no minion phase actions, and blocks no minion phase actions. I agree, the term Sten used was quite obscure. "All masters deck" would be clearer. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I dont now how many tournament wins are needed to make it an orgy :), but Anson Revolts were winning a lot, and what is more important, worldwide and in very different metagames.. Anthelios was then the final blow which made this deck really broken. look here in the Lasombras archive: Anneke+Anson - by Ruben Van Cauwenberghe - August 2004 Fix me please! - by Riku Niittymäki - July 2004 Anson - by Kamel Senni - July 2004

Fred Scott skrev: > "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message > news:441934e0$0$8837$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >> The attritiontype-decks have already seen one of their main engines >> changed. Anarch Revolt now comes with a built-in counter -- not because >> it was broken, but because an Untap/Master/Influence/Discard -phase deck >> pretty much went against the idea of the game. > > 1. What on earth is an "Untap/Master/Influence/Discard-phase" deck and > what "idea of the game" did it pretty much go against? The absence of, or rather more or less absence of, a minion-phase being used by the player relying on Anarch Revolt. You pretty much disrupt the game for both predator and prey by never giving them anything to react to while still getting closer to your goal. We're playing Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, not Metuselah: the Eternal Wait. It's part of the idea of the game that each player should base the play on what happens during the minion phase. > > 2. I got the distinct impression that Anarch Revolt was altered because > using mass quanitites of them, while not unbalanced in the sense of > producing overly-successful decks, had too much of an overpowering > affect on a game and caused the result to be too random. I never suggested that the card was broken. I still don't think it was, but having used it to great detrimental effect myself I can vouch for the card disrupting the game when used in massive amounts in a deck that refuses to take any (blockable) actions. The randomness of the game was about as valid an argument as any ability to torporize ONE vampire each full circle of turns being too powerful an effect is in the original thread here. Playing AR -decks required skill, just like Stealth / Bleed with medium to high-cap vampires requires skill. Difference being you don't accuse the game of being random when I watch my prey discard a Deflection and as my first action bleed for six with four stealth without any means of limiting that bleed. You accuse me of horrible play -- and you're probably right about it :) > >> Should there be a tournament-winning orgy where Smiling Jack played a >> vital role combined with tons of complaints that the card makes the >> game unplayable, unplayable, mind you, not broken, then I'm certain >> that card will change as well. > > Since Smiling Jack is pure advantage to the Methuselah who owns it, > it could never get altered for the same reason that Anarch Revolt > did. Hint: there were never any "tournament-winning orgies" involving > Anarch Revolt. I've blocked my predator desperately trying to burn his own Smiling Jack, voted him down to one pool and asked the table to just sit tight. There's no thing as "pure advantage". Below a list of decks not merely having the off copies of AR but based on that one single card out of some 2500. There are more decks where AR is a great asset, but which usually creates pool-deplettions by means other than just waiting. Deck-names: Anneke+Anson 2004-08-01 Fix Me, Please 2004-07-23 unnamed by Kamel Senni 2004-07-03 Cheesy Cheese 2003-12-14 The Master's Voice 2003-08-23 Toreador master deck 2003-08-08 Anarch Revolt 2003-05-24 Master Madness 2002-11-09 The list is from TheLasombra's TWDA and for obvious reasons doesn't include the master-decks based around Anarch Revolt which didn't win tournaments even though they certainly showed up in several more and disrupted the games where they were played. It's notable that the wins came in "bursts" which coincided with major outcries online about the card's "brokenness". Those "this card is broken" outcries eventually narrowed down to "this card makes the game unplayable for other players, because in order to counter this type of deck you need to suboptimize too much to be able to really handle the vast majority of "normal" decks well". Smiling Jack in NEVER a problem when the rest of the table agrees on removing the offending player from the game before continuing. Should an effect be introduced to the game which greatly enhanced the ease of defending Smiling Jack at no or little cost, well then we have a problem. (Like "put this card in play with ten counters and name a card in play. If that card should burn, burn a counter instead") However, I basically agree with you. Cards get changed when repeated use in a game effectively disables one or more players from participating in the game. Old Mind Rape comes to mind. Brokenness is but one cathegory of such effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ector wrote: > (a load of bollocks) > > Everyone is telling you you're wrong about this. > And you ARE wrong. Maybe. But I'd like to know where is my mistake. > You are not listening to ANYONE. This is just a false crap. > You are not better than everyone else. Did I tell that? > You are not smarter than everyone else. Did I tell that, either? > You are not seeing things others do not. I'd bet that I do at least sometimes. Maybe, not this time, though. > You are just wrong. Again, I may be wrong. But you'd better explain me why than just stating this. > You ARE a retard, a whiner, and a bedwetter. Due to my *enforced* temper, I won't write anything similar about you. So, I outmatch you at least in manners :) Actually, the most valuable lesson I learned from this thread: unfortunately, this newsgroup isn't a place for a civilized discussion. Nearly half of the posts in this thread are offtopic, or lack any arguments, or just contain stupid "humor" etc. etc. So I won't post into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > So I won't post > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. Nah. Don't do that. Just ignore the people you don't want to pay attention to. If you respond to them, they respond back. Just respond to the people who you want to respond to, and ignore the rest of them. -Peter

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > unfortunately, this newsgroup isn't a place for a civilized discussion. Now that's funny. The rest of us are having civilized discussions all the time. Sometimes tempers flare. Then apologies are given and accepted, and civility continues. Of course, it feels much, much, much, MUCH nicer to think "this newsgroup isn't a place for a civilized discussion" than it feels to think "I seem to have trouble having a civilized discussion." Unfortunately, the former leads to a dead end, while the latter leads to personal growth. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142528409.3...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Derek Ray wrote: >> You are not listening to ANYONE. >This is just a false crap. It may, or may not, be false. But every time you post an "OH MY GOD THIS IS SO BROKEN LSJ WAS ON CRACK AND I WANT TO STAB HIM IN THE FACE UNTIL THIS GETS FIXED SO I CAN PLAY MY CRAPPIEST DECK AND NOT DEAL WITH THIS" thread, it's the impression you give to many with your behaviour when people point out extremely reasonable and, indeed, sensible posts like "Erm, Psyche?" and you post back nonsense about how Psyche isn't any good in that deck - when everyone else knows just how useful it can be. Think less of what you're doing and more of how you're portraying yourself with ill-thought-through, knee-jerk responses that don't actually stop and think about the advice offered before rejecting it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1142512292.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >First of all, I >NEVER "whine". That is not the impression you give on the newsgroup. I can pretty safely say that each time you post these threads, lots of people think you're whining because your favourite deck got beat by a better deck and better player. Whether you are or not is irrelevant - it's how you act and, on Usenet, you're treated in response to your actions, not whatever is (or isn't) going on in your head. [ quoted text not captured ]

Janne Hägglund wrote: > Of course, it feels much, much, much, MUCH nicer to think "this newsgroup > isn't a place for a civilized discussion" than it feels to think "I seem to > have trouble having a civilized discussion." > > Unfortunately, the former leads to a dead end, while the latter leads to > personal growth. OK, I REALLY have trouble having a discussion here. That's obvious, isn't it? Is the discussion really civilized? At least I did my best to keep it civilized, but failed. What can I do now except for stopping all this? Yours, Ector

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142528409.3...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> You are not listening to ANYONE. > >This is just a false crap. > > It may, or may not, be false. But every time you post an "OH MY GOD > THIS IS SO BROKEN LSJ WAS ON CRACK AND I WANT TO STAB HIM IN THE FACE > UNTIL THIS GETS FIXED SO I CAN PLAY MY CRAPPIEST DECK AND NOT DEAL WITH > THIS" thread, it's the impression you give to many with your behaviour > when people point out extremely reasonable and, indeed, sensible posts > like "Erm, Psyche?" and you post back nonsense about how Psyche isn't > any good in that deck - when everyone else knows just how useful it can > be. Uh-oh... Did I really cry the way you posted? Too bad for me. I just got an impression that something is wrong and tried to share this impression, INCLUDING my suggestions of fixing the seemingly wrong situation. Nothing else. I really shouldn't post any real examples, since people somehow count them as "whining" and start posting their advices for THAT deck. But the situation could happen to any deck with large enough vampire. > Think less of what you're doing and more of how you're portraying > yourself with ill-thought-through, knee-jerk responses that don't > actually stop and think about the advice offered before rejecting it. > Once again, having a good advice for my deck is good, but I prefer discussing the whole game. And as long as the large vampires are really very risky and fragile, and that's considered NORMAL, the game became less interesting in my eyes. I just tried to prevent this effect, but I probably shouldn't. Yours, Ector

I think poor Ector has been badly treated. It is oftimes easy to exagerate someone's point in order to defeat it in an arguement but to be fair to our erstwhile Russian <did I read that on one of his posts? > friend I don't think Ector ever posted >OH MY GOD THIS IS SO BROKEN LSJ WAS ON CRACK AND I WANT TO STAB HIM IN THE >FACE UNTIL THIS GETS FIXED SO I CAN PLAY MY CRAPPIEST DECK AND NOT DEAL WITH >THIS Ector met a deck in a game and was unable to deal with it, so he asked if this deck archetype was seen as over powered by the rest of the community. Now perhaps he didn't phrase his post in the best way and perhaps in subsequent posts he missed some of the insights he was being given and even argued a point when it was obvious the rest of the comminity disagreed but is that any reason to get personal? If people really are annoyed by a post or frustrated by a persons comments can't they just skip to the next post ?

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142512292.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >First of all, I > >NEVER "whine". > > That is not the impression you give on the newsgroup. > > I can pretty safely say that each time you post these threads, lots of > people think you're whining because your favourite deck got beat by a > better deck and better player. Whether you are or not is irrelevant - > it's how you act and, on Usenet, you're treated in response to your > actions, not whatever is (or isn't) going on in your head. Yes, I see that, but I cannot explain that. I currently have more than ten different decks and plan to build a hundred more. And I don't see any point in whining about a loss. But how can I explain this to the people? Looks like not everyone can think at abstract level, and just a few persons wish to argue at that level. It would be great if the rest would just skip my threads... Yours, Ector

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Forget yourself. Forget what you feel. *Then* read what other people are saying. *Pretend* they are not talking about you, but about someone else. *Pretend* Ector is some other guy, not yourself. If you do this, their arguments start to make much, much more sense. You can understand what they're saying. You can see the points they make. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You see, when people are talking about *you*, all kinds of automatic defense mechanisms kick in. "My survival is at stake! I must destroy those who threaten me!" If you forget yourself, and talk about *things*, you can use the rational part of your mind. Without the primitive "I must defend myself!"-reaction. We all have that primitive reaction. It is a *very* important thing to have, because we must survive. But using it is inappropriate, when we are talking about abstract things, like card games. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like and respect you, Ector, because I think you are a lot like me. A very intelligent person, who has had trouble with human relationships. You can keep your intelligence, while learning to behave like a decent human being. Just like I have done. It's hard, and it's humiliating, but it's worth it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142537099.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Uh-oh... Did I really cry the way you posted? Too bad for me. Yes. >I just got an impression that something is wrong and tried to share >this impression, INCLUDING my suggestions of fixing the seemingly wrong >situation. Lots of people do that, all the time. >Nothing else. Wrong. You post whines. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142536571.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >OK, I REALLY have trouble having a discussion here. That's obvious, >isn't it? Is the discussion really civilized? At least I did my best to >keep it civilized, but failed. What can I do now except for stopping >all this? Think before you post. Stop posting whines. Don't reject people's advice before you stop to try to understand it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142537142.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >I think poor Ector has been badly treated. >It is oftimes easy to exagerate someone's point in order to defeat it >in an arguement but to be fair to our erstwhile Russian <did I read >that on one of his posts? > friend I don't think Ector ever posted > >>OH MY GOD THIS IS SO BROKEN LSJ WAS ON CRACK AND I WANT TO STAB HIM IN THE >FACE UNTIL THIS GETS FIXED SO I CAN PLAY MY CRAPPIEST DECK AND >>NOT DEAL WITH >>THIS Really? Gosh, I didn't know that! How useful you are for pointing out that an adjectival phrase I used to describe Ector's posts wasn't written by him - I know that, because it was written by me! But thank you for your unfailing helpfulness in pointing out the blindingly obvious. In other news, did you know that there's air all around you? And that the sky is up! We can have more fascinating facts tomorrow. I'm sure you're wetting yourself in anticipation! I know I am! However: Ector repeatedly starts threads about how broken something is, fails to pay attention (or display anything that *looks like* paying attention) to anything posted in response, and only even thinks about backing down and that, maybe, you know, he might be wrong when an absolute barrage hits him from half the newsgroup. Further, he hasn't managed to take the hint and start threads that go "Hey, last night I had big trouble with... And I was playing something that looked like... Any advice?" before shrieking about how broken things are. Which is likely to be better received? Asking earnestly for advice, or screaming about broken cards? This is tiresome behaviour, and shows no signs of improving or, you know, actually learning from mistakes. On the Internet, people will tell you to fuck off and stop being tiresome when that is what you do and will often use creative language when doing so to express the depths of their frustration. [ quoted text not captured ]

James said ... > Really? Gosh, I didn't know that! How useful you are for pointing out > that an adjectival phrase I used to describe Ector's posts wasn't > written by him - I know that, because it was written by me! But thank > you for your unfailing helpfulness in pointing out the blindingly > obvious. In other news, did you know that there's air all around you? > And that the sky is up! We can have more fascinating facts tomorrow. > I'm sure you're wetting yourself in anticipation! I know I am! Oooh hark at him ... touchy. Just saying, if Ector bothers you just ignore him. You don't have to extract a pound of flesh everytime he makes a chump out of himself. PS - Technically the sky is actually all around you as up is a relative term, as is .... degenerates into childish name calling :-)

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:44198224$0$9687$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > Fred Scott skrev: >> "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message >> news:441934e0$0$8837$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >>> The attritiontype-decks have already seen one of their main engines >>> changed. Anarch Revolt now comes with a built-in counter -- not because >>> it was broken, but because an Untap/Master/Influence/Discard -phase deck >>> pretty much went against the idea of the game. >> >> 1. What on earth is an "Untap/Master/Influence/Discard-phase" deck and >> what "idea of the game" did it pretty much go against? > > The absence of, or rather more or less absence of, a minion-phase being > used by the player relying on Anarch Revolt. You pretty much disrupt the > game for both predator and prey by never giving them anything to react > to while still getting closer to your goal. > > We're playing Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, not Metuselah: the Eternal > Wait. It's part of the idea of the game that each player should base > the play on what happens during the minion phase. OK, fine. But at no time - in all the years that people complained about the use of Anarch Revolts - do I recall anyone complaining the problem with them was the lack of minion cards. The problem with Anarch Revolts that people actually complained about - albeit not without argument - was the effect they had in terms of robbing everyone's pool and changing the format of the game to one that couldn't be anticipated when people built their decks. This, in turn, tended to yield results that were more based on random luck (such as the luck of which chair one happened to occupy or whether one drew one's Minion Tap at convenient time or not) and not so much on skill. No EVER said, "Oh, yeah, and those guys ought to be forced to used minion cards, too." That was never the reason anyone I saw complain ever suggested Anarch Revolt was 'broken'. Therefore, I do not think that was the reason for the change. >> 2. I got the distinct impression that Anarch Revolt was altered because >> using mass quanitites of them, while not unbalanced in the sense of >> producing overly-successful decks, had too much of an overpowering >> affect on a game and caused the result to be too random. > > I never suggested that the card was broken. I never suggested you suggested the card was broken. 'while not unbalanced...' was a minor qualifying clause I threw in for clarity. You should note that it was not the thrust of paragraph. > The randomness of the game was about as valid an argument as any ability > to torporize ONE vampire each full circle of turns being too powerful > an effect is in the original thread here. Agreed. > Playing AR -decks required skill, just like Stealth / Bleed with medium > to high-cap vampires requires skill. Difference being you don't accuse > the game of being random when I watch my prey discard a Deflection and > as my first action bleed for six with four stealth without any means > of limiting that bleed. You accuse me of horrible play -- and you're > probably right about it :) > >> >>> Should there be a tournament-winning orgy where Smiling Jack played a >>> vital role combined with tons of complaints that the card makes the >>> game unplayable, unplayable, mind you, not broken, then I'm certain >>> that card will change as well. >> >> Since Smiling Jack is pure advantage to the Methuselah who owns it, >> it could never get altered for the same reason that Anarch Revolt >> did. Hint: there were never any "tournament-winning orgies" involving >> Anarch Revolt. > > I've blocked my predator desperately trying to burn his own Smiling > Jack, voted him down to one pool and asked the table to just sit tight. > There's no thing as "pure advantage". You're picking nits. Sure, everyone's plans go wrong at times. Please keep to the obvious point I made. The function of Smiling Jack, if uncountered, is very much in favor of the guy who plays it - as opposed to Anarch Revolt, which is an envrionment-changing card that required its builder to use the remaining cards in his deck, and his vampires and play-tactics to convert the environment-change into some kind of gain. In fact, Smiling Jack already a counter built into and Anarch Revolt now looks more comparable to Smiling Jack than it was before its change. The comparison was a rather poor one. > Below a list of decks not merely having the off copies of AR but based > on that one single card out of some 2500. There are more decks where > AR is a great asset, OK, I did not know that that deck was specifically a problem. I have learned something about the issue. (Sadly, it's too late to be of any value to my play. Damn!) I stand by bone of contention with you however: the issue here is the effect of the Anarch Revolts and not the preponderonce of master cards in the deck. Were it not for what Anarch Revolt did to the table (and it having reasonable weakness aside from just bad luck), I think most people would be fine with folks using all-master decks. I don't see any reason they are inherently "unfun". Fred

Ector wrote: > OK, I REALLY have trouble having a discussion here. That's obvious, > isn't it? Is the discussion really civilized? At least I did my best to > keep it civilized, but failed. What can I do now except for stopping > all this? Pah. Say what you are going to say, defend your points, don't get sucked in by people hassling you, and stay on topic. Like, if you are going to show up and say something, say it and back it up. Back it up like you are totally certain that you are right. And then when it turns out you aren't, say "Oh, ok. Sounds good to me." This is the internet. This is where folks come to disect the scientific inaccuracies of "Earth II" like it is the most important thing in the world, and then get in fist fights over it. If you think Madness Network/Rotschreck is a broken combo, come and explain why. When people tell you you are wrong, either refute them or say "oh, ok." That is how this all works. -Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> Everyone is telling you you're wrong about this. >> And you ARE wrong. > Maybe. But I'd like to know where is my mistake. Everyone is telling you your mistake. Very few people have responded with ONLY insults. Even I told you the #1 tactic to solve that deck: burn the Madness Network. If you would listen, you would hear where your mistakes were. Some lie in your assumptions (like the one where you, personally, should never be hosed). Some lie in your deck construction and play (Anneke + Assault Rifle should have nothing but maneuvers, a couple dodges, and gallons of Psyche! -- and you didn't even include Psyche?!) But you don't listen. >> You are not listening to ANYONE. > This is just a false crap. No, sorry, it's true. If you WERE listening, you would not keep babbling about how Rotschreck needs to be fixed. But you aren't. >> You are not better than everyone else. > Did I tell that? > >> You are not smarter than everyone else. > Did I tell that, either? Yes. You did. Your attitude screams it. And when you respond to EVERY person who says "you can beat a Malk OOT Rush deck like this ___" with the statement "But your solution would not work", then we start to get the impression that you think you know more than everyone else. News flash: You don't. So quit acting like you do. >> You are not seeing things others do not. > I'd bet that I do at least sometimes. Maybe, not this time, though. No, you really don't. Not even sometimes. >> You are just wrong. > Again, I may be wrong. But you'd better explain me why than just > stating this. Read the threads, man. Everyone has been telling you. Even my simple statement is all that needs to be said. If you do not burn the Madness Network (a non-bleeding action that is unblockable when you are using Toreador Grand Ball, so don't be telling me your deck can't do it), you may eventually lose. The Network is key to that deck. But he cannot defend it against even only TWO players -- and he certainly can't stop an unblockable Anneke, nor would he care to pick a fight with her Assault Rifle. In fact, most decks that cannot accomplish at least a few (D) actions successfully will lose, with the exception of some cornercase decks. If you didn't plan for a means to take (D) actions, then your deckbuilding SUCKED ASS. >> You ARE a retard, a whiner, and a bedwetter. > Due to my *enforced* temper, I won't write anything similar about you. > So, I outmatch you at least in manners :) I'm afraid not. I think it's extremely rude to start threads calling for a card's bannination/errata simply because you got owned in a single pickup game. I think it's even more rude to ignore all the people trying to talk to you, dismissing their arguments as "it won't work" without even trying to listen to what they're saying. And I think it's unspeakably rude to assume the whole "put-upon" attitude about the whole thing that you have. You're a gutless cocksmoker, Ector. Go crawl back under your rock. > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. It's impossible to discuss anything with you, you mean -- because you won't listen. Asshat. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEGidUtQZlu3o7QpERAp2GAJ9HO1psXhDdNjYxk2QG568C0f1f3QCgseQd Up+tE+HHwd5m8UHdH80Y1Uw= =BpdI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ector wrote: > > Derek Ray wrote: > >> Everyone is telling you you're wrong about this. > >> And you ARE wrong. > > Maybe. But I'd like to know where is my mistake. > > Everyone is telling you your mistake. Very few people have responded > with ONLY insults. Even I told you the #1 tactic to solve that deck: > burn the Madness Network. > > If you would listen, you would hear where your mistakes were. Some lie > in your assumptions (like the one where you, personally, should never be > hosed). Some lie in your deck construction and play (Anneke + Assault > Rifle should have nothing but maneuvers, a couple dodges, and gallons of > Psyche! -- and you didn't even include Psyche?!) > > But you don't listen. You are completely wrong here: I DO listen everyone, even if I physically cannot reply to everyone. David Zopf convinced me that Psyche! would be good in that deck, and I admitted that. Similarly, I stated that your advice to burn MN was right. But why do you think that this should be the final argument in the discussion? What if I play a Ventrue deck without Celerity? I could use Majesties and tons of Fortitude cards, but all they would be useless against Rotschreck. What if I play Xaviar and have no DotB in my hand, or get my DotB canceled by Watenda, or just get Rotschrecked by Rachel with Claws? You didn't even try to think about that, but I already know your answer: sometimes you lose, put 10 DotBs, change your deck, blah-blah-blah and so on. So, whose behaviour is REALLY rude and unintelligent? > >> You are not listening to ANYONE. > > This is just a false crap. > > No, sorry, it's true. If you WERE listening, you would not keep > babbling about how Rotschreck needs to be fixed. But you aren't. No, sorry, it's right, like it or not. > >> You are not better than everyone else. > > Did I tell that? > > > >> You are not smarter than everyone else. > > Did I tell that, either? > > Yes. You did. Your attitude screams it. And when you respond to EVERY > person who says "you can beat a Malk OOT Rush deck like this ___" with > the statement "But your solution would not work", then we start to get > the impression that you think you know more than everyone else. > > News flash: You don't. So quit acting like you do. Just look at yourself! It was clear that a heavy combat deck with a lot of Psyche! or Immortal Grapples, or Telepathic Trackings or DotBs can beat Rotschreck. But do I really MUST play a heavy combat deck? Any defensive combat package (say, 20 cards) will be beaten by the similar-sized package of Malk OOT deck (note that I did NOT talk about a pure OOT Rush deck). > > Read the threads, man. Everyone has been telling you. Even my simple > statement is all that needs to be said. If you do not burn the Madness > Network (a non-bleeding action that is unblockable when you are using > Toreador Grand Ball, so don't be telling me your deck can't do it), you > may eventually lose. The Network is key to that deck. But he cannot > defend it against even only TWO players -- and he certainly can't stop > an unblockable Anneke, nor would he care to pick a fight with her > Assault Rifle. Yes, I could burn MN, and I knew that, but I unterestimated the threat and preferred to play Alastor, which was a terrible mistake. And yes, the Anneke deck has some chances against MN + R, with TGB and Psyche! - did I tell that it hasn't? But what about other deck with large vampires? What about voting decks, intercept decks and so on? Every MN deck should have intercept to protect MN. And how would you convince other players to help you burn MN of your predator if the predator only uses it against you? Why should they bother? > In fact, most decks that cannot accomplish at least a few (D) actions > successfully will lose, with the exception of some cornercase decks. If > you didn't plan for a means to take (D) actions, then your deckbuilding > SUCKED ASS. The means may be extremely various, including Majesties/Forms of Mist to overload intercept, dangerous combat cards ("bruise and bleed"), and so on. Rotschreck trumps many such strategies. No, I don't think that Rot is overpowered, but normally the card can be used only when you block or you are rushed, not when you are blocked or rush yourself. Inability to cover your own action with Rot actually "balances" the card, since a combat module that relies on it is going to be rather weak during the own actions. As long as somebody can use it both reactively and proactively, the balance disappears. This is my REAL point, not the imaginary "whining about a loss". > >> You ARE a retard, a whiner, and a bedwetter. > > Due to my *enforced* temper, I won't write anything similar about you. > > So, I outmatch you at least in manners :) > > I'm afraid not. > > I think it's extremely rude to start threads calling for a card's > bannination/errata simply because you got owned in a single pickup game. As I just stated, this isn't true, and such accusation IS rude. It was just an example that I probably shouldn't post at all. > I think it's even more rude to ignore all the people trying to talk to > you, dismissing their arguments as "it won't work" without even trying > to listen to what they're saying. > > And I think it's unspeakably rude to assume the whole "put-upon" > attitude about the whole thing that you have. > > You're a gutless cocksmoker, Ector. Go crawl back under your rock. > > > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. > > It's impossible to discuss anything with you, you mean -- because you > won't listen. Asshat. > > - -- > Derek > > insert clever quotation here > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFEGidUtQZlu3o7QpERAp2GAJ9HO1psXhDdNjYxk2QG568C0f1f3QCgseQd > Up+tE+HHwd5m8UHdH80Y1Uw= > =BpdI > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- The rest of your post is just a collection of stupid insults that I happily ignore. And, overall, it was very funny to be called "rude" by Derek Ray himself :) Ector

In message <1142549588.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >James said ... > >> Really? Gosh, I didn't know that! How useful you are for pointing out >> that an adjectival phrase I used to describe Ector's posts wasn't >> written by him - I know that, because it was written by me! But thank >> you for your unfailing helpfulness in pointing out the blindingly >> obvious. In other news, did you know that there's air all around you? >> And that the sky is up! We can have more fascinating facts tomorrow. >> I'm sure you're wetting yourself in anticipation! I know I am! > > >Oooh hark at him ... touchy. Not really. Just if you want to post the blindingly obvious for no benefit of anyone, use alt.dev.null and save everyone the hassle. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142581721.7...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >I DO listen everyone, even if I >physically cannot reply to everyone. Whether you listen or not, your behaviour typically shows a single minded irrational regard for your own points, even when other people have demolished them. Repeatedly. Go back and look at a "OMG THE MALKAVIAN ANTITRIBU CAN'T SURVIVE COMBAT" discussion. Or "MICHAEL LUTHER IS SO BROKEN" or "THE BOWL OF CONVERGENCE HAS DESTROYED MY DECK". Look them up on Google, re-read them, and see how you cling to completely irrational points long after people have said "Look, this isn't true" with long, detailed explanatory posts showing you why you're wrong. Only to have you come back with nonsense. Examine how you told us all about Michael Luther killing the Inner Circle because you wanted to build an inflexible, bad deck, or about how you wouldn't take steps against the Bowl of Convergence. One of the fascinating facets of V:TES that has crept in by a process of careful design, some errata and a fair chunk of luck (given some of the crack-induced cards WotC created in the later sets) is that almost any powerful combination of cards can be taken apart at different points, by attacking the requirements, by attacking the pool to pay for them, by discarding cards from people's hands (Auspex weenies and Revelations a- go-go), by blocking a set-up action, by burning a key master card (or stealing an equipment card), by rushing minions so they can't take actions (or block, or vote, or...), by striking them down with Banishment or Free States Rant or... When there are many moving parts, the threat of Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention gets better. Against one card, it's difficult, but against many moving parts, you get more opportunities. Whenever a single card causes problems, it is very rare for it to be the play of the single card that you should be trying to undermine. There are many, many other areas you could deal with first and which will very probably be easier to deal with. Examine this thread in the same light. You come back with nonsense about Pysche! being inappropriate for your deck. You come back with nonsense about *intercept decks* (not decks with an intercept component) not having selectively torporising vampires as a top priority. You keep focusing on Rotschreck even when people point out that Rotschreck isn't the problem. You can't adequately explain why Madness Network Rotschreck is so much worse than intercept Rotschreck. You won't deal properly with the fact that when you build a big, single-vampire deck, a deck focusing on taking out minions with extreme prejudice will hand you your arse on a plate because you need a more resilient set of minions (or to accept you took a risk you shouldn't have and, hey, them's the breaks). You can't adequately deal with the fact that combos underline the whole game, making two individual cards more effective, which applies across hundreds of cards - but apparently this is a bad thing here. And so on, and so on, and so on. And we get whines along the lines of "I can't play any of my favourite decks." You know what? Lots of people can't play their favourite decks and not get their arse handed to them by, say, a Palla Grande Embrace deck or a Madness Network Out of Turn deck or an Obfuscate Ventrue vote deck or any one of 100 strong archetypes. You know why? Because those decks are better than theirs. If two players with roughly equal skill sit down and one has a good deck and the other has an average deck, who should win? Obviously, bad shuffles will kill the good deck now and then (but *really* good decks are constructed to mitigate against that as much as possible, so a bad shuffle hits the average deck more often) but the good deck will win more. And a Toreador intercept deck focused around a single big vampire that can't deal with being taken out, and doesn't include Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking or even Fast Reaction, depending on what the deck is like, is really not a particularly strong deck. It may be able to block well, and take some unblockable actions with Grand Ball - but it can't deal with aggressive combat. In all honesty, what would you do if a deck came for you with Haven Uncovered, rush, at least two maneuvers to hand, Immortal Grapple and Disarm? You're probably being outmaneuvered - having that many maneuvers on hand is difficult when you've also got to keep a steady flow of intercept which the rush deck doesn't have - , you probably aren't hitting with anything other than a hand-strike, and you're probably going to torpor. And then you go to torpor. And then you die. It being a rush deck, its average minion size is probably much, much less than Anneke - somewhere between 3 and 6, say - so if you don't die the first time, you get rushed again. And get hit. Again. How much defensive combat do you have until you're clogged on Assault Rifle, Toreador Grand Ball, Minion Tap, Taste of Vitae (a common include in such decks), and a large amount of intercept? And what's interesting here is that you don't get the warning. With Madness Network, going after its prey, you get at least a minion phase to do what you will with to (try to) destroy the Madness Network - and several set-up actions to take out (or vote down, or block, or...) Here, you get Haven Uncovered and two minions rushing you. If you're lucky, you get one of Peter Bakija's old-fashioned rush decks with average crypts around 3 in size which out-maneuver you, kill your Assault Rifle with Immortal Grapple, hit you TO DEATH, and can do it three or four times against a ten cap. (Obf/Pot got VERY small here. I'm not sure how small cel/pot can get these days, but it was always just above obf/pot in days of yore.) And so you get owned. And you don't have warning. Or set-up actions you can block. Or a nice, commonly used defence against Disarm (like Psyche!, TT, FR) that has useful applications. It's all there. One turn, one master, a few combat actions floating round, and a bunch of rushes. The cost is very different - a lot of cards from hand, rather than careful set-up - but the result is that you're dead, and there was very little you could do about it, because the deck did what it was designed to do, and your deck didn't think "What happens when they think I'm the threat and come for me?" And trust me, Anneke / Assault Rifle decks which can block lots of actions very, very often look like the threat, and they will come for you. What was your strategy for when four vampires rushed Anneke when you were going round the table, using a timely Haven Uncovered from your prey, against which you didn't get the privilege of taking a burn action? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > One of the fascinating facets of V:TES that has crept in by a process of > careful design, some errata and a fair chunk of luck (given some of the > crack-induced cards WotC created in the later sets) is that almost any > powerful combination of cards can be taken apart at different points. Ector This is essientially the point that everyone is trying to get accross. Attempting an analogy, you have to try and stop the chain of cards coming together by attacking the individual links rather than trying to break the chain once it's formed and at it's strongest. (That's not much of an analogy but it's early) In this case, the weakest link would be the madness network or the agg damage weapon and that's where I would focus my efforts.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > When the vampires get into combat, the difference between acting and > > blocking vampires are really minimal. The acting vampire can play > > Rotschreck first, though, and the opposing vampire won't have a chance > > to play it. Sometimes this may be crucial. > > I suppose. But it seems really quite unlikely. If you block someone, > they are acting. So unless they are a (arguably quite rare) Madness > Network, the acting vampire can't play Rotschreck. Do you really > findyourself in situations where one player is like "Man! I wanted to > play my Rotschreck, but you played yours first! Dag-nabbit!" Like, > yeah, I see Rotschreck in play occasionally. But not so much that I've > ever seen anyone get denied playing a Rotschreck by someone else > playing one first. It may seem strange enough, but at the last tournament we had 3 Rotschreck decks (of 17), not counting the MN deck. (Actually, the tournament MN deck even doesn't exist here, as the player doesn't have enough copies of MN and plays proxies :)) So, this is really important - at least for us. > > Rotschreck + MN is much more powerful than a sole Rotschreck: > > > 1). One the best advantages of Rotschreck is fear. Spending a MPA in > > combat isn't easy, and no deck would be able to perform such feats > > regularly, but almost every deck would think twice if he's likely to > > meet Rotschreck. > > Not really. You can live in fear of Rotschreck as it is always a > possibility, or you can play your game, accept that sometimes you get > hosed, and not worry about it. Do you suggest me to forget about the Rot threat and just throw my vamps ahead? Most of the time I need them to win the game. Besides that, aggro damage is a threat even without Rot, so it would be just silly to let a Malk with Ivory Bow to block my vampire if I cannot even survive 1R aggro. In the real game, number of vampires is crucial. If you have two vamps (8 and 6-cap), for instance, burning MN would be difficult and extremely risky. If you have five weenies, this may be very simple. > > In normal circumstances you cannot play it on your > > turn, and the other intercept decks can block your vampires without > > fear. > > They can still do that. And if the Rotschreck is being played > reactively, you trade "can block vampires without fear" for "can't take > actions without fear". You get in a fight, however, with someone who > can Rotshreck you, and you are getting hosed. Sorry, but I was unable to understand your argument here. Would you please explain it more clear? > > But if you can play Rotschreck during YOUR OWN actions, blocking you > > becomes extremely risky, and this advantage is huge. > > Lots of decks are extremely risky to block--Kiss of Ra does the exact > same thing as Rotschreck, but with less infrastructure. Yes, using the > Network lets you play Rotschreck on your, which makes it risky to block > you. So does havaing Kiss of Ra. So does lots of things. > > > Most decks cannot > > handle Rotschreck and they will generally avoid blocking you (until you > > declare some really dangerous action, of course, but nevertheless). > > Most decks can't handle Kiss of Ra. Kiss of Ra doesn't need fixing > either. Kiss of Ra is a very powerful card, but it has proper requirements, limitations and the cost: A). Kiss of Ra requires superior Fortitude (at least 5 capacity prior to Rosemarie). Rotschreck and aggro weapons are available even for allies, and some allies even don't need any weapons (i.e. Escaped Mental Patient if you put some !Malks). B). Kiss of Ra costs 3 blood + the lost action + the lost opportunity to Freak, which is a lot. Rotschreck cost you an MPA which isn't that much with The Parthenon or similar cards. C). Kiss of Ra cannot be used against vampires with Fortitude. The majority of popular large vampires have Fortitude, at least at inferior, to play Freak Drives/Forced Marches AND to be immune to Kiss of Ra :) Anatole is a good example. D). You can use Kiss of Ra ONLY when somebody tries to block you, and you cannot force them to block, or block with a vampire you choose. If they are blocking with a weenie, Kiss of Ra may not even worth its price. I will even make a short table to demonstrate the difference: Kiss of Ra Rotschreck MN + Rot Usable when you are blocked Yes* No Yes Usable when your rush is unblocked No No Yes Unable when you block No Yes Yes Usable when you are rushed (and unable No Yes Yes to block) * Only if the blocker has no Fortitude > > 2) You can assassinate key vampires much easier if you can rush them > > and play Rotschreck, or make them block your action instead of blocking > > them. > > Not really. Eagle's Sight and/or Enhanced Senses and you can usually > block whomever you want. Not if the victim has a lot of stealth, or block-denial cards. Or Kiss of Ra you've just mentioned :) And these cards are quite common, too. > > If you can use Rotschreck only after a successful block, this > > forces you to play an intercept deck (spend a lot of card slots to the > > intercept reactions), and you may need Eagle's Sight to block some > > actions, etc. etc. > > If you want to use Rotshcreck after a Rush, this forces you to play an > incredibly tenious Malkavian OOT Rush deck. I'd rather play the > intercept deck, honestly. > > > Rush is much simpler - just play one card, and that's all. > > You can't hear me, but I'm laughing. A lot. Really. Yes. You are > correct. In theory, getting in a fight with the minion of your choice > with a Rush card is easier than blocking the minion of your choice. But > Rush is never "much simpler" than anything. Especially actually being > good at winning games. Yes, I already know this, and, honestly, I never suggested to build a pure OOT Rush deck, as it's going to be too fragile. But you may take an intercepting Madness Network deck with aggro weapons (or Claws if we're talking about Rachel) and Rotschrecks, put just 2-3 Noses of the Hound, and voila - you can just play your game until you get the needed cards and suddenly burn almost any vampire! You may even make a deal with somebody to put Haven Uncovered on your victim and rush the victim at the end of his turn. Or you may predend to be relatively harmless, split a table with your prey and then suddenly break the deal, killing his primary vampire. And so on. > > 3). You can immediately diablerize the rushed vampire with a fodder > > vamp or when you have vote superiority. > > True. This is a significant benefit of the OOT Rush deck. But then you > also need vote superiority to keep your vampires from burning, yet > another cog in the machine. This being said, you block their last > action, and they can't save themselves from torpor. Sure, someone could > rescue cross table. But then someone could burn the Network cross table > too. But someone may burn crosstable, too. And someone may cast his votes against the Blood Hunt. Why do you always presume that the whole table would try to burn Madness Network? This deck is going to have a lot to offer to its allies in exchange to their help - it can block hostile actions, it may have votes, it may even have Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone, and so on. > > Now I realize that my first proposed variant (changing Madness Network) > > will be only partial solution, as the fear factor would still exist. > > Best way is fixing Rotschreck. > > There is no need. Again, this combo has been around for a long time > (heck, I think one even may be in the TWDA from some number of years > back), and they aren't dominating play. At all. Yes, such decks > sometimes totally hose you. But lots of things can do that. They also > have trouble winning games, just like lots of other decks that can > totally hose you sometimes. > > -Peter Even if the possibility to burn any vampire isn't really "broken" (as it doesn't provide a Game Win), MN + Rot actually decreases the level of interaction between players, which is extremely bad. Nobody likes to be helpless, and most large vampires are going to be helpless against Rotschreck. Even IG + DotB won't help against Rachel with Claws. Actually, only Abombwe-heavy deck can laugh at Rotschreck. Yours, Ector

Some of what Ector wrote meakes sense Ector wrote: > Kiss of Ra is a very powerful card, but it has proper requirements, > limitations and the cost: > A). Kiss of Ra requires superior Fortitude (at least 5 capacity prior > to Rosemarie). > Rotschreck and aggro weapons are available even for allies, and some > allies even don't need any weapons (i.e. Escaped Mental Patient if you > put some !Malks). > B). Kiss of Ra costs 3 blood + the lost action + the lost opportunity > to Freak, which is a lot. Rotschreck cost you an MPA which isn't that > much with The Parthenon or similar cards. > C). Kiss of Ra cannot be used against vampires with Fortitude. The > majority of popular large vampires have Fortitude, at least at > inferior, to play Freak Drives/Forced Marches AND to be immune to Kiss > of Ra :) Anatole is a good example. > D). You can use Kiss of Ra ONLY when somebody tries to block you, and > you cannot force them to block, or block with a vampire you choose. If > they are blocking with a weenie, Kiss of Ra may not even worth its > price. I share a few of the concerns and in an earlier post detailed why I thought Rotschreck was an oddity. I don't thinks it broken currently but I can envisage a time when you will allow an increase in the number of OOT masters when it becomes broken (a vamp with an additional OOT master is not beyond imagination, likewise a vote card). My main concerns about the card revolve arround its logic (and Volker isn't scared of fire when I block you but he is when you block me ... odd) because at heart I am a role player and like internal consistancy. Having said all that, Ector... give up mate

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: (another load of bollocks) Thank you for proving my point in spades. You don't listen. You simply desperately hang on even when your points have been shown to be wrong. You insist that EVERY deck must have a defense against Rotschreck, which just isn't going to ever be true. I know better than to waste time trying to "discuss" things with you, so I'm simply going to (again) refer you to EVERY POST IN THE THREAD. Go read them. Keep reading them. And figure it out on your own, because I've no time to be handholding gutless whiners. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEGqzstQZlu3o7QpERAkhTAKCm04lq0j7RaO6p6m5/AF/rsVEcrgCdGho3 SmjFUF+Ul4FfKUNdi5c8VYs= =MU9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fred Scott skrev: >> >> We're playing Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, not Metuselah: the Eternal >> Wait. It's part of the idea of the game that each player should base >> the play on what happens during the minion phase. > > OK, fine. But at no time - in all the years that people complained about > the use of Anarch Revolts - do I recall anyone complaining the problem > with them was the lack of minion cards. The problem with Anarch Revolts > that people actually complained about - albeit not without argument - was > the effect they had in terms of robbing everyone's pool and changing the > format of the game to one that couldn't be anticipated when people built > their decks. This, in turn, tended to yield results that were more based > on random luck (such as the luck of which chair one happened to occupy > or whether one drew one's Minion Tap at convenient time or not) and not > so much on skill. No EVER said, "Oh, yeah, and those guys ought to be > forced to used minion cards, too." That was never the reason anyone I > saw complain ever suggested Anarch Revolt was 'broken'. Therefore, I do > not think that was the reason for the change. Sorry, I see I have been unclear. Bear with me as I try to rectify that. When a person feels his/her game has been destroyed by some effect, or combination of effects, that person will complain about a perceived error/unjustice etc. That perceived wrongness will more often than not actually be a symptom of a real wrongness, in as much as any such real wrongness exist in the first place. When utilizing the old AR in a master-deck of the type players have indeed complained about some game-mechanical effects will occur. Five player table, and assume A playing master-deck has created a well- designed one and knows how to play it: Player A, C and D will cycle cards somewhat in accordance with how their decks were constructed, with a small edge given to player A. Players B and E will have their cardcycling more or less totally disrupted more often than not (If I play !Tor/Palla Grande/Embrace I won't even notice a change in card-flow as my deck might even not include one single reaction-card, but the vast majority of decks are not designed this way). This is to the benefit of player A as this disruption in itself greatly reduces the ACTUAL randomness resulting from player A distributing pool-damage evenly all over the table. Given a normal run of events player A will probably oust player B leaving player C strong and players D and E weak. That is the main reason AR-decks relied on either votes for switching places or a substantial amount of Life Boon. The latter probably played on behalf of player D who's left unable to avoid ousting player E (actually player A's AR:s does the oust). With three players left it all boils down to survival, which is a reason master-decks with AR have a tendency to take 0, 2 or 4 VP. The total disruption of cardcycling for players B and E is a result of player A refusing to make any use of his/her minion-phase if there is any decent likelyhood of other players getting to react (either don't act with any minion at all or only take unblockable actions, like switching seats with votes under the protection of Toreador Grand Ball). This effect comes from the master-deck running in the order of 60+ master cards and is NOT a result of a single copy of AR being in the deck. Case 0 VP: "Thank god we got rid of the idiot who just deals out random damage." Table included a large amount of rush or player E played weenie bleed. In either case player A had his/her defences rapidly depleted long before AR could change to effect of the game to any great extent. Note that player A will often be held responsible for the results if player E did play weenie-bleed. The other players will not hold themselves responsible for not responding constructively to the loss of three to four pool cause of AR. Case 2 VP: "Your deck doesn't get game-wins. You were just lucky to get any VP:s at all. It's like playing dice and you should learn that V:tES is a game of skills." Player C celebrated an early christmas with his/her PRE/vote/high-cap/Voter Cap -deck and ousted player D and A. Players B and E are going to feel robbed even though they did indeed get ousted giving VP to player A just according to player A:s plan. A player who feels robbed feels cheated. Feeling cheated you don't award accolades where it actually belongs. Once again complaints about randomness are going to be voiced. Case 4 VP: "Even a dirty excuse for a deck like yours will get lucky and win sometimes." When enought dirty excuses of decks actually starts winning tournaments in the hands of different players in different locations it becomes obvious it can't all be luck. It doesn't make the other players feel any better, so instead of RANDOM an effect must be BROKEN. >> I've blocked my predator desperately trying to burn his own Smiling >> Jack, voted him down to one pool and asked the table to just sit tight. >> There's no thing as "pure advantage". > > You're picking nits. Sure, everyone's plans go wrong at times. Please > keep to the obvious point I made. The function of Smiling Jack, if Point ceeded :) > uncountered, is very much in favor of the guy who plays it - as opposed > to Anarch Revolt, which is an envrionment-changing card that required > its builder to use the remaining cards in his deck, and his vampires and > play-tactics to convert the environment-change into some kind of gain. Disagree. See argument above. Observe that my disagreement is totally invalid if I play 20 masters out of which 4 are AR. I only focus on the master-deck where I hold your observation as incorrect. > > OK, I did not know that that deck was specifically a problem. I have > learned something about the issue. (Sadly, it's too late to be of > any value to my play. Damn!) I stand by bone of contention with you > however: the issue here is the effect of the Anarch Revolts and not the > preponderonce of master cards in the deck. Were it not for what Anarch > Revolt did to the table (and it having reasonable weakness aside from > just bad luck), I think most people would be fine with folks using > all-master decks. I don't see any reason they are inherently "unfun". > Agreed about Smiling Jack, but... ... again I disagree, for reasons I have already argued above. I could build a master-deck today that doesn't deal out the pool-damage needed for me to win with it, and it would still be as "unfun" to sit beside it just because prey and predator won't have a decent cardflow. If I could reliably create a deck that selectively gave or denied you three out of four cards from your library (ie I have a 75% chance of controlling wether you draw the top card or not) I could feed you hand-jam and thus create the very same sense of "unfun". I guess ten Slaughter Houses behind you and not a single bleed pretty much yields the same result. Anyway, my point is that a gamedisrupting effect that yields no long term documented benefit for its creator won't generate a large amount of complaints and thus no change. One that is 1) easily recognizable (albeit what has been recognized is only one part of a pattern), 2) highly disruptive (once again perception of disruption may not correspond to actual disruption) and 3) yields a documented benefit, as in tournament-wins (globally documented) or repeated final-seats (locally documented) will generate complaints. If a real pattern can be found, in difference from a merely perceived one, and that pattern is deemed "bad for the game" some kind of change will occur. Example: "borrow" vampires normally occur during minionphases whereas "automatic" drastic changes to vampires occur during untap or master -phases. This in order to avoid a real pattern of using effects highly detrimental effects to one of my vampires in order to gain a corresponging benefit being used on borrowed vampires. Old Mind Rape with Khobar Towers is probably bad for the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142581721.7...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >I DO listen everyone, even if I > >physically cannot reply to everyone. > > Whether you listen or not, your behaviour typically shows a single > minded irrational regard for your own points, even when other people > have demolished them. Repeatedly. > > Go back and look at a "OMG THE MALKAVIAN ANTITRIBU CAN'T SURVIVE COMBAT" > discussion. Or "MICHAEL LUTHER IS SO BROKEN" or "THE BOWL OF > CONVERGENCE HAS DESTROYED MY DECK". Look them up on Google, re-read > them, and see how you cling to completely irrational points long after > people have said "Look, this isn't true" with long, detailed explanatory > posts showing you why you're wrong. Only to have you come back with > nonsense. Examine how you told us all about Michael Luther killing the > Inner Circle because you wanted to build an inflexible, bad deck, or > about how you wouldn't take steps against the Bowl of Convergence. I'd really like to know why are you writing all this. Yes, I can be wrong, and I was wrong several times. Now what? Do I have to go to a monastery and pray for forgiveness of my sins? Is being wrong a sin, actually? I really can't understand why are you so angry. My threads collect 100+ posts only because most posters discussed the side topic (how an Anneke deck can defend against Rotschreck). Why do you think that I MUST immediately stop posting after getting the first good advice for that deck? > > Whenever a single card causes problems, it is very rare for it to be the > play of the single card that you should be trying to undermine. There > are many, many other areas you could deal with first and which will very > probably be easier to deal with. > > > Examine this thread in the same light. You come back with nonsense > about Pysche! being inappropriate for your deck. Again, I was wrong, and I admitted that immediately after David Zopf explained me WHY Psyche! is appropriate. If you really want to help a newbie, spend some time to explain, if not - just don't bother. But don't blame the newbie for "not listening" you. > You come back with > nonsense about *intercept decks* (not decks with an intercept component) > not having selectively torporising vampires as a top priority. Maybe, I just used the wrong words. My deck has 10 Second Traditions, 5 Telepathic Misdirecions, one Bowl and two Quicken Sight. It's definitely a deck with intercept component, not the intercept deck. > You keep > focusing on Rotschreck even when people point out that Rotschreck isn't > the problem. You can't adequately explain why Madness Network > Rotschreck is so much worse than intercept Rotschreck. No, I'm still trying to explain this. > You won't deal > properly with the fact that when you build a big, single-vampire deck, a > deck focusing on taking out minions with extreme prejudice will hand you > your arse on a plate because you need a more resilient set of minions > (or to accept you took a risk you shouldn't have and, hey, them's the > breaks). I can't understand why are you writing this - didn't I already tell that I had some weenies and I completely undestand their value? > You can't adequately deal with the fact that combos underline > the whole game, making two individual cards more effective, which > applies across hundreds of cards - but apparently this is a bad thing > here. And so on, and so on, and so on. Again, why do you think that I can't? All CCGs have some combos. I've played MTG for seven years prior to moving to VTES and saw tons of different combos. But some combos from time to time appear to be overpowered. > And we get whines along the lines of "I can't play any of my favourite > decks." You know what? Lots of people can't play their favourite decks > and not get their arse handed to them by, say, a Palla Grande Embrace > deck or a Madness Network Out of Turn deck or an Obfuscate Ventrue vote > deck or any one of 100 strong archetypes. You know why? Because those > decks are better than theirs. If two players with roughly equal skill > sit down and one has a good deck and the other has an average deck, who > should win? Obviously, bad shuffles will kill the good deck now and > then (but *really* good decks are constructed to mitigate against that > as much as possible, so a bad shuffle hits the average deck more often) > but the good deck will win more. And a Toreador intercept deck focused > around a single big vampire that can't deal with being taken out, and > doesn't include Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking or even Fast Reaction, > depending on what the deck is like, is really not a particularly strong > deck. It may be able to block well, and take some unblockable actions > with Grand Ball - but it can't deal with aggressive combat. You are completely right here, but I really wouldn't write a single word here if I'd just want to get help with my decks. My problems are only MY problems, and I can deal with them myself. > In all honesty, what would you do if a deck came for you with Haven > Uncovered, rush, at least two maneuvers to hand, Immortal Grapple and > Disarm? You're probably being outmaneuvered - having that many > maneuvers on hand is difficult when you've also got to keep a steady > flow of intercept which the rush deck doesn't have - , you probably > aren't hitting with anything other than a hand-strike, and you're > probably going to torpor. > > And then you go to torpor. And then you die. Surely, I would lose. But every deck has its "good matchups" and "bad matchups", and that's normal. A heavy Rush deck is really difficult to play properly and difficult to win with. > > And what's interesting here is that you don't get the warning. With > Madness Network, going after its prey, you get at least a minion phase > to do what you will with to (try to) destroy the Madness Network - and > several set-up actions to take out (or vote down, or block, or...) No, I've got the warning but underestimated it and decided to play Alastor first. I've heard about MN + Victoria bloating combo and about MN + Rachel + Homunculus killing combo, but I couldn't even imagine MN + Rotschreck. But, again, that loss is just my fault. > Here, you get Haven Uncovered and two minions rushing you. If you're > lucky, you get one of Peter Bakija's old-fashioned rush decks with > average crypts around 3 in size which out-maneuver you, kill your > Assault Rifle with Immortal Grapple, hit you TO DEATH, and can do it > three or four times against a ten cap. (Obf/Pot got VERY small here. > I'm not sure how small cel/pot can get these days, but it was always > just above obf/pot in days of yore.) > > And so you get owned. And you don't have warning. Or set-up actions > you can block. Or a nice, commonly used defence against Disarm (like > Psyche!, TT, FR) that has useful applications. It's all there. One > turn, one master, a few combat actions floating round, and a bunch of > rushes. Again, there are no (and should not be) any "invincible" decks in VTES. Heavy combat deck will kill Anneke. And I don't need any "warnings" here - the presense of KoKo or Nigel is already a warning :) But the heavy combat deck devotes almost all its cards to combat, while MN deck doesn't. > The cost is very different - a lot of cards from hand, rather than > careful set-up - but the result is that you're dead, and there was very > little you could do about it, because the deck did what it was designed > to do, and your deck didn't think "What happens when they think I'm the > threat and come for me?" And trust me, Anneke / Assault Rifle decks > which can block lots of actions very, very often look like the threat, > and they will come for you. What was your strategy for when four > vampires rushed Anneke when you were going round the table, using a > timely Haven Uncovered from your prey, against which you didn't get the > privilege of taking a burn action? > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Once more: building a good combat deck and playing it properly is difficult enough. Anneke would be crushed in a combat-heavy metagame, and I wouldn't even try to rebuild the deck. But when combat-heavy decks are rare, nobody would put Haven Uncovered on her or be able to use it. Please note that good MN deck don't usually have a lot of combat cards. This allows them to devote some slots to intercept and ousting cards. The primary reason of my "rant" is the fact that such wonderful combat results can be achieved with so little combat package (20-25 cards most) and so little vampires. The heavy rush decks you mentioned usually have at least 50 combat cards, often more. This is a huge difference. Yours, Ector

Hello I'd like to tell to those benevolent who try to show to Ector his mistake and who are now complaining the Ector doesn't listen that you approached could be better. As a professionnal expert, it's my duty to help people with their problems. I could make an analogy with Ector's problems. First Ector express a desire : To revise Madness Network I assume that what Ector think he needs is to correct a flaw in the game. Second The reaction that seems to be : "You're wrong" And it seems that those who started that way try to teach VTES 101 to Ector. En bref, try to impose the solution. Well, we can bring a solution without understanding the problem and the needs. I think that the "understanding the problem" step was botched in this case. The next step is to explain the problem and the need that seems apparent to the consultant. I think that the benevolent teacher much try to convince with "This is it", "That's the truth", "Thats how it's work"... well, the listen to me cause I detained the thruth approached. I think that was a bad strategies. I think that the problem of Ector was "I do I deal with Madness Network - Rotschrek combo deck?" His desire of solution was :"To do a downgrade of Madness Network" The need that I think most understood : "I don't fully understand the potential of most cards." Ector had to listen to your counsel and understand them to improved his skills. What is the best way to insure this? I think it would be to guide Ector throught is own analys throught question? Why? Fisrt it help avoiding the "defensive position" provoke by the "you stupid dumbass that's not how we do things" type of message. Even the "You're wrong" is not polie enough. Nobody likes to admit he's wrong when forced to admit it. Second, it would have help understanding what's the usefullness of the card from Ector's point of view. Like Psyche! was underestimated by our good russian friend. After that, it's easy to to create "situation test" to help fully understand the potentiel of the card. Something like : "You're in combat with Anneke who got an assault rifle. What are the restriction of assault? Maneuver only once per combat. What Psyche! do with advanced celerity? Restart the combat. Now what is the combo? So to make a short story : Don't tell them the thruth, guide them to the thruth. Let them feel that they understand the game by themself instead of shinning you're ego. Finallely, Ector, I think it would be easier to improved yourself with the game by sticking specific situation like your Anneke deck versus de MadNet-Rot deck than the MadNet-Rot versus everything. First, MadNet-Rot is a part of your Metagame and you will have to design your deck according to your Metagame. That's means at least MadNet-Rot. Abstract discussion is nice, by those that help you to win? So, I think that a good future approached in this forum would be : Posting a deck list. Explaining the main strategies of your fellow player that are part of the metagame. Let others do their suggestion. And then, ask them how it improved your strategy. And I'm sure it would be more civilised that way! Greetings All. That's was my little wisdom Morquea P.S. And Derek, I think that you're proposition "to refer to EVERY POST IN THE THREAD" is a reaction of your own failure and that you're affraid of becoming what you state Ector is... a gutless whiners.

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:441ac3f0$0$17703$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > Fred Scott skrev: >>> We're playing Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, not Metuselah: the Eternal >>> Wait. It's part of the idea of the game that each player should base >>> the play on what happens during the minion phase. >> >> OK, fine. But at no time - in all the years that people complained about >> the use of Anarch Revolts - do I recall anyone complaining the problem >> with them was the lack of minion cards. ... > When utilizing the old AR in a master-deck of the type players have > indeed complained about some game-mechanical effects will occur. ... (Description of five-player table effects in which the neighbors of the all-master deck are disadvantaged since the master-deck player fails to play minion cards, apparently hand-jamming them with whatever cards they use that are played in response to other minion cards.) ... > The total disruption of cardcycling for players B and E is a result of > player A refusing to make any use of his/her minion-phase if there is > any decent likelyhood of other players getting to react (either don't > act with any minion at all or only take unblockable actions, like > switching seats with votes under the protection of Toreador Grand Ball). > This effect comes from the master-deck running in the order of 60+ > master cards and is NOT a result of a single copy of AR being in the > deck. This sounds like a very silly argument to me. I suppose it depends on each individual situation but the idea that I'm at some sort of a big disadvantage because one of my neighbors refuses to oppose my stealth or my combat or my intercept or whatever it is doesn't often pan out. Usually, I would think it would be more advantage than disadvantage. It's just that it isn't the right material to counter his blatant bloating and pool destruction Anarch Revolt cards. Of course, if AR/all-master deck's predator is a classic stealth-bleed deck, he may get badly hand-jammed because Anson won't be trying to block him, or won't try very hard. And his bleed cards won't be enough to overcome the bloat - so he's been classically defeated in the metagame. Big Deal. A rush combat deck should have no problem. Usually, they don't care if their victims fight back or not. If they don't fight back, they just get torped harder. Then he has more rushes to attack other parts of the table - no disadvantage there. Intercept combat decks will have less to do, having only one neighbor rather than two. In either case, any disadvantage is due to the ARs and bloat - metagame problems. Ultimately, I don't think it matters whether they're neighbors of the AR deck or not. And I have to say, I have little sympathy for intercept decks that wait around for other people to do stuff and then die of starvation when their neighbors choose not to. This is a classic response to an intercept deck and one of their distinct weaknesses. A standard vote deck should love sitting next to an AR deck - except of course, to the extent it plays titled vampires and votes down their votes. Again, this is a classic weakness to vote decks. If there's a problem, it's a metagame problem and/or pool starvation from the AR card itself - hardly mattering whether one is the neighbor or not the neighbor of the AR deck. I'm sorry, I just don't the problem here. A few deck types are in a somewhat worse position but in exactly the same way as if they had made a poor metagame choice. I think you're making _far_ too much of the hand jamming that stems from having a neighbor who won't play against you. > Agreed about Smiling Jack, but... > > ... again I disagree, for reasons I have already argued above. I could > build a master-deck today that doesn't deal out the pool-damage needed > for me to win with it, and it would still be as "unfun" to sit beside it > just because prey and predator won't have a decent cardflow. But I don't think you're proved that. If your deck is that dependent on your neighbor opposing you in the minion phase to get any decent cardflow, you've built your deck poorly, in most cases. Even when your neighbor has all minion cards in his deck, in many cases, they often aren't the right ones to oppose your strategy. Are you telling me that if I play a combat- less weenie deck as I sit next to a neighbor who has huge amounts of rush combat that I'm creating a big disadvantage for him? That's preposterous. The sort of AR deck you're complaining about does not create any real disadvantage by doing that. The disadvantage is all in the AR pool starvation coupled with the bloating that the other players do not have the right cards to respond to. Fred

Ector wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Not really. You can live in fear of Rotschreck as it is always a > > possibility, or you can play your game, accept that sometimes you get > > hosed, and not worry about it. > Do you suggest me to forget about the Rot threat and just throw my > vamps ahead? Why not? As long as you have a plan (i.e., don't do it with all your minions for naught), many players do this. That's the entire point of a bunch of decks that rely on bringing out as many minions as possible - so no matter how strong your prey's block capabilities are, you'll be able to pass some actions here and there. Many decks in many situations have to throw a minion in a hopelesse situation. The Gun deck x weenie potence (with maneuvers from wherever source) is only one exemple. Sometimes you just have to realize that your minions are not the path to win by themselves. They're just the tools. Sometimes you have to discard a tool that's not working to use one that could work. Throw a vampire to the wolves so another is able to take that crucial action. > Most of the time I need them to win the game. When I started to play, I was baffled by some pieces of advice given out by experienced players - such as "no minion is worth the pool you've invested in it, not even Arika". After facing wall decks (any type) that can torporize, it started to make sense. Playing a highcap crypt where you'll be able to influence out three minions at best has its inherent risks. No matter how good the vampires are, they're no more than disposable assets. If you give more importance to them than this, you'll get frustrated over and over again. MadNet + Rot is just one of the infinite number of combos that can ruin your day because you lost a key vampire due to your own choice - i.e., play with less and bigger minions. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

jibbajibba napsal: [ quoted text not captured ] internal consistency..I also love to imagine, how the situations in the game could look like "live". sometimes its very hard, say, imagine a PTO - some camarilla ghoul messengers knock at the door of incredibly well-guarded haven of Ambrosio Moncada and say "hello sir, you know, our leaders just voted that you should be executed, so... ahem.. would you please go with us?" and Moncada packs his pyjamas and toothbrush and goes.. but its just a card game and we have to live with that :)

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:1142605229.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think I might be able to help explain again... Your responders who you consider to be discussing a side topic, actually were responding to the main point of your post. The "work-around" explanations that people were offering _individually_ aren't enough to eliminate consideration for changing Rotschrek, MN, or both.. Taken in aggregate though, the abundance of different ways in which the MN/Rot combo can be be rendered harmless give just about 90% of the decks out there a shot at surviving. These also aren't defenses which are somehow "special". Like Psyche!, most of them can be shown to have an alternative benefit to being in the deck, whether MN/Rot show up, or not... The intersection of these two aspects of counters to MN/Rot (simple abundance, and alternate value/play-options ot these defenses) is why errata is not needed. Its not just that there are defenses, its because there are defense options for nearly everyone, _and_ those options can be intergrated into the functions of a deck without sacrificing the deck's playability... Consider this; for errata to be warranted, a card or combo should be one that is either 1) disruptive to the game in an irrevocable mannner (such as seat-switching votes and Succubus Club) 2) well over the power curve (such as Return to Innocence's raw bleed capability) or 3) forces the meta-game into a static permanence of limited defense options (again RTI, this time for forcing the permanent widespread use of bleed deflection) Arika - RTI/Day Operation combo became so prevalent in the tournamnet meta game of the 1996-98 era, the mere threat of it it forced just about every deck to pack dominate or auspex (for bleed bounce), and limited the scope of decks which could be played. Even with bounce, it was deemed too destructive, and too random, as the bleed just happened to fall upon whomever was caught with the fewest number of deflections in hand. In that way, it actually hits on all three points above (what was WotC thinking!!?!) Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Morquea wrote: > Hello > > I'd like to tell to those benevolent who try to show to Ector his > mistake and who are now complaining the Ector doesn't listen that you > approached could be better. Thanks, I've already tried approaching him "better" the first few times around. He didn't listen then, and in fact behaved exactly the same way. So, as far as I'm concerned, he can get bent. > P.S. And Derek, I think that you're proposition "to refer to EVERY POST > IN THE THREAD" is a reaction of your own failure and that you're > affraid of becoming what you state Ector is... a gutless whiners. No, it's much more like "I am not wasting time writing a long post to Ector with all the details when other people have already written out those details IN great detail -- especially since he won't make the effort to read or understand it anyway." Don't hurt yourself picking up those big words, kiddo. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEGwQwtQZlu3o7QpERAgK1AJ986zvGQiN2HWAgJDteHYzQthe1cQCeO3Da ItbrFZqloNjDw6nuPLSB2SA= =KOuf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ector wrote: > Uh-oh... Did I really cry the way you posted? Too bad for me. > I just got an impression that something is wrong and tried to share > this impression, INCLUDING my suggestions of fixing the seemingly wrong > situation. Nothing else. No, no, you clearly are misunderstanding what should be going on here. Don't respond to the calls of "whining", or whatever. Stick to the point at hand ("Madness Network/Rotschreck is broken!!!"). If folks call you a whiner or retarded or whatever? Ignore that. Just pretend the discussion is all about the cards. If you get caught up in defending your actions (as opposed to the argument), that is where everything falls apart. Like, yeah, I totally think you are wrong that something needs to be done about Madness Network/Rotschreck, but I am perfectly happy to explain why you are wrong for the rest of my life, and be perfectly civil doing so. So are lots of folks. The ones who aren't? Pretend they are. -Peter

Ector wrote: > I'd really like to know why are you writing all this. 'Cause this is usenet and this is what it is for. > Yes, I can be > wrong, and I was wrong several times. Now what? Do I have to go to a > monastery and pray for forgiveness of my sins? Is being wrong a sin, > actually? Again, you are misunderstanding how things work here. James is responding to you as he feels like responding. Most of what he is writing is simply disecting your argument. There is no need to "pray for forgivness" or whatever. Just keep up the discussion or not, and respond or not. I think Yoda said something like that once. > I really can't understand why are you so angry. He's not. -Peter

In message <1142629926.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >If folks >call you a whiner or retarded or whatever? Ignore that. Self-defeating, and unhelpful. If a wide variety of people are saying you're whining it may just be because you are. If you carry on doing such, they stop reading or responding to your posts. Ignoring such comments doesn't afford you any ability to alter your behaviour to resolve such problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector wrote: > Again, I was wrong, and I admitted that immediately after David Zopf > explained me WHY Psyche! is appropriate. If you really want to help a > newbie, spend some time to explain, if not - just don't bother. But > don't blame the newbie for "not listening" you. ... > I've heard about MN + Victoria bloating combo and about MN + Rachel + > Homunculus killing combo, but I couldn't even imagine MN + Rotschreck. > But, again, that loss is just my fault. Ector, you ask why people get angry. You said it here. You dont know the combo MN+Rotshreck, you are a newbie to that combo, but you start with wanting to ban the combo. All experienced players tell you you are wrong. You dont beleave it. That makes people angry. Frank

Fred Scott skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] It's not just an argument, it's based on experience. The master-deck takes no actions and reactions are usually limited to Deflection without a prior attempt to block. You get to cycle few action-modifiers and next to no reaction-cards. > > Of course, if AR/all-master deck's predator is a classic stealth-bleed > deck, he may get badly hand-jammed because Anson won't be trying to > block him, or won't try very hard. And his bleed cards won't be enough > to overcome the bloat - so he's been classically defeated in the > metagame. Big Deal. Sure, and there are more decks filling the role of the master-deck above in your example here. > > A rush combat deck should have no problem. Usually, they don't care if > their victims fight back or not. If they don't fight back, they just Basically agreed. Rush dependent on transients often present a problem, whereas built-in rush does not. I had to add master-discipline cards in order to counter Beast/Theo Bell decks when those became increasingly popular for a while. Apart from that the player coming with a Bum's Rush either killed my vampire of jammed on combat dependent on if I drew Obedience or not. Once again, one purpose of the master-deck IS card-denial. Don't escape combat, refuse combat. (and pray you don't see a horde of allies hitting the table) > get torped harder. Then he has more rushes to attack other parts of the > table - no disadvantage there. Intercept combat decks will have less > to do, having only one neighbor rather than two. In either case, any Intercept combat invariably dies horribly. It's dependent on other players taking actions. > disadvantage is due to the ARs and bloat - metagame problems. Ultimately, > I don't think it matters whether they're neighbors of the AR deck or not. > And I have to say, I have little sympathy for intercept decks that wait > around for other people to do stuff and then die of starvation when > their neighbors choose not to. This is a classic response to an > intercept deck and one of their distinct weaknesses. Well, you said it. Sympathy has little to do with it. Give me a Tzimisce to my right and a blocking Gargoyle to my left and I'll run laughing all the way to the bank. > > A standard vote deck should love sitting next to an AR deck - except of > course, to the extent it plays titled vampires and votes down their > votes. Again, this is a classic weakness to vote decks. If there's a I did present your standard Arika/V-cap/Minion Tap -deck as one common reason for the AR -deck to face a player with as extensive a pool-gain as the AR -deck itself. In other words, agreed. > problem, it's a metagame problem and/or pool starvation from the AR > card itself - hardly mattering whether one is the neighbor or not the > neighbor of the AR deck. > > I'm sorry, I just don't the problem here. A few deck types are in a > somewhat worse position but in exactly the same way as if they had > made a poor metagame choice. I think you're making _far_ too much > of the hand jamming that stems from having a neighbor who won't play > against you. The few decktypes include Stealth/whatever, Intercept/whatever, Rush combat with transients, (16 Bum's Rush and none of my potence -vampires is larger than capacity 4 -type of decks excluded. Substitute potence for celerity and .44 Magnum if you want), Non presence vote decks ( and it's not because I play master-cards. Anson and gang just happens to come with titles) and most any medium to high capacity bleed based deck. Sure, only a few decktypes, but walk into to a tournament and count what percentage of the field they represent. And don't say people should show more variation. When I'm not showing great variation (read I bring a fun idea that works like crap in reality) I design decks to work against what people play, not what they ought to play -- and I'm certain you do as well. > >> Agreed about Smiling Jack, but... >> >> ... again I disagree, for reasons I have already argued above. I could >> build a master-deck today that doesn't deal out the pool-damage needed >> for me to win with it, and it would still be as "unfun" to sit beside it >> just because prey and predator won't have a decent cardflow. > > But I don't think you're proved that. If your deck is that dependent on > your neighbor opposing you in the minion phase to get any decent cardflow, > you've built your deck poorly, in most cases. Even when your neighbor Then most players built poor decks. You're perfectly entitled to the opinion above. I just don't share it. > has all minion cards in his deck, in many cases, they often aren't the right > ones to oppose your strategy. Are you telling me that if I play a combat- > less weenie deck as I sit next to a neighbor who has huge amounts of > rush combat that I'm creating a big disadvantage for him? That's What is huge? If I play 16 Obedience, do I still qualify as combat-less? But, ok, I'd only put 6 - 8 Obedience in my AR -deck, and I have already stated that the weenie-rush-combat will overrun whatever defences a master-deck can field, even though I have personally twice managed to get the GW with weenie-rush behind my back when playing AR/masters. Sure both times the player started with an all-combat hand and had to discard his way into his first rush. 8 Obedience was far more than enough, but I know I got lucky. > preposterous. The sort of AR deck you're complaining about does not > create any real disadvantage by doing that. The disadvantage is all in > the AR pool starvation coupled with the bloating that the other players > do not have the right cards to respond to. > The AR pool-starvation coupled with the bloating is only a benefit for the extreme weenie-bleed should one be at the table. The AR-deck won't be able to stop the bleeder at all. Each and every AR hitting the table would only get the bleeder that much closer to a GW, so there's a type of deck which benefits from the AR, pretty much the same way your weenie rush deck crawls all over the AR -deck without ever noticing the opposition. You point at one type of deck, so I do the same. For each and every type of deck there's a demise. What makes the master-deck so destructive to the game overall is that an overly large percentage of decks present at any given tournament will be more than decently hampered if seated next to a master-deck. In difference from you I don't classify all those decks as poorly built, but here I may be utterly wrong of course :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142598659....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, jibbajibba <jibba...@hotmail.com> writes: >I share a few of the concerns and in an earlier post detailed why I >thought Rotschreck was an oddity. I don't thinks it broken currently >but I can envisage a time when you will allow an increase in the number >of OOT masters when it becomes broken (a vamp with an additional OOT >master is not beyond imagination, likewise a vote card). Potentially possible, but careful design nets you a potential safety net here. (I'm not expecting such a card to be created, mind.) For example, you're creating the card and the big worry is Rotschreck and Madness Network. But you also want to keep it fairly restrictive anyway, to give you the freedom to create new and interesting Master: Out of Turns without thinking "Oh god, that card we created, it's such a pain." So then, imagine we had some African landmark or relic that had a tradition of being used for rituals of great power. We might create a card that said something like: African Landmark A Bit Like The Parthenon Requires a ready Laibon vampire 3 pool Master: Unique Location You may tap this card to gain an extra master phase action. If you control the Guruhi kholo, you may tap this card to play an Out of Turn master card (even if you have already played an Out of Turn master card against your next master phase); if you do this, skip your next master phase entirely. So, without the Guruhi kholo, it's a crap Parthenon. With the Guruhi kholo, it's a potentially strong M:OoT device. But that gives you several ways of attacking it - any normal master defence, any normal location (typically master, but not always) defence, and any way of getting rid of the Guruhi kholo. And there isn't an outright ban on it being used in conjunction with the Malkavians, but between it, Rotschreck, Madness Network and normal pool gain, you run out of space in a deck, and it all becomes incredibly tenuous. And as a designer, you also know that you've given yourself interesting options for the Guruhi in the future but ones which can be limited by table interaction. If you're still worried, you could add or juggle with other clauses - "Burn this card if any Gehenna events are in play or enter play" (a non- specific anti-Anthelios defence), make it more widely usable but weaker, make it cost pool to play the OoT card, remove any cards played in this fashion from the game when they enter the ash heap, and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Self-defeating, and unhelpful. Yeah, see, in this case, I don't think it is. I mean, yeah, it is a good idea to realize when you are wrong, and when your argument has been refuted (which, you know, I also pointed out was a good idea), but in this instance, Ector is getting all in a tizzy over people being mean to him, which just gives people more ammunition if they want to abuse him. Which some people do. 'Cause it gets a rise out of him, apparently. > If a wide variety of people are saying you're whining it may just be > because you are. Like, I totally don't buy into the idea of "whining". 'Cause someone always thinks someone is whining somewhere. Pretty much all discussion that has resulted in cards being fixed in this forum has been called "whining" by someone at some point. This thread started out perfectly reasonably, with interesting discussion that, while rooted in a false premise (Madness Network/Rotschreck is broken), was totally reasonable. It was refuted by the standard refutation folks, and when Ector continued arguing his point (which, for my money, is perfectly reasonable, as that is what this forum exists for), folks started getting all cranky at him 'cause of previous history, and he started responding to the crankiness, which doesn't help anything and just starts a spiral of possibly hysterical abuse. Like, as goofy as it is, I'd point to the work of everyone's favorite crumudgeon of past, Andrew S Davidson. He would argue and argue all day about things that were totally incorrect, and folks would toss abuse at him constantly, but the discussions he was involved in never went the way this one did. 'Cause he didn't take the guff. Kinda brings a tear to your eye... > Ignoring such comments doesn't afford you any ability to alter your > behaviour to resolve such problems. Ignoring the off topic and or abusive comments such that you don't get upset is probably a good plan. On the other hand, realizing when you are defeated is also a good plan. But then, I suggested that, too :-) -Peter

In message <1142694095.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Self-defeating, and unhelpful. > >Yeah, see, in this case, I don't think it is. I mean, yeah, it is a >good idea to realize when you are wrong, and when your argument has >been refuted (which, you know, I also pointed out was a good idea), but >in this instance, Ector is getting all in a tizzy over people being >mean to him, which just gives people more ammunition if they want to >abuse him. Which some people do. 'Cause it gets a rise out of him, >apparently. There's a difference between "ignore" and "don't respond". Ignoring such comments is typically unhelpful. Not responding is a very different thing indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:441bee44$0$9847$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > Fred Scott skrev: >> "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message >> news:441ac3f0$0$17703$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >> (Description of five-player table effects in which the neighbors of the >> all-master deck are disadvantaged since the master-deck player fails >> to play minion cards, apparently hand-jamming them with whatever cards >> they use that are played in response to other minion cards.) >> ... >>> The total disruption of cardcycling for players B and E is a result of >>> player A refusing to make any use of his/her minion-phase if there is >>> any decent likelyhood of other players getting to react (either don't >>> act with any minion at all or only take unblockable actions, like >>> switching seats with votes under the protection of Toreador Grand Ball). >>> This effect comes from the master-deck running in the order of 60+ >>> master cards and is NOT a result of a single copy of AR being in the >>> deck. >> >> This sounds like a very silly argument to me. I suppose it depends on >> each individual situation but the idea that I'm at some sort of a big >> disadvantage because one of my neighbors refuses to oppose my stealth >> or my combat or my intercept or whatever it is doesn't often pan out. >> Usually, I would think it would be more advantage than disadvantage. >> It's just that it isn't the right material to counter his blatant bloating >> and pool destruction Anarch Revolt cards. > > It's not just an argument, it's based on experience. The master-deck > takes no actions and reactions are usually limited to Deflection without > a prior attempt to block. My response is based on experience as well: what you're describing happens constantly in many, many games. I would say most games have at least one neighbor pair where one of the players has neither minion cards to play in response to what his neighbor does nor any minion cards that he plays which his neighbor could respond to. Never mind just how things work out in the metagame, take for example a situation where your predator has no interaction with you whatsoever because he is too busy fending off his predator's actions and/or because his predator has incompacitated him to a great degree. This is the exact same thing as sitting next to an all-master deck. Are you suggesting this is a _disadvantage_ to you?!? I'm completely confused what point your making. It seems to fly in the face of common sense. > You get to cycle few action-modifiers and next to no reaction-cards. Sure. How nice! If I'm the neighbors of your master card player, I like that part. >> I'm sorry, I just don't the problem here. A few deck types are in a >> somewhat worse position but in exactly the same way as if they had >> made a poor metagame choice. I think you're making _far_ too much >> of the hand jamming that stems from having a neighbor who won't play >> against you. > > The few decktypes include Stealth/whatever, Intercept/whatever, Rush > combat with transients, (16 Bum's Rush and none of my potence -vampires > is larger than capacity 4 -type of decks excluded. Substitute potence > for celerity and .44 Magnum if you want), Non presence vote decks ( > and it's not because I play master-cards. Anson and gang just happens > to come with titles) and most any medium to high capacity bleed based > deck. I'm sorry, I don't agree. I'm not going to go over your list, type by type. I would just say that your claim that the all-master take creates disadvantage to its neighbors due to is non-response to their minion cards is highly overblown and, to the extent that it exists, should simply be seen as common metagame disadvantages that happen to those kinds of decks all the time for other reasons. If people are making a big deal out of it, I would guess that the real complaint can be traced to what I claimed in the first place: that Anarch Revolt cards hamper the strategy that everybody else puts into the building of their decks too much and make the game result too random and not dependent on skill. > Sure, only a few decktypes, but walk into to a tournament and count > what percentage of the field they represent. I don't know what percentage of the field they represent. But if someone's deck type is 'hosed' because his neighbor won't respond to his minion cards, tough. It happens all the time. > And don't say people should show more variation. When I'm not showing > great variation (read I bring a fun idea that works like crap in > reality) I design decks to work against what people play, not what they > ought to play -- and I'm certain you do as well. I don't know what this mean. I'm just saying that this problem you cite is not one that people ought to care about. > In difference from you I don't classify all those decks as poorly built, > but here I may be utterly wrong of course :) I don't think those kinds of decks are poorly built. I just don't think the majority of them are actually at a disadvantage for the reason you state. It doesn't make any sense because the reason you give happens all the time in this game. Decks that are a significant disadvantage because one of their two neighbors don't play minion cards against them wouldn't win much. Even intercept decks have a second neighbor to cycle cards against under normal circumstances and can against the AR all-master deck as well. The real problem had to be that an intercept deck had no recourse against the (old) Anarch Revolt coupled with Golconda Bloating. That is, it's what the Anarch Revolt player was doing - not what he was failing to do. Fred

James Coupe wrote: > There's a difference between "ignore" and "don't respond". Ignore or Don't Respond. You say tomato. I say tomato. Huh. That doesn't work so well in print... -Peter

Ector wrote: > Madness Network deck... rushed Anneke with Nose of the Hound, played Disquised > Weapon for Ivory Bow ...then ...Rotschreck. Thats a 5 card chain. Each link of the chain can be broken (but for disguised weapon, although it can still be pre-empted). Simply choose where you wish to break this chain and build your decks appropriately. One thing I havn't seen mentioned yet for instance, is Elysium:arboretum. Permanent, and voids combat altogether. G

talonz escreveu: [ quoted text not captured ] And has potential use against other decks, too - specially if you're a wall gun deck that can't cope with combat type X, per example. The problem, of course, is including too much of these in a wall deck that already packs Toreador Grand Balls. But if the 5-chain combo pointed out above could be pulled off first, well, that happens. Combine with other solutions offered and one'll have reasonable defense that's useful all around. Just for the sake of compiling most or all possibilites that's been offered already and how they can help even if the MadNet+Rot deck is not around: - Elysium against Camarilla fighty decks - Psyche! to get more effectiveness out of your gun - Telepathic Tracking to keep firing against opponents who play S:CE, or to get a press and a maneuver - Sire's Index Finger to avoid Drawing Out The Beast and "normal" use of Rotschreck - DI and Sudden for obvious reasons - Obedience against smaller minions, and to protect Anneke when she blocks a seemingly dangerous combat monster (or anyone that can deal agg damage at range, per example, when you don't have a dodge or S:CE at hand) Any of these will break the chain and get your Anneke out of torpor against OOT Rotschreck, and will be useful in fairly common situations. Hope this resumed listing will make it clear how far from 'broken' the combo is. Note that I didn't even consider the action to burn the MadNet, because sometimes you just can't take all your Ball-enhanced actions to burn it just so your predator can play another (this is a reason why Paths still get played even in decks with no intercept, indeed.) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Morquea wrote: > Hello > > I'd like to tell to those benevolent who try to show to Ector his > mistake and who are now complaining the Ector doesn't listen that you > approached could be better. > > As a professionnal expert, it's my duty to help people with their > problems. I could make an analogy with Ector's problems. > You may be an expert, but you cannot imagine the real situation :) Well, I was probably wrong once again. MN + Rotschreck isn't "broken", at least in the common sense, since it doesn't provide Game Wins. Finishing the discussion, I really have to describe a few things to the community just to be understood properly. Hope that nobody would ever suspect me in "whining" anymore after reading this. Believe it or not, but I'm one of the few "VTES authorities" here in Minsk and overall in Belarus, a "vice-Prince" and so on. I feel a personal responsibility for spreading the game in my country, since the game is awesome and it's free of the legal robbery called "rotations". I am constantly explaining why VTES is better than the other CCGs, assisting newbies in selecting starters and building their first decks, answering their questions, telling them where they can find certain cards, judging the tournaments and so on - it's my regular job. Our players are isolated, no game stores offer VTES here, and we have no experienced players - I work as a "missionary" in a distant land. To spread any faith, a missionary must have no doubts in it - that's why I desperately want to fix things that seem to need a fix to me. That's why I really need not just a good advices for my decks, but a common picture of the game. My vision of the game is limited to our crazy metagame, and my own experience is minimal, but I have to answer the questions and make recommendations to the people that are even more "noobish" than me. And I have not just to advice "use card X", but tell the player where he could find the card, and that may be a problem. For instance, "you need a lot of Immortal Grapples" would be a right advice to a player willing to play Potence in your country, but here it would be just a mockery. "Old players" like me purchased several Brujah starters to get them, or caught them at The Lasombra's store, but all these ways are unavailable now, so I cannot even mention the card to a newbie. All the cards I was "ranting" about made my "missionary" work here much more difficult. Bowl of Convergence, Anima Gathering and, especially, Valerius Major (adv) are extremely good in stopping stealth-bleed, especially the newbish variants that are popular here. What can I answer to a newbie with an Obf-based S&B when he wonders about the ways to beat Valerius? "Sometimes you lose" would be a right answer, but I won't say that. I would say something like "you can deal with the Valerius player or with another player to kill Valerius". And I would hope to avoid the next question "what if nobody will deal with me?" The game mechanics should avoid situations where players must play without any hope, unable even to concede - but it seems that such situations are quite frequent now. Every time such situation arises, it's difficult to pretend that the game is still good despite that. Fortunately, the stealth-bleed decks usually win at least sometimes, and newbies don't expect to win all their games. I gladly admit that I was completely wrong about Michael Luther - he dominated our games since we had too little experience and each player cast his votes only once. With the possibility of voting with some of your vampires and keeping the others in reserve, he isn't broken. But you can easily imagine his effect in our games until we got enlightened - almost all of our voting decks used Inner Circles, and changing +4 votes to -4 is devastating. Currently I think that Michael is very, very good, but one can find even better vamps - Jimmy Dunn in a deck using all his disciplines, for instance. The last causes (PTO and MN + Rotschreck) have the potential to burn a large vampire that would completely ruin somebody's game, and this can be done without devoting a majority of a deck to this. Even if such cards/combos aren't broken, they are too frustrating when they hit, and they seem extremely "unfair" to the newbies. What can I answer when they ask me "WHY ON HELL THEY WON'T CHANGE THIS?" Using the "missionary" analogy, what should a missionary say when a faithful convert asks him "My wife and children just died - why the God didn't protect them? I'm praying hard enough!" Each time I stumble on such situation, I start one of that "whining" threads that people laugh at. This is my "prayer" to the VTES Gods. And I usually try to find the best solution myself - a believer praying for something must be exact and specific, doesn't he? Unfortunately, the "gods" aren't responding, and I cannot undestand why. ----- Prayer ON Hey, VTES Gods, do you need new faithful believers? Then, please, show us a wonder: limit the PTO capacity to vamps less then 9 (or just ban it) and issue the proposed errata for Rotschreck. In the last set we've got a new portion of non-Camarilla vamps, and I don't have to be a prophet to predict an extreme frustration of my players when Massassi or Eze got burned. Due to my minimal experience, I cannot evaluate what is "broken" and what isn't, but IMHO, these changes wouldn't make the game much worse. Does anybody really think that PTO SHOULD burn 9-11 caps? Would anybody really miss the MN + Rotshreck combo, along with the tricky questions like "what if both players play Rot"? Aren't "reducing frustration" and "making the game more friendly to the newbies" good enough reasons for some erratae? Newbies will always like large vampires, especially with good and unique abilities. ------ Prayer OFF Looks like I'm completely exhausted. Hope that I won't get a new portion of advices like "play DI" (which is almost impossible to find for a newbie) or "burn MN" (should I tell a player that he *must* concentrate on burning MN since its owner CAN have Rotschreck?) Hope that I won't have to answer "why the Gods aren't responding" again. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Ector wrote: > > > Now please tell me, is it possible to defend my primary vampires from > > > the Madness Network + Rotschreck combo? > > > > Obediance (if it isn't your turn). Destroy the Madness Network. > Really good idea, but my vampire must be untapped or Waked to play > Obedience. What if I play without Dominate? The you loose. God. Duh! Everyone plays with dominate. *laughing to self* withOUT dominate. heheh. > Destroy the Madness Network? Do you think that Malks with aggravated > weapons and Madness Network would play without intercept? What if my > deck doesn't have stealth at all? > Good advices, but not to the topic. Should everybody play Obediences or > a lot of stealth? The topic is: whether the combo is overpowered or > not. Play with more suddens reversals? > > Madness Network/Rotschreck is a viscious technology that has been > > around for a while. And while is is fairly grim, in terms of > > torporizing folks, you can only play Rotschreck one time around the > > table, and such decks are very difficult to actually win games with. > > > Really? I lost that game in five turns. And my predator's deck can be > significantly improved. Madness Network + Victoria = +3 pool per turn. Classic deck design. Its not all that jazz. One Rotschreck per turn = does nothing to weenies. ~SV

In message <1142802007.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Screaming Vermillian <alexand...@gmail.com> writes: >Ector wrote: >> Really? I lost that game in five turns. And my predator's deck can be >> significantly improved. Madness Network + Victoria = +3 pool per turn. > >Classic deck design. Its not all that jazz. One Rotschreck per turn = >does nothing to weenies. And misses out the fact that Victoria can easily be dealt with - block her actions, burn the Madness Network (oh look, Toreador Grand Ball and a burn action, what a combination!), etc. Quite a few strong intercept decks also have a small rush component to take out troublesome vampires who don't act often enough, or where the deck has put enough effort into getting specific actions through (like its own copy of Toreador Grand Ball, or a few copies of Beast Meld, or just hoarding stealth for critical actions) - which can easily be used to deal with Victoria, should the situation necessitate. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <MHYSf.9145$z82.3085@fed1read07>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message >news:441bee44$0$9847$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >> And don't say people should show more variation. When I'm not showing >> great variation (read I bring a fun idea that works like crap in >> reality) I design decks to work against what people play, not what they >> ought to play -- and I'm certain you do as well. > >I don't know what this mean. I'm just saying that this problem you >cite is not one that people ought to care about. It sounds like classic metagaming. Don't work out what the best deck in the world is and defend against that, and don't defend against the top tier 1 decks - defend against the decks that you actually see locally, how they're built locally and how they're played locally. If that means that a weenie Embrace deck has actually turned into a slightly slower, more awkward Prince / Third Tradition deck, defend against that deck - even if the Embrace variant is strictly the more sensible way to build it. If local intercept decks feature equipment and locations more heavily than retainers and transient/reaction intercept, play to defeat equipment and locations rather than retainers and transients, even if retainers and transients are strictly a better choice, strategically. (Examples plucked from thin air.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Ector wrote: > > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. > > It's impossible to discuss anything with you, you mean -- because you > won't listen. Asshat. > > - -- > Derek It was all worth it just to have Derek call someone an Asshat :)

[ quoted text not captured ] it's not the first time. :) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a8829abd34edf92 Good ol' Derek. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Salem wrote: > d31m wrote: >> Derek Ray wrote: >>> Ector wrote: >>> > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some >>> > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. >>> It's impossible to discuss anything with you, you mean -- because you >>> won't listen. Asshat. >> It was all worth it just to have Derek call someone an Asshat :) > it's not the first time. :) > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a8829abd34edf92 > > Good ol' Derek. I can't help it if I'm fond of descriptive phrases evoking startling mental imagery. :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEH2z/tQZlu3o7QpERAqYsAJwKuM1e2EKa46VPOJR2JH2Tdf9YBgCfdOiW YOZCdqrvAgy1A6mS21FPN/U= =ZK53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Salem wrote: >> d31m wrote: ... >>> It was all worth it just to have Derek call someone an Asshat :) >> it's not the first time. :) >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a8829abd34edf92 >> >> Good ol' Derek. > > I can't help it if I'm fond of descriptive phrases evoking startling > mental imagery. :) oh, i'm not critisising. I'm glad you're here to tell people what they need to hear sometimes, without fear or favour. [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Salem wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> >> I can't help it if I'm fond of descriptive phrases evoking startling >> mental imagery. :) > > oh, i'm not critisising. I'm glad you're here to tell people what they > need to hear sometimes, without fear or favour. There are those who don't agree with this; for example, there's a case to be made that nobody needs to hear _anything_ harsh... the traditional "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" approach. There was a time when this was even the right thing to do... when most people made an actual effort to at least make a token conformance to the niceties of polite society, one of those niceties being "don't be an asshat". I think that time is long past; most people no longer make that effort, and certainly not on teh Intarwebz0rs. In his final post, Ector basically outright admitted that he's just being an asshat here because his playgroup is an asshat to him when he tries to defend some positions, and he's tired of defending them and would rather try to change the rules. Well, gee, misery loves company, huh... Thanks for that! I'll keep him in mind next time I need someone to step up and pass the buck. The curious part is that with a little thought applied to the simple statement "just burn the network", all the reasons MN+R0t aren't broken become quite clear. It seems to be a form of thought many people aren't used to; assume for the sake of argument that the premise is true, and then brainstorm as to how this applies to individual circumstances. But I realize that this is foreign to some people, so you end up with the beatings. It ALWAYS comes back to the beatings, it seems. Some people just don't appear to be willing to "get it" without a good beating. =/ - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEH4BitQZlu3o7QpERAnd3AJ9O/UVcknzFxadVf890Jhelh0DYMwCdGECm yl1otmM1R+J7OlbDPkR19I0= =OKih -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Actually, the most valuable lesson I learned from this thread: > unfortunately, this newsgroup isn't a place for a civilized discussion. > Nearly half of the posts in this thread are offtopic, or lack any > arguments, or just contain stupid "humor" etc. etc. So I won't post > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. Dude, That is like the usenet version of holding your breath until you get your way. It never works, and you just look foolish for trying to do it. STEP UP TO THE PLATE or stop posting without a melodramatic exit (such as above). Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. In case you are interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable decks, which is a disaster for me. The uncivilized behaviour never convinces anyone. BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I don't care. And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some erratae. I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even proud to insult them! Should you get into my situation, you'd act like me - or just forget about VTES. The Prince of Moscow abandoned the game, and his playgroup scattered, but we have 25 players now, and this number is constantly growing. [ quoted text not captured ] Melodramatic, you said? I'm glad to entertain you, though your thread 'Ectorectamy' was much more entertaining. We could even form a clown troupe - you act as a red one, I'm as a white :) Something like Harlequin and Pierrot. Unfortunately, I've got a lot of work here, and this isn't funny at all. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > Unfortunately, I've got a lot of work here, and this isn't funny at > all. Ector, have you noticed, that when someone argues with you, you dont really answer his arguments; when someone tells you, why people dont like your "whining", you dont answer; but when people tell you bad names, you answer. So it looks like, that is what you are after. Frank

In message <1142930543.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse >games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found >another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. >Nobody cares about the novices here, First class bullshit of the highest order. If you truly believe this, you have gone mad and it proves just how much you completely don't read what people write and only pay attention to your own warped point of view. You are mistaking "novices" and "people who stamp and whine and cry and shout and wail and pant and piss themselves in public, such as Ector". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1142777078....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >You may be an expert, but you cannot imagine the real situation :) If we cannot imagine the real situation, you haven't explained it well enough. If you have, we can. >Well, I was probably wrong once again. MN + Rotschreck isn't "broken", Damn straight. >Believe it or not, but I'm one of the few "VTES authorities" here in >Minsk and overall in Belarus, I can only hope that you don't piss and moan as much at your players as you do here. :-( >All the cards I was "ranting" about made my "missionary" work here much >more difficult. Bowl of Convergence, Anima Gathering and, especially, >Valerius Major (adv) are extremely good in stopping stealth-bleed, Now, why do you think that might be? Do you think it might be that stealth-bleed is already a very powerful strategy, and that it might be considered a Good Thing to provide extra defences against it. Not ones that make it unplayable - stealth bleed is hardly unplayable - but ones that give a variety of decks the ability to compete with it more equally. You know how you stamp and whine about Madness Network and Rotschreck being over-powered? Lots of people have had similar thoughts about a number of very straight-forward stealth-bleed strategies. Now, unlike your pissing and moaning, such issues have been replicated across a wide variety of play-groups worldwide. So the design team have taken steps to address such issues - by empowering other strategies, and giving them greater defensive options. Weenies are another strategy for which a large number of cards have been printed. So, somehow, you think that toning down Madness Network and Rotschreck would be just fine, but toning down another strategy that is commonly perceived as very strong makes "missionary" work harder. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. If tinkering with one powerful strategy is so necessary for the game that you have to cry a river all over the newsgroup, why are other powerful strategies immune from tinkering? Oh yes, that would be because you play one of them and got owned by the other. Powerful strategy that beats Ector = okay to be tinkered with. Powerful strategy that Ector plays = never touch oh no never never never that would kill the game and make "missionary" work harder! Urrr.... >especially the newbish variants that are popular here. What can I >answer to a newbie with an Obf-based S&B when he wonders about the ways >to beat Valerius? "Sometimes you lose" would be a right answer, but I >won't say that. Actually, a far better response would be to give him useful advice. For example, what can Valerius Major do when you throw down a Pentex Subversion on him? Hold it for a couple of turns (if necessary), build up a few solid bleeds, play it, and force a few bleeds through. Pentex Subversion is always, and has always been, a potentially strong card for any deck worried about specific minions. It would even work against an Auspex Prince holding a Bowl of Convergence. Imagine that! Additionally, let's say they're playing [1/2] Malkavians, or Obfuscate Ventrue (found in Camarilla Edition in accessible ways). You know they get Dominate, right? And that Dominate gives you Seduction? And that Seduction lets you stop a vampire blocking before they ever get the chance? And that Seduction is a top-tier card in many, many respects, and worthy of inclusion in a wide variety of Dominate decks, so they can sneak past a pesky blocker, or ensure that the block combat is against a minion they (think they) can handle? Right? Or that an Obfuscate stealth-bleed deck can throw out a clutch of Embraces and swarm the prey? Or that they can include offensive or defensive combat options until they can get rid of Valerius? Malkavians with Ivory Bows or Deer Rifles can make tip-top bleeders. Or that, it being a multi-player game with entirely intentional diplomatic elements to the game, they can negotiate with other decks on the table? And that if they can't, there's a whole host of interesting options they can put in the deck that would give them negotiation fodder. Or that they could include a side-line of offensive combat, and whack Valerius Major one with a Hidden Lurker when plausible? And he can't strike the first round (Hidden Lurker's text) and he can't stop a Disguised Weapon-Ivory Bow with Thoughts Betrayed, which doesn't leave him with that many options. Another point would be to remind the player that an active, aggressive stealth-bleed deck will look like the threat on a table. As a result, if they get a combative prey, they'll very often go backwards to annihilate much of their predator (hopefully leaving him tangled up with his predator in a block/survive situation, due to limited numbers of vampires out), and that this aggression is commonly thrown at stealth- bleeders. So even ignoring Valerius Major, you'll quite often get into combat, whether active, block or reactive, so having a sideline of combat defence or offence is a great move here. Perhaps the deck, say a stealth-bleed deck featuring Dementation, could be packing a handful of Primal Instincts and Dodge. Once you know that you can survive the strike (or not), you throw down Primal Instincts and Coma. A lot of blood, but hardly unfindable. Or for the Dementation users again, you point out that there are an interesting number of Obfuscate defences these days and that it might be worth diversifying into Dementation stealth (Confusion or Mind Tricks, say) or, in the right deck, perhaps an Enchanted Marionette. Dominate has similar responses - Bonding, Dominate Kine. Or perhaps you point out Valerius Major (Adv)'s card text, which only restricts the /acting/ minion. And Obfuscate has several of the best cards for this in the game! Mask of a Thousand Faces is played by the non-acting minion, and at superior it can be used to get +1 stealth already by that minion - but they're not the acting minion when they play it, so it's all good. Cloak the Gathering can be played at superior by non-acting minions to give the acting minion +1 stealth, and is one of the finest cards Obfuscate has. Both cards are significant cards for Obfuscate decks, and it's very often a case that a deck should be justifying why it /doesn't/ have them rather than why it should include them. They both offer massive flexibility to an Obfuscate crypt. Night Moves is a strong card, in the right hands. Worried about the Valerius deck keeping the Edge? Not at +6 stealth you're not. And for 1 bleed, it can be a responsible deck and not worry too much about it going to its prey. Setite Obfuscate Presence bleed has the under-used (but potentially usable) Form of the Serpent. It also has Opium Den which can be used to (try to) push a particular action through, with careful planning. (The similar card for the Malkavians, Forest of Shadows, sadly benefits from truly awful WotC design. Oh well.) So why aren't you suggesting any of this? >I would say something like "you can deal with the >Valerius player or with another player to kill Valerius". And I would >hope to avoid the next question "what if nobody will deal with me?" Then you build a flexible deck that won't get killed if one leg of it is pulled out from under it. Flexible doesn't mean unfocused - it doesn't mean "toolbox". It simply means providing yourself with a range of options to accomplish the goal you have. It /could/ be toolboxy, but you could also be providing yourself with stealth from a range of sources, and a combat defence sideline which is set up to allow you to equip (if possible) or Disguised Weapon in combat (if not) giving you double the opportunity to play the card, hoping that one or the other option will be available to you! >The >game mechanics should avoid situations where players must play without >any hope, unable even to concede - but it seems that such situations >are quite frequent now. If you build bad decks, you will find yourself in situations without any hope. Any player who throws their hands up in despair at Valerius Major (Adv) and says "I can't play any Obfuscate in my deck against this vampire!" is either a sub-standard player or has a sub-standard deck. >Looks like I'm completely exhausted. Hope that I won't get a new >portion of advices like "play DI" (which is almost impossible to find >for a newbie) It depends on what effort the newbie is willing to put in. Bear in mind that no-one is saying you have to have 30 of these in a deck. Why not let the newbie proxy the cards in casual games, to see if they want to go to the effort of collecting some, or trading for them? Or how about a nice constructive thread of "Hey, I started playing at *insert set* and in my part of the world, we can't find much of X, Y and Z, and A, B and C seem to be out of print. This is making it hard for me and my group to find our Top Ten Cards. These are..." and then list off the cards you'd really like to see re-printed in the new Sabbat base set. You know, it could easily give LSJ ideas of what cards people want to see reprinted, what cards would be beneficial, and exposure to a point of view from a part of the world he doesn't visit. Crying out for War Ghouls? Direct Intervention? Dreams of the Sphinx? Want to see if LSJ can work one or two into the set, and maybe a fixed copy or two in some of starters for the base set? Hey now, that would be constructive, useful and might actually stand a chance of getting something done! > or "burn MN" (should I tell a player that he *must* >concentrate on burning MN since its owner CAN have Rotschreck?) Hope >that I won't have to answer "why the Gods aren't responding" again. Consider that most players - save for erratic or poor players, generally - do not put cards into a deck for no reason. So the Madness Network is in the deck for a reason. This is easy to understand. What strategies does Madness Network enable? There are two main ones, and a third less major one (but that's a pain in the arse when it happens). 1) Madness Network - Rotschreck. 2) Bleeding out of turn. 2a) Untapping around the table using e.g. Carrion Coffin, Homunculus, Freak Drive, and bleeding each turn. 2b) Normal bleeds, but thwarting a metagame choice towards Archon Investigation. It can still get bounced, but it's hoping that it won't get burned. 3) Reversal of Fortunes. There's a trick deck involving repeated Reversal of Fortunes, to get many turns. It's a pain, but has many of its own problems. Now, it's very likely you don't want either 1) or 2a) to take off. 2b) is also a pain, and even if it is the case that you /don't/ have Archon Investigation, you very likely don't want a player to know that. (Like, you're not going to say "Nah, I'm just going to let you have that, I don't have any Archon Investigation to play.") There's also a minor fourth option - they want to leave bleeding you until the end of their predator's turn, so they can leave all their minions untapped (to deal with their predator), and then unload everything they have on you. So let's list that as well. 4) Wait and see. Then use all your untapped vampires to bleed your prey, since you know your predator can't do anything more. 4) is unlikely to appeal to the predator, so you can negotiate with them to get it burned too, and it's a bad thing for you anyway. Having a deck that can unload everything it's got on you each turn isn't a good idea. Note that if it discovers you're out of intercept or bounce or whatever, it can then untap and oust you. THIS ISN'T A GOOD THING. Let's upgrade 4 to "less common, but not minor". So, 1, 2a and 4 are probably really bad for you. 2b, you may not want to give away anything regarding. And 3 is a real pain in the ass if it happens, denying you a turn, so you probably do want to burn it. So, if you sit down next to a bad player who can't use a Madness Network effectively then sure, don't burn it. But which of the strategies above are you happy to see enabled if you get an average or better player doing them? That's why you burn the Madness Network. Not because it can be used with Rotschreck, but because the tactics and strategies it enables are not good for you. It's a nicely balanced card, though, in that it's got a built in burn. But it's very nicely designed. It's so easy to overlook, it's so easy to be drawn in to thinking "Oh, I'll just leave it for now. If it gets to be a problem, I'll do something about it then." By that point, though, the deck has crafted its defences to protect the Madness Network - or drawn a second, to replace it if you burn the first one. It's oh-so-innocent to start with. It's exactly the sort of card that will separate a good player from a less good player. A good player will understand the implications of it the moment it hits the table. Just like a good player would understand the implications of Anarch Revolt hitting the table, whereas poorer players would leave it lying there, to come and eat them. Up your game. Get better. See Madness Network for the problem it is, and help people to get rid of it. Even if it doesn't affect you right now, start negotiating with people to get rid of it. They'll see just how much extra longevity they get and in the bargain, you'll get kudos for helping them. Which you can then trade back for assistance when you need it. This is a win-win situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: > > Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. In case you are > interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since > I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". Then you really are a retard, just like ALL fanatics. I don't actually believe this, by the way; any time someone posts an insult, you're Johnny-on-the-Spot to respond. You've claimed you weren't posting any more several times, and we STILL have to hear your shit. > In our > metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable > decks, which is a disaster for me. The uncivilized behaviour never > convinces anyone. The civilized behavior doesn't work on you; you don't listen. > BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I > don't care. And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some > erratae. More proof that you're just a whiny retard. Here's a hint: The game is not all about you, nor is it about your playgroup. The game has to be balanced for EVERYONE. Which, frankly, it is. So get over it, get over yourself, and move on. > I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse > games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found > another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. > Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even > proud to insult them! You are no novice. You are just a whiny retard. > Should you get into my situation, you'd act like me - or just forget > about VTES. The Prince of Moscow abandoned the game, and his playgroup > scattered, but we have 25 players now, and this number is constantly > growing. I would be personally delighted if you forgot about V:TES. I think your playgroup has a lot of interaction and growing they could manage to do without you hindering them and acting as a source of "authority" when you really don't actually try to help them out in ways that matter. If I were in your situation, I would first build a deck that absolutely demolished the Madness Network deck, to discourage that player from playing it every_single_game. Then, I would explain to the complainers all the reasons that have been posted in this thread, and I would go over it with them and their current decks in detail, showing how they could make some tweaks to make it more robust -- and how they could change their play to handle the Network deck. And they would learn, and be happy. Instead, you choose the gutless coward's way, which is to whine for the game to be changed. You are a pussy, Ector. Just face it; the sooner you realize it, the sooner you can find your appropriate spot in life... licking someone's boot heel. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEH/kZtQZlu3o7QpERAl1pAKC2AJDKl7/Pq8fexteVfsTxsDKnDQCeJoe4 Tobuo2coD+UqhC3q39MtLg4= =91O6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

So I'm not sure why, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Ector wrote: > In our metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible > playable decks, which is a disaster for me. So build a deck that totally trashes the MN + Rotschreck deck *every single time* and recommend ways for other people to deal with the MN + Rotschreck combo. If the MN + Rot player is currently winning a lot of games, he will stop winning, and he'll probably start playing something else. This is what is called "working the metagame". Build a new deck that deals with what you see as the biggest threat, and is still able to oust/win. Then someone else changes to deal with you, and so on. Personally, I'd probably try to make some sort of Akunanse deck, to have FOR for Freak Drives & unblockability, CUB for the reflex cards that cancel frenzies. I mean, the second time this guy blows a master phase on Rot that you cancel with a minion card, he's going to stop even trying against you. > And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some erratae. Why? Have you even tried some of the suggestions people have offered? Anneke + Toreador Grand Ball seems like it'd be a good way of dealing with the deck. And doesn't even require you to change your current deck much (if at all). > Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even > proud to insult them! This is the internet. You really really need to check out other forums more if you think this one is rude. Xian

Ector wrote: > To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: Why you wrote this in reply to my post is a mystery to me. > Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. In case you are > interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since > I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our > metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable > decks, which is a disaster for me. That is just ribald humor of the highest order. "MN+Roert combo greatly limits the number of possible playable decks, which is disaster for me" is just fall down funny. Ow! I've burst my speen! >The uncivilized behaviour never > convinces anyone. BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I > don't care. And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some > erratae. > I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse > games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found > another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. > Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even > proud to insult them! This whole thread is like watching you jump headfirst into the woodchipper. ATTACK OF THE FLYING SQUIRRLE! <BZZZZT!!> <Fur flying> > Should you get into my situation, you'd act like me - or just forget > about VTES. The Prince of Moscow abandoned the game, and his playgroup > scattered, but we have 25 players now, and this number is constantly > growing. That's great! But, it has hardly anything to do with Madness Network Rotschrek.... > XZealot wrote: > > > Actually, the most valuable lesson I learned from this thread: > > > unfortunately, this newsgroup isn't a place for a civilized discussion. > > > Nearly half of the posts in this thread are offtopic, or lack any > > > arguments, or just contain stupid "humor" etc. etc. So I won't post > > > into this thread anymore. It's a pity, since I still have some > > > arguments, but it's really impossible to discuss anything here. > > > > Dude, > > That is like the usenet version of holding your breath until you get > > your way. It never works, and you just look foolish for trying to do > > it. > > > > STEP UP TO THE PLATE or stop posting without a melodramatic exit (such > > as above). > > Melodramatic, you said? I'm glad to entertain you, though your thread > 'Ectorectamy' was much more entertaining. We could even form a clown > troupe - you act as a red one, I'm as a white :) Something like > Harlequin and Pierrot. > Unfortunately, I've got a lot of work here, and this isn't funny at > all. You obviously have no idea of who you are talking to. That's Mr. Clown to you! You charlatan! ....and the only work I see you doing in this thread is smacking yourself in the nuts. Different stroke for different folks.... Comments Welome, [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Frank, have you noticed that I'm arguing with a lot of people? If I don't answer to someone, that doesn't mean that I ignored his post. Most likely that his point was repeated by somebody else, and I can answer them both. Only arguments should count in a civilized discussion, and if ten people provide the same argument, I can answer only one of them. Why do I answer to insults? You know, I believe in the humanity and just want them to feel ashamed for their behaviour. Please don't tell me that it was stupid - I know it myself :) These people are never ashamed, especially when they form a crowd against a single prey. Just read Derek Ray's post, for instance. But the hope always exists. Yours, Ector

In message <1142972064.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Ector wrote: >> Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. In case you are >> interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since >> I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our >> metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable >> decks, which is a disaster for me. > >That is just ribald humor of the highest order. "MN+Roert combo greatly >limits the number of possible playable decks, which is disaster for me" >is just fall down funny. > >Ow! I've burst my speen! Yes, sadly what it actually says is: "The existence of decks which are better than mine means I can't play bad decks and expect to win." Which is, I think, an entirely fundamental fact of the game. Just as there are those who can't understand that V:TES is a multi-player game and so the social aspect (diplomacy, intimidation, and who looks like the threat to roll the table) is also intentionally important in the game, it seems that Ector believes the existence of good decks is bad for the game because it means you can't play any old crap and win. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21/03/2006 Ector wrote: > To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: > > Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. In case you are > interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since > I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our > metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable > decks, which is a disaster for me. The uncivilized behaviour never > convinces anyone. BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I > don't care. And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some > erratae. I'm not proud of his rudeness for rudeness sake. I'm proud of him pointing out, as bluntly as possible, that despite all the facts and informed opinions from experienced players and debaters stating that you are mistaken, you still cling to your beliefs, and that you doing that is just silly. Also, I have no idea what an 'asshat' is either, but I can guess it's intent from the context. And it sounds funny. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1142777078....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ector > <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > >You may be an expert, but you cannot imagine the real situation :) > > If we cannot imagine the real situation, you haven't explained it well > enough. If you have, we can. Well, I'll try if you really like to know. Actually, I don't like describing the situation in details, since the poverty isn't a pleasant thing to show. But you're welcome, I really can describe anything to you - provided that you'll won't behave like Derek Ray with his filthy insults. > >Believe it or not, but I'm one of the few "VTES authorities" here in > >Minsk and overall in Belarus, > > I can only hope that you don't piss and moan as much at your players as > you do here. :-( No, they don't "piss and moan" at all. On the contrary, they *enjoy* things like MN+Rot. And most of them are children that didn't get accustomed to the "play-to-win" phylosophy. Your argument that MN+Rot isn't broken since it doesn't win games may be nothing to some of them, since they prefer to perform an "amazing play" (as they see it) and lose than win with a regular but "dull" deck. A typical scenario is going to be like this: 1). I assist a novice in building a combat-heavy deck using cards from a couple of starters he purchased, help him to get some extra cards and so on. Since we're isolated, popular combat cards are nearly impossible to find here, and I'm forced to advice him to use large vampires (Enkidu, Xaviar, Lazverinus and so on). Their abilities can somewhat "replace" the lacking cards. 2). The novice meets the MN + Rot combo and loses his primary vampire, with all the retainers, equipment and masters. Obviously, he feels extremely frustrated AND amazed. Should I even explain him the importance of DotB, this wouldn't affect his impression much - after all, combat deck can't afford to keep DotB in hand "just in case", superior Disguised Weapon can equip the aggro weapon when it's too late to play DotB, and there can be Protean-based cards. As I said, IGs are simply unavailable. 3). At this time the newbie can just stop playing the "unbalanced" game. Or just stop playing until he gets a different deck (which usually takes a several months here). Aren't all games supposed to provide some fun? But this isn't the worst outcome. The worst reaction is: "I WANT TO PLAY THIS MYSELF!" Surely, getting Madness Networks is very difficult here, but the newbie can just build a Malkavian intercept deck with aggro weapons and Rotschrecks and use the benefit of another's MN. You can easily imagine the metagame where 1/3 of decks are Malks with aggro weapons - burning MN would be nearly impossible, almost all actions would be performed on the other players' turns, and so on. Do you really think that I should just sit patiently until this comes? > > >All the cards I was "ranting" about made my "missionary" work here much > >more difficult. Bowl of Convergence, Anima Gathering and, especially, > >Valerius Major (adv) are extremely good in stopping stealth-bleed, > > Now, why do you think that might be? Do you think it might be that > stealth-bleed is already a very powerful strategy, and that it might be > considered a Good Thing to provide extra defences against it. Not ones > that make it unplayable - stealth bleed is hardly unplayable - but ones > that give a variety of decks the ability to compete with it more > equally. I've already admitted that I don't consider these cards "broken" or "overpowered", at least now. I've just explained the reasons of my previous behaviour at the newsgroup. > > You know how you stamp and whine about Madness Network and Rotschreck > being over-powered? Lots of people have had similar thoughts about a > number of very straight-forward stealth-bleed strategies. Now, unlike > your pissing and moaning, such issues have been replicated across a wide > variety of play-groups worldwide. So the design team have taken steps > to address such issues - by empowering other strategies, and giving them > greater defensive options. Weenies are another strategy for which a > large number of cards have been printed. > > > So, somehow, you think that toning down Madness Network and Rotschreck > would be just fine, but toning down another strategy that is commonly > perceived as very strong makes "missionary" work harder. Bullshit. > Utter bullshit. Please read the explanation a few lines above. I really can't stop the wave of MN+Rot madness unless the Rot get fixed. This is a real nightmare for me. > If tinkering with one powerful strategy is so necessary for the game > that you have to cry a river all over the newsgroup, why are other > powerful strategies immune from tinkering? Oh yes, that would be > because you play one of them and got owned by the other. > > Powerful strategy that beats Ector = okay to be tinkered with. > Powerful strategy that Ector plays = never touch oh no never never never > that would kill the game and make "missionary" work harder! > > Urrr.... Borrowing your word, this is a "bullshit". Should this be true, I'd cry about Sensory Deprivation and similar cards, but did I? You already have the true reasons of my behaviour, so why do you invent such things? I never lie, but if you think that I am lying, why do you waste your time? > > >especially the newbish variants that are popular here. What can I > >answer to a newbie with an Obf-based S&B when he wonders about the ways > >to beat Valerius? "Sometimes you lose" would be a right answer, but I > >won't say that. > > Actually, a far better response would be to give him useful advice. For > example, what can Valerius Major do when you throw down a Pentex > Subversion on him? Hold it for a couple of turns (if necessary), build > up a few solid bleeds, play it, and force a few bleeds through. > > Pentex Subversion is always, and has always been, a potentially strong > card for any deck worried about specific minions. It would even work > against an Auspex Prince holding a Bowl of Convergence. Imagine that! Yes, I know this. But we never had Dark Sovereigns or Setite starters, so we have no Pentex Subversions. > Additionally, let's say they're playing [1/2] Malkavians, or Obfuscate > Ventrue (found in Camarilla Edition in accessible ways). You know they > get Dominate, right? And that Dominate gives you Seduction? And that > Seduction lets you stop a vampire blocking before they ever get the > chance? And that Seduction is a top-tier card in many, many respects, > and worthy of inclusion in a wide variety of Dominate decks, so they can > sneak past a pesky blocker, or ensure that the block combat is against a > minion they (think they) can handle? Right? Dementation-based decks are much more popular here, since they can be built using Malkavian starters. And Kindred Spirits makes the deal with your prey possible, since you can bleed anyone. Dominate-based decks are rare, since 1st group Malks were available only in 10th Anniversary, and it wasn't very popular here. Seduction is really a good card, but how many copies can you put into a S&B deck? Generally, you rely on your stealth cards, which are disabled by Valerius. After all, we won't get Giovanni block denial anyway :) > Or that an Obfuscate stealth-bleed deck can throw out a clutch of > Embraces and swarm the prey? Embraces? That Camarilla rares that are usually impossible to find even at The Lasombra's store? Not available to our newbies, sorry. > Or that they can include offensive or defensive combat options until > they can get rid of Valerius? Malkavians with Ivory Bows or Deer Rifles > can make tip-top bleeders. Ivory Bow is good, but I'd bet that Valerius deck has more Concordances that the Malkavian deck has Ivory Bows :) Deer Rifle? Unfortunately, I'm unable to get the idea of it. Did you mean "Assault Rifle"? > Or that, it being a multi-player game with entirely intentional > diplomatic elements to the game, they can negotiate with other decks on > the table? And that if they can't, there's a whole host of interesting > options they can put in the deck that would give them negotiation > fodder. They are newbies! Yes, they can cry for help, but would anyone help a S&B to oust his prey? They should really offer a lot for this. Maybe, some Trophies. But they need to find them first. > Or that they could include a side-line of offensive combat, and whack > Valerius Major one with a Hidden Lurker when plausible? And he can't > strike the first round (Hidden Lurker's text) and he can't stop a > Disguised Weapon-Ivory Bow with Thoughts Betrayed, which doesn't leave > him with that many options. Really? Concordance is a "must have" card in any Valerius deck, and he's going to get it prior to the Disguised Weapon + Ivory Bow combo, unless you're going to turn a S&B deck into some form of "bruise & bleed" deck :) With Concordance, he will just take 1R damage, press to continue and play Walk of Flame or Conflagration :) > Another point would be to remind the player that an active, aggressive > stealth-bleed deck will look like the threat on a table. As a result, > if they get a combative prey, they'll very often go backwards to > annihilate much of their predator (hopefully leaving him tangled up with > his predator in a block/survive situation, due to limited numbers of > vampires out), and that this aggression is commonly thrown at stealth- > bleeders. So even ignoring Valerius Major, you'll quite often get into > combat, whether active, block or reactive, so having a sideline of > combat defence or offence is a great move here. S&B decks may have some maneuvers and dodges, but I don't think that a lot of combat cards may be appropriate here. Kite or Persia with Ivory Bow may serve as situational blockers, but the deck can "annihilate their predator" only with Kindred Spirits. Unfortuanely, sometimes the newbies keep "annihilating" until they get a new predator :( Especially when they stumble on Valerius: "I can't bleed him, so I will bleed someone else". > Perhaps the deck, say a stealth-bleed deck featuring Dementation, could > be packing a handful of Primal Instincts and Dodge. Once you know that > you can survive the strike (or not), you throw down Primal Instincts and > Coma. A lot of blood, but hardly unfindable. How much is "a handful"? Stealth-bleed deck cannot have a lot of combat cards. Coma is really good if you manage to stay at close distance, but it's usually a "fear card", so you won't like to put more than 2 copies. Having few Trophies, in hope of rewarding for killing Valerius, sounds much better for me. You may even play a Trophy and ask the Valerius player: "Would you deal with me now?" But, actually, all these cards are hardly "the solutions"; Valerius just shuts down Obfuscate-based decks, as he was intended to. > Or for the Dementation users again, you point out that there are an > interesting number of Obfuscate defences these days and that it might be > worth diversifying into Dementation stealth (Confusion or Mind Tricks, > say) or, in the right deck, perhaps an Enchanted Marionette. Dominate > has similar responses - Bonding, Dominate Kine. > > Or perhaps you point out Valerius Major (Adv)'s card text, which only > restricts the /acting/ minion. And Obfuscate has several of the best > cards for this in the game! Mask of a Thousand Faces is played by the > non-acting minion, and at superior it can be used to get +1 stealth > already by that minion - but they're not the acting minion when they > play it, so it's all good. Cloak the Gathering can be played at > superior by non-acting minions to give the acting minion +1 stealth, and > is one of the finest cards Obfuscate has. Both cards are significant > cards for Obfuscate decks, and it's very often a case that a deck should > be justifying why it /doesn't/ have them rather than why it should > include them. They both offer massive flexibility to an Obfuscate > crypt. All the advices are reasonable, but the Valerius players usually tool him with some permanent intercept like Phased Motion Sensor, Sport Bike, Anima Gathering or, you know, the Bowl. As long as Valerius is going to hose stealth modifiers, getting at least +1 intercept for him is just an obvious goal, at least for me - he would be able to block +1 stealth actions without additional cards. > Night Moves is a strong card, in the right hands. Worried about the > Valerius deck keeping the Edge? Not at +6 stealth you're not. And for > 1 bleed, it can be a responsible deck and not worry too much about it > going to its prey. Yes, you are completely right. I'm really ashamed for telling this, but our newbies are unable to find the needed number of Night Moves (at least 15-20, I presume). How many boxes of Camarilla boosters must be opened to find them? And Nosferatu starters aren't too popular here. But I will try to popularize this type of decks here. > Setite Obfuscate Presence bleed has the under-used (but potentially > usable) Form of the Serpent. It also has Opium Den which can be used to > (try to) push a particular action through, with careful planning. (The > similar card for the Malkavians, Forest of Shadows, sadly benefits from > truly awful WotC design. Oh well.) > > So why aren't you suggesting any of this? For the same reason. I'm playing the game for only 1.5 years myself, and our playgroup never had Setite starters (and +1 stealth wouldn't normally be enough anyway). And even my newbies know that Forest of Shadows is extremely bad, though it may really help against the equipped Valerius... at least once :) > > > >I would say something like "you can deal with the > >Valerius player or with another player to kill Valerius". And I would > >hope to avoid the next question "what if nobody will deal with me?" > > Then you build a flexible deck that won't get killed if one leg of it is > pulled out from under it. > > Flexible doesn't mean unfocused - it doesn't mean "toolbox". It simply > means providing yourself with a range of options to accomplish the goal > you have. It /could/ be toolboxy, but you could also be providing > yourself with stealth from a range of sources, and a combat defence > sideline which is set up to allow you to equip (if possible) or > Disguised Weapon in combat (if not) giving you double the opportunity to > play the card, hoping that one or the other option will be available to > you! I tried this approach when a was a "fresh newbie" myself, but never succeeded. Stealth-bleed decks should be fast, and they simply can't afford having a lot of non-stealth and non-bleed cards. To rely on the weapons, you should use, say 6 Disguised Weapons + six weapons, but they won't provide much protection against a heavy rush deck, which is the most dangerous. Besides that, Disguised Weapons cannot be played against Valerius if he tried to block the action... > >The > >game mechanics should avoid situations where players must play without > >any hope, unable even to concede - but it seems that such situations > >are quite frequent now. > > If you build bad decks, you will find yourself in situations without any > hope. > > Any player who throws their hands up in despair at Valerius Major (Adv) > and says "I can't play any Obfuscate in my deck against this vampire!" > is either a sub-standard player or has a sub-standard deck. Do I pretend that "we are the champions" or that we play champion decks here? Obviously, we're just newbies that play crappy decks, cannot find even the common cards, and most of us (including me, alas) would never become good players. Now what? We still want to play and grow, preferably without too serious frustrations. > > >Looks like I'm completely exhausted. Hope that I won't get a new > >portion of advices like "play DI" (which is almost impossible to find > >for a newbie) > > It depends on what effort the newbie is willing to put in. Bear in mind > that no-one is saying you have to have 30 of these in a deck. > > Why not let the newbie proxy the cards in casual games, to see if they > want to go to the effort of collecting some, or trading for them? We use proxies regularly, but people just don't want to proxy cards that they will never get. Who is going to trade them? We are completely isolated. Even our best players don't have DIs! > Or how about a nice constructive thread of "Hey, I started playing at > *insert set* and in my part of the world, we can't find much of X, Y and > Z, and A, B and C seem to be out of print. This is making it hard for > me and my group to find our Top Ten Cards. These are..." and then list > off the cards you'd really like to see re-printed in the new Sabbat base > set. You know, it could easily give LSJ ideas of what cards people want > to see reprinted, what cards would be beneficial, and exposure to a > point of view from a part of the world he doesn't visit. > > Crying out for War Ghouls? Direct Intervention? Dreams of the Sphinx? > Want to see if LSJ can work one or two into the set, and maybe a fixed > copy or two in some of starters for the base set? > > Hey now, that would be constructive, useful and might actually stand a > chance of getting something done! It's hard to admit that, but most of our players can't afford buying 2-3 copies of starter X just to get 2-3 copies of card Y. Reprinting DI would be a great idea, really. Dreams of the Sphinx already was reprinted, and we were extremely happy to get it! But why do you think that fixing some cards isn't "constructive"??? IMHO, it really is. There are things that can be fixed relatively painlessly - nobody would cry that he *NEEDS* to burn 9-11 caps with his PTO or he terribly wants to play his favorite Malk OOT Rush (after all, a lot of people convinced me that it's unstable anyway). There are obvious advantages, and no disadvantages, AFAIK. So why not? I can swear that MOST new playgroups in distant and poor countries would face the same problems as our playgroup. People tend to purchase only starters, strong old cards are almost impossible to find, and if anyone tries to tell them "You may use cards X, Y or Z against card A" the cards must be cheap and available even in such communities (best of all in starters), or you may just say "the card A is unbeatable for you". I can understand that such small communities don't mean much, but they may grow or disappear, depending on the support. And yes, I really think that cards causing serious problems even in such communities should be changed, as long as the changes won't seriously affect the "big" metagame. This would be the best support I can imagine. [ quoted text not captured ] First of all: thanks a lot for your time and your efforts in explaining me all this! I will try to share your ideas with my players, and this may help, but I don't believe in it. A player should spend an action (or several actions) to burn MN, and he should risk losing his minions. Also he's going to lose any chances of dealing with MN player. And the MN player would definitely try to deal with them and protect his MN. Who would go against the stream? Here is the most typical situation: Player A: I'm going to burn the crosstable MN. Player B (the MN player) But why? Does it bother you? Player A: But you may rush me and play Rotschreck! Player B: I don't have any rush cards in my deck! Let's make a deal: I won't rush you, and you won't burn my MN! Similarly, he may have no Homunculae or other ways of untapping. He may even pretend to use MN only as a pool gain (with Victoria), and burning it may leave him defenseless against his predator. And this may be true! BTW, don't you think that restricting Rotshreck to acting vampires would make MN much less dangerous, and the card would actually become MORE playable, since the experienced players won't burn it on sight? According to your explanation, the card must be almost unplayable now, if the players really think this way. Thanks a lot for your response! I'm really glad to know that somebody is still able to discuss the topic. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > Embraces? That Camarilla rares that are usually impossible to find even > at The Lasombra's store? Not available to our newbies, sorry. [snip other comments about cards being hard to get hold of] The best bet would be for a bunch of you to get together and purchase boxes of starters and / or boosters from a wholesaler like The Lasombra or Potomac. We had the same access to cards issue in New Zealand so about five of us got together and bought about 18 or so boxes from Potomac and shared the shipping cost. That may not be possible in Belarus, or of course in your financial situation, but it is possible to get cards even in very remote places :)

Ector wrote: > To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: > > Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. It's not that I'm proud of someone being rude, I just find Derek's capacity for expressing his distaste for some people hilarious. I find it entertaining, what can I say. As an aside, can we make "Archon of Usenet" an official title? Please? :) I have to say that he doesn't usually beat on somebody unless it is warranted. If you hang around long enough, you may just see him do it to somebody else and have a little giggle to yourself. Or not. Depends on what you take away from this experience. >In case you are > interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since > I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our > metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable > decks, which is a disaster for me. The uncivilized behaviour never > convinces anyone. Well, that's a shame, cause there is something to learn even from the "uncivilised" behaviour. Alot of the guys having a go at you have been around for a long time and have a great base of knowledge that you can benifit from if you leave your ego at the door. They've also seen a bunch of people come on here and shoot their mouth off and they are not afraid of telling those people. >BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I > don't care. Well, I'll give it my best shot anyways. I figure it means a failed attempt by someone to forcably insert their head up their anus. Failed because they were only able to get the top of their head in due to its size, and end up wearing their ass like a hat. Hence Asshat. > And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some > erratae. And as long as you do, expect people to slam you for it. This forum is read by the designer(s) of the game, and people's comments on here can affected card design. If the argument against Errata wasn't raised (with supporting evidence mind), it might result in wallpapering a card that doesn't need it. > I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse > games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found > another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. > Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even > proud to insult them! Okay, first of all it has nothing to do with new players. There are new people posting questions that they aren't slammed for. all the time. Second, it doesn't come from pride, it comes from frustration. People just don't seem to be making an impact no matter how calmly and rationally they present their case. I guess they figure this way you might listen. Anyways, all this points to the fact that a bunch of people on this forum wont tolerate the mode of behaviour you have chose to adopt. Perhaps if next time you post your concerns in a manner that is a little less provocative, a little more rational and backed by facts, people may be more willing to listen. If then you are prepared to listen, you may cop less flack.

[ quoted text not captured ] Looks like New Zealand is a wonderful place compared to Belarus, then :) 18 boxes??? We could assemble money not more than for 3-4 boxes max, including the shipping costs and customs fees. But actually, even if we could get the money, the boxes may just "disappear" at the customs or we would have to pay unbelievable taxes... It's Belarus, man - are you watching news? :) Our Princess, Tessa, is currently in Italy. The other player is in Germany. They process our orders and bring us the boxes THEMSELVES, in their bags! We are great fans of the game, really. Yours, Ector

Hello all May I make a comment here? As others have said, this thread has gone on long enough. No longer is it about Ector and his original post in regards to "Madness network and Rochsreck are too good" it has degraded into innane assaults on other people or totally off-topic (or half topic) posts. Throughout the course of this post, Ector has come to realise the "error of his ways" as it were, he (from what i can see) has seen that madness net, rochsreck is not the be all and end all of combat and neither is it "broken" or unstoppable. He has seen that any deck that uses madness network is a threat to the table and should be disabled as soon as possible (much like a TGB deck) yet people still insist on attacking his point of view. In the right circumstaces any "concept" deck could be percieved as broken. The fact that they are not really broken, and merely a good use of cards has seemed to escaped most people. (refer to my postings for trick decks) I must however admit with the majority that Ector is being somewhat "overzelous" in his return posts. Dude, it is a concept deck, one that someone though either good deck building or table play has managed to make effective. if so, then thats the way the game is played. If I can convince you to let me give you "just one corruption counter" and then wormwood everyones effective cap to 1 then you were foolish enough to let me do it, don't blame it on the game, rules, concept or anyone but yourself. A "trick" (god I hate that term) deck that does what it is meant to do is just a good deck, no more or less. It's not really a trick, its just using the options that are avaliable to you. Please don't denegrate someone for thinking ouside the established paradigm of S+B, S+V, Powerbleed, B+B. Corrupt, or any of the other Archetypes of the game (in fact OOT rush is really just another Archetype, just one that is not seen often) Nor assume that it is "broken" because it deals with game aspects that you did not consider when you were making your deck. (i understand that you no longer consider this combo broken, just trying to make a point) Ector, the fact that you are trying to spread interest in the game throughout Russia is a good thing, don't let anyone here stop you from doing this, the more players we have, the better for the game. (you have probably got more newbs interested in the game (recently) than any of the established players so don't worry too much about them) By the same token, listen to what they have to say, I'm sure they don't just reply to you're posts for purely self- gratification, they know the game and in thier original posts were just trying to help you. To the "established" V:TES community, lay off the guy, he may make noobish mistakes, but 10 years ago, so were you. You may not have pushed too the same degree, but you probably made many of the same mistakes or assumptions. As "founding fathers" of V:TES people look to you for advice and help, not ridicule and scorn.

d31m wrote: > Ector wrote: > > To d31m, Salem and the unique Derek Ray: > > > > Looks like you guys are *proud* of someone's rudeness. > > It's not that I'm proud of someone being rude, I just find Derek's > capacity for expressing his distaste for some people hilarious. I find > it entertaining, what can I say. As an aside, can we make "Archon of > Usenet" an official title? Please? :) > > I have to say that he doesn't usually beat on somebody unless it is > warranted. If you hang around long enough, you may just see him do it > to somebody else and have a little giggle to yourself. Or not. Depends > on what you take away from this experience. Hmm... Looks like I've got what you're talking about. When I needed to describe to my players why they should play to win, I found the old thread about it, and Derek Ray's posts were really funny to read. But I guess that the poor guy who was his victim didn't laugh at all. But anyway... glad to entertain you! :) Warranted, you say? I'd bet that different people have different opinion on this. I know why I started this thread (you may read the last page yourself), and I'd start it even if I knew that Derek Ray himself would go after me. I just desperately need something to be done. > >In case you are > > interested: all these "jokes" and "insults" are nothing to me, since > > I'm a zealous fanatic of the game, and "my faith protects me". In our > > metagame MN + Rot combo greatly limits the number of possible playable > > decks, which is a disaster for me. The uncivilized behaviour never > > convinces anyone. > > Well, that's a shame, cause there is something to learn even from the > "uncivilised" behaviour. > > Alot of the guys having a go at you have been around for a long time > and have a great base of knowledge that you can benifit from if you > leave your ego at the door. They've also seen a bunch of people come on > here and shoot their mouth off and they are not afraid of telling those > people. Are you still reading my posts? My Ego? I'd leave this thread after the first insult should it bother me. The people you've mentioned must know much more than me about the NORMAL game with NORMAL players, where everyone can easily get any cards he wants, where there are old players with enormous experience, and so on. But I live in the weird country, I have to work with the weird players, and our card options are very limited. Is it SO difficult to understand that we're just talking about the different things? > >BTW, I don't even know what "asshat" means - and I > > don't care. > > Well, I'll give it my best shot anyways. I figure it means a failed > attempt by someone to forcably insert their head up their anus. Failed > because they were only able to get the top of their head in due to its > size, and end up wearing their ass like a hat. Hence Asshat. Oh, thanks for the explanation! I'll try to remember this for translating future Derek's posts :) > > And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some > > erratae. > > And as long as you do, expect people to slam you for it. This forum is > read by the designer(s) of the game, and people's comments on here can > affected card design. If the argument against Errata wasn't raised > (with supporting evidence mind), it might result in wallpapering a card > that doesn't need it. Would you like to discuss this, then? Will restricting PTO to less than 9 capacity "wallpaper" it? Will changing Rotschreck "wallpaper" it (or MN)? BTW, I didn't see ANY posts claiming that these cards would be "wallpapered". And I may be wrong here, too, but I'd like to know why. > > I'm constantly wondering why VTES isn't as popular as the much worse > > games like Magic or Warhammer 40K, and, seemingly, I've just found > > another reason, besides the complicated rules and limited support. > > Nobody cares about the novices here, and some old players are even > > proud to insult them! > > Okay, first of all it has nothing to do with new players. There are new > people posting questions that they aren't slammed for. all the time. > > Second, it doesn't come from pride, it comes from frustration. People > just don't seem to be making an impact no matter how calmly and > rationally they present their case. I guess they figure this way you > might listen. > > Anyways, all this points to the fact that a bunch of people on this > forum wont tolerate the mode of behaviour you have chose to adopt. > Perhaps if next time you post your concerns in a manner that is a > little less provocative, a little more rational and backed by facts, > people may be more willing to listen. If then you are prepared to > listen, you may cop less flack. You know, I'm really very bad in communicating with people :( I'm too straight and too stubborn. Provocative? You know, I've never been at a large tournament. I've never seen a seasoned player. So I just cannot assess the "normal" metagame. But I still need the errata to be made, since in OUR metagame this IS overpowered. But who is interested in our weird players and our crazy metagame besides me? That's why I tried to pass the errata "in common way" first, but failed. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > Looks like New Zealand is a wonderful place compared to Belarus, then > :) > 18 boxes??? We could assemble money not more than for 3-4 boxes max, > including the shipping costs and customs fees. But actually, even if we > could get the money, the boxes may just "disappear" at the customs or > we would have to pay unbelievable taxes... It's Belarus, man - are you > watching news? :) About the supposed fraud on the election? I've read some, yes :) But this money and importing issue resembles what we do face in Brazil, Ector. The biggest communal order I've ever got in amounted to 5 varied boxes (some boosters, some starters). The biggest personal order I've been able to pull off had two boxes, and that was using extra Christmas money. Granted, I was lucky to never fall prey to customs abuse. But then again, the usual tax is 60% of the overall value (including shipping!). The disappearing happens here and there if one does order anything without insurance or any other quicker shipping method. So everyone that orders online from here is used to the idea that it's better to pay a little more for the shipping than to waste less money and then see the whole effort fade into nothingness. But the thing is: no matter what problems we do have getting the cards, most players are reasonable and can recognize that it has nothing to do with game balance. The cards are available. If they don't get here and there, it's not WW's or the game community's problem. Much less a subject for issuing errata. And I don't see how it is more difficult to get DI than it is to get Madness Network. The former is available in a starter, the latter does not. The only reason I don't own more DI than Madness Network is simple - I don't want to. :) Otherwise I'd just buy some more !Brujah starters. > Our Princess, Tessa, is currently in Italy. The other player is in > Germany. They process our orders and bring us the boxes THEMSELVES, in > their bags! We are great fans of the game, really. > Yours, > Ector I'm warmed to read that. It shows up how awesome V:tES is; people do crazy stuff and go out of their ways to collect and play it. This still doesn't mean errata should be issued to cope with card availability :-/ Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

In message <1143012422.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Frank, have you noticed that I'm arguing with a lot of people? If I >don't answer to someone, that doesn't mean that I ignored his post. >Most likely that his point was repeated by somebody else, and I can >answer them both. See, this is not thinking about how you're portraying yourself again. Thing is, you're *very* often not responding to substantive points. You may respond to a few here and there, but there's a reason why people accuse you of ignoring points that disagree with you - it's because you don't respond to huge numbers of them, or even acknowledge them. Even a line as simple as "Hmmm, those are some good points. But I want to take issue with..." works wonders here. If people reading the same thread as you are telling you that you're not responding to substantial points being made except insults, it's probably because that's what you're doing. It may not be what you think you're doing, but it's what your posts say. Points addressed - not so many. Insults responded to - lots. Number of times taken to respond to insults after you've said you're not posting in a thread anymore - ??? So, when someone sees you not responding to points - which you do on a regular basis, whether you think so or not, I'm afraid - but you do take the time to respond to insults, what are they to think? Oh yes, that you have the time to post but you're ignoring the points they raised. Good going. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <44212537$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >Also, I have no idea what an 'asshat' is either, but I can guess it's >intent from the context. And it sounds funny. :) Whilst not always, uh, accurate with its derivations and original manings, urbandictionary.com provides plenty of helpful definitions from well-meaning citizens. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshat [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 Mar 2006 09:38:16 -0800, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: *snip* >> Alot of the guys having a go at you have been around for a long time >> and have a great base of knowledge that you can benifit from if you >> leave your ego at the door. They've also seen a bunch of people come on >> here and shoot their mouth off and they are not afraid of telling those >> people. >Are you still reading my posts? My Ego? I'd leave this thread after the >first insult should it bother me. The people you've mentioned must know >much more than me about the NORMAL game with NORMAL players, where >everyone can easily get any cards he wants, where there are old players >with enormous experience, and so on. But I live in the weird country, I >have to work with the weird players, and our card options are very >limited. Is it SO difficult to understand that we're just talking about >the different things? *snip* >> > And, in case you didn't notice, I'm still asking for some >> > erratae. >> >> And as long as you do, expect people to slam you for it. This forum is >> read by the designer(s) of the game, and people's comments on here can >> affected card design. If the argument against Errata wasn't raised >> (with supporting evidence mind), it might result in wallpapering a card >> that doesn't need it. >Would you like to discuss this, then? Will restricting PTO to less than >9 capacity "wallpaper" it? Will changing Rotschreck "wallpaper" it (or >MN)? >BTW, I didn't see ANY posts claiming that these cards would be >"wallpapered". And I may be wrong here, too, but I'd like to know why. So, your point is, the rest of the world should conform to the peculiarities of your situation? Rather than you just trying to promote a house rule for your local playgroup? When it should be apparant that noone outside of your area has yet to agree that Rot/MN needs tuning. We have our own entire stack of house rules, that we routinely play with (you make an illegal play, it's taken back, and it'll cost a pool, is the predominant one). We will be trialling another, with regards failure to do compulsory actions, as well. This is an effort to get people 'playing right'. Obviously, newbies are exempt early on, but we bring them up to speed quickly. So, instead of a worldwide change to a card, as you admit, you've never played at a properly competitive level, with all cards and counterplays to consider, can you give any reason why 99%+ of players should have a card changed to suit you? Morgan Vening [ quoted text not captured ]

sutekh_23 wrote: > > I must however admit with the majority that Ector is being somewhat > "overzelous" in his return posts. Dude, it is a concept deck, one that > someone though either good deck building or table play has managed to > make effective. if so, then thats the way the game is played. If I can > convince you to let me give you "just one corruption counter" and then > wormwood everyones effective cap to 1 then you were foolish enough to > let me do it, don't blame it on the game, rules, concept or anyone but > yourself. A "trick" (god I hate that term) deck that does what it is > meant to do is just a good deck, no more or less. It's not really a > trick, its just using the options that are avaliable to you. Please > don't denegrate someone for thinking ouside the established paradigm of > S+B, S+V, Powerbleed, B+B. Corrupt, or any of the other Archetypes of > the game (in fact OOT rush is really just another Archetype, just one > that is not seen often) Nor assume that it is "broken" because it deals > with game aspects that you did not consider when you were making your > deck. (i understand that you no longer consider this combo broken, just > trying to make a point) Actually, I've never meant "overpowered" as "scoring a lot of GWs" - not even in my first message. But, believe it or not, but not all players are really playing for win, especially newbies. > Ector, the fact that you are trying to spread interest in the game > throughout Russia is a good thing, don't let anyone here stop you from > doing this, the more players we have, the better for the game. (you > have probably got more newbs interested in the game (recently) than any > of the established players so don't worry too much about them) By the > same token, listen to what they have to say, I'm sure they don't just > reply to you're posts for purely self- gratification, they know the > game and in thier original posts were just trying to help you. To the > "established" V:TES community, lay off the guy, he may make noobish > mistakes, but 10 years ago, so were you. You may not have pushed too > the same degree, but you probably made many of the same mistakes or > assumptions. As "founding fathers" of V:TES people look to you for > advice and help, not ridicule and scorn. Thanks for your kind words and support! But, if you don't mind, I'll explain the situation in detail in the other post, which is more "close to the topic" than yours. Yours, Ector

Morgan Vening wrote: > So, your point is, the rest of the world should conform to the > peculiarities of your situation? Rather than you just trying to > promote a house rule for your local playgroup? When it should be > apparant that noone outside of your area has yet to agree that Rot/MN > needs tuning. > > So, instead of a worldwide change to a card, as you admit, you've > never played at a properly competitive level, with all cards and > counterplays to consider, can you give any reason why 99%+ of players > should have a card changed to suit you? Ector this really is your best bet. It does appear from your earlier posts that your game environment is such that Rotschreck may be over powered, certainly it appears it is dominating your game environment. You must understand that this is not the case elsewhere. Just add a local house (well maybe Belarus wide...) rule. You have a lot of options, either only allow Rotschreck to be played if your minion blocked, or insist that its played at a different point in the round (say it was played after damage resolution and only applied if agg damage had been dealt even if it had been prevented) or ban it all together, but you have to decide for yourself and then introduce it as a local rule. I am sure if anyone on the board happened to be at a tourney in Minsk that they would be happy to accept any House rule you proffer. As for problems getting hold of cards (like Immortal Grapple) you said yourself that even the MN decks you have seen use proxies, so um... just use proxies. If you get some opaque backed card sleves you don't even have to use other Jyhad cards just get a pair of scissors some 180 gram card stock and a marker pen et voila as many Immortal grapples as you would ever need.

Ector wrote: > d31m wrote: > > I have to say that he doesn't usually beat on somebody unless it is > > warranted. If you hang around long enough, you may just see him do it > > to somebody else and have a little giggle to yourself. Or not. Depends > > on what you take away from this experience. > > Hmm... Looks like I've got what you're talking about. When I needed to > describe to my players why they should play to win, I found the old > thread about it, and Derek Ray's posts were really funny to read. But I > guess that the poor guy who was his victim didn't laugh at all. But > anyway... glad to entertain you! :) Yeah, should have clarified in my original post that it's nothing personal against you, I just enjoy Derek posts when he gets all angsty. Just happens you are the target this time :) > Warranted, you say? I'd bet that different people have different > opinion on this. I know why I started this thread (you may read the > last page yourself), and I'd start it even if I knew that Derek Ray > himself would go after me. I just desperately need something to be > done. Yeah, I've seen different the opinions expressed in this thread. There have been more than a couple of times that I have wanted to post in response to something you have written but mostly people have already addressed my thoughts. I probably would not have been quite as inflamatory, but that just makes my posts less fun to read :) > > Alot of the guys having a go at you have been around for a long time > > and have a great base of knowledge that you can benifit from if you > > leave your ego at the door. They've also seen a bunch of people come on > > here and shoot their mouth off and they are not afraid of telling those > > people. > > Are you still reading my posts? My Ego? Yeah, knew I would get called on this. By ego I meant any ideas you have about yourself and what you are trying to do by requesting this errata, not that you necessarily think you are all that. Like when you say you are doing for your playgroup etc. it kinda comes off a sounding a bit sanctamonious, and when someone gets all precious like that, it can upset people and provoke the kind of responses you have had. If you request errata based upon evidence and experience and ignore considerations concerning what your are trying to achieve within your local area, your audience may be more welcoming. >I'd leave this thread after the > first insult should it bother me. The people you've mentioned must know > much more than me about the NORMAL game with NORMAL players, where > everyone can easily get any cards he wants, where there are old players > with enormous experience, and so on. But I live in the weird country, I > have to work with the weird players, and our card options are very > limited. Is it SO difficult to understand that we're just talking about > the different things? What you're really talking about there is metagame. There is no 'normal' or standard game. Metagames differ from place to place even though the same game mechanics are being used. So that is more what people are getting at - not that they are playing a 'normal' game, just that you can effect your weird metagame by playing a deck that exploits the weaknesses on the Madness Network deck, and thus slowly alter your metagame and allow it to evolve. > > And as long as you do, expect people to slam you for it. This forum is > > read by the designer(s) of the game, and people's comments on here can > > affected card design. If the argument against Errata wasn't raised > > (with supporting evidence mind), it might result in wallpapering a card > > that doesn't need it. > > Would you like to discuss this, then? Sure. >Will restricting PTO to less than > 9 capacity "wallpaper" it? Personally I don't think it would but some may disagree. It would need careful thought and considerations of both perspectives to make such a change all the same. >Will changing Rotschreck "wallpaper" it (or > MN)? Depends on what the proposed change is. I don't think either card requires errata. > BTW, I didn't see ANY posts claiming that these cards would be > "wallpapered". And I may be wrong here, too, but I'd like to know why. Like I said, it depends on what the proposed errata is. I think people simply recognise that no change is needed, so discussing any changes is moot. > You know, I'm really very bad in communicating with people :( I'm too > straight and too stubborn. Provocative? Yeah, by provocative I mean that you have made a few statements that seem to have been based on emotive reactions without considering the full scope of the consequences. Just pose your arguments a bit more rationally and expect people to disagree. Dosen't mean you can't have an opinion. >You know, I've never been at a > large tournament. I've never seen a seasoned player. So I just cannot > assess the "normal" metagame. But I still need the errata to be made, > since in OUR metagame this IS overpowered. Like I said, there is no 'normal' or standard metagame. Try a few of the suggestions made here to alter your metagame and it wont be so overpowered. > But who is interested in our weird players and our crazy metagame > besides me? That's why I tried to pass the errata "in common way" > first, but failed. People are interested in your metagame, that's why they have posted the suggestions in how you can use it to your advantage. Just try a few of the suggestions made and get back with the results. > Yours, > Ector

Ector wrote: > sutekh_23 wrote: > Actually, I've never meant "overpowered" as "scoring a lot of GWs" - > not even in my first message. But, believe it or not, but not all > players are really playing for win, especially newbies. So we have two communication problems in here. First, "overpowered" means "more powerful than it should be". In this forum, it is used to imply that a certain card, combo or tactic gives you more victories than normal. Second, all players should be playing to win. This game give anyone the chance to win with a bunch of common cards only - i.e., there's no need to spend tons of money to build the better decks around as in MtG. So there's no excuse for newbies to play and not try to win - *unless the oldies are forgetting to teach that*. Unfortunately, I see the later situation happen too much. End result: we have a very high turnover rate of players in here. It's not a surprise; one guy brings two or three friends to the game, tells them how it is fun - because it is - and fails to show that it is a high strategy game also and should be played with a minimum of effort, since loose canons ruin the fun for the rest of the table. Then these newbies either run into other loose canons playing things like, uh, MadNet + Rot :D and "cry overpower", or face a serious top-tier player in a tournament with a, say, Week of Nightmares deck and "cry Mr. Suitcase"; soon after that they leave the game, even if both cries are far from the truth. Check if this is not happening with you, Ector. Newbies should be educated about the Play to Win rule right from the start. Otherwise they'll unbalance all tables even when they have more cards and knowledge. It's no wonder you never considered "burn the MadNet" as a viable option. In a table with experienced players, even cross-table players usually consider burning it as soon as possible... Why wait for that guy to cripple your predator and then come at you with full force? Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Morgan Vening wrote: > > So, your point is, the rest of the world should conform to the > peculiarities of your situation? Rather than you just trying to > promote a house rule for your local playgroup? When it should be > apparant that noone outside of your area has yet to agree that Rot/MN > needs tuning. > > We have our own entire stack of house rules, that we routinely play > with (you make an illegal play, it's taken back, and it'll cost a > pool, is the predominant one). We will be trialling another, with > regards failure to do compulsory actions, as well. This is an effort > to get people 'playing right'. Obviously, newbies are exempt early on, > but we bring them up to speed quickly. What kind of "house rule" do you suggest? Should we just assume that Rotschreck can only be played on the acting vampire? I have no power to issue such rules even in my playgroup, and I have no right to change any cards. I am a judge, and I MUST follow the rules, not invent the rules myself. I am not LSJ. I feel that I have to explain the situation in detail to make the need of the errata absolutely clear. Please excuse me for trying to reply to several people in response to YOUR message, but I physically cannot post this information in response to each post, and, I fear, such flooding wouldn't be appreciated. My "metagame" differs primarily in the two factors: card availability and player's behaviour. So, you can see that "card availability" isn't the only factor, and it even isn't the most important. But it's simpler, so let's start with it. CARD AVAILABILITY. A newbie usually starts with 2-3 starter decks. Later he's going to purchase more starters and some singles from The Lasombra's store. The card pool here is minimal, and most players are unwilling to trade their cards. We use boosters olny in the draft tournaments or as a tournament prizes (yes, I know that we should puchase more boosters, but most players prefer starters, as there are more good cards there). It wouldn't be wise just to say "find cards X, Y and Z and you'll be fine". People like having a lot of options, but they're never happy if they HAVE TO find certain cards to defend against some other card or combo. Especially when the cards are difficult to find. In the case of MN + Rotschreck, there are several options. Heavy Abombwe deck is almost invincible to it, but it's rather difficult to play and certainly not for newbies. Obedience is extremely difficult to find (you need 8-10 Obediences, and you have to open at least 3 Camarilla boxes to get them!), and the same can be said about Immortal Grapple, though there were Brujah starters for those who could afford buying 4-5 of them to get IGs and Disarms. Now Camarilla starters and even boosters are hard to find at all. Psyche! was in Brujah and Alastors starters. Unfortunately (or fortunately), Alastors starter is so amazing that it's nearly impossible to find even in stores now. Telepathic Tracking was in the Osebo starter. This card is appropriate only in combat decks that want to have several rounds of combat (Torn Signpost, Carrion Crows, Weather Control, Walk of Flame and so on). Our Tremeres are using it, along with the Osebo, but, again, we don't have much TTs, but we do have a lot of newbies. The only widely usable card that IS available to any our newbie is DotB. This card is really good in close combat decks with Animalism (ANI/POT or ANI/PRO), but not in the other types of decks. Moreover, DotB and IG hose only aggro weapons, and Rachel or Greger with Claws will still able to play Rotschreck after them (and Rachel + Homunculus + MN is already one of the best combos with MN). Thus, I can almost safely say that MN + Rotschreck is unbeatable for our newbies. Unsurprisingly, almost all voting decks also don't include cards like IG or Psyche!, as well as S&B decks and many others, even if their owners have such cards. MN + Rot combo is going to be a huge unchecked threat here. PLAYER'S BEHAVIOUR. Most of them are children, or act like children. Unfortunately, I've got some adult players that don't like playing for win. You cannot imagine the battles that I had to fight to establish PTW at least at the tournaments - once I was even forced to give them a link to the old thread where Derek Ray teared some poor guy into shreds (I refused to translate it into Russian for obvious reason: I've got a lot of children among my players; my primary opponents seemed to got the point in English). Currently they are obeying the PTW at the tournaments, but they don't like it. Outside the tournaments they enjoy the weird and senseless gaming that will never train anybody. There are players that just cannot realize that VTES is a STRATEGIC game, not a role-playing one, that violating PTW will break the table balance, and so on. They are playing "for fun", and I cannot change this right now. Now please imagine, what should such player think about the MN + Rotschreck combo. For him, this is the ULTIMATE POWER, and the ULTIMATE FUN, too. A little Watenda with Ivory Bow or Flamethrower can burn almost any vampire! What can be more "funny"? They really prefer to "unleash the power" and lose the game to the "dull victory". The MN player from my initial example didn't win that game (my S&B prey ousted my grandprey and my predator), but such players don't care. "Did you see how I burned his Lazverinus?" would be a typical shout of such "player" even after a loss. And, unfortunately, most of our newbies aren't experienced enough to burn MN on sight. Moreover, most of them realize that they're playing poorly and their decks are bad, so they tend to split tables even if the deal would pass GW to another player. Thus, MN players can easily find allies and actually score some GWs. But the worst thing is the stupid "roleplaying" like "We are Malks, join our Madness!" It sounds really funny for everyone besides me and few serious players. Some newbies are trying to build Malkavian intercept decks with aggro weapons even if they don't have MN, and the madness is spreading. I really have to stop it, and this is the primary reason why I'm asking for an errata. > So, instead of a worldwide change to a card, as you admit, you've > never played at a properly competitive level, with all cards and > counterplays to consider, can you give any reason why 99%+ of players > should have a card changed to suit you? > > Morgan Vening > Should you say "to suit your playgroup", that would be closer to the reality. Well, I'll try to give my reasons of changing Rotschreck to affect only acting vampires. As always, there are "pro" and "contra arguments, and if I don't see something, please let me know about it. What would the errata bring? PRO: 1). The most powerful "combo-for-fun" would disappear, and this would greatly reduce the attractiveness of "playing for fun" and the other mad behaviour. This is extremely important to me and my playgroup. I don't know whether anybody else had encountered the same problem or not, but all "players for fun" should appreciate the combo, and I won't be suprised to know about similar problems in other countries. 2). Playing large vampires would become a bit safer. As long as you could prevent aggravated damage (or just dodge the strike or something else), you would be able to block Malks without fear. You won't have to keep "anti-Rot" cards in your hand (or even in your deck) "just in case". And they will hardly rush a large vamp without Rotscreck. All this is good, since large vampires add flavor to the game. 3). Madness Network would become more playable. As long as you know that your vampires aren't going to be rushed and Rotschrecked, you may spend your actions to the more important things than burning MN. This is also very good, since MN is a very interesting card, and it enables some interesting strategies (Victoria + MN, Rachel + MN + Homunculus and so on). 4). The rules would be simplified. No more questions like "What if we both want to play Rotschreck" or "Who has the priority of playing it first" and so on. As long as Rot would affect only the acting minion, the first case would be simply impossible, and the second wouldn't matter. CONTRA: 1). The "Malk OOT rush" decks would become a history. Since the 99%+ of players you've mentioned were trying to convince me that this archetype isn't popular or stable, the loss would be minimal and insignificant. "Players for fun" may disagree with that, though. 2). Changing cards is bad. It really is, without any doubts, but sometimes the situation justifies it. The best answer to your question is: "I think that 99%+ of the players don't care about Malk OOT Rush and they won't even feel the errata. Most of them would even feel themselves better with it. But it's really important to me and to my novices, and to my FUTURE novices, so yes, I dare to suggest the errata and ask for it". Yours, Ector

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Ector wrote: > > Looks like New Zealand is a wonderful place compared to Belarus, then > > :) > > 18 boxes??? We could assemble money not more than for 3-4 boxes max, > > including the shipping costs and customs fees. But actually, even if we > > could get the money, the boxes may just "disappear" at the customs or > > we would have to pay unbelievable taxes... It's Belarus, man - are you > > watching news? :) > > About the supposed fraud on the election? I've read some, yes :) Please don't doubt a bit with this - there WERE fraud, terror, propaganda a-la Dr. Gebbels and much else :( BTW, even the postages from The Lasombra with our orders are regularly perlustrated here. I wonder, what they are supposed to find there? :) Fortunately, they are too dumb to play VTES, or they'd just steal the best cards :) > But this money and importing issue resembles what we do face in Brazil, > Ector. The biggest communal order I've ever got in amounted to 5 varied > boxes (some boosters, some starters). The biggest personal order I've > been able to pull off had two boxes, and that was using extra Christmas > money. > Granted, I was lucky to never fall prey to customs abuse. But then > again, the usual tax is 60% of the overall value (including shipping!). > The disappearing happens here and there if one does order anything > without insurance or any other quicker shipping method. So everyone > that orders online from here is used to the idea that it's better to > pay a little more for the shipping than to waste less money and then > see the whole effort fade into nothingness. Really? I was probably too egoistic to think that Belarus is one of the few 'mad' countries where such things may happen. Please, take care and play VTES! > But the thing is: no matter what problems we do have getting the cards, > most players are reasonable and can recognize that it has nothing to do > with game balance. The cards are available. If they don't get here and > there, it's not WW's or the game community's problem. Much less a > subject for issuing errata. Looks like that your playgroup has a completely different approach in recruiting novices. We are trying to recruit everyone we can find - even if somebody wouldn't play himself, he can tell about the game to his friends, and so on. Do you really think that we should tell these newbies "The cards are there, just go and find them yourselves?" This would have an extremely negative effect. Most of them don't have a bank account, many even don't know English, so they simply cannot order cards. Overall, each time when I stumble on a situation like "you need 10 cards X or Y or Z" I feel that something should be changed, though I don't know what. Almost all my newbies would happily get 10 Immortal Grapples, but some of them cannot afford them, and the others cannot find them. As long as this is a huge problem for any newbie, I don't see why this cannot be "a community problem", or, in extreme cases, even deserve an errata or a new card. Freak Drives were almost impossible to find - but now we have Forced Marches that may replace them in certain decks. > I'm warmed to read that. It shows up how awesome V:tES is; people do > crazy stuff and go out of their ways to collect and play it. > > This still doesn't mean errata should be issued to cope with card > availability :-/ > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Not only with card availability. Please read my response to Morgan Vening. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for these ideas! Actually, I didn't care much about the impression I make, but I should care, I guess. Similarly, I would try to reply to everyone, at least a few lines,though it may take a lot of time. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] What a brilliant link! I should start this thread just to know about it. Such words never appear in the dictionaries, you know. Thanks a lot! Yours, Ector

sutekh_23 wrote: > Hello all > May I make a comment here? > As others have said, this thread has gone on long enough. No longer is > it about Ector and his original post in regards to "Madness network and > Rochsreck are too good" it has degraded into innane assaults on other > people or totally off-topic (or half topic) posts. Throughout the > course of this post, Ector has come to realise the "error of his ways" > as it were, he (from what i can see) has seen that madness net, > rochsreck is not the be all and end all of combat and neither is it > "broken" or unstoppable. He has seen that any deck that uses madness > network is a threat to the table and should be disabled as soon as > possible (much like a TGB deck) yet people still insist on attacking > his point of view. In the right circumstaces any "concept" deck could > be percieved as broken. The fact that they are not really broken, and > merely a good use of cards has seemed to escaped most people. (refer to > my postings for trick decks) If I understand you right, you are trying to say that I should show my players that MN is extremely dangerous for them and they must burn it immediately? Or not? > I must however admit with the majority that Ector is being somewhat > "overzelous" in his return posts. Dude, it is a concept deck, one that > someone though either good deck building or table play has managed to > make effective. if so, then thats the way the game is played. If I can > convince you to let me give you "just one corruption counter" and then > wormwood everyones effective cap to 1 then you were foolish enough to > let me do it, don't blame it on the game, rules, concept or anyone but > yourself. A "trick" (god I hate that term) deck that does what it is > meant to do is just a good deck, no more or less. It's not really a > trick, its just using the options that are avaliable to you. Please > don't denegrate someone for thinking ouside the established paradigm of > S+B, S+V, Powerbleed, B+B. Corrupt, or any of the other Archetypes of > the game (in fact OOT rush is really just another Archetype, just one > that is not seen often) Nor assume that it is "broken" because it deals > with game aspects that you did not consider when you were making your > deck. (i understand that you no longer consider this combo broken, just > trying to make a point) Again, could you be more specific and give me a point? Do you mean, again, that immediate burning of MN should fix all the problems, or not? > Ector, the fact that you are trying to spread interest in the game > throughout Russia is a good thing, don't let anyone here stop you from > doing this, the more players we have, the better for the game. (you > have probably got more newbs interested in the game (recently) than any > of the established players so don't worry too much about them) By the > same token, listen to what they have to say, I'm sure they don't just > reply to you're posts for purely self- gratification, they know the > game and in thier original posts were just trying to help you. Thank you, I'm already acting this way :) At least, I'm trying to :) Yours, Ector

jibbajibba wrote: > Morgan Vening wrote: > > > So, your point is, the rest of the world should conform to the > > peculiarities of your situation? Rather than you just trying to > > promote a house rule for your local playgroup? When it should be > > apparant that noone outside of your area has yet to agree that Rot/MN > > needs tuning. > > > > So, instead of a worldwide change to a card, as you admit, you've > > never played at a properly competitive level, with all cards and > > counterplays to consider, can you give any reason why 99%+ of players > > should have a card changed to suit you? > > Ector this really is your best bet. It does appear from your earlier > posts that your game environment is such that Rotschreck may be over > powered, certainly it appears it is dominating your game environment. > You must understand that this is not the case elsewhere. Just add a > local house (well maybe Belarus wide...) rule. > You have a lot of options, either only allow Rotschreck to be played if > your minion blocked, or insist that its played at a different point in > the round (say it was played after damage resolution and only applied > if agg damage had been dealt even if it had been prevented) or ban it > all together, but you have to decide for yourself and then introduce it > as a local rule. > I am sure if anyone on the board happened to be at a tourney in Minsk > that they would be happy to accept any House rule you proffer. I will NEVER make any "house rules", since I'm a judge, and not a game designer. This is a false way. First you may change one card, then another, and finally you'll get a completely different game. My goal is training NORMAL players for the NORMAL game. > As for problems getting hold of cards (like Immortal Grapple) you said > yourself that even the MN decks you have seen use proxies, so um... > just use proxies. If you get some opaque backed card sleves you don't > even have to use other Jyhad cards just get a pair of scissors some 180 > gram card stock and a marker pen et voila as many Immortal grapples as > you would ever need. I teach my players to avoid making proxies for the cards they are completely unable to find. Yes, today there are just few Networks in Minsk, but I'm sure that they will eventually come, and I have to deal with them. Thanks for your cooperation anyway. Yours, Ector

d31m wrote: > Yeah, should have clarified in my original post that it's nothing > personal against you, I just enjoy Derek posts when he gets all angsty. > Just happens you are the target this time :) Please don't tell anybody, but... I usually enjoy his posts too :) Surely, when I'm not the victim :) Obviously, we're much less civilized than we're pretending to be... > > > Alot of the guys having a go at you have been around for a long time > > > and have a great base of knowledge that you can benifit from if you > > > leave your ego at the door. They've also seen a bunch of people come on > > > here and shoot their mouth off and they are not afraid of telling those > > > people. > > > > Are you still reading my posts? My Ego? > > Yeah, knew I would get called on this. By ego I meant any ideas you > have about yourself and what you are trying to do by requesting this > errata, not that you necessarily think you are all that. Like when you > say you are doing for your playgroup etc. it kinda comes off a sounding > a bit sanctamonious, and when someone gets all precious like that, it > can upset people and provoke the kind of responses you have had. > > If you request errata based upon evidence and experience and ignore > considerations concerning what your are trying to achieve within your > local area, your audience may be more welcoming. Unfortunately, I'm really very bad in communicating :( That's the real problem. > What you're really talking about there is metagame. There is no > 'normal' or standard game. Metagames differ from place to place even > though the same game mechanics are being used. So that is more what > people are getting at - not that they are playing a 'normal' game, just > that you can effect your weird metagame by playing a deck that exploits > the weaknesses on the Madness Network deck, and thus slowly alter your > metagame and allow it to evolve. It's not just "metagame". As long as A LOT of players aren't playing to win, or just aren't willing to PTW, this cannot be called just "a metagame". But, unfortunately, it's a reality. Making a deck to fix MN + Rot? I'm already trying to do this, but if I create a bad deck, it would be violation of PTW of me. And creating a good deck may be difficult enough. Count Germaine may be good against weapons, but a good old weenie would be the best, I guess. But please note, that *I* have the cards and the experience to build such deck, but my newbies don't. They just want to play with their first decks, not even thinking about such horrors. > >Will restricting PTO to less than > > 9 capacity "wallpaper" it? > > Personally I don't think it would but some may disagree. It would need > careful thought and considerations of both perspectives to make such a > change all the same. Well, I've already started such thread at the newsgroup. This was probably the single thread where I wasn't slammed :) > >Will changing Rotschreck "wallpaper" it (or > > MN)? > > Depends on what the proposed change is. I don't think either card > requires errata. The proposed change is in the first post of the thread: to restrict it to the ACTING vampires. > People are interested in your metagame, that's why they have posted the > suggestions in how you can use it to your advantage. Just try a few of > the suggestions made and get back with the results. > Really? The most popular deck here: take 2 anti-Malkavian starters and one Malkavian to assemble a DEM/OBF stealth-bleed. Or take two Ishtarri starters and create a stealth-bleed. Or take two Akunanse starters and make a Rush deck. And that's all about decks. PLAYERS make a different story... please read my response to Morgan Vening. Yours, Ector

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Ector wrote: > > sutekh_23 wrote: > > Actually, I've never meant "overpowered" as "scoring a lot of GWs" - > > not even in my first message. But, believe it or not, but not all > > players are really playing for win, especially newbies. > > So we have two communication problems in here. > > First, "overpowered" means "more powerful than it should be". In this > forum, it is used to imply that a certain card, combo or tactic gives > you more victories than normal. Well, I think even now that a possibility to burn almost any vampire, should his owner lack IG, DotB, Obedience, Psyche! or TT in his hand (even occasionally) is "more powerful than it should be", though it may not be directly connected to winning the game. > Second, all players should be playing to win. This game give anyone the > chance to win with a bunch of common cards only - i.e., there's no need > to spend tons of money to build the better decks around as in MtG. So > there's no excuse for newbies to play and not try to win - *unless the > oldies are forgetting to teach that*. It's very good to know, but I don't have other players, alas. When I judge a tournament, I always prohibit violating PTW, but outside tournaments they just don't listen me. > Unfortunately, I see the later situation happen too much. End result: > we have a very high turnover rate of players in here. It's not a > surprise; one guy brings two or three friends to the game, tells them > how it is fun - because it is - and fails to show that it is a high > strategy game also and should be played with a minimum of effort, since > loose canons ruin the fun for the rest of the table. > Then these newbies either run into other loose canons playing things > like, uh, MadNet + Rot :D and "cry overpower", or face a serious > top-tier player in a tournament with a, say, Week of Nightmares deck > and "cry Mr. Suitcase"; soon after that they leave the game, even if > both cries are far from the truth. We have NO turnover here, but sometimes I prefer that we had :) Even one "player for fun" can destabilize the whole table. > Check if this is not happening with you, Ector. Newbies should be > educated about the Play to Win rule right from the start. Otherwise > they'll unbalance all tables even when they have more cards and > knowledge. My situation is much more complicated. Surely, I teach them to play to win and I don't tolerate any violations, but when they are playing outside tournaments, they aren't playing to win anymore. There are MANY "players for fun", alas. > It's no wonder you never considered "burn the MadNet" as a viable > option. In a table with experienced players, even cross-table players > usually consider burning it as soon as possible... Why wait for that > guy to cripple your predator and then come at you with full force? > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Definitely. A typical newbie will just ignore MadNet until it comes for him, or just make a deal with its owner, and so on. But where should I find the "experienced players"? :) Yours, Ector

Ector escreveu: > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > > About the supposed fraud on the election? I've read some, yes :) > Please don't doubt a bit with this - there WERE fraud, terror, > propaganda a-la Dr. Gebbels and much else :( Don't bother with the "supposed" - I've worked near journalists for enough time to doubt anything they write ;) That does not mean I don't believe such things still happen here and there. > BTW, even the postages from The Lasombra with our orders are regularly > perlustrated here. I wonder, what they are supposed to find there? :) > Fortunately, they are too dumb to play VTES, or they'd just steal the > best cards :) We often ask the same thing. The funny part happens when customs officials open the packages, "realize" they are "underpriced", and charge taxes based on an estimated value 10x times the real one. Thank god PayPal lets TheLasombra and other sellers send invoices. > Really? I was probably too egoistic to think that Belarus is one of the > few 'mad' countries where such things may happen. Please, take care and > play VTES! We do. :) > Looks like that your playgroup has a completely different approach in > recruiting novices. We are trying to recruit everyone we can find - > even if somebody wouldn't play himself, he can tell about the game to > his friends, and so on. In this you're right; we prefer to be available to anyone who comes for us. This means we play in game stores as much as possible, try to run tournaments often (this varies from city to city, obviously) and the bigger conventions always feature the biggest V:tES event we can schedule (the SAC, the National Championship, a pre-release event, a SAC Qualifier etc.). But this approach comes from the fact that most tabletop Vampire gamers grow interested in the CCG version at some point. It doesn't seem to happen that much in the US, per example - or at least the accounts in this forum and others suggest otherwise. Do you really think that we should tell these > newbies "The cards are there, just go and find them yourselves?" This > would have an extremely negative effect. Most of them don't have a bank > account, many even don't know English, so they simply cannot order > cards. No, you don't need to tell this, obviously. That would be plain rude. Do as we (or at least me and some Princes) do here: tell them the truth. We tell them we have only one distributor predisposed to import and sell the game. We tell them this distributor does it best, but we should feel privileged it even takes time to deal with this game, since the customs taxes and associated costs to work with niche products are insane. We tell them the distributor does this to promote card games in general. We tell them that the store can't maintain a big stock of all sets available because of that extra cost. We tell them that if they want, say, Camarilla decks or some Direct Interventions, they should look for the singles market (local or international) or online ordering because there's no other way. We tell them that this requires international credit cards because PayPal doesn't work with brazilian banks yet (or so I hope - I believe this has nothing to do with credibility, but with the banks' complete lack of knowledge about the existence of PayPal). We tell them that there are other solutions to cope with cards X and Y if you can't get Direct Intervention in any way, and so on. In any case, we'll never tell them to ask for errata when we already know what are the core problems, and they have nothing to do with card text. > Overall, each time when I stumble on a situation like "you need 10 > cards X or Y or Z" I feel that something should be changed, though I > don't know what. Almost all my newbies would happily get 10 Immortal > Grapples, but some of them cannot afford them, and the others cannot > find them. This is funny, because I've worked hard to get, what, 14 IGs over three years of play (almost all of these I got from starter decks) and it's been months since the last time I've used them. Seriously, it's time to inform your newbies that they don't need IGs to play well. It's hard to believe at first glance, but it's true. > As long as this is a huge problem for any newbie, I don't see why this > cannot be "a community problem", or, in extreme cases, even deserve an > errata or a new card. In this vein, computers shouldn't get better because in some parts of the world, access to a PC is too hard. The world simply doesn't work that way, Ector. :-/ In any case, let things progress. As you've said yourself, Forced March came along. Assamites now have an limited DI available for them in Yoruba Shrine. Options will appear. Work with what you have. V:tES has so many options one can use, just make it optimal to your metagame and voilà. > Not only with card availability. Please read my response to Morgan > Vening. > Yours, > Ector I saw that. But frankly, the V:tES worldwide has nothing to do with childish behaviour and such things. Even if it had, errata to Rotschreck or whatever card they're using in a childish manner won't be the answer. They'll just find a new "fun combo" to work in and use it inconsequently. Believe me, it happens all the time in here too. Just a few hours later, I was arguing how No Secrets from the Magaji is far from "overpowered" on a local mailing list (which I think is a side-effect of too many players underestimating "block fails" cards, but that's another topic.) At most, we can advise a bit about how to overcome it, though I'm hardly the one to do that - if I really knew how to turn over this kind of people, I'd try it myself in here, specially in my city. But I've come to accept that I'll have to deal with childish behaviour all the time, even when playing against adults. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Ector wrote: > > If I understand you right, you are trying to say that I should show my > players that MN is extremely dangerous for them and they must burn it > immediately? Or not? > Yes Ector, that is my point. Any card which enables any deck to win or perform better should be stopped. If it only affects predator or prey, then let them deal with it between themselves or make deals to get rid of the "offending" card. If it has the ability to affect the whole table then everyone should do something about it. > >> Again, could you be more specific and give me a point? Do you mean, > again, that immediate burning of MN should fix all the problems, or > not? > Point 1: Madness Network is a deck enableing card. Point 2: It can affect other players besides the normal pedator/prey. Point 3: Removing the Madness Network will not solve all your problems but it will eliminate OOT rush. > > Sutekh_23

Ector escreveu: > Well, I think even now that a possibility to burn almost any vampire, > should his owner lack IG, DotB, Obedience, Psyche! or TT in his hand > (even occasionally) is "more powerful than it should be", though it may > not be directly connected to winning the game. I won't repeat what everyone told you about this anymore - there's still plenty of options beside these cards et al. But consider this: vampires get burned all the time. It doesn't require a combo such as MadNet + Rot. A single Claws of the Dead at the right time can be enough to torporize, and the diablerie that follows could happen either way. So think about having the right card at the right moment within your possibilities, there are ways to achieve that. No need to stuff your deck with staple X or Y, available or not. Also think about your personal insistence on playing big caps only when all of them are inherently subject to such things. I've seen Sadie torporize Enkidu. It just took her a Flesh of Marble and a Claws. Shit happens. > It's very good to know, but I don't have other players, alas. When I > judge a tournament, I always prohibit violating PTW, but outside > tournaments they just don't listen me. Well, then accept it. Dont' get me wrong, I see where are you're coming from; we have our share of immature players around. There's nothing that we can do. Errata won't change their behaviour anyway. > We have NO turnover here, but sometimes I prefer that we had :) Even > one "player for fun" can destabilize the whole table. People often get confused when drawing the line between "playing for fun" and "playing to win"; that's because this game doesn't really *require a line to be drawn* in fact, both things mix very well indeed. Most of the time, they draw the line in that point where they don't want to devote any more thinking into their game style - i.e., it's just a way to deny their own incompetence at deckbuilding or unwillingness to try a clan they don't like in tabletop or any other similar poor excuse. The only solution to this is to let them suffer the consequences and wait. A lot of players noted how bad this is when they ended up in front of a loose canon who was "playing for fun" in a way that gave a third party an easy GW. Take your time, your players will realize that on their own. It's easier to set aside your concerns and wait for that moment you can come and say "I told you so!". It's also more satisfying ;) > My situation is much more complicated. Surely, I teach them to play to > win and I don't tolerate any violations, but when they are playing > outside tournaments, they aren't playing to win anymore. There are MANY > "players for fun", alas. I say, let'em. Many playgroups start that way and stay that way for a while. Let them have their fun with unreliable combos such as MadNet + Rot in casual play. Then build a stealth bleed deck or a Ventrue vote one and oust them with cross-table KRC in a tournament. It's easy to justify that; say that you can't afford Arika going to torpor, so it's better to get rid of that MadNet deck as soon as possible. You are playing to win. They'll see that the deck is fun but nothing else. If they don't take the hint, well, it doesn't matter since you ended up winning the table anyway ;) > Definitely. A typical newbie will just ignore MadNet until it comes for > him, or just make a deal with its owner, and so on. But where should I > find the "experienced players"? :) > Yours, > Ector Unfortunately, you'll have to try and wait for them to become these "experienced players". In that regard, there's nothing else we can do. Continue playing and hope they get the hints. Heck, there's still playgroups around the world that impose a card limit to their fellows, no matter how many evidence exists on how this detracts from the game. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I never ask for anything when I know "the other solutions" myself - at least the solutions available to my newbies. The best possible solution against MN + Rot would be "don't play large vampires". But I'm not going to tell a newbie that he must throw his deck away and build another just to avoid the threat. > In any case, we'll never tell them to ask for errata when we already > know what are the core problems, and they have nothing to do with card > text. My players aren't asking for an errata - only I do. And you know why. As you should guess that part of them are extremely happy about the combo, and they would use any chance to get MadNets. Yes, I know that with the ideal players changing card text won't be needed, but actually, changing the text seems much more easy than changing the people. After all, the whole Communist idea was founded on the presume that "true communists" would have "true communistic requirements" - and it was just a pure utopia. > > > Overall, each time when I stumble on a situation like "you need 10 > > cards X or Y or Z" I feel that something should be changed, though I > > don't know what. Almost all my newbies would happily get 10 Immortal > > Grapples, but some of them cannot afford them, and the others cannot > > find them. > > This is funny, because I've worked hard to get, what, 14 IGs over three > years of play (almost all of these I got from starter decks) and it's > been months since the last time I've used them. > > Seriously, it's time to inform your newbies that they don't need IGs to > play well. It's hard to believe at first glance, but it's true. I've worked hard to get 12 IGs for a 1.5 years. I'm a fanatic :) Surely, my players can play without IGs, as long as they aren't going to play Rush decks based on Potence :) Rush decks are difficult enough to play even for experienced players, but wasting rush actions and getting Majesty isn't going to lead anywhere. > > > As long as this is a huge problem for any newbie, I don't see why this > > cannot be "a community problem", or, in extreme cases, even deserve an > > errata or a new card. > > In this vein, computers shouldn't get better because in some parts of > the world, access to a PC is too hard. > The world simply doesn't work that way, Ector. :-/ Really? Look, Belarus is a small country, most people speak Russian, and almost nobody uses the legal software here, but Microsoft still made a Byelorussian version of Windows. This is what I call "a good support". And "the world simply doesn't work that way" is a clear sign of a bad support, IMHO. > In any case, let things progress. As you've said yourself, Forced March > came along. Assamites now have an limited DI available for them in > Yoruba Shrine. Options will appear. Work with what you have. V:tES has > so many options one can use, just make it optimal to your metagame and > voilà. I will work anyway - did I 'threat' to stop working? But, really, when I get into a desperate situation, I need some more than a few inspiring words like yours. > > > Not only with card availability. Please read my response to Morgan > > Vening. > > Yours, > > Ector > > I saw that. But frankly, the V:tES worldwide has nothing to do with > childish behaviour and such things. Even if it had, errata to > Rotschreck or whatever card they're using in a childish manner won't be > the answer. They'll just find a new "fun combo" to work in and use it > inconsequently. Believe me, it happens all the time in here too. Just a > few hours later, I was arguing how No Secrets from the Magaji is far > from "overpowered" on a local mailing list (which I think is a > side-effect of too many players underestimating "block fails" cards, > but that's another topic.) > > At most, we can advise a bit about how to overcome it, though I'm > hardly the one to do that - if I really knew how to turn over this kind > of people, I'd try it myself in here, specially in my city. But I've > come to accept that I'll have to deal with childish behaviour all the > time, even when playing against adults. > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Generally, the best way against such players and habits is openly stating that their behaviour is stupid and childish. If that isn't enough, and there are enough normal players, they should to oust the crazy players first, and this makes them think about becoming normal themselves. But if there aren't enough normal players, things are much more difficult. When I play with one stubborn "play-to-fun" player and two newbies I have no chance of "punishing" a bad play. His chances of making the newbies work for him are much higher than mine, as he can pass the GW to another player, but I cannot. This way, he can easily demostrate that his "vision on the game" is "better" than mine. Madness Network is especially nasty in such situations, since it can be exploited by another players, too - and Malks are very popular here. Performing a successful MN + Rotschreck rush will inevitably impress the newbies much more than a regular Game Win. You can see yourself that fixing Rotshreck would be a great help for developing a serious approach to the game in our community. And I just cannot wait and "hope that everything would be OK". Yours, Ector

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > > PLAYER'S BEHAVIOUR. Most of them are children, or act like children. > Unfortunately, I've got some adult players that don't like playing for > win....A little Watenda with Ivory Bow or Flamethrower can burn > almost any vampire! What can be more "funny"? They really prefer to > "unleash the power" and lose the game to the "dull victory". The MN > player from my initial example didn't win that game (my S&B prey ousted > my grandprey and my predator), but such players don't care. ... > But the worst thing is the stupid "roleplaying" like "We are Malks, > join our Madness!" It sounds really funny for everyone besides me and > few serious players. ...I really have to stop > it, and this is the primary reason why I'm asking for an errata. WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You have identified the problem; it is your players. Until you get rid of the immature players, you will never be able to play V:TES in the fashion you wish. And yes, you must get rid of them. Either they change, or they go -- there's no room for inbetween, especially in an environment where you're trying to teach new players who _are_ interested in playing it as a strategic game. No errata should EVER be issued to correct player behavior. That is a personal issue and MUST be dealt with on a personal basis. Sorry, but this is the way it MUST be. You are just wrong here, Ector, and you are extremely selfish to intimate that the rest of the world should even consider changing because of your problems. > Most of them would even feel themselves better with it. But it's really > important to me and to my novices, > and to my FUTURE novices, so yes, I dare to suggest the errata and ask > for it". You need a good cockpunch to bring you back to reality. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEI/NltQZlu3o7QpERArXkAKDbwtFeTVuonmEFigmcVNfBcKx/gQCg5SDS Li6OhRWel20qH5PL3fDXau8= =N9jx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > You need a good cockpunch to bring you back to reality. Nah a cockpunch is too weak, you need its bigger brother - the "Running Bollock Punt" -Anthony

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Ector escreveu: > > Well, I think even now that a possibility to burn almost any vampire, > > should his owner lack IG, DotB, Obedience, Psyche! or TT in his hand > > (even occasionally) is "more powerful than it should be", though it may > > not be directly connected to winning the game. > > I won't repeat what everyone told you about this anymore - there's > still plenty of options beside these cards et al. Well, if you count "don't play large vampires" and "burn MN on sight" as options... > But consider this: vampires get burned all the time. It doesn't require > a combo such as MadNet + Rot. A single Claws of the Dead at the right > time can be enough to torporize, and the diablerie that follows could > happen either way. > So think about having the right card at the right moment within your > possibilities, there are ways to achieve that. No need to stuff your > deck with staple X or Y, available or not. Also think about your > personal insistence on playing big caps only when all of them are > inherently subject to such things. I've seen Sadie torporize Enkidu. It > just took her a Flesh of Marble and a Claws. Shit happens. There is a HUGE difference between "shit happens" and "shit is very likely to happen". Sadie could torporize Enkidu even without Flesh of Marble, because Enkidu has only inferior Fortitude, and it's usually difficult enough to protect him. This is normal - and this may happen a lot of times. Guess why almost all Enkidu builds include Guardian Angels? I'd be much more impressed if Sadie torporized Xaviar, with his automatic damage prevention and superior Fortitude. Or Jalan-Aajav that can treat aggravated damage as normal. This would be really "shit happens". But when a 3-cap vamp can torporize almost any vampire at least 50% of the time - this is a whole river of shit :) > > > It's very good to know, but I don't have other players, alas. When I > > judge a tournament, I always prohibit violating PTW, but outside > > tournaments they just don't listen me. > > Well, then accept it. Dont' get me wrong, I see where are you're coming > from; we have our share of immature players around. There's nothing > that we can do. Errata won't change their behaviour anyway. It woudn't change their behaviour, but it would prevent converting new players to the similar "players for fun". Being isolated, these players would be forced to change their behaviour. > > > We have NO turnover here, but sometimes I prefer that we had :) Even > > one "player for fun" can destabilize the whole table. > > People often get confused when drawing the line between "playing for > fun" and "playing to win"; that's because this game doesn't really > *require a line to be drawn* in fact, both things mix very well indeed. > Most of the time, they draw the line in that point where they don't > want to devote any more thinking into their game style - i.e., it's > just a way to deny their own incompetence at deckbuilding or > unwillingness to try a clan they don't like in tabletop or any other > similar poor excuse. > > The only solution to this is to let them suffer the consequences and > wait. A lot of players noted how bad this is when they ended up in > front of a loose canon who was "playing for fun" in a way that gave a > third party an easy GW. Take your time, your players will realize that > on their own. It's easier to set aside your concerns and wait for that > moment you can come and say "I told you so!". It's also more satisfying > ;) Seems that you don't undestand me. "I told you so!" ? What must happen to say this? If somebody doesn't care about losing? If the majority of my players would be normal, we could try to fix the madness. Currently it's more likely that the madness will overwhelm us, and THEY are going to say "I told you so!". > > > My situation is much more complicated. Surely, I teach them to play to > > win and I don't tolerate any violations, but when they are playing > > outside tournaments, they aren't playing to win anymore. There are MANY > > "players for fun", alas. > > I say, let'em. Many playgroups start that way and stay that way for a > while. Let them have their fun with unreliable combos such as MadNet + > Rot in casual play. > Then build a stealth bleed deck or a Ventrue vote one and oust them > with cross-table KRC in a tournament. It's easy to justify that; say > that you can't afford Arika going to torpor, so it's better to get rid > of that MadNet deck as soon as possible. You are playing to win. > They'll see that the deck is fun but nothing else. If they don't take > the hint, well, it doesn't matter since you ended up winning the table > anyway ;) But, firstly, they don't need anything except for fun. And, secondly, it's likely that they would attact the newbies on their side and win the games themselves. > > > Definitely. A typical newbie will just ignore MadNet until it comes for > > him, or just make a deal with its owner, and so on. But where should I > > find the "experienced players"? :) > > Yours, > > Ector > > Unfortunately, you'll have to try and wait for them to become these > "experienced players". In that regard, there's nothing else we can do. > Continue playing and hope they get the hints. > > Heck, there's still playgroups around the world that impose a card > limit to their fellows, no matter how many evidence exists on how this > detracts from the game. > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Fabio, if I would just wait, they will never become "experienced players". They will just degrade the game to a level of a stupid pastime, and they would enjoy it. The very fact of applying the errata would already show them that the world community is really interested in their progress and the experienced players don't like the "playing not for win" behaviour. Yours, Ector.

Ector wrote: > I never ask for anything when I know "the other solutions" myself - at > least the solutions available to my newbies. The best possible solution > against MN + Rot would be "don't play large vampires". But I'm not > going to tell a newbie that he must throw his deck away and build > another just to avoid the threat. Nice, because that's not what you should tell either. What you should tell is: "if you want to play with a big star vampire, that's ok, but accept that a stroke of bad luck can ruin your game". Still, you didn't address what makes MadNet + Rot different from, say, a Gangrel predator rushing your bigcap and playing Claws in that one turn you happen to lack the proper defense (whatever it is) at hand. It *seems* different because one is a specific combo and the other is just one card that most decks of that clan use, but in fact the problem is the same: the more you invest, the more you can lose. It's simple economics ;) > My players aren't asking for an errata - only I do. And you know why. I know, I just can't believe it. Seriously - are you really asking that errata should be issued to cope with problems like local card availability, player behaviour and such things? > As you should guess that part of them are extremely happy about the > combo, and they would use any chance to get MadNets. Yes, I know that > with the ideal players changing card text won't be needed, but > actually, changing the text seems much more easy than changing the > people. It isn't. Changing card text is an earth-shaking thing (in regard to the game community). Changing players is a local thing. > I've worked hard to get 12 IGs for a 1.5 years. I'm a fanatic :) > Surely, my players can play without IGs, as long as they aren't going > to play Rush decks based on Potence :) You can always try flung junk tech :) And yeah, if they want to play rush decks based on Potence, they should try and get IGs. If they can't, they'll have to accept the fact that S:CE will ruin their day. > > In this vein, computers shouldn't get better because in some parts of > > the world, access to a PC is too hard. > > The world simply doesn't work that way, Ector. :-/ > Really? Look, Belarus is a small country, most people speak Russian, > and almost nobody uses the legal software here, but Microsoft still > made a Byelorussian version of Windows. This is what I call "a good > support". This is not the same thing. Are you suggesting WW should issue localized errata? Say, an errata that works only on country X? That would be the same thing in your analogy. > But if there aren't enough normal players, things are much more > difficult. When I play with one stubborn "play-to-fun" player and two > newbies I have no chance of "punishing" a bad play. You have. Just build decks for that sole purpose. > You can see yourself that fixing Rotshreck would be a great help for > developing a serious approach to the game in our community. No, I can't see that. And I just > cannot wait and "hope that everything would be OK". > Yours, > Ector *Sigh* You were given more than just a handful of things to do instead of crying for errata, not just "wait and hope everything will be OK". In fact, *everything is OK*. MadNet + Rot allowing a chain of 5 cards to torporize a bigcap *is OK, common, and expected in this game*! I've tried and tried to be sympathetic with you Ector, even from the point of view of a member of a playgroup that can't get that many cards also. But your stubborn behaviour and consistent dodging of crucial questions are hard to deal with. I quit. Fabio "Sooner" macedo

In message <1143159919.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >I will NEVER make any "house rules", since I'm a judge, and not a game >designer. Then why are you qualified to suggest errata? Isn't that what game designers do? If you can suggest errata, you can suggest house rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I can SUGGEST an errata, but the designer should decide whether it's appropriate or not. If I suggest a house rule, nobody would accept it here, since house rules are BAD, and everyone understands it, including myself. The game must have the same rules everywhere. Yours, Ector

In article <EqudnWE94Y36br7Z...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > You need a good cockpunch to bring you back to reality. > > - -- > Derek You're inspirational. I never knew there were so many words containing "cock" and "ass" in the english language. :) -- Charles Lechasseur daremo...@syspammpatitrapco.ca

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Ector wrote: > > I never ask for anything when I know "the other solutions" myself - at > > least the solutions available to my newbies. The best possible solution > > against MN + Rot would be "don't play large vampires". But I'm not > > going to tell a newbie that he must throw his deck away and build > > another just to avoid the threat. > > Nice, because that's not what you should tell either. > > What you should tell is: "if you want to play with a big star vampire, > that's ok, but accept that a stroke of bad luck can ruin your game". > > Still, you didn't address what makes MadNet + Rot different from, say, > a Gangrel predator rushing your bigcap and playing Claws in that one > turn you happen to lack the proper defense (whatever it is) at hand. > > It *seems* different because one is a specific combo and the other is > just one card that most decks of that clan use, but in fact the problem > is the same: the more you invest, the more you can lose. It's simple > economics ;) Aggro damage can be prevented, and Gangrels usually have only Dog Pack to deal with Combat Ends (and only presses and Scorpion Stings) to deal with dodges. There are MUCH more solutions against Claws than against MN + Rot, especially here. Some clans like Ventrue even have no solutions at all (except for strange cards like Tranquility). "Accept a bad luck", you said? Yes, they can consider it as a "bad luck" should it happen, say 10% of the time. But currently it's much more. > > > My players aren't asking for an errata - only I do. And you know why. > > I know, I just can't believe it. Seriously - are you really asking that > errata should be issued to cope with problems like local card > availability, player behaviour and such things? If I can understand you right, I should get that my local problems are nothing to the community, and I should deal with them myself. At least I didn't notice any argument against the proposed errata - but looks like I shouldn't propose any erratae at all, since my problems are only my problems. OK, I will do my best. > > > As you should guess that part of them are extremely happy about the > > combo, and they would use any chance to get MadNets. Yes, I know that > > with the ideal players changing card text won't be needed, but > > actually, changing the text seems much more easy than changing the > > people. > > It isn't. Changing card text is an earth-shaking thing (in regard to > the game community). Changing players is a local thing. Changing Rotschreck wouldn't shake anything, except for the long-forgotten (I presume) Malk OOT rush. But I already got your lesson, thanks a lot, and I don't expect any serious help anymore. Local things, you know... > > > > In this vein, computers shouldn't get better because in some parts of > > > the world, access to a PC is too hard. > > > The world simply doesn't work that way, Ector. :-/ > > Really? Look, Belarus is a small country, most people speak Russian, > > and almost nobody uses the legal software here, but Microsoft still > > made a Byelorussian version of Windows. This is what I call "a good > > support". > > This is not the same thing. > Are you suggesting WW should issue localized errata? Say, an errata > that works only on country X? That would be the same thing in your > analogy. No I don't suggest a localized errata. But the Buelorussian version of Windows required a lot of work which they knew would never be worth it - and, nevertheless, they did the work. Issuing an errata would require much less work, and I have to remind you that nobody didn't even say a single word against the errata itself - but look how many people are writing: "How dare you to suggest an errata just to deal with your local problems?" Why shouldn't I? Because my local problems are nothing, and I have to deal with them myself. What can I say? Thanks a lot for your kind words. > > > But if there aren't enough normal players, things are much more > > difficult. When I play with one stubborn "play-to-fun" player and two > > newbies I have no chance of "punishing" a bad play. > > You have. Just build decks for that sole purpose. No deck can win against the alliance. And I cannot violate the PTW myself, since this would be an ultimate loss. Usually I just build good decks and demontrate their work to the players. Most players are impressed with them, and they are trying to build the same (or similar). But I CANNOT demonstrate anything as amazing as MN + Rot, and all my explanations that it wouldn't win the game are nothing. That's why it's the real problem to me. > > > You can see yourself that fixing Rotshreck would be a great help for > > developing a serious approach to the game in our community. > > No, I can't see that. Then please read the previous paragraph one more. > > And I just > > cannot wait and "hope that everything would be OK". > > Yours, > > Ector > > *Sigh* > You were given more than just a handful of things to do instead of > crying for errata, not just "wait and hope everything will be OK". > In fact, *everything is OK*. MadNet + Rot allowing a chain of 5 cards > to torporize a bigcap *is OK, common, and expected in this game*! "Chain of 5 cards" isn't a "5 cards in your hand", and players will eventually get them. And I've already explained why almost all "things" from that "handful" are unavailable to our players. > I've tried and tried to be sympathetic with you Ector, even from the > point of view of a member of a playgroup that can't get that many cards > also. > But your stubborn behaviour and consistent dodging of crucial questions > are hard to deal with. I quit. > > Fabio "Sooner" macedo It's a pity, since I feel that *I* is the person who has to quit now - as it's absolutely clear that I won't get anything. I really don't understand where I "dodged the crucial questions", but, yes, I am stubborn enough to defend my position until I get really sound arguments against it. Once more, thanks to everybody for his time and his attitude, I was really happy to entertain you guys, and so on. I'm out. Yours, Ector

In message <1143261385.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] So why should errata be issued when it's only you having trouble with cards, and the rest of the world copes just fine by working out how to deal with such strategies? [ quoted text not captured ]

Charles Lechasseur napsal: [ quoted text not captured ] I always laugh when I read his posts, because I immediately imagine movie "Bad Taste" with Derek running around with broken skull, funny hat (asshat?) and a chainsaw :))) somebody also mentioned New Zealand in this thread, which really helps the whole issue a lot :))

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alias wrote: > Charles Lechasseur napsal: >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> You need a good cockpunch to bring you back to reality. >> You're inspirational. I never knew there were so many words containing >> "cock" and "ass" in the english language. Profanity is an art form. > I always laugh when I read his posts, because I immediately imagine > movie "Bad Taste" with Derek running around with broken skull, funny > hat (asshat?) and a chainsaw :))) somebody also mentioned New Zealand > in this thread, which really helps the whole issue a lot :)) HEY! I object. I am NOT a Kiwi. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEJU9wtQZlu3o7QpERAqgtAKDhA4jy8uRQU1NaKeuUCmE9fsHaRgCg0tT8 AnzTUVZ4d/p1Bow9CeDd4ZI= =8IAf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray escreveu: > > Charles Lechasseur napsal: > >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> You need a good cockpunch to bring you back to reality. > >> You're inspirational. I never knew there were so many words containing > >> "cock" and "ass" in the english language. > > Profanity is an art form. Once a fellow player told me via private mail that he loved to see me write in the same mailing lists he signed to - because I usually tell others how stupid they are in the most direct way possible (well, I feel more comfortable with it in my own first language), which he couldn't do for a number of reasons. I thought it was funny; why he couldn't just go and join me and say the same things? That's two to crack people's nutheads over. When I read Derek's posts in threads like these, I understand how this fellow player feels :D Why bother yourself if there are someone out there that makes profanity an art form and says outright that others are asshats? Fabio "Sooner" Macedo