[KMW Spoiler] Preview Card - Maureen, Dark Priestess

Today's preview card: <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> <Spoiler> Maureen, Dark Priestess Baali Cap: 6 Group 4 dom obf DAI PRE Independent: Maureen has one vote (titled). Once each turn, when Maureen successfully performs an action requiring a Baali or Daimonion, you gain 1 pool. Infernal. Robert M. Sachs V:EKN Prince of Naperville, IL "Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now, controls the past." ~ Zach de la Rocha

Doesn't get much better for an infernal vampire. Cheap to influence into play, access to bleed bounce, and a veritable natural voter (even if she can't be Baron, but people able to win with infernal anarchs are more skilled than I am...). I'm not so sure about her special, but with a Charisma she may be the base of a Baali ally vote deck. Thanks, White Wolf. Sure, it's above the power curve of the current Baali, but I think that's maybe appropriate. Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

Rob Sachs wrote: > Maureen, Dark Priestess > Baali > Cap: 6 > Group 4 > dom obf DAI PRE > Independent: Maureen has one vote (titled). Once each turn, when Maureen > successfully performs an action requiring a Baali or Daimonion, you gain 1 > pool. Infernal. So she can pay for her own Infernal cost in some circumstances. You could use her to play Call the Great Beast, then start playing Condemnations, Contagion, etc. If you find yourself without a DAI or Baali action in your hand, stick another counter on Call the Great Beast: that's an action that requires a Baali. Avoid getting blocked, of course, 'cause you'll need the pool. By the way, this is the first-ever 6-cap printed with dom obf PRE. Should fit pretty well with Susan Kadim, Catherine Dubois and Amenphobos. Oh, and she has a vote for extra yesness. Now stop staring at her Arwen ears, you perverts.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Now stop staring at her Arwen ears, you perverts. Just picture them as novelty fake plastic Spock ears, and hopefully that'll purge impure thoughts out of most people. (And if that _encourages_ you, you have my pity and/or mockery.) -John Flournoy

Interesting stuff. A very distinct mitigation for her infernal cost. If there are enough Baali in this new expansion that are as well designed as Maureen, we could actually see them and hopefully the Baali and Daimoinon library cards used in decent decks. (Next project: rehabilitate and make useful the Salibri Antitribu clan. ;-) ) Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1105552697.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > So she can pay for her own Infernal cost in some circumstances. You > could use her to play Call the Great Beast, Er, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It would require Maureen 5 more successful actions after the one which played the original CtGB card to bring it into play. Always annoyed me that they didn't use my suggestion for Call the Great Beast: require 13 ritual counters but allow each subsequent action after the original one to add 3 counters to the card. As it is, it's really kind of pointless to expect anyone but Huitzilopochtli (or another 10 cap) to play the card. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Er, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It would require Maureen 5 more > successful actions after the one which played the original CtGB card > to bring it into play. ...making it a convenient ongoing effect that allows her to recoup the pool you spent to keep her untapped in the event that you don't cycle into another Baali or Daimonion card during your turn. Correct.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1105552697.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Now stop staring at her Arwen ears, you perverts. Eh? She'd need about 30 pounds of collagen to begin mistaking her for Arwen. Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1105554178....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] First of all, it's not particularly clear to me that an action to put a ritual counter on a Call the Great Beast card qualifies as an "action that require Daimoinon or Baali". Playing the card qualifies. Putting ritual counters on it is a card action restricted to the minion who play it. There's sort of an inference there but it's not a direct one. (LSJ? What's the thinking on such things?) Secondly, even if it did, so what? Nice though the Beast is, I don't think it's worth requiring 6 successful actions from a 6-cap - even if you're recapping the infernal pool cost when the attempts are successful. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:T6eFd.52532$F25.38433@okepread07... > First of all, it's not particularly clear to me that an action to put > a ritual counter on a Call the Great Beast card qualifies as an "action > that require Daimoinon or Baali". Playing the card qualifies. Putting > ritual counters on it is a card action restricted to the minion who > play it. There's sort of an inference there but it's not a direct one. > (LSJ? What's the thinking on such things?) It requires a Baali, by card text. Not "This vampire" but "this Baali". It is not restricted to the minion who played it. It is restricted to the minion it is on (and further requires that that minion be Baali). Not that it can be moved, but if it could, then there you go. > Secondly, even if it did, so what? Nice though the Beast is, I don't > think it's worth requiring 6 successful actions from a 6-cap - even if > you're recapping the infernal pool cost when the attempts are successful. He says that you do other stuff with her. Then, when you don't have and don't draw into the other stuff, you use the never-to-be-completed Great Beast ritual to recoup, at the end of your minion phase, the pool you invested at the beginning of your turn. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm glad someone else thinks Liv Tyler wasn't terribly elfin either. I think most of the rest of Peter Jackson's elf choices were good, but Liv only pulled off "the look" in a few scenes IMO. Jeff

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:34l99bF...@individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:T6eFd.52532$F25.38433@okepread07... >> First of all, it's not particularly clear to me that an action to put >> a ritual counter on a Call the Great Beast card qualifies as an "action >> that require Daimoinon or Baali". .. >> (LSJ? What's the thinking on such things?) > > It requires a Baali, by card text. Not "This vampire" but "this Baali". > It is not restricted to the minion who played it. It is restricted to > the minion it is on (and further requires that that minion be Baali). > Not that it can be moved, but if it could, then there you go. OK, that makes sense. >> Secondly, even if it did, so what? Nice though the Beast is, I don't >> think it's worth requiring 6 successful actions from a 6-cap - even if >> you're recapping the infernal pool cost when the attempts are successful. > > He says that you do other stuff with her. Then, when you don't have and > don't draw into the other stuff, you use the never-to-be-completed > Great Beast ritual to recoup, at the end of your minion phase, the pool > you invested at the beginning of your turn. Yes, I caught that point. Even so, my counter-point is that you've got a 6-cap you've invested in (the original pool for her capacity, if not the infernal cost) who's taking actions and getting tapped every turn (or during such turns) and you're not getting anything out of it. That, in of itself, is bad IME. I don't know. Without have tried to use her, I do like her and I think she'll make a good vampire to have in a Baali-based deck. The Call the Great Beast thing just seems like a silly tactic to me unless there's something else about it I'm not catching. Fred

> OK, that makes sense. > > Yes, I caught that point. Even so, my counter-point is that you've > got a 6-cap you've invested in (the original pool for her capacity, if > not the infernal cost) who's taking actions and getting tapped every > turn (or during such turns) and you're not getting anything out of it. > That, in of itself, is bad IME. > > I don't know. Without have tried to use her, I do like her and I think > she'll make a good vampire to have in a Baali-based deck. The Call the > Great Beast thing just seems like a silly tactic to me unless there's > something else about it I'm not catching. It's not meant as a winning tactic in and of itself. The point is, you put Maureen in a deck that ALREADY has a bunch of Baali/Daimonion actions - and include 1 or 2 CtGB, so that you have the fallback of taking a CtGB action should your deck fail to cycle into one of the other actions. If you've got the CtGB, you can go ahead and untap Maureen every turn, even if you lack a Baali/Dai action in your hand, knowing that if you fail to come up with something better for her to do during the course of your turn, you haven't wasted a pool untapping her. Think of it as a bonus safety net. > Fred -John Flournoy

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:34l99bF...@individual.net... > > He says that you do other stuff with her. Then, when you don't have and > > don't draw into the other stuff, you use the never-to-be-completed > > Great Beast ritual to recoup, at the end of your minion phase, the pool > > you invested at the beginning of your turn. > > Yes, I caught that point. ...eventually. :)

John Flournoy wrote: ... > The point is, you put Maureen in a deck that ALREADY has a bunch of > Baali/Daimonion actions - and include 1 or 2 CtGB, so that you have the > fallback of taking a CtGB action should your deck fail to cycle into > one of the other actions. If you've got the CtGB, you can go ahead and > untap Maureen every turn, even if you lack a Baali/Dai action in your > hand, knowing that if you fail to come up with something better for her > to do during the course of your turn, you haven't wasted a pool > untapping her. > Think of it as a bonus safety net. > > > Fred > > -John Flournoy if you have a deck that already has dai or baali actions, you have a g2 deck (only barbaro is g3) and this pretty girl is g4...im waiting for the others baali g4 and then we can see if she pass the line between wallpaper or a gloriuos infernalist. note: also she has dom, she cannot be so bad...LOL

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: > (Next project: rehabilitate and make useful the Salibri > Antitribu clan. ;-) ) Now that's easy. Just give us more Salubri AT that have fortitude. That's anough to start kicking ass and blessing names. (ducks) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1105559451.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:34l99bF...@individual.net... >> > He says that you do other stuff with her. Then, when you don't have >> > and don't draw into the other stuff, you use the never-to-be- >> > completed Great Beast ritual to recoup, at the end of your minion >> > phase, the pool you invested at the beginning of your turn. >> >> Yes, I caught that point. > > ...eventually. :) Immediately. It just wasn't much of a point. :)

heralds could also work... George

calling the beast with this new 6 cap is one of the worst ideas of using the beast that i have ever heard. Next thing you know, people will start suggesting using sargon to bring the beast, because you could actualy gain the edge 7 times and get the beast!!! wow!!!! So, get real... The beast is supposed to be played effectively by Huitzi, or some other high cap vampire. The new baali gal is a nice one, though maybe she could have been a prettier one as well... imo it is way better to use her to condemn or fetch heralds... George

think of it as a shity strategy! Please don't take any personal offense, as i do not mean to cause one... BUT, this is one of the most silly ideas i have ever heard... What you are suggesting is like taking an ordinary Baali, puting a blood doll on him and just pay his infernal cost by using the blood doll and hunting each turn. Because this is only what you are going to do, when the Beast card reaches 10 counters, a Brujah will come flashing a grapple and kick your sorry ass... Use the Path to untap all your minions with the expenditure of just 1 pool and then find one good use for this new cool vamp. Like Condemnations... Even making her charismatic and fetching Heralds is a lot better than your silly idea. What i believe that you are doing wrong is that you are trying hard to use the new vamp's special when you don't really have to. None said that you should find a way to exploit this cool special to the maximum extend, trying to do so with every new card is wrong. Most of times, simple things work better. In my opinion you should had focused on the nice 6 capacity and the nice dom discipline next to the clan ones Until there is a new dai action card that is really worth be done repeatedely each turn and allow people to successfuly exploit this new vamp's special... George

Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex) wrote: > John Flournoy wrote: > ... > if you have a deck that already has dai or baali actions, you have a g2 > deck (only barbaro is g3) and this pretty girl is g4...im waiting for > the others baali g4 and then we can see if she pass the line between > wallpaper or a gloriuos infernalist. > note: also she has dom, she cannot be so bad...LOL Uh, no, that's not quite what I meant. What I meant was, if you are already building your library to be based around DAI or Baali actions, etc etc. Not necessarily 'if you have an existing deck' which would be G2. Even if no other G4 Baali are put out, it'd still be pretty easy to build a DAI-heavy deck with 2-3 copies each of Maureen, Barbaro and Valerius (assuming he doesn't change much from the early-preview) and 3-6 weenies. Let's say you use 3 of each, plus a trio of tha/dom weenies, and you can pretty easily build a dai/tha/dom deck (with or without a little presence; 9 crypt cards out of 12 would have at least basic of whichever of those 4 disciplines you care to include) - which could be a lot of fun to play a bunch of Condemnation: Languids. Something like 'Okay, Maureen makes your vamp Languid. Now, Valerius dom-bleeds you. Or you can block, in which case I've got Thaum combat and you can't press to end, ever.' A CtGB or two would help with Maureen if you weren't drawing the Languids or whatever other DAI actions you've got (Concordance? Contagion? Etc.) The specifics of such a deck are left as an exercise to others (at least until I get my hands on some grubby little cards, heh heh.) -John Flournoy

geor...@for.auth.gr wrote: > think of it as a shity strategy! Please don't take any personal > offense, as i do not mean to cause one... > > BUT, this is one of the most silly ideas i have ever heard... You are missing the point entirely. (See below.) > What you are suggesting is like taking an ordinary Baali, puting a > blood doll on him and just pay his infernal > cost by using the blood doll and hunting each turn. Because this is > only what you are going to do, when the > Beast card reaches 10 counters, a Brujah will come flashing a grapple > and kick your sorry ass... No, that's not the point at all. > Use the Path to untap all your minions with the expenditure of just 1 > pool and then find one good use for this new > cool vamp. Like Condemnations... Even making her charismatic and > fetching Heralds is a lot better than your silly > idea. This is exactly what I'm suggesting. Put Condemnations in. Play for Charisma w/ Herald. Whatever. The Call the Great Best is put in the deck NOT to try to get the Beast Out - it is SPECIFICALLY for a deck like you suggest, when you happen NOT to draw any Condemnations or Heralds or whatever. Don't even bother to put more than 1 or 2 CtGB's in, because you ideally won't need to take that option much. Instead of starting your turn and saying 'I won't untap Maureen, because I don't have anything in hand for her to do', you can go ahead and untap her - as you take your turn and your other minions play cards, if you draw into something better to do, like a Condemnation, a Herald, needing to rescue a vampire of yours that unexpectedly got torpored, grave-rob, whatever - do it. And if you're almost done with your turn and you _didn't_ end up with something for Maureen to do, then she takes the CtGB action to recoup the cost of having untapped her. That way, untapping her in the hope that you'd have something for her to do later in the turn doesn't cost you. So you NEVER have to leave Maureen tapped at the start of your turn 'because I don't have a use for her at this moment during my untap', which is where a lot of Baali players are during their untap at the moment. Hopefully, if your deck is build well with lots of better actions for her to take, you shouldn't need to use the CtGB option often/ever - certainly not enough to generate the counters needed to actually summon the Big Nasty; but it's nice to have that option as a fallback. If your deck is flowing well, you can just discard the CtGB instead of play it. (And yes, using the Path of Evil Revelations to untap her is even more efficient on top of this, but a lot of people either do not own any/enough Paths or aren't going to have the intercept to keep them in play.) > What i believe that you are doing wrong is that you are trying > hard to use the new vamp's special when you > don't really have to. Neither Emmit nor I were suggesting building a deck around her special with CtGB - we're pointing out that it's a useful fallback when your primary strategy fails due to a bad draw on a given turn or whatever. > None said that you should find a way to exploit this cool special to > the maximum extend, trying to do so with every > new card is wrong. Most of times, simple things work better. This is FAR from a maximum extension; it's a very much a corner-case idea. It's specifically if you're already planning to use Maureen's special in other, better ways, as a fallback should your shuffle betray you. > George -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1105569699.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > You are missing the point entirely. (See below.) I don't think people are missing the point the way you and Emmit are claiming. You need to take into account that if someone isn't particularly impressed with the benefits of gaining a pool to add a counter to Call the Great Beast when the intent *is* to ultimately bring the Great Beast into play, then he's obviously going to be even less impressed with the no-hope-to-ever-get-the-Great-Beast scheme. > And if you're almost done with your turn and you _didn't_ end up with > something for Maureen to do, then she takes the CtGB action to recoup > the cost of having untapped her. That way, untapping her in the hope > that you'd have something for her to do later in the turn doesn't cost > you. Sure. But this all assumes you drew the Great Beast card in the first place. It's like, you seem to understand that specified action cards come and go and are undependable in the course of drawing on your library but you're totally obvlious to the same notion about Call the Great Beast specifically. One of the huge drawback in using Information Highway - assuming you find a game-long use for extra transfers - is that you may well draw it long after you're done with a need for transfers. Some people like to use it anyway but that's pretty debatable. This use of Call the Great Beast, while not exactly the same thing, has many of the same elements. It has to appear relatively high in your library to be of much use. Not quite as specifically high as IH but then, its benefits - that you might use it to cover a bet that you wouldn't otherwise take with untapping Maureen and it might save the odd pool that way are far less worthwile. Unless, of course, you're proposing to (!) actually add *multiple* CtGB cards in order to encourage some regularity in its early availability. Again, to me, this just seems silly. Strange how discussion of Baali strategy seems to bring that out in people (IMO). Fred

The New Baali is Group 4, bahh!! I think we'll see all the new Baali are 4s except for Barbaro,

<geo...@for.auth.gr> a écrit dans le message de news: 1105568699.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > i agree > With what ? The ears of Liv ? The Great Beast ? Jeff, Fred, LSJ, your neighbour ? I'm ain't no netiquette maniac, but I think we'd all appreciate that you cite the text you answer to so we'd understand what you mean... Thanks, Orpheus

> I don't think people are missing the point the way you and Emmit > are claiming. You need to take into account that if someone isn't > particularly impressed with the benefits of gaining a pool to add > a counter to Call the Great Beast when the intent *is* to ultimately > bring the Great Beast into play, then he's obviously going to be > even less impressed with the no-hope-to-ever-get-the-Great-Beast > scheme. Sure, except that person is viewing it as 'a new way to gain a pool', which I wholly agree is a crappy idea, instead of 'a way to not be stuck losing a pool if you're already going to opt to spend it and take a chance', which is my point. > This > use of Call the Great Beast, while not exactly the same thing, has many > of the same elements. It has to appear relatively high in your library > to be of much use. Not quite as specifically high as IH but then, its > benefits - that you might use it to cover a bet that you wouldn't otherwise > take with untapping Maureen and it might save the odd pool that way > are far less worthwile. Unless, of course, you're proposing to (!) > actually add *multiple* CtGB cards in order to encourage some regularity > in its early availability. I wouldn't add more than 2 CtGBs for such a fallback, and only then if I was heavily featuring Maureen in my deck, and even then probably only 1 since only she's ever going to benefit this way. To be honest, I don't think most people would 'need' to get the CtGB out _that_ early at all; mainly because early in a game, people are being much less cautious about paying for infernal. (Perhaps much less cautious than they should be.) It's later in the game, when the wasted loss of a single pool has a dramatic effect on your total pool, that this idea would be most useful. And yes, I do understand the whole concept of 'but what if you don't draw it'. Ideally, your deck should be cycling into the right kind of action enough where it won't be needed. If you AREN'T cycling into those cards, you're therefore cycling into something else, which could be the CtGB. Or not. Your comparison to Info Highway's not bad, but I expect it's a little more analagous to Seattle Committee - a lot of players include one or two Seattle Committee's as a backup to a handful of Galaric's or Go Anarch's. They're already planning to use the GL or GA's, but the cost of one card slot as a corner-case backup is worth it to them. And if you're already planning to make a Maureen deck with a dozen Dai/Baali actions, one corner-case card won't kill you. People include single corner-case cards in their decks all the time as it is. It's certainly not necessary, nor is it amazingly potent - it's just got a not-immediately-obvious use to it, and one that under the right (corner-case) circumstance could be very useful. (And as has been noted, the utility of this idea goes WAY up if better Daimonion/Baali actions are in the set.) > Again, to me, this just seems silly. Strange how discussion of Baali > strategy seems to bring that out in people (IMO). Yeah, no kidding! > Fred -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > And if you're already planning to make a Maureen deck with a dozen > Dai/Baali actions, one corner-case card won't kill you. People include > single corner-case cards in their decks all the time as it is. Yeah, but its a corner case card that's corner case towards the weakness of something in YOUR DECK. That's a crappy kind of corner case, though I guess its more likely to show up than the corner case where you're reliant on your opponents for the corner case effect...

[ quoted text not captured ] Wouldn't be the first time. I've seen people go 'hm, some of my vamps have Celerity, so I'll stick one Fast Hands in as weapon defense - I might not face weapons, and I might not get out a cel minion, but what the heck, it could be Just Right..' or similar things. Although that's a bit more toolboxy in nature. -John Flournoy

Why would they go and do that to us.... If all the new Baali are group 4 then Im goignt to be really pissed.. I had hoped to get a few new vamps to mix in with the existing Baali but this wont be possible - I had presumed that since there were so few of the Baali that the new cards would be group 3. hmm The only good thinkg is a assume there are 12 differnt vamps in the starter and hopefully some others in the boosters, but who knows. Piers "David Wilson, Mask of a Thousand Names" <derv...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1105571452....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with the following quoted statement: (sorry but the new google interface, confuses me a little, and i mean the "reply" button, where you just write text. I don't know how you are supposed to quote the text you like when using this one) [ quoted text not captured ]

John Flournoy wrote: > geor...@for.auth.gr wrote: > > > > BUT, this is one of the most silly ideas i have ever heard... > > You are missing the point entirely. (See below.) > ok, i got it now. sorry about the "silly idea" part, i take it back. > > The Call the Great Best is put in the deck NOT to try to get the Beast > Out - it is SPECIFICALLY for a deck like you suggest, when you happen > NOT to draw any Condemnations or Heralds or whatever. Don't even bother > to put more than 1 or 2 CtGB's in, because you ideally won't need to > take that option much. > Yeah, i read you now. Sorry for jumping to conclusions... i take it back. your idea could work.. though putting in few CtGB (as you are talking about a non-specific CtGB deck) would mean that you will get a hard time drawing one in your hand. Anyway, i hope we'll see a nice new Baali or dai action... George

yrah, When it comes to bloodlines the existing grouping rule pisses me off, too. George

You are forgetting one thing. Bloodlines clans weren't supposed to be very populated in the first place. They were supposed to be of limited crypt choice and/or to be mixed as a suppliment to/for other clans. That said, I wouldn't expect more than 8 Baali. (though how they're making a starter out of this (without duplicate vampires) is beyond me (though it would be easy to just throw in 3 other vampires, but that'd make collecting the boosters for Baalie kinda silly...). I expect they are probably going to break their rule on the bloodlines "supposed to exist as a suppliment to other clans" rule, though anarchs did feature some non-clan oriented starters...

John Flournoy wrote: > It's certainly not necessary, nor is it amazingly potent - it's just > got a not-immediately-obvious use to it, and one that under the right > (corner-case) circumstance could be very useful. Exactly. It's like my mention of Talaq and Dark Sunrise in the other preview card thread. Nothing game-shattering, just interesting. Our collective understanding of V:tES on this newsgroup is pretty high. I guess I could limit my remarks on the new cards to stuff along the lines of "Maureen could play Govern *or* Legal Manipulations...and then she could *totally* play stealth cards!" But most of us have travelled those wide, swift roads to victory many times, and can see those possibilities pretty quickly. Why not discuss the less obvious card interactions that even very experienced players might not see? Don't build a deck around recruiting Talaq to block, but if the vamp bleeding you out plays Daring the Dawn and Talaq is tapped, play that Dark Sunrise. Don't build a deck around Maureen getting the Great Beast, but if you've got your Great Beast in play, remember the extra copies you cycle out of your hand with Maureen have another use.

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > ...(though how they're > making a starter out of this (without duplicate vampires) is beyond me > (though it would be easy to just throw in 3 other vampires, but that'd > make collecting the boosters for Baalie kinda silly...). Assuming the vamps in the starter are reprints and not new Baali, I'd expect the six Bloodlines Baali, Barbaro (or was he guaranteed to be not available in this sort of thing?), Midget, two new group 3 starter-only Baali, and two useful sidekicks, like Lena Rowe or Basil.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1105629606....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Assuming the vamps in the starter are reprints and not new Baali, I'd > expect the six Bloodlines Baali, Barbaro (or was he guaranteed to be > not available in this sort of thing?), He's a promo-only. For better or worse, he won't be reprinted (other than in prize packs). > Midget, two new group 3 starter-only Baali, and two useful sidekicks, > like Lena Rowe or Basil. I think since the new Baali are all likely to be group 4 (or at least, some of the ones in the starter will likely be group 4), I wouldn't expect to see group numbers on anything in the Baali starter less than 3. Fred

correct. So, is it better now that they release new Baali or would it be better if they just released 2-3 to be mixed with the previous ones ? George

even then, its a "hey I notice most of my vampires have [nuetral thing], so I'll include something in my deck that'll help them do [good thing]. Cornercase, but it'll be good when it shows up." Rather than ""hey I notice most of my vampires have [bad thing], so I'll include something in my deck that'll help them do [just as good as everyone else thing]. Cornercase, but when it shows up my deck will be playing on the same level as everyone else." :) Sorry. I'm a baali hater. (Not a baali playa' hater) [its just the whole thing of pool gain being so difficult, action wise. You're basically adding an additional one pool cost to every action a baali performs, so they'd better be recouping at least that, on average, with each action].

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> escribió en el mensaje news:KqwFd.52573$F25.15259@okepread07... [ quoted text not captured ] Keep in mind that grouping rule only applies officially on constructed tournaments. So, I guess there won't be no problem if a starter decks mixes vamps for whatever groups they think of. On the release note, it says that each precon packs 2 starter only vamps (like all of the starters since sabbat wars) so I expect the the rest of the baali crypt being build with a few non-baali vamps and some or most of the G2 baalis.

The grouping rule is in the rule book its not tournament only, its one of the basic rules of the game. Im hoping for 12 Baali in the starter a mix of 3&4, ok so I reallt want them all to be 3 but thats not going to happen. Piers [ quoted text not captured ]

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:34pjhvF...@individual.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:KqwFd.52573$F25.15259@okepread07... >> I think since the new Baali are all likely to be group 4 (or at least, >> some of the ones in the starter will likely be group 4), I wouldn't >> expect to see group numbers on anything in the Baali starter less >> than 3. > > Keep in mind that grouping rule only applies officially on constructed > tournaments. So, I guess there won't be no problem if a starter decks > mixesvamps for whatever groups they think of. Well, there would one problem: you couldn't just unwrap one and use it in a constructed tournament. Not that they ever guaranteed you can (nor is it advisable) but they haven't issued one yet like that. I guess I'd be surprised. > On the release note, it says thateach precon packs 2 starter only vamps > (like all of the starters sincesabbat wars) so I expect the the rest of > the baali crypt being build with a few non-baali vamps and some or most > of the G2 baalis. Actually, I expect the remaining Baali vampires in the starter to be ones you can get in KMW boosters. I suppose it's also possible they could reprint the 5 Baali from from Bloodlines in the starters and possibly even augment them with new group 2s or group 3s. I'm not really expecting that (which probably makes it a slam dunk, my predictive capabilities being what they are...). Fred

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, it was written: > The grouping rule is in the rule book its not tournament only, its one of > the basic rules of the game. > Im hoping for 12 Baali in the starter a mix of 3&4, ok so I reallt want them > all to be 3 but thats not going to happen. 12 new Baali in a set of 162 new cards (that's 150 new ones in the boosters and three in each of four starters)? Doesn't seem that likely to me. I bet there will be 5-6 in the whole set (maybe not all in the starter). Other recent sets have introduced about 5-6 new vampires per clan. There's no reason to think this will be any different. Assuming a similar booster distribution to Gehenna, there could be 58 new vampires in this set (including the starter-only ones). Maybe something like this: 6 Assamites 6 Baali 1 Brujah 1 Brujah antitribu 1 Caitiff 6 Followers of Set 1 Gangrel 6 Gangrel antitribu 6 Giovanni 1 Lasombra 1 Malkavian 1 Malkavian antitribu 1 Nosferatu (Echo) 1 Nosferatu antitribu 1 Pander 6 Ravnos 1 Toreador 1 Toreador antitribu 1 Tremere 1 Tremere antitribu 1 Tzimisce 1 Ventrue 1 Ventrue antitribu That's 53 vampires, so give or take a few and throw in some advanced. Maybe there won't be all those antitribu, but it seems like most other expansions have had at least one of each major clan, so there's no reason to think this one won't. I'd have pretty mixed feelings about a starter that didn't have a legal crypt. It wouldn't perturb my play or collection much, but it would be too bad if a new player picked up a starter and wanted to run it in a tournament but couldn't because of an illegal crypt. Of course with all the new rules and updates, there might be something that changes how grouping works. Matt Morgan

both ways would work for me fine... George

i don't think that we will see any new Baali that will be G3, but you never know... George

that's exactly what i expect from the "new rule changes". i expect a modification to the grouping rule, even maybe a bold change of the whole rule. Something like "you can mix crypt cards of only 2 groups, whatever you like", so 1-3, 2-4 legal but 1-2-3, 1-2-4 illegal. Well, let's wait and see. George

What do you think of the new infernal rule ? i believe that it is nice... a nice step towards making baali and the rest of the infernals more appealing. Now, if we could ever get a nice way of making minions BH, like Seattle Committee for anarchs, then i would be really happy... George

Yeah they've really dropped the ball on the whole black hand bit. I think it seems too similar (black hand and anarch) really, and I wouldn't be surprised if WW just focused on one of them (seems to be anarch) and left the other one mostly alone (just one or two new cards for them, every other expansion or so...). But the new infernal rule is fun. Makes Path of Evil Revelations less mandatory for a Baali deck (and less valuable. Fortunately I just ebayed mine. :P Sorry dude who bought it! I'm not a KMW playtester, I swear!)

Here's something to do with the Black Priestess. Grab those Dhabi Revenents, and then Heilderburg them to some other baali. Sweet goodness.

<geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:1105717008....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > What do you think of the new infernal rule ? Excellent! Even if they don't print any Group 2 Baali, this alone will augment uses of the existing Bloodlines Baali vampires somewhat. (And, of course, it seems likely that a few Daimoinon and/or Baali clan library cards will be along, as well.) Fred

yeah, all 14 of them.... ;) George

> 12 new Baali in a set of 162 new cards (that's 150 new ones in the > boosters and three in each of four starters)? Doesn't seem that likely to > me. I bet there will be 5-6 in the whole set (maybe not all in the > starter). Other recent sets have introduced about 5-6 new vampires per > clan. There's no reason to think this will be any different. I just noticed that there are already 7 Assamites listed in the preview so its looking possible that there will be quite a few of each clan. Piers

"Piers" <Piers-AT-blacklightcafe.co.uk> wrote in message news:41e89f18$0$267$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com... > I just noticed that there are already 7 Assamites listed in the preview > so its looking possible that there will be quite a few of each clan. In each independent clan, sure. Not necessarily in the others. Fred

> I think since the new Baali are all likely to be group 4 (or at least, > some of the ones in the starter will likely be group 4), I wouldn't > expect to see group numbers on anything in the Baali starter less > than 3. > Note that Maureen is one of the Starter-only Vampires.