Ian Forestal

What is all the hubbub about this vamp? What is his special ability and his disciplines? I haven't seen this card nor can I find info about him from any of the lists. What set is he from? Sorrow

In article <4vj7sq$n...@blackice.winternet.com>, fae...@winternet.com says... > > > I haven't seen him either, but from what I've read, his most sinqular >feature is having the ability to use any discipline (that he doesn't >have) at inferior level. So this puppy has a few (3-4) superior >abilities printed on the card, with approximate text of 'Ian Forestal can >use any other discipline at inferior level. A Master:Discipline card >will bring him to superior in a given discipline." He also carries a >title, I believe. > > Now, when are you ever going to have a mit-full of different >disciplines? The most that has 'worked' for me was four, and I still >prefer using only three.. > >-j > The issue isn't that he'll use the disciplines; it's that he can use anything at basic for only 2 points. Ian Forestal: Tremere Antitribu Sabbat. DOM AUS THA Ian may play cards which require any discipline at the basic level. If a master: discipline card is placed on him, he gains the superior version of that discipline. Now, if a vampire had three superiors and fourteen inferiors(which Ian effectively will once Sabbat comes out), would you say that they were overpowered?(Sorry, I'm kinda rabid about this) Ian is worse. Any new disciplines which they come out with will be effectively tacked on to him too. See the reason for the hubbub now? Alec Chang

I guess it's about time I put in my 2 cents about Ian Forestal. As the game stands right now this card seems to powerful. It is not a game breaker, but it would give the guy who gets it out (if its not contested) an advantage. If Ian had to burn a blood each time he used his power it would in my opinion solve the problem. As for the design team trying to destroy the game: I don't think this is the case at all. I agree the design team has made some major blunders but I know they are not purposely trying to ruin the game. Ian (and Beast for that matter) are more powerful because that is the nature of expansions. I am impressed that despite the power of many vamps and cards in DS and AH that jyhad has still maintained balance. The escalation will continue, but the question is if the design team manages to keep the game balanced despite it. So far they have in my opinion. I think it is still to soon to judge the design team until we see all of the Sabbat vamps and cards. Until then I have to wonder if there may be something else the design team knows about that we don't. Steve -don't call me Tom- Bucy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News: http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

On 23 Aug 1996 tb...@lainet.com wrote: > As for the design team trying to destroy the game: I don't think this is > the case at all. Neither do I. I do think they seem to be almost doing so inadvertently, however. As Alec Chang put it, it saddens me to think thtat I know the game better than the Design Team. > I agree the design team has made some major blunders > but I know they are not purposely trying to ruin the game. Ian (and > Beast for that matter) are more powerful because that is the nature of > expansions. That is the nature of expansions in Magic, but it need not be the nature of all expansions. Planned obselesence is a bad thing in a CCG, particularly in one whose strength is the relatively low $ needed to enter and be competitive, like Jyhad. > I am impressed that despite the power of many vamps and > cards in DS and AH that jyhad has still maintained balance. The > escalation will continue, but the question is if the design team manages > to keep the game balanced despite it. So far they have in my opinion. I think they have walked further and further towards the edge of a cliff. Much farther, and they might just fall off. Escalation is _NOT_ a desired thing in a balanced CCG. It is very easy to make a card for Jyhad that is powerful or not so powerful and have it not make an for an escalation or descalation. How? Appropriate Card Cost and no Trump cards! (The third rule, appropriateness for game world doesn't apply here) If a Card like Return to Innocence is made, yes it is a powerful card. But it hardly escalates the game when one considers its cost. (A well done card.) Had it not had as many restrictions on use that it does, it would be an escalation. A card like Thoughts Betrayed _is_ an escalation (whether you think the card is broken or not, that is a different topic) because it is a trump. Had the card been made so that pre-range cards can be used by the opponent, it would not be an escalation. Had its cost been increased by 1 to 2 (depending on what might be appropriate (debatable)) it would not be an escalation. Given that Jyhad was designed as a NL game, it escapes the escalation problem of Magic The Gathering in redundant cards. Were magic to print out a new version of Lightning Bolt, the power of all Red-direct damage decks can increase, because suddenly 4 more can be used in each of those decks. In Jyhad, you can already do this, regardless of them printing more. (Apologies to non-Magic players if you don't understand) Escalation then, can only come from cards overly powerful for their cost, or cards that nullify other strategies by themselves (Archon Investigation). These can be avoided by an acute design team. Escalation is not desirable. I will stop playing Jyhad far before it ever gets to the point of: "Your using a [Bum's Rush/Faceless Night]? [Card X] makes that card Totally Obselete" While occasional cards may be lost (Chainsaw to Bang Nakhm, for example), these should be the exception, rare, and not the rule. > I think it is still to soon to judge the design team until we see all of the > Sabbat vamps and cards. Until then I have to wonder if there may be > something else the design team knows about that we don't. I agree about not judging the Sabbat _set_ til we see it, but I disagree about the Design(/Rules (???)) Team. I've seen enough of them to be extremely disappointed by them. Hopefully Sabbat will continue their recovery begun in AH. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

>Hopefully Sabbat will continue their recovery begun in AH. This statement makes it seem that they went way off the deep edge with DS. I am fairly new to the game, so I missed whatever discussion might have arisin with it's release. I would like to hear why you think DS unbalanced the game. Looking at the cards, I don't see how. Sorrow

[ quoted text not captured ] There was a large set of cards in Dark Sovereigns that were mostly useless or highly underpowered. The most commonly used example is the Werewolf Pack (a unique ally with 3 hand damage and 3 life, cannot be hurt by melee weapons). Its cost is far too expensive (4 pool) for what it does, especially given comparison to the renegade garou. For a while, around here, people were doing an informal "design a _good_ werewolf pack" contest. For the most part, except for the choices in redesign _meant_ to be outrageous, we all agreed that our versions were each better (all of them (!!!)). There were a few cards in Dark Sovereigns that were underpriced. The point system in the Jyhad set for vampire costs was relatively strictly adhered to with few exceptions. Francois Villon has always been a good example, and others crop up as well. The point costs of certain powers (+1 stealth for all actions on Rebekka) was underpowered (I believe TOM (Wylie) said that it was 1 pt. (!!!). Debate continues whether certain cards (e.g., Thoughts Betrayed) were broken, but many of the cards simply don't have a place in a Jyhad-like card setting. Global effects (as Curt Adams, I believe, has written) were typically rare, self-damaging or possibly with backfire, or Malkavian (or all of the above). The usefulness of cards like sudden reversal and arson went down with the sudden propagation of destroyable master cards (rare in Jyhad) and locations easily destroyed (for much pool investment). On the whole, DS didn't really break Jyhad in any manner. It was simply a set that was horribly designed. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >While occasional cards may be lost (Chainsaw to Bang Nakhm, for example), >these should be the exception, rare, and not the rule. Well, Chainsaw was lost already (to Shotgun), so I think that replacing the Chainsaw with a worthwhile card is a GoodThing. (And we've aliased all of our Chainsaws to BangNakhs around here :-). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A one-bit brain with a http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | parity error. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960823154037.1096B-100000@pentose> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On 23 Aug 1996 tb...@lainet.com wrote: [snip: re design team trying to destroy balance (no)] >> I agree the design team has made some major blunders >> but I know they are not purposely trying to ruin the game. Ian (and >> Beast for that matter) are more powerful because that is the nature of >> expansions. > >That is the nature of expansions in Magic, but it need not be the nature >of all expansions. Planned obselesence is a bad thing in a CCG, >particularly in one whose strength is the relatively low $ needed to >enter and be competitive, like Jyhad. The best expansions are those which add new aspects to the game without altering the balance. The Setites' corruption powers are an example of this, done well (kudos to the Design Team). The Giovanni dumpster diving powers are another example. Power levels don't have to be boosted, if interesting things get added to the game. More interesting stuff will sell better than more powerful stuff, too. Especially in the long run (power boosting is good for an expansion or two at best). >Escalation is _NOT_ a desired thing in a balanced CCG. It is very easy >to make a card for Jyhad that is powerful or not so powerful and have it >not make an for an escalation or descalation. How? Appropriate Card >Cost and no Trump cards! (The third rule, appropriateness for game world >doesn't apply here) [examples and discussion of escalation snipped] > >Escalation is not desirable. I will stop playing Jyhad far before it >ever gets to the point of: >"Your using a [Bum's Rush/Faceless Night]? [Card X] makes that card >Totally Obselete" I heartily agree! I quit playing Magic because it got filled with 'trump' cards and unbalanced strategies. WotC tried to fix problems with trump cards, which are much less fun to play with or against. I hope this doesn't happen with Jyhad, but I worry. Especially since WotC seems to have decided to deal with weak sales by escalation (in Magic, at least - Alliances). This is a short-term strategy which will ultimately kill the game. I hope they're not so stupid as to try this with V:TES, too. -- Tom Doehne

In article <8408294...@dejanews.com> <Pine.NXT.3.91.960823154037.1096B-100000@pentose> <4vv9g2$p...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] About escalation: I wholeheartedly agree escalation on the order of Tragic: The Gathering (trump card, trump the trump card, trump the trump trump card, etc.) is ridiculous and I never want Jyhad to get close to that point. However I think some escalation makes the game more interesting. Cards like increased strength, Ankara citadel Turkey, scorpion sting, dog pack, and parthenon are all escalation. They increase power, give abilities that where not possible, or eliminate some weaknesses a clan may have had. I don't find these cards harmful to the game. They just improve strategies and add new possibilities to the game. Trump cards like archon investigation and thoughts betrayed are also escalation. However they are the type of escalation that can harm the game. These cards can ruin entire strategies. I don't see Ian Forestal as the type of escalation that will hurt the game. It is true he totally breaks the point system but in application he is not the winning trump card. He will allow for unusual tricks and strategies but his presence will not give anyone a huge advantage. Ian's presence will not ruin the game. It is to early to tell but Beast the Leatherface of Detroit may actually be more escalation than Ian. Beast is a 7 blood vamp, has +1 hand damage, a built in rush, superior potence, and celerity. His disadvantage doesn't allow him to equip or recruit. In DCI environment this guy could make rush decks a living hell to deal with. Unless the Sabbat contains more S:CE and other anti combat measures Beast himself could cause a real escalation in combat. I don't know if that type of escalation is good. I think the level of escalation in DS and AH has been ok with the exception of a couple of cards. If the worst escalation in The Sabbat is Ian Forestal IMO I don't think we have anything to worry about. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas Doehne wrote: > I heartily agree! I quit playing Magic because it got filled with > 'trump' cards and unbalanced strategies. WotC tried to fix problems > with trump cards, which are much less fun to play with or against. > > I hope this doesn't happen with Jyhad, but I worry. Especially > since WotC seems to have decided to deal with weak sales by > escalation (in Magic, at least - Alliances). This is a > short-term strategy which will ultimately kill the game. I > hope they're not so stupid as to try this with V:TES, too. Let me play Devil's Advocate to a cetain degree here. Can anyone list some of these "trump" cards for me? I have an idea, but I want to see some sort of consensus here before I comment or act on anything. Thanks! -- --Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good health!" --Milk and Cheese

> Thomas Doehne wrote: > > > I heartily agree! I quit playing Magic because it got filled with > > 'trump' cards and unbalanced strategies. WotC tried to fix problems > > with trump cards, which are much less fun to play with or against. <snip> > > hope they're not so stupid as to try this with V:TES, too. > > Let me play Devil's Advocate to a cetain degree here. Can anyone list > some of these "trump" cards for me? I have an idea, but I want to see > some sort of consensus here before I comment or act on anything. > Thanks! > > --Shawn F. Carnes It may sound like a stupid question, but are you referring to "supposed" trump cards from Magic or V:TES? -- Bernie Convention Chair Gamers of Eastern Michigan University

Bernard M. Bresnahan wrote: > > Let me play Devil's Advocate to a cetain degree here. Can anyone list > > some of these "trump" cards for me? I have an idea, but I want to see > > some sort of consensus here before I comment or act on anything. > > Thanks! > > > > --Shawn F. Carnes > > It may sound like a stupid question, but are you referring to "supposed" > trump cards from Magic or V:TES? Not stupid at all--should have been more clear. The cards are V:TES in origin. I am looking for cards that are considered "trump" or (as I interpret) one-up cards. Thanks. >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: : The cards are V:TES in origin. I am looking for cards that are : considered "trump" or (as I interpret) one-up cards. Thanks. Well, I kinda like the "I Sudden Reversal the Sudden Reversal of his Anarch Troublemaker" myself... Kevin -- Kevin Donnelly----------------------------------------------------- Protector of Damsels in Distress, Lover of Ladies Fair, Tech Student "Never tell me the odds!" -- Han Solo gt2...@prism.gatech.edu vap...@prism.gatech.edu

In article <3224C9...@castle.wizards.com> "Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >Thomas Doehne wrote: [worries about trump cards omitted] >Let me play Devil's Advocate to a cetain degree here. Can anyone list >some of these "trump" cards for me? I have an idea, but I want to see >some sort of consensus here before I comment or act on anything. >Thanks! Trump cards that shut down a whole strategy(bleed, combat, vote): Thoughts Betrayed Archon Investigation Or a substrategy/defense/clan: Dog Pack Secure Haven Atonement Adding some cards to maintain game balance is necessary, but there is a difference between providing balance and trumping a strategy. Violation of Trust is an example of providing balance -- it undoes one piece of a strategy, but not the whole strategy. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Cards I would consider to be trump cards: 1.) Archon investagation 2.) Return to innocence 3.) Thoughts betrayed 4.) Kiss of Ra 5.) Possibly pulled fangs and tomb of Ramses. [ quoted text not captured ]

There are 2 trump cards that spring to mind. First, of caurse, is our dear friend Thoughts Betrayed at superior. "Opponent cannot play any combat cards for the duration of the combat. " This is way out of place in Jyhad. First, Jyhad combat without cards is like chess without pieces - nothing like normal Jyhad. Second, obviously, there is almost never anything you can do about it - because once it's played, you can't play cards. Third, it's outrageously out of place. In the original set, the closest card is Fast Reaction. There is no comparison. While TB's cost of 2 blood is more than FR's cost of an extra minion action, FR prevents *1* kind of combat card for *1* round, while TB prevents *all* cards for *all* rounds. The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can do about an Investigation. In addition, the effect is incredibly out of line with pre-existing Jyhad cards. The worst a master could do before was send a vampire to torpor or waste 2 actions (Ectasy Laced Blood). This one burns a vampire, with no recourse, for nothing more than using one common Dominate card at superior. The original set, BTW, did have at least one trump in it - Strike: Combat Ends. There has always been a level of frustration with the fact the S:CE is so cheap and so hard to prevent. The fact that TB does provide a way around this is one of the few benefits it brings to the game. However, S:CE isn't of the order of TB or AI as it is purely defensive, and doesn't harm the opponent. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[snip well-spoken anti-TB remarks] I agree with you completely. I am now going to reiterate the now-so-famous it has my name attached to it James-Hamblin's-rant-against-cards-that-make-you- unable-to-play-the-game. As people who have read my posts often enough know, I own substantial amounts of 3 card games: Magic, Jyhad, and Shadowfist. They know this because I often refer to them for design/game-play precedents/intuition. I don't really play Magic anymore. Why? Well, I got sick of all of the type-1 munchkin-weenies killing before I could breathe with cards I could never afford. Where 12-year olds get the money for Moxes, I'll never know... But, anyway. The out-of-print out-of-control way-too-powerful cards have the effect of leaving the other player out of the loop. One player has an immense advantage due to their having card that I do not. Even if my deck is a fun, well-designed deck, it will get trounced. 100%. For sure. Why? Counterspells. Discard. The other player prevents me from having any cards at all, and the ones I do manage to make are "unmade" at a far lower cost than I spent. So I do not get to play the game. I get to try, but it doesn't get me anywhere. So, why do I still play Shadowfist? Shadowfist has counterspells. Shadowfist has discard. Because in Shadowfist, there are ways around those strategies. Suffice to say that someone can still be a slimeball, but it is not as aggravated as in Magic. But this is not a newsgroup about other card games. This is about Jyhad. And this post is about "trump" cards. Cards which, like counterspells and discard in Magic, prevent the other player from playing the game. One such card is Thoughts Betrayed. One player plays it. The other player might as well go get a coke while his vampire gets killed, since he can't do a damn thing about it. "Well, I'm glad that you get to play this game. Let me know when you're finished preventing me from playing." I hate this card. I despise it. I think that it goes against any semblance of balance and fairness in the game. I shudder to think of the following combo which can be easily pulled off by our good friend Ian Forrestal: Thoughts Betrayed, Apparition, Claws of the Dead. Look, I spent 4 blood, and you die. Hell, why not stick a couple Theft of Vitae in there while we're at it. Wouldn't want good ol' Ian having to lose any blood. Before the publish of Ian, this combo would be unthinkable and hallaciously difficult to pull off. You'd need superior dominate, superior thau. if you wanted the theft of vitae, chimerstry and protean. But Ian has all of that built right in. But we're not talking about Ian (or are we...?) Anyway, that's my rant about TB. > The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can > do about an Investigation. [snip] > This one burns a vampire, with no recourse, for nothing more than using > one common Dominate card at superior. OK, it'd be easy for me to say "but Archon Investigation is different! If you're bleeding me for more than 3, you deserve what you get!", and, in some sense, I do feel that way, but I have legitimate reasons for liking AI. Anti-S&B was a little hard to come by before V:tES. Unless you had Dominate or Auspex, you can't bounce the bleeder; you had to deal with it yourself. Which presents you with a number of options: Bounce it: Nuff said. This include Tel. Counter. Block it: unless the S&Ber is unlucky, you do not have as much intercept as they have stealth. Yes, you will be able to get away with this occasionally, but even so, you also have S:CE to worry about even if you do get into combat. And besides; you have Auspex. Just bounce it. Take it: Oh, look. You were just bled for 7. Again. "Race": By which I mean "kill your prey before you get killed". Hmm, seems to me like the fastest way to oust a prey is with S&B. Hmm, you could be using Dominate, in which case you could just bounce it, or Presence, in which case you are probably using Toreador, in which case you could just bounce it. Beat 'em Up: Rush their vampires. Well, then you have to deal with S:CE and Obedience. The latter you can't even deal with at all, so don't bother. I'll talk about that more later. S:CE can be dealt with with Immortal Grapple (rare), Hidden Lurker (inefficient), and Dog Pack (rare/expensive). I say that hidden lurker is inefficient since it effects can be avoided by simple maneuvers. If you are the Nosferatu, you have 1 (count them, 1) maneuver card given by your disciplines, and if you are Malkavian, Bounce It. So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Assamite, FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed might be fast enough), Ravnos. Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, but these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a fighting chance. AI gives an escape hatch. It gives S&B a liability, something to be wary of, which it never really had before. There was never any reason _not_ to bleed for 7 instead of 3. Now there is. That's a good thing in my book. > The original set, BTW, did have at least one trump in it - Strike: Combat > Ends. There has always been a level of frustration with the fact the S:CE > is so cheap and so hard to prevent. The fact that TB does provide a way > around this is one of the few benefits it brings to the game. However, > S:CE isn't of the order of TB or AI as it is purely defensive, and doesn't > harm the opponent. Unless you call being screwed not being harmed. A Gangrel rush combat deck in the original set was completely unviable due to S:CE. Now they have Dog Pack which is expensive, but reasonably effective. But no. S:CE is not by any means purely defensive; offensively it can be used to devastating effect. The other trump card which I am surprised has not been mentioned is Obedience. There is absolutely nothing that you can do about this card. Nothing. Zip. Zero. You just suck. Sit down. My vampire doesn't tap, yours does, and your action fails. What could be more of a trump card? Once again, your one card has cost you 1 card (didn't even tap your stinking vampire) and tapped my vampire possilby wasting an action card or action modifiers. Well, rant mode off now. Thanks for reading. James -- * James Hamblin * * Cornell University * * je...@cornell.edu *

In article <322CF2...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: [Excellent comments about Thoughts Betrayed snipped for brevity] >> The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can >> do about an Investigation. [more snip] >OK, it'd be easy for me to say "but Archon Investigation is different! >If you're bleeding me for more than 3, you deserve what you get!", and, >in some sense, I do feel that way, but I have legitimate reasons for >liking AI. > >Anti-S&B was a little hard to come by before V:tES. Unless you had >Dominate or Auspex, you can't bounce the bleeder; you had to deal with >it yourself. Which presents you with a number of options: [snip of bounce, race, intercept options] >Beat 'em Up: Rush their vampires. Well, then you have to deal with S:CE >and Obedience. The latter you can't even deal with at all, so don't >bother. I'll talk about that more later. S:CE can be dealt with with >Immortal Grapple (rare), Hidden Lurker (inefficient), and Dog Pack >(rare/expensive). I say that hidden lurker is inefficient since it >effects can be avoided by simple maneuvers. If you are the Nosferatu, >you have 1 (count them, 1) maneuver card given by your disciplines, and >if you are Malkavian, Bounce It. You forgot Psyche, an uncommon Celerity card. Very effective, and useful in other ways, unlike IG or Dog Pack. I get the impression you don't play Brujah very much.... >So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: > >Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Assamite, FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed >might be fast enough), Ravnos. Not at all -- rush combat can be very effective (see below). >Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, but >these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a fighting >chance. AI gives an escape hatch. It gives S&B a liability, something >to be wary of, which it never really had before. There was never any >reason _not_ to bleed for 7 instead of 3. Now there is. That's a good >thing in my book. I disagree -- it's an unnecessary hoser. And it's hardly the devotion of an entire deck. Bleed bounce is useful against all bleeds, not just S&B. A good way to deal with Bruise& Bleed decks if you're running a non-combat deck. And the cards you use in a Rush combat deck are the same ones you use to rush voters and blood machines. Ventrue vote decks are no less a problem to a rush deck than a Malk S&B.... [snip >>S:CE is a trump card....] >> around this is one of the few benefits it brings to the game. However, >> S:CE isn't of the order of TB or AI as it is purely defensive, and doesn't >> harm the opponent. >Unless you call being screwed not being harmed. A Gangrel rush combat >deck in the original set was completely unviable due to S:CE. Now they >have Dog Pack which is expensive, but reasonably effective. But no. >S:CE is not by any means purely defensive; offensively it can be used to >devastating effect. The Gangrel had problems with S:CE, although lots of Haven Uncovered and dog-piling helped. Brujah have no trouble with it: IG, Psyche, and Haven Uncovered all use up those S:CE, and are handy in other contexts. >The other trump card which I am surprised has not been mentioned is >Obedience. There is absolutely nothing that you can do about this >card. Nothing. Zip. Zero. You just suck. Sit down. My vampire >doesn't tap, yours does, and your action fails. What could be more of a >trump card? Once again, your one card has cost you 1 card (didn't even >tap your stinking vampire) and tapped my vampire possilby wasting an >action card or action modifiers. I very much disagree. My favorite deck is a Brujah rush deck. It routinely makes mincemeat of the Malk S&B decks in our group. If they pack a lot of Obedience, they jam up with Obedience and get killed by the intercept combat decks. If they don't, the Rush decks get them. Obedience is only useful for stopping Rush combat, and in Intercept run-away combat. I deal with them by using Haven Uncovered. If they have 3-4 Obedience in hand, they deserve to survive. If they don't, their vampire is toast. But that many Obedience in a deck is a good way to get hand jammed. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

[snip - many sensible comments about TB being too powerful] I too think that Thoughts Betrayed is too good for its cost, but perhaps not as much as everyone else. It seems to me that TB really hoses two strategies: S:CE and combat decks that use combat cards. Hosing S:CE is nice - S:CE is pretty hard to stop. Hosing combat cards has the (potentially) interesting effect of making weapon decks more viable. Weapon decks generally don't care about TB (with some exceptions). In my group, weapon decks had fallen out of favor because combat-card decks were working better. TB also has the effect of making weenie vampires more attractive. Spending 2 on TB to disable a cost 1 or 2 vampire is often not terribly effective. Other deck designs don't care much about TB. S&B and Political decks generally don't do much with combat. On the other hand, TB does hose any S:CE those decks might have, so it is not completely neutral. Overall, I think TB is too powerful, and definitely counts as a trump card since it hoses some strategies while ignoring others. So, how would everyone "fix" it. I think it might be enough to make the cost 3 blood. Alternatively (and, I think preferably), I might change the text so that it only prevents Strike cards from being played (thus allowing manuevers, presses, ammo cards, Diguised Weapon and Blood to Water). Any ideas/opinions? - Drake

> I too think that Thoughts Betrayed is too good for its > cost, but perhaps not as much as everyone else. It seems > to me that TB really hoses two strategies: S:CE and combat > decks that use combat cards. Don't mix words. TB hoses combat decks period. More on this later. > Hosing S:CE is nice - S:CE is > pretty hard to stop. Yes it is, but I think that TB goes too far. > Hosing combat cards has the (potentially) > interesting effect of making weapon decks more viable. Weapon > decks generally don't care about TB (with some exceptions). > In my group, weapon decks had fallen out of favor because > combat-card decks were working better. Yes. Your group has discovered the "well-known fact" (I'm covering up my head...) that guns don't work. They're expensive and inefficient. Besides, who is using TB offensively? Tremere and so-called "Euro"-Brujah. Both of which don't care about your gun. The Brujah will Immortally Grapple you and pummel you. The Tremere will maneuver, and play Blood Rage/Fury, so your gun doesn't work. > TB also has the effect of making weenie vampires more attractive. > Spending 2 on TB to disable a cost 1 or 2 vampire is often > not terribly effective. I don't understand this. What do you mean? If I am a combat deck using TB offensively, I don't need to use TB to kill a little vampire with 1 or 2 points and 1 discipline? Just because I happen not to use my TB on particular vamps doesn't make the deck less offensive. > Other deck designs don't care much about TB. S&B and Political > decks generally don't do much with combat. On the other hand, > TB does hose any S:CE those decks might have, so it is not > completely neutral. Every deck needs to have some way to deal with combat or it will die. Whether it be Fortitude or S:CE or what have you, they must do something. TB neutralizes that defense. If you are in a combat and someone plays TB, you should expect your vampire to die. Because what can you do about it? > Overall, I think TB is too powerful, and definitely counts > as a trump card since it hoses some strategies while ignoring > others. No, no, no. It is a trump card because when you play it, you remove your opponent from the game for a while. They can do nothing. Nothing. Read that again. Nothing at all. You are in complete control, and, if the deck is constructed well, when you are in complete control, you burn the opposing vampire. > So, how would everyone "fix" it. I think it might be > enough to make the cost 3 blood. 3 blood, 4 blood, even 5 blood. It doesn't much matter. It is _way_ too powerful as its text is written. If it is to be fixed, the text must be changed. > Alternatively (and, I think > preferably), I might change the text so that it only prevents > Strike cards from being played (thus allowing manuevers, presses, > ammo cards, Diguised Weapon and Blood to Water). Any ideas/opinions? That is a possibility, and IMHO much better than simply changing the blood cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <322CF2...@cornell.edu>, je...@cornell.edu says... > >But this is not a newsgroup about other card games. This is about >Jyhad. And this post is about "trump" cards. Cards which, like >counterspells and discard in Magic, prevent the other player from >playing the game. One such card is Thoughts Betrayed. One player plays >it. The other player might as well go get a coke while his vampire gets >killed, since he can't do a damn thing about it. "Well, I'm glad that >you get to play this game. Let me know when you're finished preventing >me from playing." I hate this card. I despise it. I think that it >goes against any semblance of balance and fairness in the game. First, I agree that the card is overpowered. I do, however, agree with the direction that the card was taking, since previously, Tremere had no effective way to deal with S:CE. Hidden Lurker, immortal grapple, all those cards to give you a free round of combat are out of clan skills. And even then, a hidden lurker wouldn't get you a second round strike. Tremere are much better suited for briuse/bleed and intercept combat than rush, which does get them into combat less than rush (your prey might take a large bleed if he doesn't have a S:CE; and for intercept, your prey has to take blockable actions and you must have matching intercept as well as combat). All this made S:CE a big trump card against the Tremere. And the NL argument against S:CE - that your opponent is going to run out, eventually, or else he's got to have a huge % of his deck be S:CE; that arguement can also be used for Thoughts Betrayed. How many vampires do you expect to be trouncing, and then, with the intercept, bleed modifiers, presses, and strikes, are you going to have the right balance of cards? Granted, I am playing the devil's advocate a little because when you do have the right balance, then Thoughts Betrayed is basically a ticket to torpor, or often worse, a precursor to a Walk of Flame and a burnt vampire. The rewards are far greater than the 'penalty' of waiting for the right 5 cards to fill your hand. I think maybe TB could be fairer if it didn't let your opponent strike (like immortal grapple) but still allowed a press to end or fortitude. Or maybe something like, your opponent cannot use cards to end combat, but could still strike (though that eliminates the defensive use of TB). >> The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can >> do about an Investigation. >[snip] Great arguments. >The other trump card which I am surprised has not been mentioned is >Obedience. There is absolutely nothing that you can do about this >card. Nothing. Zip. Zero. You just suck. Sit down. My vampire >doesn't tap, yours does, and your action fails. What could be more of a >trump card? Once again, your one card has cost you 1 card (didn't even >tap your stinking vampire) and tapped my vampire possilby wasting an >action card or action modifiers. It also beats Thoughts Betrayed, too. And can be played by most Ventrue and Malkavians, who fit well into decks that avoid combat. Dan

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >I agree with you completely. I am now going to reiterate the >now-so-famous it has my name attached to it >James-Hamblin's-rant-against-cards-that-make-you- >unable-to-play-the-game. (e.g. Thoughts Betrayed and others) One point to add to this - a card that prevents somebody from playing makes the game not fun for them. Even if it is properly balanced (and that is necessarily very difficult for such cards) it will be a detriment. >So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: >Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Assamite, FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed >might be fast enough), Ravnos. >Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, >but these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a >fighting chance. AI gives an escape hatch. Yes, it does, just as TB gives an escape hatch for S:CE. But it's the wrong escape hatch, because it's a guillotine. Elder Intervention is a good broadening of the anti-S&B defenses. LSJ's suggestion of AI preventing the target from bleeding until a vote is passed is a good hatch. AI is still out of line with the Jyhad cardset; it's still a "may as well get a Coke" card when you're hit with it. Incidentally, *part* of the problem with rush defenses to S&B is that S:CE (which you complain about) is too common, cheap, and easy. The S&B decks don't use it (apart from Settites), but enough others do to give Rush a headache, especially if it's only part-time. This is an example of escalating hosers - AI being devised to hadle problems partly due to an existing hoser. I agree with your contention that S:CE is too good, but I maintain that it's not as bad as TB or AI. >The other trump card which I am surprised has not been mentioned > is Obedience. Obedience isn't S:CE, but its effects are virtually the same (nothing happens in combat, at superior he's tapped and you're untapped) so I have it filed mentally with S:CE. I agree that it is also a problem, and that many S:CE fixes will not help with Obedience. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Re: Thoughts Betrayed > Alternatively (and, I think > preferably), I might change the text so that it only prevents > Strike cards from being played (thus allowing manuevers, presses, > ammo cards, Diguised Weapon and Blood to Water). Any ideas/opinions? We already have cards that fudge with strikes. I think TB should prevent maneuvers, presses, or both. I think that forecasting somebody's actions could reasonably allow you to interfere with attempts to escape but I don't see haw it could prevent a strike. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >I agree with you completely. I am now going to reiterate the >now-so-famous it has my name attached to it >James-Hamblin's-rant-against-cards-that-make-you- >unable-to-play-the-game. (e.g. Thoughts Betrayed and others) One point to add to this - a card that prevents somebody from playing makes the game not fun for them. Even if it is properly balanced (and that is necessarily very difficult for such cards) it will be a detriment. >So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: >Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Assamite, FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed >might be fast enough), Ravnos. >Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, >but these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a >fighting chance. AI gives an escape hatch. Yes, it does, just as TB gives an escape hatch for S:CE. But it's the wrong escape hatch, because it's a guillotine. Elder Intervention is a good broadening of the anti-S&B defenses. LSJ's suggestion of AI preventing the target from bleeding until a vote is passed is a good hatch. AI is still out of line with the Jyhad cardset; it's still a "may as well get a Coke" card when you're hit with it. Incidentally, *part* of the problem with rush defenses to S&B is that S:CE (which you complain about) is too common, cheap, and easy. The S&B decks don't use it (apart from Settites), but enough others do to give Rush a headache, especially if it's only part-time. This is an example of escalating hosers - AI being devised to hadle problems partly due to an existing hoser. I agree with your contention that S:CE is too good, but I maintain that it's not as bad as TB or AI. >The other trump card which I am surprised has not been mentioned > is Obedience. Obedience isn't S:CE, but its effects are virtually the same (nothing [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : Re: Thoughts Betrayed : We already have cards that fudge with strikes. I think TB should prevent : maneuvers, presses, or both. I think that forecasting somebody's actions : could reasonably allow you to interfere with attempts to escape but I : don't see haw it could prevent a strike. Well, I don't know about "preventing" a strike, but I can see it allowing one to effectively avoid or counter the strike, making it fizzle. This, I think, may have been the thought behind its trump nature. Of course, why it wouldn't affect permanents (equipment, locations, etc.) is beyond me. -spongy

In article <322F15...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: (In response to someone whose name got snipped) [snip, lots of good comments on the problem with TB] >> So, how would everyone "fix" it. I think it might be >> enough to make the cost 3 blood. > >3 blood, 4 blood, even 5 blood. It doesn't much matter. It is _way_ >too powerful as its text is written. If it is to be fixed, the text >must be changed. > >> Alternatively (and, I think >> preferably), I might change the text so that it only prevents >> Strike cards from being played (thus allowing manuevers, presses, >> ammo cards, Diguised Weapon and Blood to Water). Any ideas/opinions? > >That is a possibility, and IMHO much better than simply changing the >blood cost. It would not be enough for the cost -- still allows Fists of Death, Torn Signpost, extra strike cards, and aggro claw damage. It would become a Tremere and runaway-combat hoser. I would rather see it say something like: This vampire may cancel the effect of any combat card by paying one blood for each cancelled card as it is played. -- Tom Doehne

jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >: Re: Thoughts Betrayed >: We already have cards that fudge with strikes. I think TB should prevent >: maneuvers, presses, or both. I think that forecasting somebody's actions >: could reasonably allow you to interfere with attempts to escape but I >: don't see how it could prevent a strike. >Well, I don't know about "preventing" a strike, but I can see it allowing >one to effectively avoid or counter the strike, making it fizzle. Hypothetically, you could dodge, but then you should be unable to strike on your own. If a POT vampire tries to hit you, there isn't much you could do except be at range, and that's a manuever. Most vampiric effects are hard to avoid or counter except by just not being there. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams wrote: > > Re: Thoughts Betrayed > > > Alternatively (and, I think > > preferably), I might change the text so that it only prevents > > Strike cards from being played (thus allowing manuevers, presses, > > ammo cards, Diguised Weapon and Blood to Water). Any ideas/opinions? > > We already have cards that fudge with strikes. I think TB should prevent > maneuvers, presses, or both. I think that forecasting somebody's actions > could reasonably allow you to interfere with attempts to escape but I > don't see haw it could prevent a strike. > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) I have always felt that TB should have been written as something like: type: combat cost: 0 blood inferior: Play this card to burn a combat card other than a Thoughts Betrayed played by a minion the vampire is in combat with. Do not replace until after combat. superior: As above but the opposing vampire may not replace the card burned until after combat. This is like a sudden reversal for combat.

Another possibility for Thoughts Betrayed would be to have any cards played after TB not replaced until after combat. Then the user wouldn't be able to just keep slamming you. I've also thought it would be good to have it cost more blood from the Vampire, but then the inferior version is worthless. Tremere need something to help them with first round, because around here they get slammed to hard to ever use the cool second round cards. TB could also just prevent cards from being played in the first round of combat... Chris rho...@medicine.wustl.edu

In article <50n645$5...@news-central.tiac.net> hol...@nworks.com writes: [snip, about Thoughts Betrayed being an abusive trump card] > First, I agree that the card is overpowered. I do, however, agree with >the direction that the card was taking, since previously, Tremere had no >effective way to deal with S:CE. Hidden Lurker, immortal grapple, all those >cards to give you a free round of combat are out of clan skills. And even >then, a hidden lurker wouldn't get you a second round strike. Tremere are >much better suited for briuse/bleed and intercept combat than rush, What about Fast Reaction? Intercept combat, an in-clan skill. gives a free round of strikes, with a press at superior. What more do you want? Tremere are the best combat clan with a *common* in-clan card that gives them a free round of strikes. Blood to Water/Blood Fury should do enough damage to put most vampires to bed in one round. Maybe you're not able to burn vampires with the second round aggro damage, but you can still use Pulled Fangs on the first round. I'd say Tremere have less trouble with S:CE than Gangrel. After all, some of them have Celerity (Psyche), too. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

On 3 Sep 1996 tb...@lainet.com wrote: > Cards I would consider to be trump cards: > 1.) Archon investagation > 2.) Return to innocence I don't particularly see this as a trump card. What is your reasoning? > 3.) Thoughts betrayed > 4.) Kiss of Ra > 5.) Possibly pulled fangs and tomb of Ramses. Both of these I also don't see as trumps (though Pulled Fangs has become too powerful with the new aggro ruling). Again, could you explain your reasoning? Thanks. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: [Curt Adams wrote:] > > The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can > > do about an Investigation. > [snip] > > This one burns a vampire, with no recourse, for nothing more than using > > one common Dominate card at superior. > OK, it'd be easy for me to say "but Archon Investigation is different! > If you're bleeding me for more than 3, you deserve what you get!", and, > in some sense, I do feel that way, but I have legitimate reasons for > liking AI. This is one of those (rare) positions that we totally disagree... > Anti-S&B was a little hard to come by before V:tES. ... and here is the statement that sets us apart. James, you bring up several of the strategies, but to me, it seems as though either they aren't being used in your playgroup, or you have some hideously monstrous S&Bleeder the like of which I have never seen (and would thus love to have on my deck archive). >Unless you had > Dominate or Auspex, you can't bounce the bleeder; you had to deal with > it yourself. Which presents you with a number of options: > Bounce it: Nuff said. This include Tel. Counter. A very viable strategy. Tremere and Malkavians are the best at this, but any clan with Dominate or Auspex is fine. > Block it: unless the S&Ber is unlucky, you do not have as much intercept > as they have stealth. Not true. Only in environments where the only intercept is light intercept is this true. Stealth roughly equals intercept in availability and ease of use. > Yes, you will be able to get away with this > occasionally, but even so, you also have S:CE to worry about even if you > do get into combat. Not likely. Only the Setites have this easy combination, and their bleed power isn't as hard to deal with as domniated bleeds. Other decks can put this combo together (S & B & S:CE), but the work they have to invest in it usually slows them down. > And besides; you have Auspex. Just bounce it. > Take it: Oh, look. You were just bled for 7. Again. And the next time you'll likely be bled for one. This isn't a strategy unto itself, however. Usually this is a tactic to reduce the bleeders efficacy until you get them by other means. Note, this strategy tends to jam the hands of high Sneak decks. Low sneak decks aren't affected, but then they get taken out by even light intercept. The sneaker has a fine line to walk. > "Race": By which I mean "kill your prey before you get killed". Hmm, > seems to me like the fastest way to oust a prey is with S&B. Or fast vote. > Hmm, you > could be using Dominate, in which case you could just bounce it, or > Presence, in which case you are probably using Toreador, in which case > you could just bounce it. Could is the operative word. Bouncing bleeds costs blood. Sometimes it is better to simply race, especially with clans using Presence, who can gain pool as they cause their prey to lose it (Via voter captivation or presence bleeds). > Beat 'em Up: Rush their vampires. Well, then you have to deal with S:CE > and Obedience. Obedience is typically more of a concern, while S:CE is something that can be handled (and should be able to be handled) by most combat decks. Obedience requires keeping vampires out of the action (thus, not bleeding as fast or as much), is card and discipline intensive, and is weak against permanent rush. > The latter you can't even deal with at all, so don't > bother. See the above. Only naive combat decks "can't deal with" Obedience. >I'll talk about that more later. S:CE can be dealt with with > Immortal Grapple (rare), Hidden Lurker (inefficient), and Dog Pack > (rare/expensive). I say that hidden lurker is inefficient since it > effects can be avoided by simple maneuvers. If you are the Nosferatu, > you have 1 (count them, 1) maneuver card given by your disciplines, and > if you are Malkavian, Bounce It. However, Hidden Lurker doesn't really require a manuever. The Malks using Hidden Lurker will likely have disguised weapons, the Nossies have sewer lids and gates, and the Assamites have their spit. Even if they do manuever, the deck using Hidden Lurker should be toasting someone in a non-combat deck. You forget blood gain deck defense. > So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: > Brujah, Who have easy access to rush, blood gain, and occasionally (though not as common) race. > Gangrel, Who have rush and intercept. > Nosferatu, Who have rush and intercept. >Assamite, Who have the most amazing rush in the game (Contracts, Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, Covenant of Blood) > FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed might be fast enough) It is. They have blood gain and race. > Ravnos. They have rush, and the best intercept you can shake a stick at. The above are only _typical_ strategies. My Nossie deck laughs at S&B. Why? Because I ignore their stealth (jamming their hand), Rush their vampires with permanent Rush (Archons), surprise rush (Bum's Rush), and _huge_ blood gain (in mid/late game, I can gain 6 to 9 pool a turn, on average. > Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, but > these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a fighting > chance. I totally disagree with the reality of this statement. While having S&B behind any deck in the opening is a pain, the early original loss can be recouped. Many decks will end up directing their attention backwards when S&B is behind them, but the same can be said of Gangrel Rush, Ventrue Vote, or any other number of decks. > AI gives an escape hatch. I would call it an atomic bomb. > It gives S&B a liability, something > to be wary of, which it never really had before. Looking at the above, I can think of many things it had to be wary of. > There was never any > reason _not_ to bleed for 7 instead of 3. Now there is. That's a good > thing in my book. While I agree that it is nice to have a reason not to bleed for as much, there is such a thing as overkill. LSJ's fix is elegant (put AI on the bleeder. That vampire cannot bleed. This card can be burned as a vote), in that it gives reasons for S&B not to bleed, but it doesn't totally decimate a strategy. A long list of suggested fixes of AI has been slowly growing. It seems to me like the only people who prefer AI as written to those suggesed are either CL players, or they come from a CL background. My own belief is that this is because of CLs notorious lack of a way to handle S&B, but I'm not certain. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Sep 1996, Dan Hollis wrote: [Re: Thoughts Betrayed] > First, I agree that the card is overpowered. I do, however, agree with > the direction that the card was taking, since previously, Tremere had no > effective way to deal with S:CE. Fast Reaction is pretty effective. > Hidden Lurker, immortal grapple, all those > cards to give you a free round of combat are out of clan skills. And even > then, a hidden lurker wouldn't get you a second round strike. Both Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction give a press at superior. As for not giving a second round strike, you are right. The only cards that give second round strikes are second round strike cards. >Tremere are > much better suited for briuse/bleed and intercept combat than rush, > which does get them into combat less than rush (your prey might take a > large bleed if he doesn't have a S:CE; and for intercept, your prey > has to take blockable actions and you must have matching intercept as > well as combat). All this made S:CE a big trump card against the Tremere. If the Tremere are doing Rush, they need a more permanent method to deal with S:CE. My Tremere deck uses Haven Uncovered exclusively for get into combat. If they are intercepting, they shouldn't have a problem with S:CE. > And the NL argument against S:CE - that your opponent is going to run out, > eventually, or else he's got to have a huge % of his deck be S:CE; that > arguement can also be used for Thoughts Betrayed. Not really. The arguement only works for S:CE and Obedience because each time a S:CE or Obedience is used, it is stopping a conflict from happening. With each use of TB, there is a great likelihood that the end result is the death of yet another minion. > How many vampires do you > expect to be trouncing, and then, with the intercept, bleed modifiers, > presses, and strikes, are you going to have the right balance of cards? > Granted, I am playing the devil's advocate a little because when you do have > the right balance, then Thoughts Betrayed is basically a ticket to torpor, or > often worse, a precursor to a Walk of Flame and a burnt vampire. The rewards > are far greater than the 'penalty' of waiting for the right 5 cards to fill > your hand. Your statement here is valid. > I think maybe TB could be fairer if it didn't let your opponent > strike (like immortal grapple) but still allowed a press to end or > fortitude. Or maybe something like, your opponent cannot use cards to > end combat, but could still strike (though that eliminates the > defensive use of TB). See my post on a myriad of alternate TB card-texts. Comments are welcome. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <adr...@sol1.cs.wisc.edu> writes: >On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: >>Assamite, >Who have the most amazing rush in the game (Contracts, Haven Uncovered, >Bum's Rush, Covenant of Blood) The Assamites' rush options are no more amazing than any Camarilla options: Any clan with Princes can substitute Blood Hunt for Contract, sacrificing some choices of target for a much larger base of rushers. And you get Archons as well, who aren't limited in targets at all. If you don't have useful princes, then you are Gangrel, and have Garou to rush for you. Imperial Decree replaces Covenant with a Justicar vote (which are pretty common in the games I play). (okay, so this isn't as easy - requiring a card combo rather than just a card, but the card combo is fairly easy, and the Blood Hunt's superiority over Contracts should offset any lost ground here.) Only the other Non-Cam clans are lacking equivalent rush options. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Beatings will continue http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | until morale improves. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Thomas Doehne wrote: > > What about Fast Reaction? Intercept combat, an in-clan skill. gives > a free round of strikes, with a press at superior. What more > do you want? Tremere are the best combat clan with a *common* > in-clan card that gives them a free round of strikes. I didn't think of it - probably because Tremere strikes are, for the most part, second round. Fast Reaction is best used, IMO, to live through a first round against other combat decks. It also gives you an opportunity to do slight damage (2 or 3) to a vampire who would otherwise S:CE. You could give Gangrel out of clan disciplines to play those 'free round of strikes' cards, so they could play their aggravated hand strikes. That may be a pain in the neck, but the Tremere couldn't get a free second round strike at all without Thoughts Betrayed. But ... > Blood to Water/Blood Fury should do enough damage to put most vampires > to bed in one round. Maybe you're not able to burn vampires with the > second round aggro damage, but you can still use Pulled Fangs on > the first round. I'd say Tremere have less trouble with S:CE than > Gangrel. After all, some of them have Celerity (Psyche), too. > My lack of Ancient Hearts cards gets me here. I looked up Blood to Water to refresh my memory, and I agree with you. It's a much better card for game design than Thoughts Betrayed. Fast reaction, a 1st round Theft or Blood Fury, and blood to water is a much better approach for trumping a strike:combat ends. It does hammer a vampire without the second round strike, and there's the bonus of, with a Walk of Flame, having a very good chance of an additional 2R aggro'ed damage if your opponent doesn't have a S:CE anyway. It's such a stylish workaround, too. :-) No really, both S:CE and TB are so blunt and boring; they take the card interplay out of the game. What always bugged me about S:CE is that it is 1 card that it defeats a whole strategy, and very un-Jyhad like. I wouldn't want to see a reaction that caused a vote to automatically fail, and Archon Investigation goes too far against bleed decks. Thoughts betrayed, as a trump card that trumps only S:CE I am still moderately okay with, though (the 'my card hoses your card' attitude is a mtg pitfall which this would come awfully close to). If it did just burn a S:CE, then you'd have hand jams to worry about if your opponent doesn't play with S:CE, and too many will displace more useful combat cards. So, my suggestion, is to make tb more like Drawing Out the Beast, but with the addition of not allowing the opposing minion to play a S:CE. Ultimately, my biggest problem with Thoughts Betrayed is that it also trumps other combat and fortitude damage prevention. dh

Corrupter wrote: "either they aren't being used in your playgroup, or you have some hideously monstrous S&Bleeder the like of which I have never seen" Amazingly, our (James "Get a Coke" Hamblin and myself) group has no consistient really good S+B decks to speak of. Back when we played 4CL, we shamed everyone out of S+B, and so we all got really good at making combat decks, and now that we play NL/GT, we just made our combat decks even better. Only recently, I put together a pure and simple Malk S+B deck as a design exercise (it accidentally swept the table the one time I have used it so far...), but the three most often used and sucesful bleed decks around here of late have been: Mario's Ventrue bleed. This is a very straight forward Dominate +1 stealth bleed deck that has occasional votes and a great deal of Fortitude, as he knows it will be useful (I can't remember the last time a S:CE has been used around here, let alone discarded. Something about my 10 Immortal Grapples...). This deck wins all the time. It is close to immune to combat and always bleeds for 3 (due to a fear of AI, although it has only been actually used once or twice in our play group), has a great deal of blood gain, and is basically the result of a "how to win in a vast combat deck arena" design program. When we all don't use our combat decks, Mario loses. Howard's freakish Protean/Dominate bleed, that is is combo of S+B and alot of Forms of Mist. I constantly killed him, but he ALWAYS ousted Jamses Gangrel Intercept deck, as the Gangrel could not deal with S:CE-continue at +1 stealth. This one was very good and always killes James, but it hasn't been played for a while. Steve Wampler's weenie presence bleed deck. An amazingly effective all 1, 2, and 3 point vampire deck that made 6 or 7 vampires who all bled you for 2 or 3 each action, over and over again. It bled me for 14 in one turn with 4 weenie vampires and a misdirection, due to me not having any Wakes or Reversals in my hand. Doh. Steve took this one apart when we all got Atonement (that and me branding his card box...). These are mostly what killed James's Gangrel Intercept deck. Mario kills him through persitence, Howard kills him with Form of Mist, and Steve killed him with lots and lots of really quick bleeds. It is this what fuels his love for AI. I completely understand why one would dislike AI, and I don't really use them, but I also would never be offended by one of my vampires getting smoked by one either when I go to bleed for 7. For context, James usualy played a Gangrel permanent based intercept/blood gain deck (he recently switched to Gangrel Rush) that in the long haul usually won any game he could get set up in (multiple Raven Spies, Ritual Challenges, ect.), but against a quick bleed deck (any of the above, and the generic Malk S+B), he would lose 2/3 of his pool before he can get going, and then just crumbles from there. I usually play some sort of Nosferatu based Potence rush combat nightmare. My current deck is the much lauded Potence/Fortitude rush deck that is proving to be highly effective, that makes prime use of Nakova, and I am still waiting for the game where I can sucessfully bring out (and keep) Uriah Winter... These are mostly what killed James's Gangrel Intercept deck. Mario kills him through persitence, Howard kills him with Form of Mist, and Steve killed him with lots and lots of really quick bleeds. It is this what fuels his love for AI. I completely understand why one would dislike AI, and I don't really use them, but I also would never be offended by one of my vampires getting smoked by one either when I go to bleed for 7. I'm not quite sure what my point here was, but I always like to ramble. He then wrote: "_huge_ blood gain (in mid/late game, I can gain 6 to 9 pool a turn, on average." Man! How in Caine's name do you set that up? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "...and this Perpetual Motion Machine is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster!" -Homer J Simpson

In response to the Corrupter's reply dated September 9, 1996 >> 2.) Return to innocence > I don't particularly see this as a trump card. What is your reasoning? I see this to be a trump card because of the power of the card, and because in certain situations the only way to stop it is with another trump (Archon invest). The only defenses against RTI are bounce (until the end when you can't), AI, or block. This forces every deck to include bounce (which is rapidly happening in our group), lots of intercept, or lots of AI to be safe. When I run a deck with RTI in it I begin to salivate when I see my prey put out Nosferatsu, Settites, Gangrel, Assimites, Brujah, or anything else without much bounce or intercept. I have frequently minion tapped an I.C. or other large vamp and bled for 10 to 14 points at stealth to abruptly (and prematurely) end someone's game. If you plan it right you can have another vamp ready to come out, or a possession ready so the RTI burning doesn't matter that much. I did this once at the L.A. tournament (to oust a excellent Settite deck that was ready to run away with the game) and was also a victim of it. It is a game ender. >> 5.) Possibly pulled fangs and tomb of Ramses. > Both of these I also don't see a trumps (though Pulled Fangs has > become too powerful with the new aggro ruling). Again, could you > explain your reasoning? With the new aggro rule and the ruling on Rotschreck that won't let you play it against pulled fangs it has become the torpor trump. People around here have developed infinite ways to use it. "I do 2 hand damage and pull your fangs", "I prevent my damage and pull your fangs", or "You dodged, I'll do a additional strike and pull your fangs", etc. It is one thing to bashed for 9 points by a Brujah and have it played to burn you, but all the ticky tack ways I am seeing it used here really make seem like a trump that can only be stopped by SC:E, obedience, or elysium. One thing for sure even if it is not a trump it is sure getting aggravating (excuse the word usage). Tomb of Ramses might not meet the definition of trump your looking for, but it has a extreme effect on the game. More than a couple times I have gotten one of these suckers out on the first turn and brought out two I.C.s or other large vamps in three turns. Every time I get one at the beginning of the game everyone checks for sudden reversals, and there is a large mutual groan (sometimes accented with cursing) if nobody has one. My winning percentage since I got 4 tombs is over 50%. To me it seems like to big a advantage if you use large vamps. > Thanks. Your welcome. [ quoted text not captured ]

Large Snip > > Beat 'em Up: Rush their vampires. Well, then you have to deal with S:CE > > and Obedience. > > Obedience is typically more of a concern, while S:CE is something that > can be handled (and should be able to be handled) by most combat decks. > Obedience requires keeping vampires out of the action (thus, not bleeding > as fast or as much), is card and discipline intensive, and is weak > against permanent rush. > > > The latter you can't even deal with at all, so don't > > bother. > > See the above. Only naive combat decks "can't deal with" Obedience. > > >I'll talk about that more later. S:CE can be dealt with with > > Immortal Grapple (rare), Hidden Lurker (inefficient), and Dog Pack > > (rare/expensive). I say that hidden lurker is inefficient since it > > effects can be avoided by simple maneuvers. If you are the Nosferatu, > > you have 1 (count them, 1) maneuver card given by your disciplines, and > > if you are Malkavian, Bounce It. > > However, Hidden Lurker doesn't really require a manuever. The Malks > using Hidden Lurker will likely have disguised weapons, the Nossies have > sewer lids and gates, and the Assamites have their spit. Even if they do > manuever, the deck using Hidden Lurker should be toasting someone in a > non-combat deck. > And I think you are both forgetting the best combat defense against S:CE, and that is Pysche, I have at least 6 of these in my cel combat decks. Errol T

CurtAdams wrote: > > James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: > > >I agree with you completely. I am now going to reiterate the > >now-so-famous it has my name attached to it > >James-Hamblin's-rant-against-cards-that-make-you- > >unable-to-play-the-game. > > (e.g. Thoughts Betrayed and others) > > One point to add to this - a card that prevents somebody from playing > makes the game not fun for them. Even if it is properly balanced (and > that is necessarily very difficult for such cards) it will be a detriment. > > >So, S&B is hard for the following clans to deal with: > > >Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Assamite, FoSet (although Obf/Pre bleed > >might be fast enough), Ravnos. > > >Sure these clans have various ways of _trying_ to deal with S&B, > >but these usually require devotion of an entire deck to even have a > >fighting chance. AI gives an escape hatch. > > Yes, it does, just as TB gives an escape hatch for S:CE. But it's the > wrong escape hatch, because it's a guillotine. Elder Intervention is a > good broadening of the anti-S&B defenses. LSJ's suggestion of AI > preventing the target from bleeding until a vote is passed is a good > hatch. AI is still out of line with the Jyhad cardset; it's still a "may > as well get a Coke" card when you're hit with it. > Hi Curt, once more we disagree, Do you remeber the Malk bleeder you posted and wrote about extensivly well I have a copy of the deck in a box I carry it around with me with all my other decks, I never play the deck unless I run across some moron that tries to tell me that there is'nt a problem with S&B, I made one modification to the deck I put in some Minion taps and an InfoHighways into it, When I play this deck I do not fear AI, seeing them play it only makes me happier when I see 3 blood leaving there pool, I mowed through 4 players AI I scoff at it Big deal I lose my malk bleeder he\she only had one blood anyway who cares, I get another or use the other 3 that I have because I have more vampires because of the minion taps. So again I am really amazed that people have a serious problem with AI as far as TB is goes I feel it should be banned and forget about fixing such a ridiculous card it should never have been made in the first place. Errol T.

the...@aol.com (Thetmes) writes: >In response to the Corrupter's reply dated September 9, 1996 >>> 5.) Possibly pulled fangs and tomb of Ramses. >> Both of these I also don't see a trumps (though Pulled Fangs has >> become too powerful with the new aggro ruling). Again, could you >> explain your reasoning? >With the new aggro rule and the ruling on Rotschreck that won't let you >play it against pulled fangs it has become the torpor trump. People >around here have developed infinite ways to use it. Pulled Fangs has always been the torpor trump. In some interpretations Rotschreck is a countertrump, but PF is still a trump. PF is, and has always been, too gross. It's *free*, for crying out loud, in a good close combat deck - no cost, and you *will* do more at close combat from time to time. Even the old effect (old aggro rules) was too good. If PF did only the "cannot hunt" restriction, it would still get used plenty often for a rare card. It would still be basically free, and the "cannot hunt" restriction is very painful from time to time. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Errol wrote: > I never play the deck > unless I run across some moron that tries to tell me that there is'nt a > problem with S&B, I made one modification to the deck I put in some > Minion taps and an InfoHighways into it, When I play this deck I do not > fear AI, seeing them play it only makes me happier when I see 3 blood > leaving there pool, I mowed through 4 players AI I scoff at it Big deal I > lose my malk bleeder he\she only had one blood anyway who cares, I get > another or use the other 3 that I have because I have more vampires > because of the minion taps. S&B is not a problem. It may be difficult to play against, but a combat deck should be able to pound vampires with 1 blood. A vote deck may have a bit more trouble, but could always change seating order, Ventrue and Toreador can bounce the bleed, or the deck could call damaging votes. And first, the vampire that you're about to minion tap is going to have to live through a turn without losing the blood you plan to get back. Which most likely won't happen if you're next to a rush combat deck. How much avoid combat does the deck have? With enough minion taps to consistantly grab pool before you lose it to combat, or with enough taps to handle a sudden reversal, then you're going to have to take something out of the deck. Let me guess that it's not going to be stealth or bleed, since that's the focus of the deck and I'll assume you've tuned it so you already have the right ratio. Maybe some bleed bounce, or maybe some anti-combat? Oh, and how are you going to play a conditioning, legal manipulations, or govern the unaligned with a stripped minion? I don't see you can get this to work well; how you can really not care about losing a vampire, most likely somewhat large to have the stealth & bleed skills you need. You've added a whole new aspect to the deck (cardwise, you're going to be less efficient), and made yourself more susceptible to combat, especially rush combat. Dh

On 10 Sep 1996, PDB6 wrote: > Corrupter wrote: >> "either they aren't being used in your playgroup, or you have some >> hideously monstrous S&Bleeder the like of which I have never seen" > Amazingly, our (James "Get a Coke" Hamblin and myself) group has no > consistient really good S+B decks to speak of. Back when we played 4CL, > we shamed everyone out of S+B, and so we all got really good at making > combat decks, and now that we play NL/GT, we just made our combat decks > even better. Only recently, I put together a pure and simple Malk S+B > deck as a design exercise (it accidentally swept the table the one time I > have used it so far...), but the three most often used and sucesful bleed > decks around here of late have been: I'd be more willing to bet that rather than the deck "accidentally" beating those decks, that from your description of your play environment, your group has mutated into a high-combat environment, unused to dealing with other strategies. This would make a Malk S&B have an advantage (most decks aren't prepared for bleed or vote, they're prepared for combat). > Mario's Ventrue bleed. This is a very straight forward Dominate +1 > stealth bleed deck that has occasional votes and a great deal of > Fortitude, as he knows it will be useful (I can't remember the last time a > S:CE has been used around here, let alone discarded. Something about my > 10 Immortal Grapples...). This deck wins all the time. It is close to > immune to combat and always bleeds for 3 (due to a fear of AI, although it > has only been actually used once or twice in our play group), has a great > deal of blood gain, and is basically the result of a "how to win in a vast > combat deck arena" design program. When we all don't use our combat > decks, Mario loses. I think this illustrates my point. I feel fortunate that my play area has such a varied variety of decks. > Howard's freakish Protean/Dominate bleed, that is is combo of S+B and alot > of Forms of Mist. I constantly killed him, but he ALWAYS ousted Jamses > Gangrel Intercept deck, as the Gangrel could not deal with S:CE-continue > at +1 stealth. This one was very good and always killes James, but it > hasn't been played for a while. James: My suggestion (using your old deck for a guide) would be to not block him and start using permanent rush. Or race him. Unless he has a lot of +bleeders, those early bleeds will hurt, but the jammed S:CE will slow him down until you get a haven uncovered or other permanent rush out. Then (knowing your deck) he will be hurt. > Steve Wampler's weenie presence bleed deck. An amazingly effective all 1, > 2, and 3 point vampire deck that made 6 or 7 vampires who all bled you for > 2 or 3 each action, over and over again. It bled me for 14 in one turn > with 4 weenie vampires and a misdirection, due to me not having any Wakes > or Reversals in my hand. Doh. Steve took this one apart when we all got > Atonement (that and me branding his card box...). :) > These are mostly what killed James's Gangrel Intercept deck. Mario kills > him through persitence, Howard kills him with Form of Mist, and Steve > killed him with lots and lots of really quick bleeds. It is this what > fuels his love for AI. I completely understand why one would dislike AI, > and I don't really use them, but I also would never be offended by one of > my vampires getting smoked by one either when I go to bleed for 7. I just think it is too harsh. Getting bled for seven is something that you can stop, and it typically costs resources (actions, blood, pool, etcv). AIs resource cost is negligable (SP?) (the three cost is actually blood _gain_ since you would have lost more, and a loss of a master phase. Basicly a net gain) and its effect so devastating, I cannot like it. > For context, James usualy played a Gangrel permanent based intercept/blood > gain deck (he recently switched to Gangrel Rush) that in the long haul > usually won any game he could get set up in (multiple Raven Spies, Ritual > Challenges, ect.), but against a quick bleed deck (any of the above, and > the generic Malk S+B), he would lose 2/3 of his pool before he can get > going, and then just crumbles from there. I usually play some sort of > Nosferatu based Potence rush combat nightmare. My current deck is the > much lauded Potence/Fortitude rush deck that is proving to be highly > effective, that makes prime use of Nakova, and I am still waiting for the > game where I can sucessfully bring out (and keep) Uriah Winter... Hey, I'd love to see these decks on my deck archive. Send me a bunch of 'em. :) While it might be awhile before I get them online (I'm backed up about 15 decks), the more the merrier. > He then wrote: >> "_huge_ blood gain (in mid/late game, I can gain 6 to 9 pool a turn, on >> average." > Man! How in Caine's name do you set that up? :) Intimidation. My "SlumLords" deck is the one that pulls it off. It is a Nosferatu politics deck with an 18 vampire crypt based on Pot-Obf. Its two majors are combat and politics, with a minor in location removal. The deck has 6 effective managements and 6 (the nossie version of effective management). It rushes voters (quite well, especially with Hidden Lurker for anti-S:CE) then starts passing Consanguineaous Boons and Autarkis Persecution.. My record, to date, is gaining 40 pool in one turn (though everyone else gained 12 to 15). [ quoted text not captured ]

Errol <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: (re Archon Investigation) >Hi Curt, once more we disagree, Do you remeber the >Malk bleeder you posted and wrote about extensively? >I have put Minion taps and an InfoHighways into it, >When I play this deck I do not fear AI, seeing them play >it only makes me happier when I see 3 blood >leaving there pool, I mowed through 4 players AI I scoff at it Is this in a 4cl environment? In that, S&B is out of hand and AI may be necessary. Otherwise, there are otherways to deal with S&B. Adding AI converts any reasonably defended anti-bleed deck into a horrendous killer. You are right in that AI by itself is not an adequate defense vs. S&B. A point I would add is that AI is often harsher to other bleed decks than S&B >So again I am really amazed that people have >a serious problem with AI >as far as TB is goes I feel it should be banned >and forget about fixing such a ridiculous card >it should never have been made in the first place. Well, that's a reasonable approach. Pity it's too late. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Corrupter wrote: "I'd be more willing to bet that rather than the deck "accidentally" beating those decks, that from your description of your play environment, your group has mutated into a high-combat environment, unused to dealing with other strategies." Actually, there was no accident about it :-) Granted, my first prey was a not yet working Brujah combat Rush deck, and it just went down hill from there. You are entirely correct about our play enviornment, though, but we are all prepared for S+B (and I don't even think anyone is even using AI. I like Major Boon better, m'self). Me and Josh Rush and Kill things, James now has Gangrel with Deflection, Dave has Auspex anti-Bleed. The Deck I took to Origins (the only actual experience I had with people outs side of our play group) was a Nosferatu (duh) Potence Rush and Deflection deck, that did fairly well, clearing the table 1 game and coming in second another game (well, and getting horibly killed in the third...). Then he said: "I think this illustrates my point. I feel fortunate that my play area has such a varied variety of decks." Again, you are entirely correct. We all have other decks that we occasionaly play, but most of our efforts (and good cards) go into honing our favorite decks (that all happen to be combat...). If someone really wants (in our play circle) to make a deck that is specifically designed to kill one of us, they can, and usually will win as a result of our predictability, but at least then we can harass them untill they make a new deck. And finally, he wrote: "My record, to date, is gaining 40 pool in one turn (though everyone else gained 12 to 15)." Woo Hoo! Man, what a nightmare. Very excellent. [ quoted text not captured ]

>And finally, he wrote: >"My record, to date, is gaining 40 pool in one turn (though everyone else >gained 12 to 15)." How'd he do it, did he say? Sorrow

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96091...@sol1.cs.wisc.edu> The Corrupter <adr...@sol1.cs.wisc.edu> writes: >> Take it: Oh, look. You were just bled for 7. Again. >And the next time you'll likely be bled for one. This isn't a strategy >unto itself, however. Usually this is a tactic to reduce the bleeders >efficacy until you get them by other means. Note, this strategy tends to >jam the hands of high Sneak decks. Low sneak decks aren't affected, but >then they get taken out by even light intercept. The sneaker has a fine >line to walk. Unless your group plays by the literal reading of the V:tES rule book which allows unlimited stealth before the action is blocked. Furthmore the actual text of the rule book limits you to 1 VP per turn. Is there a list of official errata for the V:tES rulebook? I know about the "stealing blood doesn't burn a vampire errata" but what else?

On 11 Sep 1996, Thetmes wrote: > In response to the Corrupter's reply dated September 9, 1996 > >> 2.) Return to innocence > > I don't particularly see this as a trump card. What is your reasoning? > I see this to be a trump card because of the power of the card, Which I'm not to concerned with. The card is dead weight until mid/late game. A dead card in hand is a _huge_ detriment in Jyhad. > and > because in certain situations the only way to stop it is with another > trump (Archon invest). This I can see. > The only defenses against RTI are bounce (until > the end when you can't), AI, or block. Another "defense" is placing a predator in such a weak position (via Rush, Back-bleeding/voting, etc.) that losing that vampire is not worth the cost. One thing to note, this only really works if people play to _win_ the game, not just oust _a_ prey. (This game really begins to break down if people aren't trying to win.) >This forces every deck to include > bounce (which is rapidly happening in our group), lots of intercept, or > lots of AI to be safe. When I run a deck with RTI in it I begin to > salivate when I see my prey put out Nosferatsu, Settites, Gangrel, > Assimites, Brujah, or anything else without much bounce or intercept. I > have frequently minion tapped an I.C. or other large vamp and bled for > 10 to 14 points at stealth to abruptly (and prematurely) end someone's > game. If you plan it right you can have another vamp ready to come out, > or a possession ready so the RTI burning doesn't matter that much. I > did this once at the L.A. tournament (to oust a excellent Settite deck > that was ready to run away with the game) and was also a victim of it. > It is a game ender. This is a valid point. I don't like the idea of seeing a game brought to an abrupt halt like RTI could do. My total position on RTI is thus: I don't think the card is too inexpensive, in fact (do to its hand-jamming), I think it is priced correctly. However, I don't think the card has a place in the game. (I do think it is a trump, or at least a semi-trump.) To make an analogy to another card, if Thoughts Betrayed cost 3 blood, I would feel that the cost was appropriate, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable with a card like it in the playset (It's more a Magic card than a Jyhad card). > >> 5.) Possibly pulled fangs and tomb of Ramses. > > Both of these I also don't see a trumps (though Pulled Fangs has > > become too powerful with the new aggro ruling). Again, could you > > explain your reasoning? [multiple examples of ease of Pulling Fangs] I'm not convinced Pulled Fangs is a trump, though with the new V:tES agg-damage, I think it is too powerful. IMHO, errata to make the damage zero would be appropriate (but if one damage is not "prevented" the vampire goes to torpor). > Tomb of Ramses might not meet the definition of trump your looking > for, but it has a extreme effect on the game. More than a couple times I > have gotten one of these suckers out on the first turn and brought out > two I.C.s or other large vamps in three turns. Every time I get one at > the beginning of the game everyone checks for sudden reversals, and > there is a large mutual groan (sometimes accented with cursing) if > nobody has one. My winning percentage since I got 4 tombs is over > 50%. To me it seems like to big a advantage if you use large vamps. I wouldn't consider this a trump either, but it is definately undercosted. In case people are wondering, I consider a "trump" to be a card which forces people to have certain specific defenses or die, or a card that disallows certain _entire_ strategies. Thoughts Betrayed is such a card, as it requires permanent combat ability from the opponent. Archon Investigation is such a card, as it not only stops big bleeds, but destroys the Methuselah even attempting to do one. This might cause someone to feel that Elder Kindred Network is such a card, but Elder Kindred Network is still something relatively preventable. (The above is not too clear, but then, I've only had 3 hours sleep (and upwards of a quart of coffee... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Dan Hollis wrote: > > Errol wrote: > > I never play the deck > > unless I run across some moron that tries to tell me that there is'nt a > > problem with S&B, I made one modification to the deck I put in some > > Minion taps and an InfoHighways into it, When I play this deck I do not > > fear AI, seeing them play it only makes me happier when I see 3 blood [ quoted text not captured ] Hi Dan, All the points you've made about the deck are valid, I have used Brujah combat to pound the shit out of a similar deck, there are defenses, but all the questions you raise are the same questions you can raise about every deck you build, Do they have sufficeint defense,Offense, weather it comes in its many forms of bounce,vote,combat rush,bleed itself makes know difference, in Jyhad a majority of decks take time to set up when they do watch out they should be ready for anything, I guess what I am trying to say is everytime I have played the deck I win and that in it self says theres a problem because if players have to overly alter the decks for a certain stradegy then there is a definite problem, just to let you and others no the deck was a 4cl playing in a NL environment, I still did'nt have a problem winning, but I am the first to admit that I know there are ways to kill the deck you have pointed them all out, but keep in mind that the ways to do it are high in Dom,Aus, which are limited to key clans or key Vamps. Errol T.

Dan Hollis <da...@mastercam.com> wrote: Ok, I seem to be only catching a butt-end here... Exactly what are the spects for Mr. Forestal?

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96091...@sol1.cs.wisc.edu> The Corrupter <adr...@sol1.cs.wisc.edu> writes: >On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: I'm going to chime in here: >[Curt Adams wrote:] >> > The other trump is Archon Investigation. Again, there's nothing you can >> > do about an Investigation. >> [snip] >> > This one burns a vampire, with no recourse, for nothing more than using >> > one common Dominate card at superior. [a lot of good discussion snipped] >> Beat 'em Up: Rush their vampires. Well, then you have to deal with S:CE >> and Obedience. > >Obedience is typically more of a concern, while S:CE is something that >can be handled (and should be able to be handled) by most combat decks. >Obedience requires keeping vampires out of the action (thus, not bleeding >as fast or as much), is card and discipline intensive, and is weak >against permanent rush. > >> The latter you can't even deal with at all, so don't >> bother. > >See the above. Only naive combat decks "can't deal with" Obedience. I agree. S&B has a lot of trouble with a rush combat deck, esp. one that uses Haven Uncovered. Here's why: 1) Rush doesn't intercept the bleeds. The bleeder chokes on their sneak cards. 2) They rarely get even one bleed off. A good rush deck can choke off the S&B offense before it can get going. Even when it's packing Obedience. [more snip] >> Brujah, > >Who have easy access to rush, blood gain, and occasionally (though not as >common) race. I play a Brujah rush deck, and like only one thing more than having a Malk S&B deck as my predator (having one as my prey). They're awfully fragile, even with Obedience and Disguised Weapons. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Sorrow writes: >>"My record, to date, is gaining 40 pool in one turn (though everyone else >>gained 12 to 15)." >How'd he do it, did he say? Sounds like WVP with Auturkis Persecution. A friend of mine has a Caitiff vote push deck that regularly gains 10+ pool in a round. -- ________________ Talk is cheap ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ unless it goes (beep). / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

> >I agree with you completely. I am now going to reiterate the > >now-so-famous it has my name attached to it > >James-Hamblin's-rant-against-cards-that-make-you- > >unable-to-play-the-game. > > (e.g. Thoughts Betrayed and others) > > One point to add to this - a card that prevents somebody from playing > makes the game not fun for them. Even if it is properly balanced (and > that is necessarily very difficult for such cards) it will be > a detriment. [smacks his forehead] Well, that's the single most important reason, and I'm surprised that I was so heavily in rant-mode that I didn't get that across... sorry... > AI is still out of line with the Jyhad cardset; it's still a "may > as well get a Coke" card when you're hit with it. Then again, you are kind of asking for it. In a combat deck, for example, you have to consider all of the possible things your opponent can do; press, maneuver, have guns, have additional strikes, have Thau, have S:CE, etc. But in S&B, the only thing you would have to worry about is not getting blocked. And unless your prey is a full-fledged auspex intercept deck, you probably won't have a problem. So, now, with AI, you have something to worry about. Just like someone in combat with the Gangrel has to worry about getting poked in the eye, you have to worry about AI. You don't _have_ to bleed for more than 3. That's your choice. Question: How is this card being played in decks? Do people have multiple copies? Do big bleeders get burned constantly? It hasn't been much of a problem around here... > Obedience isn't S:CE, but its effects are virtually the same (nothing > happens in combat, at superior he's tapped and you're untapped) so I > have > it filed mentally with S:CE. I agree that it is also a problem, and > that > many S:CE fixes will not help with Obedience. Yes, the problem is that even the few things that help against S:CE don't help against Obedience. This leads me to a new card idea: Assassinate Action Potence Inf: (D) Attack a minion of your predator or prey at +1 stealth. Sup: As above, and for the remainer of this action, the controller of that minion may not play reaction cards. This stops obedience, but isn't much more powerful than Bum's Rush. James PS: This was supposed to be posted two weeks ago, but due to some sort of error, it's only being posted now... -- | James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |

>James Hamblin wrote: > This leads me to a new card idea: > > Assassinate > Action > Potence > Inf: (D) Attack a minion of your predator or prey at +1 stealth. > Sup: As above, and for the remainer of this action, the controller of > that minion may not play reaction cards. > This stops obedience, but isn't much more powerful than Bum's Rush. IMO, James, Assassinate is a more powerful card than Bum's Rush at superior. Bum's Rush could be blocked more easily, and Auspex-Animalism has no chance of intercepting the Assassinate action. No reaction cards may be played. You might want to reword it so that it allows the rusher, if unblocked, to skip directly to the choose strike phase of combat. The victim has no chance to get ready, use Obedience or Thoughts Betrayed, Increased Strength, Weather Control, or Torn Signpost. -Nathan Harada

Hi James, On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: [Stuff about Archon Investigation and Thoughts Betrayed deleted] > But in S&B, the only thing you would have to worry > about is not getting blocked. And unless your prey is a full-fledged > auspex intercept deck, you probably won't have a problem. So, now, with > AI, you have something to worry about. God, I would love to have you as a predator when I'm playing my Giovani "Teamsters" deck. 20 wakes and 25 deflections.... > Question: How is this card being played in decks? Do people have > multiple copies? Most of our players have original Jyhad cards for their basic stuff, so only one of our regulars even has a copy (he has two), so basically if he is your prey most people only bleed him for three (I'm probably the sole exception.) > Do big bleeders get burned constantly? It hasn't been much of a problem > around here... No, they only get burned occasionally, but it would be worse if more people owned AI Algustas *****Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way***** Danielle Vare

On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: [someone wrote:] > > AI is still out of line with the Jyhad cardset; it's still a "may > > as well get a Coke" card when you're hit with it. > Then again, you are kind of asking for it. In a combat deck, for > example, you have to consider all of the possible things your opponent > can do; press, maneuver, have guns, have additional strikes, have Thau, > have S:CE, etc. But in S&B, the only thing you would have to worry > about is not getting blocked[...] ...and not being deflected and not being rushed and not being outrun in pool and not ... > And unless your prey is a full-fledged > auspex intercept deck, you probably won't have a problem. So, now, with > AI, you have something to worry about. Just like someone in combat with > the Gangrel has to worry about getting poked in the eye, you have to > worry about AI. You don't _have_ to bleed for more than 3. That's your > choice. However, there are many decks which take a lot of effort (and blockable actions, stealable equipment, etc) to be able to build up to a high permanent bleed. Theese decks are totally destroyed by AI. One card. Not only is it just one card that is able to destroy a _set_ of deck types (not even counting how it can make a bonding fatal for an IC member), its cost is far less than its payback. Every other card has an appropriate cost (with a few exceptions). With AI's current cost, I think it would be appropriate if the bleed were successful. After all, isn't 3 pool to destroy a vampire doing something "bad" appropriate. Currently, however, the cost is -X pool to destroy a vampire who bleeds you for 3+X. Great cost... :P > Question: How is this card being played in decks? Do people have > multiple copies? > Do big bleeders get burned constantly? It hasn't been much of a problem > around here... That's because fear of the card has made it too much of a risk to try to play a big bleeder. > > Obedience isn't S:CE, but its effects are virtually the same (nothing > > happens in combat, at superior he's tapped and you're untapped) so I > > have > > it filed mentally with S:CE. I agree that it is also a problem, and > > that > > many S:CE fixes will not help with Obedience. > Yes, the problem is that even the few things that help against S:CE > don't help against Obedience. Permanent rush does it. As has been argued many times in the past, obediences main problem is that it slows down a bleed-deck (who is taking out one of their big bleeders for defense) AI is out of line for three reasons: 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) 2) Unprecedented effect (compare to Golconda) 3) Destruction of an entire strategy with a single card (Magic effect) Opinions? [ quoted text not captured ]

theCorrupter wrote: > [snip discussion of AI] > > Permanent rush does it. > As has been argued many times in the past, obediences main problem is that > it slows down a bleed-deck (who is taking out one of their big bleeders > for defense) Sadly, you have to keep in mind the environment I play in... a bleed deck around here puts in tons of anti-combat cards without worrying about getting slowed down; they know that they'll be in combat all the time. It seems like the only solution is to _not_ get into combat, but while you're doing that, they're killing you. > AI is out of line for three reasons: > 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) It's not as though you're burning a vampire and gaining pool. Besides, using your argument on Obedience, no deck is going to have more than 2 of these things, and many decks won't have any. I'm taking mine out, 'cause I just got a hold of Protracted Racehorses. I'll be frank. I'm just finding it hard for _my_ deck to deal with S&B. The intercept angle works really well most of the time. When I lose, I lose because I get really messed up by a superior combat deck, or I get S&B'd to death in about 10 minutes. When the latter happens, I get really, really annoyed and frustrated. Putting vampires with DOM in and using Deflections helps a little, but not much. Watering my deck down with rush isn't an answer. I feel that it has to be one or the other. But without potence, Gangrel rush doesn't really compare to Brujah. What to do...? James [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3245B9...@cornell.edu>, je...@cornell.edu says... > >theCorrupter wrote: >> >[snip discussion of AI] >> >> Permanent rush does it. >> As has been argued many times in the past, obediences main problem is that >> it slows down a bleed-deck (who is taking out one of their big bleeders >> for defense) > >Sadly, you have to keep in mind the environment I play in... a bleed >deck around here puts in tons of anti-combat cards without worrying >about getting slowed down; they know that they'll be in combat all the >time. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this say something about the enviroment? If someone made a deck which is specifically able to deal with the weaknesses of almost all of the other decks in the enviroment, then they'll probably win. This is true of almost any type of deck. Solution? Make the enviroment less homogenous, or just beat the S&B deck at its own game. Bruise and bleed; tap and bleed, tap and fight. Hey, that one's not a bad idea, if you're really worried about obedience(admitedly, it doesn't deal w/ majesties. Damn). >It seems like the only solution is to _not_ get into combat, but while >you're doing that, they're killing you. > >> AI is out of line for three reasons: >> 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) > >It's not as though you're burning a vampire and gaining pool. Besides, Well, effectively, you are. The bleed would have been successful(ie. you either couldn't block or chose not to just so you could burn the vampire), so effectively you are a) gaining pool, or at least not losing as much as you would have, b) Burning a vampire of your predator's for no additional other than the (effective) gain of pool, c) negating the success of the bleed, so that your predator does not gain the edge. From my perspective, If I've spent 13 pool and an action transferring out Leandro, Playing a Legendary Vampire one him, and Giving him a Pulse of the Canaille, and someone can play one card, cancel my bleed, and burn a vampire who I've put a huge amount of pool and resources into for 3 pool, I would definitely feel that the card that they played was unfair. Can you see that? >using your argument on Obedience, no deck is going to have more than 2 >of these things, and many decks won't have any. I'm taking mine out, >'cause I just got a hold of Protracted Racehorses. Protected Resources is also an overpowered card, from my perspective (I will admit that I am a S&B supporter, but...), because it allows your predator no options as to getting rid of it. It can really cripple a S&B deck, or any other type of bleed deck which relies on single vampires getting through. Inner circlers, Vamps with Legendary vampire played on them, and whatever else, only bleed for 2, at most. Not to mention that their hand will be jamming with bleed cards which will most likely cost blood. Ick. And it costs no pool, right? I can just see a disgusting blood machine deck with protected resources out, bleed bounce and countering, and ways to gain up to four pool a turn. Nasty; and if they're doing vote damage and/or anarch revolts, it's never going away. >I'll be frank. I'm just finding it hard for _my_ deck to deal with >S&B. The intercept angle works really well most of the time. When I How much stealth do they play with? Maybe I'm totally off in my calculations here, but it would seem to me that w/ gangrel intercept, you've not only got the best potential for permanent intercept(raven spy, sport's bike, KRCG/London Evening star), but also the best untap ability as well. Unless they've been pulling superior Elder Impersonations and Seductions on every bleed, it would seem that you'd be able to get them at least 1/2 the time, and claw them to pieces. Also, although I hate to advocate it, speed works well in most decks. >lose, I lose because I get really messed up by a superior combat deck, >or I get S&B'd to death in about 10 minutes. When the latter happens, I >get really, really annoyed and frustrated. Putting vampires with DOM in >and using Deflections helps a little, but not much. Watering my deck >down with rush isn't an answer. I feel that it has to be one or the >other. But without potence, Gangrel rush doesn't really compare to >Brujah. What to do...? Gangrel rush doesn't compare to Brujah? Geeze. I was under the impression that Brujah was slightly inferior. They can't get stealth as easily, picking on their chosen target; aggravated damage is a lot harder to come by, etc. And Gangrel, if they can get extra strikes through a vial of Garou blood or Shadow of the wolf, can make their last strike aggravated and burn people. Or just send them to torpor. Maybe it's just me, but I've been a lot more frightened by gangrel decks than by Brujah recently... Maybe it's just the flexibility that the gangrel seem to have. But, unless I know more, I can't really make any suggestions or judgements. Alec Chang

>permanent bleed. Theese decks are totally destroyed by AI. >AI is out of line for three reasons: > 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) > 2) Unprecedented effect (compare to Golconda) > 3) Destruction of an entire strategy with a single card (Magic effect) Can you sudden reverse an AI? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to... Sorrow

Alec Chang wrote: > > >Sadly, you have to keep in mind the environment I play in... a bleed > >deck around here puts in tons of anti-combat cards without worrying > >about getting slowed down; they know that they'll be in combat all the > >time. > > Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this say something about the enviroment? > If someone made a deck which is specifically able to deal with the weaknesses > of almost all of the other decks in the enviroment, then they'll probably win. > This is true of almost any type of deck. Solution? Make the enviroment less > homogenous, or just beat the S&B deck at its own game. Bruise and bleed; tap and > bleed, tap and fight. Hey, that one's not a bad idea, if you're really worried > about obedience(admitedly, it doesn't deal w/ majesties. Damn). What is a deck specifically able to deal with the weaknesses of a combat deck that does not have anti-combat cards in it. Right now I think we're stuck in a vicious combat cycle. [snip arg. of AI as pool gain] > Can you see that? I see your argument, but I don't agree. As Corrupter says, I can go either way with this card, but I don't think that it's that bad; we'll just have to disagree... > Protected Resources is also an overpowered card, from my perspective > (I will admit that I am a S&B supporter, but...), because it allows your predator > no options as to getting rid of it. It can really cripple a S&B deck, or any other > type of bleed deck which relies on single vampires getting through. Inner > circlers, Vamps with Legendary vampire played on them, and whatever else, only > bleed for 2, at most. Not to mention that their hand will be jamming with bleed > cards which will most likely cost blood. Ick. And it costs no pool, right? No, it costs 2 pool and gets burned if you ever bleed anyone. Sure, it prevents you from being killed, but it's hard to kill your prey (I guess you could vote them out of existence). > I can just see a disgusting blood machine deck with protected resources out, bleed > bounce and countering, and ways to gain up to four pool a turn. Nasty; and if > they're doing vote damage and/or anarch revolts, it's never going away. Good point. I guess I have no moral qualms about it since the only non-bleed damage I have is Army of Rats. > >I'll be frank. I'm just finding it hard for _my_ deck to deal with > >S&B. The intercept angle works really well most of the time. When I > > How much stealth do they play with? Lots n' lots. But if I try to jam their hand, I die. > Maybe I'm totally off in my calculations here, > but it would seem to me that w/ gangrel intercept, you've not only got > the best potential for permanent intercept(raven spy, sport's bike, KRCG/London > Evening star), but also the best untap ability as well. But perm. based intercept is _slow_. Once they get a vampire out, they can bleed me for 6 on the next turn. I have a Raven Spy. Do I attempt to block, and help them cycle? Or maybe I even succeed, only to get S:CEd and bled again. > Unless they've been > pulling superior Elder Impersonations and Seductions on every bleed, it > would seem that you'd be able to get them at least 1/2 the time, and claw them > to pieces. Also, although I hate to advocate it, speed works well in most decks. I never succeed in combat with the Malk/Gangrel S&B deck; too much S:CE and no way to stop it, too much stealth and I can't block it. I haven't played against Peter's new Malk S&B deck, but I assume that I would be as ineffective. > Gangrel rush doesn't compare to Brujah? Geeze. I was under the impression > that Brujah was slightly inferior. Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. > They can't get stealth as easily, picking on > their chosen target; aggravated damage is a lot harder to come by, etc. Who cares who you beat up? You're beating up somebody, thus satisfying your purpose. I just can't see putting stealth into a rush deck. > And Gangrel, if they can get extra strikes through a vial of Garou blood or Shadow > of the wolf, can make their last strike aggravated and burn people. Or just send > them to torpor. Why would you play Shadow of the Wolf when they might just S:CE? I mean, I admit that repeated rushes, over and over again, could possibly get around S:CE, just by running them out, but why play an important beginning-of-round card? > Maybe it's just me, but I've been a lot more frightened by gangrel > decks than by Brujah recently... Maybe it's just the flexibility that the gangrel > seem to have. I'm still dubious... > But, unless I know more, I can't really make any suggestions or judgements. OK, well, there's probably going to be some Jyhad tonight. I'll change my deck to Gangrel rush; we'll see what happens. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Sep 1996, Sorrow wrote: [The Corrupter wrote:] > >AI is out of line for three reasons: > > 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) > > 2) Unprecedented effect (compare to Golconda) > > 3) Destruction of an entire strategy with a single card (Magic effect) > Can you sudden reverse an AI? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't > be able to... No, you can't sudden reversal an AI. Sudden Reversal is an out-of-turn master, and thus, cannot be used on your own turn (according to the definition of OOT-Master). Only OOT-Masters (like Absolution of th Diabolist) that _explicitly_ say that they can be used on your on turn, may be. Otherwise, you would need to convince another player to do it for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3246B5...@cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote: >Alec Chang wrote: JH>Sadly, you have to keep in mind the environment I play in... a bleed JH>deck around here puts in tons of anti-combat cards without worrying JH>about getting slowed down; they know that they'll be in combat all the JH>time. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how they can keep their hand full of stealth *and* bleed *and* combat defense at all times. Peek at their hand (Owl Companion for Gangrel, Aura Reading for someone with Auspex). Choose your opportunity. [AC mentions that the environment might, by its high combat content, be allowing the Malkies to reliably exercise their hand] >What is a deck specifically able to deal with the weaknesses of a combat >deck that does not have anti-combat cards in it. Right now I think >we're stuck in a vicious combat cycle. Votes come to mind; with most combat decks, speed's at a premium, which means title-starved weenies. Also, cards (a) have annoying effects and (b) take actions to burn mean that either actions are being spent (i.e., someone's busy voting away the Anarch Revolt rather than Bum's Rushing Ozmo into the ground), or the nasty effects happen (and 1 pool a turn, every turn, can get ugly faster than one would realize). >I see your argument, but I don't agree. As Corrupter says, I can go >either way with this card, but I don't think that it's that bad; we'll >just have to disagree... I reckon so; Alec gave an excellent summation, and I'm sure I can't do better just now. [ProtraRes by AC elided] >No, it costs 2 pool and gets burned if you ever bleed anyone. Sure, it >prevents you from being killed, but it's hard to kill your prey (I guess >you could vote them out of existence). Oh, could you ever. A damaging vote/anarch deck would find Proctological Resplendence a godsend. If PR were free and burnable by, say, a successful vote (maybe even a P/J/IC/Non-Cam above 8 vote, just to make it a little harder), or by your predator voluntarily choosing to have his next bleed for 4 or more have no effect (choose a number you like), it would be nicer. As it stands, it hampers a strategy greatly with no way, even a convoluted and annoying way, to get rid of it -- no one can force you to bleed if you don't want to. >Good point. I guess I have no moral qualms about it since the only >non-bleed damage I have is Army of Rats. AoR can get ugly, and with a little light intercept, it's almost as good as permanent Rush -- your prey either comes to you, or dies. JH>I'll be frank. I'm just finding it hard for _my_ deck to deal with JH>S&B. The intercept angle works really well most of the time. When I Gangrel are possible the most ill-equipped to deal with SCE, but it can be done -- someone on the group made the suggestion of using Owl Companion to check hand status and see what would jam his hand the most, not to mention seeing when he's out of SCE. There's Dog Pack (which doesn't work on Obedience, alas), and the often ignored solution of using old vampires to Rush -- Didi can't make Wynn Obey. AC>How much stealth do they play with? > >Lots n' lots. But if I try to jam their hand, I die. It seems to me that they can't keep bleed *and* stealth *and* SCE in their hands at all times, in roughly equal proportion. AC>Maybe I'm totally off in my calculations here, AC>but it would seem to me that w/ gangrel intercept, you've not only got AC>the best potential for permanent intercept(raven spy, sport's bike, KRCG/London AC>Evening star), but also the best untap ability as well. > >But perm. based intercept is _slow_. Once they get a vampire out, they >can bleed me for 6 on the next turn. I have a Raven Spy. Do I attempt >to block, and help them cycle? Or maybe I even succeed, only to get >S:CEd and bled again. If they're SCE/untapping, then Golem Tenants might be in order. Plus Dog Pack *does* work for offensive SCE. What are they SCEing with, by the way? If it's malks with presence or protean, judiciously Reversing the skill cards might slow him down/jam his hand enough. AC>Unless they've been AC>pulling superior Elder Impersonations and Seductions on every bleed, it AC>would seem that you'd be able to get them at least 1/2 the time, and claw them AC>to pieces. Also, although I hate to advocate it, speed works well in most decks. >I never succeed in combat with the Malk/Gangrel S&B deck; too much S:CE >and no way to stop it, too much stealth and I can't block it. I stand answered, then. Earth Meld -- hrmph. If it's offensive untaps, i.e., Zebbie gets blocked, untaps, and bleeds again, you might want to consider (ya, I'm repeating myself) Golem Tenants. No repeat actions go a long way towards curtailing such tomfoolery. AC>Gangrel rush doesn't compare to Brujah? Geeze. I was under the impression AC>that Brujah was slightly inferior. >Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. IG's pretty neat, no denying that. But the Garou are hella cool, too -- no need to keep Rush in your hand, and serious thugging power. Drawing at least one SCE out of your opponent's hand each turn might help you. AC>They can't get stealth as easily, picking on AC>their chosen target; aggravated damage is a lot harder to come by, etc. I must say, Alec, that the Brujah's easy access to cheap Princes make for a brutal vote-assisted combat deck -- Archons, Bloodhunts, and Peace of Khetamon. Permanent enter-combat ability means SCE/Obedience runs out of steam real quick like. >Who cares who you beat up? You're beating up somebody, thus satisfying >your purpose. I just can't see putting stealth into a rush deck. Given your druthers, who would you rather torporize/Peace of Khetamon/ Memory's Fading Glimpse (sorry, thinking of my Assamite deck)? Normal, or Ozmo, with superior Dominate, Pulse of the Canaille, and Legendary Vampire? Carefully picked targets count for a lot. And the Gangrel's ability to do that offsets their slightly weaker (compared to Brujah) combat, whose strength allows them to use the shotgun approach to vampire elimination. AC>And Gangrel, if they can get extra strikes through a vial of Garou blood or Shadow AC>of the wolf, can make their last strike aggravated and burn people. Or just send AC>them to torpor. > >Why would you play Shadow of the Wolf when they might just S:CE? I >mean, I admit that repeated rushes, over and over again, could possibly >get around S:CE, just by running them out, but why play an important >beginning-of-round card? That's a good point -- you want to wait to pop that Vial or Shadow until you're sure. Again, Owl Companion is a Good Thing in this situation. gomi rattlin on -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

Greetings Corrupter and James, I have been thinking about the AI problem and want to put a possible fix before the group. Archon Investigation OOT Master 3 Pool Playable only when a minion bleeds you for more than 3 pool. The bleed is unsuccessful and the minion loses X blood, where X is the amount of the bleed. Place this card on the minion. The minion may not untap while this it has this card. This card can be removed by a vote. I think some of these proposed fixes for AI are worth adopting. I was formerly not bothered by AI but after thinking about it I dislike it. Let me know what you think, folks. Doug Dunaway

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how they can keep their hand full > of stealth *and* bleed *and* combat defense at all times. Peek at their > hand (Owl Companion for Gangrel, Aura Reading for someone with Auspex). > Choose your opportunity. Yeah... also, it's difficult for me to talk about these decks, since one hasn't been played for about a month. I haven't a chance to test out everything people have been telling me. I guess I'm just seeing worst-case scenarios. > Oh, could you ever. [kill people w/o bleeding] [snip stuff I thought of after hitting the "send" button.] > AoR can get ugly, and with a little light intercept, it's almost as good > as permanent Rush -- your prey either comes to you, or dies. Unless they're stealthy. > Gangrel are possible the most ill-equipped to deal with SCE, but it can > be done -- someone on the group made the suggestion of using Owl Companion > to check hand status and see what would jam his hand the most, not to mention > seeing when he's out of SCE. Well, remember, my deck's current incarnation is a Gangrel light-intercept blood-gain combat deck. It really does work rather well. But every time my predator is an S&B deck, I get killed. But, as someone said, it's real hard for perm. intercept to get set up fast enough to stop S&B. I had been piling on intercept cards to try to do my best anyway, but they ended up just jamming my hand something awful. So, I took out about half of the intercept cards, and just increased the proportions of everything else: dam. prevention, blood gain cards, etc. I played last night, and, while I did get killed by Peter Bakija's hallacious pot/for deck, I really do blame it on a crappy vampire draw. They were all little, and none of them had sup. skills. Everything else was working fine, though. By the time I died, I had gone through at least 60 pool and 8 vampires. And I guess I'm not too worried about S:CE. We do play with Gordon Tenaments around here... And S&B? Well, I have 6 deflections and 4/12 vamps with dominate. Who knows... [snip using old vamps to avoid obedience] Oh, you don't know pain until Wynn has been Obedienced by an IC member... > I stand answered, then. Earth Meld -- hrmph. If it's offensive untaps, i.e., > Zebbie gets blocked, untaps, and bleeds again, you might want to consider > (ya, I'm repeating myself) Golem Tenants. No repeat actions go a long way > towards curtailing such tomfoolery. Well, actually Form of Mist, since we play with Gollum Ten-Bets. But hey. If I don't block him ever, my Obediences _might_ keep me alive long enough for him to get a horrific hand jam and to get my blood machine started... it's plan... > >Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. > > IG's pretty neat, no denying that. But the Garou are hella cool, too -- > no need to keep Rush in your hand, and serious thugging power. Drawing > at least one SCE out of your opponent's hand each turn might help you. But then the Brujah go kill the Garou on general principles... I've had this happen way too often and took the Garou out. Don't underestimate the power of IG and PF. Last night 4 of my vampires were burned by Pulled Fangs. Oh, BTW, can you or can you not prevent PF damage? > Given your druthers, who would you rather torporize Normal, > or Ozmo, with superior Dominate, Pulse of the Canaille, and Legendary > Vampire? Carefully picked targets count for a lot. I see this point. > And the Gangrel's > ability to do that offsets their slightly weaker (compared to Brujah) > combat, whose strength allows them to use the shotgun approach to vampire > elimination. But why not just Haven Uncovered? It's at +1 stealth, and I really doubt that they have intercept... Anyway, I'll just have to use my imagination / to think of good reasons / to keep on keepin' on... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: > Gomi no Sensei wrote: > But, as someone said, it's real hard for perm. intercept to get set up > fast enough to stop S&B. I had been piling on intercept cards to try to > do my best anyway, but they ended up just jamming my hand something > awful. So, I took out about half of the intercept cards, and just > increased the proportions of everything else: dam. prevention, blood > gain cards, etc. I guess I would stay with mostly permanent intercept, set up slowly (taking the bleeds) and then start intercepting everything (at least if I were going the intercept route). You might consider switching to Gangrel/Ravnos with Chi/Ani/For/Pro if you want a mostly permanent intercept deck. The inclusion of Chi/Ani/Permanent intercept, is IMHO, the _best_ intercept available. [snip] > > I stand answered, then. Earth Meld -- hrmph. If it's offensive > > untaps, i.e., Zebbie gets blocked, untaps, and bleeds again, you might > > want to consider (ya, I'm repeating myself) Golem Tenants. No repeat > > actions go a long way towards curtailing such tomfoolery. > Well, actually Form of Mist, since we play with Gollum Ten-Bets. You might want to be aware that most groups that play Golden Tenets use Form of Mist's superior ability (if used) as an action modifier (after all, its modifying the action) to stop this slight loophole in the idea of what is a "repeat action". > But hey. If I don't block him ever, my Obediences _might_ keep me alive > long enough for him to get a horrific hand jam and to get my blood > machine started... it's plan... I like that solution. [Re: Brujah vs. Gangrel... how Brujah win] > > >Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. If the Brujah Grapples you, it can't dodge your aggravated hand, and then it can't pull fangs. > Don't underestimate the power of IG and PF. Last night 4 of my vampires > were burned by Pulled Fangs. Oh, BTW, can you or can you not prevent PF > damage? Currently, no. Hopefully, the design team will reconsider its (silly) ruling. > Anyway, I'll just have to use my imagination / to think of good reasons > / to keep on keepin' on... Good luck! With you, as always. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.960924...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> writes: > [Re: Brujah vs. Gangrel... how Brujah win] > > > >Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. > > If the Brujah Grapples you, it can't dodge your aggravated hand, and then > it can't pull fangs. But it can prevent the damage with sideslip... :-) --George

In article <GFINK.96S...@avalon.cs.ucdavis.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] It can prevent one of the damage, anyway. Gangrel hand damage has been escalated something fierce in the last two expansions. Consider: -Basic set, max hand damage 4 (+1 inherent, +1 Ritual Challenge, +1 Lucky Blow, 1 base) -Add Dark Sovs, max hand damage around 7 (3 Revels in play at one time is pretty much the practical max, although a bloodgain crock might be able to swing up to 6 or so) -Add Ancient Hearts and the party really gets rolling. Uncontrollable Rage, Scorpion Sting (jury's still out on whether or not this is clawable, but if it is no one's ever putting Lucky Blow in a Gangrel deck again), Shadow of the Doggie (Unclear as to whether the Doggie strike is given by the card, or if you can stack with a Lucky Blow/Sting), and Depravity: Max hand damage between 9 and 10, depending on whether or not Shadow of the Doggie can stack with Sting/Blow. The 'Who needs Potence' deck at the Bloodbound Dealer rarely hit for less than 3 aggro, and that was before AH came out. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

> The 'Who needs Potence' deck at the Bloodbound Dealer rarely hit > for less than 3 aggro, and that was before AH came out. AFAIK, that deck still isn't there, i.e., it's still under construction (no pressure, Corrupter :))... could you post it again? I have 5 Ritual Challenges, Depravity, and Scorpion Sting... I think I'll put in my Revel, since I am a pool-gainer... I don't think I'd play SotWolf or UnRage since both are easily avoided by S:CE and cost too much blood if they are just going to fail. So that gives me max 5 hand damage... Cool... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

doug...@aol.com (DOUGDWISE) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >Doug Dunaway I think it's very much a matter of opinion. I've been the victim of big bleeds often enough--even worse now with return to innocence--that I think it's good to add an element of risk to it. You put all your eggs in one basket for a giant player-ousting bleed, it's only appropriate that you should entail some element of risk in doing so.

theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >[Re: Brujah vs. Gangrel... how Brujah win] >> > >Four words. Immortal. Grapple. Pulled. Fangs. >If the Brujah Grapples you, it can't dodge your aggravated hand, and then >it can't pull fangs. >> Don't underestimate the power of IG and PF. Last night 4 of my vampires >> were burned by Pulled Fangs. Oh, BTW, can you or can you not prevent PF >> damage? A footnote to this: I've found very good success with this strategy executed by nosferatu. Add Behind You to the mix and you have manuvers to get you in close to use Immortal Grapple, or if you get in over your head against a nasty aggro-dealing gangrel, you can use it to dodge. Their strong obfuscate is also generally useful--although you don't need all that much stealth once you've struck fear into the table by burning a couple of big vamps.

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, James Hamblin wrote: > > The 'Who needs Potence' deck at the Bloodbound Dealer rarely hit > > for less than 3 aggro, and that was before AH came out. > AFAIK, that deck still isn't there, i.e., it's still under construction > (no pressure, Corrupter :))... could you post it again? Well, I'll post it... (see end of article)... I've had _so_ many submissions, and Real Life has caught up with me, I'm probably about 2 months behind (In fact, Who Needs Potence arrived about 2 months ago :). Never fear, faithful lovers of the Blood Bound Dealer. It will be put up. (In fact, all deck submissions of any Jyhad environment (4CL, 6CL, 10%CL, OtherCL, NL, NL/GT, DCI, whatever...) are welcome) For those of you unaware of where it is, the URL: <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad/dealer>. --- Name: Who Needs Potence? Deck: Masters Backways (1) Blood Doll (2) Eco Terrorists (1) Gangrel Revel (2) Haven Uncovered (1) Minion Tap (2) Zoo Hunting Ground (1) Protean (3) Fortitude (2) Actions Bum's Rush (4) Ritual Challenge (4) Reactions Cat's Guidance (3) Rat's Warning (2) Equipment Shackles of Enkidu (1) Combat Lucky Blow (7) Indomitability (4) Skin of Rock (5) Skin of Steel (2) Unflinching Persistence (4) Claws of the Dead (5) Form of the Ghost (5) Gleam of Red Eyes (5) Wolf Claws (5) Crypt Giuliano Vincenzi (2, for) Vliam Andor (2, ani) Anastasia Grey (3, ani,pro) Chandler Hungerford (3, PRO) Ricki Van Demsi (3, for, ani) Roman Alexander (4, ani, for, pro) Camille Devereux [the Raven] (5, ani, FOR, PRO) Badger (6, ani, FOR, pot, PRO) Zack North (6, ani, for, pot, pro, +1 hand damage) Gitane St. Claire (7, ANI, FOR, PRO) Basilia (10, ANI, FOR, obf, pot, PRO, Primogen, aggravated hand damage) Wynn (10, ANI, FOR, obf, pot, PRO, Primogen, may attack minion controlled Environment: No Card Limit/SPTR Commentary: I can't really see how I've been getting away with this deck for so long; only 5 get into combat cards, intercept so light as to be unexistent, and Wynn? Note also that it hasn't been updated for Ancient Hearts, which I imagine I'll be doing soon. Defense Commentary: Nothing fancy, just beat up anyone who peeves you. Optimum number of players: 3 plus, though most of its play is 2player, an anomalous condition. (Submitted by Lula: lu...@pollywog.com) [ quoted text not captured ]

>I think it's very much a matter of opinion. I've been the victim of >big bleeds often enough--even worse now with return to innocence--that >I think it's good to add an element of risk to it. You put all your >eggs in one basket for a giant player-ousting bleed, it's only >appropriate that you should entail some element of risk in doing so. I agree. I have had Alexandra burned many times (about 4 or 5) by AI, but it's a calculated risk that you are taking that your prey doesn't have an AI in his hand. If he doesn't, then that's possibly a really big bleed. If he does, then you're toast and that's something you should have thought about before you performed the action. Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorrow wrote: > > >permanent bleed. Theese decks are totally destroyed by AI. > >AI is out of line for three reasons: > > 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) > > 2) Unprecedented effect (compare to Golconda) > > 3) Destruction of an entire strategy with a single card (Magic effect) > > Can you sudden reverse an AI? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able > to... > > Sorrow You can SR an AI only if it is not your turn since it is an OOT master. Thus it could be used when your grand predator big bleeds your predataor who plays an AI and yuo then SR it.

James Hamblin writes: (re problems with his Gangrel deck gettin slaughtered by S&B) >Sadly, you have to keep in mind the environment I play in... a bleed >deck around here puts in tons of anti-combat cards without worrying >about getting slowed down; they know that they'll be in combat all the >time. Have you considered the possibility that there's so much combat in your group that combat decks are in general having a hard time? If everybody packs lots of anti-combat, combat will have a hard time (obviously). Malk S&B vs permanent intercept is obviously always going to be hard on the interceptor; if that's combined with an uphill fight for combat decks then Gangrel permanent intercept just may not be very playable in your groups right now. Most groups, by the preferences of their players, will tend to make some generally playable decks unplayable. That's just the way it is. You might might have a really nifty Toreador bleed deck, too, but if everybody packs Deflections, it wouldn't work either. If anything, it makes things more interesting. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> garou wrote: > I think it's very much a matter of opinion. I've been the victim of > big bleeds often enough--even worse now with return to innocence--that > I think it's good to add an element of risk to it. You put all your > eggs in one basket for a giant player-ousting bleed, it's only > appropriate that you should entail some element of risk in doing so. Return to Innocence is a very powerful card, and its' existence can only be justified by the existence of Archon Investigation. Spiridonas' special ability can only be justified by the presence of AI, too. There can be no justification for AI as per card text. It burns the vampire bleeding you for 3 pool, preventing a bleed of more than three. Calculated risks do not involve losing a fairly large vampire for an incurred penalty of one card and 3 pool. Calculated risks involve taking a bleed for another player with a Major Boon. Because of the existence of AI, there is a laxity allowed in card design, which produces in return even heavier preponderance of massive bleed modifiers and abilities, and sets a precedence for even nastier cards which hose over bleed. (Or perhaps, any other strategy.) -Nathan Harada

In article <324B3C...@anon.penet.fi>, Nathan Harada <an64...@anon.penet.fi> wrote: > Return to Innocence is a very powerful card, and its' >existence can only be justified by the existence of Archon >Investigation. Spiridonas' special ability can only be justified >by the presence of AI, too. RtI is the first card in the VtES set that my group's seriously considering banning. There are so many ways to get vampires back, its cost isn't relevant, especially in a deck like my Giovanni 'Inconnu' deck, where Regina got Returned and Possessed back into play to be Golconda'd next turn. Instead of stealth, I used Clan Impersonation combined with Clan Loyalty -- a clan with Fortitude or Protean could easily make use of Day Op or Horrific Countenance. Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about it. 12 Etrius 10 Return to Innocence 10 Magic of the Smith 10 Soul Gem of Etrius 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) 10 Information Highway 10 Tomb of Rameses III Etrius is out by turn 2, 3 max. Lay a Skill card on him and Return to Innocence for 1 +12 +2 = 15 points of unblockable bleed, thanks be to Day Op or Horrific Countenance. Well, Magic a Soul Gem onto him first. Then, when he goes pop, you get a fresh Etrius at no extra charge! And this fresh one already has the Soul Gem. Lay a skill card on him, Return to Innocence. Repeat as necessary. Garnish with beak. What defends against this? Bounce will do it. Intercepting the Magics will slow it down a little, but it's got to be a moby intercept deck that can muster +3 intercept regularly by turn 3. And, of course, the antibleed crocks like AI and Protected Resources. This kind of thing, possible only with RtI (would you seriously contemplate a deck like the above with Governs instead of Returns?), essentially forces everyone to play bounce/intercept. Combat is essentially helpless against this, as is vote. It's Dominate and Auspex, all the way -- hey, who has those two disciplines again? I'm open to suggestions to fix RtI. Two proposed fixes: 4 blood action. +X bleed, where X = Vampire's Capacity/2 (Round Down). Usable only by a vampire with a capacity above 7. No bleed enhancing modifiers may be played. Burn vampire if successful. Maximum bleed with the above is 8 with an IC (1 +5 +2), so I might be amenable to not burning the vampire, but just knocking into torpor with a 'cannot rescue self' flag. 4 blood action. When the action is declared, vampire may burn X+2 blood for +X bleed. No bleed enhancing modifiers may be played. Burn vampire if successful. Usable only by a vampire with a capacity above 7. This one's a Spiridonas Reconstruction Kit; max bleed here is also 8 (11-4=7, to burn for +5 bleed, +2 inherent = 8), so a similar caveat applies. gomi return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a whole [ quoted text not captured ]

theCorrupter (adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : On 23 Sep 1996, Sorrow wrote: : [The Corrupter wrote:] : > >AI is out of line for three reasons: : > > 1) Inappropriate cost (effectively -X pool to destroy a bleed of 3+X) : > > 2) Unprecedented effect (compare to Golconda) : > > 3) Destruction of an entire strategy with a single card (Magic effect) : : > Can you sudden reverse an AI? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't : > be able to... : : No, you can't sudden reversal an AI. Sudden Reversal is an out-of-turn : master, and thus, cannot be used on your own turn (according to the : definition of OOT-Master). Only OOT-Masters (like Absolution of th : Diabolist) that _explicitly_ say that they can be used on your on turn, : may be. Otherwise, you would need to convince another player to do it for : you. With all due respect to whomever made that ruling an official and permanent one, not being able to play oot masters on your own turn is a bit absurd for several cards, and my group does not play that way. I get the feeling that this is still a hotly contested house rule. Another way I've found to get around AI is a nice card from the original Jyhad (and V:tES too, I suppose) which requires Auspex, a common discipline for most S&B vampires, even if not so commonly used. I can't remember what it is called off hand, but the effect is, at superior, that all Meth's can look at your opponent's hand during combat. So, bleed with someone like Aleph at 0 stealth, and play this card. Aleph may have a bad day, but afterwards, you will know something like "Oh, dear. You don't seem to have any AI's, bleed bounce, or more than two intercept. In that case, Gilbert Duane will bleed for 12 at 3 stealth. Been nice knowing you, Mr. Prey." AI is still too powerful, no doubt, but there are ways to aviod it. Wallpaper Paste for all those useless cards

And add Potence to it - you will inflict up to about (theoretical) 45 points of damage in one round. I play it. It works. _______________________ TS - Thomas Stellmach soch...@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de

> return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a whole Thank you, Gomi No Sensei. Well, it has finally been done. Someone has built a broken deck using the Golden Tenets (no repeat action / no vote push). For those of you who are unaware of the ongoing saga, for some time I have claimed that it could not be done. I even went so far as to recently add a cash value to the first person who could actually do it. Now, thanks to Ancient Hearts, and mostly the precedent set by Archon Investigation, it has been done. The card that makes it possible is Return to Innocence. By itself, Return to Innocence is an expensive, clunky card. Put into just any old deck, and it really isn't too much of a threat: the card is expensive, not useful in early game, and could easily backfire on the user. However, in a deck built to exploit it, easily a broken card. As someone else pointed out, this card is (yet another) trump card. Basicly, it forces people to play deflection or (sometimes) high intercept. The risk is too great, now, not to. The card is held in line by another (broken) card, Archon Investigation. So it looks like, now, Jyhad has finally degenerated to a game of trumps, albeit just barely. Here is the deck, along with my feelings of how it could be improved on the side [in Brackets] On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the > Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about > it. > 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. This gives you the ability to use all of the Return to Innocence without exhausting your crypt.] > 10 Return to Innocence > 10 Magic of the Smith > 10 Soul Gem of Etrius > 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) > 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) > 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The speed of getting out a quick Etrius is Outweighed by the hand jam] > 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] [My version: 55 Cards] The only real defenses against the deck are _extremely_ fast high intercept and deflection. Other tertiary defenses are contesting the vampire or the Soul Gem. Solutions to the problem: [Re: Return to Innocence] > RtI is the first card in the VtES set that my group's seriously > considering banning. Banning works, but is not something I relish. > I'm open to suggestions to fix RtI. Two proposed fixes: > 4 blood action. > +X bleed, where X = Vampire's Capacity/2 (Round Down). Usable only by > a vampire with a capacity above 7. No bleed enhancing modifiers may be > played. Burn vampire if successful. > 4 blood action. > When the action is declared, vampire may burn X+2 blood for +X bleed. No > bleed enhancing modifiers may be played. Burn vampire if successful. > Usable only by a vampire with a capacity above 7. I don't particularly care for either of these. How about: The Return to Innocence (Fixed???) - 4 blood - Action (D) Bleed your prey at +X, where X is the capacity of the vampire. Burn this vampire if the bleed is successful. Action Modifiers may not be used on this action. --- > return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a whole That it does. That it does. Well, Gomi No Sensei is the proud recipient of $50. E-mail me for info, GNS. I am convinced that this case is an aberration. If anyone else can come up with a degenerate deck using No Limit / Golden Tenet House Rules, I still challenge you. Of course, given Ian and Leatherface, the Sabbat might make it really easy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.960927...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>, theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >> return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a whole > >Thank you, Gomi No Sensei. >Well, it has finally been done. although I must admit I take little pleasure in it. >[Re: Return to Innocence] >> RtI is the first card in the VtES set that my group's seriously >> considering banning. > >Banning works, but is not something I relish. Well, we'd certainly prefer a good fix -- we just couldn't come up with one off the bat last night. >How about: > >The Return to Innocence (Fixed???) - 4 blood - Action >(D) Bleed your prey at +X, where X is the capacity of the vampire. >Burn this vampire if the bleed is successful. Action Modifiers may not be >used on this action. I like it. It's concise and elegant. How about 'This action may not be modified' instead, to rule out permanent stealth such as Opium Den or, more seriously, Forest of Shadows? you can still get through an unblockable return with Blood Bonds, but if you invest the time and energy in blood bonding all your prey's minions, more power to ya, i think. i think that, by changing the final clause to 'this action may not be modified', enough bases are covered to get it in line. A more fundamental issue of design is how far cost/benefit goes. Return is predicated on a theoretically hideous cost -- axing a vampire. Unfortunately, non-pool costs are harder to balance -- Soul Gems or Possession make a mockery of Return's cost. Depravity is another example -- a deck without allies or retainers gets free bonuses. Another poorly thought out cost is Blythe Candeleria -- what was the last Tremere deck you saw that relied on its hand damage? There are, i think, some levels of power that no cost justifies; either a deck is built solely to afford that cost, and gains immense power thereby, or the cost is prohibitive to regular decks. You'll notice no retainer, ally, or equipment (yet) costs more than 5 pool, and no master card more than 3 (barring Misdirection, which is a special case). Exceeding these costs would be a Bad Thing in my estimation; an ally so good as to be worth 7 pool would be too good. A location so useful as to be worth 5 pool would be way too good. My point, i guess, is this: there are ways to defeat any cost; the best way to avoid the problems that raises is to make it, in general, not worth the bother, and so the benefit conferred by any single card must be kept below a certain threshold that Return to Innocence crosses, batons twirling. At high power levels, additonally, small errors in cost/power are much more critical, resulting either in wallpaper or must-haves. It might be argued that Skin of Steel should be worth less than, say, Blood Fury, but at that relatively small scale of benefits it's just easier to pay the 1 blood and move along with one's life. >Well, Gomi No Sensei is the proud recipient of $50. E-mail me for info, >GNS. whoopie. making money never bummed me out before. >I am convinced that this case is an aberration. If anyone else can come >up with a degenerate deck using No Limit / Golden Tenet House Rules, I >still challenge you. Of course, given Ian and Leatherface, the Sabbat >might make it really easy. Let's wait n see. Sigh. i agree with you on the aberration bit, and can only hope that this sort of thing fails to continue. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) writes: >Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the >Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about >it. >12 Etrius >10 Return to Innocence >10 Magic of the Smith >10 Soul Gem of Etrius >10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >10 Information Highway >10 Tomb of Rameses III >Etrius is out by turn 2, 3 max. Lay a Skill card on him and Return >to Innocence for 1 +12 +2 = 15 points of unblockable bleed, thanks be >to Day Op or Horrific Countenance. Well, Magic a Soul Gem onto him >first. Then, when he goes pop, you get a fresh Etrius at no extra charge! >And this fresh one already has the Soul Gem. Lay a skill card on him, >Return to Innocence. Repeat as necessary. >Garnish with beak. That's a *six* card combination(!), counting only one of Tomb/InfoHwy. Two of which are Masters, highly susceptible to Sudden Reversals. That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing the Tombs with Fames - get more bang for the buck (and, since Etrius doesn't have fortitude, use the Day Opertion to go to torpor before the RtI burns him). >What defends against this? Bounce will do it. Intercepting the Magics >will slow it down a little, but it's got to be a moby intercept deck that can >muster +3 intercept regularly by turn 3. And, of course, the antibleed crocks >like AI and Protected Resources. Rush will do it quite well. You have no defense whatsoever against rush. Etrius comes out, goes to torpor, gets diablerized. I've seen it happed to the Brujah IC in a combat deck - it'd be much easier against this combat-oblivious deck. Rush combat is a standard deck type, and it will rip this thing apart. >This kind of thing, possible only with RtI (would you seriously contemplate >a deck like the above with Governs instead of Returns?), essentially >forces everyone to play bounce/intercept. Combat is essentially >helpless against this, as is vote. It's Dominate and Auspex, all the way -- >hey, who has those two disciplines again? >I'm open to suggestions to fix RtI. Two proposed fixes: >4 blood action. >+X bleed, where X = Vampire's Capacity/2 (Round Down). Usable only by >a vampire with a capacity above 7. No bleed enhancing modifiers may be >played. Burn vampire if successful. >Maximum bleed with the above is 8 with an IC (1 +5 +2), so I might be With your Etrius, it's 9 (1 +6 +3) - since skill cards add coapacity. >amenable to not burning the vampire, but just knocking into torpor with >a 'cannot rescue self' flag. >4 blood action. >When the action is declared, vampire may burn X+2 blood for +X bleed. No >bleed enhancing modifiers may be played. Burn vampire if successful. >Usable only by a vampire with a capacity above 7. The "above 7" isn't necessary on this - 4 + 2 +X blood for +X bleed accomplishes this restriction all by itself. >This one's a Spiridonas Reconstruction Kit; max bleed here is also 8 >(11-4=7, to burn for +5 bleed, +2 inherent = 8), so a similar caveat applies. Your Etrius can again manage a 9 = 1 + (12-4-2) +2 I don't like large bleeds, but I don't like unblockable action either. (Why can't a Muddled Vampire Hunter go out in the Day again?) IM(NS)HO, the problem here is the unblockability, not the BigBleed(tm). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Clap on! <clap> <clap> http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Clap off! <clap> <cla+W." Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | ^Ejq#xe>4NO CARRIER

Wallpaper Paste wrote: > [snip: OOT masters only on not your turn] > With all due respect to whomever made that ruling an official > and permanent one, not being able to play oot masters on your > own turn is a bit absurd for several cards, and my group does > not play that way. I get the feeling that this is still a > hotly contested house rule. Um, sorry, but it's in the rulebook: Page 10: Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards may only be played when it is not your turn. ... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > > Wallpaper Paste wrote: > > > [snip: OOT masters only on not your turn] > > With all due respect to whomever made that ruling an official > > and permanent one, not being able to play oot masters on your > > own turn is a bit absurd for several cards, and my group does > > not play that way. I get the feeling that this is still a > > hotly contested house rule. > > Um, sorry, but it's in the rulebook: > > Page 10: Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards may only be played when it is > not your turn. ... I don't think that the argument contested the fact that there is indeed that section in the rulebook, but that it is a design flaw. My group also happens to use the same house rule, and AI is another very good reason IMHO to allow OOT masters to be played during your turn. Otherwise, AI is a trump card whose target should just go get a Coke, becuase he/she can't do anything about it. What's the fun in that? Sean Whittaker

I think the problem with the heavy bleeds existed before AI. I am of the opinion that AI is too harsh for its ability, although it is currently the only way to keep the heavy bleeders under control. Being bled for 7 by a single Malkavian using Stealth and Seduction is just too ugly. Especially since there are two more after that vamp. If the bleeder was only allowed one bleed modifier card to be played from the controller's hand would this help alleviate the problem. It would certainly prevent the outrageous 7 bleeds without some equipment that had to be brought into play earlier. Perhaps if AI caused an amount of pool loss to the bleeding Meth equal to the amount the Meth's vamp is bleeding for?

Scott Whittaker wrote: > > I don't think that the argument contested the fact that there is indeed > that section in the rulebook, but that it is a design flaw. It's debatable as to what Richard Garfield had in mind when he designed the game. The old Jyhad rulebook was, of course, ambiguous about OOTs, and I can see the argument for having them being able to be played during your turn. However, I think that the restriction is a good one, especially to prevent being able to SR OOTs played by other players on your turn. Read on... > My group > also happens to use the same house rule, and AI is another very good > reason IMHO to allow OOT masters to be played during your turn. > Otherwise, AI is a trump card whose target should just go get a Coke, > becuase he/she can't do anything about it. What's the fun in that? Hey! Using my arguments against me... :) But seriously, AI is not as much of a Go Get a Coke card as other cards which shall remain nameless... Just like a deck with 20 deflections won't really get you anywhere in general, a deck packed with AI won't be effective in general. So one of your vampires got burned. It happens; whether in combat or with AI or one of those weird new AH votes or anathema, etc. Sure, it hurts. So does getting bled for 7 with the _other_ minion. IMHO, well-designed S&B decks are fast enough that the loss of a vampire is relatively easily dealt with. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <52hv92$l...@shellx.best.com>, go...@best.com says... (snipped commentary specific to the 'fixing' of Return to Innocence.) >A more fundamental issue of design is how far cost/benefit goes. Return >is predicated on a theoretically hideous cost -- axing a vampire. >Unfortunately, non-pool costs are harder to balance -- Soul Gems or >Possession make a mockery of Return's cost. I've noticed that over time, the most degenerate effects come, usually not from single cards without clearly defined and balanced abilities, but the use of multiple cards of these types, which combine to create a combination which is nauseatingly unbalanced. Also, this kind of problem could have been thought of by the playtesters, and fairly easily if they were seriously TRYING to break each expansion card. Both of the cards that Return is broken with are in previous sets, and should have been taken into consideration. This may say something about Jyhad/V:tES and playtesting priority at WotC. >Depravity is another example -- a deck without allies or retainers gets >free bonuses. Another poorly thought out cost is Blythe Candeleria -- >what was the last Tremere deck you saw that relied on its hand damage? Generic cards, especially in Jyhad, should have major restrictions on their play and use, like Legendary Vampire has. Depravity, although not unbalancing on it's own, can be compared to a bastard sword, and found to be almost infinitely better, even with it's being unique. Blythe, however, is a different matter, in that NOTHING that I can see justifies the idea that -1 hand damage vs. malkavians(not usually a dangerous combat clan by any stretch) is worth even 1 extra point in disciplines, much less the two that were printed(and I agree with Nathan here; it does seem that Blythe was intentionally made that way and when players objected, then she was errataed). Tremere bias, again. This becomes even more apparent when one realizes that there were a number of five and six capacity vampires in the same expansion who were vastly underpowered from almost any perspective.(Andrei Puxon, Vittorio Giovanni, Sigrid Bekker...). >There are, i think, some levels of power that no cost justifies; either >a deck is built solely to afford that cost, and gains immense power >thereby, or the cost is prohibitive to regular decks. You'll notice >no retainer, ally, or equipment (yet) costs more than 5 pool, and no >master card more than 3 (barring Misdirection, which is a special case). >Exceeding these costs would be a Bad Thing in my estimation; an ally so >good as to be worth 7 pool would be too good. A location so useful as >to be worth 5 pool would be way too good. Right on. But levels of power are usually relative, especially in the more specialized rare cards. Cards which may seem useless become over- powered when broken. The primary reason why this seems to occur is A) not enough playtesting with abuse taken into account, and B)an insufficient grasp on what constitutes a balance between cost and effect, especially in circumstances where the cost can be circumvented. Netrunner and Magic have this same kind of problem; when drawbacks of certain cards(Organ Donor, Ernham Djinn) can be easily gotten around by certain strategies or specific other cards, they begin to dominate and break the game. >My point, i guess, is this: there are ways to defeat any cost; the best >way to avoid the problems that raises is to make it, in general, not >worth the bother, and so the benefit conferred by any single card >must be kept below a certain threshold that Return to Innocence >crosses, batons twirling. Return doesn't do it as blatantly as, say, Spiridonas. Return is broken in the deck that you postulated, which took people a while to work out. Spiridonas screams for abuse right out of a booster. When in a deck designed to exploit him, he can bleed for a huge amount one turn, Hospitality himself(in the same turn, even, with a Rutor's hand in play), and keep up pressure on one's prey. With Info Highways and Tombs of Rameses, he can come out early enough so that a few seductions could keep him from being blocked at all. Not totally broken, but disgusting and needing no real skill or intelligence to pull off nonetheless. >At high power levels, additonally, small errors in cost/power are much >more critical, resulting either in wallpaper or must-haves. It might >be argued that Skin of Steel should be worth less than, say, Blood Fury, >but at that relatively small scale of benefits it's just easier to >pay the 1 blood and move along with one's life. It can be argued, but I find that the commons are often much better costed and balanced than the rares. Commons are usually made with some system in mind, and the uncommons tend to have the same system, just made more specialized and powerful, as well as expensive. Rares are often when designers seem to start "Coloring outside the lines" and making monumental design errors which only show up when people start breaking cards. Perhaps the amount of playtesting needed would be excessive; but as of now, it seems that it's insufficient, especially on V:tES. >>Well, Gomi No Sensei is the proud recipient of $50. E-mail me for info, >>GNS. > >whoopie. making money never bummed me out before. > >>I am convinced that this case is an aberration. If anyone else can come >>up with a degenerate deck using No Limit / Golden Tenet House Rules, I >>still challenge you. Of course, given Ian and Leatherface, the Sabbat >>might make it really easy. > >Let's wait n see. Sigh. > >i agree with you on the aberration bit, and can only hope that this sort >of thing fails to continue. > Well, Nathan and I haven't completely broken the game with the overpowered Tremere stuff yet, but we haven't seen everything from Sabbat yet. I hope we don't succeed; but we may have to voluntarily not use the cards which are broken, and PROVE to our friends that there's something wrong so that they go along too. Sigh. We still play 4-CL, so this may take us some doing... Alec Chang

James Hamblin wrote: > But seriously, AI is not as much of a Go Get a Coke card as other cards > which shall remain nameless... Just like a deck with 20 deflections > won't really get you anywhere in general, a deck packed with AI won't be > effective in general. So one of your vampires got burned. It happens; > whether in combat or with AI or one of those weird new AH votes or > anathema, etc. Sure, it hurts. So does getting bled for 7 with the > _other_ minion. IMHO, well-designed S&B decks are fast enough that the > loss of a vampire is relatively easily dealt with. > Yes, but at least with other attempts to burn a vampire, usually the player whose minion is targetted gets a *chance* to play cards in response, be it intercept, combat, or votes... AI does so at a prohibitively low cost that actually results in a GAIN in pool for the person who plays it, and also destroys the bleeder. Now, I am far from a proponent of S&B, but there's nothing wrong in my book if you come rampaging after someone with a hideous vampire like Donal O'Connor using a Govern the Unaligned and a Threats (insert whatever combination of bleed cards you like) in order for someone, ANYONE, to block you. Believe me, I've often seen players just refuse to block someone like him, Anvil, or any other combatmonger and get bled for one... but now AI just hoses the bruise & bleed strategy. Sean [ quoted text not captured ]

Even with the fixes suggested so far, i`m not sure whether those will be much of a help. There are quite a few ways to get control of other vampires (Malkavian Dementia, Temptation, Form of Corruption... ). While this is bad news for the player in question already, RtI now offers an additional way to burn this vampire. The options so far was getting the vampire in combat with a suitable deck (by rushing him, trying to remove his rack, whatever). There was a level of control, a fair chance that the controlled vampire would survive, especially if there`s an interest to keep the original owner in the game. Now, this is no longer valid. While no longer being a broken card it still severly shifts the balance of the game. As long as you add some stealth it doesn`t matter whether you get bounced or suffer from an AI. The vampire will burn, anyway. Oliver --------------------------------<*>-------------------------------- Oliver Hofmann a261...@smail.rrz.uni-koeln.de -- `They call me Mort.' What a coincidence. <T.Pratchett>

xcdc...@aol.com (XCD Chance) (re Archon Investigation) >If the bleeder was only allowed one bleed modifier card to be played from >the controller's hand would this help alleviate the problem. It would >certainly prevent the outrageous 7 bleeds without some equipment that had >to be brought into play earlier. This is a better kind of fix than an ultra-nasty you-lose-if-I-have-it card (like AI) The problem with contesting high-power trumps (eg. Return to Innocence vs. AI) is that they introduce a whopping luck factor in the game. This was one of the big problems with Rage. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Okay. I'll preface this by saying that I was looking through Nathan's older posts because I remembered something which had seemed important at the time, and I came across another connection between design laxity, specifically caused by AI's existence, and the degenerate deck postulated by Gomi. This Really concerns me. I don't suppose that mailing Shawn will help... But, to Nathan's point... In article <324B3C...@anon.penet.fi>, an64...@anon.penet.fi says... (snip point about big bleeds and RTI) > > Return to Innocence is a very powerful card, and its >existence can only be justified by the existence of Archon >Investigation. Spiridonas' special ability can only be justified >by the presence of AI, too. > There can be no justification for AI as per card text. >It burns the vampire bleeding you for 3 pool, preventing a >bleed of more than three. Calculated risks do not involve >losing a fairly large vampire for an incurred penalty of one >card and 3 pool. Calculated risks involve taking a bleed for >another player with a Major Boon. > Because of the existence of AI, there is a laxity >allowed in card design, which produces in return even heavier >preponderance of massive bleed modifiers and abilities, and >sets a precedence for even nastier cards which hose over bleed. As of now, we can see that RTI can be broken, in combination with other overpowered cards in a deck designed to exploit it. (Gomi's deck is later in this post) If Nathan's hypothesis is correct(and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, given that I cannnot see anyone seeing Spiridonas and RTI as reasonable, balanced cards, except through a Tremere bias and the idea that "AI balances them out") then the cards which we see as unbalancing/overpowered/trumps create more cards which we consider to be escalating negative trends. >(Or perhaps, any other strategy.) Just as a reminder to people out there who think "Well, it's only big bleed that's getting hosed, and it deserves it anyway"... If this kind of thing goes on, every strategy will have to deal with trump cards. >-Nathan Harada ______________________________________ And now, the Corrupter's point, about degeneracy, and the breaking of NL/GT. In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.960927...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>, adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu says... > >> return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a >> whole > >Thank you, Gomi No Sensei. >Well, it has finally been done. > >Someone has built a broken deck using the Golden Tenets (no repeat action >/ no vote push). > >For those of you who are unaware of the ongoing saga, for some time I have >claimed that it could not be done. I even went so far as to recently add >a cash value to the first person who could actually do it. > >Now, thanks to Ancient Hearts, and mostly the precedent set by Archon >Investigation, it has been done. Check. We need to get it through to Wotc and Shawn about this one, not only for tournament play and restriction/banning, but so we can make our points about escalation and broken cards with more evidence to back us up(I get the impression that the people at WotC look at our concerns with a very skeptical eye sometimes, when they look at all). >The card that makes it possible is Return to Innocence. By itself, Return >to Innocence is an expensive, clunky card. Put into just any old deck, >and it really isn't too much of a threat: the card is expensive, not >useful in early game, and could easily backfire on the user. However, in >a deck built to exploit it, [it is] easily a broken card. > >As someone else pointed out, this card is (yet another) trump card. >Basicly, it forces people to play deflection or (sometimes) high >intercept. The risk is too great, now, not to. The card is held in line >by another (broken) card, Archon Investigation. > >So it looks like, now, Jyhad has finally degenerated to a game of trumps, >albeit just barely. > >Here is the deck, along with my feelings of how it could be improved on >the side [in Brackets] > >On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the >> Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about >> it. > >> 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. > This gives you the ability to use all > of the Return to Innocence without > exhausting your crypt.] > >> 10 Return to Innocence >> 10 Magic of the Smith >> 10 Soul Gem of Etrius >> 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >> 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >> 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The > speed of getting out a quick Etrius is > Outweighed by the hand jam] >> 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] > [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] > [My version: 55 Cards] > >The only real defenses against the deck are _extremely_ fast high >intercept and deflection. Other tertiary defenses are contesting the >vampire or the Soul Gem. Unfortunately, the only real defenses vs. this deck are predicated on people being able to plan ahead for it; now it become, instead of WVP, "How do I deal with the infinite unblockable deck with 14 Etrii?" I think that all of us will concede that the deck is degenerate. (Snipped fixes for RTI) >> return to innocence has disturbing implications for the game as a whole > >That it does. That it does. > >I am convinced that this case is an aberration. If anyone else can come >up with a degenerate deck using No Limit / Golden Tenet House Rules, I >still challenge you. Of course, given Ian and Leatherface, the Sabbat >might make it really easy. From what I've seen, the biggest targets look like Tremere Bruise/ Bleed with obfuscate, first round ags, and thoughts betrayed. I think Nathan posted a variation on this earlier; and we don't know if there are any more cards in Sabbat which would make that deck more degenerate than it is now(everytime that It's played, it's swept the table). But my point isn't that certain cards are broken or overpowered; but more that WotC's lack of concern about these cards, and also the lack of concern about these cards by players, which leads to more ignoring of problems by WotC, leads to the creation of more degenerate cards which, as they pile up, will profoundly warp, if not totally wreck the balance of this game we play. So, please guys, listen. Don't just stick your heels in about cards; listen to the arguments, read the posts, and TRY to see how the cards can be broken. The issue is NOT if the card can be played in a reasonable manner, but if the card can be played in a broken or overpowered manner. We'll probably have to define what broken is, as each of us will have their own definition. But if we want to stop what the majority of us percieve as a downward slide in the balance of the cards being created by WotC, we've got to speak up about our concerns, Talk to Shawn in a reasonable and calm manner, so he'll actually pay attention to us, and get our arguments ironed out. Point. By point. By point. I hate to be melodramatic, but the issue here is that the game has been broken, directly as a result of RTI, and indirectly as a result of AI. I shudder to think what might occur if we do not say or do something about this trend NOW. And some of us are still saying "have faith in WotC" and denying that there's a problem... Anyway, no offense to anyone, but do we have to provide more evidence that this trend on WotC's part is really messing up the game? Please, back us up so that this game that we love doesn't go down the tubes. Alec Chang, a Very Concerned Gamer resorting to rhetoric to get his point across.

Thomas Stellmach wrote: > > And add Potence to it - you will inflict up to about (theoretical) > 45 points of damage in one round. > I play it. It works. Yeah... It works! After I played with that loop the first time, I definitely wanted to start using GT... just so that no one could do the same thing to me. The damage was simply insane. The nasty part about the deck (mine anyway) is that it is very defensive (lots of damage prevention and S:CE). If I'm playing with people who haven't seen my deck in action before, it's easy to catch them off guard when I finally get the combo in my hand, and go VERY offensive. I like to play with the deck every now and then... just for shock value (and to promote the use of GT). -- David Kent -aka- Constant Hazard \----------------------/ \ haz...@potomac.net / \------------------/

Scott Whittaker wrote: > [snip AI as not so bad] > Yes, but at least with other attempts to burn a vampire, usually the > player whose minion is targetted gets a *chance* to play cards in > response, be it intercept, combat, or votes... Usually. There's also Thoughts Betrayed. [snip: AI hoses Bruise & Bleed] Point taken. But is getting bled for 5 by a Brujah any worse/better than getting bled for 5 by a Malkavian? You won't block the Brujah if you don't have damage prevention or some other anti-combat, just like you won't block the Malkavian if you don't have intercept. I've been finally convinced that I can deal with S&B. It took a long time, but I finally caved. But I still don't want to see AI banned/errataed/thrown-by-the-wayside without the same happening to TB, RTI, etc. In our group we're sort of reluctant to use house rules... they pretty much consist of SPTR and "Don't play with Rotschreck; no one knows what it does...". But I think it might come to the point where we'll want to do something about these cards, and I'd rather it be through official lines than us trying to come up with something... James BTW: About Shawn's absence from this group... maybe he's busy consulting with the design team, trying to address our concerns? I just wish he'd check in to let us know he's still alive; I feel like we're talking to a brick wall here... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > > But I still don't want to see AI banned/errataed/thrown-by-the-wayside > without the same happening to TB, RTI, etc. In our group we're sort of > reluctant to use house rules... they pretty much consist of SPTR and > "Don't play with Rotschreck; no one knows what it does...". But I think > it might come to the point where we'll want to do something about these > cards, and I'd rather it be through official lines than us trying to > come up with something... I'm also reluctant to irrevocably ban cards... in my group it's been just a tacit understanding not to abuse Fame, max out TB, or use AI because S&B is not a popular strategy (therefore, combat is more prevalent and people are more willing to block bruisers with their own). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.960927...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>, theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: [degenerate deck] >Here is the deck, along with my feelings of how it could be improved on >the side [in Brackets] >On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. > This gives you the ability to use all > of the Return to Innocence without > exhausting your crypt.] >> 10 Return to Innocence >> 10 Magic of the Smith >> 10 Soul Gem of Etrius >> 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >> 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >> 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The > speed of getting out a quick Etrius is > Outweighed by the hand jam] >> 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] > [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] > [My version: 55 Cards] >The only real defenses against the deck are _extremely_ fast high >intercept and deflection. Other tertiary defenses are contesting the >vampire or the Soul Gem. Wouldn't a Gangrel rush deck (or any reasonably fast rush deck with agg. damage) work? Bum's Rush or Haven Uncovered + any Gangrel with at least normal protean + Claws. Does the Soul Gem work if its bearer is diablerized? If it does, just leave him there. When he tries to get out, if you can get +1 intercept, attempt to block, forcing him to spend 4 blood on a Horrific Countenance (Day Op obviously won't work). Else just rush him again and send him back to torpor. At the very least this will slow down the degenerate deck by a couple of turns. If you can reduce Etrius below the amount of blood he needs to do the RtoI & HC/DO combo, then he needs to spend more turns either hunting or bringing out a fresh Etrius (and spending more blood), while all the time his predator is bleeding him. It'd also be amusing if someone Grave Robbed Etrius... Most if not all of these weaknesses could be solved by simply adding a bunch of Golcondas, so the deck is still degenerate. -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

James Hamblin (je...@cornell.edu) wrote: > > My group > > also happens to use the same house rule, and AI is another very good > > reason IMHO to allow OOT masters to be played during your turn. > > Otherwise, AI is a trump card whose target should just go get a Coke, > > becuase he/she can't do anything about it. What's the fun in that? > > Hey! Using my arguments against me... :) > > But seriously, AI is not as much of a Go Get a Coke card as other cards > which shall remain nameless... Just like a deck with 20 deflections > won't really get you anywhere in general, a deck packed with AI won't be > effective in general. So one of your vampires got burned. It happens; > whether in combat or with AI or one of those weird new AH votes or > anathema, etc. Sure, it hurts. So does getting bled for 7 with the > _other_ minion. IMHO, well-designed S&B decks are fast enough that the > loss of a vampire is relatively easily dealt with. > With all due respect to James, I think people are focusing way too much on AI vs. S&B, and not enough on AI vs other bleed decks. Tap-and-bleed and bruise-and-bleed rarely can get more than one or two bleeds each turn. Against many decks, one or two bleeds a turn is irrelevant, unless both those bleeds are big- 3 or more points. However, AI hoses those bleeds, and the bleeder. Think about it. Your predator has Masika w/ flak jacket and a submachinegun and Aire of Elation in hand. You have a Ren. Garou, two untapped minions, and 5 pool. Your prey has 2 pool and is tapped out, no wakes. Oh, and you have AI. When Masika comes a-bleeding, do you block, and probably lose a minion, or take the bleed and destroy Masika with AI? (A similar situation happened to me last week, only I had the Toreador deck. Fortunately, my prey did _not_ have AI. If he had, I would have lost). Given the choice between blocking, or just spending three pool to destroy a vampire, which would anyone choose? Fight Donal and lose a minion, or destroy Donal at minimal cost? AI might be balanced against S&B, I'm not sure. Against all other bleed forms, its not. Can we move the argument in that direction? -Mark Langsdorf

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll agree that the deck design is degenerate, as are most one trick ponies. But it is only a one trick pony (although it is a very nasty trick). I am working with the idea that you're only going to get one unblockable bleed per turn, if I am incorrect then I see it as more of a problem with the rules that would allow Etrius to play RtI, be burned, reappear and play another RtI (because it is a different Etrius), than the cards. So unless I am completely missing a key element there are ways around this blasted thing other than the ones mentioned above. Is the player is so slick that no one is able to pummel Etrius into torpor on their turns without burning him? (I have an old Soul Gem that requires burning, so once again if this has been changed I am in error) Thus slowing down the monstrosity. And I don't know about everybody else but I see a well placed Pentax Subversion as a big thorn in this deck's side. And it has become such a useful card that we see them on quite a regular basis around here. Both of the above will require the controller of Etrius to take the time to influence a second copy of Etrius - - not much time if you are using ToR, or if you are smart enough to start filling up a second copy of Etrius even as the first one is still out. You are still talking about at least two turns without a vampire once you bring the second copy of Etrius out to contest the first. Two turns without defense. If you survive, you have a very generous playing circle. Once again, I agree with you that the deck design is degenerate. But I don't think that it is quite as unstoppable as is claimed, and I think that a little more proof is going to be in order before WotC is going to feel compelled to move on it. How often has this thing been played, or is it merely theorectical? How often does it win? Does it sweep the table or barely eek out a win? Does it have staying power or, does it need it? It has no defense, does a heavy bleed preditor annihilate it before it even gets out of the gates? Quite frankly if you play it without Adrian's modifications I can see someone gaining a victory point and then suffering the mother of all master hand jams on a regular basis. And remember that every gaming circle will have different dynamics. Decks like this one above have a nasty habit of dying very, very quickly in our play circle. Once again I will freely admit the possibility that I am working with some flawed piece of knowledge here that will completely throw my arguement out the window. I'm sure that soemone will kindly point it out to me if I am. One thing to remember is that I am not LSJ or Adrian, I don't have their ability to retain all of the current errata and rulings information. Though it sure would be nice. :) -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ã not one alien, not one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . . GET WITH IT PEOPLE!" -Gillian Anderson

jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes: [ keeping Etrius in torpor idea ] If the player with this deck threw in a few Golcondas, that problem would be eliminated. Can't get out? Just Golconda and bring out the next Etrius. Mike

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >Wallpaper Paste wrote: >> >[snip: OOT masters only on not your turn] >> With all due respect to whomever made that ruling an official >> and permanent one, not being able to play oot masters on your >> own turn is a bit absurd for several cards, and my group does >> not play that way. I get the feeling that this is still a >> hotly contested house rule. >Um, sorry, but it's in the rulebook: >Page 10: Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards may only be played when it is >not your turn. ... It was a ruling in Jyhad that became "permanent" by its inclusion in the VtES rulebook. The ruling was based on the breakdown of the phrase "out of turn" into its component words (rather than the literal interp. of the phrase as it appears in most English dictionaries), and the common Rules Team practice of adding the word "only" willy-nilly to various parts of the rulebook and card texts. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | One single fact can ruin a http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | perfectly good argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >Scott Whittaker wrote: >> I don't think that the argument contested the fact that there is indeed >> that section in the rulebook, but that it is a design flaw. >It's debatable as to what Richard Garfield had in mind when he designed >the game. The old Jyhad rulebook was, of course, ambiguous about OOTs, >and I can see the argument for having them being able to be played >during your turn. However, I think that the restriction is a good one, >especially to prevent being able to SR OOTs played by other players on >your turn. Read on... Playing a SR to counter an SR played against you is the best example of the balance argument used to justify playing OOTs on your own turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, someone on the other thread about this latched onto the fact that almost all of the deck's problems could be solved by packing a few Golconda's, just in case Etrius gets torpored by someone, and isn't burnt. > Is the player is so slick that no one is able to pummel Etrius into torpor > on their turns without burning him? (I have an old Soul Gem that requires > burning, so once again if this has been changed I am in error) Thus slowing > down the monstrosity. > > And I don't know about everybody else but I see a well placed Pentax > Subversion as a big thorn in this deck's side. And it has become such a > useful card that we see them on quite a regular basis around here. Again, Golconda. And Pentex Subversion, although not as nearly broken as some other cards I've seen, strikes me as somewhat inappropriate for Jyhad. Pay two pool to almost totally incapacitate a vampire? Admittedly, it's burnable, but that just skews the game towards intercept combat, like seeds of corruptions does. > Both of the above will require the controller of Etrius to take the time to > influence a second copy of Etrius - - not much time if you are using ToR, > or if you are smart enough to start filling up a second copy of Etrius even > as the first one is still out. You are still talking about at least two > turns without a vampire once you bring the second copy of Etrius out to > contest the first. > > Two turns without defense. If you survive, you have a very generous playing > circle. > > Once again, I agree with you that the deck design is degenerate. But I > don't think that it is quite as unstoppable as is claimed, and I think that > a little more proof is going to be in order before WotC is going to feel > compelled to move on it. How often has this thing been played, or is it > merely theorectical? How often does it win? Does it sweep the table or > barely eek out a win? Does it have staying power or, does it need it? It > has no defense, does a heavy bleed preditor annihilate it before it even > gets out of the gates? Quite frankly if you play it without Adrian's > modifications I can see someone gaining a victory point and then suffering > the mother of all master hand jams on a regular basis. > > And remember that every gaming circle will have different dynamics. Decks > like this one above have a nasty habit of dying very, very quickly in our > play circle. Play circles have ways of dealing with things like this. Tournaments do not. > Once again I will freely admit the possibility that I am working with some > flawed piece of knowledge here that will completely throw my arguement out > the window. I'm sure that soemone will kindly point it out to me if I am. > One thing to remember is that I am not LSJ or Adrian, I don't have their > ability to retain all of the current errata and rulings information. Though > it sure would be nice. :) No, it's not the errata or anything. You had very valid points. It's just that the deck, with some modification, can get around those problems quite easily. <Shudder> I hate this deck idea. Of course, I had it a while ago, but I was using Julius instead of Etrius(and besides, I've never seen more than two soul gems in one place before...).

I wrote: >>If the bleeder was only allowed one bleed modifier card to be played from >>the controller's hand would this help alleviate the problem. It would >>certainly prevent the outrageous 7 bleeds without some equipment that had >>to be brought into play earlier. Curt Adams wrote: >This is a better kind of fix than an ultra-nasty you-lose-if-I-have-it >card (like AI) The problem with contesting high-power trumps (eg. Return >to Innocence vs. AI) is that they introduce a whopping luck factor in the >game. This was one of the big problems with Rage. The only arguement I can make against the you-lose-if-I-have-it is that AI does not, in and of itself, cause you to lose the game (unlike the Great Magic Cheeseball manaveur). It does tell you to behave yourself. However, I still say that AI is too powerful. So, lets review, following the net I have noticed three possible fixes: 1) (As above) AI causes an amount of pool loss to the minion's controller equal to the amount that the target Meth is bled. 2) Place on the minion, bleed is unsuccessful. That minion may not bleed until xxxx is performed (successful vote, a directed action, etc.). 3) Bleed is unsuccessful, minion must burn X pool where X is the amount of the bleed. Any I might have missed? Has anyone tried any of these in their home groups? Chance

>That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb >is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing Out of curiosity, why is Tomb being fixed? What is wrong with it? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > And remember that every gaming circle will have different dynamics. Decks > > like this one above have a nasty habit of dying very, very quickly in our > > play circle. > > Play circles have ways of dealing with things like this. Tournaments do not. > This one sentence above does the best job of explaining precisely why I don't view this deck with as much fear as everyone else does. IMO the ONLY thing that tournaments are good for is bringing out all of the little weenies who are only interested in WINNING (not in having fun while playing) and proving precisely who is closer friends with the referees. I have tried a few tournaments and found them all to be a big waste of time. The only thing that they proved was who could argue with the official most eloquently. Who could convince the ref that their interperetation was wrong and that they should change their view. I am finished with attempting to play tournaments. Now that it is clearer where you guys are coming from (IE. Tournament play), I can sympathize. And commend you for attempting to spank the weenies into submission before they raise their ugly heads at the next tourney. > > No, it's not the errata or anything. You had very valid points. It's just > that the deck, with some modification, can get around those problems quite easily. I agree, Golconda would help out quite a bit. It would get it out of those tight spots, but how many to put in? If you anticipate being put into the position where you will need a few of them, it ends up being dead weight if you don't. Once it gets around those problems, how much better is it? By adding in those Golcondas you are changing the mix of the deck and decreasing the liklihood of getting what you need > <Shudder> I hate this deck idea. Of course, I had it a while ago, but I was using > Julius instead of Etrius(and besides, I've never seen more than two soul gems in one > place before...). I also have a great dislike for this deck, and can extend that dislike to many one trick ponies and the type of personalities that seem to always attend the tourneys that I used to go to. But then, I'm sure that that was clear already. -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ‹ not one alien, not one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . . GET WITH IT PEOPLE!" -Gillian Anderson

IMHO, Toomb of Ramses the Third is broken because it is a card that 99.9% of all the decks in the game can benefit from having and the only reason not to use it is because you don't own one. If I had a Tomb, I would put it in every deck I have, as any deck, barring one that has a crypt of exclusively 1-2 point vampires, will benefit from the Tomb. Any card that will go in almost every deck you can possibly imagine, and the only reason not to use it is that you don't own one (i.e. it is Rare), is a broken card. Some examples from other games are: -Magic's cheapie mana artifacts like Moxen and Lotai. All of these are in EVERY winning type 1 deck. If you don't have them, you lose. The only reason you don't use them is you don't own them. -Legend of the Five Rings Inheritence and/or Imperial Gift. These are both perfect examples of this sort of broken card. Without them, you are at a great disadvantage, they go in EVERY deck, but as they are both Rare, many people don't own them. Tomb is the only card I can think of in all of Jyhad that fits this bill. Even Wake With Evening Freshness, while arguably somewhat broken, does not fit into these paramaters, as in many decks, WWEF will be just a waste of deck space (only if adhereing to deck maximum sizes, though). The same could be said for Info Super Highway, but again, it is easily omited from many decks, and is only useful in the opening stages of the game (unless, of course, you use it to get a greater benefit out of the Tomb :-). The Tomb is always useful, and is worth getting out another vampire you have no intention of bringing out just to use the Tomb. While Tomb is in no way a game breaker in and of itself, it is a card that will always pay back its intitial investment (and most of the time will pay back in spades), has NO disadvantages (except its intitial cost of 3, but the fact that there is no way to kill it the turn it is played insures that the guy playing it will get 4 pool back that turn during influence), will aid almost every deck in the game (except, again, an all weenie deck, but even a deck like that can benefit from the Tomb as a constant Pool income device, much like Eco Terrorists or Arcane Library), and is hard to come by, as it is Rare. As a result of its scarcity, fewer people will have it in their decks, and players who own a Tomb will have a definite advantage over players who do not. This, to me, a broken card makes. There could be many ways to fix this card, such as: -Only works if you put the blood counters on the vampire with the Tomb. This will slightly curtail the Blood Machine aspect of it. -Needs to be tapped, and comes into play tapped. This will slow it down a bit, and give other players a chance to destroy it before it pays for itself. -Disallow the removal of blood counters from the vampire with the Tomb. This will shut down the Blood Machine aspect, but will still allow someone to get out an IC member for free (well, the 3 for the Tomb, but that's it).\ Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Look at me. I'm way cool. I'm off with my way cool friends to sniff floor wax." -Brian Krackow

In article <52sii5$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > IMHO, Toomb of Ramses the Third is broken because it is a card that 99.9% > of all the decks in the game can benefit from having and the only reason > not to use it is because you don't own one. If I had a Tomb, I would put > it in every deck I have, as any deck, barring one that has a crypt of > exclusively 1-2 point vampires, will benefit from the Tomb. [SNIP] > There could be many ways to fix this card, such as: [SNIP Again] I still don't understand why it needs fixed. If it bothers you so much through some Sudden Reversals in your deck.If everyone has them in their deck, won't they be contested? Why should it come out tapped?? After all, Master cards giving stealth to a clan don't come out tapped. And played at the time your prey is down to one pool and has no intercepts earns a whopping 6 for an oust. A blood Doll can be used right away and costs nothing. If you have a hunting ground card, you have an almost virtual supply of pool added to your total. Randy.

Karl Chang <te...@lava.net> writes: >R. Brian Smith wrote: >> > >On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> > > >> > >> 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. >> > > This gives you the ability to use all >> > > of the Return to Innocence without >> > > exhausting your crypt.] >> > > >> > >> 10 Return to Innocence >> > >> 10 Magic of the Smith >> > >> 10 Soul Gem of Etrius >> > >> 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >> > >> 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >> > >> 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The >> > > speed of getting out a quick Etrius is >> > > Outweighed by the hand jam] >> > >> 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] >> > > [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] >> > > [My version: 55 Cards] >> > > >Well, someone on the other thread about this latched onto the fact that almost >all of the deck's problems could be solved by packing a few Golconda's, just in >case Etrius gets torpored by someone, and isn't burnt. If Etrius goes to torpor, he *will* be burned - you have no blockers and everyone has a vampire that is less valuable than Etrius. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | One single fact can ruin a http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | perfectly good argument. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Hi everybody by the time you all finish reading this I am going to be even less popular on this group than I was before. I am responding to the deck below and Adrians waste of $50 dollars. See my explanation below. >On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the >> Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about >> it. > >> 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. > This gives you the ability to use all > of the Return to Innocence without > exhausting your crypt.] > >> 10 Return to Innocence >> 10 Magic of the Smith >> 10 Soul Gem of Etrius >> 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >> 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >> 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The > speed of getting out a quick Etrius is > Outweighed by the hand jam] >> 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] > [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] > [My version: 55 Cards] >> Ok Lets look at this deck shall we, Adrians alredy stated that they break Golden Tenants, he is the one I am assuming that created them so if he is willing to concede his $50 then I guess he feels the deck does, I strongly disagree. Reason #1 I am a "suitcase player" THIS IS NOT A BRAG I have over 6000 cards, some Rares I have 10-20 copies of, disgusting mabe, I would find it extremely hard to find 10 copies of some of the cards stated, impossible? never! You can do it but its takes a while (Took me 6 months to finally get 17 Freak drives) So lets say you take the time to accumulate the 30 rares or 40 if you have gotton the Tombs. Reason #2 This deck is nowhere near unstoppable actually I could'nt see this winning to many games unless you were playing with amatuers, intercept is not hard to come up with, even a Euro Brujah Prince deck can come up with +4 intercept by the 3rd round even sooner and have no problem blocking the Soul gem which is a must, and as soon as you block you toporize NOT Burn, then he can't bring another Vamp out because he only has 1 in his crpyt, not to mention he has absolutly no defense for combat a simply bums rush with my Brujah deck would put him out of the game. Reason #3 I only have one card for this reason its called PENTAX SUBVERSION and if you can't see what this card would do to this deck then your to stupid to argue the point. Reason #4 Again another card that screw this deck Banishment, other cards include AI (which has a welcome home in my play group just the way it is) Fear of Mekhet but thses are only effective if there is NO Soul Gem. I guess I could Ramble on about ways to stop this deck but mabe that was never the point, I thought that in order to break golden tenants was to create a degenrate deck that could really wipe the table, using repeat actions, he can only do his bleed once per turn with repaet action and only if he is set up to do it, this deck would wither and die in my group. By the way Gomei no Sensi or whatever, I think you deserve the $50 for creativity its a neat deck theory, but I do feel it in no way could wipe up a table and that is how I define a degenerate deck. Errol T.

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >That's a *six* card combination(!), counting only one of Tomb/InfoHwy. >Two of which are Masters, highly susceptible to Sudden Reversals. >That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb >is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing >the Tombs with Fames - get more bang for the buck (and, since Etrius >doesn't have fortitude, use the Day Opertion to go to torpor before >the RtI burns him). The Fame would definitely be a better idea than the Tomb. Tomb of Ramses does not need to go in this deck if you put in Golconda. >Rush will do it quite well. You have no defense whatsoever against rush. >Etrius comes out, goes to torpor, gets diablerized. I've seen it happed >to the Brujah IC in a combat deck - it'd be much easier against this >combat-oblivious deck. Rush combat is a standard deck type, and it will >rip this thing apart. Too bad when Etrius gets diablerized, the Soul Gem goes onto the next vampire in the crypt. See adding Golconda for eliminated the problem of being "stuck" in torpor. >I don't like large bleeds, but I don't like unblockable action either. >(Why can't a Muddled Vampire Hunter go out in the Day again?) >IM(NS)HO, the problem here is the unblockability, not the BigBleed(tm). Unblockability doesn't just come in with Day Operation. Do you need to burn that intercept deck out of intercept with your Obfuscate deck? Build up your stealth while they build up intercept. Then when you can't beat their intercept anymore (if it happens), do a superior Elder Intervention. Their intercept is effectively set to 0 and your stealth is still at a high amount. I find Obfuscate done right to be much more unblockably annoying than a Day Operation. Mike

After reading this thread it is clear there is a problem. I also fear that the problem may grow worse when Sabbat comes out. The real question is what to do about the problem... We can all sit here and try to get WotC to listen and change things (I will believe that when I see it) which will probably amount to nothing. If this fails all is not lost however, because we can still band together and eliminate any weenie jerky enough to make a deck like this. In my game group anyone playing WVP, Gangrel loop, or any other jerky obnoxious deck gets ganged up on and eliminated with great prejudice. After a few games getting blasted they will probably quit running a degenerate deck. If they don't they will continue to get blasted and probably quit playing with you. This will also solve the problem. If all the good players have a unwritten code to _nuke_ these jerks we can probably solve to problem ourselves. I say all of us who love this game get together and blast the jerks. Just a idea... Steve Bucy

cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) writes: >>That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb >>is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing >Out of curiosity, why is Tomb being fixed? What is wrong with it? It's too powerful - it allows an N capacity vampire to be brough out for what amounts to 3 pool and one master phase (no transfers are effectively lost) - with no detrimental effects (you will get your three pool cost back the same turn - before anyone can Arson it). In the tournament at GenCon 96, one of the players used this card to allow him to unltimately bring out three Inner Circle members and the Prince of London (a 10-cap). That's 43 pool worth of vampires. Something is wrong. While it's nice to encourage large vampires, handing them out for free is a little much. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (michael charles bohlmann) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Rush will do it quite well. You have no defense whatsoever against rush. >>Etrius comes out, goes to torpor, gets diablerized. I've seen it happed >>to the Brujah IC in a combat deck - it'd be much easier against this >>combat-oblivious deck. Rush combat is a standard deck type, and it will >>rip this thing apart. >Too bad when Etrius gets diablerized, the Soul Gem goes onto the next vampire >in the crypt. See adding Golconda for eliminated the problem of being "stuck" >in torpor. Too bad that if, as I said, Etrius is torpored and diablerized when he comes out (before he has a chance to Smithy up a Gem) the Gem's text won't be activated (since it'll still be in the library). You've got to have that big target just standing there for one full round around the table before he can take an action to Smithy a Gem - he can't take that action the turn he comes out. >>I don't like large bleeds, but I don't like unblockable action either. >>(Why can't a Muddled Vampire Hunter go out in the Day again?) >>IM(NS)HO, the problem here is the unblockability, not the BigBleed(tm). >Unblockability doesn't just come in with Day Operation. Do you need to >burn that intercept deck out of intercept with your Obfuscate deck? Build >up your stealth while they build up intercept. Then when you can't beat their >intercept anymore (if it happens), do a superior Elder Intervention. Their >intercept is effectively set to 0 and your stealth is still at a high amount. And still blockable. Ask the Ravnos. Unblockable and high stealth are not in the same league. How many obfuscate cards does it take before you classify an action as "unblockable"? And how many Day Operations does it take to produce true unblockability? >I find Obfuscate done right to be much more unblockably annoying than a >Day Operation. Sure - but to do it right you need a lot of stealth cards to overcome potential intercept, and a low percentage of stealth cards to keep the stealth from clogging your hand when no one attempts to block. Obfuscate takes a lot more effort (and table dynamic control) to "do right" than Day Operation. Who cares if your bleed at +infinity stealth, if you're only bleeding for one each time? [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy (tb...@lainet.com) wrote: : After reading this thread it is clear there is a problem. I also fear : that the problem may grow worse when Sabbat comes out. The real question : is what to do about the problem... : : If all the good players have a unwritten code to _nuke_ these jerks we : can probably solve to problem ourselves. Steve, in ANY case -- good game or bad, good rules or bad, there will be disagreements about interpretations, and within a group of individuals who play together, there will naturally be understandings. It all falls apart in a tournament. So something needs to be addressed. -spongy

Randy wrote "I still don't understand why it needs fixed." Tomb needs to be fixed, simply, because it is too powerful. As I stated in a very complete manner above, the Tomb is a card that provides a great advantage without appreciable cost. One of the benchmarks of Jyhad is that all cards have an appreciable cost. The Tomb costs 3 pool to play, but as it cannot be destroyed the turn it is brought out, it will always pay back 4 pool during influence. It has no disadvantages, and provides a great advantage to a player who gets it out. It fits into every deck design in the game. The ONLY reason not to put a Tomb in every deck you own is that you don't have one. It is a card that is too powerful for what it costs, has zero disadvantage, and is just plain wrong. As LSJ pointed out above, a player used the Tomb at Gen Con to play 43 points of vampires for the cost of 3 pool. While this is an extreme example, it is an example of what a sufficiently broken card can do. My examples regarding possible fixes, such as making the Tomb start tapped, were examples. In particular, making the Tomb start tapped would allow other players a chance to kill it before it paid for itself, making it risky to play it, as currently there is zero risk in playing it. All other cards that have the potential to provide as much pool as the Tomb are risky to play. For example, look at Blood Puppy or the Powerbases. They can generate a great deal of pool for the guy who plays them, just like the Tomb, but those cards are risky in that they can easily be killed before they pay themself back or they can have all their pool stolen by another player. The Tomb will ALWAYS pay for itself and has no built in destruction clause, like both Blood Puppy and the Powerbases. The reason that other master cards, like the Labyrinth or Blood Doll or Hunting Grounds, should not come in tapped is that they are not broken cards. The Tomb is a broken card, and thus somthing should be done to fix it, and if it coming into play tapped fixes it, there you go. The fact that the Tomb can be stopped by Sudden Reversal or Uniquness simply does not fix it. The Tomb is something of a Trump card, as it provides a great advantage with non appreciable cost. The fact that it is Unique just reinforces it as a needed Trump card, as you need to have a Tomb just in case your opponent has a Tomb. The only way to combat said Trump is by using the same Trump. Thus there is an arms race of "who has the Tomb", and the players without one will doubtlessly lose this arms race. Sudden Reversal kills any Master in the game, but the Tomb is the only Master that is powerful enough to justify the inclusion of SR in every deck you have, if for no other reason but to kill the Tomb. That, again, begins an arms race that is fairly unprecidented in Jyhad. If a single card (the Tomb) requires such a arms race, it is broken. There are no other cards that do this. The Tomb does. It is just plain brown wrong. The Tomb needs to be fixed. There could be many ways to fix it, as I showed with multiple examples above, all of which would go some way twards putting the card in line. As it is, it is not a huge game breaker, but is too pwerful for what it costs and gives a great advantage to players who own one, goes in EVERY deck, and the only reason not to use it is because you don't own it. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: [ needless quoting deleted ] [ Etrius Soul Gem - RtI deck ] >If Etrius goes to torpor, he *will* be burned - you have no blockers and >everyone has a vampire that is less valuable than Etrius. I don't have a Soul Gem in front of me (since I don't have one), but I do believe that diablerizing the vampire with the Soul Gem will not steal the Soul Gem. This was on a Jyhad version, so I don't know about V:tES. So, yeah, you can diablerize, but you're just helping him out. Mike

mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (michael charles bohlmann) wrote: >jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes: > >[ keeping Etrius in torpor idea ] > >If the player with this deck threw in a few Golcondas, that problem would >be eliminated. Can't get out? Just Golconda and bring out the next Etrius. > >Mike > Hi Mike, Golconda, help/ mabe but oh gee look another rare card. Errol T.

mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (michael charles bohlmann) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Again, if you do it the first round that Etrius is controlled (as I said), then the card text on Sould Gem won't be activated since the Soul Gem won't be in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Hi Mike, Golconda, help/ mabe but oh gee look another rare card. > > Errol T. I understand your point, but just because the deck might cost hundreds of dollars to build does not make it any less abusive. It just makes it more difficult to construct. Can you see this deck _not_ winning all the time? Enter it into enough tournaments, and eventually you will get your investment back... James -- | James E. Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid; it's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo |

> Again, if you do it the first round that Etrius is controlled (as I > said), then the card text on Sould Gem won't be activated since the Soul > Gem won't be in play. Granted, I don't have an Etrius in front of me, but since he is the Tremere IC member, it seems to me like he would have superior dominate. So Obedience solves the rush problem. If you're thinking you might rush him after he gets the soul gem, he could freak drive. So, it would look like this: Etrius comes out. [turn] Etrius becomes Fortitudinous. Etrius goes and gets his gem, with Horrific Countenance, if necessary. Etrius Freak Drives. [turn] Etrius becomes Famous. Etrius bleeds you for 14 on a day op, then you take 3 more from Fame. Etrius is burned, Etrius comes out. Sounds pretty hallacious to me... [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) writes: >>>That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb >>>is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing >>Out of curiosity, why is Tomb being fixed? What is wrong with it? >It's too powerful - it allows an N capacity vampire to be brough out >for what amounts to 3 pool and one master phase (no transfers are >effectively lost) - with no detrimental effects (you will get your >three pool cost back the same turn - before anyone can Arson it). >In the tournament at GenCon 96, one of the players used this card to >allow him to unltimately bring out three Inner Circle members and >the Prince of London (a 10-cap). That's 43 pool worth of vampires. >Something is wrong. While it's nice to encourage large vampires, >handing them out for free is a little much. I believe you're referring to my Inner Circle deck from GenCon. The Tomb of Rameses III made that deck work. With the trim deck size (60 cards), I had a reasonably good shot of getting an Info Highway or a Tomb in the first draw. If I was lucky enough to get the Tomb, then I would have two Inner Circle members out by the end of my third turn. (Shudder.) The deck used a blood gain strategy that relied on getting an Inner Circle member out for almost nothing and then toasting them with Minion Tap/ Golconda/Redeem the Lost Soul for a preposterous blood pool gain. Think about it: 3 pool with the Tomb to bring out Gwendolyn. Minion tap for 10. Golconda for 11. Redeem for 5. That's a net gain of 23 pool. All the deck had to do was oust its prey and then sit around gaining blood. Once there were only two players left, I could smack my prey with Return to Innocence and take home three victory points. Sometimes (as in the Best of the Best tournament!) the deck could get even more than 3 victory points. Ultimately what made this deck work, however, was the Tomb of Rameses III. If it's drawn early in the game, you use it to bring out a huge vampire for 3 pool. If it's drawn late in the game, you use it as a source of income. It always pays for itself on the turn you bring it out. The Tomb of Rameses III is a broken card. BTW, I submitted the deck to the Corrupter. If he cares to post it, you can see just how nasty this deck really is... ---------- Dave Hyatt (d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu)

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >Randy wrote >"I still don't understand why it needs fixed." >Tomb needs to be fixed, simply, because it is too powerful. As I stated >in a very complete manner above, the Tomb is a card that provides a great >advantage without appreciable cost. One of the benchmarks of Jyhad is >that all cards have an appreciable cost. The Tomb costs 3 pool to play, >but as it cannot be destroyed the turn it is brought out, it will always >pay back 4 pool during influence. It has no disadvantages, and provides a >great advantage to a player who gets it out. It fits into every deck >design in the game. The ONLY reason not to put a Tomb in every deck you >own is that you don't have one. It is a card that is too powerful for >what it costs, has zero disadvantage, and is just plain wrong. >As LSJ pointed out above, a player used the Tomb at Gen Con to play 43 >points of vampires for the cost of 3 pool. While this is an extreme >example, it is an example of what a sufficiently broken card can do. Whoa, slow down there. I used the Tomb to bring out ONE Inner Circle member for 3 pool. What LSJ meant in his message is that the Tomb HELPED me to ultimately bring out 43 pool worth of vampires. In this specific game, the Tomb was very helpful, but there were other cards that helped me to afford three Inner Circle members plus Queen Anne. Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, etc, not to mention the fact that I ousted some other Methuselahs. The Tomb had help. It's a broken card, yes, but not THAT broken! ----------- Dave Hyatt (d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu)

Yow! Sorry about taking that "43 points of vampires with the Tomb" bit out of context and mangling it. Doh. My intention was not to use what was a third hand story of the horror of the Tomb to fuel my entire argument. I actually just threw that in really quick as I was about to post that last article, after reading the LSJ post, as a convinient example. My thoughts about the Tomb being broken were in place long before the "AAAGGGHHH!!! 43 points of vampires!!!" story started kicking around, but that is just sort of a good example. Again, the Tomb is not a game breaker or huge spoiler (like Thoughts Betrayed, for instance...), but it is a card that is too useful, and its main problem is that it is too good and goes in every deck there is. If it were less versitile, or more risky to use, or generally less effective than it is, it would be fine. As it stands, it is simply too good and needs to be fixed. [ quoted text not captured ]

d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu (David Hyatt) wrote: > >Ultimately what made this deck work, however, was the Tomb of >Rameses III. If it's drawn early in the game, you use it to bring >out a huge vampire for 3 pool. If it's drawn late in the game, you >use it as a source of income. It always pays for itself on the >turn you bring it out. > >The Tomb of Rameses III is a broken card. > >BTW, I submitted the deck to the Corrupter. If he cares to post it, >you can see just how nasty this deck really is... > >---------- >Dave Hyatt >(d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu) > Last Saturday I had 48 points in vamps out with aid from tomb of ramses III. I am known for getting out lots of large vamps with aid from info highway, minion tap, and 5th tradition. With tomb of ramses it becomes pitifully simple to do. Steve Bucy

>Again, the Tomb is not a game breaker or huge spoiler (like Thoughts >Betrayed, for instance...), but it is a card that is too useful, and its >main problem is that it is too good and goes in every deck there is. If >it were less versitile, or more risky to use, or generally less effective >than it is, it would be fine. As it stands, it is simply too good and >needs to be fixed. I've Found that it is contested more often than I'd like and that requires me to not plan on ever being able to rely on it. So it goes in if I can afford the wasted space in the deck (especially in big vamp decks and ones with few masters) but I can't rely on it and have had a number of praxis: Solomen decks vote me out of three pool for it. Stu >Peter D Bakija >PD...@aol.com

"James E. Hamblin" <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >> Again, if you do it the first round that Etrius is controlled (as I >> said), then the card text on Sould Gem won't be activated since the Soul >> Gem won't be in play. >Granted, I don't have an Etrius in front of me, but since he is the >Tremere IC member, it seems to me like he would have superior dominate. >So Obedience solves the rush problem. If you're thinking you might rush >him after he gets the soul gem, he could freak drive. Obedience wasn't part of the deck, so my statement still holds. Obedience would make this deck unstoppable, yes (replace all the Tombs with Obediences instead of Fames...) [ quoted text not captured ]

st...@atl.mindspring.com (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >>Again, the Tomb is not a game breaker or huge spoiler (like Thoughts >>Betrayed, for instance...), but it is a card that is too useful, and its >>main problem is that it is too good and goes in every deck there is. >I've Found that it is contested more often than I'd like and that >requires me to not plan on ever being able to rely on it. >So it goes in if I can afford the wasted space in the deck (especially >in big vamp decks and ones with few masters) but I can't rely on it >and have had a number of praxis: Solomen decks vote me out of three >pool for it. But you get your three pool back, plus one, on the same turn - *before* anyone can contest it. (If someone gets their's out before you, and you don't think you'll be able to hold onto it through a contest, then wait a few turns for them to burn theirs - Tomb is a remarkably transient card for a location.) The fact that everyone is conesting it is another symptom of the fact that it is too powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

michael charles bohlmann wrote: > > Unblockability doesn't just come in with Day Operation. Do you need to > burn that intercept deck out of intercept with your Obfuscate deck? Build > up your stealth while they build up intercept. Then when you can't beat their > intercept anymore (if it happens), do a superior Elder Intervention. Their > intercept is effectively set to 0 and your stealth is still at a high amount. > > I find Obfuscate done right to be much more unblockably annoying than a > Day Operation. > > Mike Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how Elder Intervention resets their intercept to 0. I don't have one here, so I looked at the WotC site for the card information and the following is what they listed as the card text: Elder Intervention 1 blood Reaction Do not replace until after combat. Only usable after a bleed against you is declared. This reacting vampire gets +2 intercept. Michael Weaver Common How does playing this card at superior (this is a non-discipline card, so there isn't a superior version of it) reset my opponent's intercept to 0? Is this text that I pulled from the net incorrect? What's the real card text? Were you thinking of another card? Thanks for the clarification! Ray Babbitt RBab...@Novell.COM Standard Disclaimer

In article <52r949$g...@news.cais.com>, cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) wrote: >>That's quite a feat to "repeat as necessary". Also, since the Tomb >>is in the process of being "fixed" by the RT, I'd suggest replacing > >Out of curiosity, why is Tomb being fixed? What is wrong with it? > >Sorrow We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any alignment to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. under a card limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even if it has used in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. Ben

st...@atl.mindspring.com (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >>Again, the Tomb is not a game breaker or huge spoiler (like Thoughts >>Betrayed, for instance...), but it is a card that is too useful, and its >>main problem is that it is too good and goes in every deck there is. >I've Found that it is contested more often than I'd like and that >requires me to not plan on ever being able to rely on it. >So it goes in if I can afford the wasted space in the deck (especially >in big vamp decks and ones with few masters) but I can't rely on it >and have had a number of praxis: Solomen decks vote me out of three >pool for it. But you get your three pool back, plus one, on the same turn - *before* anyone can contest it. (If someone gets hers out before you, and you don't think you'll be able to hold onto it through a contest, then wait a few turns for her to burn hers - Tomb is a remarkably transient [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Ray Babbitt wrote: > michael charles bohlmann wrote: > > Unblockability doesn't just come in with Day Operation. Do you need to > > burn that intercept deck out of intercept with your Obfuscate deck? Build > > up your stealth while they build up intercept. Then when you can't > > beat their > > intercept anymore (if it happens), do a superior Elder Intervention. Their > > intercept is effectively set to 0 and your stealth is still at a high > > amount. > > I find Obfuscate done right to be much more unblockably annoying than a > > Day Operation. Well, Obfuscate has a nasty habit of clumping heavily against people not trying to block it (Obf. needs several Obf. cards to be effective). Unblockable actions (via Horrific Countenance, Toreador Grand Ball, Day Operation) tend to be only _1_ card, and not causing much clog. > Maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to see how Elder > Intervention resets their intercept to 0. I don't have one here, so I > looked at the WotC site for the card information and the following is > what they listed as the card text: [Text snipped] He was actually meaning to refer to the superior power of Elder Impersonation (making the currect blocker fail to block). [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote: > We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any alignment > to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. under a card > limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even if it has used > in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. [Boggle] Sorry to have to correct you, but as it is unique, you probably wouldn't find more than 2 in any deck that isn't a total one-trick pony. Just getting one out (which happens in any environment, all the way down to 1-Card Limit (about as sensical as 4CL ;) ) is enough. The effect of the Tomb is unaffected by arbitrary card limits. Do note, also, that no one claimed it broke or spoiled the game, but that it was totally undercosted and _too_ effective. A card like this should have had _some_ drawback or appropriateness in cost, but as is becoming more and more common these days, it simply doesn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James E. Hamblin" <je...@cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi Mike, Golconda, help/ mabe but oh gee look another rare card. >> >> Errol T. > >I understand your point, but just because the deck might cost hundreds >of dollars to build does not make it any less abusive. It just makes it >more difficult to construct. Can you see this deck _not_ winning all >the time? Enter it into enough tournaments, and eventually you will get >your investment back... > >James > >-- >| James E. Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid; it's evil." | >| je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo | Hi James I have already posted in response yto this deck and showed how it would lose quite badly. Enter it into tournaments, I would like to win them not lose them. Errol T.

LSJ made the best point of all in this discussion. The Tomb pays for itself IMMEDIATELY. There's no drawback. In one turn you get (effectively) EIGHT transfers and gain a pool. Another interesting pattern I've seen in games with lots of Tombs... people frequently don't contest the Tomb, because they know it will go away in only a turn or two anyway. Then they can play their Tomb and reap the full benefits without paying the cost of contesting. My proposal for fixing the Tomb: Have the blood from the Tomb placed ON the Tomb and NOT on the vampire. With this modification, you can't pull blood off the Tomb, so it can't be used as a source of income. If the Tomb gets burned then you'll lose the blood on the Tomb. Only if the blood on the Tomb + the blood on the vampire = the blood capacity of the vamp do they come into play. Also that gives other players the opportunity to burn or contest the Tomb BEFORE the player really gains any benefit from the card. Anyway, the Corrupter mailed me my deck submission, since I took the deck apart after GenCon (I made a vow never to play the deck again!). Here it is: Meet the Inner Circle Environment: Take your pick Commentary: This deck is designed to get 3 victory points. It is first and foremost a blood-gaining machine. Use the minion taps, blood dolls, and tombs to gain blood. Use the Golconda/Redeem the Lost soul combo for another big blood boost. The idea behind this deck is to oust your prey as quickly as possible. Oust others if the opportunities present themselves. Otherwise, hang out, gain pool, and wait until it comes down to you and one other person. Then cash in the Return to Innocence and take the last two victory points. The Deck Crypt =========================== Arika (x3) Queen Anne (x3) Ingrid Rossler (x2) Gwendolyn Leandro Etrius Stanislava Masters =========================== Elysium: The Arboretum Legendary Vampire Tomb of Rameses III (x3) Redeem the Lost Soul Minion Tap (x2) Blood Doll (x2) Information Highway (x2) Dreams of the Sphinx Secure Haven Golconda: Inner Peace Giant's Blood Anarch Revolt Minion =========================== Skin of Steel (x3) Majesty (x2) Pulled Fangs (x2) Conservative Agitation (x2) Kine Resources Contested (x2) Dramatic Upheaval First Tradition: The Masquerade Rumours of Gehenna Ancient Influence (x2) Return to Innocence Wake with Evening's Freshness (x3) Deflection (x3) Obedience (x2) Dread Gaze Freak Drive (x2) Bewitching Oration (x2) Seduction Lost in Crowds (x4) Elder Impersonation Faceless Night (x3) Cloak the Gathering (x4) Card Total: 60 cards Enjoy! Dave Hyatt (d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu)

d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu (David Hyatt) writes: >My proposal for fixing the Tomb: >Have the blood from the Tomb placed ON the Tomb and NOT on the >vampire. With this modification, you can't pull blood off the >Tomb, so it can't be used as a source of income. If the Tomb >gets burned then you'll lose the blood on the Tomb. Only if the >blood on the Tomb + the blood on the vampire = the blood capacity >of the vamp do they come into play. Also that gives other players >the opportunity to burn or contest the Tomb BEFORE the player really >gains any benefit from the card. Furthermore (to follow up my own post!), note that the amount of blood on the Tomb is nondecreasing. You can't keep the Tomb around... every transfer you make will bring you 1 pool closer to burning the card.

I agree, the Tomb is broken, and needs to be fixed. Following on Peter's comparison to Blood Puppy and Powerbases, I'd make two fixes: 1. Blood is moved onto the Tomb, not the vampire. The Tomb can be burned (and the blood moved to the vampire) to bring a vampire into the ready region. This change removes the 'perpetual blood supply' aspect of the tomb. 2. Blood can be stolen from the Tomb with a directed action, at no stealth. I'm not sure this change is needed, if the first is made. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

In article <5333rc$cno...@leeds.ac.uk> GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >In article <52r949$g...@news.cais.com>, cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) wrote: [other commentary about the Tomb omitted]. >We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any alignment >to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. under a card >limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even if it has used >in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. It's far superior to the Arcan/Eco/Art Museum cards. It gives you more free pool a turn, since you can keep sucking blood off almost indefinitely. With Information Highway, it can give you 2 pool a turn. But that's not the worst. Worst is the ability to get a big vampire out very, very fast, for no cost but the 3. Then Minion Tap, Golconda, rinse, repeat. Of course it's no problem under CL. Instead of having problems with individual cards, you have: 1. Domination of the game by Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (and now probably Setite Sneak and Bleed). 2. Evisceration of numerous competing strategies: Ways of dealing with S&B -- Rush combat: no longer effective, since you can't put enough get-in-combat cards in the deck. -- Bleed bounce, except for Tremere and Malks, since you can't put enough bounce cards in your deck Ways of dealing with combat: -- Run-away combat, for clans without celerity. Offensive strategies --Rush combat: As above, not enough get-in-combat cards. --'Pitch' combat decks: can't put in enough maneuvers or enough long-range combat cards to be effective. --Voting: A limited number of damaging vote cards. Especially if you want to play Presence voting, rather than Princely vote, since you can't use Parity Shift or Sabbat Threat. Presence voting also gets hosed because you have only 4 Bewitching Orations and 4 Bribes, both necessary to help get those votes passed. -- Tap-and-Vote/Bleed. These rely heavily on the combat untap cards, Majesty/Earth Meld, to tap out the prey. With only four, you can't make it work. 3. Rare cards become more valuable. Since you can only have a limited number of each card, the rare stand-ins become much more valuable: Fists of Death in place of Torn Signpost and Undead Strength, Kine Dominance in place of Govern the Unaligned, etc. This favors Mr. Suitcase over the beginning player, a bad thing IMO. 4. Because S&B is dominant, everyone ends up playing intercept. This slows the game down a lot. Also a bad thing, IMO. Standard responses to CL arguments: 1. If you have a jerk playing Sneak & Bleed, just gang up, or use social pressure to make them quit. Answer: If you have to resort to the metagame of social pressure or ganging up, the game is broken. Most of us would rather it worked without having to resort to this. And NL/Golden Tenets does. 2. CL is more creative, because you have to be more inventive in combining cards. Answer: CL shuts off a *lot* of otherwise effective strategies. What you're doing is agreeing to play with relatively ineffective decks. The game's not broken, so you don't need to do this. (As long as you use the Golden Tenets.) Basically, any deck you can build under CL you can use under NL. And under NL, you don't have to rely on intercept for defense, which lets you be more creative, not less. 3. Well, we just play for fun. CL is better for that. Answer: So do NL players. The range of possible decks is much wider under NL. Voting and rush combat are now workable deck concepts. The games are quicker. And you don't have to wean new players off of Sneak & Bleed to preserve balance. We'll just have to agree to disagree about which is more fun. 4. We don't have to worry about broken cards. Answer: Well, then the game becomes more like Magic -- whoever draws their broken cards first wins. We don't really want that kind of a game, do we? But yes, you don't have to worry as much about them. There have been few broken cards, and they have been fixed by errata or the Golden Tenets. Those methods are far preferable to the Procrustean bed of Card Limits. I hope that this will speed the debate up a bit. -- Tom Doehne

On 4 Oct 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > In article <5333rc$cno...@leeds.ac.uk> GEN...@leeds.ac.uk > (B.D. Redmond) writes: > >We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any alignment > >to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. under a card > >limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even if it has used > >in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. [snip] > Of course it's no problem under CL. But it is. It's unique nature makes multiples near useless, and at best, causing much hand jam. Getting one out is great, but putting more than 2 or 3 in is reckless. CL folk have _exactly_ the same problem as NL folk, though they have the following as well: >Instead of having problems with > individual cards, you have: > 1. Domination of the game by Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (and now > probably Setite Sneak and Bleed). Not as badly, but in theory, yes. This idea will likely be vehemently opposed by CL groups (usually under the banner of social strategies to solve this problem ("Please don't play that")). > 2. Evisceration of numerous competing strategies: > Ways of dealing with S&B > -- Rush combat: no longer effective, since you can't put > enough get-in-combat cards in the deck. > -- Bleed bounce, except for Tremere and Malks, since you > can't put enough bounce cards in your deck > Ways of dealing with combat: > -- Run-away combat, for clans without celerity. > Offensive strategies > --Rush combat: As above, not enough get-in-combat cards. > --'Pitch' combat decks: can't put in enough maneuvers or > enough long-range combat cards to be effective. > --Voting: A limited number of damaging vote cards. Especially > if you want to play Presence voting, rather than Princely vote, > since you can't use Parity Shift or Sabbat Threat. Presence voting > also gets hosed because you have only 4 Bewitching Orations and > 4 Bribes, both necessary to help get those votes passed. Unless they allow Vote Pushing to "fix" it, opening a whole new can of worms. > -- Tap-and-Vote/Bleed. These rely heavily on the combat > untap cards, Majesty/Earth Meld, to tap out the prey. With > only four, you can't make it work. Many argue that Golden Tenets do the same to Tap-and-XXX decks. For an explicit counterexample, I point you to Jyhad-On-Line 4: <http://shangrila.cs.ucdavis.edu:1234/gfink/jol/jol4/index.html> > 3. Rare cards become more valuable. > Since you can only have a limited number of each card, the > rare stand-ins become much more valuable: Fists of Death > in place of Torn Signpost and Undead Strength, Kine > Dominance in place of Govern the Unaligned, etc. This > favors Mr. Suitcase over the beginning player, a bad thing > IMO. > 4. Because S&B is dominant, everyone ends up playing intercept. > This slows the game down a lot. Also a bad thing, IMO. Many argue that intercept in every deck is a useful thing. I also disagree, mostly on the grounds that there are always other options. While intercept is often and usually useful, that doesn't mean it belongs in most decks. > Standard responses to CL arguments: > 1. If you have a jerk playing Sneak & Bleed, just > gang up, or use social pressure to make them quit. > Answer: If you have to resort to the metagame of social > pressure or ganging up, the game is broken. Most of us > would rather it worked without having to resort to this. > And NL/Golden Tenets does. That it does (with the notable exception of the Return to Innocence deck. Design Team? Are you listening?) [snipped answers to CL arguements about creativity, fun games] > 4. We don't have to worry about broken cards. > Answer: Well, then the game becomes more like Magic -- > whoever draws their broken cards first wins. We don't > really want that kind of a game, do we? But yes, > you don't have to worry as much about them. EXACTLY. One of the many reasons I prefer Jyhad is that it relies more on deck design and less on luck (and wealth). While it _is_ a card game and therefore subject to luck, because there is no arbitrary limit to the numbers of cards played, deck design creates your own luck, rather than being curtailed by an outside force. > There have been few broken cards, and they have been > fixed by errata or the Golden Tenets. Those methods > are far preferable to the Procrustean bed of Card Limits. > I hope that this will speed the debate up a bit. That would be nice. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Thomas Doehne wrote: > I agree, the Tomb is broken, and needs to be fixed. Following on > Peter's comparison to Blood Puppy and Powerbases, I'd make two > fixes: > 1. Blood is moved onto the Tomb, not the vampire. The Tomb can > be burned (and the blood moved to the vampire) to bring a > vampire into the ready region. > This change removes the 'perpetual blood supply' aspect of > the tomb. This fix for the Tomb is very good. What it reduces the Tomb to is a non-immediate blood gainer in the later game, and is a more reasonable card in the beginning of the game. > 2. Blood can be stolen from the Tomb with a directed action, > at no stealth. > I'm not sure this change is needed, if the first is made. In my playgroup, Powerbase:Blood Gain are rarely, if ever, seen. The only one I've ever seen in actual play was P:Chicago, and no one ever put more than one blood on it at a time. They aren't as cost-effective as Short Term Investments, and you really have to be playing an intercept-combat deck to use them well. Reducing the Tomb of Ramses to the power of Powerbase: Washington, D.C., would be too much. Disputed Territory on the New Tomb would be very fair. Just be careful about when the Tomb can be burned. -Nathan Harada

Nathan Harada wrote: > > > Thomas Doehne wrote: > > > I agree, the Tomb is broken, and needs to be fixed. Following on > > Peter's comparison to Blood Puppy and Powerbases, I'd make two > > fixes: > > > 1. Blood is moved onto the Tomb, not the vampire. The Tomb can > > be burned (and the blood moved to the vampire) to bring a > > vampire into the ready region. > > This change removes the 'perpetual blood supply' aspect of > > the tomb. > > This fix for the Tomb is very good. What it reduces the > Tomb to is a non-immediate blood gainer in the later game, and is > a more reasonable card in the beginning of the game. Definitely _more_ reasonable(how could it be any less?) But, still broken in terms of the ability to pull out a larger vampire for less pool at high speed. This one would be fine if the tomb was recosted to, say, 4 or 5 pool. Also, it should be something along the lines of "all blood transferred onto _This_ vampire." Maybe that's a little bit harsh. Hmm... How about keep it as is(beyond uping the cost) but no transfers can be made to or from the vampire with the tomb on him or her? That will take down the speed aspect, and although it'll still be overpowered, it won't take the cake like it does now. I still think that multiple fixes should be applied, so it gives either a) speed, but no or not much net gain in pool, and only for the largest vampires; or b) efficiency in transfers, (but not too much efficiency) but no speed boost(heck, we've already got Info Highway, guys). > > 2. Blood can be stolen from the Tomb with a directed action, > > at no stealth. > > I'm not sure this change is needed, if the first is made. > > In my playgroup, Powerbase:Blood Gain are rarely, if ever, > seen. The only one I've ever seen in actual play was P:Chicago, and > no one ever put more than one blood on it at a time. They aren't > as cost-effective as Short Term Investments, and you really have to > be playing an intercept-combat deck to use them well. Reducing the > Tomb of Ramses to the power of Powerbase: Washington, D.C., would be > too much. Agreed. The only use for Powerbase: Washington D.C. we thought up would be a guy with a Succubus club trading it with a truly intimidating intercept deck, and then taking the D action to take the blood off without being blocked. The intercept deck would get the same deal with the Succubus club guy when the Powerbase was traded back. > Disputed Territory on the New Tomb would be very fair. Just > be careful about when the Tomb can be burned. The burn fix is IMHO, overused, and probably too much of a weakness. Is it just me, or does the profusion of "Burn this card as a D action" stilt the game towards intercept combat even more than it was already? Alec Chang

David Hyatt wrote: > > LSJ made the best point of all in this discussion. The Tomb pays > for itself IMMEDIATELY. There's no drawback. In one turn you get > (effectively) EIGHT transfers and gain a pool. Speed and Efficiency of Pool are what the tomb currently grants. Take away one of them, and It'll become less overpowered and become less of a "If I have a tomb of Rameses, and I'm playing w/ vamps over 4 capacity, I put it in my deck." > Another interesting pattern I've seen in games with lots of Tombs... > people frequently don't contest the Tomb, because they know it will go > away in only a turn or two anyway. Then they can play their Tomb and > reap the full benefits without paying the cost of contesting. > > My proposal for fixing the Tomb: > Have the blood from the Tomb placed ON the Tomb and NOT on the > vampire. With this modification, you can't pull blood off the > Tomb, so it can't be used as a source of income. If the Tomb > gets burned then you'll lose the blood on the Tomb. Only if the > blood on the Tomb + the blood on the vampire = the blood capacity > of the vamp do they come into play. Also that gives other players > the opportunity to burn or contest the Tomb BEFORE the player really > gains any benefit from the card. The problem with this(not that I think that it's a bad idea) is that people will have to consider the contingency of their opponents playing with tombs, and have to pack cards which burn or steal it PRIMARILY for the tomb, and only secondarily for other effects. [ quoted text not captured ] > (d-h...@cs.uiuc.edu)It strikes me that this deck, although nice and nasty as it is, could get even more unpleasant if it was focusing on using one or two of the included strategies to oust people. If it packed multiple RTI's, w/ day ops or just the stealth to avoid being blocked, it would be terrifying. With more Anarch Revolts, the same can be said. More Damage-dealing votes; same thing. If the designer was actively _trying_ to make it less pleasant, it wouldn't take much more effort. Does anyone else see this? A broken card made this possible; and more ordinary or broken cards mixed in would make it even more deadly than it is right now. Alec Chang

In article <32570B...@lava.net>, Alec Chang <te...@lava.net> wrote: [tombfixen elided] >> This fix for the Tomb is very good. What it reduces the >> Tomb to is a non-immediate blood gainer in the later game, and is >> a more reasonable card in the beginning of the game. >Definitely _more_ reasonable(how could it be any less?) But, still broken >in terms of the ability to pull out a larger vampire for less pool at high >speed. Well, pulling out a large vampire for less pool at high speed is what the card's designed to *do*; I'm all in agreement that it does the job *too* well, and needs a fixin', but let's not overfix it into wallpaper. The fix Mr. Harada was commenting on was a fine one. >This one would be fine if the tomb was recosted to, say, 4 or 5 >pool. Also, it should be something along the lines of "all blood >transferred onto _This_ vampire." Maybe that's a little bit harsh. Well, at 4 pool, that's a one-time gain of 4 transfers for an 8point vampire, and a 1 pool savings for a 10 point vampire. Cute, but not evil. A fix I favor is prohibiting transfers off the enTombed vampire. Voila, no stretching out the evilness of the tomb's effect. >I still think that multiple fixes should be applied, so it gives either >a) speed, but no or not much net gain in pool, and only for the largest >vampires; >or >b) efficiency in transfers, (but not too much efficiency) but no speed >boost(heck, we've already got Info Highway, guys). Well, the Tomb, like the Highway, is only really useful in the early game. In the late game, you can't really afford to use it; 3 to bring out, 4 to transfer onto a vamp (say it's a 9) -- you're out 7 pool before you can even start transferring blood off. As a pool gain mechanism, very slow and inefficient. >> In my playgroup, Powerbase:Blood Gain are rarely, if ever, >> seen. The only one I've ever seen in actual play was P:Chicago, and >> no one ever put more than one blood on it at a time. They aren't >> as cost-effective as Short Term Investments, and you really have to >> be playing an intercept-combat deck to use them well. Reducing the >> Tomb of Ramses to the power of Powerbase: Washington, D.C., would be >> too much. Powerbasen and Blood Puppies are essentially bait for Intercept combat, yah. >The burn fix is IMHO, overused, and probably too much of a weakness. Is >it just me, or does the profusion of "Burn this card as a D action" stilt >the game towards intercept combat even more than it was already? Agreed. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

Alec Chang <te...@lava.net> writes: > It strikes me that this deck, although nice and nasty as it is, >could get even more unpleasant if it was focusing on using one or >two of the included strategies to oust people. If it packed multiple >RTI's, w/ day ops or just the stealth to avoid being blocked, it would >be terrifying. With more Anarch Revolts, the same can be said. More >Damage-dealing votes; same thing. If the designer was actively >_trying_ to make it less pleasant, it wouldn't take much more effort. I agree completely. In the main tournament (not the Best of the Best) at GenCon, I was only allowed to have 2 of any restricted card. That's why there weren't more damage causing votes in the deck. As for Return to Innocence, you are also correct. I only owned one copy of the card at the time, so I couldn't build anything nastier. The deck worked out all right anyway... :) >Does anyone else see this? A broken card made this possible; and more >ordinary or broken cards mixed in would make it even more deadly >than it is right now. Yep.

In article <533rv9$2...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: >In article <5333rc$cno...@leeds.ac.uk> GEN...@leeds.ac.uk >(B.D. Redmond) writes: >>In article <52r949$g...@news.cais.com>, cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) wrote: >[other commentary about the Tomb omitted]. > >>We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any alignment >>to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. under a card >>limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even if it has used >>in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. > >It's far superior to the Arcan/Eco/Art Museum cards. It gives you >more free pool a turn, since you can keep sucking blood off almost >indefinitely. With Information Highway, it can give you 2 pool >a turn. But that's not the worst. Worst is the ability to get >a big vampire out very, very fast, for no cost but the 3. Then >Minion Tap, Golconda, rinse, repeat. > >Of course it's no problem under CL. Instead of having problems with >individual cards, you have: Actually, it is just as bad in CL. Tremere in particular. If you can manage to get all the 4 cards, 3 works also, but not as fast... Tomb, Arcane Library, Wasserschlas(sp) Anif, and Info Highway. tap library and Wasserschlas for _4_ pool transfered, then transfer 3 of them back to your pool and _still_ have 1 pool on an uncontrolled vamp. All this at _no cost_ to the player other than the cost of the cards in the first place... Include Blood dolls, with palatial estates, rack, hunting grounds of various kinds and you can gain up to 8 pool a turn. With the one donating to wasserschlas hunting or fed by another hunting ground, that is 8 pool without your vampires loosing a single blood. And this is with 4cl on blood dolls. <snip> > >-- >Tom Doehne -- -- Nyarlathotep : The Crawling Chaos

doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: >I agree, the Tomb is broken, and needs to be fixed. Following on >Peter's comparison to Blood Puppy and Powerbases, I'd make two >fixes: >2. Blood can be stolen from the Tomb with a directed action, >at no stealth. All of the blood, or just one per action? Does it go to the stealing vampire, or to his controller's pool? [ quoted text not captured ]

Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by examining the arguments that claim the contrary. 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. - why does this make it too powerful? Surely an essential game balancing aspect of Jhyhad / V:tES is that certain defensive cards (such as Sudden reversal and Wakes) and blood back cards (such as blood dolls and investments) have always been open for everyone to use to stop various clans from being too much harder than any others. ToR is just another blood back card that can be used by any clan. The fact that it is unique makes it even less game destroying by everyone having out three or four of them. To all the people out there who believe in the original argument that ToR is too powerful as all decks will use it, I put it to you that you are just pissed off that someone else invarably got it out before you and you couldn't get yours out. 2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood bank in the turn it comes out. - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this blood gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one blood? it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood every 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per turn for a 2 pool cost. QED

GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by >examining the arguments that claim the contrary. You missed one. 4. TOR is too powerful because it gives you a large capacity vampire for free with almost no defense possible (and the only "defenses" merely curtail the usefulness - the defenses will never wind up as a net loss for the person playing TOR). The only defenses to TOR are Arson, Rampage, Disputed Location, and Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine). - All of these are of limited usefulness in that they don't directly benefit the person playing them, and the target has already netted at least one pool by the time she loses the TOR. If you fail to get the Arson/Rampage/DL/KD in your hand in time (<3 turns), then it will be useless. Even if you get it, it can still be easily blocked (Arson/Rampage), or possibly defeated (DL). The best chance costs your vampire two blood and is a rare. Whoever gets the Tomb out first wins a large percentage of the time (at least in our playgroup). That's the essence of a broken card. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by >examining the arguments that claim the contrary. Although I agree with you in that I dont' think that it is too powerful, but there is one argument that I have seen time and time again that you failed to mention: It allows one to bring out a very powerful vamp (IC member potentially), for the cost of 3 pool. >1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. >2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood >bank in the turn it comes out. >3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > SOrrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote: > Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by > examining the arguments that claim the contrary. And let's responding by destroying your own. > 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. [snipped response to this "arguement"] Suffice it to say, people aren't saying that ToR is powerful because people are putting it in their deck, they _are_ saying that it is too powerful, and that people putting it in their deck is a symptom of its power. Do note, that useful cards are also put into most decks (Blood Dolls, Wakes), though not all, but that the argument was _not_ claiming this use = power, but that power = use. (Sorry to be redundant) > 2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood > bank in the turn it comes out. > - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this blood > gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one blood? > it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. That's not the full argument. To take this aspect of the argument out of context is misleading. The full argument is that it is powerful in its own right, but that there is _no_ drawback to its use. The turn it is brought out, you can get return on it. Effectively, you pay _ONE_ master phase for an ascendance _AND_ its power. If the card stalled somehow (not usable during the first turn, for example), there would be a risk element involved in its use. As it stands, you can only gain if you have one in a deck (in _nearly_ all situations). > 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are > arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood every > 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per turn for a > 2 pool cost. This is only if the vampire who has the tomb on it is not used as a resource. Assuming a large vampire (say, 10 capacity), a first turn tomb of ra nets you 1 pool the first turn, 4 pool the next, and 2 pool the last. Effectively, you gain 7 pool over three turns, and get _DOUBLE_ influence. All for 3 pool. Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. Yes, if used solely in late game as a pool feeder (Tomb on, transfer off), it is not as effective as say an Arcane Library, but the fact that it can be used for this, as well as the above, makes it too cheap. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <53b0l7$djc...@leeds.ac.uk> GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by >examining the arguments that claim the contrary. > >1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. > > - why does this make it too powerful? Surely an essential game balancing >aspect of Jhyhad / V:tES is that certain defensive cards (such as Sudden >reversal and Wakes) and blood back cards (such as blood dolls and >investments) have always been open for everyone to use to stop various clans >from being too much harder than any others. However, the cards *everyone* uses are commons. ToR is rare. It's a lot more like a Lotus than any other card in the set. >2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood >bank in the turn it comes out. > - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this blood >gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one blood? >it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. If this was all it did, it would be just fine. But it does a lot more -- see below. >3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are >arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood every >3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per turn for a >2 pool cost. Tomb of Ramses has two effects: 1. It gives you, in effect, *four* free transfers. Sure, it might go away, but it is already superior to the Information Highway just on this basis alone. And Info Highway is itself a very useful and much-contested card. 2. It gives you up to four free pool a turn. Much better than any other blood gaining card. The only other one that lets you show a profit on the turn you play it is Ascendance. Let's compare it to Short Term Investment: First Turn: STI, net 0 Tomb: net 1 Second STI, net 1 Tomb: net 5 Third STI, net 3 Tomb: net 9 (if it hasn't been used up already). *And*, those gains don't require a master phase, unlike STI, PI, nad Ascendance 3. Compare to the Ecoterrorists/Art Museum/Arcane Library: It shows a profit on the first turn, they don't. It gives you *four* free transfers a turn, rather than 1. It's better than having both Ecoterrorists *and* Info Highway out. Any card that's better than a combination of two of the better cards in the game is very, very good. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Steve Bucy <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >In my game group anyone playing WVP, Gangrel loop, or any other jerky >obnoxious deck gets ganged up on and eliminated with great prejudice. >After a few games getting blasted they will probably quit running a >degenerate deck. If they don't they will continue to get blasted and >probably quit playing with you. This will also solve the problem. This solves the problem, but only in isolated game groups. Whenever you have significant turnover, or play with other groups, or have visitors this won't work. The real killer for social solutions is that a popular game, like chess, bridge, or (sigh) Magic, is characterized by playing in large variable groups and with strangers. If Jyhad is successful, it will be popular, and then you necessarily have a situation where social controls don't work. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: (massive snipage) >But it is. It's unique nature makes multiples near useless, and at best, >causing much hand jam. Getting one out is great, but putting more than 2 >or 3 in is reckless. CL folk have _exactly_ the same problem as NL folk, >though they have the following as well: I don't want anyone to think I am supporting 4CL but I think I need to make a point about this one. Multiples near useless! Not true at all. For a couple of months I have been playing with 4 tombs in most of my decks. It is very common for me to get two, or sometimes even three of them into play during the course of a game. If you get one early you can put it on a large vamp (usually I.C.) and bring it out for three blood. This leaves you with more blood in your pool. With minion taps it is usually easy to have enough blood to play another tomb and use it as a blood machine. When you have made enough blood, bring out the vamp its on at half cost. Often I have enough blood to play another tomb to use as a blood machine... Maybe I have become a expert at abusing the tomb, but if I had more I would put more in. Just ask Robert Goudie how he feels about the tomb... Steve Bucy

Steve Bucy wrote: > > theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > [CLIP of Steve Bucy's famous Tomb of Abuse) >Just ask Robert Goudie how he feels about the tomb... You don't need to ask. I hate that f***ing thing! What I hate most is that I don't own _any_. Steve really does use this thing like mad. We all hate him. Something must be done! If the card doesn't change soon I will be forced to play my weenie dominate bleed deck over and over again to keep pace with everyone. Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

>On 27 Sep 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> Which leads to a truly hideous crock deck that isn't covered by the >> Golden Tenets -- I'll take the man's $50, but I'll still feel bad about >> it. > >> 12 Etrius [I would change this to 14 Etrius. > This gives you the ability to use all > of the Return to Innocence without > exhausting your crypt.] > >> 10 Return to Innocence >> 10 Magic of the Smith >> 10 Soul Gem of Etrius >> 10 Protean (or Fortitude, if Etrius has no or inferior Fortitude) >> 10 Horrific Countenance (or Day Op as appropriate) >> 10 Information Highway [I would reduce this to at most 4. The > speed of getting out a quick Etrius is > Outweighed by the hand jam] >> 10 Tomb of Rameses III [I would take these out altogether] > [Add in up to 3 The Barrens (to cycle)] > [My version: 55 Cards] >> I also see a very simple flaw in this deck design, Brainwash with Ravnos. I often play a semi-weenie Ravnos deck with a half dozen Brainwash and Tricks of Danya. I almost always gain a Brainwash on Turn 1 or two in my hand. Play brainwash on the vamp with the Tomb. If you have any vamp who costs more than 4 you'll never see him. Chance

>Well, the Tomb, like the Highway, is only really useful in the early game. >In the late game, you can't really afford to use it; 3 to bring out, >4 to transfer onto a vamp (say it's a 9) -- you're out 7 pool before you can >even start transferring blood off. As a pool gain mechanism, very slow and >inefficient. Not with Info Highway. Pay 3 for the Tomb. 2 xfer for two on, next 2 xfer to take 2 off. Your only down 1 pool. Next turn, you can take 2 off with 2 xfer and by the third turn, its paid for. Chance

>>1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. Only deck I can think of that wouldn't have it is a Ravnos - Brainwash/Trick of Danya and the weenies. Otherwise, I agree. Chance

>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >The only defenses to TOR are Arson, Rampage, Disputed Location, and >Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine). - All of these are of limited usefulness >in that they don't directly benefit the person playing them, and the >target has already netted at least one pool by the time she loses the TOR. The only real defense in my book is Sudden Reversal... >If you fail to get the Arson/Rampage/DL/KD in your hand in time (<3 turns), >then it will be useless. Even if you get it, it can still be easily >blocked (Arson/Rampage), or possibly defeated (DL). The best chance >costs your vampire two blood and is a rare. > >Whoever gets the Tomb out first wins a large percentage of the time >(at least in our playgroup). > >That's the essence of a broken card. I am notorious in our playgroup for using large vamps. I used to be quite successful doing this with info highway, minion tap, blood doll, and 5th tradition. I used to win close to 50% of the time with such decks. With the tomb it is often shocking simple. I would estimate I win close to 75% of the games in which I use decks with 4 TOR in the library. I am probably the ultimate abuser of this card... I don't think the design team thought about the extreme uses (putting it on a I.C. while you bring out another I.C.) of this card at all. Steve Bucy

[ quoted text not captured ] Some things (like nose picking) are considered uncooth in any social setting. I think it would be possible to make jerky decks universally unexceptable. If enough people decided they don't want to put up with WVP, Gangrel loop, Thoughts betrayed decks, or whatever it will spread to other environments. Newbies can be told that certain decks will invite scorn from more experienced players, and are not a good idea. Given time the word will get around, and like picking your nose, the social stigma will become to great to be avoided. Steve Bucy

>>Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by >>examining the arguments that claim the contrary. > >You missed one. > >4. TOR is too powerful because it gives you a large capacity vampire for >free with almost no defense possible (and the only "defenses" merely >curtail the usefulness - the defenses will never wind up as a net loss >for the person playing TOR). well, actually this fact has been covered in two of my other arguments in the original post, but if you need two and two added together for you, here goes.... FREE????? okay, lets say you have a ten (or eleven, for that matter) blood vampire in your crypt. you put ToR (Tomb of Ramses III) on it before you have put any blood on it. ToR costs three blood to get out, and doubles up the blood that you have put on it with transfers. so, a ten blood vampire gets up to eight blood in one turn and comes out in the next. You have put a total of five blood on it and gained five from it. However - the tomb has cost you three. That gives you a maximum net gain of 2 - the same as a short term investment (Okay so its quicker, but the short term was shit anyway). the other argument here is that the vamp gets out quickly as well. However this is no quicker to other similar cards: Information highway (IH), Art museum et al (AMea). The IH is different in that it does not give you any blood back, however, how and where you spend the additional influence it gives you and the fact that it isn't burnt when the vampire comes out makes it a far less restrictive card, and for the blood price is fairly well balanced with ToR. AMea also allows you to get a ten blood vampire out in two turns, however you will have less influence left after this, and will have not netted any blood gain yet, however, it takes just two turns to to net the same gain, and you can carry on gaining blood for the rest of the game. ToR is, as was designed (I presume), to be an inferior AMea, but that anyone can use - which can actually work against it as it is more likely to be contested. I think that sums it all up. >The only defenses to TOR are Arson, Rampage, Disputed Location, and >Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine). Disputed location???? surely you mean disputed territory. You should perhaps also add sudden reversal and unnatural disaster (see below). > - All of these are of limited usefulness >in that they don't directly benefit the person playing them, Excuse me? I beg your pardon? Disputed territory and Kine dominance don't benefit the person playing them directly? So, you think that ToR is too good, and in that case you don't think that it would be beneficial to you to control it yourself instead? I think your logic is very strange on this account. As for the others, if you think that ToR is so powerful, whats wrong with spending an mere action to prevent someone from having it? > and the target has already netted at least one pool by the time she loses >the TOR. Read my other post - there are many other ways to net yourself one blood - one of which is to get out a caitiff and bleed someone who hasn't got out any Vamps because he's plying all his efforts into the ToR! Don't stress about a measly one blood anyway. WOW! all bow down and praise the methusulah who has managed to gain ONE BLOOD!!!! >If you fail to get the Arson/Rampage/DL/KD in your hand in time (<3 turns), >then it will be useless. Okay, but so then will be the ToR and they will have only gained two blood from it, If you do the caitiff method suggested above you can gain more than this before anyone gets into a situation where they can gain the edge back from you, Hunting grounds and AMea are equally good at gaining you far more blood than the ToR, although slightly slower, but lets face it, what gamne only lasts 5 rounds (after which you would have netted the same gain as the ToR). >Even if you get it <Counter card>, it can still be easily >blocked (Arson/Rampage), or possibly defeated (DL). The best chance >costs your vampire two blood and is a rare. Possibly, but if the Person with ToR is too busy plying all his available resources into the ToR then they won't have anyone out to block, will they.... Also, ever heard of stealth??? Kine Dominance is still a Zero stealth action and so is just as easily blocked as Arson or rampage, as for the blood cost - I think its worth two blood off one of my vampires for a three blood location. Rarity noted and accepted. For a voting deck Disputed Territory is by far the best option (lets face it, a vote deck without these is stabbing itself in the foot), its at +1 stealth, and early on in the game a vote can be won on the strength of the +1 vote the card gives you alone. Sudden reversal is a very good counter to anything, and you are likely to have as many SRs as your opponent will have ToR's, so its merely a matter of luck as to who get what out when etc. Finally, unnatural disaster.... okay so its not brilliant but its safe - the only counter is SR, which means that you don't loose the pool; played early on it can be a very useful card. >Whoever gets the Tomb out first wins a large percentage of the time >(at least in our playgroup). Perhaps you should all start to make better decks then, in our play group, I took it out of my deck because it wasn't good enough at getting me blood back. >That's the essence of a broken card. Then I think you should stop playing, because there are many cards as powerful, if not more powerful, the ToR, and they are all likely to stop you from enjoying yourself because your deck just isn't good enough to cope with the above averege cards.

GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >>>Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start >by >>>examining the arguments that claim the contrary. >> >>You missed one. >> >>4. TOR is too powerful because it gives you a large capacity vampire for >>free with almost no defense possible (and the only "defenses" merely >>curtail the usefulness - the defenses will never wind up as a net loss >>for the person playing TOR). >well, actually this fact has been covered in two of my other arguments in >the original post, but if you need two and two added together for you, here >goes.... Not this point - but only this point as you see it. >FREE????? okay, lets say you have a ten (or eleven, for that matter) blood >vampire in your crypt. you put ToR (Tomb of Ramses III) on it before you >have put any blood on it. ToR costs three blood to get out, and doubles up >the blood that you have put on it with transfers. so, a ten blood vampire A better use would be to have the Tomb match the pool your transfer to *other* vampires. >gets up to eight blood in one turn and comes out in the next. You have put a >total of five blood on it and gained five from it. However - the tomb has >cost you three. That gives you a maximum net gain of 2 - the same as a short >term investment (Okay so its quicker, but the short term was shit anyway). Actually, for the 11-cap, you get a maximum net gain of eight - 11 matched by the TOR, minus the three the TOR cost to play. It'd take a lot more time and cards to get the same benefit from any Investments. >the other argument here is that the vamp gets out quickly as well. However >[... other speedy examples deleted ...] Speed wasn't part of my Argument. >>The only defenses to TOR are Arson, Rampage, Disputed Location, and >>Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine). >Disputed location???? surely you mean disputed territory. You should Surely, I do, of course. >perhaps also add sudden reversal and unnatural disaster (see below). SR - yes. UD - no. Spending two pool after the TOR has already netted the person playing it a pool isn't a good defense. Even with the SR, the person playing TOR hasn't lost anything more than you. The TOR is without drawbacks. >> - All of these are of limited usefulness >>in that they don't directly benefit the person playing them, >Excuse me? I beg your pardon? Disputed territory and Kine dominance don't >benefit the person playing them directly? So, you think that ToR is too >good, and in that case you don't think that it would be beneficial to you to >control it yourself instead? I think your logic is very strange on this >account. As for the others, if you think that ToR is so powerful, whats >wrong with spending an mere action to prevent someone from having it? You are excused. Read the card. Changing the controller doesn't allow you to change the target. If you steal it, it either won't have a target at all, or will still target the original vampire (probably the latter, by card text, but that's up to the RT to decide in their next meeting :-) >> and the target has already netted at least one pool by the time she loses >>the TOR. >Read my other post - there are many other ways to net yourself one blood - Read the other posts here. The one blood gain isn't the end - it's just the worst case scenario. The point her is that there is no risk involved in playing TOR - your get your cost back, plus interest (one pool) before anyone can do anything about it. *Then*, it continues to provide it's benefit until it is stolen/burned. (The only possible way to lose with the TOR is if someone already has the Madness Network out and steals/destroys the Tomb at the end of your minion phase - not very likely, and if the MNet is out, you can just wait until the Malks are tapped) >>If you fail to get the Arson/Rampage/DL/KD in your hand in time (<3 turns), >>then it will be useless. >Okay, but so then will be the ToR and they will have only gained two blood >from it, Eight, not two. >>Even if you get it <Counter card>, it can still be easily >>blocked (Arson/Rampage), or possibly defeated (DL). The best chance >>costs your vampire two blood and is a rare. >Possibly, but if the Person with ToR is too busy plying all his available >resources into the ToR then they won't have anyone out to block, will What "all resources"? You play the card, reap the reward (one pool) immediately, then continue for as long as you have it. There is no required resource expenditure after the fact. >they.... Also, ever heard of stealth??? Kine Dominance is still a Zero >stealth action and so is just as easily blocked as Arson or rampage, as for >the blood cost - I think its worth two blood off one of my vampires for a >three blood location. Rarity noted and accepted. For a voting deck Disputed >Territory is by far the best option (lets face it, a vote deck without these >is stabbing itself in the foot), its at +1 stealth, and early on in the game >a vote can be won on the strength of the +1 vote the card gives you alone. Sure. And, as I said - all of those will be too late to actually *cost* the person with the TOR any net loss. >Sudden reversal is a very good counter to anything, and you are likely to >have as many SRs as your opponent will have ToR's, so its merely a matter of >luck as to who get what out when etc. Finally, unnatural disaster.... okay And, even with SR, there's no net loss between the two of you. >so its not brilliant but its safe - the only counter is SR, which means that >you don't loose the pool; played early on it can be a very useful card. And, with the Disaster, you have a net three pool deficit (TOR gained one the same turn - you spent two to prevent further gain). >>Whoever gets the Tomb out first wins a large percentage of the time >>(at least in our playgroup). >Perhaps you should all start to make better decks then, in our play group, I >took it out of my deck because it wasn't good enough at getting me blood >back. Perhaps you should try playing the TOR to its full potential (gaining eight instead of two might make for a different game). >>That's the essence of a broken card. >Then I think you should stop playing, because there are many cards as >powerful, if not more powerful, the ToR, and they are all likely to stop you >from enjoying yourself because your deck just isn't good enough to cope with >the above averege cards. Such as... -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | achieve vice. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <533rv9$2...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, > >>We also see no problem with the tomb - apart from its lack of any >>alignment to clan, its a poor arcane library/Eco terrorists/art museum. >>under a card limit environment it doesn't seem to cause a problem - even >>if it has used in a lot of decks, it doesn't spoil the game. > >It's far superior to the Arcan/Eco/Art Museum cards. It gives you >more free pool a turn, since you can keep sucking blood off almost >indefinitely. Here I think that you will find that you are wrong. If you are going to use ToR as a continal blood flow it gives you **less** blood per turn than the Art Museum et al (AMea). Lets establish the facts shall we? 1: AMea gives you one blood back a turn at the cost of two transfers.Surely no one can argue with that? 2: ToR, at best, gives you back four blood every five turns, at the cost of all four transfers. Lets examine how exactly this is done, shall we? i) you spend all four transfers and stick on four blood. ToR doubles this to eight. ii) You take off two per turn each turn thereafter, meaning that after five turns you have gained four blood, in the same time AMea would have gaied you 5 blood. Including the cost to bring it into play, after five turns ToR has netted you 1 pool and the AMea 3 pool. There are other reasons why AMea is better than the ToR. They are as follows: 1: ToR costs three pool to bring out, AMea costs two, thereby meaning that AMea cards can be played as a last minute defense to gain you the blood to keep you in, where as ToR takes longer to reqoup itself back into your pool. 2: if used as a continual blood gaining card ToR ties up one vampire for the entire game and the ToR is only at its most efficient if that vampire is 5 (not much use to a weenie deck) capacity or higher. AMea cards, although requiring a specific vampire clan, are not as restictive as ToR, you may place blood continually, and choose to bring out or keep back vampires as you see fit. >With Information Highway (IH), it can give you 2 pool a turn. lets take the same situation - put on six blood - twelve blood is present on your vampires. if you take it of at a rate of three a turn, in four more turns you will have gained six blood from the ToR. This nets, in five turns as +3 pool, which is the same as the AMea. Accepted, in the long run it will be slightly better, gaining you six blood every five turns rather than the five the AMea gets you - but if its not destroyed in five turns the decks your playing against just aren't that good. Even still, this is a two master card combo and would be dificult to get out, especially with both of these cards beeing some of the rarer uncommons (I'm the only one in our group who has got an Info Highway out of a packet, no one has more than one ToR or IH). >Of course it's no problem under CL. Instead of having problems with >individual cards, you have: >1. Domination of the game by Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (and now >probably Setite Sneak and Bleed). Wrong, no one plays S&B, because its boring as hell and spoils the game for everyone - there's no challenge to winning with a S&B deck, and it has also become equally easy to loose with one - its all down to the luck of the card spread. WOW thats exciting!!! Also the permanents based enviroment CL tends to generate make S&B less powerful, especially with Heidelburg. >2. Evisceration of numerous competing strategies: >Ways of dealing with S&B > -- Rush combat: no longer effective, since you can't put > enough get-in-combat cards in the deck. wrong. you just have to be clever about it - use more permanent and semi permanent rush - makesure that when you do use rush it counts, theres no problem of rush hand jam under CL. > -- Bleed bounce, except for Tremere and Malks, since you > can't put enough bounce cards in your deck You've got as many as your predator has bleed modifiers, normally. If not its a case of making them count. AI means that no one risks a bleed of three or more, so telepathic counter becomes useful too. using two clan decks, or common secondary skills with skill card bonuses in there makes Toreador and ventrue and giovanni readonable - even nosferatu, brujah and gangrel could get out one vampire to act as a bleed bouncer. But then, if no one is playing S&B, theres no real need for a deck solely devoted to bleed bounce. >Ways of dealing with combat: > -- Run-away combat, for clans without celerity. I have had many succesful ranged combat decks. Protean is almost as good at getting to range, as is thaumaturgy. Fortitude can get you there also (if you really need to), as can obfuscate, serpentis, animalism, auspex and potence. Its just a case of being prepared and using the cards you have available to you to their best capacity. And *then* theres fake out. Shall we just do the sums here: Celerity: Flash, alacrity (sup only, only if acting) Obfuscate: Behind you (sup only - I think) Protean: form of ghost, Gleam of the red eye (sup only), claws of the dead (sup only). Serpentis: Form of the serpent (sup only) Animalism: aid from bats Potence: Thrown gate Thaumaturgy: Movement of the mind (sup only) Auspex: the spirits touch (sup only. only if blocking) so there are many cards available, its just a case of making your deck better - not relying on inferior levels of disciplines. >Offensive strategies > --Rush combat: As above, not enough get-in-combat cards. not true, see above. > --'Pitch' combat decks: can't put in enough maneuvers or >enough long-range combat cards to be effective. Not true, I have made a successful cel/pot/ani deck that did just this > --Voting: A limited number of damaging vote cards. Especially >if you want to play Presence voting, rather than Princely vote, >since you can't use Parity Shift or Sabbat Threat. Presence voting >also gets hosed because you have only 4 Bewitching Orations and >4 Bribes, both necessary to help get those votes passed. Voting is probably more difficult, but there have been four good vote decks made, all of which are capable of getting a full sweep of victory points Presence vote is not unworkable, you'll just have to make the most of your votes and use some praxis siesures, <clan> justicar cards and, especially, command the Harpies. I made a settite vote deck that was pretty evil. We also play a house rule for Charming lobby that makes it worth while. > -- Tap-and-Vote/Bleed. These rely heavily on the combat >untap cards, Majesty/Earth Meld, to tap out the prey. With >only four, you can't make it work. Wrong again. You should also add to this list mummify, freak drive, day operation, horrid form, form of mist, Force of will, blood bond, incriminating video tape and change of target (if a stealthy action, ie tap & vote). and thats with out using the banned Thoughts betrayed and misdirestion. all of these cards can be used to great effect in a tap and bleed / vote deck, and with only four wakes, theres no real problem with anyone waking. >3. Rare cards become more valuable. >Since you can only have a limited number of each card, the >rare stand-ins become much more valuable: Fists of Death >in place of Torn Signpost and Undead Strength, Kine >Dominance in place of Govern the Unaligned, etc. This >favors Mr. Suitcase over the beginning player, a bad thing >IMO. I would have to begrudgingly agree with you on this point. Yes it will favour the player with the most cards, and yes, this is a bad thing. However everyone in our game group has a very similar amount of cards, and those of us who have slightly more than the others will often give away cards if someone requires then for a deck concept. >4. Because S&B is dominant, everyone ends up playing intercept. >This slows the game down a lot. Also a bad thing, IMO. I suppose it would slow the game down, however with no one playing S&B its not a big problem. We, as a group, enjoy longer games. We are all good friends and we don't like to see someone sitting out for large lengths of time, so generally people work to try and keep others in the game, and keep the game even. we like our games to last a long time so that we can get an evenings entertainment for free. Well, okay maybe not entirely free, but even if you spend large amounts of money, its still cheaper than beer, in the long run. >Standard responses to CL arguments: >1. If you have a jerk playing Sneak & Bleed, just >gang up, or use social pressure to make them quit. > >Answer: If you have to resort to the metagame of social >pressure or ganging up, the game is broken. Most of us >would rather it worked without having to resort to this. >And NL/Golden Tenets does. alternative answer. There is no need to gang up. predator and prey can cope with an S&B deck quite hapily, given card spread. People who enjoy the game of Jyhad will *not* enjoy a game with an S&B deck involved in it, even if they are playing the S&B deck. Therefore the S&B deck is a dead idea. There is no need to revert to social pressure or ganging up, because the S&B deck as an idea is avoided like the plague. People who create S&B decks are usually NL players who want to show everyone how degenerate an S&B deck can be, and so aren't really in the right mindset to be playing with CLs anyway. if they continue to play S&B then they themselves will become bored with the game and either stop playing or build a more fun, more challenging deck. >2. CL is more creative, because you have to be more inventive >in combining cards. also add challenging here. >Answer: CL shuts off a *lot* of otherwise effective strategies. >What you're doing is agreeing to play with relatively ineffective >decks. The game's not broken, so you don't need to do this. >(As long as you use the Golden Tenets.) Basically, any >deck you can build under CL you can use under NL. And under >NL, you don't have to rely on intercept for defense, which >lets you be more creative, not less. This is the argument of the unimaginative. there are many ways to create the deck you want, you just have to use the cards more effectively. if you want to challenge me feel free. Come up with a deck idea that is plausible in NL and I reckon that I could make it. >3. Well, we just play for fun. CL is better for that. > >Answer: So do NL players. The range of possible decks >is much wider under NL. Not true. >Voting and rush combat are now workable deck concepts. As they are under CL >The games are quicker. and therefore less fun (In the opinion of our gaming group) >And you don't have to wean new players off of Sneak & Bleed to >preserve balance. Sneak and bleed is boring and not challenging at all. Players will wean themselves of them of their own accord (as did two of our players, including myself) >We'll just have to agree to disagree about which is more fun. Okay, but you have a lot of preconcieved conceptions of CL games that are just untrue. >4. We don't have to worry about broken cards. > >Answer: Well, then the game becomes more like Magic -- >whoever draws their broken cards first wins. We don't >really want that kind of a game, do we? But yes, >you don't have to worry as much about them. Actually we do have to worry about broken cards, its just that we have so few of them: Thoughts betrayed is just outright banned because it has no counter at all. Misdirection is banned because it is one card that can oust a player, and has very little in the way of counter - its more of a voluntary banning as it makes the games boring. we are currently debating Kiss of Ra and Blood to water, but I think bth of these are probably likely to stay. >There have been few broken cards, and they have been >fixed by errata or the Golden Tenets. Those methods >are far preferable to the Procrustean bed of Card Limits. Erratas are erratas and they affect us all, CL or no CL. Golden Tenets or CL its a simple choice, one that no one can out rightly say that any one is any better than the other. Both are *Very* slight modifications to the rules of Jyhad because it doesn't work properly without one of the two. Its just a matter of personal preference which one you want to use. To say that one is far preferable to another is just a matter of opinion, and should stay as such. Personally I prefer CL, you, presumably, prefer the Golden Tenets. All I can say is that all the arguments that you have placed against Card Limits are either irrelevant or untrue. I do not wish to grace you with a reply that tells you everything that is wrong with the NL game, as I haven't played it in a long time and both my skill level, and that of out playing group has improved dramatically since then. I would probably get my facts as wrong as you have about CL. The only thing that I will say is that looking at the decks that I have seen both printed up on the newsgroup and on various web pages, I think that our group at least seems to be playing at a far higher skill level than most of the decks that I have seen. I'm not saying that all NL players are thick at all, I'm saying that our group is of a high standard and will have the deck building, and game playing, skill to work around any problems that other CL players, that you have had experience in dealing with, may create. I don't want to flame people for playing NL, I would much rather have people understand that its purely down to personal choice. I wouldn't like to come out right and say that NL is an inferior to CL as I don't have enough experience of NL to say it with enough confidence, and could well end up getting my facts as wrong as you seem to have. Its not simply a question of NL is good and CL is bad, or vice versa; its a case of accepting that both games are slightly different, both games are still Jyhad (or V:tES). When you get down to it theres really only one fundamental difference; proponents of both variants accept that Jyhad needs some tweaking from how it is origionally written - the errata half covers this, but not entirely, therefore some other restrictions are needed the choice is either to restrict the number of cards that you have available to you, the othetr is to restrict the viability of certain tactics using the "golden Tenets" rules modifications. Its all down to personal choice and I chose CL. If you're not happy with that, fine, just get your facts straight about the "problems" with CL before you open your mouth [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start by >> examining the arguments that claim the contrary. > >And let's responding by destroying your own. well, aren't you a pleasant person! I bet you've got loads of friends! >> 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. > >[snipped response to this "arguement"] > >Suffice it to say, people aren't saying that ToR is powerful because >people are putting it in their deck, they _are_ saying that it is too >powerful, and that people putting it in their deck is a symptom of its >power. Do note, that useful cards are also put into most decks (Blood >Dolls, Wakes), though not all, but that the argument was _not_ claiming >this use = power, but that power = use. (Sorry to be redundant) If this is the case, why do people post similar arguments for wakes and blood dolls. people try and change wakes so that they are thaumaturgy cards, because there is a completely illogical line of thinking that use = power. I can't understand it myself but there are people out there who believe it to be true. I think that the mere fact that it is used by everyone balances it. As for the comments on wakes and blood dolls - any deck that doesn't put in wakes is really stabbing itself in the foot. no other card is as good at doing what it does. Other untaps are either played in your action phase, thereby leaving no room for bluffs, or don't allow you to block as many different types of actions. Blood dolls possibly aren't as essential - but I haven't seen a deck yet that does better without them (presumably using some other way of gaining blood back. >> 2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood >> bank in the turn it comes out. > >> - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this >>blood >> gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one >>blood? >> it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. > >That's not the full argument. To take this aspect of the argument out of >context is misleading. The full argument is that it is powerful in its >own right, but that there is _no_ drawback to its use. The turn it is >brought out, you can get return on it. Effectively, you pay _ONE_ master >phase for an ascendance _AND_ its power. possibly, but then ascendance is pretty cack any way and hardly worth while using. The card is limiting in the fact that it takes three pool to get out in the first place, and requires an extra 4 pool to benefit fully, so its only any good if it turns up early. And I really have to say that under card limits you really don't have a big problem with this. >If the card stalled somehow (not usable during the first turn, for >example), there would be a risk element involved in its use. okay, possibly, but under CL it very rarely will come out first turn >As it stands, you can only gain if you have one in a deck (in _nearly_ all >situations). Yes. So? >> 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > >> - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are >> arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood >> every 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per >> turn for a 2 pool cost. > >This is only if the vampire who has the tomb on it is not used as a >resource. Assuming a large vampire (say, 10 capacity), a first turn tomb >of ra nets you 1 pool the first turn, 4 pool the next, and 2 pool the >last. Effectively, you gain 7 pool over three turns, and get _DOUBLE_ >influence. All for 3 pool. Yes, but there are two problems with this: 1: the tomb is destroyed when the vampire comes out, therefore anyone else can then bring out their tomb. Everyone can do this, therfore it is like saying that everyone starts with 37 pool at the start - it doesn't really unbalance the game much - make it slightly longer with larger vampires out possibly, but not unbalanced. who says a slightly more high powered game wouldn't be more fun anyway? > Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the > gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. There is. Sudden reversal. Just the same as any other master card also, a malky madness deck could use the time auction to steal it with a vote or Kine Dominance before you've gained the blood for it. Even then, after one turn its only gained you one and double transfers *ONLY IF YOU ARE PUTTING BLOOD ONTO VAMPIRES* which I don't see as being hugely powerful. When it comes down to it, the chances of getting out a location destroyer/stealer card are probably more likely than getting out the ToR. >Yes, if used solely in late game as a pool feeder (Tomb on, transfer off), >it is not as effective as say an Arcane Library, but the fact that it can >be used for this, as well as the above, makes it too cheap. if you use it for the above then you *CAN'T* use it as a blood back device, it either or, not both. just because a card has two effective options doesn't make it too powerful - I don't see anyone moaning too much about Kine dominance or govern the unaligned (in a stealthy deck) both of which have two very useful powers (I mean, they could both gain you 3 pool in a turn). thanks for the points. I wouldn't have said you destroyed my arguments, but I've responded in full to any inclarities you may have pointed out. thanks Ben

Even though I have somewhere to be soon, I had to respond to this the moment I read it... On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote: [Re: Contention that Tomb of Ramses is better than Art Museum, et al.) > > Here I think that you will find that you are wrong. If you are going to use > ToR as a continal blood flow it gives you **less** blood per turn than the > Art Museum et al (AMea). Lets establish the facts shall we? > 1: AMea gives you one blood back a turn at the cost of two > transfers.Surely no one can argue with that? True, but you still haven't addressed the fact that Tomb of Ra nets you more effective pool more quickly (effectively matching your transfers for free), for a much faster effective pool gain. When you start using Tomb of Ra as a blood machine, it _is_ much slower than the Art Museum, but the fact that you can use Tomb of Ra for either type makes it superior to Art Museum, on the whole, though I can't claim it is faster when used as a pure blood machine. [snipped examples of pure blood machine comparison] > There are other reasons why AMea is better than the ToR. They are as > follows: > 1: ToR costs three pool to bring out, AMea costs two, thereby > meaning that AMea cards can be played as a last minute > defense to gain you the blood to keep you in, where as ToR > takes longer to reqoup itself back into your pool. Neither can be played reliably as a last minute defense. The pool loss = danger. While Art Museum is slightly safer, neither is particularly safe. [someone else wrote a partially correct statement...] > >Of course it's no problem under CL. Instead of having problems with > >individual cards, you have: It is a problem under CL as much as anywhere else. Its effect still happens when it comes out, and most decks can't afford more than 4 or 6 copies in it anyway. > >1. Domination of the game by Malkavian Sneak and Bleed (and now > >probably Setite Sneak and Bleed). > Wrong, no one plays S&B, because its boring as hell and spoils the game for > everyone - there's no challenge to winning with a S&B deck, and it has also ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An interesting comment... > become equally easy to loose with one - its all down to the luck of the card > spread. So, why is it exactly easy to lose with one? Had everyone decided it was so easy to win with it, that they either played it or started specifically making decks to beat it? Hmm... Sounds broken! All down to luck? Lovely strategy in CL! > WOW thats exciting!!! Also the permanents based enviroment CL tends > to generate make S&B less powerful, especially with Heidelburg. Read Judith And Mark's Jyhad page (link available from my page, URL in .sig). If you can respond to the articles there with any success, maybe you'll have a shot. Until then, your arguments are tired, easily defeated, and generally not informed. You kill your own arguments as you write them (above). > > >2. Evisceration of numerous competing strategies: > >Ways of dealing with S&B > > -- Rush combat: no longer effective, since you can't put > > enough get-in-combat cards in the deck. > wrong. you just have to be clever about it - use more permanent and semi > permanent rush - makesure that when you do use rush it counts, theres no > problem of rush hand jam under CL. Are you referring to more Archon and Bloodhunt (requiring princes)? Hmm, so what will we have, only Brujah rush be able to handle S&B, and then only if they are playing princely rush? Permanents... So all combat decks have to play with permanents? A lot of variety, I see. > > -- Bleed bounce, except for Tremere and Malks, since you > > can't put enough bounce cards in your deck > You've got as many as your predator has bleed modifiers, normally. <boggle> 3 cards (deflection, telepathic misdirection, telepathic counter) equals _all_ the bleed modifiers... <wink> Okay, whatever you say, pal. >If not > its a case of making them count. AI means that no one risks a bleed of three > or more, Here's a thought! A broken card to beat a (4CL) broken strategy! > so telepathic counter becomes useful too. using two clan decks, or > common secondary skills with skill card bonuses in there makes Toreador and > ventrue and giovanni readonable - even nosferatu, brujah and gangrel could > get out one vampire to act as a bleed bouncer. So the solution for non-Aus/Dom decks is to add Aus/Dom? More variety!! (?) >But then, if no one is > playing S&B, theres no real need for a deck solely devoted to bleed bounce. And they won't be playing S&B only because you all say "naughty, naughty". > >Ways of dealing with combat: > > -- Run-away combat, for clans without celerity. > I have had many succesful ranged combat decks. Protean is almost as good at > getting to range, as is thaumaturgy. Fortitude can get you there also (if > you really need to), as can obfuscate, serpentis, animalism, auspex and > potence. Its just a case of being prepared and using the cards you have > available to you to their best capacity. And *then* theres fake out. > Shall we just do the sums here: > Celerity: Flash, alacrity (sup only, only if acting) > Obfuscate: Behind you (sup only - I think) > Protean: form of ghost, Gleam of the red eye (sup only), claws of the dead > (sup only). > Serpentis: Form of the serpent (sup only) > Animalism: aid from bats > Potence: Thrown gate > Thaumaturgy: Movement of the mind (sup only) > Auspex: the spirits touch (sup only. only if blocking) > so there are many cards available, its just a case of making your deck > better - not relying on inferior levels of disciplines. I see, so somehow its better (and more skillful) to rely on luck to get those cards into your hand rather than rely on deck construction... The way it looks above, the only reliable way to get to range is with Protean, and what are most Gangrel going to be doing at range? Hmm, Aid from Bats (ooh), Canine Horde (oh!), Body of Sun (eh!), and it only costs them 1 blood to manuever each time. > >Offensive strategies > > --Rush combat: As above, not enough get-in-combat cards. > not true, see above. Count them. Not playing with princes: Bum's Rush(temporary/blocked easily), Haven Uncovered (removable) Playing with Princes: Archon (removable), Bloodhunt Playing with Large Non-Camarilla Vampires/Justicar: Covenant of Blood/variant (both blocked easily/removable) Playing with Assamites: Contract Looks to me like the only reliable combat deck would have to be a permanent based Assamite deck or permanent based Brujah/prince deck. What if I want a good Gangrel rush? What if I want a brujah-pitch (thrown objects) deck? A Nossies Assassin deck? > > --'Pitch' combat decks: can't put in enough maneuvers or > >enough long-range combat cards to be effective. > Not true, I have made a successful cel/pot/ani deck that did just this How many get into combat cards? How many manuevers? (The Kicker) did you have to equip anything? A pitch deck only uses cards in hand for damage. > > --Voting: A limited number of damaging vote cards. Especially > >if you want to play Presence voting, rather than Princely vote, > >since you can't use Parity Shift or Sabbat Threat. Presence voting > >also gets hosed because you have only 4 Bewitching Orations and > >4 Bribes, both necessary to help get those votes passed. > Voting is probably more difficult, but there have been four good vote decks > made, all of which are capable of getting a full sweep of victory points > Presence vote is not unworkable, you'll just have to make the most of your > votes and use some praxis siesures, <clan> justicar cards and, especially, > command the Harpies. I made a settite vote deck that was pretty evil. We > also play a house rule for Charming lobby that makes it worth while. Still limited compared in that you need to start reaching into the expensive cards to do it. This gets into the $ aspect of the argument (good CL decks cost more than good NL decks, and that it costs more $ to compete in a CL environment). > > -- Tap-and-Vote/Bleed. These rely heavily on the combat > >untap cards, Majesty/Earth Meld, to tap out the prey. With > >only four, you can't make it work. > Wrong again. You should also add to this list mummify, freak drive, day > operation, horrid form, form of mist, Force of will, blood bond, > incriminating video tape and change of target (if a stealthy action, ie tap > & vote). Mummify wouldn't work. You'd untap in torpor (and need rescuing), tapping another minion to minish it up. Blood Bond, incriminating videotape, change of target, and day operation don't tap out your prey/ > and thats with out using the banned Thoughts betrayed and > misdirestion. all of these cards can be used to great effect in a tap and > bleed / vote deck, and with only four wakes, theres no real problem with > anyone waking. Misdirection only needs to be banned if WweF isn't reliable. > >3. Rare cards become more valuable. > >Since you can only have a limited number of each card, the > >rare stand-ins become much more valuable: Fists of Death > >in place of Torn Signpost and Undead Strength, Kine > >Dominance in place of Govern the Unaligned, etc. This > >favors Mr. Suitcase over the beginning player, a bad thing > >IMO. > I would have to begrudgingly agree with you on this point. Yes it will > favour the player with the most cards, and yes, this is a bad thing. However > everyone in our game group has a very similar amount of cards, and those of > us who have slightly more than the others will often give away cards if > someone requires then for a deck concept. What if someone new starts? In NL, they can buy a very limited amount of cards, trade their rares and be competitve. In CL, they can't (they need the rares to compete). > >4. Because S&B is dominant, everyone ends up playing intercept. > >This slows the game down a lot. Also a bad thing, IMO. > I suppose it would slow the game down, however with no one playing S&B its > not a big problem. We, as a group, enjoy longer games. We are all good > friends and we don't like to see someone sitting out for large lengths of > time, so generally people work to try and keep others in the game, and keep > the game even. we like our games to last a long time so that we can get an > evenings entertainment for free. Well, okay maybe not entirely free, but > even if you spend large amounts of money, its still cheaper than beer, in > the long run. Two continue along this line, the intercept being _necessary_ also limits variety. Most decks playing intercept also makes it difficult for the vote decks (above) _and_ rush decks being able to handle S&B (their attempt at getting equipment is more likely to be blocked). > >Standard responses to CL arguments: > >1. If you have a jerk playing Sneak & Bleed, just > >gang up, or use social pressure to make them quit. > >Answer: If you have to resort to the metagame of social > >pressure or ganging up, the game is broken. Most of us > >would rather it worked without having to resort to this. > >And NL/Golden Tenets does. > alternative answer. There is no need to gang up. predator and prey can cope > with an S&B deck quite hapily, given card spread. You disagree with yourself above. Which is it? If they can cope, is it because they are packing anti-Malk S&B? >People who enjoy the game > of Jyhad will *not* enjoy a game with an S&B deck involved in it, even if > they are playing the S&B deck. Therefore the S&B deck is a dead idea. (Logical fallacy (A !=> B), that aside...) > There > is no need to revert to social pressure or ganging up, because the S&B deck > as an idea is avoided like the plague. People who create S&B decks are > usually NL players who want to show everyone how degenerate an S&B deck can > be, and so aren't really in the right mindset to be playing with CLs anyway. Ah, so you need to avoid making certain deck types that will break the game to have the game work. I'm confused now, was the S&B deck not a problem or what? > if they continue to play S&B then they themselves will become bored with the > game and either stop playing or build a more fun, more challenging deck. In NL, there is no need. It is still an easier deck to make, but since everyone has access to easy defenses against it, the deck creation process becomes quite intricate. > >2. CL is more creative, because you have to be more inventive > >in combining cards. > also add challenging here. > >Answer: CL shuts off a *lot* of otherwise effective strategies. > >What you're doing is agreeing to play with relatively ineffective > >decks. The game's not broken, so you don't need to do this. > >(As long as you use the Golden Tenets.) Basically, any > >deck you can build under CL you can use under NL. And under > >NL, you don't have to rely on intercept for defense, which > >lets you be more creative, not less. > This is the argument of the unimaginative. there are many ways to create the > deck you want, you just have to use the cards more effectively. if you want > to challenge me feel free. Come up with a deck idea that is plausible in NL > and I reckon that I could make it. Brujah Pitch deck. Good luck. Nossie Assassin deck. Corruption deck. > >3. Well, we just play for fun. CL is better for that. > >Answer: So do NL players. The range of possible decks > >is much wider under NL. > Not true. Hmm, seeing as CL is a subset of NL... The answer to this is usually, well there are non-viable decks in NL that are viable in CL. However, there are far more possibilities available that offset those CL stategies that can not compete in the NL environment. > >Voting and rush combat are now workable deck concepts. > As they are under CL See above. The limitations of rush (reliability, necessity of equipment) are hindered further by the environment (high intercept, no limitation on S&B) Vote decks all end up looking mostly alike. > >The games are quicker. > and therefore less fun (In the opinion of our gaming group) Opinion. I like long games (2 to 4 hours), but having _all_ games be long can make it hard for new people to want to play. > >And you don't have to wean new players off of Sneak & Bleed to > >preserve balance. > Sneak and bleed is boring and not challenging at all. Players will wean > themselves of them of their own accord (as did two of our players, including > myself) See above. > >We'll just have to agree to disagree about which is more fun. > Okay, but you have a lot of preconcieved conceptions of CL games that are > just untrue. Read Judith and Mark's Jyhad page (link available from my page, URL in sig.) regarding CL. I have played CL. I have read other people's accounts of CL. I have converted most people I know from CL. I have talked to people at game conventions, and when I mention Jyhad they say "Broken with S&B", until they find out the game wasn't even _designed_ for CL (standard answer, Neither was Magic. Standard response, but Garfield made Jyhad after Magic had instituted a CL, and he was aware of the naive assumptions of limited card supply being false). > >4. We don't have to worry about broken cards. > >Answer: Well, then the game becomes more like Magic -- > >whoever draws their broken cards first wins. We don't > >really want that kind of a game, do we? But yes, > >you don't have to worry as much about them. > Actually we do have to worry about broken cards, its just that we have so > few of them: Thoughts betrayed is just outright banned because it has no > counter at all. Misdirection is banned because it is one card that can oust > a player, and has very little in the way of counter - its more of a > voluntary banning as it makes the games boring. we are currently debating > Kiss of Ra and Blood to water, but I think bth of these are probably likely > to stay. > >There have been few broken cards, and they have been > >fixed by errata or the Golden Tenets. Those methods > >are far preferable to the Procrustean bed of Card Limits. > Erratas are erratas and they affect us all, CL or no CL. Golden Tenets or CL > its a simple choice, one that no one can out rightly say that any one is any > better than the other. Both are *Very* slight modifications to the rules of > Jyhad because it doesn't work properly without one of the two. Its just a > matter of personal preference which one you want to use. To say that one is > far preferable to another is just a matter of opinion, and should stay as > such. Personally I prefer CL, you, presumably, prefer the Golden Tenets. > All I can say is that all the arguments that you have placed against Card > Limits are either irrelevant or untrue. You made no compelling, non-refutable argument regarding CL> > I do not wish to grace you with a > reply that tells you everything that is wrong with the NL game, as I haven't > played it in a long time and both my skill level, and that of out playing > group has improved dramatically since then. I would probably get my facts as > wrong as you have about CL. The only thing that I will say is that looking > at the decks that I have seen both printed up on the newsgroup and on > various web pages, I think that our group at least seems to be playing at a > far higher skill level than most of the decks that I have seen. The web isn't likely a good place to look to determine whether or not a deck environment is creating good players or no. I publish all submitted decks (at least, eventually) regardles of how good or bad they are. > I'm not > saying that all NL players are thick at all, I'm saying that our group is of > a high standard and will have the deck building, and game playing, skill to > work around any problems that other CL players, that you have had experience > in dealing with, may create. I don't want to flame people for playing NL, I > would much rather have people understand that its purely down to personal > choice. I wouldn't like to come out right and say that NL is an inferior to > CL as I don't have enough experience of NL to say it with enough > confidence, and could well end up getting my facts as wrong as you seem to > have. Its not simply a question of NL is good and CL is bad, or vice versa; > its a case of accepting that both games are slightly different, both games > are still Jyhad (or V:tES). When you get down to it theres really only one > fundamental difference; proponents of both variants accept that Jyhad needs > some tweaking from how it is origionally written - the errata half covers > this, but not entirely, therefore some other restrictions are needed the > choice is either to restrict the number of cards that you have available to > you, the othetr is to restrict the viability of certain tactics using the > "golden Tenets" rules modifications. Its all down to personal choice and I > chose CL. If you're not happy with that, fine, just get your facts straight > about the "problems" with CL before you open your mouth I have played CL for some time. I think I have gotten my facts straight. Go back and read what you have written. I think you'll find a lot of contradictions. Yes, a CL Jyhad is still roughly the same game... but it has far different implications than Golden Tenets (now adopted as basicly official). CL were _never_ meant to have been introduced into Jyhad. One of the Golden Tenets (vote pushing) can be argued to have been in the original rules set. The other _is_ now official. CL Jyhad has no real inherent advantage over NL Jyhad: - More $ to compete - Less Variety - Affected by broken decks - Now an additional house rule (now that GT are basicly official) - Not arguable as being a part of design intent (as 1/2 GT are) - More reliance on luck, less on skill NL. The way to play. > >I hope that this will speed the debate up a bit. Doubtful. I'd like to hear some CL responses that were either a) new, or b) debateable rather than immediately disprovable. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote: [> I wrote:] > >And let's responding by destroying your own. > well, aren't you a pleasant person! I bet you've got loads of friends! :) I try to be, though I think I was a little heavily caffeinated when I wrote the above. I apologize for the above statement, it is truly uncalled for. (As an aside, most people who meet me in person find me pleasant ;) > >> 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. [snip] > >Suffice it to say, people aren't saying that ToR is powerful because > >people are putting it in their deck, they _are_ saying that it is too > >powerful, and that people putting it in their deck is a symptom of its > >power. Do note, that useful cards are also put into most decks (Blood > >Dolls, Wakes), though not all, but that the argument was _not_ claiming > >this use = power, but that power = use. (Sorry to be redundant) > If this is the case, why do people post similar arguments for wakes and > blood dolls. Note my claim (above) is not that Dolls or Wakes are under/over powered, but simply that they are used because they are useful. My claim is that the above argument really can be ignored. Just because a card is used does not mean that it is necessarily to powerful, but if a card _is_ too powerful, people will necessarily put it in if they have access to it. Thus, use !=> power, and power => use. > people try and change wakes so that they are thaumaturgy cards, > because there is a completely illogical line of thinking that use = power. I > can't understand it myself but there are people out there who believe it to > be true. I can agree with this. >I think that the mere fact that it is used by everyone balances it. I don't think I can agree with this. If overpowered cards are balanced because "everyone can use them", the game becomes decided by luck (who uses it first/more). > As for the comments on wakes and blood dolls - any deck that doesn't put in > wakes is really stabbing itself in the foot. no other card is as good at > doing what it does. Other untaps are either played in your action phase, > thereby leaving no room for bluffs, or don't allow you to block as many > different types of actions. Not true. Many decks don't need wakes because they don't plan on blocking or they plan on leaving reserves. Other decks don't need wakes because the other defensive untappers work just fine, or they are only worried about bleeds in their deck. While I will say that _most_ decks _can_ use wake at least to marginal benefit, not all need them. > Blood dolls possibly aren't as essential - but I > haven't seen a deck yet that does better without them (presumably using some > other way of gaining blood back. I have. I had a deck that relied heavily on permanent pool loss for everyone and defending these cards with vampires. Blood Dolls were ineffective because it made it easier to take out my defenders. I ended up using Protracted Investments (not as fast, but takes up less deck space than Short Term. Also, I used Anson/Rumors of Gehenna/that other Master Phase booster) and doing quite well with it. > >> 2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood > >> bank in the turn it comes out. > >> - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this > >>blood gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one > >>blood? it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. > >That's not the full argument. To take this aspect of the argument out of > >context is misleading. The full argument is that it is powerful in its > >own right, but that there is _no_ drawback to its use. The turn it is > >brought out, you can get return on it. Effectively, you pay _ONE_ master > >phase for an ascendance _AND_ its power. > possibly, but then ascendance is pretty cack any way and hardly worth while > using. Again, not really. If you have a deck with a lot of expenses, or you expect to be on the edge for a long time, Ascendance is good because you have no pool investment. > The card is limiting in the fact that it takes three pool to get out > in the first place, and requires an extra 4 pool to benefit fully, so its > only any good if it turns up early. And I really have to say that under card > limits you really don't have a big problem with this. Having 4 Tomb of Ramses in a 60 card deck gives you a roughly 50% chance of having it in your opening hand. In a 70 card deck, roughly a 40% chance, in a 80 card deck, over a third. You were saying? > >If the card stalled somehow (not usable during the first turn, for > >example), there would be a risk element involved in its use. > okay, possibly, but under CL it very rarely will come out first turn See above. Statistics refute you. > >As it stands, you can only gain if you have one in a deck (in _nearly_ all > >situations). > Yes. So? There are _very_ few cards where there is win-win, and those that are are widely regarded as being problematic (evenly if minorly so, as in Wake). There ought to be risk somewhat proportional to gain, like nearly all the other card (and _all_ the other definitely balanced cards). > >> 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > >> - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are > >> arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood > >> every 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per > >> turn for a 2 pool cost. > >This is only if the vampire who has the tomb on it is not used as a > >resource. Assuming a large vampire (say, 10 capacity), a first turn tomb > >of ra nets you 1 pool the first turn, 4 pool the next, and 2 pool the > >last. Effectively, you gain 7 pool over three turns, and get _DOUBLE_ > >influence. All for 3 pool. To clarify my own statement, the tomb need not be out on the first turn. > Yes, but there are two problems with this: > 1: the tomb is destroyed when the vampire comes out, therefore > anyone else can then bring out their tomb. Everyone can do this, therfore it > is like saying that everyone starts with 37 pool at the start - it doesn't > really unbalance the game much - make it slightly longer with larger > vampires out possibly, but not unbalanced. who says a slightly more high > powered game wouldn't be more fun anyway? I do. If everyone starts out at higher pool, certain decks (smaller ones, more combo intensive ones) start to die out. Decks that have risk factors tend to die out. If everyone has this advantage, the only people that win out are those that have highly focused pool loss concepts (S&B, Vote), because their method of damage is so much less card reliant, they can afford to have everyone have more pool. The combat deck's only chance is to be _totally_ devastating from the get-go, with no laxity at all. > > Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the > > gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. > There is. Sudden reversal. Where is the risk? Nothing was lost. You caused someone to use a master phase to edit out your master phase. This is not a risk factor like the powerbases (which must be protected before there is a return). If Blood Puppy let you take blood off of it immediately after playing it, it too would not have a legitimate risk factor (instant returns). > Just the same as any other master card also, a > malky madness deck could use the time auction to steal it with a vote Not legal. You can't use action cards/modifiers with the madness network. >or > Kine Dominance before you've gained the blood for it. Even if legal, they still couldn't do it. Madness Network actions happen at the end of opponents turn (after influence, after payoff). > Even then, after one > turn its only gained you one and double transfers *ONLY IF YOU ARE PUTTING > BLOOD ONTO VAMPIRES* which I don't see as being hugely powerful. When it > comes down to it, the chances of getting out a location destroyer/stealer > card are probably more likely than getting out the ToR. So, its instant payoff (i.e, no or at best insufficient risk) is balanced in that it can be destroyed after it has made you gains? So, if Ascendance was an easily destroyed permanent (Gain 1 stealth each master phase, destroy as +2 stealth action) would it be balanced? > >Yes, if used solely in late game as a pool feeder (Tomb on, transfer off), > >it is not as effective as say an Arcane Library, but the fact that it can > >be used for this, as well as the above, makes it too cheap. > if you use it for the above then you *CAN'T* use it as a blood back device, > it either or, not both. I was talking about its utility. If you draw it early, you can use it to bring out vamps. If you draw it mid-late, you can use it to gain pool. > just because a card has two effective options > doesn't make it too powerful - I don't see anyone moaning too much about > Kine dominance or govern the unaligned (in a stealthy deck) both of which > have two very useful powers (I mean, they could both gain you 3 pool in a > turn). Not the same comparison. Tomb of Ra, by itself allows two options. Both of those cards allow one option conditionally (an inferior dominator) and another option even more conditionally (a superior dominator). Having 2 options does make any card more powerful comparatively to two cards that could do one of the two choices. The utility is more. Tomb of Ra is a single card that acts like either a slightly different Ascendance, _and_ a slightly stronger Art Museum if used to bring out big vampires, _and_ a slightly weaker Art Museum if used purely for blood gain, depending on your needs. > thanks for the points. I wouldn't have said you destroyed my arguments, but > I've responded in full to any inclarities you may have pointed out. I look forward to your next response. [ quoted text not captured ]

GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: >>If the card stalled somehow (not usable during the first turn, for >>example), there would be a risk element involved in its use. >okay, possibly, but under CL it very rarely will come out first turn This whole thread is about TOR being in need of a fix. Your fix (CL) happens to break other cards (Temptation) and destroys other strategies (Rush combat) and defenses (bleed bounce). But even if you choose CL, you're still *fixing* (to some extent) the TOR problem. That doesn't change the fact that the TOR is a problem card as far as official rules go. TOR is *broken*. >> Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the >> gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. >There is. Sudden reversal. Just the same as any other master card also, a SR is not a risk. You've just traded Master Phase Actions - no net loss to the person with the TOR. >malky madness deck could use the time auction to steal it with a vote or Madness Network is the only risk, and a foreseeable (read, avoidable) one, at that, as I stated earlier. But thanks for the reminder. >Kine Dominance before you've gained the blood for it. Even then, after one >turn its only gained you one and double transfers *ONLY IF YOU ARE PUTTING >BLOOD ONTO VAMPIRES* which I don't see as being hugely powerful. When it >comes down to it, the chances of getting out a location destroyer/stealer >card are probably more likely than getting out the ToR. And, as always, they will be too late to do any harm (cause net loss) to the person playing TOR - all costs are recouped in the same turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

theCorrupter wrote: > > Having 4 Tomb of Ramses in a 60 card deck gives you a roughly 50% chance > of having it in your opening hand. In a 70 card deck, roughly a 40% > chance, in a 80 card deck, over a third. You were saying? Man, this probability stuff always amazes me. Even as a math major, I can never figure the stuff out. Could you explain this? 50% chance of getting one out of 4 out of 60 seems a little high. Seems to me like it would be 1 - [Prob. of getting none], which is N-4 N-5 N-6 N-7 N-8 N-9 N-10 1 - --- * --- * --- * --- * --- * --- * ---- N N-1 N-2 N-3 N-4 N-5 N-6 N-7 N-8 N-9 N-10 = 1 - --- * --- * --- * ---- N N-1 N-2 N-3 = 40% for N = 60 = 31.2% for N = 80 James -- | James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |

theCorrupter <adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu> writes: >On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, B.D. Redmond wrote: >> Just the same as any other master card also, a >> malky madness deck could use the time auction to steal it with a vote >Not legal. You can't use action cards/modifiers with the madness network. Oooh! I've been washing my statements re: MadNet in my own house rules regarding "take and action" and "reaction" self-evidence. Forgot that the Rules Team doesn't like common sense. >>or >> Kine Dominance before you've gained the blood for it. >Even if legal, they still couldn't do it. Madness Network actions happen >at the end of opponents turn (after influence, after payoff). MadNet actions are taken at the end of opponent's *minion phase* - just before the influence phase. (But again, the action would be incapable of destroying the Tomb). The only way of *really* causing the player of the TOR any net loss is if you have the MadNet in play *and* one of your untapped Malks has a Bomb. [ quoted text not captured ]

B.D. Redmond wrote: "This is the argument of the unimaginative. there are many ways to create the deck you want, you just have to use the cards more effectively. if you want to challenge me feel free. Come up with a deck idea that is plausible in NL and I reckon that I could make it." Unimaginitive, huh? I come from a play group that has been playing Jyhad from its invention, and for the first year and a half, we were staunch 4CL supporters. After joining onto this news group, I argued every possible argument you could imagine in favor of 4CL, including every single point you made, and eventually, after a year and a half of stubornly defending 4CL, we broke down and tried NL/GT (which is now basically DCI rules). We then realized how absurly wrong we were. If you really want to plat 4CL, by all means, go ahead, but please stay away from the "You can't handle 4CL beacuse you are dumb" angle. As for decks I would like to see made under 4CL: A reliable Gangrel rush deck. A reliable Nosferatu Potence combat deck. A reliable Immortal Grapple anti S:CE deck. A reliable Brujah Thrown Sewer Lid/Gate/Car deck. A reliable Tremere main line combat deck. A reliable of any type that uses no disciplines at all. Granted, one will notice that most of the above decks are combat decks, which leads one to belive that combat decks are generally unworkable under 4CL. This is because as opposed to Stealth, Intercept, and Dominate Bleed Bonuses, combat has very little redundancy inherint in its card mix. How do you make a reliable Potence combat deck with only 4 Undead Strength and 4 Torn Signpost? By getting 4 Fists of Death, which are hard to get rares, and even that doesn't help that much. How do the Tremere manuver and/or Press in combat? With 4 Fake Outs and 4 Dead End Alleys? It will become more of a game of Gin than a game of deck building strategy. How odes one get into combat under 4CL? Well, there are 4 Bums Rush and 4 Haven Uncovered. The Bums Rushes are just fine, but there are only 4. The Havens are great, but there are only 4, you can only use 1 per turn, they can be Sudden Reversaled, they are destroyed easily. That is 8 fairly reliable cards. Blood Hunt requires Princes. That means you need to be either the Brujah or packed with voteing power. Being packed with voting power busts up the reliability of the combat deck ("Look. I drew a Praxis Seizure instead of an Immortal Grapple. Doh."). There is Archon. It has the same problem. Then there is the "Well, do something that they NEED to block" angle. Well, if your prey has the choice of blocking the Rampage on his hunting ground or getting his biggest vamp burned, you kill a Hunting Ground and keep your hand jamed with combat cards. By defenition, as 4CL has a smaller possible set of combinations than NL, there are fewer possible decks under CL, and most of the missing ones are reliable combat decks. As you are as anti-Malk, as I used to be (when we played 4CL), I suspect you have never played against the cheesy Malk S+B deck as a good NL combat deck. The Malks burst like ripe melons, and it is quite satisfying. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Look at me. I'm way cool. I'm off with my way cool friends to sniff floor wax." -Brian Krackow

[ quoted text not captured ] <snip> > >Then I think you should stop playing, because there are many cards as >powerful, if not more powerful, the ToR, and they are all likely to stop you >from enjoying yourself because your deck just isn't good enough to cope with >the above averege cards. The ToR _IS_ too powerful. I can let you get 3 blood a round into your pool depending on which clan you use. Play it with those ever loved Tremere. Arcane Library and Wasserschlaus let you transfer blood from the blood bank to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence. This is then matched by ToR. Transfer 3 off with Info Highway and you are 3 pool ritcher with just the initial pool cost of the ToR. Keep this up each turn, alternating between both AL and Wasserschlaus, and just AL. 3 pool every turn. The card will never be burned if you play your cards right. Going to be voted away? Kindred Coersion the voters. Going to be burned? Auspex intercept, TB and burn the vampire silly enough to try to challenge the Tremere. The Card if _BROKEN_. ( sorry for shouting. ) [ quoted text not captured ]

B.D. Redmond wrote: > > >> Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start > by > >> examining the arguments that claim the contrary. > > > >And let's responding by destroying your own. > > well, aren't you a pleasant person! I bet you've got loads of friends! Keep the personal attacks down, please. It's a manner of speech; and this is a debate. > >> 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. > >Suffice it to say, people aren't saying that ToR is powerful because > >people are putting it in their deck, they _are_ saying that it is too > >powerful, and that people putting it in their deck is a symptom of its > >power. Do note, that useful cards are also put into most decks (Blood > >Dolls, Wakes), though not all, but that the argument was _not_ claiming > >this use = power, but that power = use. (Sorry to be redundant) > (snip comments on other people thinking that use = power) > > >> 2: ToR is too powerful because it gets you back four blood from the blood > >> bank in the turn it comes out. > > > >> - Okay, perhaps this is a much more reasonable argument, however this > >>blood > >> gain nets at one. How many other ways are there for gaining you one > >>blood? > >> it must be heading towards tripple figures, if not there already. > > > >That's not the full argument. To take this aspect of the argument out of > >context is misleading. The full argument is that it is powerful in its > >own right, but that there is _no_ drawback to its use. The turn it is > >brought out, you can get return on it. Effectively, you pay _ONE_ master > >phase for an ascendance _AND_ its power. > > possibly, but then ascendance is pretty cack any way and hardly worth while > using. Really? Have you found a better way of gaining pool while at one or two pool yourself? Immediate gratification means a lot. I wouldn't play with it most of the time, but dismissing it totally is too much. And anyway, from a theoretical and game-balance perspective, any card which duplicates the effect of another card while acheiving another effect at the same time is overpowered. > The card is limiting in the fact that it takes three pool to get out > in the first place, and requires an extra 4 pool to benefit fully, So you're saying that it only does you any good when you have 7 pool or more? Gasp, what a restriction. Besides, Tomb's value as a late-game blood-gainer isn't the issue here; it's the combination of a net blood _gain_ when transferring with speed, _and_ the option of making it useful later in the game as a resource. Not to mention that if you use the vampires which you bring out as resources (vide Minion Tap, Hospitality, Minion Tap, Golconda, Redeem the Lost Soul) it becomes even more abusable. > so its only any good if it turns up early. And I really have to say that under card > limits you really don't have a big problem with this. Bullshit. Speed makes _more_ of a difference in card limits enviroments, especially when your opponents need to cycle through their deck to get the cards that they need to deal with you. Info Highways were game-deciders in almost every game that I played under 4-Cl. I had one; I won. Nathan had one; he won. No one else ever had Info Highways; they usually lost. > >If the card stalled somehow (not usable during the first turn, for > >example), there would be a risk element involved in its use. > > okay, possibly, but under CL it very rarely will come out first turn See the probability thread. With 4 copies in a 60 card deck, one will be in the opening hand 40% of the time. In 80, it comes to about 32%. That's not even close to "very rarely". > >As it stands, you can only gain if you have one in a deck (in _nearly_ all > >situations). > > Yes. So? Any card which is needed in _all_ decks, or which even gives _most_ decks an advantage for no discernable cost is not a balanced card. From a theoretical and practical perspective, cards like these break games. > >> 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. > > > >> - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are > >> arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood > >> every 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per > >> turn for a 2 pool cost. > > > >This is only if the vampire who has the tomb on it is not used as a > >resource. Assuming a large vampire (say, 10 capacity), a first turn tomb > >of ra nets you 1 pool the first turn, 4 pool the next, and 2 pool the > >last. Effectively, you gain 7 pool over three turns, and get _DOUBLE_ > >influence. All for 3 pool. > > Yes, but there are two problems with this: > 1: the tomb is destroyed when the vampire comes out, therefore > anyone else can then bring out their tomb. Not everyone has tombs. Not everyone _should_ want to play with a tomb. When everyone does want to play with the tomb, because of it's _obvious_ effect on the result of the game, there is something seriously wrong with the card's balance. > Everyone can do this, therfore it > is like saying that everyone starts with 37 pool at the start - it doesn't > really unbalance the game much - What if some players don't have tombs? Then they need to spend $$$ to compete with those who do have tombs... _NO_ card should be necessary in a balanced game. > make it slightly longer with larger > vampires out possibly, but not unbalanced. who says a slightly more high > powered game wouldn't be more fun anyway? High powered games being fun? May I refer you to M:tog, in which the "highly powered" games often involved players dying on the first turn, without any chance to do anything about it? May I point out that in games which are "highly powered" the player that gets out the "highly powered" cards almost invariably wins? If your idea of fun is having a game be totally randomized due to the position of a player's "power cards" in their deck, then I suppose that it might be enjoyable. > > Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the > > gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. > > There is. Sudden reversal. No loss of pool. No loss of anything. No risk. > >Yes, if used solely in late game as a pool feeder (Tomb on, transfer off), > >it is not as effective as say an Arcane Library, but the fact that it can > >be used for this, as well as the above, makes it too cheap. > > if you use it for the above then you *CAN'T* use it as a blood back device, > it either or, not both. just because a card has two effective options > doesn't make it too powerful - I don't see anyone moaning too much about > Kine dominance or govern the unaligned (in a stealthy deck) both of which > have two very useful powers (I mean, they could both gain you 3 pool in a > turn). It's not that you _can_ use it for both at the same time, it's that you have the option of choosing which usage would be more beneficial to you. And in the late game, if you don't mind spending a little more time with the tomb, you can pull out the inner circler for almost free. Hey, that can happen in the _early_ game too. Imagine what effect _that_ has on the game. Or, if you can't imagine it, someone posted a deck which abused Tomb thoroughly earlier on this thread. Luckily, he supports the idea that it's unabalanced. Alec Chang, malkavian gamer.

> The ToR _IS_ too powerful. I can let you get 3 blood a round into your > pool depending on which clan you use. Play it with those ever loved > Tremere. Arcane Library and Wasserschlaus let you transfer blood > from the blood bank to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence. > This is then matched by ToR. Hang on... are you sure? My EcoTerrorists says "Add 1 blood ... during influence phase", not "transfer". I would assume AL and Wass. have similar wording. [snip] > The card will never be burned if you > play your cards right. Going to be voted away? Kindred Coersion the voters. > Going to be burned? Auspex intercept, TB and burn the vampire silly enough > to try to challenge the Tremere. Well, now we're talking about the Tremere being too powerful; that's a completely different argument. > The Card if _BROKEN_. Keep your voice down! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >> The ToR _IS_ too powerful. I can let you get 3 blood a round into your >> pool depending on which clan you use. Play it with those ever loved >> Tremere. Arcane Library and Wasserschlaus let you transfer blood >> from the blood bank to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence. >> This is then matched by ToR. >Hang on... are you sure? My EcoTerrorists says "Add 1 blood ... during >influence phase", not "transfer". I would assume AL and Wass. have >similar wording. That's correct. ToR only counts "transfers" "you" make - this includes tranfers made via Info Hwy, but not blood moved onto uncontrolled vampires by any means other than your spending your transfers. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <325E45...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >> The ToR _IS_ too powerful. I can let you get 3 blood a round into your >> pool depending on which clan you use. Play it with those ever loved >> Tremere. Arcane Library and Wasserschlaus let you transfer blood >> from the blood bank to an uncontrolled vampire during your influence. >> This is then matched by ToR. > >Hang on... are you sure? My EcoTerrorists says "Add 1 blood ... during >influence phase", not "transfer". I would assume AL and Wass. have >similar wording. Well, it seems you are right and I have been playing it wrong, I will have to see how it works this way. > >[snip] >> The card will never be burned if you >> play your cards right. Going to be voted away? Kindred Coersion the voters. >> Going to be burned? Auspex intercept, TB and burn the vampire silly enough >> to try to challenge the Tremere. > >Well, now we're talking about the Tremere being too powerful; that's a >completely different argument. > >> The Card if _BROKEN_. > >Keep your voice down! :) Sorry.... > >James >-- >| James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | >| je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" | [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, James Hamblin wrote: > theCorrupter wrote: [Re: 4 cards in a 60:70:80 card deck arriving in opening hand ~1/2:2/5:1/3] > Man, this probability stuff always amazes me. Even as a math major, I > can never figure the stuff out. Could you explain this? 50% chance of > getting one out of 4 out of 60 seems a little high. > Seems to me like it would be 1 - [Prob. of getting none], which is [snip math] > = 40% for N = 60 > = 31.2% for N = 80 Oops! I'm sorry. I made the mistake of having the opening hand be 8 (drawing an initial card, like in magic). Your math is correct. (I'm only used to figuring out the probability of getting a copy of one of four (Magic :), in size X deck. I just plugged in a number for deck size...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <53dd3u$cno...@leeds.ac.uk>, GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Uh, you don't know the power of the dark side ::) ToR3 puts blood on its target when you make a transfer to ANY of your uncontrolled vampires. It can act as a slow AM-etc, or let you get Anneke and Alexandra out on turn 3. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

In article <53g95k$7u8...@leeds.ac.uk> GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) writes: [Someone else, snipped by BD, writes:]> [BD (I think) writes]>> >>> Tomb of Ramses III is *****NOT***** too powerful by any means. Lets start >by >>> examining the arguments that claim the contrary. >> [snide comments snipped on all sides] >>> 1: ToR is too powerful because all decks will put on in their deck. >> >>[snipped response to this "arguement"] >> >>Suffice it to say, people aren't saying that ToR is powerful because >>people are putting it in their deck, they _are_ saying that it is too >>powerful, and that people putting it in their deck is a symptom of its >>power. Do note, that useful cards are also put into most decks (Blood >>Dolls, Wakes), though not all, but that the argument was _not_ claiming >>this use = power, but that power = use. (Sorry to be redundant) > >If this is the case, why do people post similar arguments for wakes and >blood dolls. people try and change wakes so that they are thaumaturgy cards, >because there is a completely illogical line of thinking that use = power. I >can't understand it myself but there are people out there who believe it to >be true. I think that the mere fact that it is used by everyone balances it. [Aside about utility snipped.] Quite a number of people believe WWEF is broken. There are lots of house rules on the house rules list to fix it. However, I've never seen a single claim that Blood Dolls are broken. The first [>>] argument should have omitted WWEF, as it is a case of excessive power implying use. Use does not imply excessive power, but excessive power does imply use. If a card is not widely used, then it can't be excessively powerful. [Comparison to Ascendance snipped] >[....] The card is limiting in the fact that it takes three pool to get out >in the first place, and requires an extra 4 pool to benefit fully, so its >only any good if it turns up early. And I really have to say that under card >limits you really don't have a big problem with this. You do. Under CL, the person who is lucky enough to get his Black Lotus, Moxes, or Tomb of Ramses in his opening hand gains a big advantage. It turns the game from one of strategy into one of luck. Bleah. >>> 3: Tor is too powerful because it gives you an endless blood supply. >> >>> - So do three other cards, although they are clan specific, they are >>> arguably twice as good. ToR, used as a blood gainer gets back 2 blood >>> every 3 turns for a three blood down payment, the others get you 1 per >>> turn for a 2 pool cost. I'll address this down below. >>This is only if the vampire who has the tomb on it is not used as a >>resource. Assuming a large vampire (say, 10 capacity), a first turn tomb >>of ra nets you 1 pool the first turn, 4 pool the next, and 2 pool the >>last. Effectively, you gain 7 pool over three turns, and get _DOUBLE_ >>influence. All for 3 pool. >Yes, but there are two problems with this: >1: the tomb is destroyed when the vampire comes out, therefore >anyone else can then bring out their tomb. Everyone can do this, therfore it >is like saying that everyone starts with 37 pool at the start - it doesn't >really unbalance the game much - make it slightly longer with larger >vampires out possibly, but not unbalanced. who says a slightly more high >powered game wouldn't be more fun anyway? If you want a more high-powered game, then play with house rules allowing 6 transfers instead of four, and an extra 7 pool. It's much fairer than a *rare* card. And, it *is* a different game. >> Come on! Even if the Tomb is Destroyed, the >> gain made so far is not lost. There needs to be some risk factor. > >There is. Sudden reversal. The loss of *one* master phase action? Not much of a risk, compared to the benefit. That's what makes the card unbalanced. [snip] Let's revisit the comparison to Arcane Library et. al: The Arcane Library costs two pool, the Tomb, three. The Arcane Library gives you one free transfer, and one free blood a turn. The Tomb gives you up to four free transfers, and up to four free blood per turn, but only if you use your transfers to transfer blood onto a vampire. And the Tomb will go away after three turns, if you use the full benefit. Let's use a little algebra, and directly compare them. Also put an Ecoterrorists in play along with the Arcane Library. The Arcane Library/Ecoterrorist combo two blood a turn. You transfer two blood onto a vampire, for a total gain of four blood on your vampires, and you have 2 transfers left over. The Library and Ecoterrorists together cost 4 pool. The Tomb provides two blood a turn, if you transfer two blood onto a vampire, for a total of four blood on your vampires. You have two transfers left over. The Tomb costs 3 pool. Using the Tomb costs one less Master Phase action, and one less master card. Using the Tomb costs one less pool. You *must* transfer blood onto a vampire to get the benefit from the Tomb. The Tomb is *almost* equivalent to having two of the most sought-after cards in the game in play at the same time. Now compare the Tomb to the Info Highway, at the beginning of the game: One good use for the Info Highway is to get vampires out faster at the beginning of the game. The Information Highway costs no pool, and gives two extra transfers a turn. The Tomb of Ramses provides one extra pool on the first turn that it is used, and gives four extra transfers. On subsequent turns, it gives four extra pool, and four extra transfers. But the Tomb goes away after 3 turns, used like this. At the beginning of the game, the Tomb is clearly better than the Information Highway. In the middle of the game, when you don't want to transfer a lot of blood out, it is equivalent to having two Arcane Libraries. It only starts to fail toward the end of the game, when you're short on pool and want to mainly be transferring blood into your pool. And even then, it's OK. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu