Kali's Fang and Femur of Toolmer

Hi, i'm quite new to the game so sorry if the questions is old or odd. I just wanted to understand why Kali's Fang and Femur of Toolmer even being identical weapons have a huge difference in cost (3 pool vs 2 pool). Thanks

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably because the Tzimisce can already do agg damage at close pretty easily. The Assamites can do agg damage at range easily (Taste of Death), but can't do agg damage at close the first round (Blood Agony is only usable after the first) --Colin McGuigan

Mainly, I belive, coz they arent the same weapon. There are a BIG difference there, one being a Tchmizc the other being a Assamite weapon. You can ask you same the question, why so "Earth Control" cost one blood when "Lost in Crows" cost nothing, that they dose the same. I belive if you can ask that question, and understand why there is a difference you will understand why there is a difference in Kalis vs. Toomler, if its fair its another question. Cheers /Jesper "nobz" <no...@libero.it> wrote in message news:8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jesper" <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> schreef in bericht news:3f9d8357$0$7178$ba62...@nntp05.dk.telia.net... > Mainly, I belive, coz they arent the same weapon. There are a BIG difference > there, one being a Tchmizc the other being a Assamite weapon. You can ask > you same the question, why so "Earth Control" cost one blood when "Lost in > Crows" cost nothing, that they dose the same. I belive if you can ask that > question, and understand why there is a difference you will understand why > there is a difference in Kalis vs. Toomler, if its fair its another > question. It's kinda weird if you compare it so a Sengir Dagger though. I suppose it's balance issues as a Sengire Dagger is often contested, while Kali's Fang is not. First round close range aggravated is really powerful, especially for a clan that already specializes in combat anyway. I do however believe it's overprized. Two pool seems fair enough. It's the same old issue of comparing the Ivory Bow to ANY other weapon. Then again, the bow gets contested every single game...

On 27 Oct 2003 09:45:26 -0800, no...@libero.it (nobz) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] At the time of first printing, Kali's Fang just did a flat 2 agg damage, regardless of your strength. It's probably not been seen to be needing errata it's cost since it's damage format was 'standardised' to the rest of melee weapons (aside from gas powered chainsaw). People still play with it, after all... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Because Kali's Fang was developed when the WotC design team was on heroin, and the Femur of Toomler was developed when the WotC design team was on crank.

Jeff Kuta expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] LOL

no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm sure this will be one of many responses, but I feel like jumping in on this one. The clearest distinctions are the in-clan disciplines for the two respective clans. The Femur duplicates effects from several Vicissitude cards and is a decent but not overly large combat boost to the few Tzimisce that are low on Vicissitude. Contrast to the Assamites, who have Celerity in-clan. Quietus is their discipline-based source of agg damage, but the Fang is a MASSIVE boost to Assamites who are low on Quietus but do have Celerity, since Celerity works VERY well with weapons (auspex and animalism less so). Also, the Assamites, unlike the Tzimisce, have Obfuscate in-clan. The ability to Disguise an agg-dealing hand weapon is a pretty big bonus in and of itself. To summarize: Tzimisce + Femur = "Meh, I expect them to do that anyway" Assamites + Fang = "RUN AWAY!" See also: Discussions on cost of Opium Den. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

the assamites have access to devastating combat disciplines w/ celerity, it is no problem to dodge and then strike with the fang or use dagon's call [or other quietus strikes] with it, even on your third strike w/ blur the tzimisce don't have access to badass combat abilities the can just use lucky blow with it, and that's about it that's about it the fang costs more because the assamites are more powerful with it than the tzimisce with the femur -Prince of Harrisburg no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] That is a reasonable question that I have never actually seen addressed before. My initial thought was that there was a subtle difference (maybe one was a melee weapon and the other isn't), but in fact, they are identical in all ways except cost and clan. There are a few possible reasons: 1. Kali's Fang was printed before Femur. It is possible that Kali's Fang was costed at 3, and then the designers of the Sabbat expansion (who were probably different folks than the designers of the AH expansion where Kali's Fang was published) figured that 3 pool was simply too expensive for that sort of weapon, and made the Femur 2, figuring that the disparity wasn't a big deal, and then no one ever cared to fix the Fang. 2. Someone figured that the assamites needed to pay more pool for their weapon than the Tzimiscee (much like the Gangrel have to pay 2 pool for Backways where the Nosferatu only have to pay 1 for an identical ability). In the end, I'm assuming that Fang was costed at 3 pool as opposed to 2 pool, as Fang is just better than Sengir Dagger (which did strength aggro damage where Fang does strength +1 aggro) but then whomever designed Femur figured that the conditional cost of needing X clan was sufficient to make up for the difference and made it cost 2 pool instead of 3, and Fang was just overlooked or simply left behind. -Peter

Jesper wrote: > Mainly, I belive, coz they arent the same weapon. For all intents and purposes, they are. > There are a BIG difference > there, one being a Tchmizc the other being a Assamite weapon. Which might be a reasonable argument if they both didn't have access to reliable aggro damage. When you look at The Labyrinth vs Back Ways, it makes sense that The Labyrinth costs only 1 pool, 'cause the Nosferatu have more stealth than you can shake a stick at, where the Gangrel have limited stealth. Thus, the Gangrel pay more for the Back Ways. Makes sense. Femur and Fang, however, are both weapons given to clans that have the same access to aggro damage, more or less. >You can ask > you same the question, why so "Earth Control" cost one blood when "Lost in > Crows" cost nothing, that they dose the same. That is easy and sensible--Obfuscate hands out stealth like crazy. There are more Obfuscate cards that hand out stealth than any other type of Obfuscate card. Protean, on the other hand, is not so stealth rich--there are, what, 3 cards that give stealth to Protean? One is unrestricted, one is multi purpose, and one only grants stealth at superior. And all three cost blood. If Kali's Fang was, say, a Malkavian weapon (Malkavians having no combat disciplines and limited access to combat abilities), then the 3 pool would make sense. But for the Assamites, who are primarily a combat clan and have easy access to aggrivated damage already, making Fang cost 3 pool when Femur costs 2 smacks of glitch. > I belive if you can ask that > question, and understand why there is a difference you will understand why > there is a difference in Kalis vs. Toomler, if its fair its another > question. The Lost in Crowds vs Earth Control (or Majesty vs Earth Meld or Read Intentions vs Dodge) makes perfect sense, given the context of the abilies and powers granted. On the other hand, Kali's Fang vs Femur strike me as a pretty clear case of the mysterious game design that plagued the early expansions--Femur of Toomler is probably costed correctly for both weapons, but no one figured it was worth the effort to fix Kali's Fang. -Peter

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote > It's kinda weird if you compare it so a Sengir Dagger though. Not so much--Sengir Dagger does strength aggro. Femur/Fang do strength +1 aggro, which is significant. That Femur/Fang have a significant conditional cost (i.e. clan specific) should be enough to justify the improvement. In the case of Femur, it is sufficient (Femur costs 2 pool, just like Sengir, but does +1 damage). In the case of Fang, the conditionality is not sufficient. I suspect this is an oversight/error/glitch more than a specific design idea. > It's the same old issue of comparing the Ivory Bow to ANY other weapon. > Then again, the bow gets contested every single game... I dunno. Ivory Bow seems reasonable when compared to 38 Special--38 costs 1 pool, gives you a manuver, does 1 damage, is not unique. Ivory Bow costs 1 pool, does 1 aggro damage. No manuver. Is unique. Seems pretty close, balance wise. -Peter

Eric wrote: > To summarize: > Tzimisce + Femur = "Meh, I expect them to do that anyway" > Assamites + Fang = "RUN AWAY!" If the Assamites were, like, the Malkavians, this argument would hold a lot of sway. The Assamites, however, are oozing with Aggro damage (Taste of Death). Yeah, it only comes at long range, but when can't the Assamites get to long range? And when can't they burn you at long range every combat, barring S:CE? Rarely. I think the disparity of cost between the two is the direct result of the confused/inconsistient design of the early (i.e. WotC) expansions. It would make sense that Fang was only 2 pool, but probably isn't worth the effort to fix, really. -Peter

id77...@yahoo.com (isaphrael) wrote in message news:<5494c8c1.03102...@posting.google.com>... > the assamites have access to devastating combat disciplines > w/ celerity, it is no problem to dodge and then strike with the fang > or use dagon's call [or other quietus strikes] with it, even on your > third strike w/ blur They can do the exact same thing with the Sengir Dagger, but that doesn't cost 3 pool when purchased by the Assamites... > > the tzimisce don't have access to badass combat abilities > the can just use lucky blow with it, and that's about it Or, ya know, Horrid Form over and over again ("Dragos plays 6 Horrid Forms and hits you for 8 aggro damage with the Femur! Yaa!"). > > that's about it > the fang costs more because the assamites are more powerful with it > than the tzimisce with the femur Not really an argument that makes much sense. The Gangrel aren't more powerful with Back Ways than the Nosferatu with Labyrinth, yet the Gangrel pay 2 pool instead of 1. I'm really thinking that this issue is clearly the province of the crack explanation. And while most of the crack induced issues have been fixed by now, some of them just aren't worth the effort. -Peter

>> the assamites have access to devastating combat disciplines >> w/ celerity, it is no problem to dodge and then strike with the fang >> or use dagon's call [or other quietus strikes] with it, even on your >> third strike w/ blur > >They can do the exact same thing with the Sengir Dagger, but that >doesn't cost 3 pool when purchased by the Assamites... A lot harder to burn with Sengir Dagger since it only does strength damage. You need a Lucky Blow or someone with + strength to be able to burn (since 1 agg vs. empty vampire = torpor). Kali's Fang gives the extra +1 damage which makes all the difference when it comes to agg close combat. So you can hands, Blur, hands and Kali's Fang to burn a vampire with 2 blood. Similarly, the Gangrel know that 2 agg is a lot harder to get than 1 agg. >> the tzimisce don't have access to badass combat abilities >> the can just use lucky blow with it, and that's about it > >Or, ya know, Horrid Form over and over again ("Dragos plays 6 Horrid >Forms and hits you for 8 aggro damage with the Femur! Yaa!"). Yeah, but it's only the Horrid Form decks that can effectively use the Femur in such a fashion. Any Assamite deck using CEL can use the Fang to deadly effect. >> that's about it >> the fang costs more because the assamites are more powerful with it >> than the tzimisce with the femur > >Not really an argument that makes much sense. The Gangrel aren't more >powerful with Back Ways than the Nosferatu with Labyrinth, yet the >Gangrel pay 2 pool instead of 1. Yes they are. As others have noted, Protean stealth is costlier than Obfuscate stealth (Earth Control vs. Lost in Crowds). And there aren't as many stealth cards also. (Same can be said for Ravnos and Fortune Teller Shop and Lasombra and Elysian Fields and !Gangrel). Thus it makes sense that permanent stealth would be costlier for them and cheaper for the clans with access to easy stealth (Nosferatu and Setites). Halcyan 2

>That is a reasonable question that I have never actually seen >addressed before. My initial thought was that there was a subtle >difference (maybe one was a melee weapon and the other isn't), but in >fact, they are identical in all ways except cost and clan. There are a >few possible reasons: Actually, I recall having a discussion about Femur vs. Fang a while ago (perhaps on the Path of Blood forum?). Halcyan 2

>> There are a BIG difference >> there, one being a Tchmizc the other being a Assamite weapon. > >Which might be a reasonable argument if they both didn't have access >to reliable aggro damage. I still disagree about access to aggravated damage at close range. Assamites just don't have it (have to rely on second round stuff at best). >If Kali's Fang was, say, a Malkavian weapon (Malkavians having no >combat disciplines and limited access to combat abilities), then the 3 >pool would make sense. But for the Assamites, who are primarily a >combat clan and have easy access >to aggrivated damage already, making >Fang cost 3 pool when Femur costs 2 smacks of glitch. And if Kali's Fang was a Malkavian weapon, I wouldn't be surprised to see maybe even a cost of 4 pool... Halcyan 2

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<aadbb36b.03102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] My take on the costing is: If it's something the clan can do anyway, with multiple cards, then it's the location / equipment is really just a diffent option to do what they do anyway (labyrinth, opium den) Femur gives close range agg, which the Tzim already had. It also requires an equip action, cos Tzim aren't flush with obf. If it's something that costs pool or is restricted, then the location / equipment is extending their capabilities a bit more meaningfully, and should cost more. Most Gangrel stealth costs them, so Backaways fits that description. Most Lasombra stealth costs, or has resrtictions, so Elysian Fields fits that description. Fang gives close range agg, which the Assimites don't otherwise have. They can whip it out with disguised weapon, which is not an option for the Tzim. It (and weapons in general) also give them a non-card intensive combat option, which they didn't otherwise have... compare wasting zero cards to strike with the Fang and have it Majestied, compared to wasting a Flash, a Taste of Death (and a blood).

Peter D Bakija expounded: > Not really an argument that makes much sense. The Gangrel aren't more > powerful with Back Ways than the Nosferatu with Labyrinth, yet the > Gangrel pay 2 pool instead of 1. When did you last see a Nosferatu with Claws of the Dead? (I'm sure it happens but not nearly as often)

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > A lot harder to burn with Sengir Dagger since it only does strength damage. You > need a Lucky Blow or someone with + strength to be able to burn (since 1 agg > vs. empty vampire = torpor). Sure, but that doesn't explain why Fang is 3 pool where Femur is 2 pool. Fang lets you burn folks. So does Femur. The Assamites can Blur (or whatever) to do the neccessary extra damage. The Tzimiscee can use Horrid Form or Blood of Acid or Carrion Crows to do the extra damage. It strikes me as kind of a wash. > Yeah, but it's only the Horrid Form decks that can effectively use the Femur >in > such a fashion. Any Assamite deck using CEL can use the Fang to deadly effect. And any Tsimiscee deck can use Horrid Form or Carrion Crows of Blood of Acid to do effectively the same thing. > Yes they are. No, no, you misunderstand me. The Gangrel pay more for Backways 'cause it provides them with a rarer effect--it is harder for the Gangrel to get stealth through their disciplines than it is for the Nosferatu to get stealth in the same way. Thus, the increased cost. That makes sense. The Gangrel are not, however, more *powerful* (in the sense of more destructive, or whatever) with that +1 stealth than the Nosferatu are. That +1 stealth from the Backways is not allowing the Gangrel to be more destructive than the Nosferatu--the post I was responding to suggested that the Fang cost 3 instead of 2 'cause the Assamites could cause more damage than the Tzimiscee (i.e. they were more powerful with the Fang), so the added destruction justified the added cost. As all other instances of greater cost for similar ability read, the increased cost comes from the scarcity of the ability relative to the context--i.e. Earth Control costs 1 blood where Lost in Crowds does not, as EC is a stealth card in a primarily combat discipline (much like Alacrity costs 2 blood for a similar effect--stealth is even further removed from Celerity). On the other hand, clans that have access to such abilities freely get things cheaper--look at the various Brujah/!Brujah weapons--they are relatively cheap for what they do, even though the Brujah can use them to great effect. The Brujah get these things *cheaper* than other clans, not more expensively. > As others have noted, Protean stealth is costlier than Obfuscate > stealth (Earth Control vs. Lost in Crowds). Yeah--others like me :-) -Peter

Timlagor wrote: > When did you last see a Nosferatu with Claws of the Dead? (I'm sure it > happens but not nearly as often) What does that have to do with stealth aquisition? That the Gangrel have access to Claws of the Dead and the Nosferatu not so much does not make the +1 stealth granted by Backways more powerful than the Nosferatu's +1 stealth as granted by the Labyrinth. Backways costs 2 instead of 1, presumably, 'cause the Gangrel have only limited access to stealth--a few cards that cost blood in Protean, generally speaking. Thus it makes sense that Backways costs more than Labyrinth, as the Nosferatu are oozing stealth. Fang, on the other hand, gives the Assamites an ability that is very similar to the ability to that which Femur gives the Tzimiscee--they both have reliable access to aggro damage already. An argument could be made that Fang costs more 'cause the Assamites have limited access to *close range* aggro damage that Fang provides, but strikes me as a pretty thin distinction. I'd still think that Fang costs 3 and Femur costs 2 due to, primarily, oversight. -Peter

On 27 Oct 2003 18:48:10 -0800, pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >The Assamites, however, are oozing with Aggro damage >(Taste of Death). No they aren't. There's Taste of Death, with the huge overhead of only at long range. And then there's Blood Agony, with the huge overhead of only second round. Two cards doth not an "oozing" make. ;) >Yeah, it only comes at long range, but when can't >the Assamites get to long range? Often enough to make me give up trying? >And when can't they burn you at long >range every combat, barring S:CE? Rarely. You mean "barring that effect that everyone plays with, if they aren't using Obedience and maybe even if they are"? >I think the disparity of cost between the two is the direct result of >the confused/inconsistient design of the early (i.e. WotC) expansions. >It would make sense that Fang was only 2 pool, but probably isn't >worth the effort to fix, really. Agreed. I really just hopped in to point out what I think of Quietus i.e. not much. Love them Assamites, though (seriously).

On 27 Oct 2003 18:54:25 -0800, pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >I'm really thinking that this issue is clearly the province of the >crack explanation. And while most of the crack induced issues have >been fixed by now, some of them just aren't worth the effort. I feel so.... abandoned. ;)

On 28 Oct 2003 05:08:45 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >A lot harder to burn with Sengir Dagger since it only does strength damage. You >need a Lucky Blow or someone with + strength to be able to burn (since 1 agg >vs. empty vampire = torpor). Luckily, the Assamites are oozing with +1 Str/CEL guys. 3 agg is sweet, but I usually opt to just save a pool and play with the Dagger. Then you just tack a walking stick on to him for the occasional hit of one more damage to get them to exactly zero for the followup strike to burn.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:29:27 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled: >On 27 Oct 2003 18:48:10 -0800, pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) >wrote: > >>The Assamites, however, are oozing with Aggro damage >>(Taste of Death). > >No they aren't. There's Taste of Death, with the huge overhead of >only at long range. And then there's Blood Agony, with the huge >overhead of only second round. Two cards doth not an "oozing" make. >;) Eruption of Vitae! now there's an oozing, just look at the piccie! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, salem wrote: > Eruption of Vitae! now there's an oozing, just look at the piccie! :) I forgot to include Thetmes and Bajazet. They help, but aren't the easiest vampires to play with. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<aadbb36b.0310...@posting.google.com>... > Timlagor wrote: > > When did you last see a Nosferatu with Claws of the Dead? (I'm sure it > > happens but not nearly as often) > > What does that have to do with stealth aquisition? That the Gangrel > have access to Claws of the Dead and the Nosferatu not so much does > not make the +1 stealth granted by Backways more powerful than the > Nosferatu's +1 stealth as granted by the Labyrinth. I think indeed that the Backways is more powerfull than the Labyrinth, exactly following your reasoning....if you give Gangrells the same easy access to stealth as the Nosferatu + easy acces to other things (like aggro-handdamage) while you leave the nosferatu with nothing but their stealth, then i am sure the Gangrell come out of that comparison as the stronger one... So you must make sure that the Gangrell have more difficulties with getting stealth, hence the difference in cost for the locations. I think the same can be said for the two weapons. The Assamites don't have easy access to closerange-aggro, while the Tzim do,..giving the Asses that option should be more expensive. I think it is logical, but maybe in this case not necessary, or overcompensated...3 pool is just too much for what it does W

David Cherryholmes wrote: > No they aren't. There's Taste of Death, with the huge overhead of > only at long range. All the working Assamite combat decks I have seen involved long range and Taste of Death (after Blood Sweat beatings). Yeah, you have to get to long range, but the Assamites have no problem at all doing that with Flash and Pursuit, both of which can be used in significant amounts with no adverse effect on deck function. Yeah, that kind of deck gets tooled by DOtB, but DoTB tools Kali's Fang too. And occasionally you get stuck against a deck that can set range, but those are very few and far between. Thus, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to refer to Taste of Death as "oozing" :-) > And then there's Blood Agony, with the huge > overhead of only second round. Two cards doth not an "oozing" make. > ;) I've never seen a single Blood Agony get played. Ever. But Taste of Death? Every single time I see the Assamites. Which is fairly often, really. > Often enough to make me give up trying? Really? What are you playing against? IG Rush decks get trumped, generally speaking, by Assamite combat, as the Assamites have more manuvers, generally speaking (or they should, as they wan't long range). Other combat decks aren't going to have so much manuver. Non combat decks aren't going to have the manuvers either. > You mean "barring that effect that everyone plays with, if they aren't > using Obedience and maybe even if they are"? Well, yes, S:CE and Obedience are a problem, but not one that is solved by Kali's Fang, such that the extra pool cost is justified. > Agreed. I really just hopped in to point out what I think of Quietus > i.e. not much. Love them Assamites, though (seriously). I've seen regular Assamite Rush at long range (Flash/Pursuit, Blood Sweat, Taste of Death, Psyche! when necessary) work pretty well--It isn't fantastic (much like any mid range vampire Rush deck), but is pretty trumpy, combat wise, and does ok. -Peter

On 29 Oct 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > All the working Assamite combat decks I have seen involved long range > and Taste of Death (after Blood Sweat beatings). But how *well* have they worked, that's the question. I'll grant you that most the Assamite decks you've seen probably did home in on Blood Sweat/Taste of Death, but I wouldn't equate "cards got played" with "working". Working means winning, in my book. I know you know that I'm an Assamite fan. I've been working on this theory for a while, and started a thread on www.thepathofblood.com called "Quietus: a dangerous distraction?". Initially the reaction was poor but when some of the good players went back and took stock of what Assamite decks they played that could win tables, they found a common thread: very little if any Quietus at all. Strike cards eat up card slots. Conditional strike cards eat up even more card slots. It would be better to not eat up card slots at all, and instead devote them to ousting and not being ousted (in a more direct sense than the combat itself you are running does). Virtually all the Assamites have CEL. As you know, CEL coupled with any constant damage source greater than a single point is *good*, and even the hands-for-one isn't bad (3 points of damage being a benchmark of sorts for a good combat). So, who are the star Assamites? Parnassus: +1 str, and can Magic of the Smith the perfect weapon for that table. Fatima: built in Disguised Weapon Thetmes: agg hands, might as well have a Sengir, only better Parmenides: +1 Str Tegyrius: +1 Str Kalinda, Zahir, Sluggy, Al-Ashrad: Magic of the Smith Bajezet: Claws of the Dead special Tariq: you end up wanting him to have a weapon for different reasons, same result. Who else would you want to play? The noteable exception is Jalal, with his *other* card-saving special, Psyche. He is the one I would single out as making the long-range stuff worth it, but he is a lone vampire. > Yeah, you have to get > to long range, but the Assamites have no problem at all doing that > with Flash and Pursuit, both of which can be used in significant > amounts with no adverse effect on deck function. But they do have an adverse effect. They eat up *a lot* of card slots, leaving you with not much else. > Yeah, that kind of > deck gets tooled by DOtB, but DoTB tools Kali's Fang too. This is a myth. Handing someone with CEL +1 Str is not "tooling" them, unless you mean "tooling up". It might still be a better deal for the DotB player, but it doesn't adversly affect the Assamite deck that much. >And > occasionally you get stuck against a deck that can set range, but > those are very few and far between. Agreed. We should ignore cornercases for the purposes of this discussion. > Thus, it strikes me as perfectly > reasonable to refer to Taste of Death as "oozing" :-) You are simply describing what you've seen, which I can't and won't dispute. I, OTOH, am trying to advocate a better way to play Assamites. > I've never seen a single Blood Agony get played. Ever. But Taste of > Death? Every single time I see the Assamites. Which is fairly often, > really. Well, they are rare Ancient Hearts cards, right? If I had more, I'd play them. I have played the four I own, in the past. Once again, that +1 Str/CEL makes that card really good, and you can use it with a weapon, too. Seriously, I think it's the rarity that's at issue here. > Really? What are you playing against? IG Rush decks get trumped, > generally speaking, by Assamite combat, as the Assamites have more > manuvers, generally speaking (or they should, as they wan't long > range). Other combat decks aren't going to have so much manuver. Non > combat decks aren't going to have the manuvers either. Yeah, really (and I'm a pig-headed SOB). It was more of a metagame thing, personally. Players adapted to my long range strike-ishness and I had to move on. After I moved on for those reasons, I sort of stumbled on non-quietus decks by accident and started noticing a trend, which got me thinking.... > Well, yes, S:CE and Obedience are a problem, but not one that is > solved by Kali's Fang, such that the extra pool cost is justified. But with a weapon you haven't wasted a card slot and possibly blood. That was another thing that got me on the path of building the types of Assamite decks I have been lately: our answers to S:CE are mediocre, at best. Therefore, never waste a strike card by never playing a strike card, and it won't be so bad. > I've seen regular Assamite Rush at long range (Flash/Pursuit, Blood > Sweat, Taste of Death, Psyche! when necessary) work pretty well--It > isn't fantastic (much like any mid range vampire Rush deck), but is > pretty trumpy, combat wise, and does ok. I'm shooting for a little better than "ok" and the Quietus strikes weren't doing it for me, personally. Lord knows I tried. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I think indeed that the Backways is more powerfull than the Labyrinth, > exactly following your reasoning....if you give Gangrells the same > easy access to stealth as the Nosferatu + easy acces to other things > (like aggro-handdamage) while you leave the nosferatu with nothing but > their stealth, then i am sure the Gangrell come out of that comparison > as the stronger one... While this isn't really relevant to the actual discussion at hand, I'll ask anyway--really, what are the Gangrel going to do with that +1 stealth that is so scary? They can't bleed that much. They have access to transient stealth already, along with the incredibly potent Form of Mist. They already scare folks away from blocking by virtue of having Protean. The extra +1 stealth from the Backways? Not that big a deal. Handy, sure. Reasonably priced at 2 pool? Absolutely. But I'm *so* not seeing the Gangrel as being more *powerful* with the +1 stealth. Stealth is harder to come by for the Gangrel than the Nosferatu, and while it makes sense that getting it is more expensive, it hardly makes them scary. > So you must make sure that the Gangrell have more difficulties with > getting stealth, hence the difference in cost for the locations. Not so much seeing it. > I think the same can be said for the two weapons. The Assamites don't > have easy access to closerange-aggro, while the Tzim do,..giving the > Asses that option should be more expensive. Why do the Assamites even *want* close range aggro? At close range, the Assamites get hit back. At close range, the Assamites get Immortally Grappled (which the Fang certainly doesn't help them against). The Assamites can easily get long range, and once there, they can wail on folks with Blood Sweat and Taste of Death (both of which are easy to get and plentiful). Close range is not somehwere they want to be. Yeah, S:CE is a problem for the Assamites, but being at close range isn't going to help them there, and S:CE is going to be just as much of a problem for a Fang weilding Assamite as it is a long range Taste of Death Assamite. > I think it is logical, but maybe in this case not necessary, or > overcompensated...3 pool is just too much for what it does Agreed that 3 pool is just too much. -Peter

David Cherryholmes wrote: > You are simply describing what you've seen, which I can't and won't > dispute. I, OTOH, am trying to advocate a better way to play Assamites. Ya know, I wrote a really long, clever response, but stoopid dejanews decided to give me an internal server error which erased my non saved post. Stoopid dejanews. Anyways, the jist was that I completely agree with everything you are saying about the Assamites, but to get back to Kali's Fang, none of it justifies it costing 3 pool. I figure we should just start a campaign to get Fang discounted to 2 pool, which I'd figure you'd completely be on board with :-) My whole point is that Kali's Fang should not cost 3 pool, and 2 pool is where it should be, yet people keep trying to come up with kooky justifications for why 3 pool is the appropriate cost, which I'm simply refuting. Come on! You think it should cost 2 pool too! Let's join forces! :-) -Peter

Peter D Bakija expounded: > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I think indeed that the Backways is more powerfull than the Labyrinth, > > exactly following your reasoning....if you give Gangrells the same > > easy access to stealth as the Nosferatu + easy acces to other things > > (like aggro-handdamage) while you leave the nosferatu with nothing but > > their stealth, then i am sure the Gangrell come out of that comparison > > as the stronger one... > > While this isn't really relevant to the actual discussion at hand, > I'll ask anyway--really, what are the Gangrel going to do with that +1 > stealth that is so scary? They can't bleed that much. They have access Rush the Famous vampire Rescue the Famour Vampire Diablerize Fetch an Assault Rifle/flamethrower/.. Fetch a Raven Spy/... Hunt I'm sure there are other things they may want an extra stealth for. > Why do the Assamites even *want* close range aggro? At close range, It discourages people from maneuvering back to close range. It let syou do aggro damage when you don't have the right cards in hand.

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<aadbb36b.03102...@posting.google.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I think indeed that the Backways is more powerfull than the Labyrinth, > > exactly following your reasoning....if you give Gangrells the same > > easy access to stealth as the Nosferatu + easy acces to other things > > (like aggro-handdamage) while you leave the nosferatu with nothing but > > their stealth, then i am sure the Gangrell come out of that comparison > > as the stronger one... > > While this isn't really relevant to the actual discussion at hand, > I'll ask anyway--really, what are the Gangrel going to do with that +1 > stealth that is so scary? They can't bleed that much. While it isn't really the discussion, i'll answer it anyway :-) Sure that is true...they do have quite some dominate though...and them getting a garou/gather/+1strength doesn't make me happy either. But that isn't really my point, the fact that a clan has access to stealth ON TOP of what their regular disciplines do, gives them an edge, somewhat...That's why it should cost them more...flexibilty is gold. But most of what i am saying has allready been said... > > I think the same can be said for the two weapons. The Assamites don't > > have easy access to closerange-aggro, while the Tzim do,..giving the > > Asses that option should be more expensive. > > Why do the Assamites even *want* close range aggro? Flexibility, but i know that their LongRange abilities are better exploited. W

On 29 Oct 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Ya know, I wrote a really long, clever response, but stoopid dejanews > decided to give me an internal server error which erased my non saved > post. Stoopid dejanews. Dang. > Anyways, the jist was that I completely agree with everything you are > saying about the Assamites, but to get back to Kali's Fang, none of it > justifies it costing 3 pool. I transcended topicality long ago. I think CEL might be an argument for it costing one more than the Dagger. Horrid Form's a bitch, but anybody can lay hands on the pile of Celerity cards you need to transform 2 agg into "I burn you". > I figure we should just start a campaign > to get Fang discounted to 2 pool, which I'd figure you'd completely be > on board with :-) If the Fang cost two, I'd probably put it in every Assamite deck I built. At three, I feel deterred. That's not a reasoned argument, but it may be some measure of crossing a "too good" line. The real silliness here is what we're benchmarking it against. No way the Ivory Bow should cost one, but as long as 1R agg can be had so cheaply, the rest feels overpriced. Sure you can pump the Dagger's damage, but you can also only strike with it right where you don't want to be: in Grapple range. > My whole point is that Kali's Fang should not cost 3 pool, and 2 pool > is where it should be, yet people keep trying to come up with kooky > justifications for why 3 pool is the appropriate cost, which I'm > simply refuting. Come on! You think it should cost 2 pool too! Let's > join forces! I like your line of reasoning that started from the cost of the dagger, +1 for the extra strength, -1 for the clan requirement. But then I go back to my gut, which says 2 pool is just too low. Er, I mean.... "Scott! Take notice of the majority of two! Stop keeping the Assamite bruthah down!" [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Dang. Yeah, it was pretty good, too. Mostly I agreed with your discussion of the Assamites, but occasionally I tried to tie it back into why the Fang shouldn't cost 3 pool... > I transcended topicality long ago. I think CEL might be an argument for > it costing one more than the Dagger. Horrid Form's a bitch, but anybody > can lay hands on the pile of Celerity cards you need to transform 2 agg > into "I burn you". Sure, but the Tzimiscee can easily lay hands on Carrion Crows and Lucky Blow to make Femur burn someone. And yet they are still only paying 2 pool :-) > If the Fang cost two, I'd probably put it in every Assamite deck I > built. Me too. At 2, I suspect that you are putting Sengir Dagger in every Assamite deck you build. The +1 damage is a defenite bonus, but considering the ease with which Assamites get +1 strength and how having an Assamite only weapon limits the number of non Assamites you can put in the crypt (especially as you aren't using Qui anyways :-), it strikes me that 2 pool for the Fang is perfectly reasonable. > At three, I feel deterred. That's not a reasoned argument, but it > may be some measure of crossing a "too good" line. I dunno. I mean, yeah, the +1 damage is good and all, but the Sengir Dagger is usually just as good and the Tzimiscee can use the Femur to burn easily in any case, and they only pay 2--and still, S:CE makes the weapon useless. > The real silliness > here is what we're benchmarking it against. No way the Ivory Bow should > cost one, In practice, I think you are correct, but I think in terms of design, 1 is probably about right (it probably should be about 1.5, but it has to be rounded somwhere). > but as long as 1R agg can be had so cheaply, the rest feels > overpriced. Sure you can pump the Dagger's damage, but you can also only > strike with it right where you don't want to be: in Grapple range. True, but in the original set, there was a significant cost increase given to things that could burn vampires (look at Flame Thrower)--Ivory Bow can *never* burn anyone (well, except in some, like, Dawn Op/Carrion Crows/Ivory Bow combo), where Dagger as a melee weapon certainly can. > I like your line of reasoning that started from the cost of the dagger, +1 > for the extra strength, -1 for the clan requirement. But then I go back > to my gut, which says 2 pool is just too low. Eh. You really think it is going to make the Assamites *that* much better? I mean, as it is, they can freely burn vampires, but for S:CE. Fang, costing 2, will save them some card slots, sure, but they are still hosed by S:CE, and that 1 pool savings isn't going to, like, make them sweep tables any more. > Er, I mean.... "Scott! Take notice of the majority of two! Stop keeping > the Assamite bruthah down!" Fight the Power! -Peter

On 30 Oct 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yeah, it was pretty good, too. Mostly I agreed with your discussion of > the Assamites, but occasionally I tried to tie it back into why the > Fang shouldn't cost 3 pool... Somebody on pathofblood said I was just going through a phase. Maybe I am, but reducing card overhead while holding the effectiveness of your combat constant has got to be good. > Sure, but the Tzimiscee can easily lay hands on Carrion Crows and > Lucky Blow to make Femur burn someone. And yet they are still only > paying 2 pool :-) Good point. > Me too. At 2, I suspect that you are putting Sengir Dagger in every > Assamite deck you build. I only have three right now. One uses Thetmes, another is The Fatimator and is all about AR's, but the last is "dial a weapon". It originally had the dagger in lieu of the fang, but I actually traded up. The deck defends it's pool pretty well so the extra cost seemed negligible, and there's some goodness in having multiple strikes and a way to do either 2 or 3 points of damage. With agg in the mix it's a much more controllable burn. > The +1 damage is a defenite bonus, but See that 2/3 thing above. > In practice, I think you are correct, but I think in terms of design, > 1 is probably about right (it probably should be about 1.5, but it has > to be rounded somwhere). I think it's easily worth two. Theoretically, it usually takes building a deck around that goal to actually burn anyone, whether you are doing one or two points of agg (diablerie being the most common case, and again making the 1 or 2 question moot). Practically, everyone plays with it; that doesn't necessarily make it *too* good, but it's clearly a good deal if so many players choose to use it. > True, but in the original set, there was a significant cost increase > given to things that could burn vampires (look at Flame > Thrower)--Ivory Bow can *never* burn anyone (well, except in some, > like, Dawn Op/Carrion Crows/Ivory Bow combo), where Dagger as a melee > weapon certainly can. Hey, this just occurred to me. It's really just another way of making the "design team on crack" argument, but... was the Fang designed during the window where one agg could burn you? If it was, and the Femur was released after things went back to the original/current rules, that would explain some of the costing. > Eh. You really think it is going to make the Assamites *that* much > better? I mean, as it is, they can freely burn vampires, but for S:CE. I'd still dispute that "freely" bit. But even if that strategy were perfectly reliable, it's just a *huge* chain of cards; if you can get that kind of card flow then "freely" burning vampires is appropriate. CEL is a force muliplyer, so every extra point you add to the base damage makes a big difference in the damage-per-round. That and the fact that I rarely carry just one weapon; if I'm dialing up three strikes, I'd much rather have some options. > Fang, costing 2, will save them some card slots, sure, but they are > still hosed by S:CE, You've got it backwards. *Because* they are saving card slots, it is more probable that they *won't* get hosed by S:CE. The problem now becomes grapple, but Sideslip and Guardian Angel and Flak Jacket (if you've got the time) are your friends. > and that 1 pool savings isn't going to, like, > make them sweep tables any more. Depending on your playstyle, it may. Remember that I lowball the poolgain a fair bit and let myself drop perilously close to being ousted. But sure, I don't think 1 point either way is a big deal, generally. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Hey, this just occurred to me. [...] was the Fang designed during the > window where one agg could burn you? If it was, and the Femur was > released after things went back to the original/current rules, that would > explain some of the costing. Both the Fang and the Femur were released (I have no knowledge of the design window) under the same agg damage rules - the 1995 VTES agg damage rules in which every point of agg damage would burn a vampire (healthy or wounded) unless he burned a blood. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > >> Hey, this just occurred to me. [...] was the Fang designed during the >> window where one agg could burn you? If it was, and the Femur was >> released after things went back to the original/current rules, that would >> explain some of the costing. > > > Both the Fang and the Femur were released (I have no knowledge of the > design window) under the same agg damage rules - the 1995 VTES agg damage rules > in which every point of agg damage would burn a vampire (healthy or > wounded)unless he burned a blood. > One important point that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion yet, is that the Fang was originally a '2 aggravated damage' weapon, it wasn't affected by strength modifiers (but it was a melee weapon, so Lucky Blow was still usable). That gives more strength to the 'design team on crack' theory, the 'old' Fang was worse than the current one (and worse than the Femur), yet its cost was 3 pool anyway. Flux

no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... > Hi, > > i'm quite new to the game so sorry if the questions is old or odd. > I just wanted to understand why Kali's Fang and Femur of Toolmer even > being identical weapons have a huge difference in cost (3 pool vs 2 > pool). > > Thanks I just want to say that I'm sad that Kali's Fang was changed from doing 2 aggravated damage to doing strenght+1 aggravated damage. I liked it more before. /Henrik

[ quoted text not captured ] Why is that? Just don't like to face opponents with strength>1 using it? Or frequently find yourself using it when your strength is less than 1? [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes expounded: > > Me too. At 2, I suspect that you are putting Sengir Dagger in every > > Assamite deck you build. > > I only have three right now. One uses Thetmes, another is The Fatimator > and is all about AR's, but the last is "dial a weapon". It originally had > the dagger in lieu of the fang, but I actually traded up. You didn't consider having both?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FA2ABA5...@white-wolf.com>... > henrik ericsson wrote: > > no...@libero.it (nobz) wrote in message news:<8ca74255.03102...@posting.google.com>... > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>i'm quite new to the game so sorry if the questions is old or odd. > >>I just wanted to understand why Kali's Fang and Femur of Toolmer even > >>being identical weapons have a huge difference in cost (3 pool vs 2 > >>pool). > >> > >>Thanks > > > > > > I just want to say that I'm sad that Kali's Fang was changed from > > doing 2 aggravated damage to doing strenght+1 aggravated damage. I > > liked it more before. > > Why is that? > > Just don't like to face opponents with strength>1 using it? > > Or frequently find yourself using it when your strength is less than 1? Mainly because it's nice against Song of Serenity and stuff like that, not that it happends that often, but still... And the card text looked cooler too :) /Henrik

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote > That gives more strength to the 'design team on crack' theory, the 'old' > Fang was worse than the current one (and worse than the Femur), yet its cost > was 3 pool anyway. But with cards around that reduced your strength (disease, song of serenity, bonecraft or even disarm) the 2 agg damage from the Kali's fang may have been a good thing at some point ?

[ quoted text not captured ] That's possibly what the designers thought at the time (note that most strength-reducing cards came out after AH though, only a couple were available at the time). But even though I can remember a time when Disease and Song of Serenity were quite popular around here (3-round Assamites-vs-Tzimisce punch-for-zero combats are fun!!!), the disadvantage of not getting Parnassus' strength bonus alone would make it a poor trade-off. ;) Flux

David Cherryholmes wrote: > I think it's easily worth two. Theoretically, it usually takes building a > deck around that goal to actually burn anyone, whether you are doing one > or two points of agg (diablerie being the most common case, and again > making the 1 or 2 question moot). Practically, everyone plays with > it; that doesn't necessarily make it *too* good, but it's clearly a good > deal if so many players choose to use it. I think the Ivory Bow could have been costed at 2, and it still would have been as pobular as it is, but I think in the grand scheme of things, it costing 1 is not out of the realm of logic. 38 Special costs 1 and does 1 non aggrivated damage and gives you a manuver. Ivory Bow costs 1, does 1 aggrivated damage, does not give you a manuver, and is unique. The question is whether no manuver and unique is a balanced trade with aggrivated damage. Heck, if the aggro damage is worth 2 points, the hypothetical math works out: 38 Special: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), manuver (+1)= 1 Ivory Bow: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), unique (-1), aggro damage (+2)= 1 Heck, the math is sketchy, but possibly illustrates how Ivory Bow costs 1 pool. On the other hand, I agree with you that Ivory Bow probably should have been 2 pool :-) On the other hand, using the same logic, I'm not quite seeing how Sengir Dagger costs 2 pool... > Hey, this just occurred to me. It's really just another way of making the > "design team on crack" argument, but... was the Fang designed during the > window where one agg could burn you? If it was, and the Femur was > released after things went back to the original/current rules, that would > explain some of the costing. They both came out after the VTES rulebook changed the aggro rules to "1 point of aggro will burn you", but before they were changed back. I suspect that the real culprit here is that Fang originally did 2 aggro damage, instead of "strength +1" (although the Femur's original text was "+1 aggrivated hand damage..."), and somehow that justified it's 3 pool cost. More than anything, however, it think it is, in fact, the direct result of the crack. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > >>I think it's easily worth two. Theoretically, it usually takes building a >>deck around that goal to actually burn anyone, whether you are doing one >>or two points of agg (diablerie being the most common case, and again >>making the 1 or 2 question moot). Practically, everyone plays with >>it; that doesn't necessarily make it *too* good, but it's clearly a good >>deal if so many players choose to use it. > > > I think the Ivory Bow could have been costed at 2, and it still would > have been as pobular as it is, but I think in the grand scheme of > things, it costing 1 is not out of the realm of logic. 38 Special > costs 1 and does 1 non aggrivated damage and gives you a manuver. > Ivory Bow costs 1, does 1 aggrivated damage, does not give you a > manuver, and is unique. The question is whether no manuver and unique > is a balanced trade with aggrivated damage. Heck, if the aggro damage > is worth 2 points, the hypothetical math works out: > > 38 Special: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), manuver (+1)= 1 > Ivory Bow: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), unique (-1), aggro damage > (+2)= 1 > > Heck, the math is sketchy, but possibly illustrates how Ivory Bow > costs 1 pool. On the other hand, I agree with you that Ivory Bow > probably should have been 2 pool :-) As always, when the theory doesn't agree with experience, you should disregard the theory. :) I suspect the 'unique' penalty is overrated. Just because there can only be one in play, doesn't make it any less powerful. And while there is the risk of someone else equipping theirs first and deny you the opportunity to use yours, the opposite is also true (if you get yours first, noone else will be able to use theirs). So, uniqueness is really neither a penalty nor an advantage in most cases. > On the other hand, using the same logic, I'm not quite seeing how > Sengir Dagger costs 2 pool... Sengir Dagger is a melee weapon and can use strength bonuses, so it has always been able to burn vampires, the Ivory Bow could not do it under the original rules. Flux

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) writes: > 38 Special: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), manuver (+1)= 1 > Ivory Bow: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), unique (-1), aggro damage > (+2)= 1 > > Heck, the math is sketchy, You tell me. Let's give the 38 Special a cost of 100 pool: 38 Special: 100 pool (-100), 1R damage (+1), maneuver (+1) = -98 So a weapon costing 100 pool would cost -98 pool? Whatever you do, don't include the pool cost in calculations for pool cost. That way lies silliness. Otherwise, make any fun rule of thumb equations you want, and more power to you when you do so. -- hg@ It's better to open your mouth and appear stupid, iki.fi than to hold it shut and keep thinking you know it all.

<h...@iki.fi.remove.these.to.reply.invalid> (Janne Hägglund) wrote in message news:<m2fzh8d...@etemenanki.homelinux.net>... > pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) writes: > > > 38 Special: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), manuver (+1)= 1 > > Ivory Bow: 1 pool (-1), 1R damage (+1), unique (-1), aggro damage > > (+2)= 1 > > > > Heck, the math is sketchy, > > You tell me. Let's give the 38 Special a cost of 100 pool: > > 38 Special: 100 pool (-100), 1R damage (+1), maneuver (+1) = -98 > > So a weapon costing 100 pool would cost -98 pool? > > Whatever you do, don't include the pool cost in calculations for pool cost. > That way lies silliness. Otherwise, make any fun rule of thumb equations you > want, and more power to you when you do so. Well, yeah, there is that, but as both weapons cost 1 pool, it is a wash. And while it is certainly questionable to do so, the pool cost is a noticable cost... -Peter

>Makes sense. Femur and Fang, however, are both weapons given to clans that >have the same access to aggro damage, more or less. Here's a comparison of Assamite to Tzimice close-range aggravated damage sources, using only cards available when the two weapons were printed. Assamites: Blood Agony. Second round only. Taste of Death doesn't count because it can't be used at close. So the Assamites have all of one source of close range aggravated damage, and it can't be played on the first round. Tzimice: Blood of Acid, Body Arsenal, Breath of the Dragon, Song in the Dark. Four cards. One is rebounding damage, so can be played in addition to a strike. One modifies strength AND does agg. One is useable at close or long, but does damage at close (of course, the same set gave Tzim the ability to prevent damage, so that's not too much of a penaltY). When the cards saw print, Tzimice were close-range fighters with a smatting of long range (most environmental). The Assamites were long-range fighters who could occasionally hit their mark hard. So, when it came time to price the weapons, the Tzimice got the cheaper cost because they don't benefit from the weapon nearly as much as the Assamites do. Even now, the Assamites didn't get any aggravated close range strikes, where the Tzimice got Marauder. So the need for the Femur has reduced even more. The cards are balanced by the cards available, or absence thereof, that grant similar effects to those clans. Fanboy

Fanboy wrote: > Here's a comparison of Assamite to Tzimice close-range aggravated > damage sources, using only cards available when the two weapons were > printed. > > Assamites: Blood Agony. Second round only. > > Taste of Death doesn't count because it can't be used at close. So > the Assamites have all of one source of close range aggravated damage, > and it can't be played on the first round. > > Tzimice: Blood of Acid, Body Arsenal, Breath of the Dragon, Song in > the Dark. A reasonable comparison, but still the Assamites had access to Sengir Dagger as a source of close range aggrivated damage. Fang did 2 aggro damage (+ melee weapon bonues) where Sengir did 1 aggro (+ melee weapon bonuses). Sengir cost 2 pool. Fang cost 3, but is clan specific, which should have given a discount. At the time, 1 aggro could burn someone, so it presumably wasn't getting the cost increase that Flame Thrower was charged (i.e. the "I can burn you" premium). In the end, I still blame the crack smoking--the AH designers figured 3 pool was ok for the Fang, and then the Sabbat designers figured that 2 pool was ok for the Tzimiscee. Fang should probably cost 2 pool too, but no one, I figure, thought it was worth fixing. -Peter