<ahem>

Wow, my first post. I am Australian. Hopefully that will sort out any unfortunate misunderstandings later on :) I have been playing jyhad since the day it was born in my country, and I think Magic players are generally some kind of lesser-evolved lifeform, who beat each other up in carparks for cards. I have only recently gained my own internet access (ThePower!ThePower!), and the group I play with has several questions for LSJ, or anyone who could be bothered remonstrating with me. <quickly clambers into Asbestos suit> *Could someone please expain to us slow Aussies why there is this tournament rule about not being able to perform the same action in a turn? This really reduces the potency of freak drives and rutor's hand. We talked about this for a while and the only explanation we came up with is that you (in general) are a bunch of panty-waisted wuss-bags. Where I come from Gwendolyn bleeds until I run out of Freak Drives, and we scull a beer everytime someone goes to torpor, bleeds, or gets a VP (honest! :)). Admittedly we play with a 6CL for any kind of untapping card, mostly as a benchmark for what decks can be like. *Why doesnt Gwendolyn have a special ability? It seems unfair that she goes without especially considering the game-scrunching abilities of Arika and Alexandra. +1 hand damage is a good candidate. (so what if she's my favourite vampire?) *Why is there a stupid card called Increased Strength? Did the design team think potence was unbalanced in the original game? Were they snorting something? Where is the increased thaumaturgy card? *Can you simply untap a prince with 2nd trad. to play deflections for instance, or do you have to attempt to block? *We had a game last week (no kidding!) where 2 players were contesting the KRCG and they were predator and prey with 4 people in the game. The player who was the prey dropped the contest, and then the next player along decided that it would be better for his ventrue if the KRCG fell into a hole in the ground and attempted to burn it with Unnatural disaster. Now, I believe the rule is that you dont gain control of a contested card until you're untap phase, so when asked for an adjudication, I said that it wasnt in play, so it couldnt be burnt, it seemed only fair that if the player couldnt use it, then it couldnt be targetted either. Just like to see an official response. (the ventrue player burned it next round anyway, cest la vie) *We do not regard TB as a degenerate card. However, it doesnt seem in the spirit of the game to remove a players hand from the game, and I use it sparingly. I generally play Tremere, and the other day I was playing against a really tight brujah deck, and I was exceedingly frustrated because I couldnt tag the little buggers. Every round I would throw a thaum. strike card, and they would dodge, eventually Lazarus had his butt handed to him when the brujah player fianlly came into a torn signpost and beat me with repeated stirkes. It occurred to me that TB isnt a card that 'came first' so to speak, but a reaction against celerity and combat ends, because a good celerity deck may as well be playing TB on the tremere (yeah, weather control still hits but so what?), this cheered me imensesly and I went back and added 6 TB back to my deck, conscience clear. However, this tended to produce really boring, luck-based situations, where the fight would be decided on whether or not I was holding a TB. So am I actually saying anything? well, not really. Perhaps it might have been better to have a thaum or dominate card that cancelled dodges or S:CE like scorpion sting, because TB is great for that, but it does a lot more too. Maybe Tremere are supposed to have a weakness against brujah celerity, they are just obfuscate-less malkys. I would actually like to talk this through if anyone's interested, or maybe everyones bored with the question. *A 4CL would suck. Go play Magic. My Aid from Bats deck would be illeagal! (60 cards, 20 AfB, maneuver-press, maneuver-press!) There will be more, but thats enough for one post. The Floating One.

James B. Floate wrote: > I have been playing jyhad since the day it was born in my country, and I > think Magic players are generally some kind of lesser-evolved lifeform, > who beat each other up in carparks for cards. I have only recently > gained my own internet access (ThePower!ThePower!), and the group I play > with has several questions for LSJ, or anyone who could be bothered > remonstrating with me. > > <quickly clambers into Asbestos suit> > > *Could someone please expain to us slow Aussies why there is this > tournament rule about not being able to perform the same action in a > turn? This really reduces the potency of freak drives and rutor's hand. Some decks (Gangrel Freak Day Operation Movement of the Slow Body Rapid Healing - type decks) can enter an infinite loop with repeated actions and clear the entire table on a single turn, unblockably. The loop's effect is amplified by Fame, but that's beside the point. > We talked about this for a while and the only explanation we came up > with is that you (in general) are a bunch of panty-waisted wuss-bags. > Where I come from Gwendolyn bleeds until I run out of Freak Drives, and > we scull a beer everytime someone goes to torpor, bleeds, or gets a VP > (honest! :)). > Admittedly we play with a 6CL for any kind of untapping card, mostly as > a benchmark for what decks can be like. In general, you shouldn't alter the environment (6CL restricted list) and expect to have the official alternative environment (NRA) have the same effect. Naturally, if your restrictions reduce the availability of repeating action, you'll see less of a need for a NRA rule. You "wuss out" by imposing a 6CL. DCI "wusses out" by imposing the NRA. Both are merely attempting to keep the game frombecoming degenerate. > *Why doesnt Gwendolyn have a special ability? Rhetorical question. > *Why is there a stupid card called Increased Strength? Did the design > team think potence was unbalanced in the original game? Were they > snorting something? Where is the increased thaumaturgy card? Increaed Thau: Reverend Blackwood, Shotgun Ritual > *Can you simply untap a prince with 2nd trad. to play deflections for > instance, or do you have to attempt to block? No. The Prince must attempt to block (card text, and the restriction on gaining intercept). > *We had a game last week (no kidding!) where 2 players were contesting > the KRCG and they were predator and prey with 4 people in the game. The > player who was the prey dropped the contest, and then the next player > along decided that it would be better for his ventrue if the KRCG fell > into a hole in the ground and attempted to burn it with Unnatural > disaster. Now, I believe the rule is that you dont gain control of a > contested card until you're untap phase, so when asked for an > adjudication, I said that it wasnt in play, so it couldnt be burnt, it > seemed only fair that if the player couldnt use it, then it couldnt be > targetted either. Just like to see an official response. (the ventrue > player burned it next round anyway, cest la vie) Correct. It isn't in play, so cannot be burnt. > *We do not regard TB as a degenerate card. However, it doesnt seem in > the spirit of the game to remove a players hand from the game, and I use > it sparingly. A noble gesture. I'm sure that most tournaments are populated by equally noble players. :-) > [ong monologue deleted] > I would actually like to talk this through if > anyone's interested, or maybe everyones bored with the question. > > *A 4CL would suck. Go play Magic. My Aid from Bats deck would be > illeagal! (60 cards, 20 AfB, maneuver-press, maneuver-press!) A 6CL restricted list isn't much better, IMHO. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

James B. Floate wrote: > > *Could someone please expain to us slow Aussies why there is this > tournament rule about not being able to perform the same action in a > turn? [clip] Us panty-waists came up with a couple of deck designs that allowed you to do so many repeating bleeds that preys were often ousted in a couple of turns. ;) The "no repeat actions" rule is in place to prevent these "looping" decks. The DCI chose to add this rule rather than a card limit in an effort to stop the broken deck designs. [clip] > *Can you simply untap a prince with 2nd trad. to play deflections for > instance, or do you have to attempt to block? You must attempt a block. [clip] > Now, I believe the rule is that you dont gain control of a > contested card until you're untap phase, so when asked for an > adjudication, I said that it wasnt in play, so it couldnt be burnt, it > seemed only fair that if the player couldnt use it, then it couldnt be > targetted either. Just like to see an official response. (the ventrue > player burned it next round anyway, cest la vie) > You are correct. Cards you control but that are no longer contested come back into play "during your next untap phase". -- 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: :LA Tourny Info -> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~ezix/other/rg/vtourn_1.html: :....................................................................: :Da pony run, he jump he pitch. He t'row my master in da ditch. : :He died and da jury wondered why. Da verdict was the blue tail fly.: :....................................................................:

James B. Floate wrote: > > Wow, my first post. > > I am Australian. Hopefully that will sort out any unfortunate > misunderstandings later on :) > > I have been playing jyhad since the day it was born in my country, and I > think Magic players are generally some kind of lesser-evolved lifeform, > who beat each other up in carparks for cards. I have only recently > gained my own internet access (ThePower!ThePower!), and the group I play > with has several questions for LSJ, or anyone who could be bothered > remonstrating with me. > > <quickly clambers into Asbestos suit> > > *Could someone please expain to us slow Aussies why there is this > tournament rule about not being able to perform the same action in a > turn? This really reduces the potency of freak drives and rutor's hand. > We talked about this for a while and the only explanation we came up > with is that you (in general) are a bunch of panty-waisted wuss-bags. > Where I come from Gwendolyn bleeds until I run out of Freak Drives, and > we scull a beer everytime someone goes to torpor, bleeds, or gets a VP > (honest! :)). > Admittedly we play with a 6CL for any kind of untapping card, mostly as > a benchmark for what decks can be like. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well you had better check the seal on your asbestos suit after that one!! This rule came into effect for a number of reasons.... 1/Freak drive -> this card and to a lesser extent rutors hand were just too powerful. The addition of the no repeat actions has made the game much more enjoyable, at least to our playgroup, and in the end isn't that the point???? 2/Looping Gangrel decks-> it was actually possible to get 5 or ten actions out of a gangrel with superior fort and protean. This combined with Day peration, Fame and movement of the Slow body meant that one Vampire could bleed you unblockable, go to torper (for three more pool loss due to fame) untap and gain 2 blood, rescue themselves from torper, freakdrive and repeat until they ran out of cards. Sound like fun to you?? The no repeat actions rule solves this problem quite nicely. 3/Vote push decks -> to a lesser extent I think this rule was put in place to prevent this tactic. Call a vote, get blocked, magestie ( or earth meld) to untap, call votes until they get through. In the end I think it was just to prevent people being overwhelmed in a single turn. I for one don't want to have to play with 8 wakes in every deck in order to deal with Freaky Bleed decks. I won't even try to respond ot your 6cl rule for certain cards, more trouble than its worth. What qualifies as an untap card? Majesty? Earthmeld? Change of Target? Hidden Lurker?? Force of Will?? I don't want to have to check the Banned, Restricted, 2 of this 4 of that 6 of these on Tuesday list every time I build a deck. (can you say magic??) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Why doesnt Gwendolyn have a special ability? It seems unfair that she > goes without especially considering the game-scrunching abilities of > Arika and Alexandra. +1 hand damage is a good candidate. (so what if > she's my favourite vampire?) > > *Why is there a stupid card called Increased Strength? Did the design > team think potence was unbalanced in the original game? Were they > snorting something? Where is the increased thaumaturgy card? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't know. ( I think shes too expensive for her abilities. She and Harrod got a raw deal.) It's the nature of potency, you can get in one big whack. Thaumaturgys strength lies in its ability to inflict huge damage second round and its ranged aggro damage. On the other hand where are the hopelessly overpowered vampires with the built in stealth for all of the other clans?? (Muaziz and Rebecca are hugely undercosted, many say broken vampires.) At one point, with the addittion of all of the Assemite vampires who had thaumaturgy in the Superior, there was talk of a Ventrue conspiricy to slant the game in favor of Thaumaturgy!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Can you simply untap a prince with 2nd trad. to play deflections for > instance, or do you have to attempt to block? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the card text NO you cannot. This card is only usable by a vampire that untaps and attempts to block, not deflect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *We had a game last week (no kidding!) where 2 players were contesting > the KRCG and they were predator and prey with 4 people in the game. The > player who was the prey dropped the contest, and then the next player > along decided that it would be better for his ventrue if the KRCG fell > into a hole in the ground and attempted to burn it with Unnatural > disaster. Now, I believe the rule is that you dont gain control of a > contested card until you're untap phase, so when asked for an > adjudication, I said that it wasnt in play, so it couldnt be burnt, it > seemed only fair that if the player couldnt use it, then it couldnt be > targetted either. Just like to see an official response. (the ventrue > player burned it next round anyway, cest la vie) > > *We do not regard TB as a degenerate card. However, it doesnt seem in > the spirit of the game to remove a players hand from the game, and I use > it sparingly. I generally play Tremere, and the other day I was playing > against a really tight brujah deck, and I was exceedingly frustrated > because I couldnt tag the little buggers. Every round I would throw a > thaum. strike card, and they would dodge, eventually Lazarus had his > butt handed to him when the brujah player fianlly came into a torn > signpost and beat me with repeated stirkes. It occurred to me that TB > isnt a card that 'came first' so to speak, but a reaction against > celerity and combat ends, because a good celerity deck may as well be > playing TB on the tremere (yeah, weather control still hits but so > what?), this cheered me imensesly and I went back and added 6 TB back to > my deck, conscience clear. However, this tended to produce really > boring, luck-based situations, where the fight would be decided on > whether or not I was holding a TB. So am I actually saying anything? > well, not really. Perhaps it might have been better to have a thaum or > dominate card that cancelled dodges or S:CE like scorpion sting, because > TB is great for that, but it does a lot more too. Maybe Tremere are > supposed to have a weakness against brujah celerity, they are just > obfuscate-less malkys. I would actually like to talk this through if > anyone's interested, or maybe everyones bored with the question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hmm, well I'm of mixed minds about this one aswell. I think that there are other ways to deal with dodge repeat action decks when playing the Tremere rather than resorting to TB. For starters Why are you playing strikes first???? You should try to use intercept combat. This allows you to save your strikes until you can make them count ( you see if they dodge b4 you waste your walk the flame.) Also it eliminates the chance that your opponent will Rotschreck you when you do whack him. (you cannot play out of turn masters on your own turn, though this won't stop any other Meth. from doing the same.) If you put them in Torper they can't blur or perform any additional strikes. Secondly you should be able to maneuver somewhat in a tremere deck (what good are those powerful ranged attacks if you spend all your time toe to toe??) Sure he can blur but unless hes carrying a gun who cares?? He can only pack so many sewer lids, gates and cars unless hes playing a chuck deck. GO TO LONG RANGE!!!!!!! Another alternative some Meth. have explored with some success is to use multiple strikes themselves. A number of the Assemites have both Superior Celerity and Thaumatrugy, use them then if your Quarry blurs do the same. In the end I think the TB card should have emulated Hidden lurker and Fast Reaction, eg no strikes may be played. This would prevent S:CE and Dodge without eliminating your hand. I have yet to see a truly broken TB deck in use. It's expensive, and requires sup dominat to be at all effective. If your opponent uses weapons and equipment these are unaffected by TB. But I hate seeing people stuck in a TB combat. (Hmmmm... I guess I strike hands.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------> *A 4CL would suck. Go play Magic. My Aid from Bats deck would be > illeagal! (60 cards, 20 AfB, maneuver-press, maneuver-press!) > > There will be more, but thats enough for one post. > > The Floating One. Strange to think that way and still endorse a 6CL limit on some cards. (I hesitate to use the word hypocrite, it seems a little strong.) Cheers, Karl P.S. Unless you want to obtain a reputation as a complete asshole here on the newsgroup you might want to refrain from referring to people as "Panty-Waisted Wuss-Bags" At least until you have been online long enough to realize how annoying this can be.

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Karl Innes wrote: [About the "no repeated actions" ruling] > In the end I think it was just to prevent people being overwhelmed in a > single turn. I for one don't want to have to play with 8 wakes in every deck in > order to deal with Freaky Bleed decks. I won't even try to respond ot your 6cl > rule for certain cards, more trouble than its worth. What qualifies as an > untap card? Majesty? Earthmeld? Change of Target? Hidden Lurker?? Force of > Will?? I don't want to have to check the Banned, Restricted, 2 of this 4 of > that 6 of these on Tuesday list every time I build a deck. (can you say > magic??) I think card limits, rather than the "no repeated actions" rule makes the game much more enjoyable - I just finished a game where everyone had 6 Wakes, it just was no more fun at a point, and I don't want to *have to* include 6 Sleeping Minds into *every* deck in order to cancel that out. With a 3CL *for every card*, ok, you would have to be somewhat flexible, but it would be much more enjoyable!! It would also not allow anyone to create a deck depending on 2 or 3 cards. Hell, there are 1200+ cards in all the series, and most of them are useful at one time or the other. So go use them! > On the other hand where are the hopelessly overpowered vampires with > the built in stealth for all of the other clans?? (Muaziz and Rebecca are > hugely undercosted, many say broken vampires.) At one point, with the addittion > of all of the Assemite vampires who had thaumaturgy in the Superior, there was > talk of a Ventrue conspiricy to slant the game in favor of Thaumaturgy!!! This is very right! There is a definite temptation to place Muaziz 2 times in every deck that's even remotely compatible with her disciplines. "No Blood Hunts" is bad enough, but add +1 stealth and she becomes unbalanced. On the other side, how do the Tremere get stealth? It's not so easy - Malkavians, Assamites and Nosferatu have Obfuscate, Gangrel and Ventrue, for the important actions, have Day/Dawn operations or Protean, Brujah put fear into everyone so their opponents thinks twice about blocking an action. I think +1 stealth for *one* Tremere is ok - but it shouldn't be more than that... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hmm, well I'm of mixed minds about this one aswell. I think that there > are other ways to deal with dodge repeat action decks when playing the Tremere > rather than resorting to TB. Er - just what is TB (I don't know all the abbrevs, and since I don't play Tremere I might have missed something)? Werner (A newcomer to this group)

Werner Arend <kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Karl Innes wrote: > [About the "no repeated actions" ruling] > > > In the end I think it was just to prevent people being overwhelmed in a > > single turn. I for one don't want to have to play with 8 wakes in every deck in > > order to deal with Freaky Bleed decks. I won't even try to respond ot your 6cl > > rule for certain cards, more trouble than its worth. What qualifies as an > > untap card? Majesty? Earthmeld? Change of Target? Hidden Lurker?? Force of > > Will?? I don't want to have to check the Banned, Restricted, 2 of this 4 of > > that 6 of these on Tuesday list every time I build a deck. (can you say > > magic??) > I think card limits, rather than the "no repeated actions" rule makes the > game much more enjoyable - I just finished a game where everyone had 6 > Wakes, it just was no more fun at a point, and I don't want to *have to* > include 6 Sleeping Minds into *every* deck in order to cancel that out. > With a 3CL *for every card*, ok, you would have to be somewhat flexible, > but it would be much more enjoyable!! It would also not allow anyone to > create a deck depending on 2 or 3 cards. Hell, there are 1200+ cards in all > the series, and most of them are useful at one time or the other. So go > use them! Please look at the arguments at http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html both for and against the card limit, before you bring this topic up. Card limits are a perpetual flame war on this group, and an uninteresting one at that. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

>I think +1 stealth for *one* Tremere is ok - but it >shouldn't be more than that... The problem with that is that, while Brujah causes fear, a well-tuned Tremere causes terror. (And that, as you know, buries one of your vampires....) The problem is that the Tremere have better but rarer cards. So, for people with little cards the Brujah are dangerous, but for Mr. Suitcases they become rather dangerous. Also, Tremere have Dominate, which contains I think all the bleed mods (except for a little in AH disciplines). Muaziz can bleed for 1+Laptop+J.S.Simmons+Govern+Command of the Beast+Conditioning = 9, and that doesn't count Returning to Innocence, which jumps it to at least a whopping 16! That'd be bad for anyone's day. >Er - just what is TB Thoughts Betrayed is the classic example of a broken card (well, IMHO). It's a dominate card that, at superior, may be played before combat to force the opponent to play no cards during combat. --- Liam Burke "God is Love, Love is blind, I am blind, therefore I am God." -overheard