Broken Card of the Week, 11/27

Broken Card of the Week - 11/17/96 "There are some levels of power that no cost can justify." - go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) This week's card is one of the most unbalanced in the game, and key to the deck that met The Corrupter's challenge to break the Golden Tenets: Return to Innocence 4 Blood Action (D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if the action is successful. This card is extreme, but is it broken? It can generate huge bleeds, very easily -- a bleed of 15+ is not difficult to do with RtI, and that's half of starting pool. It's possible to build up huge bleeds in other ways, by using permanents, but those telegraph your punch. It's also possible to do a few smaller bleeds in the same turn, for the same total amount. But those require getting more than just one bleed through. Return to Innocence, in contrast, is a trump. You don't know it's coming, and it is overpowering. It does not allow your defense to gradually degrade -- everything is over, at once, and there you are, waiting for the next game. You can either counter-trump it, or you are lost. There are only three defenses: another 'broken' card, Archon Investigation; Deflection of some sort; heavy intercept (and this will not work if the player is using unblockable bleed -- Day Operations, Horrific Countenance, Walk through Arcadia -- to get the RtI through). Finally, it's not difficult to sidestep the cost of the card, steep as it seems. In combination with Possession, Malkavian Dementia, or a Soul Gem, it's almost free. And anything that lets you see your opponent's hand will eliminate the risks of Investigation or deflection. There is one last problem: it's used to defend another card which probably shouldn't be part of the set: "But there's a defense against RtI! With Archon Investigation, it is not so bad!" Return to Innocence and Archon Investigation are used to justify each other, in a dance of circular reasoning. Archon Investigation is the counter for Return to Innocence, while Return to Innocence is used to justify the necessity of Archon Investigation. How broken is RtI? (on a scale of 1-10) Overall rating: 9.0 James Hamblin: 8.0 Peter D Bakija: 9.0 "Ban this sucker. It is just plain wrong." Rulemonger: NR Sean Whittaker: 10.0 "Ban the damn thing." Steve Bucy: 9.0 Tom Doehne (yt) : 9.5 Can it be fixed? Not according to the raters, who give banning the card a whoppingame more] Here are the alternatives: Do nothing: 0 (this got -1s). This Action may not be modified: 1.0 The card becomes wallpaper. No Bleed Enhancers can be played: 2.1 Just doesn't do enough to fix it. Cost is 4 pool instead of 4 Blood: 5.6 Cost is more in line with benefit, but it's still a trump. And the favorite actual fix, at 7.0: (LSJ give this a 9) Add/change the following text: This vampire is removed from the game (not burned) if the action is successful. If successful, the target Methuselah may burn one or more vampires she controls to reduce the bleed by (1+X) for each vampire burned, where X is the capacity of the burned vampire. It's a fairly significant change, and banning it's probably simpler. A ban also removes the excuse this card provides for tn. Next week's card: Another (more obviously) trump card, Direct Intervention Comments welcome. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

>This week's card is one of the most unbalanced in the game, >and key to the deck that met The Corrupter's challenge to >break the Golden Tenets: >Return to Innocence 4 Blood Action >(D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity >of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if the action is >successful. I'd like to comment your work. First: /I have accepted that vampire's is cannon fodder, and Thoughts Betrayed and such card's kill the vampire's like flies.../ the Return To Innocence brings Vampire to thoughts of magic. You sit there and have a jolly good time, you are hunting as normal, one more round have passed, and the war is calm for a second. You feel safe and secure. You got 12 blood left and have begun to influence on a new vampire. The your predetor's minion tap his inner circle down to 5. With a quote like "Im tired of you" or "You should not think that you'r deck is any good" or "Im tired of playing... time to end this" he bleed's you on 14... and then add on something that make's the action unblockable. You die. You have 7 vampire's ready, 12 blood, sport bikes, vote's, anything... but you die. It's a kind of magic. "Hey im tired of this, You die"... Archon Investigation is added just to prevent the malkav's on bleding like hell on you with unstopable bleed's, If they would'nt had add it Malkav's would still been FAR superior to all other clan's. It's not need to be cuntered. Deflection and intercept work as normal, but not all clan's are privilegued with theese "powers". My friend won the first round in the Vampire Tournament here in Borås, sweden. Then he could not join anymore, becouse he had to do other things, but he defeated all of his opponent's. With freak drive, Return to Innocence, Dawn Operation, Skill Cards, Inner Circle members, stealth cards and last: Soul Gem Of Etrius - his deck was far more superior than hi's opponent's that did'nt stand a chance. Therefore: If you wan't to bring back strategy in Jyhad, BANN this card from play. Don't bann card's that kill vampire's, only this card... Couse it kill's your prey, not your prey's vampires.

In article <57jlb9$2...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) wrote: >Broken Card of the Week - 11/17/96 > >"There are some levels of power that no cost can justify." > - go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) > >This week's card is one of the most unbalanced in the game, >and key to the deck that met The Corrupter's challenge to >break the Golden Tenets: > >Return to Innocence 4 Blood Action >(D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity >of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if the action is >successful. > [ quoted text not captured ] Hello all. I agree completely with this card being banned and I haven't even seen it used in a game! It's just one of those cards that (as you said above) one minute your playing and having fun and the next your ousted. There are just too many things wrong with it (like it's cost being no cost at all, either you stop it or your dead.) to allow it to be an unbroken card. Ban it's what I say. However, I believe that what you said about Archon investigation is more questionable. I think that having a card to make people think twice before a big bleed is most definately not 'broken'. A game where everybody blleds for huge amounts is a boring game. Most decks will not be stuffed with archon investigations as they are useless when playing in an experianced playing group (unless one of them is gambling...) so I don't see what the problem is. If this card was banned then non-deflectors are at such a disadvantage when faced with a bleed deck they will not be able to compete and therefore the only decks that will be played will have bleed bounce capabilities which IMO is taking variation out of the game. This card slows down bleeders to a reasonable pace and therefore makes the game more tactically challenging (I.E Not just bleed for as much as they can but perhaps just limit themselves to three) and gives well designed decks a universal tactic against heavy bleeds. I cannot therefore see what the problem is, however I have a feeling someone will 'enlighten' me..... LOS

[ quoted text not captured ] AI has three problems: 1) Cost is disproportionate to the effect 2) It doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & Bleed 3) It encourages the existence of other trump cards. 1). The cost of AI is disproportionate to the effect. The effect of AI is to get back a large chunk of pool that you just got bled for and unpreventably burn an opponent's (active) vampire. For this you pay 3 pool. Vulnerability is the only other Master card that burns a vampire, and it costs 2 pool, can be countered by SR, and doesn't get you pool either. 2). AI doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & Bleed As many people have pointed out, AI does not eliminate S&B from the game. Presumably, if the Malks can get one bleed through at +3 stealth, they can get as many as they like. Instead of getting one bleed through for 7 pool, they get 3 for 3. Entirely true. Unfortunately, the B&B (Tremere, Brujah, Toreador, Giovanni) and Tap&Bleed (Toreador, Ventrue, Brujah) clans can't guarantee that they'll get one bleed through on any given turn. The few times they do get a bleed through, the bleed has to be for as large as possible, or they'll die (the race between B&B and S&B will almost always go to the S&B if the bleeds are confined to 3 pts or less). AI hoses these clans. I mean, do you block Anvil with a Laptop and Legal Manipulations, thereby losing a vampire, or do you take the bleed and AI, losing 3 pool and destroying Anvil? Gee, I just don't know. (Hell, I'd usually pay 3 pool just to torpor Anvil, if such a card existed). 3). It encourages the existence of other trump cards. AI exists, so RtI is balanced. Ai needs to be toned done, so Direct Intervention enters the card set. And so on. Finally, as far as bleed defense goes: Intercept, blood gain, rush, bounce, or race. Why is this a hard concept? Good intercept decks stop good stealth decks about 1/2 the time. Blood gain decks can laugh off S&B ("Well, I lost 12 pool last turn, so I'll have to call these to Consangineous Boons to get back 14, and then take 5 blood off my blood dolls... no problem"). Rush decks- I've never been in a game with Malks and a Rush deck where Ozmo wasn't burned at least once. Usually twice (Malks brought him out again). Bounce is self-evident. Race - ever see a Malk deck prey on another? AI isn't needed, because well designed decks can deal with S&B about as well as they can deal with anything else. Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

I like the idea of throwing in some anti-bleed cards, but I agree that AI itself is too extreme. The Vampire universe should not be one where no inner circle member dare equip with a laptop for fear of anihilation. How about a card that inflicts 1 Ag damage for each point of bleed above 3?

mlan...@io.com (Mark Langsdorf) writes: >3). It encourages the existence of other trump cards. > AI exists, so RtI is balanced. Ai needs to be toned done, so >Direct Intervention enters the card set. And so on. Just a note: Direct Intervention is powerless against Master cards (like AI). Direct Intervention only counters "minion" cards. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker

<my arguement why Archon investigation was not 'broken' snipped> >AI has three problems: > 1) Cost is disproportionate to the effect > 2) It doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & >Bleed > 3) It encourages the existence of other trump cards. >1). The cost of AI is disproportionate to the effect. > The effect of AI is to get back a large chunk of pool that you >just got bled for and unpreventably burn an opponent's (active) vampire. >For this you pay 3 pool. The whole point with Archon investigation is to stop people bleeding for more then three without first thinking of the posible consequences. This means that bleed decks will have to be tactical in there bleeds rather than just going 'Yes I'm through! Take a 7 bleed!' and kill there opposition in two bleeds! Mind you, they still can do this but it is risky as they may lose a vampire. Also, if a bleed deck is at the table and you have 3 Archon investigations in you are well prepared to deal with them if they gamble, but what if they don't? Do you discard the archons and allow yourself to be perhaps bled for a huge amount or play effectively with a hand of six? What if there is no heavy bleeding deck? then your AI's are useless. Tactics suddenly becomes very important. As for the fact that you 'get the pool back' that you would have lost, isn't this comparible with telepathicly countering a big bleed? The fact that it could burn one of their vampires is the deterent which makes bleed decks tactical in the first place. This perhaps is not equal to it's cost but it is meant as a deterent so is justifiable. > Vulnerability is the only other Master card that burns a vampire, >and it costs 2 pool, can be countered by SR, and doesn't get you pool >either. > >2). AI doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & Bleed > As many people have pointed out, AI does not eliminate S&B from >the game. No it doesn't, if it did I would say it was broken. It just means that the S&B can't win in two unblocked, unbounced bleeds which it could otherwise. If you think that is fun then fair enough... > Presumably, if the Malks can get one bleed through at +3 >stealth, they can get as many as they like. Instead of getting one bleed >through for 7 pool, they get 3 for 3. In order order to do that they need to burn incredibly more stealth and so may run out of steam by the time they have ousted their prey. Also, the deck design must be of a higher standard then just throwing together some stealth and some bleed together as they have to think about geting multiple bleeds through a turn rather then just one. > Entirely true. > Unfortunately, the B&B (Tremere, Brujah, Toreador, Giovanni) and >Tap&Bleed (Toreador, Ventrue, Brujah) clans can't guarantee that they'll >get one bleed through on any given turn. The few times they do get a >bleed through, the bleed has to be for as large as possible, or they'll >die (the race between B&B and S&B will almost always go to the S&B if the >bleeds are confined to 3 pts or less. B&B that I have seen tend to have to be much more combat then bleed (or they get killed). Therefore they basically bleed until you cannot block them (as all your guys are in torpor) or don't want to block them and you bleed them for 3 or 4. They are better then S&B in that they cannot be rushed to death but have the disadvantage of being slower at ousting their prey. A fair trade off I believe. Tap and bleed are pretty much killed off by the GT anyway but via misdirction and three sleeping minds one can do three unblockable actions. Do these really need to be bleeds of 5 or 6? My computer seems to have deleted the rest of your message but it was basically about the fact that AI means 'trump' cards like RtI and Direct intervention exists. Well I think RtI should be banned as multiples of this card are directly useful and not conditional so therefore 'broken'. AI is not as if you stick in 10 of them you will get a beautiful hand jam unless you predator is a bleed deck that insists on bleeding for more than three and doesn't learn from his mistakes. I don't know what direct intervention does so I cannot comment on this card. AI makes the game more tactical and means that non-bleed bounce decks stand more of a chance against bleed decks. This in my opinion make the game a hell of a lot more interesting and therefore should not be officially banned. If you want to ban it as a house rule then so be it. LOS

> <Archon Investigation> AI has three problems: > >1). The cost of AI is disproportionate to the effect. > The effect of AI is to get back a large chunk of pool that you >just got bled for and unpreventably burn an opponent's (active) vampire. >For this you pay 3 pool. > Vulnerability is the only other Master card that burns a vampire, >and it costs 2 pool, can be countered by SR, and doesn't get you pool >either. Archon Investigation is possibly cheap, but the effect thatit has had on game play, In my experience (IME), far out weighs this fact. AI causes all bleed decks to do three bleeds or less. This tends to have a beneficial effect, IMO, on game play - making the game longer, more competitive and more challenging (these, IMO, make the game more fun - others may disagree with this point) >2). AI doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & Bleed > As many people have pointed out, AI does not eliminate S&B from >the game. Presumably, if the Malks can get one bleed through at +3 >stealth, they can get as many as they like. Instead of getting one bleed >through for 7 pool, they get 3 for 3. Entirely true. Yes, and instead of being bled for 3 lots of that "7" you mentioned (as of course, malks can get all the actions through they like[??]) they get bled for 3 lot of 3 - thus making it a 9 bleed rather than a 21 bleed - no real difference there is there... In my experience AI does not eliminate Malks from the game - but who wants to do that - we just want to make S&B on a line with all other tactics, AI goes some of the way (but not quite enough, admittedly) to doing that. > Unfortunately, the B&B (Tremere, Brujah, Toreador, Giovanni) and >Tap&Bleed (Toreador, Ventrue, Brujah) clans can't guarantee that they'll >get one bleed through on any given turn. The few times they do get a >bleed through, the bleed has to be for as large as possible, or they'll >die (the race between B&B and S&B will almost always go to the S&B if the >bleeds are confined to 3 pts or less). I thought the idea of bruise and bleed was to get your vamps into combat, not especially to get your bleeds through. A bruise and bleed deck is likely to have a lot more combat than a S&B deck will have stealth (Surely?) therfore it is more likely to use action modifier bleeds rather than action bleeds - so that they can bluff and if they get blocked they won't loose the bleed cards. IME Bruise and bleed decks hardly ever bleed for more than 3 or 4 anyway. As for Tap and bleed - a good player will probably be wary of a tap and bleed deck building up for a big bleed and so would let through a 3 bleed so that the Tap & Bleed deck can't majesty and bleed him for 7 instead. How does Tap & Bleed still work under no repeat actions rules? > AI hoses these clans. I mean, do you block Anvil with a Laptop >and Legal Manipulations, thereby losing a vampire, or do you take the >bleed and AI, losing 3 pool and destroying Anvil? Gee, I just don't know. >(Hell, I'd usually pay 3 pool just to torpor Anvil, if such a card >existed). Okay then, why not instead use anvil with a laptop, declare a bleed. If its blocked then you can beat up someone, if its not then you play an Aire of Elation and bleed for the same at the same blood cost (given a presence skill card) or just bleed for three - then you won't risk the AI... >3). It encourages the existence of other trump cards. > AI exists, so RtI is balanced. Ai needs to be toned done, so >Direct Intervention enters the card set. And so on. Thats a good point that I never thought of w.r.t the RtI line - AI does balance it. Perhaps RtI is not so broken anyway? What does direct intervention do (never seen this card)? >Finally, as far as bleed defense goes: > Intercept, blood gain, rush, bounce, or race. Why is this a hard >concept? > Good intercept decks stop good stealth decks about 1/2 the time. Fair enough. I never thought that intercept was not a good counter to bleed. >Blood gain decks can laugh off S&B ("Well, I lost 12 pool last turn, so >I'll have to call these to Consangineous Boons to get back 14, and then >take 5 blood off my blood dolls... no problem"). Hmm. a blood gain deck. Aren't I glad that I play CL so that such boring monstrosities (sp?) are unplayable without a decent major tactic for it to be joined with. >Rush decks- I've never >been in a game with Malks and a Rush deck where Ozmo wasn't burned at >least once. Usually twice (Malks brought him out again). This is again a fair point. >Bounce is >self-evident. Race - ever see a Malk deck prey on another? another fair point > AI isn't needed, because well designed decks can deal with S&B >about as well as they can deal with anything else. Why does the fact that the card isn't needed make it broken? It makes the game more fun, IMO, therfore cannot be seen to be completely broken, surely? cheerio, Anon.

I think that banning it is unnecesarry, b/c in order to use it properly, people will see it coming, b/c you have to go buy the soul gem before hand. Now that everyone knows about the ettrius deck, someone at the table will send Anvil to knock Ettrius into torpor and then diablerize the soul gem. However, the card should never have been printed. Archon Investigation is not a problem b/c bleeding for more than 3 is always impolite, and a hoser for that doesn't bother me at all. [ quoted text not captured ] : How broken is RtI? (on a scale of 1-10) : Overall rating: 9.0 : James Hamblin: 8.0 : Peter D Bakija: 9.0 "Ban this sucker. It is just plain wrong." : Rulemonger: NR : Sean Whittaker: 10.0 "Ban the damn thing." : Steve Bucy: 9.0 : Tom Doehne (yt) : 9.5 : Can it be fixed? Not according to the raters, who give banning the : card a whoppingame more] : Here are the alternatives: : Do nothing: 0 (this got -1s). : This Action may not be modified: 1.0 The card becomes wallpaper. : No Bleed Enhancers can be played: 2.1 Just doesn't do enough to fix it. : Cost is 4 pool instead of 4 Blood: 5.6 Cost is more in line with benefit, : but it's still a trump. : And the favorite actual fix, at 7.0: (LSJ give this a 9) : Add/change the following text: : This vampire is removed from the game (not burned) if the action is : successful. If successful, the target Methuselah may burn one or more : vampires she controls to reduce the bleed by (1+X) for each vampire : burned, where X is the capacity of the burned vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <581pqh$f1k...@leeds.ac.uk>, Anonymous <Fla...@flaergh.flaergh.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > >Archon Investigation is possibly cheap, but the effect thatit has had on >game play, In my experience (IME), far out weighs this fact. AI causes all >bleed decks to do three bleeds or less. This tends to have a beneficial >effect, IMO, on game play - making the game longer, more competitive and >more challenging (these, IMO, make the game more fun - others may disagree >with this point) I think I would. >>2). AI doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed and Tap & Bleed >> As many people have pointed out, AI does not eliminate S&B from >>the game. Presumably, if the Malks can get one bleed through at +3 >>stealth, they can get as many as they like. Instead of getting one bleed >>through for 7 pool, they get 3 for 3. Entirely true. > >Yes, and instead of being bled for 3 lots of that "7" you mentioned (as of >course, malks can get all the actions through they like[??]) they get bled >for 3 lot of 3 - thus making it a 9 bleed rather than a 21 bleed - no real >difference there is there... In my experience AI does not eliminate Malks >from the game - but who wants to do that - we just want to make S&B on a >line with all other tactics, AI goes some of the way (but not quite enough, >admittedly) to doing that. OK, AI hurts stealth/bleed. It hurts Malk decks a lot, actually. The point of a Malk stealth/bleed deck, not surprisingly, is to bleed for a lot. If you restrict Malks to bleeding for <=3 each time, that means they have to live for longer, which is difficult since they have almost no combat defense (except Obedience, but if you can only bleed for 3, you'd need to tap out and not be able to play Obedience). There are plenty of other good cards for stopping stealth bleed. Most of them say something like "+x intercept", and Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics don't even require a discipline. >I thought the idea of bruise and bleed was to get your vamps into combat, >not especially to get your bleeds through. A bruise and bleed deck is likely >to have a lot more combat than a S&B deck will have stealth (Surely?) >therfore it is more likely to use action modifier bleeds rather than action >bleeds - so that they can bluff and if they get blocked they won't loose the >bleed cards. IME Bruise and bleed decks hardly ever bleed for more than 3 or >4 anyway. It's called bruise and bleed for a reason (I like stating the obvious). Sure it'll have some combat, but a B/B bleed will usually get destroyed in combat by a pure combat deck, or do poorly against a S:CE deck. It's difficult to build a deck that's great in combat and still have room left for bleed mods. So, if you restrict the B/B decks to bleeding for 3 and not the occasional bleed of 5 or more, they're hurt a lot also, and you don't hear people complaining about overpowerful B/B decks too often, except maybe Tremere. Also, you mention that mods would be used more than actions. This might be true for the Tremere or Giovanni, but the Brujah and Toreador have 1 bleed mod, and at least 7 presence bleed actions, and the actions also have good side effects. So, a presence bleed deck can't rely on Aire of Elation. >As for Tap and bleed - a good player will probably be wary of a tap and >bleed deck building up for a big bleed and so would let through a 3 bleed so >that the Tap & Bleed deck can't majesty and bleed him for 7 instead. How >does Tap & Bleed still work under no repeat actions rules? It doesn't work. The vampire would have to either take a non-bleeding action or remain untapped. >Okay then, why not instead use anvil with a laptop, declare a bleed. If its >blocked then you can beat up someone, if its not then you play an Aire of >Elation and bleed for the same at the same blood cost (given a presence >skill card) or just bleed for three - then you won't risk the AI... Because decks should have defense. If you know Anvil's going to get a laptop and bleed for 4, you should be prepared to block it, bounce it, or take it. The methusealh controlling Anvil would equip him with a laptop because a bleed of 4 hurts his prey more than a bleed of 3, and thus his prey will either lose more blood or be more likely to block and possibly lose a vampire. Bruise and bleed decks aren't that scary if the max bleed is only 3. >Thats a good point that I never thought of w.r.t the RtI line - AI does >balance it. Perhaps RtI is not so broken anyway? No, that's not a good point. Justifying one trump with another is a really bad idea, as many other people have said. >What does direct intervention do (never seen this card)? It's a Sudden Reversal for minion cards that costs 1 pool. >Fair enough. I never thought that intercept was not a good counter to bleed. Then what do we need AI for? You're contradicting yourself. >Hmm. a blood gain deck. Aren't I glad that I play CL so that such boring >monstrosities (sp?) are unplayable without a decent major tactic for it to >be joined with. Yeah, who'd want to play NL, where lots of new and different strategies are available, when we can all play CL and miss most of them? Wait, maybe I *want* to see new ideas. >Why does the fact that the card isn't needed make it broken? It makes the >game more fun, IMO, therfore cannot be seen to be completely broken, surely? No it doesn't. It really screws whoever its target is. It might be fun to say "Ha ha. I just burned your IC member with a Pulse and a Laptop and JS and Tasha bleeding with Govern and Conditioning", but then the other player has effectively lost 12 pool, a couple turns worth of actions and influence, and lots of useful cards on that minion. The IC member had earned the right to bleed for more than 3 by recruiting/equipping/getting the Pulse. Should one card (and 3 pool) be able to just instantly destroy all that work? No, that's ridiculous. Every deck should have some way of dealing with large bleeds. Every clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with disciplineless cards. There's no reason for a card as obviously broken as AI. Just my opinions... Brian

Anonymous wrote: "Archon Investigation is possibly cheap, but the effect that it has had on game play, In my experience (IME), far out weighs this fact. AI causes all bleed decks to do three bleeds or less. This tends to have a beneficial effect, IMO, on game play - making the game longer, more competitive and more challenging (these, IMO, make the game more fun - others may disagree with this point)" Debating the merits and flaws of Archon Investigation from different sides of the 4CL/NL fence is fairly pointless as the effect that AI has on a 4 Card Limit environment is vastly different that the effect AI has on a No Card Limit enviornment (I have no wish to turn this thread into another CL/NL debate. I am just pointing out obsefvable differences). In a 4CL environment, AI is an important tool for keeping the balance because S+B decks are completely unhindered by 4CL (due to the reundndancy of Obfuscate and Dominate cards in the set), as opposed to all other deck designs. Thus, under 4CL, S+B decks tend to either dominate the playing field or are "shamed" out of the enviornment. Due to the design restrictions caused by 4CL, there are no consistent bleed defenses: Bleed Bounce is limited to 4 Deflections (excellent) and 4 of the new Rederection (iffy), which kind of bite. If you are the Malkavians or the Tremere, you can have 12, which is almost acceptable (because Redirection and Telepathic Misdirection are of questionable reliability due to the need for the superior ability) if you wish to have Bounce as a major defense, but all single Dominate or Auspex clans are screwed as to bleed bounce, especially considering how Redirection and Telepathic Misdirection are only useful at superior. Bleed reduction, which requires Telepathic Counter is no longer a viable bleed defense when limited to 4. Rush defense (i.e. Beat up the guy bleeding you before he kills you) is more or less ineffective as a bleed defense under 4CL, as vastly discussed under the "4CL and Rush" thread elswhere in this group. Race defense (kill my prey before I am dead...) is the only really reliable bleed defense under 4CL, which means to compete with a S+B deck you need to play a S+B deck. Under NL, all of these defenses are perfectly viable, and usually perfectly effective. Under 4CL, AI is a needed defense against S+B, as there are no other reliable defenses other than the threat of AI to slow down the speed of S+B. Under NL, big S+B decks don't do all that well, as decks than can generate big bleeds on a consistent basis just get eaten alive by Rush decks ("Oh no! Ozmo has been burnt! Again!"). The biggest problem I have found to deal with in NL are weenie S+B decks (like the "Setite" deck posted by James Hamblin recently in another big thread), where the vampires rarely ever bleed for more than 3, so AI is no help anyway. Under NL, Archon Investigation is completely unneeded, and verges on complete overkill. Under 4CL, AI is a needed staple, if only to deal with S+B decks. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Now, maybe there will be some peace and quiet in this place." -Yojimbo

>3). It encourages the existence of other trump cards. > AI exists, so RtI is balanced. Ai needs to be toned done, so >Direct Intervention enters the card set. And so on. Return To Innocence is the ONLY REAL fast way to definitly KILL ANOTHER PLAYER... Not turning his vampire's to Cannon Fodder - you kill him, so he will not be in play anymore... I dont care if you burn ALL my Vampires with one card... Why would you use it when you can kill ME with one card? >Finally, as far as bleed defense goes: > Intercept, blood gain, rush, bounce, or race. Why is this a hard >concept? > Good intercept decks stop good stealth decks about 1/2 the time. >Blood gain decks can laugh off S&B ("Well, I lost 12 pool last turn, so >I'll have to call these to Consangineous Boons to get back 14, and then >take 5 blood off my blood dolls... no problem"). Rush decks- I've never >been in a game with Malks and a Rush deck where Ozmo wasn't burned at >least once. Usually twice (Malks brought him out again). Bounce is >self-evident. Race - ever see a Malk deck prey on another? > AI isn't needed, because well designed decks can deal with S&B >about as well as they can deal with anything else. The argument like "Thoughts betrayed isnt that good, just use Elysium..." or "Kiss Of Ra isnt good, just add some Fortitude Cards..." or like you say "Build your deck to survive 4 stealth 14 bleeds" is so deranged that it could be. You know like I that a Gangrel NEVER will put Elysium in their deck, and NO ONE will put in lots of Auspex intercept in a Brujah deck just to intercept Malkav decks... And I have only seen ONE deck that have added Fortitude skill cards to survive Kiss Of Ra... Have you ever SEEN one Giovanni RtI deck with posessions misdirections and seduction ?

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, AI is not extreme at all... Why the hell do you need a LAPTOP on your IC for!? Before AI we banned all Malkav Decks from play, 6 bleed is just so boring.

You said every deck should have some way of dealing with large bleeds... well, my combat deck's way is to have one single AI stuck in there. It may not help with a determined big bleeder, but it makes the occasional big bleeder wary and may save my butt. I don't think the card's broken-- I hardly ever use it. But I will say that I rejoiced when I first saw it. Now I don't get ousted in four turns, or not as often anyway. --Katherine Dazazel

[ quoted text not captured ] No offense intended in these questions, but how long have you been playing? How many rushes do you have in your deck? You play gangrel, right? Okay, try this scenario. A bleed deck has pulled out a vampire, and you've pulled out a vamp with protean and animalism(my second favorite combat combo besides potence celerity). It's your turn, and you've just taken a bleed for a lot from the vampire, which cost them blood. You rush the vampire. If it's a dominate bleed deck, they can only obedience you; this will likely not happen. You enter combat. Strike: Wolf Claws with Scorpion Sting. They can't dodge, they can't S:CE, because they're dominate obfuscate, and Mercy for the weak requires more blood than the other vampire... hmm. They're in torpor, and in the shit. If you have a dependable rush deck which is well constructed, with maybe a little stealth so your rush actions aren't blocked, this should be a fairly common occurence. And each time they bring out a vampire, you can torporize it before they can act with it. Rush can, and does, handle S&B fairly easily. Brujah have it better; they have immortal grapple, one of my favorite cards in the game for combat decks, but the Gangrel have their own ways of dealing with Bleed. AI is far too powerful a hoser, and not needed in the first place. Thank you for listening(assuming that you did). Alec Chang

In article <58241f$9...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, bwel...@Glue.umd.edu (Brian E. Wellington) wrote: [a fair bit, most points snipped] Just to take you up on a couple of points: Point 1 Anonymous wrote: "Fair enough. I never thought that intercept was not a good counter to bleed." Brian wrote: "Then what do we need AI for? You're contradicting yourself!" No he's not. He's saying that he acknowledges intercept as a good counter to bleed. He didn't say the ONLY counter. Point 2 Brian wrote: "Every clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with disciplineless cards." I'm not sure this is correct either. What about clans that lack dominate or auspex? These are Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Assamites and Settites. Ravnos have the best out of these with the Chimestry stealth reduction cards. However, the rest do not have any adequate defence. You could argue that these could rush the bleeders. Alas though this will not work because you have to get the bleeders to zero capacity or in torpor. Very difficult indeed for a gangrel deck that needs time to build up for if they go in scorpian stings and aggro blazing then the rhyme, 'a rotschreck a day keeps the gangrel away' would certainly seem to apply! Having played with the gangrel I know only too well of the dangers of S+B to my right. But that's just the Gangrel. For the other clans what do you do? Do you say well you must rush them then; this means of course that they are limited to one particular tactic simply because they cannot defend against S+B. Not a very convincing argument. Peter

> Anonymous wrote: > >3). It encourages the existence of other trump cards. > > AI exists, so RtI is balanced. Ai needs to be toned done, so > >Direct Intervention enters the card set. And so on. > Thats a good point that I never thought of w.r.t the RtI line - AI does > balance it. Perhaps RtI is not so broken anyway? > What does direct intervention do (never seen this card)? You know, that's amazing. Most people, when told of a card that is broken and another card which was made broken because of the first card would assume that getting rid of both cards would be good for the game. What you are doing here is wanting to keep AI so badly that you would reconsider the merits of RTI. Put it this way-suppose I have a heavy bleed deck. Suppose all my friends play heavy bleed, and the only distinction between the winner and the losers is who pulls out the RTI first. Suppose, also, that all my friends have Archon Investigation, too. Yes, it is balanced in this playcircle. But it is also skewed so badly that the game is not Jyhad-appropriate costs for resources. Suppose that we met to ban unfair cards on the net. Because we all prefer big bleeds, we decide that AI is unfair, but RTI is not. We don't want to ban RTI for personal reasons, instead of the fact that it is an unfair card. With fairness in mind, we allow AI to be played with also because it is fair that both the bleed and anti-bleed be played. So, with an eye to fairness, we play with unfair cards. Does this sound stupid to you? There are no merits to either RTI or AI, and there are none for Direct Intervention, a Master OOTurn which costs 1 pool to cancel a minion card played-burn the card played and return the blood to the acting minion. All of the cards above are unfair trumps, relied upon by those who cannot deal with large bleeds or can deal unfairly large, unblockable bleeds. These trumps are not fair, and they do not require any intelligence at all to use. They depend upon each other to justify their existence, and the need for AI as protection against RTI justifies it (in the eyes of WotC), as well as the ability to use and make RTI and Spiridonas because of the availability of AI. You cannot condemn one and not the other. If you want to play with both RTI and AI, then the games will be as WotC intended them-just like Magic. Boring trumps, all of them. "I attack with my Polar Kraken and a Barreling Attack. I Dark Banishing your Kraken. I Counterspell your Dark Banishing. Die." -Nathan Harada

In article <5869km$e7c...@leeds.ac.uk>, DPH <CLA...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >In article <58241f$9...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, > bwel...@Glue.umd.edu (Brian E. Wellington) wrote: > >Point 2 >Brian wrote: >"Every clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with >disciplineless cards." > >I'm not sure this is correct either. What about clans that lack dominate or >auspex? These are Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Assamites and >Settites. Ravnos have the best out of these with the Chimestry stealth >reduction cards. However, the rest do not have any adequate defence. You >could argue that these could rush the bleeders. Alas though this will not >work because you have to get the bleeders to zero capacity or in torpor. > > [a bunch of stuff about gangrel snipped] Well, all of these clans can still play Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics for +2 intercept against bleeds. Or get Sport Bikes. And there's always the News Radio/Tabloid/Rumor Mill. 3 of these clans have Animalism, so they can get Raven Spies or Raptors, which are stackable, and have Cat's Guidance and virtually unlimited untaps, which means the minion with permanent intercept can keep blocking and the stealth bleeder will eventually run out of stealth or hand jam. The Ravnos stealth reduction works really well with the intercept provided by Animalism, and Ignus Fatuus also can be used to reduce a bleed. Brujah have some low-capacity princes who can play 2nd Tradition. Most decks with any of these cards should have a chance of stopping stealth bleed. Rush is also viable. The Brujah and Nosferatu have potence, which can easily torpor anyone first round. The Assamites can also. The Gangrel and Ravnos can use traps and Fortitude, or the Gangrel can use Protean and the Ravnos Mass-Reality enhnaced guns. I'd say something about the Settites, but I really can't think of anything good. Maybe they could race, but that's about it. Anyway, I think AI is broken. It doesn't bother me if no one else agrees... Brian

Brian E. Wellington wrote: [snip previous stuff} > [also snip stuff about non-auspex intercept] > > Rush is also viable. The Brujah and Nosferatu have potence, which can > easily torpor anyone first round. The Assamites can also. The Gangrel > and Ravnos can use traps and Fortitude, or the Gangrel can use Protean > and the Ravnos Mass-Reality enhnaced guns. I'd say something about the > Settites, but I really can't think of anything good. Maybe they could > race, but that's about it. > > Anyway, I think AI is broken. It doesn't bother me if no one else > agrees... Don't worry, Brian; I'll agree with you! :) However, it does seem that the original card being reviewed, Direct Intervention, has been lost in this shift to AI. Let me repeat that it is quite a fallacy to justify the existence of a trump card (DI) because it counters another (AI), which in turn trumps another (RtI). Do people now see why this systematic review was instituted in the first place? I don't believe that anyone wants to see this game go the way of Mt$... but that's what will happen if people ignore the unbalancing cards of the Sabbat and the five or so from the original three sets. Isn't it interesting that there appears to be an increased frequency of trumps appearing following the end of Richard Garfield's direct involvment? Later, Sean Whittaker

In article <5869km$e7c...@leeds.ac.uk> CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >In article <58241f$9...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, > bwel...@Glue.umd.edu (Brian E. Wellington) wrote: >[a fair bit, most points snipped] > >Just to take you up on a couple of points: > >Point 1 >Anonymous wrote: >"Fair enough. I never thought that intercept was not a good counter to >bleed." > >Brian wrote: >"Then what do we need AI for? You're contradicting yourself!" > >No he's not. He's saying that he acknowledges intercept as a good counter to >bleed. He didn't say the ONLY counter. Brian's not arguing that Mr. Leeds is saying intercept is the only counter. Brian is saying that the Leeds poster is saying that intercept is not a good counter, and that it is a good counter. Please don't put arguments in your opponents' mouths just so that you can refute them. (Apologies for the "Mr. Leeds", but I lost the attribution). 'Mr. Leeds' is contradicting himself. What Brian was responding to, and what Brian included earlier in *his* response, was: ">Yes, and instead of being bled for 3 lots of that "7" you mentioned (as of >course, malks can get all the actions through they like[??]) they get bled >for 3 lot of 3 - thus making it a 9 bleed rather than a 21 bleed - no real >difference there is there... In my experience AI does not eliminate Malks >from the game - but who wants to do that - we just want to make S&B on a >line with all other tactics, AI goes some of the way (but not quite enough, >admittedly) to doing that." (Taking out adequate context is another dirty rhetorical trick, and one you should also avoid.) Here's the logic, so that you can follow it, now that I have provided the context you omitted: 1) S&B is not on a line with other tactics. 2) AI is needed to bring it into line (counter it adequately). (both from the above post) 3) Intercept is one method of dealing with (countering) S&B. 4) A good counter to a strategy will counter it adequately. (definitional) 5) S&B is not countered adequately by the methods available before Archon Investigation - derived from 1) and 2) 6) Intercept is a counter to S&B that existed before AI (fact, and 1)) 7) Intercept does not adequately counter S&B (derived from 6 and 5) 8) Intercept is not a good counter (4 and 7) So, our 'Mr. Leeds' poster was saying (in the above) that S&B was not a good counter. Hence the contradiction. If you want to disagree with the definition of "good counter", go ahead. I think it would be silly to argue that a good counter does not adequately counter something, though. Apologies to everyone else for my chopping logic. It unfortunately seems necessary. >Point 2 >Brian wrote: >"Every clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with >disciplineless cards." > >I'm not sure this is correct either. What about clans that lack dominate or >auspex? Are you suggesting that the only way to stop a bleed is bleed bounce? Of course not! Which leaves intercept, rush, and blood gain. >These are Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Assamites and >Settites. Ravnos have the best out of these with the Chimestry stealth >reduction cards. However, the rest do not have any adequate defence. You are falling into the fallacy that your CL world is representative. Rush *is* a very adequate defense to bleed under NL. I *like* to have a S&B predator when I'm playing rush. Rush and intercept take care of most of the clans you mention. The Settite defense is racing -- they have to oust their prey before they get ousted. > You >could argue that these could rush the bleeders. Alas though this will not >work because you have to get the bleeders to zero capacity or in torpor. And under NL, this is no problem. You should try building and playing a rush combat deck. They're very, very effective against S&B. (Ask your friends to let you play an NL deck, since rush combat is still somewhat crippled under CL even with the new cards, IMO You can argue that it won't be "degenerate", just focused.) >Very difficult indeed for a gangrel deck that needs time to build up for if >they go in scorpian stings and aggro blazing then the rhyme, 'a rotschreck a >day keeps the gangrel away' would certainly seem to apply! Having played >with the gangrel I know only too well of the dangers of S+B to my right. But having not played much NL, you don't have (evidently) adequate experience in how they play in that environment. Gangrel rush will work just fine. There's no build-up time if you're using a rush defense. Lucky Blow/Wolf Claws -- where's the buildup in that? So they play one OOT master - you hit them again. Now their vampire is in torpor. And yours has Movement of the Slow Body, and Rapid Healing. >But that's just the Gangrel. For the other clans what do you do? Do you say >well you must rush them then; this means of course that they are limited to >one particular tactic simply because they cannot defend against S+B. Not a >very convincing argument. Since rush *is* the defense, he's not arguing that they can't defend against S&B. Nor is he arguing that it's the only defense -- as I pointed out, Racing is also a defense. Blood gain is a defense. He is saying that, because the clans have an adequate defense, AI is unnecessary. (And remember, because those strategies don't work under *your* house rules does not mean that they don't work in other environments. I would agree that they don't work well under CL -- that's part of why so many people don't like CL.) P.S. Please fix your newsreader so that it does not send email *and* post a reply. I would rather just read the post, like (some) others on this group. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, DPH wrote: > In article <58241f$9...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, > bwel...@Glue.umd.edu (Brian E. Wellington) wrote: > Point 2 > Brian wrote: > "Every clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with > disciplineless cards." > I'm not sure this is correct either. What about clans that lack dominate or > auspex? These are Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Assamites and > Settites. Ravnos have the best out of these with the Chimestry stealth > reduction cards. However, the rest do not have any adequate defence. You > could argue that these could rush the bleeders. Alas though this will not > work because you have to get the bleeders to zero capacity or in torpor. > Very difficult indeed for a gangrel deck that needs time to build up for if > they go in scorpian stings and aggro blazing then the rhyme, 'a rotschreck a > day keeps the gangrel away' would certainly seem to apply! Having played > with the gangrel I know only too well of the dangers of S+B to my right. Gangrel Rush's (or any Rush deck's) inability to deal with S&B is a phenomena I've only seen in newer players or in CL decks. I would expect this comes from an inconsistency in being able to draw Gangrel oomph (Claws) more typical to that environment. Rotschreck as defense is highly debateable, as WotC quadruple reversal on that card, as well as its misprinting of its effect would leave many (myself included) to not heed the more recent rotschreck rulings. Of course that stance, along with many others, is just an unofficial house rule. > But that's just the Gangrel. For the other clans what do you do? Do you say > well you must rush them then; this means of course that they are limited to > one particular tactic simply because they cannot defend against S+B. Not a > very convincing argument. To reiterate from a long ago post I made (the following are "standard" easy defenses, not meant to be exhaustive. E.g., my own Nossie deck uses blood gain defense, though many wouldn't), and assume a DCI or SPTR environment: Assamites: Rush Brujah: Rush, Blood Gain Followers of Set: Race, Blood Gain Gangrel: Rush, Intercept Giovanni: Deflection, Rush, Race Lasombra: Rush, Deflection, Race Malkavian: Intercept, Deflection, Race, Reduce Nosferatu: Intercept, Rush Ravnos: Rush, Intercept Toreador: Race, Rush, Intercept, Reduce, Blood Gain Tremere: Race, Rush, Intercept, Deflection, Reduce Tzimisce: Intercept, Reduce Ventrue: Deflection, Race, Blood Gain Caitiff/Panders: Race, Rush As noted above, these are not all inclusive. @ 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*++?

In article <32a6a139...@news.lava.net>, Alec Chang <te...@lava.net> wrote: Just a side note. >You rush the vampire. If it's a dominate bleed deck, they can only >obedience you; this will likely not happen. You enter combat. >Strike: Wolf Claws with Scorpion Sting. They can't dodge, they can't >S:CE, because they're dominate obfuscate, and Mercy for the weak >requires more blood than the other vampire... hmm. They're in >torpor, and in the shit. Unless they played Thoughts Betrayed at the beginning of combat. You've still cost them 2 blood, so try again... -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

>OK, AI hurts stealth/bleed. It hurts Malk decks a lot, actually. The >point of a Malk stealth/bleed deck, not surprisingly, is to bleed for >a lot. If you restrict Malks to bleeding for <=3 each time, that means >they have to live for longer, which is difficult since they have almost >no combat defense (except Obedience, but if you can only bleed for 3, >you'd need to tap out and not be able to play Obedience). There are >plenty of other good cards for stopping stealth bleed. Most of them >say something like "+x intercept", and Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics >don't even require a discipline. Malkav DO have Combat Defence, and my version is the best: Obedience... Lot's of em... Unfortunally standard Jyhad players dont have over 20 Obedience like me (one of my friends have 16 psyche) but combat is a rare thing with my deck... You know, Bums rush have no stealth... Bums Rush is done with an acting minion... Other defence is the standard Dodge (just like nosferatu), thoughts Betrayed, deflection and Telepathic Counter. I always WIN with my malkav deck... and I never, never bleed for more than 3. - About tap N Bleed decks - With 4 vampires out, one misdirection and all four bleeding for 3 (or voting?) make 12 bleed together. I made 16 last time with my Ventrue deck (and I still never bleed for more than 3). >Because decks should have defense. If you know Anvil's going to get >a laptop and bleed for 4, you should be prepared to block it, bounce >it, or take it. The methusealh controlling Anvil would equip him >with a laptop because a bleed of 4 hurts his prey more than a bleed of 3, >and thus his prey will either lose more blood or be more likely to block >and possibly lose a vampire. Bruise and bleed decks aren't that scary >if the max bleed is only 3. A bleed for 4 is just one more than 3 bleed. 3 bleed is still pretty heavy. And if you bleed your prey for at least three each round, then he soon HAVE to block due lack of pool left to take another 3 bleed. >No, that's not a good point. Justifying one trump with another is a >really bad idea, as many other people have said. A trumph card should easily be banned instead of adding anti carda... Unfortunally there is always people who have different thoughts of which card's that should be banned... Here is some cards that people want to ban in my group: Anathema: Automaticly kills a vampire, sooner or later - gangrel Player Kiss Of Ra: "Send a vampire to torpor" isnt a balanced card at all. - brujah player Thoughts Betrayed: "Your thoughts betray you, Yes, i know that you are immortal due to your fortitude, therefore you are a easy kill". gangrel AND brujah Player Earth Meld: "For whimps" Brujah Player Majesty: "For whimps" Brujah Player Return To Innocence: "Are you stupid or what?" "Cheater!" "You cant win without it, can you?" "Youre spoiling the game" Some guys... The Funny thing that ALL my friends INCLUDING the Malkavian players welcomed AI with open arms, (Since malkav players usually was banned from playing their decks). >Then what do we need AI for? To balance the game. >No it doesn't. It really screws whoever its target is. It might be >fun to say "Ha ha. I just burned your IC member with a Pulse and a Laptop >and JS and Tasha bleeding with Govern and Conditioning", but then the >other player has effectively lost 12 pool, a couple turns worth of actions >and influence, and lots of useful cards on that minion. The IC member had >earned the right to bleed for more than 3 by recruiting/equipping/getting >the Pulse. Should one card (and 3 pool) be able to just instantly destroy >all that work? >No, that's ridiculous. Its not... If the player with the IC member is such fool to put out every +X bleed card on him and try to bleed for a huge bleed, than he is definitly deserved a AI. 10 bleeds aint fun. 10 bleed aint V:Tes. 10 Bleed is magic TG. >Every deck should have some way of dealing with large bleeds. Every >clan has at least some way of stopping bleeds, even if it is with >disciplineless cards. There's no reason for a card as obviously broken >as AI. They dont. Only auspex and dominate can defend huge bleeds, made with Day Operation. And if you only use intercept cards in your deck and nothing else, then you should try something else and enjoy the game.

staffan.bengtsson wrote: > > Malkav DO have Combat Defence, and my version is the best: > Obedience... Lot's of em... > > Unfortunally standard Jyhad players dont have over 20 Obedience like me > (one of my friends have 16 psyche) but combat is a rare thing with my deck... I always WIN with my malkav deck... and I never, never bleed for more than 3. I'll have to jump in on this claim... if you really do pack 20 Obediences in a 100 card library, you'd be dead meat in other environments. Right off the top of my head, my Assamite deck built around Thetmes and Al-Ahsraf, or a standard Gangrel deck using Wynn would laugh at Obedience, because you'd never have an old enough vampire to use it. It's a viable tactic, no doubt, but what sort of playgroup has allowed your Malkavian deck to win *100%* of its games? An uncompetitive one is my guess... Later, Sean

>You said every deck should have some way of dealing with large bleeds... >well, my combat deck's way is to have one single AI stuck in there. It >may not help with a determined big bleeder, but it makes the occasional >big bleeder wary and may save my butt. I don't think the card's >broken-- I hardly ever use it. But I will say that I rejoiced when I >first saw it. Now I don't get ousted in four turns, or not as often >anyway. My assamite deck, setite deck, Giovanni deck can intercept 1 stealth if im lucky and untapt - or have wake on my hand. My gangrel, brujah deck, Nosferatu Deck, Ventrue Deck and ravnos deck can intercept steatlth of 2 if I have right cards on the hand. My malkav deck, toreador deck, tremere Deck and Ventrue Antitribu deck can intercept stealth of 3 and above if im lucky and have right card in my hand. I wont add MORE intercept to surive against a bleed deck.

This is an explenation how Malkav survive Attacks... It's not any offence on you in anyway. No vampire where harmed in making this Message. - Long text about why AI is to powerful - >You rush the vampire. If it's a dominate bleed deck, they can only >obedience you; this will likely not happen. Depends of the number of obedience he have. (my Malkav deck of 100 cards have 20 and 2 leandro, one Lucian, one fortitude Skill and 4 dominate skill). >You enter combat. Thoughts betrayed, Elysium or Mariel - lady thunder with an secure haven. >Strike: Wolf Claws with Scorpion Sting. Try manouver: OBFUSCATE: Behind you: INF: Manouver, SUP: Dodge OBFUSCATE: Swallowed by the night INF: +1 stealth SUP: Manouver >They can't dodge, OBFUSCATE: Behind you: INF: Manouver, SUP: Dodge OBFUSCATE: Quick Exit: INF: Press, only useable to end combat SUP: Dodge AUSPEX: Read Intentions: INF: Press, only useable to end combat SUP: Dodge >they can't S:CE, because they're dominate obfuscate See the examples above - 1 way to prevent combat - 2 ways to combat ends - one way to make your cards worthless - 2 OBFUSCATE manouvers - 3 ways to dodge. >Mercy for the weak requires more blood than the other vampire... I have usually only 1 blood on Leandro, if my predetor dont use Donal o connor. I dont use Mercy For the week becouse I dont need to. >hmm. They're in torpor, and in the shit. Usually there is no Combat at all... Obedience stop everything, exept Haven Uncovered and 5 angry vampires. >Rush can, and does, handle S&B fairly easily. Brujah have it better; >they have immortal grapple, one of my favorite cards in the game for >combat decks, but the Gangrel have their own ways of dealing with >Bleed. AI is far too powerful a hoser, and not needed in the first >place. My Brujah Deck need AI.... But I dont have it in my deck - and thats becouse it usually jam my combat hand. >Thank you for listening(assuming that you did). Oh yes... i Did.... Trust me, Im not defending Malkavians in any way.... I have one deck in all clans exept the Sabbat ones.... the decks are good and contains the "Must have" rare cards like immortal Grapple. I NEVER, NEVER bleed for more than 3... And my Bleed Decks (Toreador, Ventrue and malkav) still win... You dont need to bleed for over 4 +2/3 stealth with 2-3 vampires... (It takes 3 vampires to bleed with a Govern + Conditioning and burn away more than 15 (half) of the preys pool). Without a card like AI I would bleed for as much that I could, and the game would become a boring Magic The Gathering challenge.

> Put it this way-suppose I have a heavy bleed deck. Suppose >all my friends play heavy bleed, and the only distinction between the >winner and the losers is who pulls out the RTI first. Suppose, also, >that all my friends have Archon Investigation, too. Yes, it is >balanced in this playcircle. But it is also skewed so badly that >the game is not Jyhad-appropriate costs for resources. Ah, a MAGIC tournament? > There are no merits to either RTI or AI, and there are none >for Direct Intervention, a Master OOTurn which costs 1 pool to cancel >a minion card played-burn the card played and return the blood to the >acting minion. All of the cards above are unfair trumps, relied upon >by those who cannot deal with large bleeds or can deal unfairly large, >unblockable bleeds. These trumps are not fair, and they do not require >any intelligence at all to use. Sudden Reversal - Burn a master Card/once per turn Direct Intervention - Burn a minion card/ once per turn Kiss Of Ra - Kills one Vampire (If he dont have fortitude) Archon Investigation - Kills one vampire (If he bleed you for 4 or more) Thoughts Betrayed - Kills one Vampire (yes) Anathema - kills one vampire (sooner or later) Protect thine Own - Kills one Vampire (non camarilla) Banishment/Snesory Deprivation - get rid of one vampire Return To Innocence - Kills one player > They depend upon each other to justify their existence, and >the need for AI as protection against RTI justifies it (in the eyes >of WotC), as well as the ability to use and make RTI and Spiridonas >because of the availability of AI. You cannot condemn one and not the >other. If you want to play with both RTI and AI, then the games will >be as WotC intended them-just like Magic. Boring trumps, all of them. > "I attack with my Polar Kraken and a Barreling Attack. I >Dark Banishing your Kraken. I Counterspell your Dark Banishing. >Die." The only card that I want to get rid of is Return To Innocence... Honestly! I still think cards like Thoughts betrayed and Anathema sucks, but the just kills ONE VAMPIRE... RtI kills a player (YES, if anyone say no thoose havnt had a +4 stealth/unblockable RtI on yourself when you have 14 blood left(half of your blood pool), and died)!

> Scott Whittaker wrote: > Don't worry, Brian; I'll agree with you! :) However, it does seem that > the original card being reviewed, Direct Intervention, has been lost in > this shift to AI. Let me repeat that it is quite a fallacy to justify > the existence of a trump card (DI) because it counters another (AI), > which in turn trumps another (RtI). Do people now see why this > systematic review was instituted in the first place? I don't believe > that anyone wants to see this game go the way of Mt$... but that's what > will happen if people ignore the unbalancing cards of the Sabbat and the > five or so from the original three sets. Isn't it interesting that there > appears to be an increased frequency of trumps appearing following the > end of Richard Garfield's direct involvment? Gosh, isn't it? Don't you just love those guys on the design team who have been there, making trumps, since the first counterspell? Here's something to talk about for the CL players out there.... Direct Intervention under 4CL is even worse. Just save them until the Majesties show up-then spend a pool to torporize a vampire. If you like, burn all the KRC, burn all the Wakes, and burn all the Arsons. If you know your opponent's decks rely on the four Praxis Seizures they have, or the Justicar vote, burn it. It costs you a pool. Big deal. I would spend a pool to burn a Hidden Lurker which would torporize one of my vampires, with pleasure. Under 4CL, there are a finite number of essential cards to a particular deck, which can always be matched by DI. I hate Counterspell. I hate it. I don't like Power Sink and Spell Blast either, though those are both better than Counterspell. What I hate is the sheer misuse of power counterspells have. I tap my sources and I spend my mana first, then I play my card, and then you can tap two Islands and spend one card to totally cancel the effects of mine. My mana is gone-probably more than you spent, at least one of my cards is gone, and some weenie loser with no imagination and too damn much money just destroyed one of the vital cards in my combination. The only recourse I have to this abuse is to play blue myself, with the same damned trumps. All blue decks look the same after a while-all Magic decks look the same after a while. It all looks the same. Everyone needs a Tomb of Ramses, everyone needs to have AI and DI because of RTI and TB and SDTMI (Stupid Design Team Magic Ideas). This is miserable... -Nathan Harada Hey, guys! Let's ban Sudden Reversal-yes, I really mean it. Why shouldn't the SR trump go, too? Is it only because it was in the basic set, along with Merill Molitor, that we aren't including it in this trump-hating session? Why is this trump fairer than the others?

In article <4343.6913...@mailbox.swipnet.se>, staffan.bengtsson <staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote: >Malkav DO have Combat Defence, and my version is the best: >Obedience... Lot's of em... Well, they do have to be untapped for that, and have intercept if the attack comes from a Haven, or a stealthed Bum's Rush, or most of the inherent attack abilities. >Other defence is the standard Dodge (just like nosferatu), thoughts Betrayed, >deflection and Telepathic Counter. I'm not sure what Deflection and Telepathic Counter have to do with combat defense. The Malks do have Dodge and the couple Obfuscate/Auspex combat cards, and Thoughts Betrayed, which is almost as broken as AI. >I always WIN with my malkav deck... and I never, never bleed for more than 3. That's pretty impressive. I've never seen a deck that always wins. Maybe you should post it so people can either be amazed of find problems with it. >- About tap N Bleed decks - > >With 4 vampires out, one misdirection and all four bleeding for 3 (or voting?) >make 12 bleed together. >I made 16 last time with my Ventrue deck >(and I still never bleed for more than 3). Well, assuming your prey has no untaps, and you can afford the Misdirection, and no one Sudden Reversals it. >A bleed for 4 is just one more than 3 bleed. 3 bleed is still pretty heavy. >And if you bleed your prey for at least three each round, then he soon HAVE >to block due lack of pool left to take another 3 bleed. Yeah, 4 is 1 more than 3 (getting that math degree helps sometimes). Therefore, there's no good reason that bleeding for 3 is OK but bleeding for 4 can burn the vampire. That's just silly. >A trumph card should easily be banned instead of adding anti cards... I agree on this one. >Unfortunally there is always people who have different thoughts of which card's >that should be banned... >Here is some cards that people want to ban in my group: >Anathema: Automaticly kills a vampire, sooner or later - gangrel Player Sometimes, unless the vampire can end combat, prevent damage, dodge, or gain blood faster than it loses blood. >Kiss Of Ra: "Send a vampire to torpor" isnt a balanced card at all. - brujah >player I've never seen this played and don't own one, so I can't comment. I think it would be too powerful, but nowhere near as bad as others. >Thoughts Betrayed: "Your thoughts betray you, Yes, i know that you are immortal >due to your fortitude, therefore you are a easy kill". gangrel AND brujah Player Yup, this card should be banned too. >Earth Meld: "For whimps" Brujah Player >Majesty: "For whimps" Brujah Player I have no problem with S:CE, and they've lost some of their power with the new "no repeat actions" rules. Gangrel really can't do too many different things, and Majesty at least costs 1 to untap. >Return To Innocence: "Are you stupid or what?" "Cheater!" "You cant win > without it, can you?" "Youre spoiling the game" Some guys... I don't think RtI is too powerful, but lots of other people do and I respect their opinions. >The Funny thing that ALL my friends INCLUDING the Malkavian players welcomed AI >with open arms, (Since malkav players usually was banned from playing their >decks). Interesting. But again, you can have your own opinions. Most people I know that I've asked dislike the card. >Its not... If the player with the IC member is such fool to put out every >+X bleed card on him and try to bleed for a huge bleed, than he is definitly >deserved a AI. Let's say you're playing Bruise and Bleed deck with very little stealth, and your prey's playing a weenie deck of some sort. Every time you bleed, it's blocked and you torpor a weenie. So what, if you can't get a bleed through, and a new weenie comes out to replace the old one. But you can equip your IC member (let's say Etrius) with a laptop and JS Simmons and Tasha Morgan at stealth, so it gets through. And you have the Govern in your hand. And finally, you draw a Bonding, and bleed for 9. You've earned it. The only way to get a bleed through is at stealth, so you have to make the stealthed bleed count. But then your prey plays AI, and you're completely screwed. >10 bleeds aint fun. 10 bleed aint V:Tes. 10 Bleed is magic TG. Well, I've never played Magic. No, 10 bleeds aren't fun. But sometimes that's what you need to do. Why restrict certain types of decks (large bleeds), and only allow others (small, more common bleeds). >They dont. Only auspex and dominate can defend huge bleeds, made with >Day Operation. That's true, I guess. But Day Op has a pretty hefty cost. If you want to send your big bleeder to torpor where he can be diablerized, that's your decision. Maybe I shouldn't post when I'm already in an exceedingly bad mood... Brian

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments about counterspell... > Hey, guys! Let's ban Sudden Reversal-yes, I really mean it. Why > shouldn't the SR trump go, too? Is it only because it was in the > basic set, along with Merill Molitor, that we aren't including it > in this trump-hating session? Why is this trump fairer than the > others? It isn't; I don't ever play with them, 'cause I don't like them, but is it really _that_ broken? I don't know... I still haven't made my decision about DI, and there haven't been many coherent arguments on the matter. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

[ quoted text not captured ] First of all, I'll say that I agree with your AI stance. I think it adds variety to the game. I want to discourage people from banning malk decks though. Malk decks can definitely be made as a pure sneak and bleed deck and those are nasty, but not all malk decks are pure sneak and bleed. In my play group once we find a deck combo that is devastating and can only be stopped by specific types of decks we generally don't play them anymore. If you don't think people in your group will agree to this then just make a deck specifically designed to cream it. Just about any nasty deck you can think of has a counter deck that can cream it rather easily. As an example most people seem to think that S&B is the nastiest combo around but if you make a good Brujah rush deck you can torpor their vamps the same turn they come out and they'll never get ANY bleeds in. After a few sessions like this most people will agree to play a more imaginative and fun deck. I will qualify this by noting that certain cards like thoughts betrayed are completely broken and virtually unbeatable decks can be made with these. If people insisted on playing a deck like this I would just refuse to play with them. If you play tournaments and are just trying to come up with killer combos then feel free to disregard everything I've just said because you won't end up with killer decks this way. What you will end up with are decks ranging from interesting to really bizare that are really fun to play. You will also end up with longer games that really give you time to develop odd strategies. I'm not saying once you've made a deck you can't play it again, just ditch the really nasty ones so people have a chance to try something interesting. --------- Paul Schaaf Hopelessly Gangrel sch...@u.washington.edu

staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote: : > I like the idea of throwing in some anti-bleed cards, but I : >agree that AI itself is too extreme. The Vampire universe should not be : >one where no inner circle member dare equip with a laptop for fear of : >anihilation. : > How about a card that inflicts 1 Ag damage for each point of bleed : >above 3? : Well, AI is not extreme at all... Why the hell do you need a LAPTOP on your : IC for!? : Before AI we banned all Malkav Decks from play, 6 bleed is just so boring. I concede your point. I was just amused by the concept of the most powerful vampires in the world being afraid to touch a computer for fear that it will explode. The IC members are overpowered anyway (by the standards of the original set), so I'm not very upset to see them smashed. Perhaps Computer Hacking would have been a better example of a card IC members dare not play. I am still slightly annoyed by the unimaginative & unsubltle way WotC chose to handle the problem that existed in the original "Jyhad" set (where Malkavians & other bleeders dominated). The other new anti-bleed cards of the V:tES ed., such as Elder Intervention and Protected Resources, might have been an adequate fix on their own, together with the modified rules on Ag damage which enhanced combat aspect of the game. Also, they could have been more imaginative in finding solutions. In the old set, Malkavian Dementia was a great card for keeping the Malks in line, besides which it emphasized the storytelling aspects of the game, by reminding us that the Malks are insane. A few more such cards emphasizing the weaknesses of clans that were dominant, would, IMO, have been more fun than cards which work to deprive them of their strengths. AI adds nothing to game atmosphere. Also, what AI discourages most is 4 bleeds, rather than higher ones. After I first came aware of AI, the first thing I did was develop a deck of massive hi-powered bleeders (my "Queen Anne" deck), on the idea that, if I was going to risk AI I might as well make the most of it. This deck was able to inflict bleeds of 10 (without RtI). One the other hand, I would be very reluctant to put together a deck in which Ozmo might bleed with conditioning. I'm also annoyed by the way AI hampers my efforts to develop a deck of effective Nosferatu stealth bleeders. (I like Nosferatu, despite their weaknesses & constantly try to find ways to make them effective). Spying Mission is one of the few bleed enhancers available to them, but is rarely used by Malks, who have far more effective bleed strategies. But even though Spying Mission is definitely NOT a powerful card it is very difficult to use effectively without bleeding for more than 3. Suppose Agrippina Night Moves you twice, modifyies each with Spying Mission, and then burns them both on a successful Computer Hacking for a total bleed of 6. This is not excessive. Agrippina had to work hard for this 6 bleed, taking 3 actions. This averages only 2 bleed per action, which is no higher than 3 Computer Hackings. Its advantages (which I won't go into unless someone's interested) are barely justified by the fact that this strategy requires superior Obf. It seems hardly fair that Agrippina is thereby at risk of being instantly burned. Worst of all, your prey knows the big bleed is coming, and so decides not to discard the AI in his hand. Anyway, sorry for the long and rambling post. I hope not too far off the original subject (Direct Intervention & Return to Innocence, I think--I say ban the suckers! RtI is way too powerful. DI, whether too powerful or not, simply causes things not to happen, thereby adding nothing to the game atmosphere & making for boring play).

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article <32A838...@cornell.edu>... > I couldn't agree more with your sentiments about counterspell... > > > Hey, guys! Let's ban Sudden Reversal-yes, I really mean it. Why > > shouldn't the SR trump go, too? Is it only because it was in the > > basic set, along with Merill Molitor, that we aren't including it > > in this trump-hating session? Why is this trump fairer than the > > others? > > It isn't; I don't ever play with them, 'cause I don't like them, but is > it really _that_ broken? I don't know... Sudden reversal is definitely a trump, however I don't think it is overpowered or out of place. In a sense most master cards are trumps. It seems to me like Jyhad was originally designed with the master cards being minor trumps that the methusalas could play to alter the game a little. Once they where played there was nothing to stop them in most cases, thus they included SR as a minor trump to trump the minor trumps. I don't mind having something that will trump master cards at all. It is when they started added combat and action trumps that things began to go South. It is only with the escalation in the power of many master cards that Sudden Reversals role as anti trump trump has become more important. -- Steve Bucy I'd be better off undead... "Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar

On 05 Dec 96 23:16:47 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: >> Put it this way-suppose I have a heavy bleed deck. Suppose >>all my friends play heavy bleed, and the only distinction between the >>winner and the losers is who pulls out the RTI first. Suppose, also, >>that all my friends have Archon Investigation, too. Yes, it is >>balanced in this playcircle. But it is also skewed so badly that >>the game is not Jyhad-appropriate costs for resources. > >Ah, a MAGIC tournament? Yes, that is the issue. Jyhad/V:tes had equitable costs, and can have equitable costs if a selection of cards are banned/ignored. These cards take little to no intelligence to use, no tactical skill, and are inappropriate to the game. Unfortunately, you seem to oppose agreeing that any of them are unfair. >> There are no merits to either RTI or AI, and there are none >>for Direct Intervention, a Master OOTurn which costs 1 pool to cancel >>a minion card played-burn the card played and return the blood to the >>acting minion. All of the cards above are unfair trumps, relied upon >>by those who cannot deal with large bleeds or can deal unfairly large, >>unblockable bleeds. These trumps are not fair, and they do not require >>any intelligence at all to use. > >Sudden Reversal - Burn a master Card/once per turn There is nothing wrong w/ sudden reversal. It's a trump, supposedly, but if a master is vital, it should be in the deck in more than one copy anyway. And SR is exactly equitable in resources. One master phase + one card = one master phase + one card. Now the rest of these are slightly less equitable... >Direct Intervention - Burn a minion card/ once per turn Note that this usually leads to a vampire being torporized in combat, if used. But the issue here is that it's a trump; no skill or real restriction on what it can be used on. It's Magic card, and does not belong in Jyhad/V:tes. >Kiss Of Ra - Kills one Vampire (If he dont have fortitude) Unfair, for it's cost and trump nature. >Archon Investigation - Kills one vampire (If he bleed you for 4 or more) See the other threads. If they don't convince you, then you are impervious to logic, and should not be on this newsgroup. But once again, the issue is the ratio of cost to effect. The cost is far too cheap, the effect far too damaging, and the level of skill needed to use non-existant. >Thoughts Betrayed - Kills one Vampire (yes) Trump = Magic Card. >Anathema - kills one vampire (sooner or later) Not exactly at issue here.... >Protect thine Own - Kills one Vampire (non camarilla) And, depending on one's house rules, that includes Sabbat vampires. A vampire can be burned as a _Vote_? This is slightly unfair, boys and girls... Bloodhunts are different, the vampire did something and knew the risk. The non-cams don't need this unfair bit of hosing. >Banishment/Snesory Deprivation - get rid of one vampire Banishment is fair. Sensory Deprivation is extremely difficult to get through, and can be negated by burning the vampire that played it. Not really equitable, but I'm not complaining since there are so many worse cards to bitch about. >Return To Innocence - Kills one player Yes, and it is not justified by AI. AI is not justified, period. If you think that it takes more skill to just bleed for three every turn, then what kind of rush decks are being played in your area? >> They depend upon each other to justify their existence, and >>the need for AI as protection against RTI justifies it (in the eyes >>of WotC), as well as the ability to use and make RTI and Spiridonas >>because of the availability of AI. You cannot condemn one and not the >>other. If you want to play with both RTI and AI, then the games will >>be as WotC intended them-just like Magic. Boring trumps, all of them. >> "I attack with my Polar Kraken and a Barreling Attack. I >>Dark Banishing your Kraken. I Counterspell your Dark Banishing. >>Die." > >The only card that I want to get rid of is Return To Innocence... >Honestly! I still think cards like Thoughts betrayed and Anathema sucks, >but the just kills ONE VAMPIRE... RtI kills a player (YES, if anyone say >no thoose havnt had a +4 stealth/unblockable RtI on yourself when you >have 14 blood left(half of your blood pool), and died)! > Sigh. All of the cards above have that effect in some way or other. Burning a vampire that cost pool to bring out is effectively making the player lose the resources which went into getting that vampire. Thus, burning the Arika with the piles of + bleed cards is annihilating all of the pool, transfers, resources, and other cards which your predator put into doing that bleed. If he got the cards there, he either earned it through his competence or the incompence of the rest of the table: perfectly fair. AI should not change this equity. Oh, and Staffan, you don't have to post a response to everything. If anything, it makes your presence on the newsgroup more of an annoyance than something which will be respected and accepted. Alec Chang

>Yes, that is the issue. Jyhad/V:tes had equitable costs, and can have >equitable costs if a selection of cards are banned/ignored. These >cards take little to no intelligence to use, no tactical skill, and >are inappropriate to the game. >Unfortunately, you seem to oppose agreeing that any of them are >unfair. There are always fighting about "If you ban that card, why not ban this to?". I have learned to accept cards like "Thoughts betrayed", that destroys one single vampire. I just dont like decks that just do one thing: "Bleed, Bleed some more, Bleed for 7, Bleed for 14, Bleed for 5, Ah youre dead? sorry...". >There is nothing wrong w/ sudden reversal. It's a trump, supposedly, >but if a master is vital, it should be in the deck in more than one >copy anyway. And SR is exactly equitable in resources. Sudden Reversal is pretty annoying when you never get your Blood Doll/Minion tap out. >Note that this usually leads to a vampire being torporized in combat, >if used. But the issue here is that it's a trump; no skill or real >restriction on what it can be used on. It's Magic card, and does not >belong in Jyhad/V:tes. Direct Intervention is a try to do "anti to-good-cards"... I have jsut seen this card used once or twice, to burn a weapon, or an dodge... But nothing else happened. >>Archon Investigation - Kills one vampire (If he bleed you for 4 or more) >See the other threads. If they don't convince you, then you are >impervious to logic, and should not be on this newsgroup. Convince you with what!? Are you "for" or "Against"? I dont want to join the "AI - Broken or not?" war, but I have choosen my side... All the guys i have spoken to in my town think that AI is a card that brought more balance to V:Tes. >>Banishment/Snesory Deprivation - get rid of one vampire >Banishment is fair. Banishment and Forgetful mind... I have seen the deck. It reminded me about Magic The gathering. >Sensory Deprivation is extremely difficult to get >through, and can be negated by burning the vampire that played it. >Not really equitable, but I'm not complaining since there are so many >worse cards to bitch about. Sensory Deprivation in a deck containing much fortitude and RAVNOS CARNEVAL is not funny. If one card should be banned - restricted in our group - this is one. >>Return To Innocence - Kills one player >Yes, and it is not justified by AI. AI is not justified, period. If >you think that it takes more skill to just bleed for three every turn, >then what kind of rush decks are being played in your area? AI came before RtI, AI doesnt have anything to do with RtI. I havnt seen that many "Bleed Rush Decks" since most people im my town see "bleed only" decks as boring, and not fun to either play with or against. My Ventrue Deck is still a "Top Killer" bleed deck,and is one of the best in this town. with misdirection - bleed - freak drive - vote... >Sigh. All of the cards above have that effect in some way or other. >Burning a vampire that cost pool to bring out is effectively making >the player lose the resources which went into getting that vampire. >Thus, burning the Arika with the piles of + bleed cards is >annihilating all of the pool, transfers, resources, and other cards >which your predator put into doing that bleed. If he got the cards >there, he either earned it through his competence or the incompence of >the rest of the table: perfectly fair. AI should not change this >equity. Im not speaking about AI... AI is a punishment. A punishment which is deserved by the vampire that bleeds to much. (If you dont want to get burned vampires, you could always: Dont beed for more than 3, put fortitude skill cards and elysium in all your decks, and put AI in all the decks.) RtI is Magic TG.

> I concede your point. I was just amused by the concept of the >most powerful vampires in the world being afraid to touch a computer for >fear that it will explode. The IC members are overpowered anyway (by the >standards of the original set), so I'm not very upset to see them >smashed. Perhaps Computer Hacking would have been a better example of a >card IC members dare not play. =) Hmmm. IC members is vampires that Vampire didnt needed... They are to old They bleed to much the vote to much They cost to much and tthey are burned to easily. > I am still slightly annoyed by the unimaginative & unsubltle way WotC >chose to handle the problem that existed in the original "Jyhad" set (where >Malkavians & other bleeders dominated). The other new anti-bleed cards >of the V:tES ed., such as Elder Intervention and Protected Resources, >might have been an adequate fix on their own, together with the modified >rules on Ag damage which enhanced combat aspect of the game. Pulled Fangs became a damn powerful card in v:tes... And thats not funny =( With the new aggro damage you easily burn to much vampires. Burning Wrath was also a card that Brujah didnt needed... Its the Tzimisce and Gangrel who is the aggro masters... not brujag =( > Also, they could have been more imaginative in finding solutions. >In the old set, Malkavian Dementia was a great card for keeping the Malks >in line, besides which it emphasized the storytelling aspects of the game, >by reminding us that the Malks are insane. A few more >such cards emphasizing the weaknesses of clans that were dominant, >would, IMO, have been more fun than cards which work to deprive them of >their strengths. AI adds nothing to game atmosphere. The only Thing AI added was that I could start over my Malkavian Deck that no one wanted to play against nomore. becouse it bleeded to much. Adding Malkavian Dementia in my other decks just couse me to hand jam. > Also, what AI discourages most is 4 bleeds, rather than higher >ones. After I first came aware of AI, the first thing I did was develop >a deck of massive hi-powered bleeders (my "Queen Anne" deck), on the >idea that, if I was going to risk AI I might as well make the most of >it. This deck was able to inflict bleeds of 10 (without RtI). One the other >hand, I would be very reluctant to put together a deck in which Ozmo might >bleed with conditioning. If you like to much damage, a ventrue deck is exacxtly something for you. With misdirection you get our bleed through with powerful votes you get rid of his vampires, and more of his blood. With 3 bleeds you also get rid of his blood. With freak drive you can do even more damage. - description of a nosferatu bleed deck - Do you do anything more than bleeding? You should really try to abondon that Nosferatu Bleed Deck and do a hidden Lurker combat deck... My Nosferatu deck use miniontap - hospitality to bring back blood, and hidden lurker - torn signpost - increased Strength - Pushing the limit - pulled fangs to kill vamps... It's acused for "bleeding to much" when I bleed each round with Harrod". > Anyway, sorry for the long and rambling post. I hope not too far >off the original subject (Direct Intervention & Return to Innocence, I >think--I say ban the suckers! RtI is way too powerful. DI, whether too >powerful or not, simply causes things not to happen, thereby adding >nothing to the game atmosphere & making for boring play). Im glad to reicive long answers to my messages... That shows me that people actually listening and have time to speks with me. I have just seen DI used once or twice... But to often have i seen this: I have brought up 2 vampire with 8 blood cost, then my predetor bleed me for 14 +1-4 stealth - im dead in the fourth rund. "Dont bring up that much vampires" Also giovanni decks that bleed me for 11, brings back the vampire with posession and bleed me for 11 again...

>First of all, I'll say that I agree with your AI stance. I think it adds >variety to the game. AI is not a unbalanced card, just a rule - dont bleed for more than 3. =) >I want to discourage people from banning malk decks though. Malk decks >can definitely be made as a pure sneak and bleed deck and those are nasty, >but not all malk decks are pure sneak and bleed. In my play group once >we find a deck combo that is devastating and can only be stopped by >specific types of decks we generally don't play them anymore. If you >don't think people in your group will agree to this then just make a deck >specifically designed to cream it. Just about any nasty deck you can >think of has a counter deck that can cream it rather easily. As an >example most people seem to think that S&B is the nastiest combo around >but if you make a good Brujah rush deck you can torpor their vamps the >same turn they come out and they'll never get ANY bleeds in. After a few >sessions like this most people will agree to play a more imaginative and >fun deck. I have one deck of each camarilla and non camarilla clan, one weenie deck, and one Ventrue Antitribu deck... I have a Malkav deck that use 20 Obedience. The Deck brings leandro up, gives him a dominate skill card and then he is a 12 capacity vampire. With sport bike on him its getting boring for other decks to continue. "Block - obedience, Block - obedience" the thing about this deck is that I never enter combat. Since Obedience can be used against Bums Rush (dont have to block) i survive very well against Brujah Deck. More trouble is with Gangrel decks containing Renegade Garou, so i have added a few Far Mastery. The deck is built on both bleed with 3 + some steatlh AND to survive. I also have a Brujah Deck that contains all a Brujah deck shall contain, and kills pretty much. My Brujah Deck cant kill my Malkav deck. >I will qualify this by noting that certain cards like thoughts betrayed >are completely broken and virtually unbeatable decks can be made with >these. If people insisted on playing a deck like this I would just refuse >to play with them. I agree that Thoughts Betrayed is semi-broken, and boring. But I still use TB in giovanni decks, since they cannot do anything more than S:CE if they didnt use it. >If you play tournaments and are just trying to come up with killer combos >then feel free to disregard everything I've just said because you won't >end up with killer decks this way. What you will end up with are decks >ranging from interesting to really bizare that are really fun to play. >You will also end up with longer games that really give you time to >develop odd strategies. I'm not saying once you've made a deck you can't >play it again, just ditch the really nasty ones so people have a chance to >try something interesting. When building my decks I put the cards in five-six piles on a table. The piles contain things like "Things to do against bleed" "Things to SURVIVE combat" "Things to kill the opposing vampire" "Things to get more blood" and so on... In this way I dont use for example:20 Immortal Grapple, since even if Immortal Grapple is a nice card, I have to get some strike cards to if I want to do something more than 1 damage.

Thomas Doehne wrote: <SNIP> > > If a deterrent does not have a cost that is in proportion > to it's effect, it is still broken. Maybe you want to > keep it for the deterrent effect, but you do so knowing > that it's cost is too little (i.e., broken). Your > arguement is that the following factors raise the cost > enough (perhaps): > > 1) AI is useless if your opponent does not bleed for more > than 3, taking up space in your hand. You have to decide > whether or not to discard them. > > This is true of every defensive or counter card in the game -- AI is > not unique in this respect. Majesty, Immortal Grapple, Deflection, > stealth mods, intercept reactions. It's hardly a disadvantage > that justifies the benefit of AI (esp. compared to other cards). > > 2. A no-heavy-bleed deck makes AI useless. > > The same is true of every defensive/counter card. Deflection is > useless if no one is playing a bleed deck. Stealth is useless > and jams your hand if your opponent does not block you. > Are you trying to say that conforming to simple game interactions > is enough to justify the card? > > 3. Isn't it the same as telepathic counter (and therefore > no big deal)? > > Since it burns the vampire, no. Burning a vampire is, and > should be, difficult. Just countering a bleed for the > cost of 3 blood would be a great card. Burning a vampire > in addition is way outrageous. > Agreed! Especially in our league, where a burned vampire is gone for the duration of the season, unless brought back via Necromancy. (Everyone seems to have a deck with Gaspare Giovanni just to bring back that favorite vamp.) Possible fix for AI: Instead of being burned, bleeding vamp is sent to torpor. Still a drastic result, but not as bad as losing an IC vamp because you needed the stealth from a Bonding! Also possible: No pool is lost to the bleed. Bleeding vampire does not untap during its controller's next untap phase. Probably my favorite, as its effect is in line with the cost of AI (which, since it can only be played after you've been bled for >3, actually has a cost of -1 pool or less!) Removes that "Trump - you're screwed!" element from the card, yet still punishes Big Bleeders (tm). -- "...But when the blast of war blows in our ears, | Rob Bush Then imitate the action of the tiger: | Zam...@moose.erie.net Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood." | Aspiring Animator, Henry V, Act iii. Sc. 1. | Edinboro U. of PA

staffan.bengtsson wrote: > I have a Malkav deck that use 20 Obedience. > The Deck brings leandro up, gives him a dominate skill card and then he is a > 12 capacity vampire. With sport bike on him its getting boring for other decks > to continue. > "Block - obedience, Block - obedience" the thing about this deck is that I > never enter combat. Since Obedience can be used against Bums Rush (dont > have to block) i survive very well against Brujah Deck. > More trouble is with Gangrel decks containing Renegade Garou, so i have added > a few Far Mastery. > > The deck is built on both bleed with 3 + some steatlh AND to survive. > > I also have a Brujah Deck that contains all a Brujah deck shall contain, > and kills pretty much. My Brujah Deck cant kill my Malkav deck. > I'm interested to know what you do with this deck when someone blocks one of your actions? (Since you can't use one of the 20 obediences you have stacked your decks with.) I understand that most of the actions you perform would be at stealth, but I have seen quite a few good intercept combat decks. I have a feeling that faced with a well constructed intercept deck, your hand full of Obediences would be just that, a hand full of obediances. (read as a mitful of useless hand-jamming cards.) I would venture to point out that faced with permanant rush via Archons, Wynn, The Beast, Muddled vamp hunter, Talbots, and the afformentioned Garou you would be hard pressed to keep a hand full of obediance for long. Enough forced combats and eventually any deck will run out of S:CE and its equivilents. Just my Zwei Pfennig, Karl

On 07 Dec 96 18:50:45 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: >>First of all, I'll say that I agree with your AI stance. I think it adds >>variety to the game. > >AI is not a unbalanced card, just a rule - dont bleed for more than 3. =) Sigh. Staffan, I don't care whether you think that AI is fair or not, for now. Just listen to this argument(ALL OF IT!!) and see if you can understand it. If not, then you're hitting my killfile. Hard. Postulate 1) No single card should force a total change in the way that people play a game. No single card should define a restriction on the way that people play a game. If a card has this effect on a game, it is too powerful. Now, this is a major point against Magic, which you apparently dislike(with good reason, but I'm not sure what _your_ reasons are, and it they're the right ones). Magic is a terrible game, because it is based off of single card strategies. Single cards can have massive, game swinging effects. Those cards and decks made around those cards _must_ be dealt with; sometimes only if you're playing one deck type, sometimes for all decks. They force the game enviroment to change, and this is one of the _primary_ problems with magic. Now, compare this to AI. By your own statement, AI _forces_ a change in the way people play games. I don't care particularly if you think that it's a good change, or if "bleed decks are boring" or any other load of anti-bleed claptrap. I'll address that problem later. AI forces a change. You still with me? AI forces a change in the way people play the game of Jyhad. Assuming the game was balanced, then it disrupts that balance by a) hosing bleed decks of all stripes. b) being too powerful, by defining a restriction which decks have to abide by or risk paying _massively_ inequitable costs(no, Staffan, they do _not_ "deserve it" if they bleed for so much. You deserve it for not playing a deck which is able to stop them consistently). c) having the huge swing effect on the game while having _no_ real cost. If you follow the above, and understand that Jyhad is a balanced game in it's entirety as long as certain cards are excepted, as long as the people playing are competent, then you will see my point about AI. And if you don't, don't reply. Please. I don't need to have to killfile you, because there is the chance(however slight) that you might say something worthwhile someday, amidst all of the garbage. And once again: Staffan, don't respond to everything, and repeat yourself. People can read and get your point without having it rammed down their throats. >>I want to discourage people from banning malk decks though. Malk decks >>can definitely be made as a pure sneak and bleed deck and those are nasty, >>but not all malk decks are pure sneak and bleed. In my play group once >>we find a deck combo that is devastating and can only be stopped by >>specific types of decks we generally don't play them anymore. If you >>don't think people in your group will agree to this then just make a deck >>specifically designed to cream it. Just about any nasty deck you can >>think of has a counter deck that can cream it rather easily. As an >>example most people seem to think that S&B is the nastiest combo around >>but if you make a good Brujah rush deck you can torpor their vamps the >>same turn they come out and they'll never get ANY bleeds in. After a few >>sessions like this most people will agree to play a more imaginative and >>fun deck. > >I have one deck of each camarilla and non camarilla clan, one weenie deck, >and one Ventrue Antitribu deck... > >I have a Malkav deck that use 20 Obedience. Have you ever run into a little problem called "Hand Jam"? >The Deck brings leandro up, gives him a dominate skill card and then he is a >12 capacity vampire. With sport bike on him its getting boring for other decks >to continue. >"Block - obedience, Block - obedience" the thing about this deck is that I >never enter combat. Since Obedience can be used against Bums Rush (dont >have to block) i survive very well against Brujah Deck. >More trouble is with Gangrel decks containing Renegade Garou, so i have added >a few Far Mastery. > >The deck is built on both bleed with 3 + some steatlh AND to survive. Has anyone else built a bleed deck in your area without the obediences, and with other combat defenses? If they were your predator, you'd be jammed on either stealth or obediences as they took you apart. Oh, and does your prey always try to block? If not, then why haven't you jammed your hand? Does your group have no concept of how to play the game, as they seem to? (PS, if you want an explaination of hand jam, I or someone else will provide it. Just don't keep posting so darn much with so little substance if you want me to do it.) Alec Chang

Nathan Harada (i...@hula.net) wrote: : Direct Intervention under 4CL is even worse. Everything is worse under 4CL. Let's argue about Direct Intervention insofar as it affects Jyhad the way it was meant to be played. : I hate Counterspell. I hate it. I don't like Power Sink and : Spell Blast either, though those are both better than Counterspell. Magic: The Gathering is a different game. Though designed by the same person, it operates under very different conditions. A basic requirement which M:tG has (which Jyhad thankfully doesn't have) is speed of development. Countermagic as a strategy is balanced by its lack of speed: if you're going to play countermagic, you're not playing cards which can damage your opponent. And in M:tG you must meld (play cards which aid your position) quickly, or you're dead. In Jyhad, you meld at much the same rate as your opponents: there are fewer means of accelerating your position, and most of them hurt you if you try to go too fast. Now to trumps, the real object of this discussion. First off, what's wrong with the very concept of a trump? Nathan Harada proposes banning Sudden Reversal and Merrill Molitor: : Hey, guys! Let's ban Sudden Reversal-yes, I really mean it. Why : shouldn't the SR trump go, too? Is it only because it was in the : basic set, along with Merill Molitor, that we aren't including it : in this trump-hating session? Why is this trump fairer than the : others? I'm supposing by responding to this paragraph that it isn't mere hyperbole, though it sure sounds like it. Merrill Molitor is hardly a trump: if he's a trump, then every card in the game that prevents aggravated damage is by definition a trump and worthy of banning. Skin of Night ought to be considered more of a trump than Merrill, who can only transform one lousy point of aggravated damage. Merrill _may_ be undercosted; that's a different issue. He's certainly not as flagrantly undercosted as Antoinette DuChamp, whom I've complained about in another posting (because unlike every other Caitiff, she has an inferior discipline, Presence, without an accompanying drawback. Why's that?) So let's proceed to talking about trumps. Let's define trumps carefully first. Trumps are _NOT_ just cards which can be immediately played to negate the effect of other cards; my Skin of Rock is not a "trump" because it made your Lucky Blow ineffective. Rather, trumps are cards which actively change the playing environment because they require their inclusion in any competitive deck. By this definition, Tomb of Rameses III is not a trump, but a somewhat undercosted card. Sudden Reversal is similarly not unbalanced: it does unto you exactly what it did to the other guy (costing you a card and a master phase). Thus can we please focus just on the effect on deck composition that Return to Innocence and Archon Investigation have had, and not on their relationship to one another? If you can produce a serious argument that no deck can ever stand a chance at competition without one or both of these cards (as little chance, say, as a top-of-the-line Type II deck stands against a top-of-the-line Type I deck, since you favor M:tG analogies), then I'll agree they're worthy of banning. But I've yet to be convinced that intercept and rush strategies can't keep these cards in line. - Neil

staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote: > >Finally, as far as bleed defense goes: > > Intercept, blood gain, rush, bounce, or race. Why is this a hard > >concept? > > Good intercept decks stop good stealth decks about 1/2 the time. > >Blood gain decks can laugh off S&B ("Well, I lost 12 pool last turn, so > >I'll have to call these to Consangineous Boons to get back 14, and then > >take 5 blood off my blood dolls... no problem"). Rush decks- I've never > >been in a game with Malks and a Rush deck where Ozmo wasn't burned at > >least once. Usually twice (Malks brought him out again). Bounce is > >self-evident. Race - ever see a Malk deck prey on another? > > AI isn't needed, because well designed decks can deal with S&B > >about as well as they can deal with anything else. > > The argument like "Thoughts betrayed isnt that good, just use Elysium..." > or "Kiss Of Ra isnt good, just add some Fortitude Cards..." or > like you say "Build your deck to survive 4 stealth 14 bleeds" is so deranged > that it could be. > > You know like I that a Gangrel NEVER will put Elysium in their deck, and NO ONE > will put in lots of Auspex intercept in a Brujah deck just to intercept > Malkav decks... > And I have only seen ONE deck that have added Fortitude skill cards to survive > Kiss Of Ra... > > Have you ever SEEN one Giovanni RtI deck with posessions misdirections and > seduction ? > The distinction is that bleed is a strategy, AI is a card. You should have methods for dealing with the 3 main strategies of the game- combat, bleed, and vote. You should not need to have methods for dealing with specific cards. Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

[ quoted text not captured ] So why do you need to? My Brujjah decks don't bother to intercept, because why intercept people who aren't taking actions because they're in torpor? My Toreador blood gain deck doesn't bother to intercept, because why bother when taking 7 point bleed means my pool will only increase by a net of 3 next turn? And so on. By the way, there are other types of bleed decks than S&B. All the intercept in the world won't help you if you have no combat defense and block a Giovanni or Tremere B&B. -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

> No offense intended in these questions, but how long have you been > playing? How many rushes do you have in your deck? You play gangrel, > right? > I will forgive you the slightly insulting tone here because you did say no offense intended.... I've been playing since Jyhad first came out and my deck is kind of unusual. Someone told me that a deck without any stealth/intercept was impossible and thus the game was broken, so I built a pure combat/second round Brujah deck with no stealth, intercept, or equipment. It's a hell of a fun deck and I've been tinkering with it for over a year. No, there're no Rushes. Lots of Potence, Celerity, and a minor in Fortitude. I take great delight in smashing 10s in one round and then sending Smudge over to diablerize. Anyway, big bleeds were the only real problem this deck has, and that one AI makes the game more fun. That's the important part, right? Right? --Katherine Dazazel

> Possible fix for AI: > Instead of being burned, bleeding vamp is sent to torpor. > Also possible: > No pool is lost to the bleed. Bleeding vampire does not untap during its > controller's next untap phase. I like these ideas. Hey, instead of screaming and whining that a card is broken, why don't people suggest possible house-rule fixes like this and go on to have fun? :) I'm gonna suggest a new house rule for AI next time I play. --Katherine Dazazel

In article <19961204005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com wrote: >Anonymous wrote: >"Archon Investigation is possibly cheap, but the effect that it has had on >game play, In my experience (IME), far out weighs this fact. AI causes all >bleed decks to do three bleeds or less. This tends to have a beneficial >effect, IMO, on game play - making the game longer, more competitive and >more challenging (these, IMO, make the game more fun - others may disagree >with this point)" > >Debating the merits and flaws of Archon Investigation from different sides >of the 4CL/NL fence is fairly pointless as the effect that AI has on a 4 >Card Limit environment is vastly different that the effect AI has on a No >Card Limit enviornment (I have no wish to turn this thread into another >CL/NL debate. I am just pointing out obsefvable differences). In a 4CL >environment, AI is an important tool for keeping the balance because S+B >decks are completely unhindered by 4CL (due to the reundndancy of >Obfuscate and Dominate cards in the set), as opposed to all other deck >designs. Thus, under 4CL, S+B decks tend to either dominate the playing >field or are "shamed" out of the enviornment. Due to the design >restrictions caused by 4CL, there are no consistent bleed defenses: > >Bleed Bounce is limited to 4 Deflections (excellent) and 4 of the new >Rederection (iffy), which kind of bite. If you are the Malkavians or the >Tremere, you can have 12, which is almost acceptable (because Redirection >and Telepathic Misdirection are of questionable reliability due to the >need for the superior ability) if you wish to have Bounce as a major >defense, but all single Dominate or Auspex clans are screwed as to bleed >bounce, especially considering how Redirection and Telepathic Misdirection >are only useful at superior. > >Bleed reduction, which requires Telepathic Counter is no longer a viable >bleed defense when limited to 4. > >Rush defense (i.e. Beat up the guy bleeding you before he kills you) is >more or less ineffective as a bleed defense under 4CL, as vastly discussed >under the "4CL and Rush" thread elswhere in this group. > >Race defense (kill my prey before I am dead...) is the only really >reliable bleed defense under 4CL, which means to compete with a S+B deck >you need to play a S+B deck. > >Under NL, all of these defenses are perfectly viable, and usually >perfectly effective. Under 4CL, AI is a needed defense against S+B, as >there are no other reliable defenses other than the threat of AI to slow >down the speed of S+B. Under NL, big S+B decks don't do all that well, as >decks than can generate big bleeds on a consistent basis just get eaten >alive by Rush decks ("Oh no! Ozmo has been burnt! Again!"). The biggest >problem I have found to deal with in NL are weenie S+B decks (like the >"Setite" deck posted by James Hamblin recently in another big thread), >where the vampires rarely ever bleed for more than 3, so AI is no help >anyway. I don't see any difference in the need for AI in CL or NL myself. I play 4cl and I have seen decks that can Rush perfectly well and Bleed bounce perfectly well too so I can say that the earlier arguement that AI is only essential in a 4cl deck is false. The fact is that without AI in BOTH ways of playing, you are forced to use a deck that can bleed bounce or rush. It's as simple as that. Without using one of these tactics you are dead, it's as simple as that. The NLers are always going on about stifiling variety in decks yet they all advocate banning AI! To me this seems quite extrordinary as then your deck has to incorperate one strategy or another to deal with S&B. Isn't this cutting down on variety? LOS

[ quoted text not captured ] Excellent Idea - part of the idea behind this Thread (thanks to Thomas Doehne for starting this forum). I'm sure AI will get its moment in the spotlight soon enough. Other fixes that have been proposed over the months: Subject: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards (was More thoughts on AH) From: The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> Date: 1996/06/21 Message-Id: <Pine.NXT.3.91.960621115629.382C-100000@pentode> ARCHON INVESTIGATION Archon Investigation has a huge problem: insufficient cost. For 3 pool, the bleed against you fails, you use a master phase, and you burn a predator's vampire. While this is one of many cards that could sit in your hand (like Return to Innocence or Far Mastery), the cost is not applicable. No matter what, you are losing less pool than if you took the bleed (and burning a vamp - I had to say it again). More appropriate would be: Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get Edge) Cost x, bleed not successful (x is amount of bleed) -- Subject: Re: Archon investigation From: sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) Date: 1996/07/03 Message-Id: <4rdmj5$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> Doubly agreed. House rules anyone? 1) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Sends the bleeder to Torpor. 2) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Taps the bleeder and is placed on the bleeder. While the card is on the minion, the minion cannot act. Any vampire may take an action to pay 3 blood to burn the card. 3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the card is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 stealth. 4) Doesn't cost anything and doesn't burn the bleeder. Bleed is unsuccessful. 5) Cost 1. Bleed is unsuccessful, and you must pay X pool, where X is the amount of the bleed had it been successful. If you cannot, you are ousted, otherwise the bleeding minion is burned. -- Subject: Re: Archon investigation From: The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> Date: 1996/07/05 Message-Id: <Pine.NXT.3.91.960705162951.415C-100000@pentode> To this one, I prefer: Cost 0: Bleed is considered successful. Burn the bleeding minion. (Perhaps with addendum to disallow Justicars and IC to be burned.) -- Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Trump Cards) From: xcdc...@aol.com (XCD Chance) Date: 1996/10/01 Message-Id: <52q948$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 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. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

[ quoted text not captured ] Or intercept. Or blood gain. Or race. Take your pick. This is why us NLers don't see the need for AI: we have 5 major tactics to deal with S&B: Rush: eliminate their vampires Bleed Bounce: send their vampires downstream Intercept: stop their actions and kill them Blood Gain: Get so much blood that their bleeds are meaningless Race: Oust my prey before my predator ousts me Every tactic except for intercept has the advantage that after a few bleeds, my predator is hand-jammed: having played all his bleed boost cards, he has a hand full of unplayable stealth cards. > these tactics you are dead, it's as simple as that. The NLers > are always going on about stifiling variety in decks yet they > all advocate banning AI! To me this seems quite extrordinary > as then your deck has to incorperate one strategy or another > to deal with S&B. Isn't this cutting down on variety? No. All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with combat, or die to combat. All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with bleed, or die to bleed. All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with votes, or die to votes. There are _a_lot_ of ways to deal with each major strategy (http:://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/strategy.html thanks, Curt!), so there's a lot of variety. Of course, I guess there's more variety in everyone using AI for bleed defense, crippling 2 of 3 major bleed strategies. Sure sounds that way, anyway. -Mark Langsdorf http:://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

K. Dazazel (utk...@utkux.utk.edu) wrote: > > No offense intended in these questions, but how long have you been > > playing? How many rushes do you have in your deck? You play gangrel, > > right? > > > > I will forgive you the slightly insulting tone here because you did say > no offense intended.... > > I've been playing since Jyhad first came out and my deck is kind of > unusual. Someone told me that a deck without any stealth/intercept was > impossible and thus the game was broken, so I built a pure combat/second > round Brujah deck with no stealth, intercept, or equipment. It's a hell > of a fun deck and I've been tinkering with it for over a year. No, > there're no Rushes. Lots of Potence, Celerity, and a minor in > Fortitude. I take great delight in smashing 10s in one round and then > sending Smudge over to diablerize. How do you get into fights with Rushes/Havens/Ambushes/Blood Hunts (generically, "rushes")? My non-combat decks do _not_ block Brujah combat without a good reason... like my immediate ousting. And I usually don't hae to worry about that, if my predator is a combat deck that can't rush and can't bleed. Jyhad decks without stealth or intercept are very common, and playable. > > Anyway, big bleeds were the only real problem this deck has, and that > one AI makes the game more fun. That's the important part, right? > Right? Maybe. We're also looking for balanced, too. Some people say That Other Card game is fun, but we try not to listen to them. Mark Langsodrf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : "K. Dazazel" <utk...@utkux.utk.edu> writes: : >> Possible fix for AI: : >> Instead of being burned, bleeding vamp is sent to torpor. : >> Also possible: : >> No pool is lost to the bleed. Bleeding vampire does not untap during its : >> controller's next untap phase. : >I like these ideas. Hey, instead of screaming and whining that a card : >is broken, why don't people suggest possible house-rule fixes like this : >and go on to have fun? :) I'm gonna suggest a new house rule for AI next : >time I play. : Excellent Idea - part of the idea behind this Thread (thanks to : Thomas Doehne for starting this forum). : I'm sure AI will get its moment in the spotlight soon enough. Ok, here's my fix for AI Play card as is, except that bleeding minion is not burned. Instead, put this card on the bleeding minion. For the remainder of the game, any minion may attack the minion with this card as a +1 stealth directed action. Additionally, the minion with this card may be diablerized without the bloodhunt vote. John Whelan

>>>AI has three problems: >>> 1) Cost is disproportionate to the effect >>> 2) It doesn't stop S&B, but it kills Bruise & Bleed >>and Tap & >>>Bleed >>> 3) It encourages the existence of other trump cards. > > >>>1). The cost of AI is disproportionate to the effect. >[No cost, *and* burning an opponent's vampire]. > >>The whole point with Archon investigation is to stop people >>bleeding for more then three without first thinking of the >>posible consequences. This means that bleed decks will have >>to be tactical in there bleeds rather than just going 'Yes >>I'm through! Take a 7 bleed!' and kill there opposition in >>two bleeds! Mind you, they still can do this but it is risky >>as they may lose a vampire. Also, if a bleed deck is at the >>table and you have 3 Archon investigations in you are well >>prepared to deal with them if they gamble, but what if they >>don't? Do you discard the archons and allow yourself to be >>perhaps bled for a huge amount or play effectively with a >>hand of six? What if there is no heavy bleeding deck? then >>your AI's are useless. Tactics suddenly becomes very >>important. As for the fact that you 'get the pool back' that >>you would have lost, isn't this comparible with telepathicly >>countering a big bleed? The fact that it could burn one of >>their vampires is the deterent which makes bleed decks >>tactical in the first place. This perhaps is not equal to >>it's cost but it is meant as a deterent so is justifiable. > >If a deterrent does not have a cost that is in proportion >to it's effect, it is still broken. Maybe you want to >keep it for the deterrent effect, but you do so knowing >that it's cost is too little (i.e., broken). I see your point. Yes AI is probably overpowered for it's cost and perhaps should have done less but I still think that it was for the good of the game that it was brought out. That however was not the point being argued. I now see that in respects to most other cards it is overpowered, I hadn't really thought much about the fact that it is countering the big bleed as well. It is like telepathic counter with a BIG kick like I said before. However, I feel that the card is justifiable as, pre AI, big bleeders tended to dominate the game, even when I used to play NL. Combat decks were so far and away inferior to these decks that they became less of an option but were definately more fun. This is fair enough I guess, it is just that I would prefere to be able to play my Brujah vote deck without being ousted by turn 5 by either an (old style) tap and bleed or S&B deck killing me in 2 bleeds. The only way I can see this happening is with AI where I may be able to frighten them into bleeding for less, giving me an opportunity to get out some intercept or oust my predator or prey using votes. Without AI the deck would be unworkable as that is it's only bleed defence. Some may say "Hey, why don't you put in rush?" Why should I have to considering it is a non-combat deck? The point I am trying to make (once again) is that without AI the decks you create must either have rush or bleed bounce in them or perish in favour of bleed tactics. This is not a good scenario in my opinion. You said that why should we sacrifice bruise and bleed (because in my opinion tap and bleed no longer is a viable bleed tactic after GT) just to put a riegn on S&B. Well think about all the tactics you save: I.e. Any deck which the clans it contains have no bleed bounce capibilities and don't want to be a rush deck. This has to be the strongest arguement for AI, 'broken' or not, in ANY limit; not just CL as you so 'informatively' put. So yeah, O.K; I guess that AI is 'broken', from a certain point of veiw, but it is a JUSTIFIABLY overpowered card in my opinion. LOS

In article <32AA37...@infomatch.com>, Karl Innes <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: >staffan.bengtsson wrote: > >> I have a Malkav deck that use 20 Obedience. >> The Deck brings leandro up, gives him a dominate skill card and then he is a >> 12 capacity vampire. With sport bike on him its getting boring for other decks >> to continue. >> "Block - obedience, Block - obedience" the thing about this deck is that I >> never enter combat. Since Obedience can be used against Bums Rush (dont >> have to block) i survive very well against Brujah Deck. >> More trouble is with Gangrel decks containing Renegade Garou, so i have added >> a few Far Mastery. >> >> The deck is built on both bleed with 3 + some steatlh AND to survive. >> >> I also have a Brujah Deck that contains all a Brujah deck shall contain, >> and kills pretty much. My Brujah Deck cant kill my Malkav deck. >> Ouch! Sounds like a very nasty deck! > > I'm interested to know what you do with this deck when someone blocks one >of your actions? (Since you can't use one of the 20 obediences you have stacked >your decks with.) I understand that most of the actions you perform would be >at stealth, but I have seen quite a few good intercept combat decks. As far as I can see, a heavy intercept combat deck would be the only deck that would not have too many problems with this deck. Bleed bounce would hinder it quite nicely too actually. Even then, with the addition of change of target when you are bleed bounced and elder impersonations when someone pulls a lot of intercept on you, that deck could be a real winner. > I have a >feeling that faced with a well constructed intercept deck, your hand full of >Obediences would be just that, a hand full of obediances. (read as a mitful of >useless hand-jamming cards.) Yep, if you did get in combat with the malks there toast... > > I would venture to point out that faced with >permanant rush via Archons, Could block these or vote them out with leandro I guess, but if they were out for a while... >Wynn, The Beast, Muddled vamp hunter, Talbots, and the afformentioned Garou you >would be hard pressed to keep a hand full of obediance for long. Enough forced >combats and eventually any deck will run out of S:CE and its equivilents. Beast and Wynn would be great against the deck but the other guys would get nicked (or torpor your vamp with Talbots) so they arn't really that viable. Have your friends ever used malky dementias while they have out an antideluvian awakening? Leandro won't have his sport bike very long or be alive.... LOS

MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes: >kick like I said before. However, I feel that the card is >justifiable as, pre AI, big bleeders tended to dominate the >game, even when I used to play NL. Combat decks were so far >and away inferior to these decks that they became less of an >option but were definately more fun. This is fair enough I Combat decks aren't as easy (read: straight-foward) to build, so may get ousted quickly until a proper deck mix is found. >guess, it is just that I would prefere to be able to play my >Brujah vote deck without being ousted by turn 5 by either an >(old style) tap and bleed or S&B deck killing me in 2 bleeds. >The only way I can see this happening is with AI where I may >be able to frighten them into bleeding for less, giving me an >opportunity to get out some intercept or oust my predator or >prey using votes. Without AI the deck would be unworkable as >that is it's only bleed defence. Some may say "Hey, why don't >you put in rush?" Why should I have to considering it is a >non-combat deck? The point I am trying to make (once again) You don't have to - but you do have to put in some defense for the standard strategies: vote, bleed, and combat. If you fail to address one of these strategies, then you will probably fair poorly if the unplanned-for strategy is used by your Predator. Q: Why should I put in intercept, bounce, or majesties in my vote deck? A: Because you have to have a good defense as well as a good offense. (Speedy offense can be used as a defense in some cases - such as the weenie vote-push of old). >is that without AI the decks you create must either have rush >or bleed bounce in them or perish in favour of bleed tactics. That's right. And bleed decks must have anti-combat or perish to rush, and so on. >This is not a good scenario in my opinion. You said that why >should we sacrifice bruise and bleed (because in my opinion >tap and bleed no longer is a viable bleed tactic after GT) Tap and bleed was a degenerate strategy - worse than MS&B - before GT/DCI. Now, it is still possible, but not to the degenerate extremes allowed by repeating actions. >just to put a riegn on S&B. Well think about all the tactics >you save: I.e. Any deck which the clans it contains have no >bleed bounce capibilities and don't want to be a rush deck. You mean: all the decks that don't want to put up a reasonable defense (rush, bounce, intercept). If you need bounce so badly in your group, use Major Boon. >This has to be the strongest arguement for AI, 'broken' or >not, in ANY limit; not just CL as you so 'informatively' put. >So yeah, O.K; I guess that AI is 'broken', from a certain >point of veiw, but it is a JUSTIFIABLY overpowered card in my >opinion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi LOS, I've been a little leary of jumping in on this one, but my last Final is today, so what the heck... On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Lord of Shadows wrote: > >If a deterrent does not have a cost that is in proportion > >to it's effect, it is still broken. Maybe you want to > >keep it for the deterrent effect, but you do so knowing > >that it's cost is too little (i.e., broken). Well, I can go along with this definition of broken, but if that is the case, Wake with Evenings Freshness & Inferior Deflection are far more broken than AI. I suppose this might be different for groups that are more reliant upon large vampires, but in our group, the real cost of a card is generally holding it your hand. AI is a terrible hand clogger, you can only use it if you are bleed for more than three, and it still costs you three pool. Deflection, in my opinion, is much better, as you can use it on any bleed, so it is less likely to jam your hand, it costs a minion one blood, instead of you three pool, and you can use them as often as you have them, as opposed to AI, which will can only be used once per turn, at the cost of your next master phase action. AI burns a vampire, but you still loose three pool, where as deflection bleeds your prey for you, which is much better in our games. Deflected bleeds very often determine who ousts their prey first, which gives them six more pool, often enough to carry them to victory. This concludes the logical argument. That being done, let me say that I don't like AI because it is a stinking trump card. > I see your point. Yes AI is probably overpowered for it's > cost and perhaps should have done less but I still think that > it was for the good of the game that it was brought out. That > however was not the point being argued. I now see that in > respects to most other cards it is overpowered, I hadn't > really thought much about the fact that it is countering the > big bleed as well. It is like telepathic counter with a BIG > kick like I said before. I certainly don't see it as being overpowered, see above. I'm not sure I understand your TC analogy, is it just that it "reduces" the bleed down to a loss of three pool? > However, I feel that the card is > justifiable as, pre AI, big bleeders tended to dominate the > game, even when I used to play NL. Combat decks were so far > and away inferior to these decks that they became less of an > option but were definately more fun. This is fair enough I > guess, it is just that I would prefere to be able to play my > Brujah vote deck without being ousted by turn 5 by either an > (old style) tap and bleed or S&B deck killing me in 2 bleeds. Interesting, it looks like we will be arguing from opposite ends on this one. While I don't think AI is overly powerful (I never use them), I do think it was bad for the game. It is another trump card, and the farther I stay from slap happy M@$^* the better. My Brujah vote deck would simply move the Bleeder to my left..., where I could probably oust her by turn 4 or 5... > The only way I can see this happening is with AI where I may > be able to frighten them into bleeding for less, giving me an > opportunity to get out some intercept or oust my predator or > prey using votes. Without AI the deck would be unworkable as > that is it's only bleed defence. Actually, the AI trick doesn't work in our group, as everyone is in a hurry, so a bleed deck that slows down is a bleed deck that dies. Typically, if they expect an AI, their first bleed (when they only have one vampire available, will be for three. After that, when there are two or more vampires out, they will bleed you for all they can anyway, you can only stop one a turn, and you loose three pool to do that. Make your defence part of your offense. Don't waist time with permanant intercept when you can make your votes do the job. Put in Banishment, Dramatic Upheaval & Kindred Restructure. They are faster, they have offensive potential, and they can be thrown in for votes, which just makes your deck stronger. > Some may say "Hey, why don't > you put in rush?" Why should I have to considering it is a > non-combat deck? The point I am trying to make (once again) > is that without AI the decks you create must either have rush > or bleed bounce in them or perish in favour of bleed tactics. Not true. In addition to the above recomendations, you can add protected resources, which is a broken card.... > This is not a good scenario in my opinion. You said that why > should we sacrifice bruise and bleed (because in my opinion > tap and bleed no longer is a viable bleed tactic after GT) > just to put a riegn on S&B. Well think about all the tactics > you save: I.e. Any deck which the clans it contains have no > bleed bounce capibilities and don't want to be a rush deck. > This has to be the strongest arguement for AI, 'broken' or > not, in ANY limit; not just CL as you so 'informatively' put. > So yeah, O.K; I guess that AI is 'broken', from a certain > point of veiw, but it is a JUSTIFIABLY overpowered card in my > opinion. Try the above recomendations, and see if you can play your Brujah deck, not only will it work, but you can make the Makavs work for you, move them down the table, when they have almost bleed someone out of the game, move the unfortunate victim to your prey position.... Algustas *****By its softening of the political will, this mood enables men to accept public depravity without any private sense of outrage, and to give up the central goal of western humanism, so strongly felt in the nineteenth century American experience: the presumptuous control by reason of men's fate.*****C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite

In article <58jupu$7u8...@leeds.ac.uk> MIN4...@leeds.ac.u k (Lord of Shadows) writes: >In article <32AA37...@infomatch.com>, > Karl Innes <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: >>staffan.bengtsson wrote: [Deck full of S&B, with 20 obedience, omitted] [heavy intercept as a counter, omitted] >> I have a >>feeling that faced with a well constructed intercept deck, >your hand full of >>Obediences would be just that, a hand full of obediances. >(read as a mitful of >>useless hand-jamming cards.) >Yep, if you did get in combat with the malks there toast... Not just that -- no bleed cards. The deck sits dead in the water, unable to do much until someone is stupid enough to take a blockable action, or they manage to discard enough Obediences to do something. Hand jam is *the* tactic for dealing with lopsided decks. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes: >So yeah, O.K; I guess that AI is 'broken', from a certain >point of veiw, but it is a JUSTIFIABLY overpowered card in my >opinion. Heavy bleed does have a way of dominating the game; not to the extent of always winning, but to the extent of requiring every deck to pack very heavy bleed defense. But better than an all-or-nothing card like AI would be a rules change such as "no more than one action or action modifier can add to a given bleed action". This would stop those weenies from popping off 5 point bleeds (GTU + Conditioning) while not unduly restricting big vampires (Helena Casimir could still bleed for 5, easily). AI obviously introduces a big luck element to the game, and also hurts big vampires much more than small ones, which is not needed. Rather than AI, I'd rather have seen disciplineless cards in line with Deflection and Telepathic Counter at normal. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Lord of Shadows (MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: : In article <32AA37...@infomatch.com>, : Karl Innes <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: : >staffan.bengtsson wrote: : > : >> I have a Malkav deck that use 20 Obedience. The Deck brings leandro : >> up, gives him a dominate skill card and then he is a 12 capacity : >> vampire. With sport bike on him its getting boring for other decks : >> to continue. Offhand, a fast Ventrue bleed deck would clobber something like this before it got going. I'm currently messing around with such a deck, and I think it could flog a Malkav Obedience deck all other things being equal. Violette Prentice with a Dominate master card should be able to stick a good 10 points of bleed into the Malks just by herself before Leandro comes out. When Leandro does come out, Seduce the big guy. (Or use Pentex Subversion). Kevin Lowe, Brisbane, Australia.

>And if you don't, don't reply. Please. I don't need to >have to >killfile you, because there is the chance(however slight) >that you >might say something worthwhile someday, amidst all of the >garbage. > >And once again: Staffan, don't respond to everything, and >repeat >yourself. People can read and get your point without having >it rammed >down their throats. Mr. Chang, I don't think that comments like the ones above are helpful. Infact, I find the fact that you have to be so aggressive in the putting down of Steffan quite appalling. If Steffan wants to reply to everything, why shouldn't he be able to? Just because you say so???! This kind of post is not helpful to this newsgroup as it will encourage people NOT to post. I for one like to hear everyones arguements, 'garbage' (as you would put it) or no, so Steffan; post as much as you want and ignore this kind of statement. LOS

In article <58htog$7...@nntp-1.io.com>, mlan...@io.com (Mark [ quoted text not captured ] True, these are otherways of countering. I have seen other non-combat decks race (although S&B tend to win) and also I have seen some very good intercept decks that have stopped S&B in it's tracks (alas these decks tend to suffer against non-S&B decks...). The point is that you are still cornering a deck into being one of five tiypes... >Every tactic except for intercept has the advantage that after a few >bleeds, my predator is hand-jammed: having played all his bleed boost >cards, he has a hand full of unplayable stealth cards. This is all very well but after a few bleeds I have found that without Ai your a dead man, unless you have bleed bounce (I have never seen a blood back deck, is there one in your archive?) >> these tactics you are dead, it's as simple as that. The NLers >> are always going on about stifiling variety in decks yet they >> all advocate banning AI! To me this seems quite extrordinary >> as then your deck has to incorperate one strategy or another >> to deal with S&B. Isn't this cutting down on variety? > >No. All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with combat, or die to >combat. This is true. > All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with bleed, >or die to bleed. Does this mean they all have to have bleed bounce? > All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with votes, >or die to votes. All decks must have intercept or rush to survive in Jyhad. Intercept stops you opponent from doing all his actions or you can rush all his minions so they cannot preform actions. Played ideally, these are the only constraints that are needed for a good deck. Intercept and rush are availiable to ALL clans. Alas, Jyhad is not ideal and S&B spoils this balance. This is why AI is needed to improve the playability or the scenario is create a deck which can Bleed bounce, rush or has lots of intercept or die! (I.E. make a deck that includes Dominate or Auspex). > There are _a_lot_ of ways to deal with each major strategy >(http:://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/ strategy.html >thanks, Curt!), so there's a lot of variety. But you stated 5 as the only ones viable? Is that a lot? >Of course, I guess there's more variety in everyone using AI >for bleed >defense, crippling 2 of 3 major bleed strategies. Sure >sounds that way, >anyway. Yes there is more variety. Stealth and bleed is brought into line with all other decks and bruise and bleed is only slightly hindered (It would probably have to move to a more perments based bleed strategy as consistant bleeds of two or three will finish any deck off...) LOS >-Mark Langsdorf >http:://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

In article <58ip70$r...@dorsai.dorsai.org>, [ quoted text not captured ] That sounds like a good fix actually. The offending vamp is as good as burnt! LOS

In article <58k1n1$c...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk (Lord of Shadows) writes: >>kick like I said before. However, I feel that the card is >>justifiable as, pre AI, big bleeders tended to dominate the >>game, even when I used to play NL. Combat decks were so far >>and away inferior to these decks that they became less of an >>option but were definately more fun. This is fair enough I > >Combat decks aren't as easy (read: straight-foward) to build, >so may get ousted quickly until a proper deck mix is found. My point was that in the old rules, why play combat? The only way you could do it was with rush and these decks are VERY easily hosed by light combat, comat ends etc.) Then again I wasn't as good at the game then as I am now... >>guess, it is just that I would prefere to be able to play my >>Brujah vote deck without being ousted by turn 5 by either an >>(old style) tap and bleed or S&B deck killing me in 2 bleeds. >>The only way I can see this happening is with AI where I may >>be able to frighten them into bleeding for less, giving me an >>opportunity to get out some intercept or oust my predator or >>prey using votes. Without AI the deck would be unworkable as >>that is it's only bleed defence. Some may say "Hey, why don't >>you put in rush?" Why should I have to considering it is a >>non-combat deck? The point I am trying to make (once again) > >You don't have to - but you do have to put in some defense for >the standard strategies: vote, bleed, and combat. If you fail >to address one of these strategies, then you will probably >fair poorly if the unplanned-for strategy is used by your >Predator. Votes are dependant on the whole game environment as to whether you will pass them or not. (an intriging game is the game with three or more vote decks playing...) combat can be beaten in a plethora of ways, bleed can only be beaten by bleed bounce or telepathic counter. AI adds the extra way of handling bleed that brings the strategy in line. (O.K it does hurt B&B, but not so much to make the strategy unplayable) > >Q: Why should I put in intercept, bounce, or majesties in my >vote deck? > >A: Because you have to have a good defense as well as a good >offense. (Speedy offense can be used as a defense in some >cases - such as the weenie vote-push of old). Well the deck has light intercept and untap + combat ends. This is enough to deal with any strategy except S&B. You are basically saying that all decks must have bleed bounce in or perish, which was what I was saying all along... > >>is that without AI the decks you create must either have rush >>or bleed bounce in them or perish in favour of bleed tactics. > >That's right. And bleed decks must have anti-combat or perish >to rush, and so on. It is easier to add combat ends to most decks (due to the new cards) or combat to most decks then to add Bleed bounce to a deck. This is because you need Auspex or Dominate. Therefore, by this rational, all decks must have Auspex or dominate. Is that what your saying? > >>This is not a good scenario in my opinion. You said that why >>should we sacrifice bruise and bleed (because in my opinion >>tap and bleed no longer is a viable bleed tactic after GT) > >Tap and bleed was a degenerate strategy - worse than MS&B - >before GT/DCI. Now, it is still possible, but not to the >degenerate extremes allowed by repeating actions. I can't see the deck working under GT/DCI. How do you tap the opposing minion and then still bleed? > >>just to put a riegn on S&B. Well think about all the tactics >>you save: I.e. Any deck which the clans it contains have no >bleed bounce capibilities and don't want to be a rush deck. >You mean: all the decks that don't want to put up a >reasonable >defense (rush, bounce, intercept). Most decks DO put up a defence. The point is that heavy S&B will kill them EVERYTIME unless they have bleed bounce or rush. (Intercept is good up to a point, but Elder intervention pretty much kills this tactic off. I.E. the bleeder gets up to +3 stealth, you pile on the 3 intercept then he elder impersonates and you need +3 steath on another minion. Can we say 'ousted') >If you need bounce so badly in your group, use Major Boon. This is a sure way to slow down those bleeds, it's just a problem getting it on your prey (as you don't have bleed bounce) or on your predator (as if they are using dominate they have bleedbounce) >This has to be the strongest arguement for AI, 'broken' or >not, in ANY limit; not just CL as you so 'informatively' >put. >So yeah, O.K; I guess that AI is 'broken', from a certain >point of veiw, but it is a JUSTIFIABLY overpowered card in >my >opinion. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote: > > >You said every deck should have some way of dealing with large bleeds... > > >well, my combat deck's way is to have one single AI stuck in there. It > > >may not help with a determined big bleeder, but it makes the occasional > > >big bleeder wary and may save my butt. I don't think the card's > > >broken-- I hardly ever use it. But I will say that I rejoiced when I > > >first saw it. Now I don't get ousted in four turns, or not as often > > >anyway. In a recent three player game, I got the same effect out of Major Boon. My predator had Zebulon and Roland Bishop out, and was just waiting to get a bleed through with a Conditioning. Oops. He did the bright thing, though. He bled constantly for one to whittle down my pool. The same thing could be done with AI, but would be more painful to the both of us...he'd lose Zeb with superior Dominate, and I would be using a card I consider a cheat. Actually, in this case, the Major Boon would be more effective than the AI, since with the AI, only bleeds of 4 or more could be considered, while I could force my predator to take any of his own bleeds. Happily, his predator was pressuring him enough that he couldn't just take a bleed for three, then follow up with a bleed for four. -Nathan Harada

>Mr. Chang, I don't think that comments like the ones above >are helpful. Infact, I find the fact that you have to be so >aggressive in the putting down of Steffan quite appalling. If >Steffan wants to reply to everything, why shouldn't he be >able to? Just because you say so???! This kind of post is not >helpful to this newsgroup as it will encourage people NOT to >post. I for one like to hear everyones arguements, 'garbage' >(as you would put it) or no, so Steffan; post as much as you >want and ignore this kind of statement. Thanks, By the way, Its StAffan.

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Lord of Shadows wrote: > In article <58htog$7...@nntp-1.io.com>, mlan...@io.com (Mark > Langsdorf) wrote: > >The Lord of Shadows (MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: > >> I don't see any difference in the need for AI in CL or NL > >> myself. [Only sees Bounce/Rush as viable defense] > > Or intercept. Or blood gain. Or race. Take your pick. > >This is why us NLers don't see the need for AI: we have 5 > >major tactics to deal with S&B: [snip 5 Major anti-Bleed Tactics] > True, these are otherways of countering. I have seen other > non-combat decks race (although S&B tend to win) and also I > have seen some very good intercept decks that have stopped > S&B in it's tracks (alas these decks tend to suffer against > non-S&B decks...). The point is that you are still cornering > a deck into being one of five tiypes... And where do you put things? Rush or Bounce, according to your own words. 2 strategies of defense. Or, just use 1 Card to stop the entire strategy. So, CL is more varied because it allows you 3 less strategies of Defense or a single card? I think I have it... > >Every tactic except for intercept has the advantage that after a few > >bleeds, my predator is hand-jammed: having played all his bleed boost > >cards, he has a hand full of unplayable stealth cards. > This is all very well but after a few bleeds I have found > that without Ai your a dead man, unless you have bleed bounce > (I have never seen a blood back deck, is there one in your > archive?) After a few bleeds of what? The first my be large, but each after it tends to get smaller. By that time you should be doing _something_ for defense. Else, you have a bad deck. Blood Back decks: One Clan political decks with Consanguineous Boons can gain 4 to 7 blood per action (especially if they have presence), Autarkis Persecution with smaller voters has a similar effect. Setting up a Blood Doll engine can keep 1 pool in a turn. Minion Tap followed by a Voter Captivated Vote works wonders (gain much pool if ahead in votes). My Nossie Politic deck (not on my website, but after finals, it is TheSlumlords) uses weenie politics backed with rush to get votes passed, often gaining over 10 pool in a turn. > >> these tactics you are dead, it's as simple as that. The NLers > >> are always going on about stifiling variety in decks yet they > >> all advocate banning AI! To me this seems quite extrordinary > >> as then your deck has to incorperate one strategy or another > >> to deal with S&B. Isn't this cutting down on variety? > >No. All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with > > combat, or die to combat. > This is true. > > All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with bleed, > >or die to bleed. > Does this mean they all have to have bleed bounce? No. For most decks, this means one of the big five (Race/Gain/Bounce/Intercept/Rush), but this could also be Dramatic Upheavel, Sensory Deprivation/Pentex Subversion, etc... > > All decks have to incorporate tactics to deal with votes, > >or die to votes. > All decks must have intercept or rush to survive in Jyhad. In your circle. So then, do all of your political decks have one or the other? Neil Bernstein's "Robbery" <http://mrfrench.cslab.uwlax.edu:80/~sulli_al/jyhad/dealer/Robbery.html> doesn't do either, and it works quite well. > Intercept stops you opponent from doing all his actions or > you can rush all his minions so they cannot preform actions. Or you can make their actions invalid some other way, whether it be Blood Raging the guy with the gun, Dramatic Upheavel to mess with the table, Disguised Weapon to get around the intercept stopping you from equipping or what have you. > Played ideally, these are the only constraints that are > needed for a good deck. My Rebekka deck uses neither and does quite well. My Sowing Dissension's Seeds Deck does neither and has probably won more games than any other deck I have. >Intercept and rush are availiable to > ALL clans. Setites? +1 to +2 intercept _MAX_ (in most situations) is not ideal for intercept (unless playing light intercept, which is of no defense against S&B). >Alas, Jyhad is not ideal and S&B spoils this > balance. Perhaps in your environment, but not in any CL one I've seen. > This is why AI is needed to improve the playability > or the scenario is create a deck which can Bleed bounce, rush > or has lots of intercept or die! (I.E. make a deck that > includes Dominate or Auspex). You have many more options than the above. See my deck archive for each of the decks posted their and their defenses. > > There are _a_lot_ of ways to deal with each major strategy > >(http:://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/strategy.html > >thanks, Curt!), so there's a lot of variety. > But you stated 5 as the only ones viable? Is that a lot? 4 main ones for vote (rush/intercept/nullify/debate) 4 main ones for combat(avoid/prevent/swarm/fightback(many variations here)) 5 main ones for bleed (with ignore it being a substrategy for 6). Other more esoteric strategies exist, but are more focused in their use. Besides, given the game mechanics in Jyhad, in the case of bleed, what else could there be as a main strategy? Stop it from happening (intercept), kill the offenders before they do it (rush), make the losses inconsequential (gain), make someone else take it (bounce), kill your prey before you die (race). There isn't much room for other _major_ strategies, and this number seems preferable to the 2 counters that you mention. > >Of course, I guess there's more variety in everyone using AI for bleed > >defense, crippling 2 of 3 major bleed strategies. Sure sounds that way, > >anyway. > Yes there is more variety. Stealth and bleed is brought into > line with all other decks and bruise and bleed is only > slightly hindered (It would probably have to move to a more > perments based bleed strategy as consistant bleeds of two or > three will finish any deck off...) Bruise and Bleed is destroyed. read the analysis given early in these threads and counter some of those points before you declare you have countered it. Currently, the points regarding B&B remain uncountered. Where do you show there is more variety? All I seem to see is you claiming less viable deck types available? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as @#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as @#$ <http:cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ Reality ... GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?

In article <58rst7$e54...@leeds.ac.uk>, Lord of Shadows <MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >In article <58k1n1$c...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, > sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >>Combat decks aren't as easy (read: straight-foward) to >build, >>so may get ousted quickly until a proper deck mix is found. > >My point was that in the old rules, why play combat? The only >way you could do it was with rush and these decks are VERY >easily hosed by light combat, comat ends etc.) Then again I >wasn't as good at the game then as I am now... What about Intercept Combat? The expansions have added excellent adisciplinary permanent intercept which, combined with disciplinary transient intercept, is quite powerful -- in the Basic Set, Obfuscate is matched card-for-card by Auspex, as (to a lesser degree) Protean is by Animalism (when it comes to stealth vs. intercept, i mean). [lsj: you need defenses] >Votes are dependant on the whole game environment as to >whether you will pass them or not. (an intriging game is the >game with three or more vote decks playing...) combat can be >beaten in a plethora of ways, bleed can only be beaten by >bleed bounce or telepathic counter. AI adds the extra way of >handling bleed that brings the strategy in line. (O.K it does >hurt B&B, but not so much to make the strategy unplayable) I disagree: stealth/bleed (which seems the focus of your argument) is beaten by intercept, rush, or bounce. Granted, a vote deck doesn't have much room to fight, but of the voting disciplines (presence, dominate, and, to a lesser extent, auspex), two (or one and a half, counting auspex as half) can bounce -- you're only unable to bounce if you're playing Setites, basically. But on a more global basis: If you're unable or unwilling to (a) Intercept, (b) Bounce, or (c) Rush, then, yes, Sneak & Bleed will hose you often. Tough cookies. If you make a Ventrue vote deck with no combat defense or stealth, you don't have a good case to be surprised when you get blocked and mangled. Same with any vote deck -- you need to defend vs. combat and bleed, and defending vs. bleed means Intercept, Rush, or Bounce. Pick one, or get bled, basically. >Well the deck has light intercept and untap + combat ends. >This is enough to deal with any strategy except S&B. You are >basically saying that all decks must have bleed bounce in or >perish, which was what I was saying all along... LSJ said a deck must have a good defense vs. S&B or perish, which for a non-Brujah vote deck means bounce, yeah. Not all decks : all non-Brujah vote decks. Much smaller group. >It is easier to add combat ends to most decks (due to the new >cards) or combat to most decks then to add Bleed bounce to a >deck. This is because you need Auspex or Dominate. Therefore, >by this rational, all decks must have Auspex or dominate. Is >that what your saying? If you're a vote deck, you probably already *have* Auspex or Dominate, or fighting ability, or are a Setite vote deck, in which case you have many and varied problems, being bled one of them. >>Tap and bleed was a degenerate strategy - worse than MS&B - >>before GT/DCI. Now, it is still possible, but not to the >>degenerate extremes allowed by repeating actions. >I can't see the deck working under GT/DCI. How do you tap the >opposing minion and then still bleed? Misdirection, Disarming Presence, Consanguineous Condemnation, the Sleeping Mind, Entombment, Sensory Deprivation. Vote, untap, bleed. The Toreador do it well, with Alexandra and the Louvre, plus the Portrait if you're feeling wacky. >Most decks DO put up a defence. The point is that heavy S&B >will kill them EVERYTIME unless they have bleed bounce or >rush. (Intercept is good up to a point, but Elder >intervention pretty much kills this tactic off. I.E. the >bleeder gets up to +3 stealth, you pile on the 3 intercept >then he elder impersonates and you need +3 steath on another >minion. Can we say 'ousted') EI's pretty ugly, yah. Auspex, though, grants bounce, and adisciplinary light intercept does give you room for combat. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods