Please errate Perfectionnist !

It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition, when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get you one blood ? I'd like to see it either Unique, "only one per methuselah" condition, or maybe "independant vampire" or something such. This way, Capitalist, Bravo and co will (still marginally) see the light of day. Well, nothing better than a Blood Doll anyway, but they do combine nicely with some archetypes... ;) Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition, > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get > you one blood ? Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone? -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Orpheus wrote: > > > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse > > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the > > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a > > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition, > > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get > > you one blood ? > > Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action > still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone? > That's a good example. I do believe that in order for the other Archetypes to be good when compared to Perfectionist would be to play them all as trifles. I would make Capitalist an obvious exception - it's still worth a full master phase action. Is it worth your time actually changing the old archetypes? Probably not. Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere

Dorrinal Blackmantle a écrit : > LSJ wrote: > >>Orpheus wrote: >> >> >>>It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is > > worse > >>>than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the > > >>>active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want > > a > >>>"succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" > > condition, > >>>when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will > > get > >>>you one blood ? >> >>Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action >>still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone? >> > > That's a good example. Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote / bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found that it was better most of the time. Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all. I do believe that in order for the other > Archetypes to be good when compared to Perfectionist would be to play > them all as trifles. Yes, but some already are I think. Maybe making them trifle by default ? Mmmm, might be too big. I would make Capitalist an obvious exception - > it's still worth a full master phase action. Yes. > Is it worth your time actually changing the old archetypes? Probably > not. Agreed. So the easiest way is to change just one card. Once more, it's not a card you'll see abused in the PTO or Succubus sense of the term. But it IS a shame that such a nice concept - archetypes - would be sent to oblivion (at least all the old ones) by just one card. Like if you had Gird Minions and suddenly came up with Blood Dolls... Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes... FWIW, Perfectionist (3x), Capitalist (4x), Curmudgeon (3x) and Bravo (1x)have all made the Tournament Winning Decklist. There may be others, but I'm not gonna check 'em all. :) Sociopath was zero though. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not surprised at those numbers a all. Bravo can easily be replaced with Perfectionist, and Capitalist and Curmudgeon are still playable when compared with Perfectionist. Dorrinal Blackmantle Curmudgeon of Clan Tremere

jeff...@pacbell.net a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Thank you for the information. As already said : Capitalist is the only active archetype able to survive Perfectionnist ; and Curmudgeon is a reacting archetype, so concerns a totally different type of decks, and isn't replaceable by Perf. As for Bravo, I'd say 2 things : 1) it isn't because a deck with 1 in it won anything that it makes the card worth anything and 2) some card may be relatively good but still be wallpeperized by just plain goodness. Orpheus

jeff...@pacbell.net a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap to the other is something good in my book.

In message <424db2f5$0$21466$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also >intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn >and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap >to the other is something good in my book. It also benefits from the fact that rush decks don't typically care about whether their action succeeds or not, so people can (and do) block them to deny them the maneuver from a Bum's Rush or to block with a weenie instead of the big target. What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for combat, so it could get in the way. I don't think that's too big a problem. But, might a combat deck think that Taste of Vitae is a better card to play a lot of the time? Of course, if you're using agg damage or other torporization strikes, that's different. What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc. It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :( That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the use of more than one archetype. Or a flexible card which allowed something at inferior, and the fetching/playing of an archetype at superior. Dementation strikes me as the obvious place for such a card, though a slightly... unusual psychiatrist ally might be fun. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

Orpheus wrote: > Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still > it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with > Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote / > bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've > progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found > that it was better most of the time. > > Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other > archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all. If no one plays wakes or intercept in your environment, it could well be your environment, yes. A Wake will thwart Perfectionist. Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:25:50 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still >> it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with >> Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote / >> bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've >> progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found >> that it was better most of the time. >> >> Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other >> archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all. > > If no one plays wakes or intercept in your environment, it could well be > your environment, yes. > > A Wake will thwart Perfectionist. > > Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when > your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon. People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the purpose it was included in the deck for. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsoli8r...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:25:50 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >wrote: >> A Wake will thwart Perfectionist. >> >> Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when >> your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon. > >People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really > that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the > purpose it was included in the deck for. Well, that assumes that you view a denied blood as wasted - thought it might typically be super-expensive, yes. Also, on bleeds in particular, you may well be bouncing and waking anyway. On votes, you may be playing Delaying Tactics or Confusion of the Eye. Combat less so, but combat is often played without stealth (or much stealth) and so may not be successful. Blocking is far from uncommon, and if a player is having to spend resources on making sure that that Perfect minion isn't blocked, it may well be a bigger downside for them. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their Perfectionist). If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed instead, that's certainly your option. But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away) your Wake to stop it, just like anything else. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe a écrit : > In message <424db2f5$0$21466$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda > <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >>but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also >>intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn >>and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap >>to the other is something good in my book. > > > It also benefits from the fact that rush decks don't typically care > about whether their action succeeds or not, so people can (and do) block > them to deny them the maneuver from a Bum's Rush or to block with a > weenie instead of the big target. the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way, you gain one blood if you bruise him. > What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master > card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for > combat, so it could get in the way. Typically, in a Blood brother deck (where i think this card is a marvel) gaining blood is very important. > I don't think that's too big a > problem. But, might a combat deck think that Taste of Vitae is a better > card to play a lot of the time? Of course, if you're using agg damage > or other torporization strikes, that's different. in the endgame, you have a lot of opposing vampire with one or zero blood on them: First, they get exhausted from playing card. Second, opposing methuselah see you are playing a combat deck, so they minion tap their minion very low just so you cannot gain blood via Tastes (this happen very often) and they have plenty of pool available. The standard strategy is leaving just one or two blood on a fattie, so he can play majesty twice if you're lucky enough to not face the dreaded grapples. > What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters > claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc. > It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :( In a deck that can also intercept, even a simple hunt action from your pred, it's still a free blood. Even if the hunting vamp was empty. It's in any case better than a hunting ground. Plus it encourages "proactive play" ;) > > That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple > Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the > use of more than one archetype. Or a flexible card which allowed > something at inferior, and the fetching/playing of an archetype at > superior. Dementation strikes me as the obvious place for such a card, > though a slightly... unusual psychiatrist ally might be fun. the "fetch an archetype from your library and place it on a vampire" card would be a neat idea indeed :)

Orpheus <orphe...@deadfree.fr> wrote: > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition, > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get > you one blood ? I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated. The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot" has an heavy cost. Cards that go against deck diversity should be as few as possible.

> I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated. > The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some > wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which > strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot" > has an heavy cost. > > Cards that go against deck diversity should be as few as possible. While I agree that it could go in most decks, I notice that it ends up not going into most decks. Master slots are of prime importance in a deck, and for almost every deck archetype there is a requisite number of masters, with very little room for diversity in the first place. More often than no my perfectionist gets cut. Derek Rawlings

Herve wrote: > I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated. > The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some > wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which > strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot" > has an heavy cost. As mentioned elsewhere, yeah, it *can* go in most decks, but it tends not to. As it takes up a master slot, and while it is certainly handy, so are a lot of other master cards. And yeah, it is likely that Perfectionist is far and away the best Archetype, and arguably it makes most of the other Archetypes kind of wallpapery (although Capitalist and Sociopath are reasonably useful), I don't think this is 'cause Perfectionist is too good, but that the other ones are all kinda weak. Which is reasonable, as they were a new idea when printed, and the designers seemed to err on the side of caution. So this leaves us with Perfectionist, which is pretty good, and a bunch of other Archetypes, which are kind of weak. As there seems to be a concerted effort to avoid upgrading weak cards historically (other than by printing new versions that are just better--see Chainsaw/Gas Powered Chainsaw; the only card I can think of that was upgraded significantly is Concealed Weapon, which was a reasonable move), sadly, the best option is simply to leave the less useful Archetypes alone, leave Perfectionist alone, and then print a few more new Archetypes that are as useful as Perfectionist. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really >> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the >> purpose it was included in the deck for. > > Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's > actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that > action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their > Perfectionist). Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;) > If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed > instead, that's certainly your option. > > But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to > your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away) > your Wake to stop it, just like anything else. Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday. Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for impact. X-) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really >>> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the >>> purpose it was included in the deck for. >> >> Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's >> actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that >> action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their >> Perfectionist). > > Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck > ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;) Please show me where that was suggested. Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block. Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist. It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch" (that is, do nothing). >> If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed >> instead, that's certainly your option. >> >> But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to >> your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away) >> your Wake to stop it, just like anything else. > > > Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal > deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday. > Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds > or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for > impact. X-) Try reading what it written instead of inventing straw men to knock down. Build the deck. Then, in play, when faced with actual decks, use what is in your deck to your advantage. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <424ed7f3$0$22839$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe a écrit : >the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter >combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way, >you gain one blood if you bruise him. I think what Bravo is intended for is decks which rush with inherent stealth that want to play other Masters too. That brings it down to four major options: - Haven Uncovered - Contracts - Archon/Templar vote-and-rushes - Nose of the Hound Now, Haven Uncovered is not usually the focus of a deck. It's good, but the uber-weenie rush decks of old typically only included 4. The number is usually low, anyway. This has the knock on effect that Bravo would be harder to use. Nose of the Hound is good, but at aus and spi you need a tapped minion. Only when you get to SPI can it be used against any minion, which is certainly costly as there are only three minions in the game with SPI. So Nose of the Hound is one of those cards I tend to think of as being a good and strong backup rush, but you want some other cards too. Vote-and-rush is an extremely good and strong archetype, but very difficult to play. It already has careful card flow issues, so *another* card is awkward. Still, I'd consider tossing a couple in for kicks. Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like. Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue. A Contract-Rush-Fame(-rescue-Rush-repeat) deck could be interesting with it. And then you're not competing for master slots with the Fame, due to it being Triflicious, but still getting some blood back for the rescues, if you need it (i.e. they don't have the blood to use). Now, the problem with all of this is that the decks using them are harder to do well with to start with. :( >> What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master >> card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for >> combat, so it could get in the way. > >Typically, in a Blood brother deck (where i think this card is a >marvel) gaining blood is very important. Oh, I think that Sociopath can be potentially very good. But it's a more corner-case good. Meaning that it's probably much better than Perfectionist when in the right deck, but it's just that those decks are fewer. >> What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters >> claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc. >> It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :( > >In a deck that can also intercept, even a simple hunt action from your >pred, it's still a free blood. Even if the hunting vamp was empty. It's >in any case better than a hunting ground. Plus it encourages "proactive >play" ;) Oh, obviously, it can combo in fun ways like that. It's just that, say, an Intercept deck will often have other masters it needs to play. As will a lot of other decks. So if you have an intercept location in hand and a Sociopath in hand, which do you want to play first? And there'll be quite a few similar issues too, depending on what other masters you have. It's far from a bad card. It's just that, as a master, it's competing with quite a few really strong cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck > ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;) It doesn't need to be included as, like, specific anti-Perfectionist tech. 'Cause that is kind of silly. But you likely have Wakes anyway. Your predator, with a Perfectionist, is taking an action. You could Wake and try and block--maybe you block, maybe you just foil the Perfectionist. Either case is reasonable. Yes, Perfectionist tends to be much better in decks with lots and lots of little minions that take lots of actions, so you are unlikely to try and Wake and block to stop that Perfectionist hunt, 'cause you don't want to be overwhelmed by bleeds later in the turn. But that means that Perfectionist is really good in a much smaller number of decks than "every deck in the game". > Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal > deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday. > Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds > or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for > impact. X-) The weakness of Perfectionist is that it doesn't work if someone plays a reaction card. Lots of decks use reaction cards (Wake being the the most common and most obvious). It really isn't that unlikely that Perfectionist will be foiled on a given action. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple > Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the > use of more than one archetype. Dissociative Personality Master: archetype. Put this card on a Malkavian you control. If this Malkavian successfully takes an action that does not change the pool total of any Methuselah or the blood total of any vampire, this Malkavian gains one blood. This card does not count against this Malkavian's limit of 1 archetype.

In message <1112538552.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: >Dissociative Personality >Master: archetype. Put this card on a Malkavian you control. If this >Malkavian successfully takes an action that does not change the pool >total of any Methuselah or the blood total of any vampire, this >Malkavian gains one blood. This card does not count against this >Malkavian's limit of 1 archetype. I'd prefer something along the lines of "Put this card on a vampire with Dementation you control..." Or "Put this card on a ready Malkavian or Malkavian Antitribu you control." Possibly either. Also, unless there are cards to manipulate archetypes in some fashion, this one doesn't actually *need* to be an archetype. What I was thinking of was along the lines of below. This has three different ideas - any two would possibly be cool. :) <Some cool name about psychic surgery, introspection, personalities or something> +1 stealth action 1 blood [dem] Search your library for a master: archetype card; reveal it to all players and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library and discard down to your hand size. [aus dem] As [dem], but put the archetype you draw onto this acting vampire instead. Pay the cost, if any. Skip your next master phase. [AUS DEM] Put this card on the acting vampire. The vampire with this card may have and benefit from two archetype cards, ignoring restrictions on any archetype cards to the contrary. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The weakness of Perfectionist is that it doesn't work if someone plays a > reaction card. Lots of decks use reaction cards (Wake being the the most > common and most obvious). It really isn't that unlikely that Perfectionist > will be foiled on a given action. The problem is that all of the other "active" archetypes have almost the same foils. Bravo requires the rush action to be successful (and let's face it, a wake will often foil that too) and the combat to be successful. Capitalist requires the bleed be successful AND that it be successful against the original target (and if any reaction cards get played they're either going to be intercept or bounce or reduction, which may cause the capitalist effect to fail with a pretty high frequency). Loner requires that the action be successful. Guru requires the action be succesful and then the referendum be successful (reaction cards being intercept or vote screw, both of which may cause either to fail). While Perfectionist does open itself up to the "random wake" failure, that's generally not a sustainable thing for the table to keep up. And it works on /every/ action AND it doesn't have a sect requirement. I think those factors put it over every other action-based archetype by a huge margin (possible exception being capitalist in an all-sabbat sneak/bleed deck in a low-ish rush metagame where you won't need to be hunting or rescuing as much). All that said, I think it's more a testament to the fact that Perfectionist is a phenomenal card and it's the other archetypes that are just underpowered. I think it's the closest we're going to come to Blood Doll in terms of universally useable common master cards for a long time. -Snapcase

Snapcase wrote: > The problem is that all of the other "active" archetypes have almost the > same foils. Bravo requires the rush action to be successful (and let's > face it, a wake will often foil that too) and the combat to be > successful. Capitalist requires the bleed be successful AND that it be > successful against the original target (and if any reaction cards get > played they're either going to be intercept or bounce or reduction, > which may cause the capitalist effect to fail with a pretty high > frequency). Loner requires that the action be successful. Guru > requires the action be succesful and then the referendum be successful > (reaction cards being intercept or vote screw, both of which may cause > either to fail). Yes. I think it is clear that Perfectionist is the best Archtype out there. This doesn't mean that Perfectionist is overpowered, 'cause it isn't. It means that the other Archetypes are kinda weak, which they are. But as there is a long standing strive to not errata cards that are too weak to make them more powerful, it is likely that the rest of the less useful Archetypes will remain less useful. > All that said, I think it's more a testament to the fact that > Perfectionist is a phenomenal card and it's the other archetypes that > are just underpowered. I think it's the closest we're going to come to > Blood Doll in terms of universally useable common master cards for a > long time. Sure. But I don't think it is actually that universally useful. I mean, like, it is handy and all, but so are lots of other master cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:44:38 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <424ed7f3$0$22839$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda ><true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >>James Coupe a écrit : > >>the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter >>combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way, >>you gain one blood if you bruise him. > >I think what Bravo is intended for is decks which rush with inherent >stealth that want to play other Masters too. That brings it down to >four major options: [snip] >Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You >have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if >you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like. >Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue. erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell.... salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring. Name: Perfectionist [Gehenna:C] Cardtype: Master Master: archetype. Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire can have only one archetype. Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr. Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn. So a multiple action deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help. (I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many have) It's common, not unique and can be used in any deck (that has the space). As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a trifle MPA. The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood. I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle, as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in. Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card (which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for this card. Useful, definitely. Ability to go in any deck, absolutely. Overpowered, I don't think so. Will see play, yes. Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no. Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so. Needs errataring - not in my opinion. p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet seen this in. Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other cards less weak).

In message <mlq051tmi1agsogpb...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >>Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You >>have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if >>you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like. >>Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue. > >erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell.... Hmm. How odd. I'd swear when I was looking at the text for Bravo that it said it was a Trifle. Gah. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1112601597.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Slytherin <an...@operamail.com> writes: >You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I >can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring. You're missing the point. It's not that Perfectionist is broken. It's that (for some people) it significantly overshadows any of the other archetypes, meaning they don't get played much. Hence "fixing" Perfectionist would make the others more playable, in some eyes. To my mind, if the others aren't worth playing at the moment, it would just make all archetypes get played less. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Apr 2005 01:01:15 -0700, Slytherin <an...@operamail.com> wrote: > You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I > can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring. Because it wallpapers almost every other Archetype? Not that it would really matter, but that's the point people were trying to make. > Name: Perfectionist > [Gehenna:C] > Cardtype: Master > Master: archetype. > Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this > vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are > played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire > can have only one archetype. > Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr. > > Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn. Indeed, quite like the other Archetypes. Bravo, Capitalist, Creep Show, Guru, Perfectionist, Rebel, Sociopath, Traditionalist: Once per turn. Of course, archetypes not linked to acting may theoretically be used in other Methuselahs' turns, but in general are that harder to pull off to begin with. Conniver, Curmudgeon: You tap the card. Loner: During this do that phrasing limits to one use per (your) turn. > So a multiple action > deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help. > (I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many > have) A multiple action minion will almost certainly gain blood from Perfectionist - and he won't really gain more blood from other Archetypes. He may actually gain less, as the other active archetypes usually require a given action to succeed - like, bleeding your prey for 1+. You can only bleed once a turn, so if you take multiple actions, you still have just a single chance to get the blood - unlike with Perfectionist. > It's common, That makes it even better, as far as availability is concerned. > not unique Even more better. > and can be used in any deck (that has the space). Wow, this seems like a great card... ;) > As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood > Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least > you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood > of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a > trifle MPA. Apples and Oranges, we are comparing, sort of. Depending on what actions you take (and how your pool/blood management works) I see the following differences (I'm assuming the cards are used in decks they really belong to): Blood Doll allows you to move 1 blood. Very useful for prudently recaliming the blood invested in the vampire, resupplying some blood to a weakened (or empty) vampire, or easily managing the size of your pool for effects that require you to have a cartain amount of pool. Perfectionist is nothing like that. It allows your vampire to have a steady flow of blood from the blood bank. Blood Doll only mover blood, but Perfectionist can gain you blood. There is even a synergy between Blood Doll and Perfectionist, on a certain level, by one generating blood and the other allowing you to convert blood to pool. The effect of Blood Doll is more remarkable than the effect of Perfectionist, by the way. But compared to Perfectionist, the other Archetypes look even less remarkable for the average deck. > The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one > where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not > many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably > more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions > people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction > card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be > played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will > not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood. Unless he or she is taking another action that turn, and gains the blood from that action. > I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle, > as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and > immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata > just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is > common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type > particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a > little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in. That is all right. People say Perfectionist is overpowered because they compare it to the other archetypes. It isn't remotely overpowered in itself. > Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the > opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card > (which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you > see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when > that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator > does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because > when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need > all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for > this card. I don't agree with the cycling a Wake part. There is a tendency to need to cycle spare Wakes late midgame and especially endgame, but the blood gained from an early Perfectionist will more than pay for that inconvenience. Not to mention that your allies probably won't throw Wakes at your actions, your predator will probably have a better use for it, given how your grandpredator hasn't acted yet, so it's probably your prey who will throw in the Wake - who will, most likely, try to use the Wake to defend his pool or minions. Theoretically anything you do will in the long run be harmful to your prey, but he will try to play a defence portfolio that minimizes the harm you can do to him. Meaning, in most cases you do end up with Perfectionist gaining you the blood. > Useful, definitely. > Ability to go in any deck, absolutely. > Overpowered, I don't think so. > Will see play, yes. > Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no. > Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so. > Needs errataring - not in my opinion. Agreed. > p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet > seen this in. > > Andy > VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge > > The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and > the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other > cards less weak). Yes, agreed. This debate is more hypothetical. I'm not sure anyone would really like to see errata for such a low-impact card as Perfectionist when there are other, more powerful cards out there that wallpaper a bunch of other cards or break the game. The point is the way I see it more about why it is so much better in practice than the other Archetypes, and whether this is poor for the diversity of the game. -- Bye, Daneel

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>>> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really >>>> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the >>>> purpose it was included in the deck for. >>> >>> Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's >>> actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that >>> action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their >>> Perfectionist). >> >> Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck >> ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;) > > Please show me where that was suggested. Well, nowhere, really. But it sounded cool, didn't it? But if you have, say, 6 Wakes and 6 Telepathic Misdirections in a deck as casual bleed defence, you won't, under normal circumstances, throw in a Wake just to prevent someone from gaining 1 blood. You'll most likely wait for one of the Misdirections and use them in a pair to bounce a bleed. > Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block. > Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist. Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see that as a purpose. I see blocking, deflecting, reducing, delaying, countervoting and making obey as the main purposes of the card. In particular decks you may have other purposes - but purposes are always related to a general attack form and/or a specific card you use in your deck. It is, IMHO, never related to a specific card in another player's deck unless 1) that card can really ruin your day (PTO), or 2) you know which deck you'll be facing and prepare for it. > It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of > it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of > them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch" > (that is, do nothing). My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's blood totals. I've played both with and against Perfectionist a number of times, and I see the cycling of the occasional reaction card as something quite uncommon. It does reduce Perfectionist's usefulness from being equal to "This vampire gains a blood each turn", but then the other Archetypes usually have restrictions that are far more significant hindrances than Perfectionist's weakness. > Try reading what it written instead of inventing straw men to > knock down. Was that a ruling or a clarification? ;) > Build the deck. Then, in play, when faced with actual decks, > use what is in your deck to your advantage. I guess I could only suggest the same thing to you. I'm not sure Perfectionist looks strong on paper. I did not really think it was significantly stronger than the other archetypes until I tried playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies. Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential, if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie of sorts... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block. >> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist. > > Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to > thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see No. No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake is to get +1 strength against Ventrue. Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card. It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility. Flexibility. >> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of >> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of >> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch" >> (that is, do nothing). > > My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a My experience shows otherwise. > 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on > my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is I didn't say allies. > in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't > acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he > doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My > prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's > blood totals. "Probably", perhaps. But, as I said, the option is there. If Perfectionists blood gain is never worth thwarting, then perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness are exaggerated. > playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't > built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card Sigh. Not "just because". But "because it is useful". See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options. Geez. > should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies. > Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying > Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes > clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by > the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential, > if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie > of sorts... ;) > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies. >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. Don't know. I'll give you an example. Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck that's already full of Majesties? I've made that mistake - they are bad at blocking anyway, why include wakes? - more than once. Until I realized that no matter how bad I am at blocking, I've been ousted many times one or two turns before I had the right setup in hand to place that 8-pool-loss Choir on my prey. So I included 4 Wakes. Angela and Gael *can* block bleeds, after all. Now I make VPs regularly with the deck. In every single game. Last time, I've been able to block Alexandra's bleed for 3 that would oust me. Next turn, Tribute to the Master, going to 8 pool. 8-pool Choir on my prey, who is ousted. Total 14 pool. Alexandra's bleeds won't be a big of a problem for the next turn. No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical. If Wakes >> clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by >> the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential, >> if your hand is clogged on your turn Wakes only clog your hand if you have too much of them (duh). That's why I don't use more than 6 to 8 Wakes (or Forced Awakenings) in any deck, even wall ones. I've been playing with a Giovanni deck that has three different block-fails cards specially to twart wall decks; that's the only situation where I could imagine myself getting a hand full of Wakes. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block. >>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist. >> >> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to >> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see > > No. > > No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake > is to get +1 strength against Ventrue. > > Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card. > It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility. > Flexibility. I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce, even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose of gaining +1 Intercept if needed). >>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of >>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of >>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch" >>> (that is, do nothing). >> >> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a > > My experience shows otherwise. I guess our experiences differ, then. >> 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on >> my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is > > I didn't say allies. So? I did. For the purpose of a practical example I depicted a general 5-player table. You have four adversaries, two of whom are, thanks to the dynamics of the game, more interested in you getting weaker (and there are two other adversaries, who are conversely less interested in you getting weaker, even to the point of generally foregoing an opportunity to deny you a blood you'd gain from Perfectionist, for example). I was referring to them as "allies", a commonly used but admittedly somewhat misleading word. >> in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't >> acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he >> doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My >> prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's >> blood totals. > > "Probably", perhaps. > But, as I said, the option is there. Indeed. I wasn't debating the theory, mind you. > If Perfectionists blood gain is never worth thwarting, then > perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness are exaggerated. I would call this an oversimplification. Assuming you observe the opportunity cost of playing a Wake just so that someone (likely your predator or prey) is denied one blood, of course. If you get rid of your Wake to deny that blood, you may be putting yourself in a worse position by not allowing you to use that Wake for something more crucial, like waking to bounce a bleed. I'm not saying blood gain is insignificant and so people will never mind throwing a reaction card. I'm saying that in practice thwarting the blood gain is often a less effective way to use your Wake. >> playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't >> built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card > > Sigh. > > Not "just because". But "because it is useful". > > See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone > plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options. > > Geez. Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That, of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck. Example: I often include Vox Domini in Non-Camarilla decks to thwart a PTO. I recall at least once being hit by a Parity Shift while holding Vox and not playing it because my predator had an IC member (who, after seeing how the Parity got through, called the PTO which I Voxed). Had I played Vox on the Parity Shift, I would have been screwed by losing my main vampire. This way I could reclaim 3 blood off Blood Dolls, and keep playing. -- Bye, Daneel

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > > >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies. > >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying > >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. > > Don't know. I'll give you an example. That is Daneel you're quoting, not me. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > > Daneel wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > >>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block. > >>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist. > >> > >> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to > >> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see > > > > No. > > > > No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake > > is to get +1 strength against Ventrue. > > > > Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card. > > It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility. > > Flexibility. > > I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended > role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a > Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce, > even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose > of gaining +1 Intercept if needed). Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card". Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention, which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up. > >>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of > >>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of > >>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch" > >>> (that is, do nothing). > >> > >> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a > > > > My experience shows otherwise. > > I guess our experiences differ, then. Yes. And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something doesn't exist. > > See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone > > plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options. > > > > Geez. > > Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent > (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included > it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That, > of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I > sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card > (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what > it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck. Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the Perfectionist blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the Wake in his deck. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:08:44 -0300, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote: > Don't know. I'll give you an example. > > Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck > that's already full of Majesties? Depends. I think the last Daughters deck I was running was somewhat toolboxish, and had about 5 Wakes for various reasons. But I can imagine a Daughters deck I wouldn't put any Wakes (or pure reaction cards) in. > No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every > game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But > sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical. I often completely neglect to include whole groups of cards in certain decks, which decks, despite the apparent shortcoming, seem to work just fine and score a fair share of VPs. A deck might not have any Reaction cards, or Combat cards, or Actions, and still be fairly competent on the long run. The only thing I never leave out is Master cards. -- Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:04:03 -0400, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended >> role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a >> Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce, >> even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose >> of gaining +1 Intercept if needed). > > Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card". > Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention, > which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up. Well, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was stuck with the idea that we were still talking about the purpose for including a card (and not the purpose of the card itself)... >> I guess our experiences differ, then. > > Yes. > And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something > doesn't exist. Yes. I have seen Perfectionist get foiled by a thrown Wake. I did that myself (with Wakes, or +1 Intercept cards even when I knew the vampire could stealth past me). I had my Perfectionists foiled by Wakes being thrown in (even cross-table). But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many times it was useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that significant. >> Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent >> (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've >> included >> it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. >> That, >> of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I >> sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card >> (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what >> it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck. > > Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the > Perfectionist > blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it > was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the > Wake in his deck. Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be quite high IMHO. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: >But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many times it was >useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that significant. I think LSJ's point is, mostly, that much like being used for bouncing or intercepting or reacting, if Wake is useful at the time to simply foil a Perfectionist, it'll get used for that. But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is? I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper. But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful. The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad, but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit. In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions, and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have, like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early, it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck, where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any blood at all off it. Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker Archetypes, really need to be weakened? -Peter

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be > quite high IMHO. I do not say that it cannot be quite high. I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out of your hand anyhow). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:32:52 -0400, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be >> quite high IMHO. > > I do not say that it cannot be quite high. > > I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out > of your hand anyhow). Yes, it can be. -- Bye, Daneel

On 4 Apr 2005 07:38:03 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is > Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is? No. Perfectionist is at best an "average" card. Maybe a good "average", but certainly not a "good". Okay, well, maybe a poor "good". ;) > I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes > most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper. Yeah, well, that was my point, basically. Perfectionist is THE archetype, with the others being marginalized and are only useful in specific decks. There are some decks one other Archetype is about as good as Perfectionist, but in the majority it's Perfectionist all the way (if you do plan to use any of the Archetypes at all). > But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful. > The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and > Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad, > but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit. Agreed. > In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no > brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates > blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll > work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single > vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions, > and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions > a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have, > like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early, > it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck, > where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any > blood at all off it. Also, Archetypes are unstealable and unburnable through the means a Hunring Ground can be stolen or burned. You can Conquest of Humanity and still gain blood from your archetypes. Of course, the stuff you wrote is still true. > Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker > Archetypes, really need to be weakened? No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for raising the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of these, like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but you can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during your turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo doing it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: >No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for raising > the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of these, > like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but you > can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your > discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during your > turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related > bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo doing > it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.). Sure. It also seems likely that, if the designers are interested in the idea overall, more Archetypes will be printed that are more up to par with Perfectionist, and the other ones will simply stay as marginal to weak. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] True, that's another option. I'm all for diversity, myself, though - having a card around that is quite good from certain perspectives but weak from many others is an example of a card that adds to variety. I'd rather see the old archetypes get some beefing up through non- errata means, if possible, than have a set of new, more powerful archetypes. I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed, etc.) deck types. -- Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:48:19 -0400, "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote: >> >> >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies. >> >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying >> >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. >> >> Don't know. I'll give you an example. > >That is Daneel you're quoting, not me. Oops. Sorry, didn't check. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and > as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed, > etc.) deck types. Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into Archetypes didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they should be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them behind and move on. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Daneel wrote: > > > I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and > > as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed, > > etc.) deck types. > > Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into Archetypes > didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they should > be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them > behind and move on. Bravo: Trifle Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction Conniver: Trifle Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction Loner: Trifle Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype" Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction. Voila! Fixed Archetypes. ;) Jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter D Bakija wrote: | | Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into Archetypes | didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they should | be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them | behind and move on. OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger stuff in later if it IS underpowered. Hey, I got a great idea; instead of pouring a cupful of salt on my dinner before tasting it, how about I make this thing called a "shaker", where I try a little bit first and then add more later if I need? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCUbz7tQZlu3o7QpERAh1mAKCHr1IZGI9ucKade5U3RRkQ11YNEgCgh5NS 2mcj3kxh8rjRmPmAJHNt6Ig= =qv3u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > Bravo: Trifle Still not that good. > Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction Capialist is already perfectly solid--it is like, more likely to pay off than Perfectionist is in a Kindred Spirits deck. > Conniver: Trifle > Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction > Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction > Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction > Loner: Trifle All still not that good. > Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype" > Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria > Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction Much like capitalist, still pretty good in a lot of decks. > Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction. Again, not that good still. > Voila! Fixed Archetypes. ;) I mean, like, all of these certainly help the cards, but as mentioned before, it is pretty much policy to not upgrade weak cards via errata (with a few exceptions), as it isn't really worth the effort. They'd have to reprint them eventually anyway, and rather than reprinting a bunch of upgraded yet still lame Archetypes, they could just make some new ones that are up to par with Perfectionist, and issue a few each in the next bunch of sets. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level > first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger > stuff in later if it IS underpowered. Hey, it works for me. I don't so much have a problem with the weak Archtypes (well, except that i have so darn many of them...) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:17:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level > first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger > stuff in later if it IS underpowered. > > Hey, I got a great idea; instead of pouring a cupful of salt on my > dinner before tasting it, how about I make this thing called a "shaker", > where I try a little bit first and then add more later if I need? Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something? Geez. So few bullets... -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter D Bakija wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level |>first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger |>stuff in later if it IS underpowered. | | Hey, it works for me. I don't so much have a problem with the weak Archtypes | (well, except that i have so darn many of them...) You'd almost swear there was someone planning this stuff, huh? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCUd+6tQZlu3o7QpERAqICAKC7x0pT29ZTXWmM3+KRd+amnMqPBACfVBfa YNx0v1g06Zm8WQ8BbIPGA9M= =XE+G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <opsoqd0f...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new > sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see > that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something? No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill. For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted, and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible, post-grouping.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:06:35 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsoqd0f...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new >> sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see >> that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something? > > No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the > real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have > clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill. You obviously missed the mocking tone of my post. There's no need to state the obvious. > For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been > found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the > Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted, > and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible, > post-grouping.) The point being... Exactly what? We're not talking about some weird combo here. We're talking about cards people try to use for what they were inteded for. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsorwgh...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:06:35 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <opsoqd0f...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> >> writes: >>> Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new >>> sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see >>> that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something? >> >> No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the >> real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have >> clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill. > >You obviously missed the mocking tone of my post. There's no need to > state the obvious. What you were mocking was far from obvious. You could easily be mocking Derek's point that introducing some things weaker than they might be could be good, to allow empowering when they've been explored, and that playtesting should catch this. At which point, pointing out that playtesting is and always will be fallible is far from "stating the obvious". >> For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been >> found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the >> Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted, >> and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible, >> post-grouping.) > >The point being... Exactly what? We're not talking about some weird > combo here. We're talking about cards people try to use for what > they were inteded for. Sigh. That playtesters miss some (many) things, including that some things may be underpowered and that others may be over-powered, and that some things won't be tested at all. Not all cards will be played with, not all combos will be tried, both obvious and obscure, both good and ill. With 100 new cards to play, and 100s of existing cards to try them with, and limited time for testing, not all cards will be tested to their fullest extent, and some playtesters will overlook some, perhaps many, cards. If a card looks "boring", it will be often be overlooked by people and the true significance of it, as a good or bad card, can be missed. However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need them and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised when people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like explaining things is needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:06:28 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> You obviously missed the mocking tone of my post. There's no need to >> state the obvious. > > What you were mocking was far from obvious. You could easily be mocking > Derek's point that introducing some things weaker than they might be > could be good, to allow empowering when they've been explored, and that > playtesting should catch this. At which point, pointing out that > playtesting is and always will be fallible is far from "stating the > obvious". There are 11 Archetypes. People complain about 8 of them being significantly worse than Perfectionist (and not too useful outside of the comparison). Someone thinks that this is all right, and - funny - the way to go. While I don't think some cards ending up below the power curve is a problem, I do think that the attitude is plain wrong. That was the attitude being made fun of. Your statement is utter triviality. To err is human, nothing is perfect, sometimes shit happens... Generalities, mostly irrelevant and adding nothing to any discussion. >> The point being... Exactly what? We're not talking about some weird >> combo here. We're talking about cards people try to use for what >> they were inteded for. > > Sigh. > > That playtesters miss some (many) things, including that some things may > be underpowered and that others may be over-powered, and that some > things won't be tested at all. Not all cards will be played with, not > all combos will be tried, both obvious and obscure, both good and ill. > > With 100 new cards to play, and 100s of existing cards to try them with, > and limited time for testing, not all cards will be tested to their > fullest extent, and some playtesters will overlook some, perhaps many, > cards. > > If a card looks "boring", it will be often be overlooked by people and > the true significance of it, as a good or bad card, can be missed. Perhaps the time given to playtest is insufficient. Perhaps there are too few playtester groups, or they are not skilled enough. Perhaps the game is too complex for a new set to be fully playtested. Perhaps new sets are too big. Perhaps none (or all, or some) of these are true. But this is basically aside the point. > However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble > understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety > of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need them > and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised when > people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like > explaining things is needed. Interesting how the personal level often gets introduced into arguments instead (or aside) of providing related arguments. Since your inability do discern the differences between topics is apparent, let me remind you that the question about Wake was a bit more complex than your inane reference would like it to be. *I* see no real need to include Wakes in a deck just because they're Wakes or just because it's a deck. I do include Wakes in decks I think they fit into (usually with a specific purpose in my mind, but sometimes I assign toolboxish intended uses to general purpose cards, like Wakes). A tossed Wake can foil the blood gain of Perfectionist. However, only a few players are generally interested in foiling the blood gain of Perfectionist. Also, the opportunity costs of tossing that Wake may well be high enough for those players to make them save the Wake for some more crucial use. Was this understandable, or need I put spaces between the letters to facilitate understanding? Duh. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Coupe wrote: | In message <opsoqd0f...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> | writes: | |>Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new |>sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see |>that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something? | | No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the | real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have | clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill. Also worth noting that it is _not_ the primary purpose of playtesting to identify weak cards that need improvement -- quite the contrary. Playtesting should first try to spot over-strong/broken cards that need toning down, and beyond that, to PLAY the cards and see how they do. Typically you don't run out of strong cards to focus on by the time the set is due for release, so the weak ones never get looked at much other than "Bob found a use for it in _X_ deck, and put it in." It's a shame, but given the limited time and resources available, it's much more critical to ensure that the game doesn't break than all the cards are "good". A few wallpaper cards only hurt themselves; something like Return to Innocence getting through hurts the whole game. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCUwiBtQZlu3o7QpERAnoeAKCq730hc0kbqnx1bfzRjlsZZiNvzgCg0Cp0 Ki9a1oG/RG1HWqzLUnB9W9Q= =6JPj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <opsor363...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >> However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble >> understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety >> of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need them >> and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised when >> people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like >> explaining things is needed. > >Interesting how the personal level often gets introduced into arguments > instead (or aside) of providing related arguments. No, this is simply the truth. The way people appear affects the way people respond to them. You have made quite a few mind-bogglingly bizarre statements in your time. People aren't going to assume that everything you say is tongue in cheek mockery, as a result. If this troubles you, welcome to the real world. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:23:50 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsor363...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >>> However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble >>> understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety >>> of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need >>> them >>> and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised >>> when >>> people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like >>> explaining things is needed. >> >> Interesting how the personal level often gets introduced into arguments >> instead (or aside) of providing related arguments. > > No, this is simply the truth. > > The way people appear affects the way people respond to them. You have > made quite a few mind-bogglingly bizarre statements in your time. > People aren't going to assume that everything you say is tongue in cheek > mockery, as a result. > > If this troubles you, welcome to the real world. ... Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is actually useful or at least slightly related to subject. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsor60u...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how > your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude > myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is > actually useful or at least slightly related to subject. My assessment may be wrong. It is, however, my assessment based on your previous behaviour. And it may be wrong, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Also, I respond to the bits I want to respond to, and not to the other bits that don't interest me. That's how Usenet works. Your rebuttals of why I'm wrong aren't what I wanted to address. The fact that people may do things which appear, to you, to be "stating the obvious" based on the fact that they previous interactions cloud their judgements was what I wanted to address. What's hard about that? People respond to the bits they want to. Not the bits you want them to. Welcome to Usenet. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:37:43 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsor60u...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how >> your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude >> myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is >> actually useful or at least slightly related to subject. > > My assessment may be wrong. It is, however, my assessment based on your > previous behaviour. And it may be wrong, but that's the way the cookie > crumbles. > > Also, I respond to the bits I want to respond to, and not to the other > bits that don't interest me. That's how Usenet works. Your rebuttals > of why I'm wrong aren't what I wanted to address. The fact that people > may do things which appear, to you, to be "stating the obvious" based on > the fact that they previous interactions cloud their judgements was what > I wanted to address. > > What's hard about that? > > People respond to the bits they want to. Not the bits you want them to. > Welcome to Usenet. Ah, the golden words of the witless cynic. If you have thoughts, present them; if you have style, let it show. If you have neither, just type a lot, because you can. Counterarguments? Who cares. Just type more than the other guy. Being proven wrong again and again? No problem, just keep on typing, and say back the same things the other said to you. Well, happy typing, Mr. Usenet. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Ah, the golden words of the witless cynic. If you have thoughts, present > them; if you have style, let it show. If you have neither, just type a > lot, because you can. Counterarguments? Who cares. Just type more than > the other guy. Being proven wrong again and again? No problem, just keep > on typing, and say back the same things the other said to you. Well, > happy typing, Mr. Usenet. ;) I thought that was "Mr. Davidson" around here.. > Daneel -John Flournoy