Errata killed the Big Vampire Star

What happened to all the big vamps? Weenie decks seem to be all the rave, even though big vamps are much more fun to play with. The answer lies in the fact that quite a lot of rulings from [RTR 19980707] and [RTR 19980623] were detrimental to big vampires while the younger vampires were relatively unaffected. Here's a short list of some of the changes that really hurt the big guys. Followed by the one change IMHO that was good for them. Bad Return to Innocence Mind Rape Golconda (no more Soul Gem deck) Mask of 1,000 Faces + Atonement (a cool trick that allowed big vamps to block almost anything and still stay untapped.) Rotschreck (hurts much more if used against a big vamp. No easy defense) Rutor's hand - no multiples Tomb of Rameses Good 2nd Tradition (now essential for Princes and Justicars) Now it's important to mention that Weenie vote decks were severely limited by the vote-pushing restriction. However, this affected quite a lot of vote decks other than Weenie decks, restricting voting to mainly Presence vote decks. Also, other types of Weenie decks weren't adversely affected by the vote-pushing restriction at all, and may have even been helped by removing the vote decks that could have damaged them across table. Does anyone else think that big vampires need some more help, or has everyone been swept away in ecstacy by Weenie Tap and Bleed Mania? Justicar. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

just...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rhvjj$uiu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >What happened to all the big vamps? Weenie decks seem to be all the >rave, >even though big vamps are much more fun to play with. The answer lies >in the >fact that quite a lot of rulings from [RTR 19980707] and [RTR 19980623] >were >detrimental to big vampires while the younger vampires were relatively >unaffected. Here's a short list of some of the changes that really hurt >the >big guys. Followed by the one change IMHO that was good for them. > >Bad >Return to Innocence overpowered. Extremely overpowered and near zero cost when combined with unblockable Fortitude / Protean modifiers. >Mind Rape overpowered. Current text allows theft without several master phases of abuse... >Golconda (no more Soul Gem deck) abusive. RBG (ridiculous blood gain :-) >Mask of 1,000 Faces + Atonement (a cool trick that allowed big vamps to >block almost anything and still stay untapped.) I'm not certain this was viable before errata... Regardless, it actually encourages the use of mid-range vamps (4-5 caps), which are used even less often than their larger and smaller bretherin, in my experience... >Rotschreck (hurts much more if used against a big vamp. No easy defense) The problem you cite is inherent to large vamps in general. You're putting all your resources in one location... >Rutor's hand - no multiples <grin> well, how many hands can _you_ spare? >Tomb of Rameses Still viable in tournament play. Most people don't realize this, as their too disgruntled about the errata... > >Good >2nd Tradition (now essential for Princes and Justicars) agreed. > Hrmm. How often did you play in tournaments before the 6/28 and 7/7 errata were issued? The cards you've mentioned above were nearly universally abhorred (by the tourney goers I knew at the time) as being ridiculously overpowered by comparison to their cost. Just about everyone on this NG at the time agreed that changes needed to be made (the nature of the changes, though, were obviously in dispute). I doubt that anyone was trying to make large vamps obsolete, but the cards yo ucited were simply seen too often, and too easily abused. These days, I see a fairly even blend of large, medium, and small vamps. It just takes a bit more finesse to play large vamps (IMHO a Good Thing(tm)). >Now it's important to mention that Weenie vote decks were severely >limited >by the vote-pushing restriction. I'd dispute the use of "severely", but okay... >However, this affected quite a lot of >vote decks other than Weenie decks, restricting voting to mainly Presence >vote decks. Yes, most vote decks need presence or titles to get their votes through... Mostly, this is just to get the deck airborne, as later on, there are hopefully titles to secure your voting ability. >Also, other types of Weenie decks weren't adversely affected by >the >vote-pushing restriction at all, and may have even been helped by >removing >the vote decks that could have damaged them across table. Non-voting decks weren't adversely affected by no vote pushing rule, I'd agree. This holds for all types of non-voting decks, though, be they weenies or big'uns... > >Does anyone else think that big vampires need some more help, or has >everyone been swept away in ecstacy by Weenie Tap and Bleed Mania? Big vampires require a lot more thought before using, as compared to pre-errata... I don't think we need to make special adjustments, because the problem you're experiencing is not really a problem that can be solved. Smaller vampire net a player more actions per turn. That's a simple fact. Larger vampires can do more with a single action, due to a greater diversity of disciplines available to them. If you maximize the quality of the large vamp's action (and it's out of turn availability), you should develop an appreciation for the balance between large and small vamps... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:37:42 -0700, "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >just...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rhvjj$uiu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >>What happened to all the big vamps? Weenie decks seem to be all the >>rave, >>even though big vamps are much more fun to play with. The answer lies >>in the >>fact that quite a lot of rulings from [RTR 19980707] and [RTR 19980623] >>were >>detrimental to big vampires while the younger vampires were relatively >>unaffected. Here's a short list of some of the changes that really hurt >>the >>big guys. Followed by the one change IMHO that was good for them. >> >>Bad >>Return to Innocence >overpowered. Extremely overpowered and near zero cost when combined with >unblockable Fortitude / Protean modifiers. > >>Mind Rape >overpowered. Current text allows theft without several master phases of >abuse... > >>Golconda (no more Soul Gem deck) >abusive. RBG (ridiculous blood gain :-) 8 pool per turn every turn if you build it with Anson and make the library right, *and* he gets to take an action since he comes out untapped, *and* he gets to 2nd tradition every so often. Bad bad bad. >>Mask of 1,000 Faces + Atonement (a cool trick that allowed big vamps to >>block almost anything and still stay untapped.) >I'm not certain this was viable before errata... Regardless, it actually >encourages the use of mid-range vamps (4-5 caps), which are used even less >often than their larger and smaller bretherin, in my experience... Not legal even BEFORE the errata, i believe - an over-5-cap vampire could not have been originally taking the Atonement action, so could not have Masked it away from someone. If this were legal, it would be hideously abusable - Leandro (Malk IC) Masks an Atonement, and now SITS there playing Obedience and blocking everything. More annoying, slap an OBF skill card on Anneke and Atone her that way - +1 intercept usable anywhere on the table at any time, and she has dom and can play Obedience. Terribly abusive. >>Rotschreck (hurts much more if used against a big vamp. No easy defense) >The problem you cite is inherent to large vamps in general. You're putting >all your resources in one location... Rotschreck hurts no matter -who- it's used against, big or small. Having a big vamp beat up in combat is -always- going to suck, and Rotschreck is just another way to beat them up in combat. >>Rutor's hand - no multiples ><grin> well, how many hands can _you_ spare? 2 actions isn't enough for you? heh. I object to Rutor's cost more than I do the no-multiples - its 4-blood-at-superior cost means only big vamps can USE it. Which is a poke against the weenies, IMO. Wait! a THA-Serpentis deck combining Heart of Darkness and Rutor's Hand at inferior, avoiding the damage! yeah! yeah! ok, no. >>Tomb of Rameses >Still viable in tournament play. Most people don't realize this, as their >too disgruntled about the errata... > >> >>Good >>2nd Tradition (now essential for Princes and Justicars) >agreed. >> > >Hrmm. How often did you play in tournaments before the 6/28 and 7/7 errata >were issued? The cards you've mentioned above were nearly universally >abhorred (by the tourney goers I knew at the time) as being ridiculously >overpowered by comparison to their cost. Just about everyone on this NG at >the time agreed that changes needed to be made (the nature of the changes, Speaking of, where has Noal gone? I haven't seen him throw in commentary in a long time. >though, were obviously in dispute). I doubt that anyone was trying to make >large vamps obsolete, but the cards yo ucited were simply seen too often, >and too easily abused. These days, I see a fairly even blend of large, >medium, and small vamps. It just takes a bit more finesse to play large >vamps (IMHO a Good Thing(tm)). > >>Now it's important to mention that Weenie vote decks were severely >>limited >>by the vote-pushing restriction. >I'd dispute the use of "severely", but okay... weeeell.. the hard-core abusive weenie vote "I drop 7 KRC's for 1 vote each to make this vote pass" deck has been cut off at the knees, yes. Weenie PRE vote is still functional, but requires, as you said, a bit more finesse. =) >>However, this affected quite a lot of >>vote decks other than Weenie decks, restricting voting to mainly Presence >>vote decks. >Yes, most vote decks need presence or titles to get their votes through... >Mostly, this is just to get the deck airborne, as later on, there are >hopefully titles to secure your voting ability. Hm, I actually don't think I agree with this. The fact that big vamps are not as common means that titles are not as common - meaning that you can actually make a multiple-Prince, non-PRE vote deck and attain some sort of vote lock (especially if you combine some early Princes with later Praxii). PRE decks often have only 2-4 table votes and use B.O. to shove the vote past - a little politicking and you can get your own stuff by as well. Sure, a PRE vote deck has an easier go of it than a non-PRE vote deck. But a Nossie vote deck isn't in bad shape either. =) >>Does anyone else think that big vampires need some more help, or has >>everyone been swept away in ecstacy by Weenie Tap and Bleed Mania? > >Big vampires require a lot more thought before using, as compared to >pre-errata... I don't think we need to make special adjustments, because >the problem you're experiencing is not really a problem that can be solved. >Smaller vampire net a player more actions per turn. That's a simple fact. >Larger vampires can do more with a single action, due to a greater diversity >of disciplines available to them. If you maximize the quality of the large >vamp's action (and it's out of turn availability), you should develop an >appreciation for the balance between large and small vamps... Basically. I'm borderline in-favor of errata to 5th Tradition saying "only usable on others", actually - Minion/5th decks can get pretty vicious sometimes. Big guys -do- need a little bit of help, since you pretty much HAVE to Minion Tap them or get other strong blood gain working quickly - but other than that? Hmm. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Derek S. Ray wrote in message <172E651993CBDFDD.7072DD10...@lp.airnews.net>... >On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:37:42 -0700, "Richard Zopf" ><guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>However, this affected quite a lot of >>>vote decks other than Weenie decks, restricting voting to mainly Presence >>>vote decks. >>Yes, most vote decks need presence or titles to get their votes through... >>Mostly, this is just to get the deck airborne, as later on, there are >>hopefully titles to secure your voting ability. > >Hm, I actually don't think I agree with this. The fact that big vamps >are not as common means that titles are not as common - meaning that >you can actually make a multiple-Prince, non-PRE vote deck and attain >some sort of vote lock (especially if you combine some early Princes >with later Praxii). Sure. That was the tendency behind my Princes of Carthage deck. What I was getting at, though, was the tendency for weenie Praxis/Crusade/Legacy decks to smatter in Pre to get a BewOr on the first vote called, to get the ball rolling... Not a perfect tactic, but definitely one of the more reliable ones... >Sure, a PRE vote deck has an easier go of it than a non-PRE vote deck. >But a Nossie vote deck isn't in bad shape either. =) > Just ask Dave Tatu, right...? >>>Does anyone else think that big vampires need some more help, or has >>>everyone been swept away in ecstacy by Weenie Tap and Bleed Mania? >> >>Big vampires require a lot more thought before using, as compared to >>pre-errata... I don't think we need to make special adjustments, because >>the problem you're experiencing is not really a problem that can be solved. >>Smaller vampire net a player more actions per turn. That's a simple fact. >>Larger vampires can do more with a single action, due to a greater diversity >>of disciplines available to them. If you maximize the quality of the large >>vamp's action (and it's out of turn availability), you should develop an >>appreciation for the balance between large and small vamps... > >Basically. I'm borderline in-favor of errata to 5th Tradition saying >"only usable on others", actually - Minion/5th decks can get pretty >vicious sometimes. Vicious, yeah, but not insurmountable, and no where near foolproof. Which I'm sure you know, and it's why you're only borderline in favor of such errata, I'd guess. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey, whoa, steady on guys! I think you missed the point of the post. I'm not arguing against the individual errata that have been made, but rather their cumulative effect in making large vampires less playable. Now decks with large vampires are still playable and still fun, granted, but they seem to be much less common then they used to be, whereas weenie decks seem to be popping up like wildfires. On the whole, I think that most of the errata were justified and necessary. However, I also think it might be necessary to try to compensate for the negative side-effects that flowed onto decks with large vampires as a result of the changes. Anyway, now to respond to some individual comments. [snip - Got rid of my original diatribe] > >>Bad > >>Return to Innocence > >>Mind Rape > >>Golconda (no more Soul Gem deck) Yeah, I agree that all these were overpowered (and probably 'broken' depending on whose definition you use), but at least they were associated with the inherent risk that accompanies relying on big vampires. > >>Mask of 1,000 Faces + Atonement (a cool trick that allowed big vamps to > >>block almost anything and still stay untapped.) > >I'm not certain this was viable before errata... Regardless, it actually > >encourages the use of mid-range vamps (4-5 caps), which are used even less > >often than their larger and smaller bretherin, in my experience... > > Not legal even BEFORE the errata, i believe - an over-5-cap vampire > could not have been originally taking the Atonement action, so could > not have Masked it away from someone. If this were legal, it would be > hideously abusable - Leandro (Malk IC) Masks an Atonement, and now > SITS there playing Obedience and blocking everything. More annoying, > slap an OBF skill card on Anneke and Atone her that way - +1 intercept > usable anywhere on the table at any time, and she has dom and can play > Obedience. Terribly abusive. Muahahaha. Yes, this was actually legal before the errata and lead to some very amusing decks involving Thetmes and Basilia among others. You don't even need to use 4 or 5 cap vamps to make it work. E.g., Harika does an Atonement and Thetmes masks it. These decks weren't actually quite as devastating as they sound because the Atoned vampires were inevitably targeted by Hostile Takeovers, thereby sinking the whole deck strategy. > > >>Rotschreck (hurts much more if used against a big vamp. No easy defense) > >The problem you cite is inherent to large vamps in general. You're putting > >all your resources in one location... > > Rotschreck hurts no matter -who- it's used against, big or small. > Having a big vamp beat up in combat is -always- going to suck, and > Rotschreck is just another way to beat them up in combat. Heh, I knew this one was going to come up. It's not just another matter of getting a big guy beaten up in combat. Usually bigger vampires have more disciplines that enable them to handle combat better than the small guys. This offsets the risk of having all your eggs in one basket. However, with Rotschreck, being bigger provides no extra defence at all, and thus makes the relative loss larger when your vampire goes down. > > >>Rutor's hand - no multiples > ><grin> well, how many hands can _you_ spare? > > 2 actions isn't enough for you? heh. I object to Rutor's cost more > than I do the no-multiples - its 4-blood-at-superior cost means only > big vamps can USE it. Which is a poke against the weenies, IMO. > Yeah, I never had more than one so it hasn't been a problem for me. I've seen other decks that used them quite well and they didn't seem to be too broken. > > >>Tomb of Rameses > >Still viable in tournament play. Most people don't realize this, as their > >too disgruntled about the errata... > > Hmm, this is the one I really have a problem with. Only useful on vampires larger than 8, and then only marginally so. I might do a breakdown on why this is so if I get round to it. The short story is that on vampires less than 8, other ways of gaining transfers provide better value for money. My suggestion for Tomb is: [snip - 2nd Tradition stuff] > >Hrmm. How often did you play in tournaments before the 6/28 and 7/7 errata > >were issued? The cards you've mentioned above were nearly universally > >abhorred (by the tourney goers I knew at the time) as being ridiculously > >overpowered by comparison to their cost. Just about everyone on this NG at > >the time agreed that changes needed to be made (the nature of the changes, > I've played in a quite a number of tournaments both before and after the errata were made. As I noted earlier, my beef isn't generally with the individual errata but their overall effect on the meta-game. > Speaking of, where has Noal gone? I haven't seen him throw in > commentary in a long time. Who's Noal? Later, [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Speaking of, where has Noal gone? I haven't seen him throw in > > commentary in a long time. > > Who's Noal? > > Later, > > Justicar. > That would Be Noal Mcdonald(?) Archon of Westmoreland. The Firebrand of Michigan. He happened to get a job where he has limited access to internet, and I am not sure how much time.access he has from home. So you get me! I'm just not the firebrand he is. :) Raille.

Noal is Noal MacDonald, and the reason he doesn't post here anymore is that he and his group just got so disgusted with the 7/7 errata that they formed their own setup, the Michigan Jyhad League. You see, it is a tiny bit selectively-memorious of my dear friend the Atomweaver to say that almost everyone on the NG agreed with the errata. Noal, Sorrow, myself and numerous others were, and to some extent still are, VIOLENTLY opposed to the principle of errata, and actually in some cases to the specific errata themselves. But now i am the only member of the Complacently Slow- Minded Minions of Chaos and Entropy who still joins in these debates - i promised one of our aussie brethren to keep an eye on them and, as he put it in his charming colonial way, "to keep the bastards honest". i think your original post was quite right, justicar. The balance HAS swung too much towards weenies, which was entirely predictable, and WAS predicted. You spelt out the reasons for this change perfectly cogently in the first post, and i see no need to add to them. However, Rotshreck was NOT errata'd, it was just interpreted correctly - previously it had suffered from a ruling imposed by a functional illiterate [in the EXTREMELY relative frame of Jyhad text-complexity]. A hearty thank-you to LSJ for this, from all the aficionados of malkavian out-of-turn rush- combat. i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer [except maybe to clean up some of the Setite cards, and make it possible to play Elder Intervention AND Pack Tactics]. As i kept saying in the original debates, if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. The big guys aren't dead or useless - you just need new ways to bring them out quickly, and to make their presence HURT once they are out. i can't remember if the Goodnight, Sweet Prince deck has been archived [help, Xian?] but that is one way to do it [the basic idea is CERTAINLY on the net]. Same goes for the so-called crap clans - check out Matthew Green's excellent Assamite vote deck. Curiously enough as i was thinking about data with which to back up some of my assertions in this post i remembered that the UK gencon final was AMAZINGLY well-balanced in terms of different kinds of decks. i expect James C will do his usual excellent tournament report on this so i won't steal his thunder except by saying that three decks got VPs there - weenie vote, weenie combat, and Big Cammie Mothersuckers. The less- successful decks were weenie stealth-bleed and Biggish bleed, and thereby hangs an interesting tale or two which James will tell once he has got his moving-to-Cambridge and Shagging-all-the-Nubile-Young-Freshers phase out of the way. Legbiter, just off to burn a couple of Black Candles to Saints Scott and Jennifer in hopes of a biggish Ravnos with necromancy, and a !Gangrel girly with necromancy and animalism. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rlo04$lde$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >Noal is Noal MacDonald, and the reason he doesn't post here anymore is >that he and his group just got so disgusted with the 7/7 errata that they >formed their own setup, the Michigan Jyhad League. You see, it is a tiny >bit selectively-memorious of my dear friend the Atomweaver to say that >almost everyone on the NG agreed with the errata. Careful, dear Legbiter :-)... My direct quote: "Just about everyone on this NG at the time agreed that changes needed to be made (the nature of the changes, though, were obviously in dispute). " I was deliberately cautious in deference to yourself and NJL to use change rather than errata. I'm watching out for you here... As we know, change takes many forms, and the NJL has instituted some of its own. I didn't agree with _all_ the issued errata, either (esp. ToR III). But I didn't jump ship over it (glad you didn't either). I even moved closer to Columbia, SC just to give LSJ a hard time about it every time I see him. (Okay, a new manufacturing site for my vile formulations was also in Charlotte, but we don't need to go into my dirty details. I'll run off by e-mail, if you let me, though =) >Noal, Sorrow, myself >and numerous others were, and to some extent still are, VIOLENTLY opposed >to the principle of errata, yeegads. VIOLENTLY?!?!? Why haven't I read about the Anti-V:TES-Errata Michigan Riots yet through Reuters? It's probably being actively suprressed by the Chinese Mafia and the NSA (Atom Weaver lapses into INWO CCG Must be too much coffee;-) >and actually in some cases to the specific >errata themselves. But now i am the only member of the Complacently Slow- >Minded Minions of Chaos and Entropy who still joins in these debates - i >promised one of our aussie brethren to keep an eye on them and, as he put >it in his charming colonial way, "to keep the bastards honest". > I've seen occasional posts by Mr. Bernie B., too. >i think your original post was quite right, justicar. The balance HAS >swung too much towards weenies, which was entirely predictable, and WAS >predicted. You spelt out the reasons for this change perfectly cogently >in the first post, and i see no need to add to them. Therein lies another great debate... Perhaps my own experiences in the Southeast are an exception, but I've seen little delitirious effect on the use of large vampires. They still serve my evil purposes quite well... If there is a way to reverse changes made to the cards cited, to enhance larger vamps use, while still bringing the cost of those cards in line, I'd be happy to know what such suggested changes would look like. >However, Rotshreck >was NOT errata'd, it was just interpreted correctly - previously it had >suffered from a ruling imposed by a functional illiterate [in the >EXTREMELY relative frame of Jyhad text-complexity]. A hearty thank-you to >LSJ for this, from all the aficionados of malkavian out-of-turn rush- >combat. > agreed. >i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer Nor do I. >[except maybe to >clean up some of the Setite cards, and make it possible to play Elder >Intervention AND Pack Tactics]. Careful. Remember, you're VIOLENTLY opposed to errata. I'd hate to make you angry. I'm sure I wouldn;t like it when you're angry ;-) Although cleanup of text on Setites I'd call more of a Clarification. Were you looking for clarifdication of which master phases counters go on to cards like Phobia? > As i kept saying in the original debates, >if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then >it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need >changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. The big guys aren't >dead or useless - you just need new ways to bring them out quickly, and >to make their presence HURT once they are out. i can't remember if the >Goodnight, Sweet Prince deck has been archived [help, Xian?] but that is >one way to do it [the basic idea is CERTAINLY on the net]. Same goes for >the so-called crap clans - check out Matthew Green's excellent Assamite >vote deck. > Hmm. Are you reversing your previous belief that the balance has swung towards weenies too much, or are you saying there are too few ways to make large vamps work well? >Curiously enough as i was thinking about data with which to back up some >of my assertions in this post i remembered that the UK gencon final was >AMAZINGLY well-balanced in terms of different kinds of decks. This mirrors my experience, as well. I don't think it's coincidence... i'd like to hear from others what their recent experinece has been, though. > i expect >James C will do his usual excellent tournament report on this so i won't >steal his thunder except by saying that three decks got VPs there - >weenie vote, weenie combat, and Big Cammie Mothersuckers. The less- >successful decks were weenie stealth-bleed and Biggish bleed, and thereby Three small and two large. I'd be interested in what other decks showed up, also... >hangs an interesting tale or two which James will tell once he has got >his moving-to-Cambridge and Shagging-all-the-Nubile-Young-Freshers phase >out of the way. > <grin>Does that phase ever end before graduation? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:43:30 -0700, "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >Derek S. Ray wrote in message ><172E651993CBDFDD.7072DD10...@lp.airnews.net>... >>Hm, I actually don't think I agree with this. The fact that big vamps >>are not as common means that titles are not as common - meaning that >>you can actually make a multiple-Prince, non-PRE vote deck and attain >>some sort of vote lock (especially if you combine some early Princes >>with later Praxii). >Sure. That was the tendency behind my Princes of Carthage deck. What I was >getting at, though, was the tendency for weenie Praxis/Crusade/Legacy decks >to smatter in Pre to get a BewOr on the first vote called, to get the ball >rolling... Not a perfect tactic, but definitely one of the more reliable >ones... Quite. (And a little more necessary in some groups, like ours, where we tend to -find- titles for no reason. :) >>Sure, a PRE vote deck has an easier go of it than a non-PRE vote deck. >>But a Nossie vote deck isn't in bad shape either. =) >> >Just ask Dave Tatu, right...? Heh. Tatu's was a bruise-and-vote... ask Todd Banister, who rolled over a tournament once with a PURE Nossie vote :) >>Basically. I'm borderline in-favor of errata to 5th Tradition saying >>"only usable on others", actually - Minion/5th decks can get pretty >>vicious sometimes. >Vicious, yeah, but not insurmountable, and no where near foolproof. Which >I'm sure you know, and it's why you're only borderline in favor of such >errata, I'd guess. Well, the highly offensive-powered decks that attempt to use RBG as -well- as their vote power (see: Ventrue Law Firm) get stopped cold by +1 intercept, since they have no way to guarantee the 5th getting through. Sure, they get off the Minion Tap, and then they lose the minion usually. Wait, watch the rescue, intercept the hunt, and off he goes to torpor AGAIN. Stu Pieloch's RBG/Garou deck was entertaining, but it also was a lot better at getting the crucial 5ths off - earth control +2 stealth, then form of mist to make it happen ANYWAY, out of reach of 2nd Tradition. Starting to get icky (since RBG with Gangrel is tough to get started), but not unstoppable by any means. Now imagine a Nossie RBG deck. Forgotten Labyrinths at superior everywhere - +4 stealth on 5th tradition. Forget stopping THAT, and if you rush it, well, either you run into a handful of Increased Strength/Pushing the Limit (*smack* ow!), and the Nossie Princes/Justicar have inferior fortitude if they wanna go that route. The Malkavians have it almost as good, although with only 2 small princes their crypt is more difficult to work with (less gain)... but they also have Dominate available for offense as necessary. So this is why I'm only borderline - I haven't seen it REALLY beaten to death yet. But I can see where it could be done. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) legb...@my-deja.com writes: >i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer [except maybe to >clean up some of the Setite cards, and make it possible to play Elder >Intervention AND Pack Tactics]. As i kept saying in the original debates, >if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then >it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need >changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. I don't think that's very reasonable as a pat response. While the necessity of some of the things LSJ has done in Jyhad may be debatable, you can't _always_ take the position that no card should ever be errataed for play-balance purposes. If a CCG company makes a mistake and prints a card that just ruins a game (which is always a possibility) then you need to errata the card or ban it. Errata is better because then people can still use it. Saying, "it is time to change your decks" isn't always a good answer to a game with out-of-balance cards. Fred

just...@my-deja.com wrote: > I've played in a quite a number of tournaments both before and after > the errata were made. As I noted earlier, my beef isn't generally with > the individual errata but their overall effect on the meta-game. The errata did not swing the meta-game away from large vamps. Large vampires were always inherently weak due to the nature of the game. With the expansion sets more vampires of all kinds became available, and that lead to very efficient, very effective weenie decks. True, some of the neutered or banned cards were created specifically to counter this and make larger vampires more viable, but despite good intentions these cards (like RtI and ToR3) were poorly thought out and absurdly powerful. And they had little real influence on the metagame in most playgroups because they are very rare and many groups made house rules banning them or reducing their power. -- Steve Wampler swam...@clarityconnect.com “And then the clouds parted and God said, I hate you, Alfalfa.” -Alfalfa, The Little Rascals

In article <7rlsrh$jsg$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > legb...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rlo04$lde$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >Noal is Noal MacDonald, and the reason he doesn't post here anymore is > >that he and his group just got so disgusted with the 7/7 errata that they > >formed their own setup, the Michigan Jyhad League. You see, it is a tiny > >bit selectively-memorious of my dear friend the Atomweaver to say that > >almost everyone on the NG agreed with the errata. > Careful, dear Legbiter :-)... My direct quote: > "Just about everyone on this NG at > the time agreed that changes needed to be made (the nature of the changes, > though, were obviously in dispute). " > I was deliberately cautious in deference to yourself and NJL to use > change rather than errata. Alright, thanks Richard! I'm watching out for you here... As we know, > change takes many forms, and the NJL has instituted some of its own. I > didn't agree with _all_ the issued errata, either (esp. ToR III). But I > didn't jump ship over it (glad you didn't either). I even moved closer to > Columbia, SC just to give LSJ a hard time about it every time I see him. > (Okay, a new manufacturing site for my vile formulations was also in > Charlotte, but we don't need to go into my dirty details. I'll run off by > e-mail, if you let me, though =) Do, brother, do. Use the james.m...@port.ac.uk address, though. Net email is a REAL pain for me now, since the molecular modellers moved in here. > > >Noal, Sorrow, myself > >and numerous others were, and to some extent still are, VIOLENTLY opposed > >to the principle of errata, > yeegads. VIOLENTLY?!?!? Why haven't I read about the Anti-V:TES-Errata > Michigan Riots yet through Reuters? It's probably being actively suprressed > by the Chinese Mafia and the NSA (Atom Weaver lapses into INWO CCG Must be > too much coffee;-) Hehehe ...i don't think there have been any actual punch-ups, but there was a fair bit of harsh language on the NG, and also here in Portsmouth while we all thought long and hard about following the MJL [now NJL]. > > >and actually in some cases to the specific > >errata themselves. But now i am the only member of the Complacently Slow- > >Minded Minions of Chaos and Entropy who still joins in these debates - i > >promised one of our aussie brethren to keep an eye on them and, as he put > >it in his charming colonial way, "to keep the bastards honest". > > > I've seen occasional posts by Mr. Bernie B., too. Right, and also and Sorrow and Agent zero. But not arguing about errata anymore, at least as far as i can make out. [ quoted text not captured ] Ahah, was it not your own Walt Whitman who said: u find me inconsistent? Very well, i am inconsistent ... i am large, i contain multitudes. But yes, clarifications would be nice, for Phobia, Temptation, Summon the Serpent and Purity of the Beast. The Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics thing would be errata, though, and you're right, probably not worth the hassle. > > > As i kept saying in the original debates, > >if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then > >it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need > >changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. The big guys aren't > >dead or useless - you just need new ways to bring them out quickly, and > >to make their presence HURT once they are out. i can't remember if the > >Goodnight, Sweet Prince deck has been archived [help, Xian?] but that is > >one way to do it [the basic idea is CERTAINLY on the net]. Same goes for > >the so-called crap clans - check out Matthew Green's excellent Assamite > >vote deck. > > > Hmm. Are you reversing your previous belief that the balance has swung > towards weenies too much, or are you saying there are too few ways to make > large vamps work well? i'm really echoing your point that nowadays you have to be a bit smart to use the big vamps. It can be done, however, and you've indicated some of the possible strategies. But in current constructed-deck play, it's my experience that yawnish weenie swarm-bleed decks are whacking more interesting creations a bit too often for my own personal taste. All this means is that i have to think a bit harder about deck construction, or else go for weenie combat. No bad thing here, of course. > > >Curiously enough as i was thinking about data with which to back up some > >of my assertions in this post i remembered that the UK gencon final was > >AMAZINGLY well-balanced in terms of different kinds of decks. > This mirrors my experience, as well. I don't think it's coincidence... i'd > like to hear from others what their recent experinece has been, though. > > > i expect > >James C will do his usual excellent tournament report on this so i won't > >steal his thunder except by saying that three decks got VPs there - > >weenie vote, weenie combat, and Big Cammie Mothersuckers. The less- > >successful decks were weenie stealth-bleed and Biggish bleed, and thereby > > Three small and two large. I'd be interested in what other decks showed up, > also... Can't help much there, old matey. i had a series of funny old draws and only played against less than half the contestants all told. James Cwill post the details, though, soon i expect. > > >hangs an interesting tale or two which James will tell once he has got > >his moving-to-Cambridge and Shagging-all-the-Nubile-Young-Freshers phase > >out of the way. > > > <grin>Does that phase ever end before graduation? Yeah, it usually matures into the Shagging-your-future wife phase. > > Regards, > R. David Zopf > Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC) > > [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > (TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) > > legb...@my-deja.com writes: > > >i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer [except maybe to > >clean up some of the Setite cards, and make it possible to play Elder > >Intervention AND Pack Tactics]. As i kept saying in the original debates, > >if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then > >it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need > >changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. > > I don't think that's very reasonable as a pat response. While the > necessity of some of the things LSJ has done in Jyhad may be debatable, > you can't _always_ take the position that no card should ever be errataed > for play-balance purposes. If a CCG company makes a mistake and prints > a card that just ruins a game (which is always a possibility) then you > need to errata the card or ban it. Errata is better because then people > can still use it. Saying, "it is time to change your decks" isn't always > a good answer to a game with out-of-balance cards. > > Fred The Magic playtest team made a number of mistakes the last couple of years in the Tempest and Urza cycle sets as they tried to add new concepts to the game. What do they do to fix it? They ban cards. These particular cards become far less valuable on all levels, but the gameplay and collecting are not much hurt because of the huge pool of cards to choose from. OTOH, Jyhad has a very limited number of cards and a limited number of concepts, being more of an RPG than M:tG. If a Magic player can't use his Tolarian Academy anymore, it doesn't make any difference to the *story* of his deck, bacause of the lack of importance of the story in Magic. In Jyhad, however, the various clans all lend themselves to certain strategies, and the game is based on an RPG, so story is a big part of the game (except perhaps in degenerate weenie tournament decks). So because of both the small card pool and the story aspect of the game, I think that necessary errata is acceptable if we are still allowed to play our cool cards. And hey, if they ever ban RtI or ToR3, will you guys give me yours? :) I don't know if I made a point just now or not, but if I haven't I'm sure I'll hear about it. NaTe

In article <7rm6gj$n...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > (TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) > > legb...@my-deja.com writes: > > >i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer [except maybe to > >clean up some of the Setite cards, and make it possible to play Elder > >Intervention AND Pack Tactics]. As i kept saying in the original debates, > >if someone is beating up your decks with [to you] boring strategies, then > >it is time to change your decks, not to whine about how the rules need > >changing so that your own beloved strategy will work. > > I don't think that's very reasonable as a pat response. While the > necessity of some of the things LSJ has done in Jyhad may be debatable, > you can't _always_ take the position that no card should ever be errataed > for play-balance purposes. If a CCG company makes a mistake and prints > a card that just ruins a game (which is always a possibility) then you > need to errata the card or ban it. Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big Vamp decks. Errata is better because then people > can still use it. Saying, "it is time to change your decks" isn't always > a good answer to a game with out-of-balance cards. > > Fred > i like this answer because it makes the crux of the debate absolutely clear. Since i've always felt that the so-called "broken" cards were only ever a problem in tournament play, i reckon the right way to fix them is to ban them in tournaments - playgroups can look after themselves. Errata, i think, is a TERRIBLE alternative, because it reduces the accessibility of the game to new players, which is the main thing our game needs, far more so, in my opinion, than it needs a new expansion. Happily, many of my forebodings about the negative effect of the 7/7 changes have proved overstated - the game IS still flourishing, and we are getting new players all the time. i still think i was right, though! In fact so does LSJ - witness the banning of RtI. [ quoted text not captured ]

Richard Zopf wrote: > > legb...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rlo04$lde$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >Noal is Noal MacDonald, and the reason he doesn't post here anymore is > >that he and his group just got so disgusted with the 7/7 errata that they > >formed their own setup, the Michigan Jyhad League. You see, it is a tiny > >bit selectively-memorious of my dear friend the Atomweaver to say that > >almost everyone on the NG agreed with the errata. A very selective memory indeed. Any remember Ernie Wilson? Ernie is so upset with LSJ and his hidden Cabal rules team, that the were mention of'LSJ' sets him raging incoherently. That topic has him bent. His view is that either yo have a rules 'team' and they are publicly known, or you have a Dictator, currently proscribed as LSJ. The fact is you can contact anyone at WoTC about any game(s) and mail a letter or email to them. They may or may not respond, but you can at least sent it and you know who is responsible for what. So how does one go about contact various members of the rules team? Anyone? Tell me please and save Ernie's mental health from further deterioration. Note: This is not my opion or view. I think LSJ has done a lot of good work. > I was deliberately cautious in deference to yourself and NJL to use > change rather than errata. I'm watching out for you here... As we know, > change takes many forms, and the NJL has instituted some of its own. I > didn't agree with _all_ the issued errata, either (esp. ToR III). But I > didn't jump ship over it (glad you didn't either). I even moved closer to > Columbia, SC just to give LSJ a hard time about it every time I see him. > (Okay, a new manufacturing site for my vile formulations was also in > Charlotte, but we don't need to go into my dirty details. I'll run off by > e-mail, if you let me, though =) > > >Noal, Sorrow, myself > >and numerous others were, and to some extent still are, VIOLENTLY opposed > >to the principle of errata, > yeegads. VIOLENTLY?!?!? Why haven't I read about the Anti-V:TES-Errata > Michigan Riots yet through Reuters? It's probably being actively suprressed > by the Chinese Mafia and the NSA (Atom Weaver lapses into INWO CCG Must be > too much coffee;-) > You won't read anything about the riots we've had them surpressed, although some have rumored the spring riots in Lansing, Mi may have been caused by the public announcement over the MSU campus of LSJ changing rulings again, this has NOT been proven. It wasn't the fact that errata was issued, it was the fact that so much errata and the breadth of it caused many people to choke. After 7/7 when the NJL got its start, it seemed amazing to me that all of a sudden the ToRIII was changed again, and the change was the same as had been accepted within the NJL. > >and actually in some cases to the specific > >errata themselves. But now i am the only member of the Complacently Slow- > >Minded Minions of Chaos and Entropy who still joins in these debates - i > >promised one of our aussie brethren to keep an eye on them and, as he put > >it in his charming colonial way, "to keep the bastards honest". > > Can I Join? > I've seen occasional posts by Mr. Bernie B., too. > > >i don't, however, think that more errata is the answer > Nor do I. Ah the Basic tenant of the NJL, issue no errata when not needed. Of course we have not 100% followed that,we are trying. With the Current DCI rules, there is no need to errata RTI, it cannot be a problem in a sanctioned game, and all the other games that aren't sanctioned are just for fun. (add house rules here) Currently there are only a few big diffences in NJL errata and LSJ errata. Agro Damage LSJ = Agro -1= total blood burned NJL = Agro = total blood burned Vote pushing LSJ = each other meth get 1 vote card NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn Pulled Fangs LSJ = damage is normal NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat RTI LSJ = some convoluted mess NJL = Play as printed (Look Ma no errata!) And so on. Raille Inquisitor

Nate Williams wrote: > > OTOH, Jyhad has a very limited number of cards > and a limited number of concepts, being more of an RPG than M:tG. Uhm Lets see 500+ cards in the Jyhad/VTES 179 in DS 180(?) is AH 500+ in Sabbat about 1.3 repeats so say 350 This give me a total of about 1200 - 1300 diffent cards to build a theme around. Not very limited. > > And hey, if they ever ban RtI or ToR3, will you guys give me yours? :) They did ban RtI, but you can't have mine! > > I don't know if I made a point just now or not, but if I haven't I'm > sure I'll hear about it. > > NaTe Raille Inquisitor

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > Uhm Lets see 500+ cards in the Jyhad/VTES > 179 in DS > 180(?) is AH > 500+ in Sabbat about 1.3 repeats so say 350 > This give me a total of about 1200 - 1300 diffent cards to build a > theme around. Yes, but if you count for example different cards giving different amounts of stealth or bleed or whatever, cuts the amount a bit. And it's way less than Magic's 3000-4000 different cards anyhow. -- for more info msaari finger msa...@tukki.jyu.fi @jyu.fi "if in doubt, stab Austria" 294

Legbiter wrote: >>Noal is Noal MacDonald, and the reason he doesn't post here anymore is that he and his group just got so disgusted with the 7/7 errata that they formed their own setup, the Michigan Jyhad League.>> Do you honestly belive that this is the reason Noal isn't around anymore? It strikes me as highly unlikely that he made a specific decision to stop posting based on his feelings about the errata (although I could easily be wrong if you know something I don't), considering how much effort he put into posting for months and months after the errata. I suspect that his real life just got into the way. >>i think your original post was quite right, justicar. The balance HAS swung too much towards weenies, which was entirely predictable, and WAS predicted.>> I think this is a sketchy concept, at best. Before the infamous 7/7 errata, weenie decks were just as powerful as they are now (if not more so, due to the vote pushing rules--I'm sure that Goudie was demolishing people with his weenie decks pre 7/7), just there were a few obscenely powerful Elder decks that could be built that abused the redicuolusly overpowered Tomb, RTI, and Mind Rape. These Elder decks were, as logically follows, overpowered and had a deleterious effect on the tournament play environment (far more than weenie decks, I would say). By removing them (by fixing Tomb, RTI, and Mind Rape), the high capacity abuse level has dropped, meaning that when someone wants to abuse the game, they move to the weenie strategy. This doesn't mean that the weenie strategy wasn't super powerful before the errata--just that there were two choices for abusive decks--the huge vampire abuse and the weenie vampire abuse. Now, the huge vampire abuse is less prevelant. This doesn't mean that there are that many more weenie decks around, as there were always plenty. They are just more noticable now. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Isn't it strange, G'Kar? When we first met, I had no power and all the choices I could ever want. Now I have all the power I could ever want, and no choice at all." -Londo

legb...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ro0ao$7s1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] This is part of the reason why I have a tough time with the dictator characterization of what LSJ's done. Something needed to be done, and so he did it. Not everyone was happy with the changes, and I never blame anyone for their opinions, but I do think its a shame to not try to change the way things work from within the context that WotC has provided (that being through LSJ, working on the guidelines for chagning the rules structure as provided to him _by WotC_). Obviously, he's open to revisions and changes to the things he's done, which is why we've seen subsequent changes since 7/7. But some sort of change _had_ to be made, and the results in tournament play observed before anything could progress forward. The Net allows for a lot of very confident conjecture about how rules changes will affect the game. That debate is useful, but it doesn't replace actually trying out the same changes in real competitive play (yes, I'm an empiricist... Most chemists are to some extent). That's why I try to be cautious about my verbage, and hope to include NJL in the newsgroup to the extent they want to participate ... their input is vital because they comprise quite a few astute players. But I want to see changes supported by the company who made the game, and if that means working through LSJ rather than starting the AWJL (Atomweaver's Jyhad League...any joiners? ;-), so be it. At least then my efforts to promote the game might result in more cards being printed. I hate to think of all the effort of the NJL going unrecognized by WotC. I'd think it would just make the player group seem even smaller than it really is... End rambling (on this thread, anyway..) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 05:13:51 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: (snip) >You won't read anything about the riots we've had them surpressed, >although some have rumored the spring riots in Lansing, Mi may have been >caused by the public announcement over the MSU campus of LSJ changing >rulings again, this has NOT been proven. > >It wasn't the fact that errata was issued, it was the fact that so much >errata and the breadth of it caused many people to choke. > >After 7/7 when the NJL got its start, it seemed amazing to me that all >of a sudden the ToRIII was changed again, and the change was the same as >had been accepted within the NJL. Not quite the same. (Although eventually I'd like to own one of those, myself.) Perhaps someday they will reprint all the existing cards. :/ >Ah the Basic tenant of the NJL, issue no errata when not needed. Of >course we have not 100% followed that,we are trying. If it's your basic tenet, you need to be following it 100% or your motives are suspect. You may have misstated yourself though, because I don't know of any errata the NJL issued that *wasn't* needed? =) (since all the NJL errata'd cards were also errata'd by LSJ) >With the Current DCI rules, there is no need to errata RTI, it cannot be >a problem in a sanctioned game, and all the other games that aren't >sanctioned are just for fun. (add house rules here) I'm not sure if the current errata for RTI is still in effect or not, since the most recent RTR just says "Bah. Banned." and has done with it. I know that I don't ever want to see RTI in our "house" games, because it invariably ends someone's game abruptly and then they have to go putter around for an hour or so until that game and the -other- game finish. Or it makes a 20-minute game where three/four people are sitting there saying "gee. that was fun" and one guy is going "cool RTI deck, huh???" If I'm introducing a new player to VTES, and somehow he gets a box of AH, and somehow he gets an RTI in that box, I'll just tell him "this card got banned, don't use it"... assuming the complicated errata still exists. Easier that way. >Currently there are only a few big diffences in NJL errata and LSJ >errata. > >Agro Damage >LSJ = Agro -1= total blood burned >NJL = Agro = total blood burned Meaning that the Ivory Bow, unmodified Claws, Pulled Fangs, inferior Taste of Death, inferior Walk of Flame, inferior Burst of Sunlight, and any other single points of agg damage floating around out there can now burn a vampire. That's pretty broken, but obviously the NJL has never seen a good Pulled Fangs deck go to work. The Ivory Bow being able to burn someone makes it a ridiculously good weapon in a CEL blur deck - two strikes with a .44, one with the Bow, off goes your vamp. Superior Force of Will and Daring the Dawn can now burn your vampire if you're not excruciatingly careful, making them even less useful than they already were. The fact that inferior disciplines, and, say, Roreca Quaid can, with enough presses, burn a vampire, seems silly to me - she's as weenie as weenies get, the Tremere whippin' girl. 2 cap, tha. She should NOT be able to burn vampires. (note that Decapitate requires superior Potence) On the plus side, Torment the Soul (requires necromancy, not usable first round, 1R inferior, 1R agg superior) is no longer TOTAL wallpaper, although it does require you to carefully reduce them to 0 blood in the first round (with Potence, more difficult to exactly hit 0 than you think - lots easier to just "i hit you for lots") and then have a press. Woopie. >Vote pushing >LSJ = each other meth get 1 vote card >NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn This does nothing to stop weenie Praxis/KRC monsters. First turn, I get two vamps out. I push 3 of my 90 votes to get the first Praxis through past the Edge and the first guy's Volker. I have one KRC left, which my other vamp calls - I push one more vote to be sure THAT passes. I replace my hand. Next turn, I bring out two more weenies, shove through another Praxis or two, again not even using my full hand of 7 vote cards... Eventually I no longer need to push votes, but I generally never need to push more than 2-3 at a time anyway, and that will always be on a Praxis of some sort. >Pulled Fangs >LSJ = damage is normal >NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat the limit of 1 per combat goes a long way towards fixing the abusive "I pull your fangs four times" decks, but I still don't think Pulled Fangs should be able to burn vampires, which it currently can in the NJL. >RTI >LSJ = some convoluted mess currently, it's "This card is BANNED." Convoluted neh? =) >NJL = Play as printed >(Look Ma no errata!) Oo, that means I can bring my Spiridonas/RTI/Soul Gem deck to the NJL, doesn't it? Slap that Fortitude on him and Day Op those tac nukes, baby! Better have a Wake/Deflect handy. "No errata" is a great goal, but sometimes necessary. And you HAVE to be sure the errata works, really. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >RTI > >LSJ = some convoluted mess > currently, it's "This card is BANNED." Convoluted neh? =) Just a quick note here: This card is still errata'd. It's merely banned from tournaments. If you play with it in casual play, unless you have some house rules that ignore it, it still works just as LSJ made it work last year. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <7ro0ao$7s1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or >RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big >Vamp decks. Not True. If people are playing to the extent of their ability, with a free selection of cards, I think such badly broken cards did ruin the game. >ever a problem in tournament play, i reckon the right way to fix them is >to ban them in tournaments - playgroups can look after themselves. Play groups always have, and still can, play however they feel. There's no good reason to make different sets of official rules. That just compounds the problems that errata causes. >Errata, i think, is a TERRIBLE alternative, because it reduces the >accessibility of the game to new players, which is the main thing our >game needs, far more so, in my opinion, than it needs a new expansion. In my experience new players just aren't that stupid, and pick up on errata just fine. It's fairly easy to let the newbie play the card as written if he didn't know about it, and then point him to the errata for the next session -- the same thing you do for experienced players who didn't know about the errata. >Happily, many of my forebodings about the negative effect of the 7/7 >changes have proved overstated - the game IS still flourishing, and we >are getting new players all the time. i still think i was right, though! I don't see how, when most of your predictions flatly failed to happen. >In fact so does LSJ - witness the banning of RtI. Not IMHO. That was just the easiest fix for a card so profoundly wrong. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

legb...@my-deja.com writes: >In article <7rm6gj$n...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>, >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> legb...@my-deja.com writes: >> >> Errata is better because then people can still use it. Saying, "it is >> time to change your decks" isn't always a good answer to a game with >> out-of-balance cards. >> >i like this answer because it makes the crux of the debate absolutely >clear. Since i've always felt that the so-called "broken" cards were only >ever a problem in tournament play, i reckon the right way to fix them is >to ban them in tournaments - playgroups can look after themselves. I don't know. The playgroup I've done most of my play in chooses to use tournaments rules, by and large. (Someone used a couple RtI a few weeks ago but we used the errata and it seemed to work fine. Why is this banned, I wonder? Maybe I just haven't seen it in its true brilliance, even given the errata. But I digress...) I think most of the people in our group would prefer to play the "official" game as recommended by the company. I suppose no one would really mind if someone pulled out a card like Monocle of Clarity that seem to be banned more as a rules headache than anything else. But if there's a card like Mind Rape that they can ban or errata and use, I guess I'd rather they errata it than bann it and have to decide how we feel about someone trying to use one without errata. Stuff like that interferes with the environment in a significant way. I don't want our informal group to be as tense and winning-oriented as a tournament but I'd like to think I can get some idea about how the tournament environment works from what goes on in our group. >Errata, i think, is a TERRIBLE alternative, because it reduces the >accessibility of the game to new players, which is the main thing our >game needs, far more so, in my opinion, than it needs a new expansion. I guess it depends on how much errata and for what purposes. I have to admit, some of it seems sufficiently minor that I wonder if it's worth issuing errata for. I agree, errata has its downside for the reasons you state, though I'm not as against it to the degree you seem to be. Fred

rai...@mich.com writes: >Nate Williams wrote: >> >> OTOH, Jyhad has a very limited number of cards >> and a limited number of concepts, being more of an RPG than M:tG. > >Uhm Lets see 500+ cards in the Jyhad/VTES >179 in DS >180(?) is AH >500+ in Sabbat about 1.3 repeats so say 350 > >This give me a total of about 1200 - 1300 diffent cards to build a >theme around. > >Not very limited. Compared to a game like Magic (500+ cards issued per year), it is. I was just about to post that when I read to the bottom of Nate's post and said, "Ooops! He's already making my point." Anyway, I wasn't advocating errata as opposed to banning with what I wrote a few posts back. Just responding to legbiter's comments that seemed to be opposed to doing anything about unbalanced cards ever - which turned out to be an inaccurate impression. Fred

arsuf wrote: > > snip > > >>Pulled Fangs > >>LSJ = damage is normal > >>NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat > > > >the limit of 1 per combat goes a long way towards fixing the abusive > >"I pull your fangs four times" decks, but I still don't think Pulled > >Fangs should be able to burn vampires, which it currently can in the > >NJL. > > pre errata pulled fangs made combat decks far more formitable, and tourney > playable, by errating pulled fangs and entire seggment of strdgies became > less playable (hand damage based combat). > hurting more then helping as far as i am concened. > What the hell is the deal with multiple Pulled Fangs? In my *opinion*, most vampires have one pair of fangs; I think for reality's sake only one PF should be allowed per combat, AND a vampire with the PF card currently in effect on him should not be affected by another PF until the first has been removed. Similar deal with Disarm (although it would be less useful to stack these). Example (hehe): Lupo (the little putz) with POT discipline card rushes Mr. Meat. First round: Lupo TS, IG, US, FoD for 7. Mr. Meat strikes for one hand damage. Lupo plays Pulled Fangs, Incisors Removed, and several Yank Molars. Sick of dentistry, Mr. Meat makes a one way trip to the ash heap. And that's how it should be. NaTe W

In article <37DEE2...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > just...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I've played in a quite a number of tournaments both before and after > > the errata were made. As I noted earlier, my beef isn't generally with > > the individual errata but their overall effect on the meta-game. > > The errata did not swing the meta-game away from large vamps. Yeah, right. In my initial post I outlined a number of changes that detrimentally affected larger vampires relative to the younger ones. Obviously people aren't going to stop playing large vampires altogether, it's just become more difficult. > Large > vampires were always inherently weak due to the nature of the game. > With the expansion sets more vampires of all kinds became available, and > that lead to very efficient, very effective weenie decks. Actually,in the initial set, the balance seemed quite equal between vampires of all sizes. Larger vampires were just as useful as younger vampires because they had more disciplines, more votes, and more special abilities. This balance was offset in the later expansions as weenie decks became much more viable (more small vampires with the same discipline) and combat offense became more deadly (easier to wipe out a big vampire). > True, some of the neutered or banned cards were created specifically to > counter this and make larger vampires more viable, but despite good > intentions these cards (like RtI and ToR3) were poorly thought out and > absurdly powerful. Exactly, the intention was there, but the implementation wasn't thought out thoroughly enough. The response has been to hamstring the broken cards without addressing the need to provide more support for the larger vampires. > And they had little real influence on the metagame > in most playgroups because they are very rare and many groups made house > rules banning them or reducing their power. If that was really the case, then we wouldn't have needed the errata in the first place would we :) Personally, I'd like to see a new errata on Tomb that makes it more playable, since Tomb provides across the board support to large vampires (relative to younger ones). The other broken cards tended to be related to specific strategies, and thus revising their errata won't achieve the big vampire support I'm looking for. Anyway, hopefully I'll get round to posting some suggestions for Tomb errata and you can all argue about that. ;) Bye for now, Justicar. > > -- > Steve Wampler > swam...@clarityconnect.com > > “And then the clouds parted and God said, > I hate you, Alfalfa.” > -Alfalfa, The Little Rascals > [ quoted text not captured ]

>But now i am the only member of the Complacently Slow- > Minded Minions of Chaos and Entropy who still joins in these debates - i > promised one of our aussie brethren to keep an eye on them and, as he put > it in his charming colonial way, "to keep the bastards honest". Just out of curiosity, who's the 'aussie brethren' you mentioned, since I also happen to hail from the Land Down-Under. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi fellow Methuselahs, Let me welcome the new VEKN Prince of Utrecht, Netherlands in our midst, Tim Eijpe (time...@freemail.nl) Welcome aboard Tim, and let the Jyhad rage in Utrecht! Carl (VEKN membership director) [ quoted text not captured ]

snip first i must say i applaud NJL, for the longest time one of my play groups played without errata, myself and a friend caused that to end due to extreme confusion created by playing the same game w/ 2 sets or rules. >>With the Current DCI rules, there is no need to errata RTI, it cannot be >>a problem in a sanctioned game, and all the other games that aren't >>sanctioned are just for fun. (add house rules here) > >I'm not sure if the current errata for RTI is still in effect or not, >since the most recent RTR just says "Bah. Banned." and has done with >it. I know that I don't ever want to see RTI in our "house" games, >because it invariably ends someone's game abruptly and then they have >to go putter around for an hour or so until that game and the -other- >game finish. Or it makes a 20-minute game where three/four people are >sitting there saying "gee. that was fun" and one guy is going "cool >RTI deck, huh???" > >If I'm introducing a new player to VTES, and somehow he gets a box of >AH, and somehow he gets an RTI in that box, I'll just tell him "this >card got banned, don't use it"... assuming the complicated errata >still exists. Easier that way. as to RTI just because DCI decieded to ban it (evil bastards) dose not mean you should not let a newbie use it. Many of us play jyhad for FUN, not so we can goto a tourney, yes tourneys can be fun but they tend to keep alot of people from playing a ' fun deck' or a deck thats not proven. let us remeber that to have fun is y we play jyhad not to kick our oponents asses (though that can be a nice bonus). > [ quoted text not captured ] this game is based on a role playing game, where it is possible for a childer to kill and elder, vampires arn't supposed to be easy to destroys but they aren't impossible either. all the use of agg pre- errata dose is to make people a little more cautious about combat, as they should be. > >>Vote pushing >>LSJ = each other meth get 1 vote card >>NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn > >This does nothing to stop weenie Praxis/KRC monsters. First turn, I >get two vamps out. I push 3 of my 90 votes to get the first Praxis >through past the Edge and the first guy's Volker. I have one KRC >left, which my other vamp calls - I push one more vote to be sure THAT >passes. I replace my hand. Next turn, I bring out two more weenies, >shove through another Praxis or two, again not even using my full hand >of 7 vote cards... Eventually I no longer need to push votes, but I >generally never need to push more than 2-3 at a time anyway, and that >will always be on a Praxis of some sort. >' kinda agreee here, but ghenna could be fun. >>Pulled Fangs >>LSJ = damage is normal >>NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat > >the limit of 1 per combat goes a long way towards fixing the abusive >"I pull your fangs four times" decks, but I still don't think Pulled >Fangs should be able to burn vampires, which it currently can in the >NJL. pre errata pulled fangs made combat decks far more formitable, and tourney playable, by errating pulled fangs and entire seggment of strdgies became less playable (hand damage based combat). hurting more then helping as far as i am concened. > >>RTI >>LSJ = some convoluted mess > >currently, it's "This card is BANNED." Convoluted neh? =) > >>NJL = Play as printed >>(Look Ma no errata!) > >Oo, that means I can bring my Spiridonas/RTI/Soul Gem deck to the NJL, >doesn't it? Slap that Fortitude on him and Day Op those tac nukes, >baby! Better have a Wake/Deflect handy. played aggainst it , killed it. for everey deck there is a counter but pre 7/7 the counters did't have to be so dedicated. beside archon investigation was still a serios threat to the RTI deck. > >"No errata" is a great goal, but sometimes necessary. And you HAVE to >be sure the errata works, really. >-- Derek errata should be minmal, i should'nt have to take a binder of over 100 pages of rules info to go play cards, with 7/7 i have to. but i do use them by neccessity. arsuf formerly known as Zaphod Pat Derr Prince of Philadelphia

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:13:47 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> >RTI >> >LSJ = some convoluted mess >> currently, it's "This card is BANNED." Convoluted neh? =) > >Just a quick note here: This card is still errata'd. It's merely banned >from tournaments. If you play with it in casual play, unless you have >some house rules that ignore it, it still works just as LSJ made it work >last year. Since our group ('the Atlanta mob') plays in a lot of tournaments, ...for all intents and purposes, "This card is BANNED." I see no need to build decks that I cannot potentially bring to a tournament - I find that it improves my deck-building overall. If you ignore the DCI tournament rules, you also ignore No Repeat Actions. So you're already splitting hairs that way... will you split them for NRA or just for RTI? This card is BANNED according to me, and this card can damn well STAY banned according to me, forever. Might as well have renamed it "Deflect or Die". Have some of y'all NEVER seen a deck designed to machine this card through? Yeesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:55:59 -0500, Nate Williams <nath...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Pulled Fangs >> >>LSJ = damage is normal >> >>NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat >> > >> >the limit of 1 per combat goes a long way towards fixing the abusive >> >"I pull your fangs four times" decks, but I still don't think Pulled >> >Fangs should be able to burn vampires, which it currently can in the >> >NJL. >> >> pre errata pulled fangs made combat decks far more formitable, and tourney >> playable, by errating pulled fangs and entire seggment of strdgies became >> less playable (hand damage based combat). >> hurting more then helping as far as i am concened. Are you KIDDING? of course it's hurting. See below... >What the hell is the deal with multiple Pulled Fangs? In my *opinion*, >most vampires have one pair of fangs; I think for reality's sake only >one PF should be allowed per combat, AND a vampire with the PF card >currently in effect on him should not be affected by another PF until >the first has been removed. Similar deal with Disarm (although it would >be less useful to stack these). > >Example (hehe): > >Lupo (the little putz) with POT discipline card rushes Mr. Meat. First >round: Lupo TS, IG, US, FoD for 7. Mr. Meat strikes for one hand >damage. Lupo plays Pulled Fangs, Incisors Removed, and several Yank >Molars. Sick of dentistry, Mr. Meat makes a one way trip to the ash >heap. Correct. And if Pulled Fangs produced such a result every time it was played... >And that's how it should be. This would be wonderful. Now. Lupo, that weenie, with his POT, rushes Mr. Crowley. First round: Lupo TS, FoD, IG, US for 7. Mr. Crowley strikes for 1 hand damage, and prevents all with Skin of Steel. Under NJL rules, Mr. Crowley now plays 1 Pulled Fangs card to burn Lupo (if Lupo hadn't played Fists of Death, he'd have had to play 2, but you get the idea - the deck is easy to make). Is this right? [ quoted text not captured ]

> If you ignore the DCI tournament rules, you also ignore No Repeat > Actions. So you're already splitting hairs that way... will you split > them for NRA or just for RTI? This card is BANNED according to me, > and this card can damn well STAY banned according to me, forever. > Might as well have renamed it "Deflect or Die". Have some of y'all > NEVER seen a deck designed to machine this card through? Yeesh. > > -- Derek > (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :) Oh I have. Dan Decker the local hack has about 10 RTI and ToRIII. Talk about a pain in the ass. But You learn to effectively remove the source. Potence rush decks will completely and in short order stop a RTI deck. You can;t perform actions without vampires. Raille.

arsuf wrote: <Snip> > > > >"No errata" is a great goal, but sometimes necessary. And you HAVE to > >be sure the errata works, really. > >-- Derek > errata should be minmal, i should'nt have to take a binder of over 100 pages > of rules info to go play cards, with 7/7 i have to. > but i do use them by neccessity. > > arsuf > formerly known as Zaphod > Pat Derr > Prince of Philadelphia Well as much as I support your position, you still needed a book of errata previous to the 7/7 rulings. I know since I've been keeping the comprehensive rules posted on line. Raille.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > This would be wonderful. Now. Lupo, that weenie, with his POT, > rushes Mr. Crowley. First round: Lupo TS, FoD, IG, US for 7. Mr. > Crowley strikes for 1 hand damage, and prevents all with Skin of > Steel. Under NJL rules, Mr. Crowley now plays 1 Pulled Fangs card to > burn Lupo (if Lupo hadn't played Fists of Death, he'd have had to play > 2, but you get the idea - the deck is easy to make). Is this right? > > -- Derek Yes, it is right. Pulled fangs SHOULD be able to burn a vampire that is at zero blood. Read the definition of aggravated damage - It shocks the systems so that it DOES NOT HEAL. This is some major mojo damage that just can't behealed, the current rules kindly allow us to burn blood. If it were simply a RPG mechanic agro damage would be far more deadly than it currently is. To use the example above modified, what if TC somehow played Burst of Sunlight. You say that should not burn him either, even is he's at zero. Just don't ring true to me. Raille.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the support. contrary to the much ballyhooed view that the NJl is trying to splinter the game, we have worked hard to build off what LSJ has done. We actively bring people into the jyhad fold and we get them incontact with the newsgroups and web pages. Seems that every new player we encounter has not seen any web based Jyhad info. Most have not even loooked at the WoTC's web page. We are adding to the total community and providing a testing ground for the things that everyone else is happy to accept from LSJ, simple because he is the "official" source. the NJL give people the option to try partially tested views for changing the Official rulings. If enough people try the alternate errata, find it acceptable or better than the Official errata them the official errata will be changed. LSJ has publicly said so previously that is there is reason to change the errata he would do so. With out a format for change the Official rules would stagnate. Raille.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > >Ah the Basic tenant of the NJL, issue no errata when not needed. Of > >course we have not 100% followed that,we are trying. > > If it's your basic tenet, you need to be following it 100% or your > motives are suspect. You may have misstated yourself though, because > I don't know of any errata the NJL issued that *wasn't* needed? =) > (since all the NJL errata'd cards were also errata'd by LSJ) Actually the Basic Tenant is Noal guiding light. I don't mind well thought out errata or clarifications. They really ARE needed. Try playing with the Hawg as printed some time. YEch! > >With the Current DCI rules, there is no need to errata RTI, it cannot be > >a problem in a sanctioned game, and all the other games that aren't > >sanctioned are just for fun. (add house rules here) > > I'm not sure if the current errata for RTI is still in effect or not, > since the most recent RTR just says "Bah. Banned." and has done with > it. I know that I don't ever want to see RTI in our "house" games, > because it invariably ends someone's game abruptly and then they have > to go putter around for an hour or so until that game and the -other- > game finish. Or it makes a 20-minute game where three/four people are > sitting there saying "gee. that was fun" and one guy is going "cool > RTI deck, huh???" There is errata, only DCI has banned it, which I think is fine. On the RTI decks, yup, if your not expecting the RTI monster your in trouble, which is why I don't mind it being banned in a tournament, at home I can always switch decks after the first game. Plus the 30 minute wait is great for sucking down a beer, and planning the demise of the RTI bastard across the table. > If I'm introducing a new player to VTES, and somehow he gets a box of > AH, and somehow he gets an RTI in that box, I'll just tell him "this > card got banned, don't use it"... assuming the complicated errata > still exists. Easier that way. If he gets a box of AH ask him where! Then tell me. :) > >Currently there are only a few big diffences in NJL errata and LSJ > >errata. > > > >Agro Damage > >LSJ = Agro -1= total blood burned > >NJL = Agro = total blood burned > > Meaning that the Ivory Bow, unmodified Claws, Pulled Fangs, inferior > Taste of Death, inferior Walk of Flame, inferior Burst of Sunlight, > and any other single points of agg damage floating around out there > can now burn a vampire. That's pretty broken, but obviously the NJL > has never seen a good Pulled Fangs deck go to work. The Ivory Bow > being able to burn someone makes it a ridiculously good weapon in a > CEL blur deck - two strikes with a .44, one with the Bow, off goes > your vamp. Superior Force of Will and Daring the Dawn can now burn > your vampire if you're not excruciatingly careful, making them even > less useful than they already were. The fact that inferior > disciplines, and, say, Roreca Quaid can, with enough presses, burn a > vampire, seems silly to me - she's as weenie as weenies get, the > Tremere whippin' girl. 2 cap, tha. She should NOT be able to burn > vampires. (note that Decapitate requires superior Potence) Ohh, I'd say the 15 Pulled fangs deck with the damage prevention Ventrue deck was more than evil. You either got burned afer the first round of combat or went to torpor, empty. I don't recall if it had very much interecept to keep you there. > On the plus side, Torment the Soul (requires necromancy, not usable > first round, 1R inferior, 1R agg superior) is no longer TOTAL > wallpaper, although it does require you to carefully reduce them to 0 > blood in the first round (with Potence, more difficult to exactly hit > 0 than you think - lots easier to just "i hit you for lots") and then > have a press. Woopie. TtS is still mostly wallpaper. Just to damn hard to burn a vampire with it. Its is great for sending them to torpor when they least expect it. > >Vote pushing > >LSJ = each other meth get 1 vote card > >NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn > > This does nothing to stop weenie Praxis/KRC monsters. First turn, I > get two vamps out. I push 3 of my 90 votes to get the first Praxis > through past the Edge and the first guy's Volker. I have one KRC > left, which my other vamp calls - I push one more vote to be sure THAT > passes. I replace my hand. Next turn, I bring out two more weenies, > shove through another Praxis or two, again not even using my full hand > of 7 vote cards... Eventually I no longer need to push votes, but I > generally never need to push more than 2-3 at a time anyway, and that > will always be on a Praxis of some sort. Do some math. How many PS cards make up the deck, how many turns will it take to get the deck going. Our climate is usually fast, after 3 turns you can expect serious problems and most people have some intercept in their decks, which will block a standard vote deck completely. I have seen the weenie votes try this and simple get hand jam with PS cards, or in some cases don't get PS at all and fail to get the KRC passed. I always have B.O in my decks with a couple Dread gaze or Surprise Influence. They slow down weeny vote decks so fast they never get going. > >Pulled Fangs > >LSJ = damage is normal > >NJL = Damage agro, limit one per combat > > the limit of 1 per combat goes a long way towards fixing the abusive > "I pull your fangs four times" decks, but I still don't think Pulled > Fangs should be able to burn vampires, which it currently can in the > NJL. Well that just a difference in opinion, and in game mechanics. I trust you've been playing long enough to have used all the various rules and errata. And as such you probably used whatever was official at the time. I trust you wil continue to do so in the future too. > >RTI > >LSJ = some convoluted mess > > currently, it's "This card is BANNED." Convoluted neh? =) DCI banned, LSJ Errata. > >NJL = Play as printed > >(Look Ma no errata!) > > Oo, that means I can bring my Spiridonas/RTI/Soul Gem deck to the NJL, > doesn't it? Slap that Fortitude on him and Day Op those tac nukes, > baby! Better have a Wake/Deflect handy. Go ahead and play it, have fun. Their is aways the next game. Plus RTI and Soul gem are rare cards. You should be rewarded official by the WoTC for buying so many boxes that you can play with and wear out these valuable cards. Remember, once they are gone, there gone. > "No errata" is a great goal, but sometimes necessary. And you HAVE to > be sure the errata works, really. Agreed. But the game has flaws and some errata must be there to prevent fist fights. > -- Derek Raille

> Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or > RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big > Vamp decks. But what about the current environment where it is too easy to build Stupid Small Vamp decks? I think this is where this whole thread started from in the first place. shawn [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:45:23 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> This would be wonderful. Now. Lupo, that weenie, with his POT, >> rushes Mr. Crowley. First round: Lupo TS, FoD, IG, US for 7. Mr. >> Crowley strikes for 1 hand damage, and prevents all with Skin of >> Steel. Under NJL rules, Mr. Crowley now plays 1 Pulled Fangs card to >> burn Lupo (if Lupo hadn't played Fists of Death, he'd have had to play >> 2, but you get the idea - the deck is easy to make). Is this right? >> >> -- Derek > >Yes, it is right. Pulled fangs SHOULD be able to burn a vampire that is >at zero blood. Read the definition of aggravated damage - It shocks >the systems so that it DOES NOT HEAL. This is some major mojo damage >that just can't behealed, the current rules kindly allow us to burn >blood. If it were simply a RPG mechanic agro damage would be far more >deadly than it currently is. But this is a game mechanic issue, not a "storyline/theme/roleplaying" issue. With single points of agg burning people, it's much too easy to outright burn people left and right in combat, which was the original point and REMAINS the point. Too many inferior-discipline cards provide a single point of agg in some fashion - I just don't believe the game designers intended vampires to be so easily removed from play. Why else make all those "torpor" related cards? With that much agg floating around, vampires are just going to burn a lot, since any player with half a brain will see that it's generally better to make vampires -gone- than in torpor and potentially retrievable later... >To use the example above modified, what if TC somehow played Burst of >Sunlight. You say that should not burn him either, even is he's at >zero. A zero blood vampire is not hurt, just hungry. He won't be going to torpor on his own unless he takes some damage. Agg damage is defined in the game mechanics as "damage which cannot be healed by burning blood". Both of these are stock interpretations, right? If he takes one point of normal damage (Burst of LeadPipeToTheHead), he can't burn any blood to heal it and so will bung off to torpor, wounded. If he takes one point of agg damage (aiee! the bright light), he can't burn any blood to heal IT, either, and so bungs off to torpor, wounded. The only difference is that if he had blood, he still wouldn't be able to burn blood to heal it. >Just don't ring true to me. If you -need- an RPG issue, imagine a flash of sunlight through a window (Burst of Sunlight) from drapes rapidly pulled aside. A vampire standing in front of that would immediately lunge aside, and is probably scorched, blackened, and seared all over, looking much like an overcooked hot dog. He will be headed to torpor for awhile, since his system obviously can't deal with the shock. So, a superior Burst of Sunlight is either a larger window, being pushed out a back door into daylight, etc. etc... which since he has nowhere to immediately duck out of the way from, does more damage to him, possibly resulting in him turning into ashes. If he had blood on him, he could use up his lifeforce/resources to last just long enough to get back into the comforting shadows, but would still be headed for torpor from the shock. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:20:52 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> >Ah the Basic tenant of the NJL, issue no errata when not needed. Of >> >course we have not 100% followed that,we are trying. >> >> If it's your basic tenet, you need to be following it 100% or your >> motives are suspect. You may have misstated yourself though, because >> I don't know of any errata the NJL issued that *wasn't* needed? =) >> (since all the NJL errata'd cards were also errata'd by LSJ) > >Actually the Basic Tenant is Noal guiding light. I don't mind well >thought out errata or clarifications. They really ARE needed. > >Try playing with the Hawg as printed some time. YEch! I had to go back and find a Hawg to understand that. "One press each turn." *snort* =) I suppose I just never actually READ that, since it was so obviously intended to be one press each combat. =) >> I'm not sure if the current errata for RTI is still in effect or not, >> since the most recent RTR just says "Bah. Banned." and has done with >> it. I know that I don't ever want to see RTI in our "house" games, >> because it invariably ends someone's game abruptly and then they have >> to go putter around for an hour or so until that game and the -other- >> game finish. Or it makes a 20-minute game where three/four people are >> sitting there saying "gee. that was fun" and one guy is going "cool >> RTI deck, huh???" > >There is errata, only DCI has banned it, which I think is fine. >On the RTI decks, yup, if your not expecting the RTI monster your in >trouble, which is why I don't mind it being banned in a tournament, at >home I can always switch decks after the first game. Well, my objection is that when you lose from RTI while trying out a new idea, you have lost all the surprise value your idea may have had, and haven't really learned diddly about whether your deck works or not. :) About all you know is that your deck cannot handle Day Opped bleeds for 14. :P >Plus the 30 minute wait is great for sucking down a beer, and planning >the demise of the RTI bastard across the table. > >> If I'm introducing a new player to VTES, and somehow he gets a box of >> AH, and somehow he gets an RTI in that box, I'll just tell him "this >> card got banned, don't use it"... assuming the complicated errata >> still exists. Easier that way. > >If he gets a box of AH ask him where! Then tell me. :) Not before I buy them out of their supply and begin reselling. ;) >> Meaning that the Ivory Bow, unmodified Claws, Pulled Fangs, inferior >> Taste of Death, inferior Walk of Flame, inferior Burst of Sunlight, >> and any other single points of agg damage floating around out there >> can now burn a vampire. That's pretty broken, but obviously the NJL >> has never seen a good Pulled Fangs deck go to work. The Ivory Bow >> being able to burn someone makes it a ridiculously good weapon in a >> CEL blur deck - two strikes with a .44, one with the Bow, off goes >> your vamp. Superior Force of Will and Daring the Dawn can now burn >> your vampire if you're not excruciatingly careful, making them even >> less useful than they already were. The fact that inferior >> disciplines, and, say, Roreca Quaid can, with enough presses, burn a >> vampire, seems silly to me - she's as weenie as weenies get, the >> Tremere whippin' girl. 2 cap, tha. She should NOT be able to burn >> vampires. (note that Decapitate requires superior Potence) > >Ohh, I'd say the 15 Pulled fangs deck with the damage prevention Ventrue >deck was more than evil. You either got burned afer the first round of >combat or went to torpor, empty. I don't recall if it had very much >interecept to keep you there. 2nd Tradition, i'm sure. Useful for all kinds of things you don't want to happen, and you can use lots more than 15 PF in that deck. Let's see... 12 skin of steel, 15 PF, 10 2nd trad, assorted bleed cards and modifiers, some wake/deflections so you don't have to burn a bleedy predator, and any amusing Masters you need... Bleed prey for a gazillion each turn. When he blocks, burn or torporize him with SoS/PF. Whee. :/ This is a much better argument against PF doing any sort of agg damage, as far as I'm concerned - it's a disciplineless card, and even under NJL errata where you can only play one per combat, a deck built like this could -easily- keep its prey in torpor, or since it's the Ventrue, could just diablerize as necessary since it may have vote lock. Blah. >> On the plus side, Torment the Soul (requires necromancy, not usable >> first round, 1R inferior, 1R agg superior) is no longer TOTAL >> wallpaper, although it does require you to carefully reduce them to 0 >> blood in the first round (with Potence, more difficult to exactly hit >> 0 than you think - lots easier to just "i hit you for lots") and then >> have a press. Woopie. > >TtS is still mostly wallpaper. Just to damn hard to burn a vampire with >it. Its is great for sending them to torpor when they least expect it. Yeah, but you can't play Soul Stealing on guys who went to torpor. =) >> >Vote pushing >> >LSJ = each other meth get 1 vote card >> >NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn >> >> This does nothing to stop weenie Praxis/KRC monsters. First turn, I >> get two vamps out. I push 3 of my 90 votes to get the first Praxis >> through past the Edge and the first guy's Volker. I have one KRC >> left, which my other vamp calls - I push one more vote to be sure THAT >> passes. I replace my hand. Next turn, I bring out two more weenies, >> shove through another Praxis or two, again not even using my full hand >> of 7 vote cards... Eventually I no longer need to push votes, but I >> generally never need to push more than 2-3 at a time anyway, and that >> will always be on a Praxis of some sort. > >Do some math. How many PS cards make up the deck, how many turns will >it take to get the deck going. Our climate is usually fast, after 3 >turns you can expect serious problems and most people have some >intercept in their decks, which will block a standard vote deck >completely. I'd say 30 Praxii, 20 KRC, 20 Con Ag, 5 Aut. Persecution, 5 Domain Challenge, 10 random other votes in a 90 card deck. Push them as necessary to cycle to damage votes once you have vote lock. Praxii are a vote card themselves remember... and I just showed you how many turns it takes to get the deck going. I have four weenies out after my 2nd influence phase and at LEAST one prince, with more on the way. Do you have enough intercept to block four KRC's on the 3rd turn? You pretty much have to be able to block the first (on turn 2!) and ANY Praxis, forcing me to burn vote cards like water to make a vote pass. >I have seen the weenie votes try this and simple get hand jam with PS >cards, or in some cases don't get PS at all and fail to get the KRC >passed. I always have B.O in my decks with a couple Dread gaze or >Surprise Influence. They slow down weeny vote decks so fast they never >get going. What the heck are they thinking? Praxis cards say "Political Action - worth one vote". Push those things first. sample card text: "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful vote means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Atlanta. This could lead to a contested title." Sure, you can Dread Gaze and Surprise Influence my first two, but a 90-vote-card-vote-deck has you beat cold as far as raw vote muscle goes early on ... it's only through keeping it down early long enough for multiple titled vampires to get out on the table that you'll REALLY shut it down. >> Oo, that means I can bring my Spiridonas/RTI/Soul Gem deck to the NJL, >> doesn't it? Slap that Fortitude on him and Day Op those tac nukes, >> baby! Better have a Wake/Deflect handy. > >Go ahead and play it, have fun. Their is aways the next game. Plus RTI >and Soul gem are rare cards. You should be rewarded official by the >WoTC for buying so many boxes that you can play with and wear out these >valuable cards. Remember, once they are gone, there gone. Magic of the Smith fetches me a Soul Gem (at the +3 stealth I'd prefer to have!), increasing the amount of them I effectively have in my deck. There are a lot of people who managed to get 10 RTI's available to themselves, which is probably really all you need. Now just gotta wedge the library up to 60 cards somehow. Bleed mods, Fortitude skill cards, Force of Will actions (works almost as well as RTI since this is Spiridonas we're talking about)... shouldn't be too difficult. The biggest problem will be having a Fortitude card handy every time. I can't agree with errata that relies on the fact that someone probably won't do it. Put a sufficiently valuable prize up, and someone will try it. Right now, that might be one box of AH. =) Most of my cards are lightly edge-battered, but will still be in playable condition for the next 10 years, I figure. None of them are so worn that they are marked. Some of them are almost brand new, and upon looking at the other side I realize why - they say things like "Boxed In" on them. =) So yeah, once they're gone, they're gone, but really, I just don't see them going anywhere - and I play a LOT and don't really take care of mine that well. (They live in a big cardboard box.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > I had to go back and find a Hawg to understand that. "One press each > turn." *snort* =) I suppose I just never actually READ that, since > it was so obviously intended to be one press each combat. =) > Don't forget the other version, one press per round! :) > >> >NJL = each meth does not replace till end of current turn > >> > >> This does nothing to stop weenie Praxis/KRC monsters. First turn, I > >> get two vamps out. I push 3 of my 90 votes to get the first Praxis > >> through past the Edge and the first guy's Volker. I have one KRC > >> left, which my other vamp calls - I push one more vote to be sure THAT > >> passes. I replace my hand. Next turn, I bring out two more weenies, > >> shove through another Praxis or two, again not even using my full hand > >> of 7 vote cards... Eventually I no longer need to push votes, but I > >> generally never need to push more than 2-3 at a time anyway, and that > >> will always be on a Praxis of some sort. > > > >Do some math. How many PS cards make up the deck, how many turns will > >it take to get the deck going. Our climate is usually fast, after 3 > >turns you can expect serious problems and most people have some > >intercept in their decks, which will block a standard vote deck > >completely. > > I'd say 30 Praxii, 20 KRC, 20 Con Ag, 5 Aut. Persecution, 5 Domain > Challenge, 10 random other votes in a 90 card deck. Push them as > necessary to cycle to damage votes once you have vote lock. Praxii > are a vote card themselves remember... and I just showed you how many > turns it takes to get the deck going. I have four weenies out after > my 2nd influence phase and at LEAST one prince, with more on the way. > Do you have enough intercept to block four KRC's on the 3rd turn? You > pretty much have to be able to block the first (on turn 2!) and ANY > Praxis, forcing me to burn vote cards like water to make a vote pass. 30/90 is 1/3 meaning in your hand your will have 2 Ps, you play one and push with say two other, total 3 votes and it passed. You draw 0 new cards. You now have 5 cards in your hand, based on averages you also used 2 KRC/CA cards to make it happen, you do the same to the next vote. You now have 2 princes and a loss of 4 offensive PA cards. Out of the total 20 KRC, which equal 80 pool loss and in a perfect world good for ousting two players, you have really hurt your offensive capabilities. If there are no other votes on the table after your second turn of creating princes, you should take 2 VP at a 5 player table. That may win you the tourney, but then again maybe not. Sort of depends on factors like rush decks, other political decks, o the big pool gain decks. Minion Tap 5th tradition, ect. So how is this so much worst than any other good deck? > Most of my cards are lightly edge-battered, but will still be in > playable condition for the next 10 years, I figure. None of them are > so worn that they are marked. Some of them are almost brand new, and > upon looking at the other side I realize why - they say things like > "Boxed In" on them. =) So yeah, once they're gone, they're gone, but > really, I just don't see them going anywhere - and I play a LOT and > don't really take care of mine that well. (They live in a big > cardboard box.) > > -- Derek I had the misfortune of having about 200 cards water damaged. ;( Raille

just to stop a run away thread, let me say that personally I think the new Agro rules are OK. I think PFs should per changed to be 1 per combat. Truthfully the card was ruled wrong. In every other instance where you go to torpor fom agro damage, the combat stopped at the instant the agro damage occured. With this you should never have been able/allowed to play the second. This is why the NJL ruled PF to be one per combat. The card does read go to torpor, do not pass go, do not collect 200 pool. Raille.

Raille wrote: > > > I had the misfortune of having about 200 cards water damaged. ;( > > Raille Hey, as long as they are all equally "marked" you can play 'em, right? :) NaTe

[ quoted text not captured ] Good point if it was a strike. But are damage cards from the "other" category treated the same way? Maybe my mind has simply been damaged by Magic timing rules: PF, Instant, Cast only at the end of combat if target creature was dealt more damage than it dealt. PF does one damage to target creature and that creature does not untap next turn. In Magic you could cast as many PF's as you wanted and kill the creature instead of just tapping it. Oh well. Sucky analogy (since there is nothing quite like torpor in M:tG). NaTe

shawn wrote: > > > Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or > > RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big > > Vamp decks. > > But what about the current environment where it is too easy to build > Stupid Small Vamp decks? > > I think this is where this whole thread started from in the first place. > Exactly. What we need now are some cards (Judgement: Death to the Ancients and the Neonates!: Political Action. Successful vote means empty all vampires with capacity over 8 or under 5 into the blood bank and put those vamps in torpor and they don't ever untap again ever ever ever.) or rulings (eg "RtI: Play as written except the acting vampire's capacity cannot exceed eight) that make it too easy to make Stupid Medium Vamp decks. Then Anson and Carlotta G. and Muaziz can rule the world like they were destined to. NaTe, Chantry Elder of Munich

Nate Williams wrote: > Good point if it was a strike. But are damage cards from the "other" > category treated the same way? Maybe my mind has simply been damaged by > Magic timing rules: > > PF, Instant, Cast only at the end of combat if target creature was dealt > more damage than it dealt. PF does one damage to target creature and > that creature does not untap next turn. > > In Magic you could cast as many PF's as you wanted and kill the creature > instead of just tapping it. > > Oh well. Sucky analogy (since there is nothing quite like torpor in > M:tG). > > NaTe I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but according to LSJ all effects are resolved instantly, which means the instant my wolf claws hit you you instandly go to torpor. With that in mind, why change things to allow PF such a strong effect? Leaving the card completely alone, but forcing it into the same mold as all other cards would mean that PF could not burn a vampire, with the current rules, that is. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] They wee, but I had them sorted alphabetically and they were almost all masters. A 90 master card deck is just a little beyond me right now. :) Raille

In article <7ro0ao$7s1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com writes >Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or >RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big >Vamp decks. ITYM "Over-powered Stupid Difficult to Compete Against Unless You're Playing Either A Specifically Anti-Deck, or One Of Those Decks Yourself Big Vamp decks." EuroGenCon 97 showed quite comfortably, to my mind, that the Arika Return to Innocence Pulled Fangs Skin of Steel Day Operation type decks were *far* *far* too powerful, and it was a very difficult thing to try and put up a fight against, for far too many players. If no-one plays that deck then, sure, Jyhad is fine and everyone plays their decks as before. If the deck is too powerful and no reasonable deck can stand up to it without specifically tuning itself against it, so that when it sits down at your table you can just say "Oh well, I'm dead - I can't defend against that, nor could I have reasonably defended against it without having to defend against that *specific* deck", that *does* ruin Jyhad. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <8AZD3.99$8r4....@typhoon1.gnilink.net>, arsuf <son...@juno.com> writes >as to RTI just because DCI decieded to ban it (evil bastards) Try rationalising a reason why they shouldn't ban it. Argue, convincingly, that the card is not entirely over-powered as written. How would you intend to defend against the Ventrue Steamroller decks that were prevalent a couple of years ago, due almost solely to RtoI? > dose not mean >you should not let a newbie use it. What do you do then? Arbitrarily draw a line at which point they stop being a newbie and are an experienced player capable of abusing it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19990915095400...@ng-cr1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >Before the infamous 7/7 errata, >weenie decks were just as powerful as they are now (if not more so, due to the >vote pushing rules--I'm sure that Goudie was demolishing people with his weenie >decks pre 7/7), just there were a few obscenely powerful Elder decks that could >be built that abused the redicuolusly overpowered Tomb, RTI, and Mind Rape. >These Elder decks were, as logically follows, overpowered and had a deleterious >effect on the tournament play environment (far more than weenie decks, I would >say). True. Rob Treasure has said to me many times that prior to the 7/7, the obscene Ventrue Steamroller decks he was playing were the most points effective decks available, in his opinion - possibly, they could have been tweaked here and there but, I feel, the overall point stands. The weenie decks could just as easily have been played, but an "elder" deck was better, point for point. The 7/7 didn't "empower" weenies - they were already powerful. It just moved them into a position where the obscene elder decks weren't more powerful than them, hence they received more attention by highly competitive players. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37DEE2...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> writes >The errata did not swing the meta-game away from large vamps. From certain classes of big vampire decks, it did. The Arika "I bleed you for 76,453,561 and +23948234 stealth and, oh, it's unblockable" decks, it did swing the meta-game away from. However, the basic point, that RtoI did not immediately make *all* big vampires immediately great is a valid one. Many big vampires did not really benefit from it. They couldn't exploit the unblockable side, so they couldn't really exploit RtoI. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7rpms3$h0v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, just...@my-deja.com writes >Yeah, right. In my initial post I outlined a number of changes that >detrimentally affected larger vampires relative to the younger one And somewhat bizarrely, too. You make false generalisations based on the fact that *some* big vampires were hurt. That didn't make big vampires less attractive to play - it made those big vampires less attractive to play, it didn't make others less attractive - their attractiveness, or not, was based on other conditions. Return to Innocence hit big vampires, yes, but it only hit *some* big vampires. How often did you ever see, say, Cassandra, Magus Prime, pull off a Return to Innocence? Did you know people who suddenly found that Masika suddenly became *the* vampire to include in a deck, just so they could pull off RtoI? Alexandra? Hitting RtoI wouldn't alter those vampires, because those vampires barely benefitted from RtoI, in that they found it shaky, expensive and difficult to pull off - especially if you've invested in a big vampire, and so don't have many vampires to do the "I'll wait till you're all tapped out and do it then" routine. Mind Rape - Again, this doesn't hit big vampires, it hits vampires with dominate, and predominantly, big vampires with Dominate. Did changing Mind Rape make Francois Villon less attractive to play, given that he couldn't play it already? Did it make your "Wynn-Wynn" deck less viable, given Wynn's sudden inability to abuse Mind Rape, a card he couldn't use before without significant investment in Master disciplines? Did Yong Sun suddenly lose all his potency in the same manner? Golconda - To say that there could be no more Soul Gem decks is patently untrue. That there could be no more Soul Gem decks which exploited Golconda in that manner is true, but look at the deck Chris Berger built using Aurora to good effect, in an "infinite loop" Soul Gem deck. Soul Gem was never just for big vampires using Golconda. Also, Golconda provided, and still provides, a way for you to give someone enough rope to hang themselves. They either have to lose a vampire and gain pool, or be "bled" for 2. Under most circumstances, a Methuselah doesn't want to do *either* of these and, if they pick the worse of the two, they're even more screwed. Mask of 1000 Faces + Atonement - Again, you say this acted to the detriment of big vampires. No, big vampires with obfuscate. Rotschreck - It could be used against a big vampire before, especially the aggravated hand damage bunch, and the Gangrel "Wynn-Wynn" deck in particular. Now, they have to act, come to you, let you block them (most likely) and then you deal them aggravated damage. A quite difficult sequence of events, I would have thought. Tomb of Rameses - Look at the *current* errata. It's very, very viable. *Very* viable. If you don't think so, that's your problem. It can still bring out big vampires quickly, it just can't be used as a blood machine in the process. Rutor's Hand - And? Was Rutor's Hand only used by big vampires? No, it wasn't. And even if it was, you single out vampires with Thaumaturgy. Of the three cards you cite with disciplines, you've just knocked out vampires with Obfuscate, Thaumaturgy and *superior* Dominate. There are big vampires out there who want give a monkey's about that. They were either empowered or not empowered based on other criterion. And the changes hit smaller vampires, too. The Mask thing stopped weenie obfuscate vampires doing interesting with Rutor's Hand themselves, borrowing it from a bigger vampire. And those vampires who the changes could have conceivably "hit" by having those disciplines couldn't necessarily use those tricks anyway. An Atoned vampire that couldn't defend itself in combat, or defend the Atonement from burning, was useless, and not all vampires with Obfuscate can defend themselves in combat properly against a concerted attack (and watch out for Immortal Grapple, of course), so why bother? Similarly, Mind Rape is only effective if you can get it through - and not everyone with superior Dominate is empowered with stealth (e.g. Spiridonas, Wilhelm Waldberg, Lazarus) or, if they themselves are, you have to build a deck dedicated to that one vampire, because it's quite out of clan (e.g. Marty Lechtansi, because DOM in a Nos is unusual, Etrius with OBF and pro which are not too often found in Tremere). Big vampires were not empowered before the 7/7. *SOME* big vampires happened to be. Not all, by any means. 7/7 only took the power away from *those* big vampires, not all big vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37DF63...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >RTI >LSJ = some convoluted mess What, you mean "banned"? (And let's just sit down and wonder which people actually advise the DCI with regards to their rulings before we start, shall we, children?) >NJL = Play as printed >(Look Ma no errata!) And that is just patently stupid. Sorry, and all, but to leave RtoI in its previous state is just utterly, utterly stupid. Yes, it might help some of the less viable clans - it just also happens to entirely over- power other clans, entirely fucking over the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E0E6...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >Read the definition of aggravated damage - It shocks >the systems so that it DOES NOT HEAL. Not healing, and curling up in the corner and dying completely, are not the same thing when dealing with vampires. Anyway, why should a disciplineless card be entirely superior to many disciplined cards? Why doesn't potence have a card capable of burning a vampire FOR FREE if it does more damage to them than they do to it? Thaumaturgy can't do it in the first round (the surviving to the second round for Walk of Flame is a very considerable cost, or the 2 blood of Shotgun Ritual). Celerity can't. Quietus can't. Why should a *disciplineless* card (those cards which are supposed to be somewhat *generic* in their abilities, in order to afford everyone some *limited* ability in each area) have so much power? [ quoted text not captured ]

shawn wrote in message <7rrpuu$2c5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > >> Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or >> RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big >> Vamp decks. > >But what about the current environment where it is too easy to build >Stupid Small Vamp decks? > >I think this is where this whole thread started from in the first place. > Not really. Stupid Small Vamp decks existed before and after 7/7. They're not quite as many options (vote pushing was tamed down...) The point, I think was to possibly look for routes to counteract the diliterious effects that said errata had on large vamps (and to prove that such an effect happened...) Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC) >shawn > > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:51:09 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >> >Do some math. How many PS cards make up the deck, how many turns will >> >it take to get the deck going. Our climate is usually fast, after 3 >> >turns you can expect serious problems and most people have some >> >intercept in their decks, which will block a standard vote deck >> >completely. >> >> I'd say 30 Praxii, 20 KRC, 20 Con Ag, 5 Aut. Persecution, 5 Domain >> Challenge, 10 random other votes in a 90 card deck. Push them as >> necessary to cycle to damage votes once you have vote lock. Praxii >> are a vote card themselves remember... and I just showed you how many >> turns it takes to get the deck going. I have four weenies out after >> my 2nd influence phase and at LEAST one prince, with more on the way. >> Do you have enough intercept to block four KRC's on the 3rd turn? You >> pretty much have to be able to block the first (on turn 2!) and ANY >> Praxis, forcing me to burn vote cards like water to make a vote pass. > >30/90 is 1/3 meaning in your hand your will have 2 Ps, you play one and >push with say two other, total 3 votes and it passed. You draw 0 new >cards. You now have 5 cards in your hand, based on averages you also >used 2 KRC/CA cards to make it happen, you do the same to the next >vote. You now have 2 princes and a loss of 4 offensive PA cards. Out >of the total 20 KRC, which equal 80 pool loss and in a perfect world >good for ousting two players, you have really hurt your offensive >capabilities. Not really. I have 45 damage votes in that deck as listed above - Con Ag is a KRC early on, Domain Challenge will slaughter other weenie decks for me. (obviously, I call -it- first on my turn.) And frankly, I probably only need 5 vote cards to oust my first prey... 15 pool loss is significant. Since everyone else will be damaging their own prey, I will be required to use less and less actual votes to do the damage as I go 'round the table, unless I run into an RBG deck. That could suck, but hey, it happens. I could flip a coin and make it 20 Praxii and 30 KRC's, which is probably better but running the risk of not seeing many Praxii early on. Minor tweak. In a perfect world, 20 KRC will oust all 4 and sweep, since very few players maintain above 20 pool. That's why the other 20 Con Ags are in. Actually, with 30/90 my opening hand will probably have 3 P's, and if I'm lucky, 6-7. Turn one, I get 2 weenies. Turn two, I may bleed with one weenie to gain the Edge and use the other to call a Praxis. If I feel lucky and there is no Volker yet, -or- if Zoe, Isabel, or some other intercepty soul is near me, I call two Praxii figuring only one will get through. The only guy who can *really* stop me right now is Volker, and he MUST be in seat #1. If Volker is out I must push two more, otherwise I can probably toss the Edge to pass it.. I assess the table while pushing - who threw vote cards down against me? If nobody tossed vote cards on the first vote (and when they see weenie vote, they WILL toss vote cards if they have 'em), I dump every single non-damage vote out of my hand on the second one, since I now have four votes and won't -need- to push votes as much. I also transfer out two new weenies and redraw my hand. Turn three, I have 4 table votes and vote lock unless someone is Rushing my weenies, in which case I am dead no matter how well my hand goes. I examine my hand. If I have no damage votes, I make two new Princes and empty my hand in the process whether I need to or not, making 8 table votes and a great chance to have a handful of damage next turn. I probably am in good shape with the four weenies, but I get a new one from my crypt anyway just in case one gets cancelled or someone starts discovering a lot of intercept. I get a new vamp every other turn that way, and if I'm smart, I've stuck 5 Info Highways in my library so's I get a new vamp -every- turn. If I -do- have damage votes (probably 3), I don't use them immediately, I toss at least one Praxis first on the new guy, partially to draw out intercept. I do not *need* to push vote cards, as I have 5 votes in favor automatically and probably only 2-3 table votes against me. Again, assess the table - do I see titled guys likely to come out, or do I think they can overcome 7 votes easily? If not, I call 3 damage votes, causing minimum 9 pool loss to my prey -on turn three-. On my third vote, I empty my hand of all non-damage votes, giving myself great odds to draw up more. I probably oust my prey next turn if I draw up 3 more damage votes, although Domain Challenge would be annoying to have in-hand this early in the game. >If there are no other votes on the table after your second turn of >creating princes, you should take 2 VP at a 5 player table. That may >win you the tourney, but then again maybe not. Sort of depends on >factors like rush decks, other political decks, o the big pool gain >decks. Minion Tap 5th tradition, ect. I'll take all 5 VP's and enjoy it, actually, unless someone has enough intercept and enough untap to consistently stop me, or has enough Rush to annihilate my vamps. One sweep of ANY table gets me into the finals. >So how is this so much worst than any other good deck? see above. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Anyway, why should a disciplineless card be entirely superior to many > disciplined cards? Why doesn't potence have a card capable of burning a > vampire FOR FREE if it does more damage to them than they do to it? > Thaumaturgy can't do it in the first round (the surviving to the second > round for Walk of Flame is a very considerable cost, or the 2 blood of > Shotgun Ritual). Celerity can't. Quietus can't. Why should a > *disciplineless* card (those cards which are supposed to be somewhat > *generic* in their abilities, in order to afford everyone some *limited* > ability in each area) have so much power? > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) See my other post on how PF should work. It effectively ends the abuse of this card, with out any errata. Raille.

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <37DF63...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >RTI > >LSJ = some convoluted mess > > What, you mean "banned"? (And let's just sit down and wonder which > people actually advise the DCI with regards to their rulings before we > start, shall we, children?) Only banned in DCI Tournaments. Official errata is convoluted. Come on James YOU SHOULD KNow that! > >NJL = Play as printed > >(Look Ma no errata!) > > And that is just patently stupid. Sorry, and all, but to leave RtoI in > its previous state is just utterly, utterly stupid. Yes, it might help > some of the less viable clans - it just also happens to entirely over- > power other clans, entirely fucking over the table. > Perhaps, but We do utilize DCI Guidelines for some games and then the RTI is simply banned. As you pointed out in another post the RTI errata/bannning only hurts a few selected vampires, who purposely attempt to abuse it. In the Larger Meta game we have in Michigan, 30+ players, If you pull RTI Once you get marked for life. <grin> So after the first game everyone knows you are attempting to destroy the Masquerade and go gunning for you. End result is you just don't see it used very much. There is also the fact that most players enjoy the compitition. Toss in a few RTI and you destroy the dynamics of the game and everyone gets just a little upset at you. The only time RTI gets to be a big problem is in the Regional Tourneys, like Gen Co or Origins etc. Where you don't know what to expect and can expect a harder time creating a Meta game to work against a player who is abuseing the RTI. Thats why its banned in DCI play. I do not have a problem with that. Raille.

In article <37E261...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >See my other post on how PF should work. It effectively ends the abuse >of this card, with out any errata. Without any rulings, clarifications or errata, PF is entirely abusable. Skin of Steel, 10 pulled fangs - bye bye. Without such changes, you cannot effectively end anything. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <37E264...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> >LSJ = some convoluted mess >> >> What, you mean "banned"? (And let's just sit down and wonder which >> people actually advise the DCI with regards to their rulings before we >> start, shall we, children?) > >Only banned in DCI Tournaments. Official errata is convoluted. Come on >James YOU SHOULD KNow that! Clue: He said LSJ, not official errata. Now read what I wrote again. >As you pointed out in another post the RTI errata/bannning only hurts a >few selected vampires, who purposely attempt to abuse it. Entirely within the MJL rules, by the way. If you don't want people to abuse it, why not errata it? > In the Larger >Meta game we have in Michigan, 30+ players, If you pull RTI Once you get >marked for life. So if I decide to play entirely within the rules, I get marked as "weird" or something? You like the fact that MJL rules have to resort to such squabbling to resolve things? Surely the rules should prevent such collusion having to occur, due to outside circumstances, rather than in game? Why would you advocate a rules set that requires such "marking" in order for it to work effectively? I have to say, it sounds remarkably stupid, if that's the defence of it. That a set of rules designed to supposedly make the game better and more enjoyable for players requires people to remember and gang up on you because you're playing competitively and within the rules sounds, well, more stupid than anything else I can ever remember anybody saying in favour of something like, say, 4CL. Some people like to *win*. Why should they have to curb their behaviour which is entirely within the rules so that they don't get marked? Such "marking" and remembering "for life" can be taken the wrong way by players, who see it as persecution against them because they want to play the deck and it's perfectly legal, so why not? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You would of course have to water damage your Rumors of Gehenna and Parthenon adequately in order to play that deck. NaTe

James Coupe wrote: > Golconda - To say that there could be no more Soul Gem decks is patently > untrue. That there could be no more Soul Gem decks which exploited > Golconda in that manner is true, but look at the deck Chris Berger built > using Aurora to good effect, in an "infinite loop" Soul Gem deck. Soul > Gem was never just for big vampires using Golconda. What exactly is the Soul Gem good for? The only way I have ever seen it used on the NG is in weird degenerate decks with all vampires in the crypt identical and a means of upping the vamp's capacity by one followed by a big burn-me-afterward bleed. Otherwise the Gem is too likely not to be worth having. No one puts it on Leandro because they are afraid he will be burned at some point. Does it ever see action in non-degenerate decks at all? NaTe

Nate Williams wrote: > You would of course have to water damage your Rumors of Gehenna and > Parthenon adequately in order to play that deck. > > NaTe I think I found a solution. It ain't more water either. Place a normal card in a card sleeve then plave the warped card infront of that. Your deck get really think, but it is legal. Raille.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > Turn three, I have 4 table votes and vote lock unless someone is > Rushing my weenies, In the last tourney I was in after the 4th turn there were 11 votes sitting at the table and it was a 4 player Match. Only one of those players had a vote geared deck, and he failed misserably. This is fairly typical around here and thats with a rather large pool of player. Granted a Weenie vote deck is a strong deck, but it does not take too much to slow it down. A few other players even if they only have a primogen each will effectivly stop the weenie IF they work on all voting against the weenie deck. In A tourney this will happen after the first round once people discover it in their midst. > >So how is this so much worst than any other good deck? > > see above. Me thinks you over rate the effectiveness of your deck. > -- Derek Raille

James Coupe wrote: > Entirely within the MJL rules, by the way. If you don't want people to > abuse it, why not errata it? > We did. No action modifiers. > > In the Larger > >Meta game we have in Michigan, 30+ players, If you pull RTI Once you get > >marked for life. > > So if I decide to play entirely within the rules, I get marked as > "weird" or something? You like the fact that MJL rules have to resort > to such squabbling to resolve things? Surely the rules should prevent > such collusion having to occur, due to outside circumstances, rather > than in game? I think perhaps you read to deeply into my comments. > Why would you advocate a rules set that requires such "marking" in order > for it to work effectively? I have to say, it sounds remarkably stupid, > if that's the defence of it. That a set of rules designed to supposedly > make the game better and more enjoyable for players requires people to > remember and gang up on you because you're playing competitively and > within the rules sounds, well, more stupid than anything else I can ever > remember anybody saying in favour of something like, say, 4CL. 4CL, won't go there, wouldn't be prudent. But, the thing about a person who uses RTI getting marked. I meant that only a few people have the cards required to do a lot of damage with RTI, you need several and out of all the people around here, only 3 have used the card. These 3 people are marked in the sense that everyone knows that they HAVE the RTIs to spare and have used them. It puts everyone on the edge of their seats. > > Some people like to *win*. Why should they have to curb their behaviour > which is entirely within the rules so that they don't get marked? Such > "marking" and remembering "for life" can be taken the wrong way by > players, who see it as persecution against them because they want to > play the deck and it's perfectly legal, so why not? Why not. We all like to win and at least in the state of Michigan WE LIKE TO BE CHALLENGED. Go figure, we are gluttons for punishment. > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Raille.

In article <37E2B7...@hotmail.com>, nath...@hotmail.com wrote: > What exactly is the Soul Gem good for? The only way I have ever seen it > used on the NG is in weird degenerate decks with all vampires in the > crypt identical and a means of upping the vamp's capacity by one > followed by a big burn-me-afterward bleed. Otherwise the Gem is too > likely not to be worth having. No one puts it on Leandro because they > are afraid he will be burned at some point. Does it ever see action in > non-degenerate decks at all? I personally haven't found too many uses for Soul Gem, the only deck that it's been in since 7/7 has been my weenie potence, thrown gate deck. I have three Jimmy Dunn's in my crypt and 1 Soul Gem in the library. Being a biff-em-up deck sometimes my vampires can be on the recieving end of a punch and so they could trigger Soul Gem but with Jimmy Dunn's "special ability" you can trigger Soul Gem another way if your first Jimmy is looking a bit sickly. Then again you might consider this a bit of a degenrate use of the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E2ED...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> Some people like to *win*. Why should they have to curb their behaviour >> which is entirely within the rules so that they don't get marked? Such >> "marking" and remembering "for life" can be taken the wrong way by >> players, who see it as persecution against them because they want to >> play the deck and it's perfectly legal, so why not? > >Why not. We all like to win and at least in the state of Michigan WE >LIKE TO BE CHALLENGED. Go figure, we are gluttons for punishment. *snort* Please. In order to play a competitive game, one shouldn't have to intentionaly tie his hand behind his back -- Whether you "like to be challanged" or not is hardly the issue. With this comment you are essentially admitting that your play balance is dependent not upon the vaunted quality of your rules, but social collusion. No thank you. Wouldn't it be more interesting to be challanged by the competitiveness of other decks, than to have to "be challanged" by dumbing your own down? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:30:58 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> Turn three, I have 4 table votes and vote lock unless someone is >> Rushing my weenies, > >In the last tourney I was in after the 4th turn there were 11 votes >sitting at the table and it was a 4 player Match. Only one of those >players had a vote geared deck, and he failed misserably. Differences: beginning of turn three to after turn 4. That's a long time which I could spend creating more princes. (shrug) 11 votes out is also atypical, in my tourney and normal experience - maybe it happened once, sure, we had 19 votes at the table after turn 6 once too, but it was bloody rare. I wouldn't ever -expect- to see 11 hostile votes though - that would shut down -any- vote deck, much less a weenie vote deck. >This is fairly typical around here and thats with a rather large pool of >player. do you -all- play with minion/5th to use such large vamps constantly and not get mugged? >Granted a Weenie vote deck is a strong deck, but it does not take too >much to slow it down. A few other players even if they only have a see, this is where you just didn't read closely. At the start of my turn 3 in my example, one guy has had 9 transfers, i've had 6, the others have had 7, 8 and 8 respectively. I -doubt- their first vampire was a biggie, and even if it was he was only a Prince. Two Princes = 4 votes. I already have 4 votes and 4 vampires, so I can push cards as need be to make 2 more Princes. >> >So how is this so much worst than any other good deck? >> >> see above. > >Me thinks you over rate the effectiveness of your deck. Methinks you've never really seen one "go" properly. In any event, it's difficult to deny that being able to randomly hurl multiple vote cards out of your hand is a completely mindless strategy. Even malk S&B requires more effort than -that-. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E2ED...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >James Coupe wrote: >> Entirely within the MJL rules, by the way. If you don't want people to >> abuse it, why not errata it? >> >We did. No action modifiers. > I suggest you read "Message-ID: <37DF63...@mich.com>" where you said "play as printed". >I think perhaps you read to deeply into my comments. Like "play as printed" meaning what it says. If I'm reading too deeply into things like that, it's because you're saying things wrong. "play as printed" means "play as printed", not "play as printed except we have this teeny tiny little bit going on here". Similarly, other statements mean other things. If you aren't phrasing your views properly, that's not my fault. If people have to be "marked" when they play RtoI for you to deal with it, that's plain brown wrong, and your errata is ineffective in doing its job. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > >Why not. We all like to win and at least in the state of Michigan WE > >LIKE TO BE CHALLENGED. Go figure, we are gluttons for punishment. > > *snort* Please. In order to play a competitive game, one shouldn't > have to intentionaly tie his hand behind his back -- Whether you > "like to be challanged" or not is hardly the issue. With this comment > you are essentially admitting that your play balance is dependent > not upon the vaunted quality of your rules, but social collusion. > No thank you. I guess thats why I won the first match at Origons. Shitty rules and social colusion with a bunch of people I never met before. > Wouldn't it be more interesting to be challanged by the competitiveness > of other decks, than to have to "be challanged" by dumbing your own down? I have and I've mostly won. However, I do feel we've drifted from the original discussion into the realm of personal attack. If you have failed to make a reasonable point, then you've lost the argument. If you just wish to make personal stabs at me, please feel free to do so, but either rename the subject line or send them to me privately. Raille. > > --

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <37E2ED...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >James Coupe wrote: > >> Entirely within the MJL rules, by the way. If you don't want people to > >> abuse it, why not errata it? > >> > >We did. No action modifiers. > > > > I suggest you read "Message-ID: <37DF63...@mich.com>" where you said > "play as printed". > > >I think perhaps you read to deeply into my comments. > > Like "play as printed" meaning what it says. > > If I'm reading too deeply into things like that, it's because you're > saying things wrong. "play as printed" means "play as printed", not > "play as printed except we have this teeny tiny little bit going on > here". Similarly, other statements mean other things. If you aren't > phrasing your views properly, that's not my fault. Sorry, I spoke from my personal view point. I prefer the no errate on the RTI, even after being on the stick end of it. The NJL official set errata, which I argued against, that read: No action modifiers allowed. I would have to check the printed list, I might have misquoted that, but its basically correct. No action Mods are allowed when playing the RTI card. Over all I think that banning it in Tournament play is fine. While I don't mind the extra challange while playing in the local group, the sudden death aspect, can, will and has completely unbalanced the tournament play. I do supposed a level playing feild for tournaments. Raille. damn, hate it when I have to correct myself!

Derek S. Ray wrote: > Differences: beginning of turn three to after turn 4. That's a long > time which I could spend creating more princes. (shrug) 11 votes out > is also atypical, in my tourney and normal experience - maybe it > happened once, sure, we had 19 votes at the table after turn 6 once > too, but it was bloody rare. I wouldn't ever -expect- to see 11 > hostile votes though - that would shut down -any- vote deck, much less > a weenie vote deck. This was slightly better than average. I would say that in most games you can count on seeing 6-8 votes at a 4 player game. There are the occasions where there will be no votes. Its just most people have at least one voter in the crypt, how they come out make the game varied and unpredictable. > >This is fairly typical around here and thats with a rather large pool of > >player. > > do you -all- play with minion/5th to use such large vamps constantly > and not get mugged? I would say no, usually out of any 4-8 players you will only see one person using the 5th/minion. Don't now why more don't. Could be due to card rarity. > >Granted a Weenie vote deck is a strong deck, but it does not take too > >much to slow it down. A few other players even if they only have a > > see, this is where you just didn't read closely. At the start of my > turn 3 in my example, one guy has had 9 transfers, i've had 6, the > others have had 7, 8 and 8 respectively. I -doubt- their first > vampire was a biggie, and even if it was he was only a Prince. Two > Princes = 4 votes. I already have 4 votes and 4 vampires, so I can > push cards as need be to make 2 more Princes. Your correct, I did not read it closely enough. Still cards like the ToR3 and Information Highway are common as is the dreams. This tends to get larger vamps out quicker. A fav vamp is Ingrid Rossler, for the same reason. > >Me thinks you over rate the effectiveness of your deck. > > Methinks you've never really seen one "go" properly. In any event, > it's difficult to deny that being able to randomly hurl multiple vote > cards out of your hand is a completely mindless strategy. Even malk > S&B requires more effort than -that-. > > -- Derek I've seen one go properly once. It was the first tourney I played in and the guy won. Most players simply were unprepared for any vote defense. I recall no one having a vote deck, other than the weenie deck. Still at the last round the table All knew they had their necks on the line. Most worked together as well as they could, but each player basically had very prey oriented decks, and nothing for cross table. The weenie vote deck still only took 3 VP in the final round. I figure thats pretty poor considering that this wsa with the original push till you drop rules, where you just keep refilling played vote cards. It might have been a different story if any one else had votes. Everyone seemed to have a manner to generate pool, which actually hurt the voter worst than anything else that was tried. I figure if under the unlimited vote pushing the weenie was only able to take 3 of 5 in the last round, at a table with no votes, the current limited vote pushing is fair. Since I'm talking here for the larger community, the following is my personal view: Vote pushing with the current LSJ/DCI ruling is OK. What I would like to see is the Meth controling the acting minion, be able to play a vote card. The rulings state the each meth can play a vote card for one vote, other than the meth of the acting minion. Ok text might be a touch off, working from memory here. Since the acting minion is calling the vote and is atributed that vote, for other vote effects, liek pulling strings, Kindred Coercion etc. It seems to me the the Meth, who so far has stayed out of the action, is force to stay removed, while all the other Meths are allowed to intevene. It strike me as a bit unfair. You might say that this would give too much power to the acting meth/minion, but its like night and day compared to the original, and puts a semblance of balance back into the game. Raille Raille.

In article <37E22E...@mich.com>, rai...@mich.com wrote: > I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but according to LSJ all > effects are resolved instantly, which means the instant my wolf claws > hit you you instandly go to torpor. No. You Wolf Claws don't send him to torpor. They make the damage your hand strike inflicts aggravated. So the instant your Wolf Claws hand strike resolves, the opposing vampire instantly has 1 (or some other amount) of aggravated damage. The opposing vampire doesn't "instantly" go to torpor - he gets a chance to play damage prevention effects, convert the damage to normal damage, etc. That is true under the MJL rules/errata too, right? If unprevented/unconverted, then when a point of aggravated damage eventually is resolved, then the victim vampire will be placed into torpor, but not until the completion of that damage prevention phase. Other remaining damage will still have to be resolved before that happens (so if enough aggravated damage is done, the vampire will be burned before ever reaching torpor). Anyway, the deal with Pulled Fangs is that if you play one (which inflicts the damage immediately) then, before you move to the prevent damage and heal damage steps, you can play another. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@mich.com wrote: > Since I'm talking here for the larger community, the following is my > personal view: > > Vote pushing with the current LSJ/DCI ruling is OK. What I would like > to see is the Meth controling the acting minion, be able to play a vote > card. The rulings state the each meth can play a vote card for one > vote, other than the meth of the acting minion. Ok text might be a > touch off, working from memory here. Rules: "Each Methuselah can gain no more than one vote from political action cards." [6.3.3.1] No except for the acting Methuselah is made. She is limited to one vote from PAs just like everyone else. > Since the acting minion is calling the vote and is atributed that vote, > for other vote effects, liek pulling strings, Kindred Coercion etc. It > seems to me the the Meth, who so far has stayed out of the action, is > force to stay removed, while all the other Meths are allowed to > intevene. It strike me as a bit unfair. ? The acting minion is *not* attributed the vote. Votes from PAs are not affected by Pulling Strings, etc. And each Methuselah is limited to one vote from PAs. Which seems fair (especially when one considers "table votes" like the referendum to burn Anarch Revolt.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7rte1p$v25$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > shawn wrote in message <7rrpuu$2c5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > > > >> Sure, but i don't think anyone has ever argued that Mind Rape, ToR3 or > >> RtI RUINED Jyhad. They just made it a tad too easy to build Stupid Big > >> Vamp decks. > > > >But what about the current environment where it is too easy to build > >Stupid Small Vamp decks? > > > >I think this is where this whole thread started from in the first place. > > > Not really. Stupid Small Vamp decks existed before and after 7/7. They're > not quite as many options (vote pushing was tamed down...) The point, I > think was to possibly look for routes to counteract the diliterious effects > that said errata had on large vamps (and to prove that such an effect > happened...) Spot on. At least I managed to get my point across to one person. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E2ED...@mich.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Or place it in sleeves with opaque backs. That way your deck doesn't have to be so thick. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E4C9...@mich.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Three cheers for Raille. The point of the thread was to argue whether big vampires are disadvantaged within the game (particularly since the errata) and whether anything needs to be done about it. Not to make personal attacks on people who happen to have a different point on view. As I'm sure most mothers used to say, if you can't say anything constructive then don't say anything at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Rules: "Each Methuselah can gain no more than one vote from political > action cards." [6.3.3.1] > > No except for the acting Methuselah is made. She is limited to one > vote from PAs just like everyone else. > > > Since the acting minion is calling the vote and is atributed that > vote, > > for other vote effects, liek pulling strings, Kindred Coercion etc. It > > seems to me the the Meth, who so far has stayed out of the action, is > > force to stay removed, while all the other Meths are allowed to > > intevene. It strike me as a bit unfair. > Well after a close reading of 3 rule books a host or errata, I have to state that it seems that a few people here have inadvertantly crossed their wires. :) Seems that the old RT managed to bung this up and it then entered into common play. So in keeping with the rules (pick a version), I'm going to push to have the NJL accept the vote policy as is stands. The original rules have a vague reading that could be interpreted to allow all other Meths the ability to play multiple PA for votes, but again, it is vague. Still, since Noal the archon always cries for no errata, when ever possible, he may have to eat crow and accept the 1 meth/1 vote policy. Raille.

just...@my-deja.com wrote: > Three cheers for Raille. The point of the thread was to argue whether > big vampires are disadvantaged within the game (particularly since the > errata) and whether anything needs to be done about it. Not to make > personal attacks on people who happen to have a different point on > view. As I'm sure most mothers used to say, if you can't say anything > constructive then don't say anything at all. > > Justicar. > Thank you. I have gone other the issue about extra voting and I will conceed the point that the each meth should have only a single PA for extra votes. Still the thread seems to have drifted from the original items. That ToR3 RTI and Mind Rape should have been changed. For any non DCI game I see no reason to change or alter RTI. As for the MR and Tomb, well the MR change restricts the abuse of the new controler to burn it to gain pool. I am still out on whether this warrents errata to change the card or not. The card was at its worst when played with the Sleeping mind. Over all I have only seen 1 morderately effective deck making use of the MR/SM Golconda. Effective, but it took a lot of time getting there. Tomb. Face it the card didn't need a complete rewrite. I argued with the NJL team on this too. It did need a tweaking, but the current version is slightly over costed now. With the current version, you are forced to use it with 5th's. I have seen rush decks take great advantage of 1/2 filled IC's and send them to torpor or burn them with rather weak strikes. Of course the player should have factored a few dodges into the deck. :) The card was only a moderate pool gaining card IF used that way, Eco terrorists did the same thing, or Art Museum(?). The easiest fix I thought was to bring the card into play tapped, allowing the extra blood only when the card was untapped. Seems the everyone on both side of the pond LSJ/NJL didn't like that. So Did errata kill the big vampires?? I have to state that it took the edge off them, sure, wounded them, perhaps sent them to torpor, but I can't say it killed them. I have seen the tomb still used effectively, RTI is best banned, Mind rape, probably could have been left alone. Over all the simple solution would have been to leave ToR3 and MR alone, ban RTI and get rid of a whole bunch of errata/corrections and clarifications. Raille

LSJ wrote: > > In article <37E22E...@mich.com>, rai...@mich.com wrote: > > I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but according to LSJ all > > effects are resolved instantly, which means the instant my wolf claws > > hit you you instandly go to torpor. > > No. You Wolf Claws don't send him to torpor. They make the damage your > hand strike inflicts aggravated. So the instant your Wolf Claws hand > strike resolves, the opposing vampire instantly has 1 (or some other > amount) of aggravated damage. The opposing vampire doesn't "instantly" > go to torpor - he gets a chance to play damage prevention effects, > convert the damage to normal damage, etc. > > That is true under the MJL rules/errata too, right? Correct. > If unprevented/unconverted, then when a point of aggravated damage > eventually is resolved, then the victim vampire will be placed into > torpor, but not until the completion of that damage prevention phase. > Other remaining damage will still have to be resolved before that > happens (so if enough aggravated damage is done, the vampire will > be burned before ever reaching torpor). > > Anyway, the deal with Pulled Fangs is that if you play one (which > inflicts the damage immediately) then, before you move to the prevent > damage and heal damage steps, you can play another. > I was looking at the Card text, and found I was arguing under partily false pretenses. Still to play a Pulled fangs you have to get to the damage prevention.resolution phase. During that time if you have unresolved agro damage you go to torpor. The way I see it is that once you have determined that you can play PFs and have done so the vampire has the option to play damage prevention to prevent the damage. If that is not prevented than the vampire goes to torpor. Since it has been ruled that each card has a instant effect, and this rule to to facilitate game play, the instand effect of PFs is agro damage which means you now are in torpor. There should naver have been a stacking issue with this card. I never had a problem with PF burning a vampire who had been damaged to 0 and beyond. Most players had a problem with "I play 6 Pulled fangs and burn your vampire." That WAS a problem. Perhaps a rules clarification on the sequencing and a retraction of PF could be made. Or not! But its a good thought. Less Errata YES! Raille

just...@my-deja.com wrote: > Or place it in sleeves with opaque backs. That way your deck doesn't > have to be so thick. > > Justicar. > Well the wave effect on the cards, might still be a problem, the extra card in the sleeve provides stability, strightening the card back out. Perhaps permanently. :) Raille

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Anyway, the deal with Pulled Fangs is that if you play one (which > > inflicts the damage immediately) then, before you move to the prevent > > damage and heal damage steps, you can play another. > Still to play a Pulled fangs you have to get to the damage > prevention.resolution phase. During that time if you have unresolved > agro damage you go to torpor. > > The way I see it is that once you have determined that you can play PFs > and have done so the vampire has the option to play damage prevention to > prevent the damage. If that is not prevented than the vampire goes to > torpor. Since it has been ruled that each card has a instant effect, > and this rule to to facilitate game play, the instand effect of PFs is > agro damage which means you now are in torpor. There should naver have > been a stacking issue with this card. This sort of ruling/errata would make play Amaranth very difficult. After Pulled Fangs (before torpor), one can play Amaranth. Similarly, one can play another Pulled Fangs. No reason to make the rulings disparate. > I never had a problem with PF burning a vampire who had been damaged to > 0 and beyond. "And beyond"? That's arguing for the other side. If one is damaged "beyond" zero blood, then one has unhealed damage and (by your assertion) should be placed in torpor immediately, before PF could be played. > Most players had a problem with "I play 6 Pulled fangs > and burn your vampire." That WAS a problem. Perhaps a rules > clarification on the sequencing and a retraction of PF could be made. > > Or not! > But its a good thought. Less Errata YES! You're just exchanging one errata (no agg) for another (timing restriction). And PF doing agg damage is still too much for a no-cost card. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

LSJ wrote: > > Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Anyway, the deal with Pulled Fangs is that if you play one (which > > > inflicts the damage immediately) then, before you move to the prevent > > > damage and heal damage steps, you can play another. > > Still to play a Pulled fangs you have to get to the damage > > prevention.resolution phase. During that time if you have unresolved > > agro damage you go to torpor. > > > > The way I see it is that once you have determined that you can play PFs > > and have done so the vampire has the option to play damage prevention to > > prevent the damage. If that is not prevented than the vampire goes to > > torpor. Since it has been ruled that each card has a instant effect, > > and this rule to to facilitate game play, the instand effect of PFs is > > agro damage which means you now are in torpor. There should naver have > > been a stacking issue with this card. > > This sort of ruling/errata would make play Amaranth very difficult. > After Pulled Fangs (before torpor), one can play Amaranth. Similarly, > one can play another Pulled Fangs. No reason to make the rulings > disparate. I'm not sure how it would make amaranth more difficult. After all damage and damage prevention has been completed, a PFs might be played. That vampire is allowed to then attempt Damage prevention, which is the next step a vampire is allowed, then is it is going to torpor you are then, by card text, allowed to play amaranth. > > > I never had a problem with PF burning a vampire who had been damaged to > > 0 and beyond. > > "And beyond"? That's arguing for the other side. > If one is damaged "beyond" zero blood, then one has unhealed damage and > (by your assertion) should be placed in torpor immediately, before PF > could be played. I meant beyond in the case where a vampire takes 8 points of non agro damage when they only happen to be a 4 cap. Thats 'beyond'. > > Most players had a problem with "I play 6 Pulled fangs > > and burn your vampire." That WAS a problem. Perhaps a rules > > clarification on the sequencing and a retraction of PF could be made. > > > > Or not! > > But its a good thought. Less Errata YES! > > You're just exchanging one errata (no agg) for another (timing restriction). > And PF doing agg damage is still too much for a no-cost card. Actually I have not exchanged any errata or even replaced any. You have already ruled to establish a preceident for card timeing some time ago when you ruled that a Meth could not burn a vampire to remove a card like antideluvian awakening, in responce to Hostile take over. Any any other similiar card effect. Buy using the ruling you established, there is no need for any errata to pulled fangs, and especially if you utilize the current agro damage rules. This effectively packets pulled fangs damage seperately from any and all other damage inflicted, therby meaning that the receiver burns zero blood and goes to torpor. In order to play a PF you must have already gone through all strikes, then all damage prevention, to even determine if a PFs could be played. This means that either you have to accept PFs as a card that allows you to interupt the game / card sequence or you have to wait until Damage resolution is completed. If you wait till damage resolution is completed, then a vampire who had alread taken damage will have already gone to torpor. At least thats what I read in the pdf file. If you allow Pfs tointrupt, then it could be acceptable when you have a reacting minion, play pulled fangs prior to a declared strike in the hopes of drawing a combat strike card or damage prevention card to make the PF legal when you get to the damage resolution phase. Of course you could rewrite the rules and add a rule section 6.4.6.1 Enter Torpor. I hope this is clear enough. > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] If you can play Amaranth, you could play another Pulled Fangs. They are both combat cards. The key is that they are played (in this case) when the opposing vamp is "going to" torpor. Illustrating the fact that he didn't go to torpor instantaneously. > > > I never had a problem with PF burning a vampire who had been damaged to > > > 0 and beyond. > > > > "And beyond"? That's arguing for the other side. > > If one is damaged "beyond" zero blood, then one has unhealed damage and > > (by your assertion) should be placed in torpor immediately, before PF > > could be played. > > I meant beyond in the case where a vampire takes 8 points of non agro > damage when they only happen to be a 4 cap. Thats 'beyond'. Right. And by your reasoning (unhealed damage sends the vampire to torpor "instantly" or at least "before PF can be played") you can't then play PF. Officially, you can. In the same way that you can play a second PF after the first. Unhealed damage, whether aggravated or simply in excess of blood supply, is unhealed damage. > > > Most players had a problem with "I play 6 Pulled fangs > > > and burn your vampire." That WAS a problem. Perhaps a rules > > > clarification on the sequencing and a retraction of PF could be made. > > > > > > Or not! > > > But its a good thought. Less Errata YES! > > > > You're just exchanging one errata (no agg) for another (timing restriction). > > And PF doing agg damage is still too much for a no-cost card. > > Actually I have not exchanged any errata or even replaced any. You have > already ruled to establish a preceident for card timeing some time ago > when you ruled that a Meth could not burn a vampire to remove a card > like antideluvian awakening, in responce to Hostile take over. Any any > other similiar card effect. Vamps can only be burned to remove Antediluvian Awakening during one's untap phase (errata). So naturally you couldn't burn one in response to a Hostile Takeover (which happens during someone else's Master phase). It was ruled (and perhaps you are thinking of this) that one cannot tap Heidelberg Castle in response to another Castle being played, since it is already contested by that time. But that ruling doesn't set any precedent for damage handling. > Buy using the ruling you established, there is no need for any errata to Damage is not instantaneous, as we have already established. Attempting to extrapolate rulings that deal with instantaneous events to cover such non-instanteous events is not a good idea. > pulled fangs, and especially if you utilize the current agro damage > rules. This effectively packets pulled fangs damage seperately from any > and all other damage inflicted, therby meaning that the receiver burns > zero blood and goes to torpor. Before another Pulled Fangs or Amaranth could be played, eh? (No.) Before the victim is actually placed into torpor (indeed, before the damage from the first PF is even handled), a second PF can be played. > In order to play a PF you must have already gone through all strikes, > then all damage prevention, to even determine if a PFs could be played. > This means that either you have to accept PFs as a card that allows you > to interupt the game / card sequence or you have to wait until Damage > resolution is completed. If you wait till damage resolution is > completed, then a vampire who had alread taken damage will have already > gone to torpor. At least thats what I read in the pdf file. If you > allow Pfs tointrupt, then it could be acceptable when you have a > reacting minion, play pulled fangs prior to a declared strike in the > hopes of drawing a combat strike card or damage prevention card to make > the PF legal when you get to the damage resolution phase. > > Of course you could rewrite the rules and add a rule section 6.4.6.1 > Enter Torpor. To do so would be to eliminate the use of PF after the "and beyond" damage type situations, which is not desirable. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: <snip> > If you can play Amaranth, you could play another Pulled Fangs. They are > both combat cards. The key is that they are played (in this case) when > the opposing vamp is "going to" torpor. Illustrating the fact that he didn't > go to torpor instantaneously. If I play amaranth, there's hardly a reason to play PFs. <snip> > Officially, you can. In the same way that you can play a second PF after > the first. Unhealed damage, whether aggravated or simply in excess of > blood supply, is unhealed damage. It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things. Each time you take damage you has a damage resolution, each resolution has a go to torpor effect. This loop is why an additional agro strike fails to hit and burn a vampire. You have strike(s), where strike cards are played, this is do sequentually between the players, all effect of the strike are resolved later. PF is not a strike card so it does not have the cumulative effects that you get by playing torn signpost increased strength, blur, etc. > Damage is not instantaneous, as we have already established. > Attempting to extrapolate rulings that deal with instantaneous > events to cover such non-instanteous events is not a good idea. Not instantaneous, sequential. By thinking in side the box, you play a PF, which is a combat card, outside the strike phase. Once played you have to resolve that damage. What you and everyone else have taken for granted, is that the PFs are a combat card and virtuall all the combat cards are addititive during the strike phase. PFs work outside the strike phase, nowhere in the rules does it say you can play more cards than you need outside the strike phase. Damage cards can only be used to reduce the damage you take. Presses only used to counter press(oneside the first). PFs should fall in amongst these cards where you play it, resolve the effect and then IF that vampire prevented the damage, play yet another. This is definately NOT instantaneous. Its very sequential and CONFORMS to the rules as writen. Raille, Thinking inside the Box. God, who would have thunk it! [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message news:37E6D3...@mich.com... > LSJ wrote: > <snip> > > If you can play Amaranth, you could play another Pulled Fangs. They are > > both combat cards. The key is that they are played (in this case) when > > the opposing vamp is "going to" torpor. Illustrating the fact that he didn't > > go to torpor instantaneously. > > If I play amaranth, there's hardly a reason to play PFs. but you can. > > <snip> > > > Officially, you can. In the same way that you can play a second PF after > > the first. Unhealed damage, whether aggravated or simply in excess of > > blood supply, is unhealed damage. > > It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were > rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things. Rewritten? In the *original* rules you could only play damage prevention cards in the resolve strike sub-phase. (The Eternal Struggle page 192) The loop hole was in the original rules. > > Each time you take damage you has a damage resolution, each resolution > has a go to torpor effect. This loop is why an additional agro strike > fails to hit and burn a vampire. Not true. There is no damage resolution phase only a Strike Resolution sub-phase. There is no (go to torpor effect) going to torpor is a by-product of damage (wounds) that are not prevented. > > You have strike(s), where strike cards are played, this is do > sequentually between the players, all effect of the strike are resolved > later. PF is not a strike card so it does not have the cumulative > effects that you get by playing torn signpost increased strength, blur, > etc. > > > Damage is not instantaneous, as we have already established. > > Attempting to extrapolate rulings that deal with instantaneous > > events to cover such non-instanteous events is not a good idea. > > Not instantaneous, sequential. By thinking in side the box, you play a > PF, which is a combat card, outside the strike phase. Once played you > have to resolve that damage. What you and everyone else have taken for > granted, is that the PFs are a combat card and virtuall all the combat > cards are addititive during the strike phase. Sequential \Se*quen"tial\, a. Succeeding or following in order. In regular succession without gaps; "serial concerts" (Webster) Choose Strike: Me: I strike for 3 agg with burning wrath You: you strike with hand for one Strike Resolution: Me: I play skin or rock to prevent your one point You: you play skin of rock, but only prevent two points of damage (one agg left) Me: I play decapitate and you go away That is Sequential: Combat is NOT sequential, because you can play all the damage prevention cards you won't/need/have. > > PFs work outside the strike phase, nowhere in the rules does it say you > can play more cards than you need outside the strike phase. Damage > cards can only be used to reduce the damage you take. Presses only used > to counter press(oneside the first). PFs should fall in amongst these > cards where you play it, resolve the effect and then IF that vampire > prevented the damage, play yet another. It also does not say you can't play more cards than you need outside the chouse strike/resolve strike phase's. > > This is definately NOT instantaneous. Its very sequential and CONFORMS > to the rules as writen. > > Raille, > Thinking inside the Box. God, who would have thunk it! [ quoted text not captured ] Conor Prince of Raleigh

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:37:17 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >LSJ wrote: ><snip> >> If you can play Amaranth, you could play another Pulled Fangs. They are >> both combat cards. The key is that they are played (in this case) when >> the opposing vamp is "going to" torpor. Illustrating the fact that he didn't >> go to torpor instantaneously. > >If I play amaranth, there's hardly a reason to play PFs. bloodhunt? What bloodhunt? the point he's making is that if you can play ONE card, you can play ANY card, barring specific card text otherwise. ><snip> > >> Officially, you can. In the same way that you can play a second PF after >> the first. Unhealed damage, whether aggravated or simply in excess of >> blood supply, is unhealed damage. > >It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were >rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things. > >Each time you take damage you has a damage resolution, each resolution >has a go to torpor effect. This loop is why an additional agro strike >fails to hit and burn a vampire. no. each strike has a strike resolution. then there is a heal damage phase after each strike. PF is not a strike, therefore does not resolve in the same way strikes do. >You have strike(s), where strike cards are played, this is do >sequentually between the players, all effect of the strike are resolved >later. PF is not a strike card so it does not have the cumulative >effects that you get by playing torn signpost increased strength, blur, >etc. Nowhere in the rules does it state this, nor can it be inferred from anywhere in the rules. PF is a combat card, and as such can be played in multiples, like any other combat card. It is not a strike, and as such is not restricted in the same fashion the playing of strike cards is. >> Damage is not instantaneous, as we have already established. >> Attempting to extrapolate rulings that deal with instantaneous >> events to cover such non-instanteous events is not a good idea. > >Not instantaneous, sequential. By thinking in side the box, you play a [BWEEP BWEEP] Buzzword alert! Rest of this post *plonk*ed. >PF, which is a combat card, outside the strike phase. Once played you >have to resolve that damage. What you and everyone else have taken for >granted, is that the PFs are a combat card and virtuall all the combat >cards are addititive during the strike phase. > >PFs work outside the strike phase, nowhere in the rules does it say you >can play more cards than you need outside the strike phase. Damage Nowhere in the rules does it say you can't, either. Also, if the vampire isn't burned, obviously you may "need" to play another point of aggravated damage that's not a strike. See the picture yet? >cards can only be used to reduce the damage you take. Presses only used >to counter press(oneside the first). PFs should fall in amongst these >cards where you play it, resolve the effect and then IF that vampire >prevented the damage, play yet another. Those cards are directly related to strike cards and the playing thereof, which is stated in the rules. PF is not a strike card, nor is it directly related to any individual strike card - it is an end-of-round effect. This whole argument is silly IMO - Pulled Fangs is hideously abusable as-written even if you limit it to 1 per combat, since as Peter B. said, anytime he played PF *even under current agg damage rules*, he burned a vampire. It's just that easy, yes. Get them on the way to torpor normally, lob a PF, poof, no more vampire. No pesky rescue attempts. No messy Grave Robbing by your predator. Why should PF, a disciplineless, costless card, be better than Decapitate, a 2 blood card requiring superior Potence? Answer: of course it shouldn't, and disciplineless burning-of-a-vamp for free is, obviously, broken. (Amaranth costs a bloodhunt.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37E62A...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >For any non DCI game I see no reason to change or alter RTI. > Here, we will never agree. You want friendly competitive games, but force people to play with their hands tied behind their back or face social ostracism. And that's a Good Thing? >Tomb. Face it the card didn't need a complete rewrite. Don't consider it a re-write then: "Only transfers made to this vampire are counted for the purposes of the tomb. Counters are placed on the Tomb, and do not come out as blood with the vampire when it comes out." >I argued with >the NJL team on this too. It did need a tweaking, but the current >version is slightly over costed now. > Unfortunately, we cannot do 2.5 pool, and I would rather it stay at 3 pool than come down to 2. >With the current version, you are forced to use it with 5th's. Only if you're a dull and uninventive player, forced into the Fifth Tradition mindset. There are plenty of other ways to fill up a vampire. Giant's Blood is one option. Taste of Vitae another. Festivo dello Estinto would allow you to do several at once, were you able to wait. Hunting Grounds, Palatial Estate and so forth provide blood as to any other vampire. Voter Captivation is very useful, and quite a few big vampires have innate votes and PRE to make it worthwhile doing in your vote decks. Alternatively, you have Inbase Discotek, Frankfurt and the Hungry Coyote, so a quick hunt can gain you three blood. Your Tremere buddies can, in the right circumstances, use tricks like Blurred Theft of Vitae (the "Mages on Speed" deck) to fill themselves back up, although just a plain Theft of Vitae won't hurt. In a combat deck (say, one of the Nosferatu decks because it fits the discipline well, but an Out of Turn Malkavian deck or an Assamite deck could benefit from the same trick as well), use Sacrificial Lamb with the big vampire and fill up. If you're sure of vote superiority, simple diablerie will do it. Were you to be that bothered about it, Gird Minions would combine the speed and the fullness, at a premium of the cost of the Tomb but, if you're playing a deck with a good supply of pool, it could be very worth it. You could also not use Tomb, and use the Eco-Terrorists for the 5 clans that have them, if that is your wont. No-one's forcing anyone to use the Tomb, at all. >I have >seen rush decks take great advantage of 1/2 filled IC's and send them to >torpor or burn them with rather weak strikes. A good rush deck will care not for Inner Circle members, half filled or not. Rush, hit your for lots, disarm. Rush, hit you with aggravated damage. Rush, either of the above, decapitate/Amaranth weenie. The amount of blood you have in either case is somewhat moot. > Of course the player >should have factored a few dodges into the deck. :) > To which a good combat deck won't give a monkey's - Scorpion Sting, Immortal Grapple. Other decks relying on combat offence are, currently, stupid. I hope WotC resolve that with the mini-expansion - it would take two cards to do it, tops. >The card was only a moderate pool gaining card IF used that way, Eco >terrorists did the same thing, or Art Museum(?). It was hardly moderate, dear. The "free 11 pool in 3 turns" trick with two Inner Circle members? The ability to transfer out of your pool, get blood and bring it back - so that you could transfer a vampire out, and get the pool back? The Ecoterrorists only allowed the blood to go on the vampire or your pool, and if you started pulling it back, the vampire wouldn't come out. The fact that you could quite happily leave it there and generate bags of pool from it, not having to bring vampires out? The Ecoterrorists clones were much, much slower, and took at least three turns to come into profit. Nor could they be played first turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

Celt wrote: > > Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message > > If I play amaranth, there's hardly a reason to play PFs. > > but you can. Can you play a card on a vampire thats no there any longer? Excellent way to cycles cards. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Officially, you can. In the same way that you can play a second PF after > > > the first. Unhealed damage, whether aggravated or simply in excess of > > > blood supply, is unhealed damage. > > > > It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were > > rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things. > > Rewritten? In the *original* rules you could only play damage prevention > cards in the resolve strike sub-phase. (The Eternal Struggle page 192) The > loop hole was in the original rules. > > > > > Each time you take damage you has a damage resolution, each resolution > > has a go to torpor effect. This loop is why an additional agro strike > > fails to hit and burn a vampire. > > Not true. There is no damage resolution phase only a Strike Resolution > sub-phase. There is no (go to torpor effect) going to torpor is a > by-product of damage (wounds) that are not prevented. Obviously you have not opened your rule book when you ansewered hat question. Section 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. Check it out, very interesting. > > > Sequential \Se*quen"tial\, a. Succeeding or following in order. In regular > succession without gaps; "serial concerts" (Webster) > > Choose Strike: > Me: I strike for 3 agg with burning wrath > You: you strike with hand for one > > Strike Resolution: > Me: I play skin or rock to prevent your one point > You: you play skin of rock, but only prevent two points of damage (one agg > left) > Me: I play decapitate and you go away > > That is Sequential: Combat is NOT sequential, because you can play all the > damage prevention cards you won't/need/have. Nope, LSJ (and I might be wrong) Has giveing the holy word that you can play damage prevention cards only to heal damage, If I strike with a rowen ring for zero damage, you can't play 7 skin of rock to cycle. He has also stated that if you take damage, regardless of the source, you have the ability to play damage prevention cards. The methodology of this is detailed in 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. > > > > PFs work outside the strike phase, nowhere in the rules does it say you > > can play more cards than you need outside the strike phase. Damage > > cards can only be used to reduce the damage you take. Presses only used > > to counter press(oneside the first). PFs should fall in amongst these > > cards where you play it, resolve the effect and then IF that vampire > > prevented the damage, play yet another. > > It also does not say you can't play more cards than you need outside the chouse strike/resolve strike phase's. > I a manner LSJ has stated this in the broad contect that you cannot play excess prevention cards if you don't need them. > > From the rules book: When a minion takes damage, he must burn blood or lose life, as approriate (see Resolve Damage sec 6.4.6). Note that the effects of a strike are applied and then damage is resolved. This timing of a strike is important for some strikes, like steal blood. From 6.4.6 excerpt ..can play damage prevention cards if able to do so. These are played one at a time (looks sequential to me) until all the damage is prevented or until the minion chooses not to play any more. PFs don't come into play until after resolution of damage, and the damage is preventable. So you PFs I get to go bacl to 6.4.6 and prevent. Now with that established, what happens if I take 2 damage which i choose not to prevent, you PFs and then I play skin of steel. Can I now play PFs on your vampire? If there is non sequential effects then I would say yes, if sequential then no, since I could not go back and prevent the original damage with the SoS. There is actually a rules section called Sequencing, and in it it describes that each meth plays cards in turn, acting first. This means if you play a single PFs I have the ability to react to that card, you don't get to dump 3 or four of them, without violating the rules, Raille. > Conor > Prince of Raleigh

Derek S. Ray wrote: > [BWEEP BWEEP] Buzzword alert! Rest of this post *plonk*ed. > Nowhere in the rules does it say you can't, either. Also, if the > vampire isn't burned, obviously you may "need" to play another point > of aggravated damage that's not a strike. See the picture yet? It does and you can't. Please go back and Read your rules book. completely. > This whole argument is silly IMO - Pulled Fangs is hideously abusable > as-written even if you limit it to 1 per combat, since as Peter B. > said, anytime he played PF *even under current agg damage rules*, he > burned a vampire. It's just that easy, yes. Get them on the way to > torpor normally, lob a PF, poof, no more vampire. No pesky rescue > attempts. No messy Grave Robbing by your predator. Why should PF, a > disciplineless, costless card, be better than Decapitate, a 2 blood > card requiring superior Potence? Answer: of course it shouldn't, and > disciplineless burning-of-a-vamp for free is, obviously, broken. > (Amaranth costs a bloodhunt.) > > -- Derek With the current agro rules a PFs cannot burn a vampire even if using the old PF version. Check with my other post for more details. Decapitate as I see it will burn a vampire and PFs cannot. That does justify the 2 blood cost. Raille ps I have a decapitate for trade.

Raille wrote: > Celt wrote: > > Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message > > > If I play amaranth, there's hardly a reason to play PFs. > > > > but you can. > > Can you play a card on a vampire thats not there any longer? > Excellent way to cycle cards. No, but you could play (another) PF *instead* of the Amaranth. Which was the original point. If the vampire went to torpor immediately so as to preclude the playing of PF, then the playing of Amaranth would also be precluded. [snip] > > That is Sequential: Combat is NOT sequential, because you can play all the > > damage prevention cards you won't/need/have. > > Nope, LSJ (and I might be wrong) Has giveing the holy word that you can > play damage prevention cards only to heal damage, If I strike with a > rowen ring for zero damage, you can't play 7 skin of rock to cycle. Well, you can only play damage prevention cards to *prevent* damage. And the strike from Rowan Ring doesn't deal damage (which is slightly different than dealing zero damage, from a +damage point of view). But yes, you can't play skin of rock if you have no damage to prevent. > He has also stated that if you take damage, regardless of the source, > you have the ability to play damage prevention cards. The methodology > of this is detailed in 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. Correct (with the note that combat cards/effects can only be used during combat, and so on for any other restrictions given on the cards). > > > PFs work outside the strike phase, nowhere in the rules does it say you > > > can play more cards than you need outside the strike phase. Damage > > > cards can only be used to reduce the damage you take. Presses only used > > > to counter press(oneside the first). PFs should fall in amongst these > > > cards where you play it, resolve the effect and then IF that vampire > > > prevented the damage, play yet another. > > > > It also does not say you can't play more cards than you need outside the > > chouse strike/resolve strike phase's. > > > I a manner LSJ has stated this in the broad contect that you cannot play > excess prevention cards if you don't need them. ? Pulled Fangs is not a damage prevention card. The rule on damage prevention doesn't extend to non-damage prevention effects. Just as the rule limiting addition strike gainers doesn't extend to effects which don't grant additional strikes. Someone (Noal?) suggested such a rule (as a "fix" to drawing out the beast), but the rule has not been officially implemented/adopted. > From the rules book: > When a minion takes damage, he must burn blood or lose life, as > approriate (see Resolve Damage sec 6.4.6). Note that the effects of a > strike are applied and then damage is resolved. This timing of a strike > is important for some strikes, like steal blood. > > From 6.4.6 excerpt ..can play damage prevention cards if able to do so. > These are played one at a time (looks sequential to me) until all the > damage is prevented or until the minion chooses not to play any more. > > PFs don't come into play until after resolution of damage, and the > damage is preventable. So you PFs I get to go bacl to 6.4.6 and > prevent. > > Now with that established, what happens if I take 2 damage which i > choose not to prevent, you PFs and then I play skin of steel. Can I now > play PFs on your vampire? > If there is non sequential effects then I would say yes, if sequential > then no, since I could not go back and prevent the original damage with > the SoS. "No" is right. [RTR 22-DEC-94] > There is actually a rules section called Sequencing, and in it it > describes that each meth plays cards in turn, acting first. This means > if you play a single PFs I have the ability to react to that card, you > don't get to dump 3 or four of them, without violating the rules, No. If you drop one PF, you inflict 1 agg damage (and place the PF on the victim). There is no "reaction" to this effect (except for Rotschreck, if the damage is somehow aggravated). After the PF is played, either player can play another effect, with the acting minion/Meth getting the first opportunity. One of those effects can be another PF, as allowed by card text. If the PF is limited the way you claim, the following would not be possible: Vamp A (with 1 blood) vs. Vamp B (with X>1 blood). Vamp A strikes: hands for 1. Vamp B strikes: hands for 2 (or any number > 1). Strike resolution: no prevention. Vamp A heals one point, but doesn't heal any more and is now "on his way" to torpor. Vamp B heals his one point. Vamp B plays PF, dealing more damage to Vamp A. The above is legal. In a similar manner, one could play an old-style (agg-dealing) PF on a vampire "on his way to torpor" from a prior PF. [ quoted text not captured ]

Celt wrote: > LSJ has answered this in the next post. He has done an outstanding job in > rewriting the rules. As you point out he has covered some of the more > complex combat rules in a numbered logical format. My statements only > related to your statement about the loop hole in the rewritten rules. The > loop hole was in the original rules. > Sorry I misunderstood you the first time. I thought you were refering to the current rules. > > Conor > Prince of Raleigh Raille

> > > It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were > > > rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things. > > > > Rewritten? In the *original* rules you could only play damage prevention > > cards in the resolve strike sub-phase. (The Eternal Struggle page 192) The > > loop hole was in the original rules. > > > > > > > > Each time you take damage you has a damage resolution, each resolution > > > has a go to torpor effect. This loop is why an additional agro strike > > > fails to hit and burn a vampire. > > > > Not true. There is no damage resolution phase only a Strike Resolution > > sub-phase. There is no (go to torpor effect) going to torpor is a > > by-product of damage (wounds) that are not prevented. > > Obviously you have not opened your rule book when you ansewered hat > question. I have read the rules. Your statement was and I Quote: "It seems that the basic problem with PFs is that, when the rules were rewriten they left aloophole in the resolve combat sequencing of things." Your statement seems to say that the change in rules created this problem with PF. All my comments were based on the pre-rewritten rules. That is why I said *original*. The rules I was referring to were taken from "The Eternal Struggle A Players Guide to the JYHAD". In this text there is not a damage resolution phase. This answers all the following refferences to the current rule book. > > Section 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. Check it out, very interesting. > > There is actually a rules section called Sequencing, and in it it > describes that each meth plays cards in turn, acting first. This means > if you play a single PFs I have the ability to react to that card, you > don't get to dump 3 or four of them, without violating the rules, LSJ has answered this in the next post. He has done an outstanding job in rewriting the rules. As you point out he has covered some of the more complex combat rules in a numbered logical format. My statements only related to your statement about the loop hole in the rewritten rules. The loop hole was in the original rules. -- Conor Prince of Raleigh

LSJ wrote: > If the vampire went to torpor immediately so as to preclude the > playing of PF, then the playing of Amaranth would also be precluded. > Actually card text states other wise. Its a common refrain from the RT I hear. > > In a manner LSJ has stated this in the broad contect that you cannot play > > excess prevention cards if you don't need them. > > ? > Pulled Fangs is not a damage prevention card. True, but you missed the point, cards that are in excess of x cannot be played to do Y. Take intercept and stealth, or damage and damage prevention. > > The rule on damage prevention doesn't extend to non-damage prevention effects. > Just as the rule limiting addition strike gainers doesn't extend to effects > which don't grant additional strikes. I think you lost me on this. > > Now with that established, what happens if I take 2 damage which i > > choose not to prevent, you PFs and then I play skin of steel. Can I now > > play PFs on your vampire? > > If there is non sequential effects then I would say yes, if sequential > > then no, since I could not go back and prevent the original damage with > > the SoS. > > "No" is right. [RTR 22-DEC-94] > > > There is actually a rules section called Sequencing, and in it it > > describes that each meth plays cards in turn, acting first. This means > > if you play a single PFs I have the ability to react to that card, you > > don't get to dump 3 or four of them, without violating the rules, > > No. If you drop one PF, you inflict 1 agg damage (and place the PF on > the victim). There is no "reaction" to this effect (except for Rotschreck, > if the damage is somehow aggravated). After the PF is played, either > player can play another effect, with the acting minion/Meth getting the > first opportunity. One of those effects can be another PF, as allowed > by card text. So you are saying that if you PF a vampire that vampire has no opportunity to prevent that damage. Is this correct? > If the PF is limited the way you claim, the following would not be possible: > Vamp A (with 1 blood) vs. Vamp B (with X>1 blood). > Vamp A strikes: hands for 1. > Vamp B strikes: hands for 2 (or any number > 1). > Strike resolution: no prevention. > Vamp A heals one point, but doesn't heal any more and is now "on his > way" to torpor. > Vamp B heals his one point. > Vamp B plays PF, dealing more damage to Vamp A. > > The above is legal. > In a similar manner, one could play an old-style (agg-dealing) PF > on a vampire "on his way to torpor" from a prior PF. > I agree that the above should be legal. I have taken the liberty to write out the whole section is a line by line rule numbering sequence. --- This was writen before I answered the above: Ask the right questions and finally get answers that give me enough detail to place just when the Pulled fangs are allowed to be played. Thank you LSJ! Anyhow for those following this thread here is a rather detailed breakdown of the damage resolution phase broken into its various parts and numbered. Excessively. Hey what can I say, I play Advanced Squad Leader and you just get used to these things. :) 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. 6.4.6.1 Damage resolution has three steps: damage calculation, prevent damage and heal damage. 6.4.6.2 Damage calculation. 6.4.6.2.1 Total all normal (ei non-agravated damage) from all sources. Damage that was made at the inapropriate range is reduced to zero, and is considered a null strike. 6.4.6.2.2 Total all agravated damage from all sources. Damage that was made at the inapropriate range is reduced to zero, and is considered a null strike. 6.4.6.3 Apply total normal and agravated damage to the minion. 6.4.6.4 Prevent Damage 6.4.6.4.1 The minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards if he is able to do so. These damage prevention cards are played one at a time until all damage is prevented or the minion chooses not to play any further cards. 6.4.6.4.1.1 Direct Intervention may be used at this point to prevent a damage prevention card from taking effect. 6.4.6.4.2 Damage prevention cards may be selectively used to prevent agravated damage before non agravated damage. 6.4.6.4.3 Only Minions can prevent damage. 6.4.6.4.4 Damage to retainers cannot be prevented. 6.4.6.5 Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully inflicted. The damage is then healed, if the minion is a vampire, or causes a loss of life points if the minion is an ally or retainer. 6.4.6.5.1 Pulled fangs or disarm may be played at this time. 6.4.6.6 Healing damage. 6.4.6.6.1 Total all damage normal and agravated, that was not prevented in step (6.4.6.4) Prevent Damage. 6.4.6.6.2 For each point of damage inflicted on a vampire, burn one blood to heal that damage, starting with normal damage, then finishing with agravated damage. 6.4.6.6.3 A vampire may burn ALL of his blood if needed, and doing so does not have any other negative effects on the vampire. 6.4.6.6.4 If a vampire cannot heal all the damage, having taken more damge than there was blood to heal, blood is burned to heal what damage can be healed. 6.4.6.6.5 Agravated damage is damage that a vampire cannot heal, like damage from sunlight or from claws or fangs of some other immortals, including vampires. 6.4.6.6.5.1 Since agravated damage cannot be healed, this send a vampire to torpor. Should there be unresolved agravated damage from step 6.4.6.6.4 the vampire is burned. 6.4.6.6.5.2 A Vampire burned via unresolved agravated damage is not considered to have been diablerized and a blood hunt (6.5.6) cannot be called. 6.4.6.6.6 A vampire that has taken any agravated damage or normal damage in excess of its blood supply, goes to torpor. 6.4.6.6.6.1 Cards effecting a vampire going to torpor can now be played. 6.4.6.6.6.2 Cards Such as taste of Vitae can now be played. 6.4.6.6.7 Each point of damage inflicted on a ally or retainer, from any source, agravated and non-agravated, causes the ally or retainer to lose one life counter. 6.4.6.6.7.1 An ally or retainer who loses all their life counters is burned. Great a rules section I can come to grips with! YES! If LSJ would correct any reference to PFs above, such as moving the section from where it currently is, or adding additional references, please do so. Still with pulled fangs, (and you thought I'd get away from that!) you generate a infinate loop. A easy manner to gain 1 VP in any game is to put 60 PFs in a deck, then play them all in the first combat where you inflict more damage that the other guy. Any +1 HD vampire will do. Now that PFs has a place in the combat effects, why not just state the during section 6.4.6.6.8 you play PFs rather than 6.4.6.5.1. There is nothing in the rules that says exactly where the card goes. Define the rules and some of these problems will go away by themselves. With PFs at the end of the cycle (such as 6.4.6.6.8) allows all previous damage to be resolved to its logical conclusion. Ok I lost you there didn't I. Logical in the game terms. Since a minion with two agro strikes only get the first because the change to a torpor status is SO FAST, that the blinding strike which mere mortals can't even see, failed to land it blow on the departing vampire. Another option is to have the Pulled fangs be played prior to the damage prevention phase. This might be more inline with the official rules, but causes a few head aches of its own. Minor one, but still, what would happen if Strike hands for 2, play 6 PFs during a dawn operation, then the other vampire plays skin of steel, nullifing both the strike and the host of PFs played. Actually I kind of like that. Leave the PFs without errata but make them usable prior to damage prevention. That allows vampires and minion in general to take the sting out of a PF deck. Ok enough rambling for now. Comments? suggestions? A ticket to the asylum! Whatever. Raille.

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > If the vampire went to torpor immediately so as to preclude the > > playing of PF, then the playing of Amaranth would also be precluded. > > > Actually card text states other wise. Its a common refrain from the RT > I hear. Actually, card text states "rather than sending that vampire into torpor". Not sure how you read that as allowing it to be played after the vampire enters torpor. (In actuality: it does not. It is played when the vampire is "on his way" to torpor. Which is a time in which PF could also be played.) > > > In a manner LSJ has stated this in the broad contect that you cannot play > > > excess prevention cards if you don't need them. > > > > ? > > Pulled Fangs is not a damage prevention card. > True, but you missed the point, cards that are in excess of x cannot be > played to do Y. Take intercept and stealth, or damage and damage > prevention. Intercept, stealth, and damage prevention are all restricted by the rules. Pulled Fangs (and Drawing Out the Beast, Weather Control, etc.) is not. > > The rule on damage prevention doesn't extend to non-damage prevention effects. > > Just as the rule limiting addition strike gainers doesn't extend to effects > > which don't grant additional strikes. > > I think you lost me on this. You are extending the "in excess of x" rule on damage prevention to Pulled Fangs. It doesn't apply there. > > > Now with that established, what happens if I take 2 damage which i > > > choose not to prevent, you PFs and then I play skin of steel. Can I now > > > play PFs on your vampire? > > > If there is non sequential effects then I would say yes, if sequential > > > then no, since I could not go back and prevent the original damage with > > > the SoS. > > > > "No" is right. [RTR 22-DEC-94] > > > > > There is actually a rules section called Sequencing, and in it it > > > describes that each meth plays cards in turn, acting first. This means > > > if you play a single PFs I have the ability to react to that card, you > > > don't get to dump 3 or four of them, without violating the rules, > > > > No. If you drop one PF, you inflict 1 agg damage (and place the PF on > > the victim). There is no "reaction" to this effect (except for Rotschreck, > > if the damage is somehow aggravated). After the PF is played, either > > player can play another effect, with the acting minion/Meth getting the > > first opportunity. One of those effects can be another PF, as allowed > > by card text. > > So you are saying that if you PF a vampire that vampire has no > opportunity to prevent that damage. Is this correct? No. At some point (first, if that vampire is acting, later if not) that vampire can play effects. Like damage prevention. > > If the PF is limited the way you claim, the following would not be possible: > > Vamp A (with 1 blood) vs. Vamp B (with X>1 blood). > > Vamp A strikes: hands for 1. > > Vamp B strikes: hands for 2 (or any number > 1). > > Strike resolution: no prevention. > > Vamp A heals one point, but doesn't heal any more and is now "on his > > way" to torpor. > > Vamp B heals his one point. > > Vamp B plays PF, dealing more damage to Vamp A. > > > > The above is legal. > > In a similar manner, one could play an old-style (agg-dealing) PF > > on a vampire "on his way to torpor" from a prior PF. > > > I agree that the above should be legal. I have taken the liberty to > write out the whole section is a line by line rule numbering sequence. > > --- > This was writen before I answered the above: > > Ask the right questions and finally get answers that give me enough > detail to place just when the Pulled fangs are allowed to be played. > > Thank you LSJ! > > Anyhow for those following this thread here is a rather detailed > breakdown of the damage resolution phase broken into its various parts > and numbered. Excessively. Hey what can I say, I play Advanced Squad > Leader and you just get used to these things. :) [snip.] I'll take a look at that when I have more time. [ quoted text not captured ]

> With the current agro rules a PFs cannot burn a vampire even if using > the old PF version. Check with my other post for more details. Just a note here: You are saying that if PF was still aggravated, that with the currenct aggro rules, PF couldn't burn a vamp? Sorry, but it would. All you would have to do is hit-them-for-lots-and-lots(tm) (something which Potence can do quite well) and on their way to Torpor, play a PF. *Poof* - toasted vampire on a stick. A wounded vampire (ie, a vamp on their way to torpor) must burn a blood for every point of agg damage or be burned. > Decapitate as I see it will burn a vampire and PFs cannot. That does > justify the 2 blood cost. PFs cannot now as they don't inflict Agg damage. IMO, if PF needed to be eratta'd (which I don't think it did), it should have used Disarm's template. It still should send a vamp to torpor. The only deck that can utilize it to it's full effect is a Pot deck, just as before the only deck that could (really) burn a vamp w/it was a Pot deck. At least before, other clans like Ventrue could use it for defensive purposes. If a Ventrue used it now - big whoop. If the vamp wasn't knocked to 0 blood (something a Ventrue cannot do easily), then who cares if it cannot hunt - it has blood still. The one deck type that could really "abuse" the card wasn't really hamstrung at all while all other deck types were. That makes a lot of sense. > ps I have a decapitate for trade. What do you want for it? I'll take it. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:45:43 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> With the current agro rules a PFs cannot burn a vampire even if using >> the old PF version. Check with my other post for more details. > >Just a note here: You are saying that if PF was still aggravated, that >with the currenct aggro rules, PF couldn't burn a vamp? Sorry, but it >would. All you would have to do is hit-them-for-lots-and-lots(tm) >(something which Potence can do quite well) and on their way to Torpor, >play a PF. *Poof* - toasted vampire on a stick. >A wounded vampire (ie, a vamp on their way to torpor) must burn a blood >for every point of agg damage or be burned. And this is why PF doing agg is just a major no-no. Rush decks can already reliably torporize vampires - one of the main dangers in a Rush deck is that once you start killing vamps, you need to be sure they STAY gone, because otherwise one failed combat could permit him to have one live vamp, use it to get one vamp back out of torpor, and transfer out a 3rd - so much for all your hard work intended to leave him with no vamps. Now you have to burn 3 more Rush actions that could have been used to defend yourself while bleeding your vamp-less prey. PF doing agg permits Rush decks to reliably make dead vamps DEAD, for no blood cost, no discipline cost, and minor library cost. Compare with Decapitate, superior POT and 2 blood. "but, Rush decks are already at a weakness in the metagame!" ... no, Rush decks trump most of the "power" strategies - weenie anything, heavy sneak & bleed, presence/Majesty-backed voting... they aren't hurting badly. Just currently not overpowered, and most of that is because people WILL retrieve their vamps from torpor eventually. Ever play the old board game Stratego? You had nine "soldiers", numbered 1 through 9, and a Spy. If two soldiers contested for the same square, the lower-numbered one would "win" and live, and the higher-numbered one would die. The Spy would lose to every soldier *except* the #1 ... if he struck first. Very well-balanced. Jyhad is much the same way with its deck archetypes - a Rush deck is much like the Spy. A poorly-built Fortitude monster (a '7') will shut down the Rush deck totally, but will lose hard to any focused quality deck. But the Rush deck usually will beat those focused decks, just because the easiest way to make a deck focus so well is to skimp on the combat defense. >> Decapitate as I see it will burn a vampire and PFs cannot. That does >> justify the 2 blood cost. > >PFs cannot now as they don't inflict Agg damage. > >IMO, if PF needed to be eratta'd (which I don't think it did), it >should have used Disarm's template. It still should send a vamp >to torpor. The only deck that can utilize it to it's full effect is a Sending a vamp to torpor in any fashion permits the Ventrue's strike-hands-for-one, Skin of Steel, PF, Amaranth, and you don't die in the bloodhunt because you *are* the Ventrue, after all. That's 3 cards and a burned vamp - awful, awful, awful. >Pot deck, just as before the only deck that could (really) burn a >vamp w/it was a Pot deck. At least before, other clans like Ventrue >could use it for defensive purposes. If a Ventrue used it now - big >whoop. If the vamp wasn't knocked to 0 blood (something a >Ventrue cannot do easily), then who cares if it cannot hunt - it >has blood still. >The one deck type that could really "abuse" the card wasn't really >hamstrung at all while all other deck types were. That makes a lot >of sense. What deck is that? currently, you could stack PF, sure, but putting vampires in torpor with PF at the rate of one point of damage per card is not very efficient... [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > > If the vampire went to torpor immediately so as to preclude the > > > playing of PF, then the playing of Amaranth would also be precluded. > > > > > Actually card text states other wise. Its a common refrain from the RT > > I hear. > > Actually, card text states "rather than sending that vampire into torpor". > Not sure how you read that as allowing it to be played after the vampire > enters torpor. > (In actuality: it does not. It is played when the vampire is "on his way" to > torpor. Which is a time in which PF could also be played.) According to the Jyhad card, the VTES card and the spoiler list, that is untrue. Now to check errate, which in this case is not the real issue, since we are trying to avoid any. Errata show nothing of the sort. You had me worried, your not usually wrong. Raille. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > With the current agro rules a PFs cannot burn a vampire even if using > > the old PF version. Check with my other post for more details. > > Just a note here: You are saying that if PF was still aggravated, that > with the currenct aggro rules, PF couldn't burn a vamp? Sorry, but it > would. All you would have to do is hit-them-for-lots-and-lots(tm) > (something which Potence can do quite well) and on their way to Torpor, > play a PF. *Poof* - toasted vampire on a stick. > A wounded vampire (ie, a vamp on their way to torpor) must burn a blood > for every point of agg damage or be burned. using the template and the fact that the rules make no real distinction on when where or how the PFs get played, there are specifics on how the damage is resolved. So by making a rules clarification to state that PFs are played at a certain time the damage from PFs never gets added to the base strike damage, hence the agro damage of a un-errata PFs card is always 1-0, which means no blood lost, you go to torpor. > > Decapitate as I see it will burn a vampire and PFs cannot. That does > > justify the 2 blood cost. > > PFs cannot now as they don't inflict Agg damage. still can under certain circumstances, like dawn ops. <snip> > > ps I have a decapitate for trade. > > What do you want for it? I'll take it. Well since I've not had an offer for this yet, I need: Aggressive Tactics Art Scam Blood Brother Ambush Breath of the Dragon Carrion Coffin Crusade Houston Dauntain the Black Magician Derange Direct Intervention Disarm Fade From View Fire in the Blood Innocent Bystander Intimidation Melange Mistaken Identity Palla Grande Recruiting Party Reform Body Revelations Summon the Abyss Transfer of Power Using the Advantage I may have some of these pending trade, so contact me first. > Sorrow > ---

LSJ wrote: addenda: I think the previous post may have LSJ refering to the amaranth. If so then I stand corrected. > [snip.] > > I'll take a look at that when I have more time. Thanks. I offer my service to renumber the entire Rule book, if you are interested in republishing it. > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Thanks for the assistance all round. Raille. make the Jyhad a better place.

In article <37EA25...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> Actually, card text states "rather than sending that vampire into torpor". >> Not sure how you read that as allowing it to be played after the vampire >> enters torpor. >> (In actuality: it does not. It is played when the vampire is "on his way" to >> torpor. Which is a time in which PF could also be played.) > >According to the Jyhad card, the VTES card and the spoiler list, that is >untrue. Now to check errate, which in this case is not the real issue, >since we are trying to avoid any. > >Errata show nothing of the sort. > >You had me worried, your not usually wrong. He meant Amaranth, not PF. Card Title: Amaranth Blood/Pool: n/a Clan/Discip.: n/a Card Type: Combat Card Text: Diablerize an opposing vampire rather than sending that vampire into torpor. Not usable by a vampire going into torpor. Artist: Jeff Menges Rarity: Uncommon Thus, Amaranth is played in the gap between PF and being in torpor. Another PF could be played then. [ quoted text not captured ]

> So by making a rules clarification to state that PFs are played at a > certain time the damage from PFs never gets added to the base strike > damage, hence the agro damage of a un-errata PFs card is always 1-0, > which means no blood lost, you go to torpor. It doesn't matter. The damage (for PF) gets resolved somewhere during (or possibly after) damage resolution. You can't even play PF unless you've done more damage to the other vamp and there's no way you can determine that until damage resolution. With that said, damage gets resolved normal first then agg. So if the normal knocks you into torpor, the agg (PF) will burn you. Even if there is other agg damage to put you into torpor, if you don't have the blood to burn for the PF damage, you get burnt. > > > Decapitate as I see it will burn a vampire and PFs cannot. That does > > > justify the 2 blood cost. > > PFs cannot now as they don't inflict Agg damage. > still can under certain circumstances, like dawn ops. Umm, any damage (not just from PF) can under certain circumstances, like Dawn Ops. We were talking about PF on it's own. > > > ps I have a decapitate for trade. > > What do you want for it? I'll take it. > Well since I've not had an offer for this yet, I need: > I may have some of these pending trade, so contact me first. I'll go home tonight and see what I have. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > > If the vampire went to torpor immediately so as to preclude the > > > > playing of PF, then the playing of Amaranth would also be precluded. > > > > > > > Actually card text states other wise. Its a common refrain from the RT > > > I hear. > > > > Actually, card text states "rather than sending that vampire into torpor". > > Not sure how you read that as allowing it to be played after the vampire > > enters torpor. > > (In actuality: it does not. It is played when the vampire is "on his way" to > > torpor. Which is a time in which PF could also be played.) > > According to the Jyhad card, the VTES card and the spoiler list, that is > untrue. Now to check errate, which in this case is not the real issue, > since we are trying to avoid any. > > Errata show nothing of the sort. > > You had me worried, your not usually wrong. As you noted in the follow-up to your message, I was referring to Amaranth. If Amaranth can be played (at all), then it means that a vampire who receives damage that he cannot heal *doesn't* go to torpor immediately - that there is some moment at which Amaranth can be played. If so, then PF could also be played in that moment (instead of Amaranth, and possibly followed by Amaranth). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

Raille wrote: > Sorrow wrote: > > > With the current agro rules a PFs cannot burn a vampire even if using > > > the old PF version. Check with my other post for more details. > > > > Just a note here: You are saying that if PF was still aggravated, that > > with the currenct aggro rules, PF couldn't burn a vamp? Sorry, but it > > would. All you would have to do is hit-them-for-lots-and-lots(tm) > > (something which Potence can do quite well) and on their way to Torpor, > > play a PF. *Poof* - toasted vampire on a stick. > > A wounded vampire (ie, a vamp on their way to torpor) must burn a blood > > for every point of agg damage or be burned. > > using the template and the fact that the rules make no real distinction > on when where or how the PFs get played, there are specifics on how the > damage is resolved. > > So by making a rules clarification to state that PFs are played at a > certain time the damage from PFs never gets added to the base strike > damage, hence the agro damage of a un-errata PFs card is always 1-0, > which means no blood lost, you go to torpor. Unless the vamp received damage (prior to the PF) that he didn't heal (or is otherwise on his way to torpor). One point of agg (like from the old-style PF) will burn a wounded vampire (a vampire with prior unhealed damage) unless that vampire burns a blood. The new agg rules do not use (suffer from) the "packeting" concept of the original Jyhad rules. The damage doesn't have to "add to" another source of damage - the number of sources of damage is irrelevant. Twelve Murder of Crows will burn a vampire (with 10 or less blood) in a Dawn Operation; they won't simply send him to torpor twelve times (as they would under the old "packeting" rules of Jyhad). [ quoted text not captured ]

> And this is why PF doing agg is just a major no-no. Rush decks can > already reliably torporize vampires - one of the main dangers in a > Rush deck is that once you start killing vamps, you need to be sure > they STAY gone, [snip] > him with no vamps. Now you have to burn 3 more Rush actions that > could have been used to defend yourself while bleeding your vamp-less > prey. I'm not sure where you are going with the above. Out of all the combat decks, the only way to ensure this, *reliably*, is by using Potence and Decapitate or using Amaranth and risk the blood hunt. You say that agg damage PF is a no-no because it too reliably burned vamps, but then you go on to say that a rush deck needs to be able to reliably get rid of the opponents vamps. If I missed something, please tell me. > PF doing agg permits Rush decks to reliably make dead vamps DEAD, for > no blood cost, no discipline cost, and minor library cost. No, it ensures that Pot rush decks can reliably do this. But now, only Pot decks can use it to it's full potential. Cel/Gun decks might be able to, I'm not sure if PF is usable at range. But all the other combat decks would have problems doing this even with agg damage. I don't see the Gangrel hitting for lots. Nor the Tremere. > with Decapitate, superior POT and 2 blood. "but, Rush decks are > already at a weakness in the metagame!" They are, but you are correct in saying that is not a valid reason. > ... no, Rush decks trump most of the "power" strategies - weenie > anything, heavy sneak & bleed, presence/Majesty-backed voting... > they aren't hurting badly. If this were true, then you would see a Rush deck win just about every tournament it was entered in and you would see more and more Rush decks in those tournaments. While they do have a pretty big advantage over those archetypes, they have other significant disadvanteges. > currently not overpowered, and most of that is because people WILL > retrieve their vamps from torpor eventually. As you pointed out above. However, again, other than by using POT, there is no real reliable way to do this. PF helped this. [snip stratego description that I didn't see had much point] > >IMO, if PF needed to be eratta'd (which I don't think it did), it > >should have used Disarm's template. It still should send a vamp > >to torpor. The only deck that can utilize it to it's full effect is a > Sending a vamp to torpor in any fashion permits the Ventrue's > strike-hands-for-one, Skin of Steel, PF, Amaranth, and you don't die > in the bloodhunt because you *are* the Ventrue, after all. That's 3 > cards and a burned vamp - awful, awful, awful. So because POT needs to use one or two more cards, that's not so aweful? The Brujah have a fair amount of Princes. They could pull the same thing (against anything but another POT deck) with 1 more card. Big whoop. > >The one deck type that could really "abuse" the card wasn't really > >hamstrung at all while all other deck types were. That makes a lot > >of sense. > What deck is that? A Potence deck. A Potence deck can hit you for lots, reducing you to less than 0 blood (or even 0), play a PF and there your vamp sits in torpor until you've spent 3 actions to retrieve it and a 4th action (barring HG, etc) getting that vamp a blood. This is the effect that proponents of the PF eratta say is what makes it still so good. The one other deck type that might be able to use it to that potential is some sort of Cel/Gun deck. But if any other type of combat deck uses PF, unless they have some way to put their opponent into torpor with 0 blood (or hell, just at 0 blood) and PF, then what good is PF going to do? Sure, the vamp can't hunt. But since the vamp with PF still has blood, it won't have to hunt and so isn't really hindered by it. Why bother using PF? > currently, you could stack PF, sure, but putting > vampires in torpor with PF at the rate of one point of damage per card > is not very efficient... No, it's not. And that's why no other deck type would ever use PF. This is what I'm talking about - it went from a decent card that was usable by just about all of the clans for defense (even if on discipline was able to abuse it) to wallpaper for all of those clans and only really usable (to it's full potential) by the one thing that abused it. Sounds like an awesome trade off to me. </sar> [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:41:03 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >I'm not sure where you are going with the above. Out of all the combat >decks, the only way to ensure this, *reliably*, is by using Potence and >Decapitate or using Amaranth and risk the blood hunt. You say that >agg damage PF is a no-no because it too reliably burned vamps, but >then you go on to say that a rush deck needs to be able to reliably get >rid of the opponents vamps. If I missed something, please tell me. Game balance... every deck style needs to have a weakness or two. For Rush decks, the problems are (1) bleeding your prey, (2) heavy damage prevention, and (3) having people fish their vampires back out of torpor, ruining your hard work. PF provided an easy, almost-free way to fill a major weakness in an archetype that didn't have -that- many to begin with. Decapitate provided a much more balanced way - 2 blood and requiring the superior discipline. PF required one card slot in your library. >> PF doing agg permits Rush decks to reliably make dead vamps DEAD, for >> no blood cost, no discipline cost, and minor library cost. > >No, it ensures that Pot rush decks can reliably do this. But now, >only Pot decks can use it to it's full potential. Cel/Gun decks might >be able to, I'm not sure if PF is usable at range. But all the other >combat decks would have problems doing this even with agg damage. >I don't see the Gangrel hitting for lots. Nor the Tremere. I don't see the Gangrel or Tremere having trouble burning vamps to begin with, though. If they don't get S:CE'd, both the Gangrel and Tremere have easy access to plenty of aggravated damage. I know last time I played my weenie THA deck, I put four of my predator's vampires and two of my prey's in the ashtray (pesky sneak & bleeders..) >> ... no, Rush decks trump most of the "power" strategies - weenie >> anything, heavy sneak & bleed, presence/Majesty-backed voting... >> they aren't hurting badly. > >If this were true, then you would see a Rush deck win just about >every tournament it was entered in and you would see more and >more Rush decks in those tournaments. While they do have a >pretty big advantage over those archetypes, they have other >significant disadvanteges. Right, which is why they don't win tournaments. But they aren't hurting BADLY, either - they do have a chance at winning if played properly (and if they don't get munged by seating position somehow.) >> currently not overpowered, and most of that is because people WILL >> retrieve their vamps from torpor eventually. > >As you pointed out above. However, again, other than by using >POT, there is no real reliable way to do this. PF helped this. THA - Theft/Theft/Walk of Flame. Anyone with OBF - Sacrificial Lamb. (The Assamites need this one.) The Gangrel couldn't use PF very well anyway. There aren't that many other combat disciplines out there - QUI tends to burn in the FIRST round if done up properly. Most of them are vulnerable to S:CE. Shame, but there are other advantages: QUI and THA don't even notice Fortitude decks. >[snip stratego description that I didn't see had much point] It had lots of point, all related to the above statements re: Rush decks being weak. None at all related to the next paragraph. >> >IMO, if PF needed to be eratta'd (which I don't think it did), it >> >should have used Disarm's template. It still should send a vamp >> >to torpor. The only deck that can utilize it to it's full effect is a >> Sending a vamp to torpor in any fashion permits the Ventrue's >> strike-hands-for-one, Skin of Steel, PF, Amaranth, and you don't die >> in the bloodhunt because you *are* the Ventrue, after all. That's 3 >> cards and a burned vamp - awful, awful, awful. > >So because POT needs to use one or two more cards, that's not >so aweful? The Brujah have a fair amount of Princes. They >could pull the same thing (against anything but another POT deck) >with 1 more card. Big whoop. The Ventrue aren't a combat clan. If the Brujah Princes use POT to beat you senseless, then diablerize you and win the vote afterwards, it makes a lot more sense and also doesn't come off anywhere as easily. With PF doing agg, the Ventrue suddenly become the PREMIER combat clan, though, because of Fortitude and easily-accessible votes AND vote masters such as Ventrue HQ. What's wrong with this picture? >> >The one deck type that could really "abuse" the card wasn't really >> >hamstrung at all while all other deck types were. That makes a lot >> >of sense. >> What deck is that? > >A Potence deck. A Potence deck can hit you for lots, reducing you >to less than 0 blood (or even 0), play a PF and there your vamp sits >in torpor until you've spent 3 actions to retrieve it and a 4th action >(barring HG, etc) getting that vamp a blood. This is the effect that No... Blood Doll, push to the vamp, someone else spends 2 blood to rescue it from torpor, presto, vamp is back out next turn and doesn't have to hunt. If it ever has to hunt again, it's screwed, sure, but why waste actions replacing your fangs with the Blood Doll on it? best case scenario, vamp can 5th tradition itself once it comes back out, and fangless it may be, but it's certainly not hurting. I don't think PF is terribly good the way it is now. Entertaining, yes (you'd be surprised how often vamps have to hunt, and I just got an amusing idea for a Cryptic Mission/Lucky Blow/PF deck - no Society of Leopold required), but there are a lot of ways around it - I don't see it being abusable. >proponents of the PF eratta say is what makes it still so good. The >one other deck type that might be able to use it to that potential is >some sort of Cel/Gun deck. But if any other type of combat deck Gun deck tends to be at long range, making PF unplayable. >uses PF, unless they have some way to put their opponent into torpor >with 0 blood (or hell, just at 0 blood) and PF, then what good is PF >going to do? Sure, the vamp can't hunt. But since the vamp with >PF still has blood, it won't have to hunt and so isn't really hindered >by it. Why bother using PF? POT decks replaced it with a combination of Disarm or Decapitate (sometimes both), either of which is pretty damn funny. "OK, I rip your arm off, and then use your arm to rip your head off." PF is still an annoyance card - no, it's not the be-all end-all of combat anymore, but it really bugs the hell out of small vamp decks. Big vamps will shrug it off. 3-caps sometimes HAVE to hunt. >No, it's not. And that's why no other deck type would ever use >PF. This is what I'm talking about - it went from a decent card >that was usable by just about all of the clans for defense (even if >on discipline was able to abuse it) to wallpaper for all of those One discipline, meaning FORTITUDE, was able to abuse it horribly. One other discipline, POTENCE, was able to abuse it mildly. >clans and only really usable (to it's full potential) by the one thing >that abused it. >Sounds like an awesome trade off to me. </sar> So cards that can be abused badly shouldn't be errata'd? Is that what you're saying? We should just have left it in, so the Ventrue Rush deck could table-sweep? :P Actually, that's a misuse of the old card with Rushing - the real Ventrue monster gets the Princes out, and then bleeds with Legal Manip + Conditioning, and anytime you block pulls out SoS, PF, Amaranth. Kaboom. :/ With the Ventrue HQ and Elysium: Versailles out? Bleh. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Sorrow wrote: >>I'm not sure where you are going with the above. Out of all the combat decks, the only way to ensure this, *reliably*, is by using Potence and Decapitate or using Amaranth and risk the blood hunt. You say that agg damage PF is a no-no because it too reliably burned vamps, but then you go on to say that a rush deck needs to be able to reliably get rid of the opponents vamps. If I missed something, please tell me.>> Ok. Here is the problem with PF doing aggro damage--Pulled Fangs is a zero discipline card with no blood cost, very limited play requirements, and effectively no cost. As such, having it do aggro damage is inordinately powerful. When the card was designed (under the Jyhad aggro rules), it wasn't such a bad thing, as it was completely incapable of burning vampires, as one point of aggro damage from a given source could never burn a vampire. If you played 15 Pulled Fangs on a vampire under the original agrro rules, all it meant was that he was sent to torpor 15 times. If you played one Pulled Fangs on a vampire on its way to torpor, all that happened was that the vampire was going to torpor a second time, and with no fangs. You could not burn a vampire with Pulled Fangs when it was designed. Right. Then, when they reprinted Jyhad as VTES, they changed the aggro rules, and as such, Pulled Fangs (along with Ivory Bow and Wolf Claws type cards) became *far* more powerful than originally intended. I strongly suspect that this was not intentional--i.e. I do not belive that some game designer somewhere said "Hmm. How do we make PF and Ivory Bow more powerful? I know--we'll change the aggro rules!". If the effect that changing the aggro rules had on PF was considered at all, I suspect it was an afterthought. With the old Jyhad aggro rules, PF was allready verging on overpowered, as it had an extremely powerful ability with negligible costs. Once it became possible to burn a vampire with it, it became absurdly overpowered. Check. Then, the rules team decided to fix the aggro rules to the current version. As, under these aggro rules, PF could still burn vampires, it was necessary to errata to maintain game balance, as that was the whole point of the various rules changes and errata--to fix various aspects of the game that were "wrong". PF was a pretty severe example of a card that was wrong. Why was it wrong? Asside from the cost/effect imbalance, it allowed a Potence combat deck to burn vampires left and right for negligible cost. Please compare PF to Amaranth, assuming a Potence combat deck. PF simply burned a vampire going to Torpor for no cost. Amaranth diablerized a vampire going to torpor, which meant, in all likelyhood, the vampire playing the Amaranth was going to be Blood Hunted out of existance. Poof. Why ever play Amaranth, when you have Pulled Fangs to use? Oh, wait. There is no reason. Pulled Fangs was, when it burned vampires every time it was played, simply too powerful. Then, both Decapitiate and Disarm were designed and printed, as an example of what the game designers (who apparently put down the crack pipe) considered balanced cards, when compared to the abomination of Pulled Fangs. Disarm is an incredibly similar card--play when you do more damage, has a lasting effect (no limbs as opposed to no teeth), and has the exact same effect that PF did when it was originally printed--it simply sent a vampire to torpor. The differences? It requires a Discipline (a significant cost), and under the aggro rules that were valid at the time, it was completele incapable of burning a vampire, as was the intention of the original PF. Ok. Decapitate. It has the exact same effect as PF did when it burned folks--it burns a vampire on the way to torpor, just like PF did. Now, compare the costs. PF? Costs nothing. Decapitate? Requires a superior Discipline and 2 blood-a significant cost. Apparently the game designers came back to earth and said "Hey. It should be difficult to burn vampires. PF simply was too powerful. Lets make a card that does the same thing, but requires POT and a cost of 2 blood. That's balanced.", and so they did. Does it matter that Rush decks need to be able to reliably get rid of vampires? No. Pulled Fangs was just too good. In any situation. Too powerful, not enough of a cost. Thus, it was changed. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Isn't it strange, G'Kar? When we first met, I had no power and all the choices I could ever want. Now I have all the power I could ever want, and no choice at all." -Londo

Raille wrote: > Ask the right questions and finally get answers that give me enough > detail to place just when the Pulled fangs are allowed to be played. > > Thank you LSJ! > > Anyhow for those following this thread here is a rather detailed > breakdown of the damage resolution phase broken into its various parts > and numbered. Excessively. Hey what can I say, I play Advanced Squad > Leader and you just get used to these things. :) > > 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. > > 6.4.6.1 Damage resolution has three steps: damage calculation, prevent > damage and heal damage. > > 6.4.6.2 Damage calculation. > > 6.4.6.2.1 Total all normal (ei non-agravated damage) from all sources. > Damage that was made at the inapropriate range is reduced to zero, and > is considered a null strike. > > 6.4.6.2.2 Total all agravated damage from all sources. Damage that was > made at the inapropriate range is reduced to zero, and is considered a > null strike. Not quite. A strike/effect that is ineffective at the current range has no effect. No damage is done, so none is reduced. > 6.4.6.3 Apply total normal and agravated damage to the minion. Damage calculation is done before damage resolution begins. It is normally done in a "resolve strike" step (which first applies damage to a minion and then resolves that damage). X.X.X Play/produce some damage-dealing effect (amount of damage is calculated at this time). X.X.X.1 Apply damage (all damage from other, simultaneous, effects is applied here before moving to the next step). X.X.X.2 Resolve Damage (see 6.4.6) 6.4.6 Damage Resolution. 6.4.6.1 Prevent Damage 6.4.6.1.1 The minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards if he is able to do so. These damage prevention cards are played one at a time until all damage is prevented or the minion chooses not to play any further cards. > 6.4.6.4.1.1 Direct Intervention may be used at this point to prevent a > damage prevention card from taking effect. Shouldn't mention Direct Intervention here unless you mention it wherever (minion) cards are played. 6.4.6.1.2 Damage prevention cards may be selectively used to prevent aggravated damage before non-aggravated damage. > 6.4.6.4.3 Only Minions can prevent damage. > > 6.4.6.4.4 Damage to retainers cannot be prevented. These are the same rule. 6.4.6.1.3 Only Minions can prevent damage. Damage to retainers cannot be prevented. > 6.4.6.5 Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is > successfully inflicted. The damage is then healed, if the minion is a > vampire, or causes a loss of life points if the minion is an ally or > retainer. (or, if aggravated, cannot be healed by a vampire and requires a wounded vampire to burn blood to prevent destruction) 6.4.6.2 Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully inflicted. The damage is then healed, if the minion is a vampire, or causes a loss of life points if the minion is an ally or retainer. If the damage is aggravated, it cannot be healed by a vampire and requires a wounded vampire to burn blood to prevent destruction. See 6.4.6.3. > 6.4.6.5.1 Pulled fangs or disarm may be played at this time. Not typically. It can only be played at this point if this point is occuring during the press step. Otherwise, it'll have to wait until the opposing vampire is "on his way to torpor" (or until the press step is reached). 6.4.6.3 Healing damage. > 6.4.6.6.1 Total all damage normal and agravated, that was not prevented > in step > (6.4.6.4) Prevent Damage. The damage has already been totalled > 6.4.6.6.2 For each point of damage inflicted on a vampire, burn one > blood to heal that damage, starting with normal damage, then finishing > with agravated damage. Aggravated damage cannot be healed. 6.4.6.3.1. For each point of non-aggravated damage inflicted on a vampire, burn one blood to heal that damage. > 6.4.6.6.3 A vampire may burn ALL of his blood if needed, and doing so > does not have any other negative effects on the vampire. Recording every "no effect" avenue would be prohibitive - not sure if this needs to be here. > 6.4.6.6.4 If a vampire cannot heal all the damage, having taken more > damge than there was blood to heal, blood is burned to heal what damage > can be healed. 6.4.6.3.1.1 A vampire may burn ALL of his blood to heal if needed, and doing so does not have any other negative effects on the vampire. 6.4.6.3.1.2 If a vampire cannot heal all the damage, having taken more damge than there was blood to heal, blood is burned to heal what damage can be healed. The rest is unhealed. (Unhealed damage causes a vampire to go to torpor after damage resolution.) > 6.4.6.6.5 Agravated damage is damage that a vampire cannot heal, like > damage from sunlight or from claws or fangs of some other immortals, > including vampires. > > 6.4.6.6.5.1 Since agravated damage cannot be healed, this send a vampire > to torpor. Should there be unresolved agravated damage from step > 6.4.6.6.4 the vampire is burned. This doesn't allow for a single point of aggravated damage to burn a wounded vampire (which it can). 6.4.6.3.2 Aggravated damage is damage that a vampire cannot heal. 6.4.6.3.2.1 Since it cannot be healed, aggravated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor after damage resolution. 6.4.6.3.2.2 Aggravated damage done to a wounded vampire can burn the vampire outright. 6.4.6.3.2.2.1 For each point of aggravated damage successfully inflicted on a vampire who already has unhealed damage, he must burn a blood to prevent his destruction. 6.4.6.3.2.2.2 If he doesn't have enough blood, he is burned. > 6.4.6.6.5.2 A Vampire burned via unresolved agravated damage is not > considered to have been diablerized and a blood hunt (6.5.6) cannot be > called. 6.4.5.3.2.2.3 A vampire burned by aggravated damage is not considered to have been diablerized and a blood hunt (6.5.6) cannot be called. > 6.4.6.6.6 A vampire that has taken any agravated damage or normal damage > in excess of its blood supply, goes to torpor. This should be moved to after the "allies/retainer damage handling", for coherence. 6.4.6.3.4 A vampire that has taken any damage that he has not healed goes to torpor. > 6.4.6.6.6.1 Cards effecting a vampire going to torpor can now be > played. That should be left up the the "card text" and not a rule proper, but OK. 6.4.6.3.4.1 Card affecting a vampire going to torpor can now be played. And, if that is included, other similar sections should also be included: 6.4.6.3.2.2.2.1 Cards that are playable when a vampire/minion is burned can now be played. I would actually move both of these out of the "heal damage" rules and put them in a "un-Ready a minion" effect. ("Whenever a minion is unReadied in combat, move to the wrap-up-combat step") > 6.4.6.6.6.2 Cards Such as taste of Vitae can now be played. Taste of Vitae can only be played after strike resolution - not after generic damage resolution. (Between 6.4.3.2 and whatever comes next: 6.4.3.3, 6.4.4, or "End of Round" (V.E of outline) if a combatant has been unreadied.) > 6.4.6.6.7 Each point of damage inflicted on a ally or retainer, from > any source, agravated and non-agravated, causes the ally or retainer to > lose one life counter. 6.4.6.3.3 Each point of damage, aggravated or non-aggravated, inflicted on an ally or retainer causes the ally or retainer to lose one life counter. > 6.4.6.6.7.1 An ally or retainer who loses all their life counters is > burned. 6.4.6.3.3.1 An ally or retainer who loses all of his life counters is burned. > Great a rules section I can come to grips with! YES! > > If LSJ would correct any reference to PFs above, such as moving the > section from where it currently is, or adding additional references, > please do so. PF can be played at the end of a round. That is: during 6.4.4 (after both minions have decided not to play any further presses), or, if the round ends prematurely (due to a minion becoming unready, for instance), during the "unReady a minion" step. Probably there should be a step after 6.4.4 (like step V.E. of the outline) in which the end-of-round effects (like PF) can be played. > Still with pulled fangs, (and you thought I'd get away from that!) you > generate a infinate loop. A easy manner to gain 1 VP in any game is to > put 60 PFs in a deck, then play them all in the first combat where you > inflict more damage that the other guy. Any +1 HD vampire will do. That won't get you a VP - you still need to successfully withdraw (which can't even begin until your next untap phase, after which you'd have to avoid losing blood and losing pool and combat until your next untap phase. Even so, how would that be different than just putting 60 Nosferatu Putrescences in your 60 card deck and filling your crypt with Koko (and playing all 60 NPs on Koko the first time she gets into combat)? > Now that PFs has a place in the combat effects, why not just state the > during section 6.4.6.6.8 you play PFs rather than 6.4.6.5.1. There is > nothing in the rules that says exactly where the card goes. See above. It goes after all strikes have been resolved (or all of them that can be resolved), by necessity of the "inflicts more damage" requirement. This has been ruled to be "at the end of the round" (without regard to how the round is ending). > Define the rules and some of these problems will go away by themselves. > With PFs at the end of the cycle (such as 6.4.6.6.8) allows all previous > damage to be resolved to its logical conclusion. Yes, and then (at the end of the round, when the vampire may even still be "on his way to torpor") another PF could be played. This is reinforced by examining the fact that Amaranth could be played. > Ok I lost you there didn't I. Logical in the game terms. Since a > minion with two agro strikes only get the first because the change to a > torpor status is SO FAST, that the blinding strike which mere mortals > can't even see, failed to land it blow on the departing vampire. > > Another option is to have the Pulled fangs be played prior to the damage > prevention phase. This might be more inline with the official rules, > but causes a few head aches of its own. Minor one, but still, what > would happen if Strike hands for 2, play 6 PFs during a dawn operation, > then the other vampire plays skin of steel, nullifing both the strike > and the host of PFs played. > > Actually I kind of like that. Leave the PFs without errata but make > them usable prior to damage prevention. That allows vampires and minion > in general to take the sting out of a PF deck. Well - you couldn't play PF until you've discovered how much damage both minions have inflicted (not just in the current strike, but in the round as a whole). So that option is not workable. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > <BIGGEST SNIP> Thanks for the reply. I'll have to get back to you with this on monday. BTW great work! Raille.