Protect Thine Own: more data

I played a deck with Protect Thine Own in the Baltimore/Glen Burnie (Maryland, USA) tournament this past Saturday. I was hoping to actually win the tournament to better be able to shout "in your face" on the newsgroup today, but ended up "only" coming in third out of 20. :-) The deck was based on getting an Inner Circle member and at least one Prince or Justicar, all with Obf/Pre/Dom (mostly with For too, but I didn't have deckspace to use that in this version). I think it's noteworthy, too, that this deck was almost certainly not the best it could have been: it was just modified a little from a stealth-vote deck I already had to include four copies of Protect Thine Own (I had thought I owned five of my own, but it turned out I only had three, and was only able to borrow one on short notice). I got game wins in all three preliminary games; in two of the three, I would say Protect Thine Own was a major contributor to my doing well. In the finals I chose my seat poorly. I was top seed and chose to sit as Matt Morgan's prey, BJ Alton's predator, not realizing (a) that Matt had Blessing of Chaos in his deck (and lucky for him drew it early on) and (b) that Matt was probably, of the finalists, the most able to avoid bringing out non-Camarilla vampires. (Every game I played had lots of non-Camarilla targets; in the finals, everyone but me and Matt had substantially non-Camarilla decks: in order around the table from me, it was: IC/P/J Ventrue, Lasombra (Lucita/Marcus merging) bleed w/Anarchs, !Malk/Malk stealth-bleed, Tzimisce bleed/block/War Ghoul, Malk/!Malk stealth-bleed/block w/Protean.) Here's what happened in my games. Round 1: Got out Arika and later Marcus Vitel. Called Protect Thine Own late in the game (was down to 2 players) to burn Le Dinh Tho. Had vote lock most of the game (Lucita merged came out for grandprey early, then Lucinde Alastor for predator, but then I got Marcus and reclaimed vote dominance, and then predator was ousted). Got 4 of 5 VPs, ousting Assamites, Lasombra, and Giovanni. Round 2: Got out Lucinde Alastor and then Arika, very late in the game Etrius as well. Switched seats with my prey to better use Parity Shifts and try to escape from his Escaped Mental Patient (my only combat defense was Obedience) - that didn't quite succeed as Lucinde did get dunked, but since I was now his prey I could rescue before anyone (other than him) got a chance to diablerize. Called two Protect Thine Owns this game, relatively early against predator's Uncle George, and later against my prey's Cailean (who had a Guardian Angel and Rack). I had vote lock the whole game. Got 4 of 5 VPs, ousting Lasombra (new prey after Dramatic Upheaval), missing chance to oust his prey with Lasombra/Kiasyd because I didn't give him Parity Shift pool when I should have, ousted !Nos "Cailean does it all" deck, ousted original-prey (became predator after DU) Malk/!Malk stealth bleed. Round 3: Got Arika, Marcus, and later in the game Leandro. Didn't get any PTOs early, but when it was down to two players, called two of them to burn my opponent's only two vampires (the same Malk/!Malk stealth bleed as in round 2, this time he had only gotten Dolphin Black and Uncle George; Uncle George had an Enchanted Marionette and Dolphin had a Pulse of the Canaille). That sealed the game in my favor; I had ousted a Daughters/!Toreador vote deck earlier and got 3 VPs by also ousting the !Malks, who had the other 2 VPs from ousting um... I wanna say a Ventrue deck, he might've had Lucinde Alastor?, and then my predator, a Harbingers/Giovanni (?) deck with Slaughterhouses and stuff. Final round: Got Arika. Called an early Protect Thine Own on my prey's Lucita (the same player as the Lasombra bleed in the first round), but was low on pool due to his first-turn Anarch Revolt and later Antediluvian Awakening, as well as my predator's having bled some. Got ousted after having to burn Arika to the Antediluvian, not having managed to gain any pool yet. In every game I played, I had vote lock most of the time if not all the time. On several occasions, I didn't need to play any card besides the Protect Thine Own to call and pass the vote. I burned a total of 39 capacity of vampires with 6 Protect Thine Owns, an average of 6.5 capacity (there were larger targets available in some cases but wanting to hit my predator or prey first I wasn't going to choose the cross-table ones). I had to apologize every time I called one because I felt unclean for playing the card. :-) Josh dirty girl

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:btunca$b6acu$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... snip tourney report in how many games did the pto make a difference (how many would you have one without the pto) thats the question one should ask. the final game is a prime example for the risks involved when playing IC. anarch revolts, anti awakening and getting bled without a minion killed you pretty quickly. pto is strong and gamechanging but so are alot of other cards (e.g. week of nightmares, pentex subversion, society of leopold, etc..) > > > In every game I played, I had vote lock most of the time if not all the > time. On several occasions, I didn't need to play any card besides the > Protect Thine Own to call and pass the vote. I burned a total of 39 > capacity of vampires with 6 Protect Thine Owns, an average of 6.5 > capacity (there were larger targets available in some cases but wanting > to hit my predator or prey first I wasn't going to choose the > cross-table ones). you were lucky you didn´t face intercept or heavy combat. stefan> > > Josh > > dirty girl > >

>you were lucky you didn´t face intercept or heavy combat. I wouldn't say so. If the other decks are good, they won't necessarily have either. There's only a certain chance that any in a tournament will be at your table and only less of a chance that they will be next to you. He did play against Cailean.dec, which has to have a minimum level of intercept and combat to work. It's like my problem with anyone saying "it dies to rush" or "... could get rushed" if not to the same level. I hate that "argument" because most decks have *zero* rush.

"Joshua Duffin" wrote": > I had to apologize every time I called one because I > felt unclean for playing the card. :-) Awwww....c'mon. I know you have a song in your heart... "Burn, baby, burn..." Regards, Noal

Noal McDonald wrote: > "Burn, baby, burn..." I'm not talking 'bout a vampire. I'm talking 'bout yo soul! Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<btunca$b6acu$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > I played a deck with Protect Thine Own in the Baltimore/Glen Burnie > (Maryland, USA) tournament this past Saturday. I was hoping to actually > win the tournament to better be able to shout "in your face" on the > newsgroup today, but ended up "only" coming in third out of 20. :-) How well would you have done if those PTO's were KRC's/ParityShifts? If you had votelock in everygame, i think you would done very well with any votedeck. The final shows the weakness of IC-decks. Still a good performance though, congrats. W

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:44a2da05.04011...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] In every case where it was called, the PTO was better than a KRC or Parity Shift. I burned a 5-cap with Dominate, a 5-cap with Obf Dom Dem and a laptop, a 10-cap with intercept (a KRC is never better than a PTO against Cailean - I mean, come on! Cailean would eventually *wreck* me if I can't burn him with PTO), a 6-cap with 3 bleed and OBF, a 5-cap with +1 bleed and +1 stealth, and a full 8-cap with DOM OBT FOR. In the very specific case of how the final actually played out, a Parity Shift would have been better at the moment of the first PTO (because it would have given me pool)... *if* I had had a Prince/Justicar *and* vote push in play to pass it, instead of Arika who would not have been able to call Parity Shift. Note that the vote push wouldn't have been playable if my predator, Matt, had attempted (despite failing) the block with his Blessing of Chaos-ed vampire. (So the vote would have failed 3-3 with a Prince; I would have needed a Justicar to have a chance of passing it.) I don't really think the final shows the "weakness of IC decks" either. I would have had exactly the same weakness with literally any deck that transferred 11 or 15 pool (I'm not sure if I had made 4 transfers after getting out Arika) without yet gaining any or drawing Wake+Deflection. It does show that my seating choice turned out to be poor, probably, and that Matt was both lucky and good in that game. > Still a good performance though, congrats. Thanks. Obviously four games aren't going to convince most of the people on the "PTO is just fine" side, but I think it's at least some good data on how strong the effect of PTO typically is, and how low the cost of playing it can be. Josh still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't)

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:400301df$0$33210$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:btunca$b6acu$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de... > snip tourney report > > in how many games did the pto make a difference (how many would you have one > without the pto) > thats the question one should ask. No. It's really not the question. My argument is not that Protect Thine Own makes you automatically win. My argument is that Protect Thine Own is an unfair card because its effects are too large for its cost. It may *help* you win, but it doesn't have to *make* you win for it to need fixing. That said, I would say that the PTO made a significant difference in my ability to win the game in the second, third, and final rounds. In the second, burning Cailean was key; if he remained in play, I don't think I would have ultimately been able to win the game. In the third, burning the 2 vampires who could bleed me for 5 a turn without even playing cards sealed my victory. In the final, burning my prey's full Lucita would have been extremely good for me if I'd been able to stay alive long enough to take advantage of it. > the final game is a prime example for the risks involved when playing IC. > anarch revolts, anti awakening and getting bled without a minion killed you > pretty quickly. That can happen to *any* deck! It is by no means a weakness specific to Inner Circle members that they need to be compensated for by having cards like Protect Thine Own. > pto is strong and gamechanging but so are alot of other cards (e.g. week of > nightmares, pentex subversion, society of leopold, etc..) The other ones at least don't allow Camarilla decks to be immune to them. That's what makes PTO "unfair" instead of just "broken". > you were lucky you didn´t face intercept or heavy combat. I was, but Curevei also made the reasonable point that you mostly *don't* expect to face too many of those decks in tournaments because most tournament decks *aren't* based on heavy combat or heavy intercept. Josh if you can't join 'em, beat 'em

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: [PTO discussion snipped] > Josh > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> kirjoitti viestissä news:ic3Nb.1428$Xq2.570@fed1read07... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [PTO discussion snipped] > > > Josh > > > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" > > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) > > But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. > > Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody > that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. Yes, I have. 4 blood isnt too shabby, imo. Heck, people play Restorations, do they not? [ quoted text not captured ]

Oko <o...@vedatassuus.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> [PTO discussion snipped] >> >> > Josh >> > >> > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" >> > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) >> >> But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. >> >> Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? >> Nobody that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this >> now-worthless card. > > Yes, I have. Let's see the deck. I'd be willing to bet you that, now that 5th is near-worthless, we can find better cards to put in the place of that deck's 5ths. > 4 blood isnt too shabby, imo. For the cost -- an unblocked action and a blood from a Prince or Justicar -- putting 4 blood onto another vampire just isn't enough. > Heck, people play Restorations, do they not? Oh, come on, Oko. You're smarter than that. There are 3 vampires below 7 that can play 5th. There are 137 vampires below 7 that can play Restoration; 39 of them can play it at superior. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bu1a7s$bt2if$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:44a2da05.04011...@posting.google.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<btunca$b6acu$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > I played a deck with Protect Thine Own in the Baltimore/Glen Burnie > > > (Maryland, USA) tournament this past Saturday. I was hoping to > actually > > > win the tournament to better be able to shout "in your face" on the > > > newsgroup today, but ended up "only" coming in third out of 20. :-) > > > > How well would you have done if those PTO's were KRC's/ParityShifts? > > If you had votelock in everygame, i think you would done very well > > with any votedeck. The final shows the weakness of IC-decks. > > In every case where it was called, the PTO was better than a KRC or > Parity Shift. hmm, ok. And would you have done about as good with any vote-deck? > > I burned a 5-cap with Dominate, a 5-cap with Obf Dom Dem and a laptop, a > 10-cap with intercept (a KRC is never better than a PTO against > Cailean - I mean, come on! Sure it can be, If Cailean player is low on pool, and you can oust him with parity shift-krc for 8 pooldamage. Many people try to defend there pool of around 10. a working parity shift can very easy be better in such cases. Cailean would eventually *wreck* me if I > can't burn him with PTO), a 6-cap with 3 bleed and OBF, a 5-cap with +1 > bleed and +1 stealth, and a full 8-cap with DOM OBT FOR. > > In the very specific case of how the final actually played out, a Parity > Shift would have been better at the moment of the first PTO (because it > would have given me pool)... *if* I had had a Prince/Justicar *and* vote > push in play to pass it, instead of Arika who would not have been able > to call Parity Shift. Note that the vote push wouldn't have been > playable if my predator, Matt, had attempted (despite failing) the block > with his Blessing of Chaos-ed vampire. oh yeah, Blessing of Chaos can be put on the list of quite effective antivote. :-) (So the vote would have failed > 3-3 with a Prince; I would have needed a Justicar to have a chance of > passing it.) or talked the one with the edge into it by giving him some pool as well. > > I don't really think the final shows the "weakness of IC decks" either. > I would have had exactly the same weakness with literally any deck that > transferred 11 or 15 pool (I'm not sure if I had made 4 transfers after > getting out Arika) but not every deck has to do so, when they see an AR-deck on the table. without yet gaining any or drawing Wake+Deflection. bad drawings are part of the game, and not drawing a Miniontap for an IC-deck is bit worse then not drawing IG when playing a weenie-rush deck, or something. That is part of what i mean by "fragile", i think IC-decks are more fragile. If you don't draw speedmasters, you might be too late getting your first vamp, if you don't draw poolgain, you might have invested too much. > It does show that my seating choice turned out to be poor, probably, and > that Matt was both lucky and good in that game. > > > Still a good performance though, congrats. > > Thanks. Obviously four games aren't going to convince most of the > people on the "PTO is just fine" side, but I think it's at least some > good data on how strong the effect of PTO typically is, and how low the > cost of playing it can be. > it does show something indeed. > > Josh > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" card > to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) 5th wasn't a gamewinning card? combined with miniontap i have seen it win many games. I don't know if PTO needs changing (because of what it does to the game), but i do think it doesn't need changing because of its "overpoweredness" W

> Thanks. Obviously four games aren't going to convince most of the > people on the "PTO is just fine" side, but I think it's at least some > good data on how strong the effect of PTO typically is, and how low the > cost of playing it can be. > The same could be said for Palla Grande (which has an awfull ousting power), or warghoul. Why don't we see the same debate for these cards, who are IMHO far stronger ? All are very strong cards, with prerequisites. The difference is that one card turns around combat (PtO) whereas the others have permanent locking effects that turn into VPs PtO is certainly a good card, but certainly not above the curve, especially once you consider that being allowed to play PtO deprives you of PArity shift (unless you find a way to be both Prince and IC) > Josh > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" card > to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) Fifth tradition was a card you could base all you bloat and combat defense upon. Prince get smashed to pieces -> live torpor and 5 trad Need pool ? -> Minion tap, 5 trad, rince and repeat Need Votes -> Minion tap, 5 trad, bring another prince Want to play non cammie fatties -> loose the "auto regenerate button" -> play cammie instead So the metagame turned to 5th trad decks (deck based upon the broken card) Agressive decks (weenie or S&B) that can outbleed the first ones (anti 5 trad) Other decks (gets ^problems to turn around 5 trad, hurts aggressive decks) 5 trad appeared in far more decks than PTO now, and appeared more massively.

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:44a2da05.0401...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bu1a7s$bt2if$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > "Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:44a2da05.04011...@posting.google.com... > > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:<btunca$b6acu$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > > > I played a deck with Protect Thine Own in the Baltimore/Glen Burnie > > > > (Maryland, USA) tournament this past Saturday. I was hoping to > > actually > > > > win the tournament to better be able to shout "in your face" on the > > > > newsgroup today, but ended up "only" coming in third out of 20. :-) > > > > > > How well would you have done if those PTO's were KRC's/ParityShifts? > > > If you had votelock in everygame, i think you would done very well > > > with any votedeck. The final shows the weakness of IC-decks. > > > > In every case where it was called, the PTO was better than a KRC or > > Parity Shift. > > hmm, ok. And would you have done about as good with any vote-deck? How can we possibly know that? Isn't the point of talking about actual games played to examine the results of actual decks in actual games? Speculating whether I'd have done as well with a different vote deck is just that: speculation, no more or less valid than speculation that's just based on reading the cards. > > I burned a 5-cap with Dominate, a 5-cap with Obf Dom Dem and a laptop, a > > 10-cap with intercept (a KRC is never better than a PTO against > > Cailean - I mean, come on! > > Sure it can be, If Cailean player is low on pool, and you can oust him > with parity shift-krc for 8 pooldamage. Many people try to defend > there pool of around 10. a working parity shift can very easy be > better in such cases. Surely you've seen "Cailean crushes you all!" decks before. When Cailean gets tooled up, he has multiple Raven Spies, usually some kind of permanent combat ability (Assault Rifles in this case), et cetera. Calling a Parity Shift + Kine Resources Contested needs two unblocked actions to get off. Cailean isn't likely to let you do that unless you have the perfect hand to stop him. It's *much* easier to get *1* unblocked action (to burn Cailean with Protect Thine Own) than to get *2* to try to make a dent in the player's pool when he's playing such a defensively-strong deck. > oh yeah, Blessing of Chaos can be put on the list of quite effective > antivote. > :-) Only if there are enough opposing table-votes does it actually stop the vote from passing: it didn't keep the vote from passing in this case. It just kept any additional Presence cards from being played. That was effective to the tune of 2 pool, but it wouldn't have been effective to the extent of keeping me from burning the Blessing of Chaos-holding vampire, if that vamp had been !Malk instead of Malk (and the rest of Matt's crypt was !Malk, except for the two vamps he actually brought out). > (So [Parity Shift] would have failed > > 3-3 with a Prince; I would have needed a Justicar to have a chance of > > passing it.) > > or talked the one with the edge into it by giving him some pool as > well. Sure. Assuming the one with the Edge wasn't my predator. Which he probably would have been, given that my predator was playing stealth bleed. > > > > I don't really think the final shows the "weakness of IC decks" either. > > I would have had exactly the same weakness with literally any deck that > > transferred 11 or 15 pool (I'm not sure if I had made 4 transfers after > > getting out Arika) > > but not every deck has to do so, when they see an AR-deck on the > table. I don't think I agree. Any deck that would normally spend 11 or so on vampires (which is not exactly a lot!) will also spend 11 on vampires with Anarch Revolts coming into play, unless they're willing to risk not playing their own game and letting the AR player dictate the environment. That can pay off if everyone else is also hampered by the ARs, but it *is* a problem to operate with fewer vampires than you normally would. (Also, there was only ever 1 Anarch Revolt and 1 Antediluvian Awakening on the table. Not, in my experience, normally enough to deter people too much from influencing.) > without yet gaining any or drawing Wake+Deflection. > > bad drawings are part of the game, and not drawing a Miniontap for an > IC-deck is bit worse then not drawing IG when playing a weenie-rush > deck, or something. That is part of what i mean by "fragile", i think > IC-decks are more fragile. If you don't draw speedmasters, you might > be too late getting your first vamp, if you don't draw poolgain, you > might have invested too much. Again I disagree. Not drawing an Immortal Grapple early in the game can easily be death for a rush deck; if you have a strong stealth-bleeder behind you, you could be bled out if they're able to effectively use their combat defense for your first turn or two of attempted rushes, and you're going to run out of rush very quickly if you can't cycle combat cards and torporize minions in the first combats. I invested 11 pool in a vampire. How much is a normal deck going to invest in vampires? Probably *at least* 11. Even a weenie deck would invest 11 in three 3-caps and a 2-cap. > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" card > > to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) > > 5th wasn't a gamewinning card? combined with miniontap i have seen it > win many games. > I don't know if PTO needs changing (because of what it does to the > game), but i do think it doesn't need changing because of its > "overpoweredness" That's no more "game winning" than Protect Thine Own! Do you see that you're declaring it "game winning" here to gain *blood on vampires* (later convertible to pool)? Does that oust your prey? I don't think so! It contributes a lot less, in fact, to ousting your prey than burning your prey's vampires with Protect Thine Own would... The Fifth Tradition was never a "payload" for ousting people. It wasn't even a "delivery system". It was merely a defensive system that let you survive your predator's attacks and/or buy more vampires with your increased pool. 5th resembles Protect Thine Own a lot more than it resembles Return to Innocence. Indeed, 5th has a much less "offensively oriented" effect than Protect Thine Own. Josh and whether or not it needed neutering, it certainly was neutered: and if that rose to the level of "overpowered enough to need changing", protect thine own is easily above that level.

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.04011...@posting.google.com... [I wrote] > > Thanks. Obviously four games aren't going to convince most of the > > people on the "PTO is just fine" side, but I think it's at least some > > good data on how strong the effect of PTO typically is, and how low the > > cost of playing it can be. > > > The same could be said for Palla Grande (which has an awfull ousting > power), or warghoul. Why don't we see the same debate for these cards, > who are IMHO far stronger ? All are very strong cards, with > prerequisites. The difference is that one card turns around combat > (PtO) whereas the others have permanent locking effects that turn into > VPs For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine Own is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their own merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the same way. > PtO is certainly a good card, but certainly not above the curve, > especially once you consider that being allowed to play PtO deprives > you of PArity shift (unless you find a way to be both Prince and IC) It's not that PTO is at the absolute top of the curve in terms of "total power". It's that the effect is unfair *and* undercosted. > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" card > > to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) > > Fifth tradition was a card you could base all you bloat and combat > defense upon. You could try. It was just as vulnerable to intercept as PTO, though, wasn't it? In fact, there were about as many "defenses" against 5th Tradition as there are against PTO, weren't there? :-) 5th was never any kind of perfect combat defense, either. You can't use it as combat defense (refilling) if you don't still have a ready Prince/Justicar after losing one to torpor. > Prince get smashed to pieces -> live torpor and 5 trad > Need pool ? -> Minion tap, 5 trad, rince and repeat > Need Votes -> Minion tap, 5 trad, bring another prince > Want to play non cammie fatties -> loose the "auto regenerate button" > -> play cammie instead > > So the metagame turned to > 5th trad decks (deck based upon the broken card) > Agressive decks (weenie or S&B) that can outbleed the first ones (anti > 5 trad) > Other decks (gets ^problems to turn around 5 trad, hurts aggressive > decks) No, I never found that the metagame was that heavily influenced by 5th. It could be at times, but it was at least as much a cyclical thing as PTO-favoring players claim PTO-abuse should be (ie PTO becomes popular, wins, people stop playing non-Cam fatties, PTO fades away - same for old 5th Tradition, except that old 5th didn't directly help you oust anyone). > 5 trad appeared in far more decks than PTO now, and appeared more > massively. I believe that was *at least* as much because 5th Tradition was uncommon in Jyhad and VTES, and therefore available in vastly greater printed quantity than Protect Thine Own. It still is, even with the Ventrue-starter PTO reprint. Josh on a mission to free the non-camarilla from the burden of pto (where's joseph pander when you need him?)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine Own > is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those > vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their own > merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the same > way. Limiting War Ghoul's rush to non-Camarilla vampires would then be broken by devaluing that class of vampires? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:ic3Nb.1428$Xq2.570@fed1read07... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [PTO discussion snipped] > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" > > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) > > But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. > > Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody > that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. Not that I remember off the top of my head. But it does still show up in decks. Two copies in Robyn Tatu's Free States Texas-winning deck from December, three in Bram Vink's Utrecht tournament-winner from November, three in Pekka Miettinen's Helsinki tournament-winner from July... Regardless of whether 5th *needed* to be "fixed", it was fixed. So it must have risen to the level, in the opinion of the rules team, of needing to be fixed. Protect Thine Own is, I think, at least at the same level as old 5th Tradition (and indeed, in my opinion, higher). Josh there's no such thing as a valid analogy?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:40055777...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine Own > > is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those > > vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their own > > merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the same > > way. > > Limiting War Ghoul's rush to non-Camarilla vampires would then > be broken by devaluing that class of vampires? No, but it could be unfair. I'm using Derek Ray's proposed terminology of "unfair" to describe effects that should not exist but aren't "broken" in the sense of directly, on their own, allowing their player to win games (or oust people). If War Ghoul were limited to non-Camarilla rushes and cost 0 pool and didn't require burning an ally or retainer to bring into play - as I would certainly expect it to have a reduced cost if it were limited in its targets, and that much reduction seems similar to the Protect Thine Own cost/targeting - I would probably describe it as "unfair", yes. It would still have probably less impact on the game than PTO does, since War Ghouls on their own would only be able to torporize vampires, not burn them. Josh fairness, and democracy that's the word from washington every day put america to sleep with warm milk and a cliche some vampires are expendable along the way... :-)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:40055777...@white-wolf.com... >>Joshua Duffin wrote: >>>For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine Own >>>is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those >>>vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their own >>>merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the same >>>way. >> >>Limiting War Ghoul's rush to non-Camarilla vampires would then >>be broken by devaluing that class of vampires? > > No, but it could be unfair. I'm using Derek Ray's proposed terminology > of "unfair" to describe effects that should not exist but aren't > "broken" in the sense of directly, on their own, allowing their player > to win games (or oust people). > > If War Ghoul were limited to non-Camarilla rushes and cost 0 pool and > didn't require burning an ally or retainer to bring into play - as I > would certainly expect it to have a reduced cost if it were limited in > its targets, and that much reduction seems similar to the Protect Thine > Own cost/targeting - I would probably describe it as "unfair", yes. ? Of course you could increase its place on the power curve to make it unfair. The question is whether a card which is a problem to a restricted set of "targets" is any less of a problem if that restriction is lifted. That seems to be the point of your paragraph on PTO above. Your first paragraph reads as "Treating all targets in the same unfair way is not unfair" or "If a larger class of vampires were devalued then the smaller subclass would not be devalued as much as it is now." I do not think the point is valid. I'm trying to ascertain if you do. You seem to agree in the War Ghoul paragraph above that opportunity cost (restricted targets) is part of the equation being balanced against the strength of an effect, which seems to be a better avenue for showing that PTO is unfair - that the effect is too great even for the opportunity cost (the effect would be no less unfair (in the eyes of those who think it is unfair) if the non-Camarilla restriction were lifted, right?). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > Oko wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. > >> > >> Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? > >> Nobody that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this > >> now-worthless card. > > > > Yes, I have. > > Let's see the deck. I'd be willing to bet you that, now that 5th is > near-worthless, we can find better cards to put in the place of that deck's > 5ths. I'll take you up on it. The Malkavian "Mini-Me" deck I built a while back. The Malks with Protean to use Madness Network & Homunculus to bleed during every player's turn. Used the 5th Traditional Hospital to get blood back. Regards, Noal

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:4005632E...@white-wolf.com... > Your first paragraph reads as "Treating all targets in the same unfair > way is not unfair" or "If a larger class of vampires were devalued > then the smaller subclass would not be devalued as much as it is now." > > I do not think the point is valid. I'm trying to ascertain if you do. Sorry. My point to Emmanuel was intended just as regards the relative lack of outcry against Palla Grande or War Ghoul, which he believes have stronger effects than Protect Thine Own. My response was that Protect Thine Own, whether or not it's stronger, may be more frustrating to players because of not having a consistent effect against all vampires. (Tangentially, I have indeed heard people complain about Palla Grande and War Ghoul being overpowered. Personally, there is certainly a point at which I don't want to keep "moving down the power curve" with depowerings to level the playing field (or whatever) (other than as speculative imaginings as in the "Jyhad Done Right" idea). Protect Thine Own, though, is far enough above the power curve in its class of effects that it *should* be changed, in my opinion.) Treating all targets in the same way is not exactly "unfair" in the sense I was using the word - even if it's overpowered, it's "fair" in the sense that it's overpowered equally against all victims. Hence the distinction (possibly useful, possibly not) between "unfair" and "broken". > You seem to agree in the War Ghoul paragraph above that opportunity > cost (restricted targets) is part of the equation being balanced > against the strength of an effect, which seems to be a better avenue > for showing that PTO is unfair - that the effect is too great even > for the opportunity cost (the effect would be no less unfair (in the > eyes of those who think it is unfair) if the non-Camarilla restriction > were lifted, right?). Yes. The effect of Protect Thine Own would be even more unbalanced (probably to the level of "brokenly overpowered", even if you don't think it is now) if it could target any vampire. I've had a really hard time convincing anyone on the "PTO is OK" side that PTO as printed is brokenly overpowered. So as a lesser argument I've been trying to work with the "even if it doesn't always make you win because of the targeting restrictions, it's still an unfair effect" approach. But I do believe that 1 blood, 1 political action is not a sufficient cost for burning a vampire, even with the sect restriction and title requirement, yes. "Showing" that the effect is unfair is hard to do irrefutably, because there are no *exact* comparisons and every analogy can be attacked from one direction or another. Comparing it to other cards that *have* been reduced in power, though, has seemed like a reasonable approach to me. Josh striving for logical consistency, or something like that

> > 4 blood isnt too shabby, imo. > > For the cost -- an unblocked action and a blood from a Prince or Justicar -- > putting 4 blood onto another vampire just isn't enough. What cost? Being Prince "costs" the vampire about as much as a superior discipline. FOR gives the acting vampire 3 blood for an action and a card (Restoration). Prince gives another vampire 4 blood for an action and a card (plus a blood). Both cards yield 3 blood, though 4th is a bit more wieldy (you can choose any vampire). There are cornercases though where 4th is close to useless (only one minion, etc.). Bye, Daneel P.S.: I just got into the discussion, but I'm curious how many "pro-PTO" activists regularly play non-camarilla clans... ;) Seems to be like a debate about "don't take my toy" vs. "gimme a break"...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Your first paragraph reads as "Treating all targets in the same unfair >>way is not unfair" or "If a larger class of vampires were devalued >>then the smaller subclass would not be devalued as much as it is now." >> >>I do not think the point is valid. I'm trying to ascertain if you do. > > Sorry. My point to Emmanuel was intended just as regards the relative > lack of outcry against Palla Grande or War Ghoul, which he believes have > stronger effects than Protect Thine Own. My response was that Protect > Thine Own, whether or not it's stronger, may be more frustrating to > players because of not having a consistent effect against all vampires. Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if it could also target Camarilla vampires. But OK. That was the point I wanted to clarify that we really were on opposite sides of the fence on. > I've had a really hard time convincing anyone on the "PTO is OK" side > that PTO as printed is brokenly overpowered. So as a lesser argument > I've been trying to work with the "even if it doesn't always make you > win because of the targeting restrictions, it's still an unfair effect" > approach. I don't believe that the existence of a restriction on targets is one of the arguments for convincing someone of that. > But I do believe that 1 blood, 1 political action is not > sufficient cost for burning a vampire, even with the sect restriction > and title requirement, yes. You left out "successful referendum", but I get your point. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:40056E12...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Sorry. My point to Emmanuel was intended just as regards the relative > > lack of outcry against Palla Grande or War Ghoul, which he believes have > > stronger effects than Protect Thine Own. My response was that Protect > > Thine Own, whether or not it's stronger, may be more frustrating to > > players because of not having a consistent effect against all vampires. > > Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if > it could also target Camarilla vampires. But OK. That was the point I > wanted to clarify that we really were on opposite sides of the fence on. Frustratingness is pretty subjective; it's hard for me to be sure what would or wouldn't be more frustrating to other people. It does seem to me that people find it "less unfair" for everyone to be treated the same than for some to be singled out for special punishment. > > I've had a really hard time convincing anyone on the "PTO is OK" side > > that PTO as printed is brokenly overpowered. So as a lesser argument > > I've been trying to work with the "even if it doesn't always make you > > win because of the targeting restrictions, it's still an unfair effect" > > approach. > > I don't believe that the existence of a restriction on targets is one > of the arguments for convincing someone of that. ? It's not. Some people claim that the targeting restriction makes it an acceptable card. My claim is that even with the targeting restriction - which they claim reduces its power enough that it doesn't make you win - the effect is still unfair to the targets it *is* usable against. I don't concede their claim, but was trying to argue that even if their claim *were* true, that still wouldn't mean the card was OK. > > But I do believe that 1 blood, 1 political action is not > > sufficient cost for burning a vampire, even with the sect restriction > > and title requirement, yes. > > You left out "successful referendum", but I get your point. Successful referendum is implicit in "political action" as opposed to "action". :-) Josh implicit in complicity

"Kevin M." wrote: > Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody > that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. It's only a single copy, but I include one in my Princes with Potence deck. It focuses on archons and burning wraths, and I've found it usefull at times to have one prince lob 4 blood on another one before he archon rushes. The amaranth will recoupe the cost of the BW, but he needs to soak the return fire. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

LSJ wrote: > Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if > it could also target Camarilla vampires. It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam vampires. > > I've had a really hard time convincing anyone on the "PTO is OK" side > > that PTO as printed is brokenly overpowered. So as a lesser argument > > I've been trying to work with the "even if it doesn't always make you > > win because of the targeting restrictions, it's still an unfair effect" > > approach. > I don't believe that the existence of a restriction on targets is one > of the arguments for convincing someone of that. I think if "fair" is admitted as a valid term, then Josh's point does follow in the case of PTO. I don't think it's *necessary* to appeal to this aspect of the card in order to make a successful argument for changing it, but if one accepts that it's overpowered, the "unfairness" follows. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if >>it could also target Camarilla vampires. > > It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam > vampires. How so? If anything, that would cause the card (PTO) to see even more use (further "dominating" all those non-IC decks out there). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > How so? > If anything, that would cause the card (PTO) to see even more use > (further "dominating" all those non-IC decks out there). Because at least then the Cams would be getting theirs, too. If you're looking for an A -> B type of argument, I can't give it to you in this instance. It's much more about getting told to sit in the back of the bus. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<ic3Nb.1428$Xq2.570@fed1read07>... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [PTO discussion snipped] > > > Josh > > > > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" > > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) > > But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. > > Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody > that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. Ooi, the Unique Master, put some in his maris helps you block the world deck. Malk OOT 5ths for more intercetp. Not sure how useful it was compared to bigger guns and tastes though. In fact she got more blood from eating things than 5th. Cameron

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >>>For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine Own > >>>is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those > >>>vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their own > >>>merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the same > >>>way. > > The question is whether a card which is a problem to a restricted set > of "targets" is any less of a problem if that restriction is lifted That's the big straw man that gets put up over and over again. It's "unfair" because it only targets non-Cams. That's a huge limiting factor. If your prey is playing an all-Camarilla deck, what then? You do the same thing you do when your prey is playing with vampires that have Fortitude and you're relying on Kiss My Ra. You end up sucking wind because you have to discard half your deck or use it for a purpose other than you intended. What's more, I don't see people crying about Bloodhunt or Covenenant of Blood being unfair. Would it be more better if the non-Cams had a PTO-like card of their own to target Cams? Here's another thing to boil people's brains. PTO can target any vampire in the game, Camarilla or otherwise. All you gotta do is Mind Rape the Camarilla target and then use the victim to become an Anarch as a cardless action. > I do not think the point is valid. Neither do I, for that matter. In fact, I'd say that "fairness" is the LAST thing that should be a consideration because "fair" is a rather subjective term. The only consideration that should matter, when considering a redesign of a card, is game balance. Is the effect approximately worth the opportunity cost (prerequisite resources and/or situations) and is the effect too drastic or too trivial for the game? In the case of PTO, the biggest valid concern seems to be latter issue. The question really should be, "Should a vampire that costs 11 pool be able to burn any vampire in the game with a political action?" Regards, Noal

Noal McDonald wrote: > The question really should be, "Should a vampire that costs 11 pool be > able to burn any vampire in the game with a political action?" Fine question. And I think the clear answer is "no". Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<40059639...@duke.edu>... > LSJ wrote: > > > How so? > > > If anything, that would cause the card (PTO) to see even more use > > (further "dominating" all those non-IC decks out there). > > Because at least then the Cams would be getting theirs, too. If you're > looking for an A -> B type of argument, I can't give it to you in this > instance. It's much more about getting told to sit in the back of the > bus. IC members could burn other IC members with PTO then. The benefit of playing them is also a liability then. Some of the new Black Hand cards seem to be designed this way too: Bloodwork: Requires Black Hand vampire. Works better versus Meths with Sabbat vampires (meaning you too most likely). Circumspect Revelation: Requires Black Hand vampire. Works best versus Sabbat. Ministry: Requires Black Hand vampire. Works better versus Sabbat. The Admonitions: Great if you're the only Sabbat player. Not so great if there are others. Council of Seraphim: Requires Seraph. Works best versus Sabbat. Now, I'm sure some of these are designed with RPG flavor in mind. But when a card provides a bonus for playing a sect, yet that bonus can be turned on its head if the card is played against you, that's good design IMO. When hosers are designed to screw with certain groups while having little reason to worry themselves, that's bad design. If hosing is necessary, better to hose everyone fairly, than hose some more than others. Regardless, PTO is still too powerful (burn a vamp for a vote) even if it were more fair (Cams vulnerable too).

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:27:08 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >Noal McDonald wrote: > >> The question really should be, "Should a vampire that costs 11 pool be >> able to burn any vampire in the game with a political action?" > >Fine question. And I think the clear answer is "no". i agree. the action should cost 1 blood. :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

> It's "unfair" because it only targets non-Cams. That's a huge limiting > factor. If your prey is playing an all-Camarilla deck, what then? You > do the same thing you do when your prey is playing with vampires that > have Fortitude and you're relying on Kiss My Ra. You end up sucking > wind because you have to discard half your deck or use it for a > purpose other than you intended. What's more, I don't see people > crying about Bloodhunt or Covenenant of Blood being unfair. Would it > be more better if the non-Cams had a PTO-like card of their own to > target Cams? Actually, when I was playing my old Bloodhunt/Fame deck, there were quite a few outcries about how it was unfair. In fact, your old NJL brother-in-arms, Sorrow, was the one advocating it. It was a while back. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>> It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam >> vampires. > >How so? > >If anything, that would cause the card (PTO) to see even more use >(further "dominating" all those non-IC decks out there). I guess this is as good a place as any to interject. There are cards that bother me because they are overpowered such that they screw up the competitive level of the game. Then, there are other cards that bother me, sometimes more, because their effect is too great *and* because they don't see consistent enough play. PTO goes into the latter category. Why can it be worse when a card is only "unfair" some of the time? What's strong and ubiquitous gets metagamed against. What's only situationally strong often isn't worth metagaming against because "there are no wrong threats, only wrong answers" - you can't metagame against everything that might hurt you and still be playing your game. Cards like PTO, powerful hosers, and the like produce an environment where you get *randomly* totally screwed. So, I think I understand what this current argument, that mainly Josh is making, is trying to get at. That the card only affects some decks reduces its power, but it makes it a more random and, thus, unfair (in a particular usage of unfair) card with a high power effect. If War Ghoul could only rush non-Cams, it would be weaker, but it would be more of a hoser and less something that you would metagame against because it would see less play overall, which would have the tendency of making decks more vulnerable to being screwed by it.

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.04011...@posting.google.com>... > Here's another thing to boil people's brains. PTO can target any > vampire in the game, Camarilla or otherwise. All you gotta do is Mind > Rape the Camarilla target and then use the victim to become an Anarch > as a cardless action. just a minor nitpick, titled camarilla are immune to this, as they can not go anarch, and are camarilla in the first place. OTOH, if they're titled Camarilla I should have more votes than them and be making their voting life miserable. Still, when I read about the cardless action, I figured PTO's time would be coming eventually. Not that this should surprise me. Dave Buerger apparently figures out which cards will be banned/errataed into oblivion by my current want list. Of the major ones I'm 4/4: ToR3 ToGP Hostile 5th Trad PTO? Just so my Arika multi-rush is never taken away. Cameron

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, when you post the deck list, maybe we can proceed. > Regards, > Noal Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> > 4 blood isnt too shabby, imo. >> >> For the cost -- an unblocked action and a blood from a Prince or >> Justicar -- putting 4 blood onto another vampire just isn't enough. > > What cost? Read what *you* wrote, below. You answer your own question. > Being Prince "costs" the vampire about > as much as a superior discipline. > > FOR gives the acting vampire 3 blood for an action and a card > (Restoration). > Prince gives another vampire 4 blood for an action and a card (plus a > blood). There are 93 vampires that can play Restoration at FOR. There are 48 vampires that can play 5th Tradition. 'Nuff said. > Both cards yield 3 blood, though 4th is a bit more wieldy (you can > choose any vampire). Not for the opportunity cost, it isn't. > There are cornercases though where 4th is close > to useless (only one minion, etc.). > > Bye, Bye! > Daneel > > P.S.: I just got into the discussion, but I'm curious how many > "pro-PTO" activists regularly play non-camarilla clans... ;) Seems to > be like a debate about "don't take my toy" vs. "gimme a break"... Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:ic3Nb.1428$Xq2.570@fed1read07... >> Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> [PTO discussion snipped] > >> > still doesn't accept that PTO even *needs* to be a "game winning" >> > card to need fixing (fifth tradition certainly wasn't) >> >> But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. >> >> Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? >> Nobody that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this >> now-worthless card. > > Not that I remember off the top of my head. But it does still show up > in decks. > Two copies in Robyn Tatu's Free States Texas-winning deck from > December, three in Bram Vink's Utrecht tournament-winner from > November, three in Pekka Miettinen's Helsinki tournament-winner from > July... > > Regardless of whether 5th *needed* to be "fixed", it was fixed. No, it wasn't "fixed". It was *fucked*. C'mon, Josh. Before CE, 5th was significantly undercosted. Now, after CE, 5th is severely overcosted. How can you continue to say it was "fixed" and keep a straight face? > So > it must have risen to the level, in the opinion of the rules team, of > needing to be fixed. Protect Thine Own is, I think, at least at the > same level as old 5th Tradition (and indeed, in my opinion, higher). Oh my god is it NOT at the same level as 5th! When *every* voting deck starts to use PTO -- in the same way that every Princish/Justicarish deck used pre-CE 5th -- then it will rise to the level that pre-CE 5th was at. Now, I'm not saying that PTO *has* to get to that level before it gets "looked at", just that it hasn't yet achieved the near-universal agreement about needing to be fixed that pre-CE 5th had. As has been stated, because of the fixed slot that PTO now occupies, people are seeing it more, becoming pissed off by it more, and we're discussing it more. > Josh > there's no such thing as a valid analogy? Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bu3lov$cv4km$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:40055777...@white-wolf.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > For one, neither of those cards is "unfair" in the way Protect Thine > Own > > > is. PTO affects only a certain class of vampire - devaluing those > > > vampires in a way that they don't "deserve" to be devalued on their > own > > > merits - where Palla Grande and War Ghoul affect all targets in the > same > > > way. > > > > Limiting War Ghoul's rush to non-Camarilla vampires would then > > be broken by devaluing that class of vampires? > > No, but it could be unfair. I'm using Derek Ray's proposed terminology > of "unfair" to describe effects that should not exist but aren't > "broken" in the sense of directly, on their own, allowing their player > to win games (or oust people). > This statement is really quite subjective. I personnally find the current warghoul to be unfair, as it gives a yet very poerfull clan access to what I consider as the best fighting ally in the game (I mean ally used to fight, not courrier or otherwise bleeding ally), which makes me feel "screwed" when I try to play other allies. I see it especially more unfair as it is a very hard to find rare card, that gives it true power only when used in a large amount. > If War Ghoul were limited to non-Camarilla rushes and cost 0 pool and > didn't require burning an ally or retainer to bring into play - as I > would certainly expect it to have a reduced cost if it were limited in > its targets, and that much reduction seems similar to the Protect Thine > Own cost/targeting - I would probably describe it as "unfair", yes. > If so, It would be callable only by a Tzimisce cardinal with capacity nine or more, as warghoul can be (and is often) called by Horatio, 2 cap Tzimisce, and it would cost one blood. I can guarantee you that this warghoul would be probably weaker than the current one. But I think that LSJ's question was about the same warghoul (3 pool, one ally or retainer and no blood cost or capcity condition) able to rush any non Camarilla vampire. By the way, being Tzimice is a weak cost (it allows an option to an already good clan, it's easy to have all of your vampires be Tzimisce) as opposed to being an IC : you have to bring a 11 cap vampire, and only him(rother only her) is able to call the PtO. > It would still have probably less impact on the game than PTO does, > since War Ghouls on their own would only be able to torporize vampires, > not burn them. The warghoul can throw you vampires in torpor very easily, and rethrow them should they manage toleave torpor about as easily. Very little vampires on the table can even damage a warghoul, even without taking memories of martality into account. Suppose you play vote or bleed : do you prefer loose a vampire or get rushed by a warghoul every turn ?

> >> For the cost -- an unblocked action and a blood from a Prince or > >> Justicar -- putting 4 blood onto another vampire just isn't enough. > > > > What cost? > > Read what *you* wrote, below. You answer your own question. > > > Being Prince "costs" the vampire about > > as much as a superior discipline. Sorry, I was mistaken. Being a prince costs the vampire about as much as an *inferior* discipline. So what I wrote: > > FOR gives the acting vampire 3 blood for an action and a card > > (Restoration). > > Prince gives another vampire 4 blood for an action and a card (plus a > > blood). ...is wrong, as the true level of comparison should be: for gives the acting vampire 2 blood for an action and a card (Restoration). Prince gives another vampire 4 blood for an action and a card (plus a blood). Meaning, Hospitality is way more powerful. > There are 93 vampires that can play Restoration at FOR. > > There are 48 vampires that can play 5th Tradition. > > 'Nuff said. The point being? You seem to be misguided by the concept that the more vampires can play a card, the weaker it should be. While there may be a similar general guideline, it is by no means set in stone (especially not as a universal rule). The reason for this is that even if only a handful of vampires can use a certain card, a deck may still be constructed around the concept, practically reducing the restrictiveness of the opportunity cost. Check out, for example, an IC/PTO deck, which is pretty strong even if it has to build on only a handful of crypt cards. Compare Hospitality with Restoration: Restoration [inf] costs/requires: 1 inferior discipline ("cost" the vampire 1 point) + 1 card 1 action ...and yields 2 blood in return. Hospitality costs/requires: 1 Prince title ("cost" the vampire 1 point) + 1 card 1 action 1 blood ...and yields 4 blood in return. It actually gives a bonus blood in this comparison. > > Both cards yield 3 blood, though 4th is a bit more wieldy (you can > > choose any vampire). > > Not for the opportunity cost, it isn't. Weighting the opportunity cost has no bearing on analysing the effect. It may be weighted when judging the general "usefulness" of the card. I was referring to the effect. Hasta Luego, Daneel [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:sIpNb.5134$Xq2.713@fed1read07... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Regardless of whether 5th *needed* to be "fixed", it was fixed. > > No, it wasn't "fixed". It was *fucked*. What about the tournament-winning decks that used it? Even ones played by people you know, in this country! :-) > C'mon, Josh. Before CE, 5th was significantly undercosted. Now, after CE, > 5th is severely overcosted. > > How can you continue to say it was "fixed" and keep a straight face? The design team decided that was the amount of fixing it needed. I am willing to accept their decision. It's not *severely* overcosted now. It's probably slightly overcosted. If it granted 5 blood I think it would still see a lot of play. 6 blood and it would see a ton of play. > > So > > it must have risen to the level, in the opinion of the rules team, of > > needing to be fixed. Protect Thine Own is, I think, at least at the > > same level as old 5th Tradition (and indeed, in my opinion, higher). > > Oh my god is it NOT at the same level as 5th! When *every* voting deck > starts to use PTO -- in the same way that every Princish/Justicarish deck > used pre-CE 5th -- then it will rise to the level that pre-CE 5th was at. > Now, I'm not saying that PTO *has* to get to that level before it gets > "looked at", just that it hasn't yet achieved the near-universal agreement > about needing to be fixed that pre-CE 5th had. Um, no. No no no. First, there was no "near universal agreement" that Fifth Tradition needed to be fixed before Camarilla Edition. In fact, the only person I recall calling Fifth "broken" was Andrew Davidson. Have you recently converted to the path of Andrew Davidson? :-) What I *do* remember was a big outcry saying that Fifth didn't need to be neutered after the rumors about CE were posted on the newsgroup. Second, (a) not *every* Prince/Justicar-using deck used Fifth Tradition; (b) even if that *were* true, it would only be required that every Inner Circle-using deck use Protect Thine Own, not every *voting* deck. Third, my claim (and argument) is that PTO is at least at the level of old Fifth *power*-wise, not *ubiquity*-wise. Indeed, I would call it more powerful, as it as an "offensive" effect of great magnitude rather than a "defensive" one. > As has been stated, because of the fixed slot that PTO now occupies, people > are seeing it more, becoming pissed off by it more, and we're discussing it > more. Well, yeah! I think this is the only reason it got reprinted without a change in the first place: because hardly anyone owned any before, it hadn't gotten played enough for everyone to see how powerful it was, so there wasn't much outcry about how overpowered/unfair/broken it is. Josh there is no knowledge that is not power

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote: > (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > Here's another thing to boil people's brains. PTO can target any > > vampire in the game, Camarilla or otherwise. All you gotta do is Mind > > Rape the Camarilla target and then use the victim to become an Anarch > > as a cardless action. > > just a minor nitpick, titled camarilla are immune to this, as they can > not go anarch, and are camarilla in the first place. OTOH, if they're > titled Camarilla I should have more votes than them and be making > their voting life miserable. I can't connect to the Monger to check the cards that make vampires into Anarchs to see if they're limited to untitled vampires or not. Assuming they are, you can always pack a few Clan Impersonations to take care of the titled ones. That's probably a better option than including the political action cards that strip Princes and Justicars of their titles. Which goes back to prove that, given enough planning, you can use PTO to burn any vampire in the game. Regards, Noal

"XZealot" wrote: > Actually, when I was playing my old Bloodhunt/Fame deck, there were quite a > few outcries about how it was unfair. In fact, your old NJL > brother-in-arms, Sorrow, was the one advocating it. It was a while back. Sorrow was smoking crack. There's a bajillion ways to get into combat. Personally, if you find yourself saying that ANYTHING in Jyhad isn't fair, you may want to consider selling your cards and taking up checkers...unless you think having to jump your opponent's checker when the opportunity exists is unfair, too. Regards, Noal

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.0401...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bu3lov$cv4km$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > No, but it could be unfair. I'm using Derek Ray's proposed terminology > > of "unfair" to describe effects that should not exist but aren't > > "broken" in the sense of directly, on their own, allowing their player > > to win games (or oust people). > > > This statement is really quite subjective. Well yes, of course it's subjective. So is evaluating whether a card meets anyone's subjective definition of "broken". > I personnally find the > current warghoul to be unfair, as it gives a yet very poerfull clan > access to what I consider as the best fighting ally in the game (I > mean ally used to fight, not courrier or otherwise bleeding ally), > which makes me feel "screwed" when I try to play other allies. I see > it especially more unfair as it is a very hard to find rare card, that > gives it true power only when used in a large amount. Hmm, I don't know if I would think the Tzimisce were a very powerful clan if they didn't have War Ghoul. Until they got Fiendish Tongue, in that case, I don't think they would have been all that strong at doing anything besides blocking and beating people up. And even less so before they got Telepathic Tracking and Read the Winds. I certainly take your point (and agree) that War Ghoul is "over the power curve" for allies. But it *does* cost 3 pool and 2 actions (which is substantially more than Protect Thine Own costs, for example). > > If War Ghoul were limited to non-Camarilla rushes and cost 0 pool and > > didn't require burning an ally or retainer to bring into play [...] > > If so, It would be callable only by a Tzimisce cardinal with capacity > nine or more, as warghoul can be (and is often) called by Horatio, 2 > cap Tzimisce, and it would cost one blood. I can guarantee you that > this warghoul would be probably weaker than the current one. But I > think that LSJ's question was about the same warghoul (3 pool, one > ally or retainer and no blood cost or capcity condition) able to rush > any non Camarilla vampire. Well, obviously we're in the realm of speculation when we start talking about alternate versions of War Ghoul that could exist. It seemed natural to me that War Ghoul would be a lot cheaper if it were more limited in its targets, going on the Protect Thine Own comparison where PTO's targeting restriction is assumed to justify *its* very-low cost. I thought LSJ's question was more of an "Well what about this extension of your "unfair" concept?" kind of question than one tied to a particular version of War Ghoul. Rhetorical, you might say. :-) > By the way, being Tzimice is a weak cost (it allows an option to an > already good clan, it's easy to have all of your vampires be Tzimisce) > as opposed to being an IC : you have to bring a 11 cap vampire, and > only him(rother only her) is able to call the PtO. Sure; this is certainly an advantage to War Ghoul compared to PTO. > The warghoul can throw you vampires in torpor very easily, and rethrow > them should they manage toleave torpor about as easily. Very little > vampires on the table can even damage a warghoul, even without taking > memories of martality into account. Suppose you play vote or bleed : > do you prefer loose a vampire or get rushed by a warghoul every turn ? I'd prefer getting rushed, honestly. War Ghouls you can defend against with your combat defense (just ask Matt Morgan) that you already want to play with because combat happens every game. And you might be able to steal them with Dominate, Presence, Dementation, or Serpentis (am I missing anything?). And even if all that fails, you can get rescued from torpor on your own or by your allies. Once your vampire is burned by PTO, trying to recover means investing another big chunk of pool in trying to bring out a replacement before you get ousted. I absolutely agree that War Ghoul and Palla Grande are very strong cards and on the top of their respective power curves. But I don't think they have as much of a negative impact on the game as a whole as Protect Thine Own does, largely because they work much more in the framework of "established standard effects that are common to every game of VTES". (That is, getting in combat with scary combat minions and getting bled for more than 1, both of which are very typical things that a huge number of common decks do, and which can be accomplished in many practical ways. Getting your vampire burned by a vote, on the other hand, is not a standard effect available to lots of decks, and trying to defend effectively against it requires a very specific set of cards that aren't applicable to as wide a range of "these come up every VTES game" type of effects.) Josh not much for letting sleeping dogs lie

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1e26d99.0401...@posting.google.com... > Still, when I read about the cardless action, I figured PTO's time > would be coming eventually. Not that this should surprise me. Dave > Buerger apparently figures out which cards will be banned/errataed > into oblivion by my current want list. Of the major ones I'm 4/4: > > ToR3 > ToGP > Hostile > 5th Trad Hey, I was pretty fond of Temptation of Greater Power and Hostile Takeover myself. And Fifth Tradition. :-) (I now have a ToGP packing-taped to the top of one of my card-boxes to indicate that it's the box with the master cards in it... now that I only have any use for 2-4 of my 10 ToGPs...) Never got to abuse Tomb, cause I didn't own any before the reprint-with-text-migration. Glad you did, though, Mr. Suitcase. ;-) What about Mind Rape, I bet you were all over that too, huh? > PTO? We can hope! ;-) > Just so my Arika multi-rush is never taken away. Arika multi-rush is comedy gold, baby. They can't take that away. Josh "oh no, they can't take that away from me"

In message <ic3Nb.1428$Xq2.570@fed1read07>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: >But 5th Tradition wasn't fixed -- it was fucked. > >Have you *ever* seen it played -- even once -- since it got changed? Nobody >that I know anywhere in the coutry still plays with this now-worthless card. I see them all the time around here. It's 4 blood, after all. It just can't be used to time a game out anymore, or to support massive bloat via Minion Tap/unblockable 5th with Beast Meld. And regarding your "better cards than 5th" thought -- what cards are you thinking of? No cards exist right now that read "give another vampire 4 blood" except Renewed Vigor (not usable by the average Prince). Restoration is a self-only card and requires superior Fortitude. Plenty of vamps can make good use of 4 blood. Sure, you don't stick 8-10 in a Prince deck as an afterthought anymore, but I can certainly see putting 4 in a EuroBrujah deck (which doesn't have access to Fortitude or Presence). It merely requires changing one's mental perception of the card. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

In message <4005831E...@duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something about: >LSJ wrote: > >> Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if >> it could also target Camarilla vampires. > >It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam >vampires. That's what you think. I'd have a deck ready so fast to demonstrate how it had suddenly turned from "unfair" to "broken" it'd make your head swim. =) 6x Secure Haven 12x PtO-with-Cam-Option 12x Freak Drive Add bleed mods, vote passers, stealth as necessary, as well as enough Wake/Deflect/Obedience to survive until you get a Secure Haven on Arika. Burn one vamp of your prey every turn, Freak Drive, bleed at stealth. Wow, that would be supercool tech. It'd also be ridiculously broken. Burn Deflectors first, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bb705c59.04011...@posting.google.com>, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about: >Here's another thing to boil people's brains. PTO can target any >vampire in the game, Camarilla or otherwise. All you gotta do is Mind >Rape the Camarilla target and then use the victim to become an Anarch >as a cardless action. Nitpick: You cannot become Anarch if you have a title. Nitpick against Clan Impersonation: the victim gets a chance to burn the CI before you can PTO them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:45:50 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >I'd prefer getting rushed, honestly. War Ghouls you can defend against >with your combat defense (just ask Matt Morgan) that you already want to >play with because combat happens every game. And you might be able to >steal them with Dominate, Presence, Dementation, or Serpentis (am I >missing anything?). Art of Luuuuurve.... *smooch* Love thy Warghoul. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:13:18 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <bb705c59.04011...@posting.google.com>, >dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about: > >>Here's another thing to boil people's brains. PTO can target any >>vampire in the game, Camarilla or otherwise. All you gotta do is Mind >>Rape the Camarilla target and then use the victim to become an Anarch >>as a cardless action. > >Nitpick: You cannot become Anarch if you have a title. > >Nitpick against Clan Impersonation: the victim gets a chance to burn >the CI before you can PTO them. Turn 1 of combo: Mind Rape victim, tapping your IC Turn 2: you gain control of the mindraped vamp, and your IC is untapped. the victim CIs while you control it. You PTO the victim while you still control it. No chance to burn CI. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes expounded: > LSJ wrote: > > > Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if > > it could also target Camarilla vampires. > > It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam > vampires. Less frustrating if it was utterly broken.. well an interesting viewpoint certainly.

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bu73vg$edrak$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... > "Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:a1e26d99.0401...@posting.google.com... > > > Still, when I read about the cardless action, I figured PTO's time > > would be coming eventually. Not that this should surprise me. Dave > > Buerger apparently figures out which cards will be banned/errataed > > into oblivion by my current want list. Of the major ones I'm 4/4: > > > > ToR3 > > ToGP > > Hostile > > 5th Trad > > Hey, I was pretty fond of Temptation of Greater Power and Hostile > Takeover myself. And Fifth Tradition. :-) (I now have a ToGP > packing-taped to the top of one of my card-boxes to indicate that it's > the box with the master cards in it... now that I only have any use for > 2-4 of my 10 ToGPs...) > > Never got to abuse Tomb, cause I didn't own any before the > reprint-with-text-migration. Glad you did, though, Mr. Suitcase. ;-) > What about Mind Rape, I bet you were all over that too, huh? Nope, I got the fixed ToR3, I just traded for like 8 of them about a week before Zillah's Valley was printed. So not the abuse, just the complete hosing of the card. Ditto trading for the ToGP's right before Camarilla came out. > > PTO? > > We can hope! ;-) That it's never changed? ;-) > > Just so my Arika multi-rush is never taken away. > > Arika multi-rush is comedy gold, baby. They can't take that away. They never see it coming. After all Arika would use a pocket watch... them BAM, Assault Rifle. The hard part was playing skill cards in an IC deck. Cameron

salem expounded: > Turn 1 of combo: Mind Rape victim, tapping your IC > Turn 2: you gain control of the mindraped vamp, and your IC is > untapped. > the victim CIs while you control it. You PTO the victim while you > still control it. No chance to burn CI. I'm sure there are better things to do once you mind rape someone.

Derek Ray wrote: > That's what you think. I'd have a deck ready so fast to demonstrate how > it had suddenly turned from "unfair" to "broken" it'd make your head > swim. =) It would be less frustrating to me because I hardly ever play Cam anymore, so I'm no more of a target than before. It would be comforting that such a stupid effect now affected everyone equally. But the fact that it would be all over the landscape would be *more* frustrating, sure. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

Timlagor wrote: > Less frustrating if it was utterly broken.. well an interesting > viewpoint certainly. Leaving you with the clear stance that its targeting restriction is what prevents it from being broken? That's been gone over already. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. Tap Heidelburgh to move all the blood, etc. to the IC you just drained of blood with a Minion Tap and then fire off the combo. Or the "Raped, Raved, Razed" deck I published a while ago. Whatever else you do, any vampire you Mind Rape should either be burned or end up in your permanent control. Never, ever, give it back. Also, one other nitpick reponse to Derek's flawed nitpicking. He assumed you control only one IC. If I was to be building an IC deck, I'd be looking for ways to bring out several. Regards, Noal

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7tae00h0757glh1f1...@4ax.com>... > In message <4005831E...@duke.edu>, > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something > about: > > >LSJ wrote: > > > >> Hmm. I don't believe it would be less frustrating to those players if > >> it could also target Camarilla vampires. > > > >It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam > >vampires. > > That's what you think. I'd have a deck ready so fast to demonstrate how > it had suddenly turned from "unfair" to "broken" it'd make your head > swim. =) Better "fair" and "broken" and therefore "BANNED" than "unfair," "overpowered" and "tourney legal."

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1e26d99.0401...@posting.google.com... > Nope, I got the fixed ToR3, I just traded for like 8 of them about a > week before Zillah's Valley was printed. So not the abuse, just the > complete hosing of the card. Ah, I see. That's not exactly an errata/banning hosing, though, it's just an older card becoming kind of obsolete when a newer better one was printed. :-) > Ditto trading for the ToGP's right before Camarilla came out. Heh, those I got to abuse for a while. That, actually, was the card that helped make Sheldon "Flatley", Lord of the Clog Dance, my favorite vampire for a long time. > > > PTO? > > > > We can hope! ;-) > > That it's never changed? ;-) Well, if it's not, I can keep doing my best to drive dozens if not hundreds of players out of the game by burning their vampires as punishment for them showing up at the table with non-Cams... ;-) > > Arika multi-rush is comedy gold, baby. They can't take that away. > > They never see it coming. After all Arika would use a pocket watch... > them BAM, Assault Rifle. The hard part was playing skill cards in an > IC deck. Last night I played a Potence master on Sutekh the Dark God... so he could double-superior Typhonic Beast. Man, that deck is bad. But no one could possibly Obedience him... not even Ur-Shulgi with his Rutor's Hand, two players down. :-) I really liked your Arika multi-rush design, I nearly played it in a JOL game, then didn't and played a variant on the 14-Protect Thine Own deck instead. hehehe. Sadly I was inexperienced in the ways of the PTO, Minion Tapped for too much, suffered too many block attempts and a Delay, and ended up screwed in mandatory-hunt land. Josh "you're planning to bum's rush with sutekh and you think it's 'probably' bad...?"

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7tae00h0757glh1f1...@4ax.com... > In message <4005831E...@duke.edu>, > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something > about: > >It would be less frustrating to this player if it could also target Cam > >vampires. > > That's what you think. I'd have a deck ready so fast to demonstrate how > it had suddenly turned from "unfair" to "broken" it'd make your head > swim. =) > > 6x Secure Haven > 12x PtO-with-Cam-Option > 12x Freak Drive > > Add bleed mods, vote passers, stealth as necessary, as well as enough > Wake/Deflect/Obedience to survive until you get a Secure Haven on Arika. > > Burn one vamp of your prey every turn, Freak Drive, bleed at stealth. > Wow, that would be supercool tech. It'd also be ridiculously broken. > Burn Deflectors first, of course. You know what the great thing about this is? You can already do it with Protect Thine Own as printed, as long as at least one player at the table is playing a non-Camarilla deck! (Dramatic Upheaval to make them your prey, whoosh bang zoom.) Josh and that's why protect thine own is perfectly balanced

David Cherryholmes expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > > Less frustrating if it was utterly broken.. well an interesting > > viewpoint certainly. > > Leaving you with the clear stance that its targeting restriction is what > prevents it from being broken? That's been gone over already. Leaving you with the stance that it's broken already. Sorry if I didn't make clear that i was only dealing in your (apparent) opinions.