Auspexless Bleed Reduction

So I was discussing this over in the Disciplinless Bleed Bounce thread, but figured I'd move it over here, as that thread is getting unweildy. Anyway, in reference to the idea of disciplinless bleed bounce, I surmised that such a card wouldn't be such a good idea for various reasons, and was advocating for different kinds of bleed defense for non bounce enabled clans/decks. Which got me thinking about the underutilized bleed reduction idea. Basically, the paradigm of the game has always been that Auspex gets "good" bleed reduction (assuming for the discussion that Telepathic Counter is good bleed reduction), and so non Auspex bleed reduction cards tend to be conditional and mostly low yeild. As noted by many previously, Auspex having bleed reduction is, for the most part, redundant, as if you can use superior Telepathic Counter, you can also play Telepathic Misdirection, and as bleed bounce is *so* much better than bleed reduction, Telepathic Counter (and as such, bleed reduction as a general defense) mostly gets left by the wayside. Yeah, I realize that occasionally there are situations where Telepathic Counter is going to make more sense for a deck than Telepathic Misdirection, but 90% of the time, the deck is just going to use Telepathic Misdirection instead. This being the case, why not simply accept that bleed reduction in Auspex was a bad idea in the first place, and open up bleed reduction to other disciplines that really could use the help, in terms of bleed defense? If we simply did away with the idea that Auspex has the choke hold on good bleed reduction and went from there, a lot of useful cards could be introduced into the environment and non bounce enabled clans/decks could gain access to some reasonable reactive bleed defense without introducing a disciplinless bleed bounce card as a magic bullet. There is nothing inherrently "Auspexy" about bleed reduction, such that it *needs* to be an Auspex power (using Obfuscate to hide resources your opponents are trying to sabotage; using Animalism to get a swarm of bugs to foil that robbery against you; using celerity to cut off a plot before it starts; whatever) and the introduction of other various (conditional and low yeild) bleed reduction cards indicates that there is really no need to keep bleed reduction in Auspex. Why not make good, flexible, bleed reduction cards? Something like an Obfuscate modifier/reaction card that is +1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2 (keeping in mind that this specific example might or might not actually be a good idea, but the concept stands)? Or a fortitude combat/reaction card that says prevent 1 damage/reduce a bleed by 2? Something like that, where there is flexibility (so you don't have to jam your deck up with possibly unseable bleed defense) and reasonable bleed defense. The most recent bleed reduction cards (Terra Incognita, Ancestor's Insight, Confusion of the Eye) have the flexibility part down and are good cards (Ancestor's Insight is good to the point that I have a pretty solid deck in current operation that has 18 of them. Yet still also has a few Telepathich Misdirections...), but still are conditional and low yeild (i.e. they only ever reduce a bleed by 1, which isn't really enough to act as solid bleed defense. This might be a horrible idea. But maybe not. And maybe the key is to do away with the idea that only Auspex gets good bleed reduction. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] After reading Peter's thought-provoking essay, let me be the first to say: BAN DEFLECTION! ;) Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] I too have often thought that banning deflection (or bleed bounce in general) would be an elegant solution. Unfortunately, bazooka super-stealth bleed becomes really strong if you ban deflection. I think you might make dominate even stronger if you would ban deflection as funny as that sounds. I agree with Peter that Auspex's access to bounce makes bleed reduction sketchy at best. I do like the new(er) bleed reduction cards that have other effects. A bleed reduction card that was usable by a tapped vampire would be really cool. Maybe something along the lines of ... Take one for the team 1 blood Playable by a tapped vampire [some discipline at inferior] reduce a bleed by 1. [same discipline at superior] reduce a bleed by 2. All other fun conditions could be added to change it up, like only usable by a vampire with capacity above X, only usable once per action, etc. LSJ and White Wolf are free to use any or all of my above ideas in card creation. I retain no rights to these idea. Later, ~Rehlow

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > but 90% of the time, the deck is just going to use > Telepathic Misdirection instead. this must be the stupidest thing i have read on this newsgroup so far.

[ quoted text not captured ] Durp durp! I eat paint! And taunt sharks! And catch javelins! And combo Coma with Tortured Confessions! Durp!

dome wrote: > this must be the stupidest thing i have read on this newsgroup so far. Please. Defend this statement. Indicate how Telepathic Counter is more often than not simply going to be left in a box when building a coherent bleed defense. Really. Go one and do so. I realize that, yeah, once and a while, you'll have a deck where you regularly have multiple untapped minions with AUS, don't want to spend the blood, and where a good handfull of Telepathic Counters is going to be a good plan. But most of the time, if you can use Telepathic Counter effectively (i.e. you have AUS, as inferior Telepathic Counter is really not that handy, in terms of deck space use), you are simply better off just using Telepathic Misdirection. 'Cause bouncing the bleed to your prey is vastly more effective, even at 1 blood, than reducing a bleed by 2. I mean, like, you are perfectly welcome to think that is the stupidest thing you have ever read on this newsgroup, but unless you bother to back up your statement with support and evidence, you look, shall we say, foolish. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > The most recent bleed reduction cards (Terra Incognita, Ancestor's > Insight, Confusion of the Eye) have the flexibility part down and are Don't forget Friend of Mine and Aversion. And that Obeah card...uh...Peacemaker. Well, also Glare of Lies, but it requires AUS & OBE. Covincraft. Aversion is super good in draft. Well, assuming you have some intercept and some !Salubri. > This might be a horrible idea. But maybe not. And maybe the key is to > do away with the idea that only Auspex gets good bleed reduction. It seems like the design team has been moving that way...I like it. I think what previous bleed reduction cards had been missing (Ecstasy, Banner of Neutrality) had been missing is that they only reduce a bleed by 1. That's not really all that helpful in the long run. Seems like most everything after Final Nights that has had bleed reduction has had some other sideline. Well, except Folderol, but it gets a pass since it's totally useful to save your friends. That is all. Xian

mummy wrote: > Durp durp! I eat paint! And taunt sharks! And catch javelins! And > combo Coma with Tortured Confessions! Durp! i didn't quite get that one.

Xian wrote: > It seems like the design team has been moving that way...I like it. It has, indicating that they even think it is a good idea (getting more bleed reduction in play). But I think they have been a bit too stingy with it--too careful to not introduce a bleed reduction card that makes Telepathic Counter become wallpapered, as the paradigm always has been that Auspex gets the good bleed reduction. I think they should just accept that that is a bad idea (the auspex = good bleed reduction) and get some solid, non Auspex bleed reduction out there (i.e. not highly conditional, that reduces a bleed by 2 with a superior discipline, that has flexibility so it isn't too narrow to actually include in a deck). Like, Terra Incognita is good as it is flexible (reduce a bleed by 1 or cancel a bounce at you). Friend of Mine is theoretically good, but as it is an anarch card and costs a blood, it isn't really that good. Confusion of the Eye is good, but as the bleed reduction is conditional and only for 1, it mostly functions as a way to justify putting Confusion of the Eye in a deck in a general sense for the superior version, but gives you the ability to cycle and use it if you don' t need the strong effect of the card--which is good in terms of design, but not so good in terms of actual bleed defense. Anscestor's Insight is fantastic (in a narrow group of decks--i.e. Laibon decks with reliable AUS) due to the flexibility, but then, it is also already in Auspex. These recent cards are all a good start, but they all (ignoring Ancestor's Insight) are likely held back by "auspex = good bleed reduction". -Peter

dome wrote: > i didn't quite get that one. See, what Mummy wrote was easily stupider than what I wrote. Thus, he provided you with something stupider to read on the newsgroup. It was gold comedy material. But then Jon is good for that. And isn't he also in England right now? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] He is! And he has free unlimited internet in his room! Which is great, cuz his ATM card doesn't work! -Jon

mummy wrote: > He is! And he has free unlimited internet in his room! Which is > great, cuz his ATM card doesn't work! Sweet! Just be happy that keyboards in England aren't like the ones in France. 'Cause then you end up typing like a brain damaged 4 year old if you aren't used to them. Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion... -Peter

Rehlow wrote: > I too have often thought that banning deflection (or bleed bounce in > general) would be an elegant solution. Unfortunately, bazooka > super-stealth bleed becomes really strong if you ban deflection. I > think you might make dominate even stronger if you would ban deflection > as funny as that sounds. So imagine banning deflection AND doing that AI tweak I was talking about, where AI's fly out about like DI's do now. Only it wouldn't have the super-obnoxious feel of DI because there's only one thing that opens you up to it, and you have to choose to go over the top. Or, you know, Revelate it. If Malk94 starts playing 6 or 8 Revelations as a result, that's probably "good enough" dilution on its own. > I agree with Peter that Auspex's access to bounce makes bleed reduction > sketchy at best. I do like the new(er) bleed reduction cards that have > other effects. I don't. They are too weak. Chopping a bleed down by one says "I can dump this out of my hand when I want." What it doesn't say is "I live!" I think Peter is right about on target with the power level. +1 stealth/reduce by 2, or prevent 1/reduce by 2. Those would be *playable*. They would be *hot* cards. I mean, remember, we're measuring these cards against *Deflection*. Are we trying to fiddle with its place in the food chain or fill a blank spot on a sheet? The answer matters.

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153167080....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > As noted by many previously, Auspex having bleed reduction is, for the > most part, redundant, as if you can use superior Telepathic Counter, > you can also play Telepathic Misdirection, and as bleed bounce is *so* > much better than bleed reduction, Telepathic Counter (and as such, > bleed reduction as a general defense) mostly gets left by the wayside. It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a reduction of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction. But since more ways of constucting defense this game does NOT need, I'm just as happy not to create more. I'd much prefer that another means of ousting your prey were added to the game. Fred

> > After reading Peter's thought-provoking essay, let me be the first to > say: > > BAN DEFLECTION! ;) > > Jeff Some members of our playgroup was discussing Deflection, and bleed bounces in general, a week ago and came up with the idea that the Auspecs bounces are OK, My Enemy's Enemy is probably the most balanced because you potentially make an enemy at the table that you wouldn't usually have. However on the topic of Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection we came up with the idea of instead of bouncing the full bleed you bounce the bleed -2 but never less than 1. Our reasoning for this is that you've sent your minion out to undermine a specific Methuselah's power/influence you get there and everything is set for a great attack (eg bleed for 5) however when you get there there is another minion waiting to dominate your mind/saw you coming and convince you that this is not a good target or it's not the right place. So yourr minion moves to the new place they've been directed. However the plan was set up specifically attack the 1st Methuselah's assets therefore when your minion gets to their new target the attack isn't as effective. This could equate to a bleed reduciton of 2 but the attack is always successful to a degree so the bleed cannot be reduced to less than 1 through bounces. This way bounce does not take over the game like it currently does.

Fred Scott wrote: > It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic > Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a reduction > of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division > of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction. I don't know that even going to 2/3 would make the strategy useful. If someone's bleeding me for 3+, I'm much more likely to want to bleed my prey with it than reduce it by 3. If, however, TC at superior AUS were something like "Reduce a bleed by 2 and the acting minion does not untap as normal during its next untap phase." That's a card I would play with. oct

[ quoted text not captured ] Hahaha... Trolling is good fun. Trolling makes you friends. Trolling creates for you very powerful allies in your pursuits in life. Trolling wins you women, men, and even transvestites, all day, every day. Trolling makes you smell better, thinner, and makes your attributes bigger. Trolling stops premature, postmature, and just plain mature balding. But it doesn't make you any less of an ass. best - chris

> I don't know that even going to 2/3 would make the strategy useful. If > someone's bleeding me for 3+, I'm much more likely to want to bleed my > prey with it than reduce it by 3. And it's been mentioned in other ways and other places, but the real issue with bounce is that it's the most efficient offense in the game. Just saying. Ankur

"OctavianCMB" <octav...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153178259.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: > >> It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic >> Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a reduction >> of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division >> of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction. > > I don't know that even going to 2/3 would make the strategy useful. If > someone's bleeding me for 3+, I'm much more likely to want to bleed my > prey with it than reduce it by 3. You've been trapped into making a comparison by taking into consideration only some situations, not all of them. Telepathic Counter has one major advantage over Telepathic Misdirection: it doesn't tap the defender. This makes it more efficient at defending against more smaller bleeders. The problem with current TC is, you can't depend on more smaller bleeders. Sometimes you get one or two mondo bleeders, and then TM is better, all things considered - including your point about giving your prey a bleed to occupy his resources. If you up TC to 2/3 however, it covers more situations better and that should rebalance the choice between the two more in its favor. Never mind that it's still quite possible to point at situations where you'd rather be holding a Misdirection than a Counter. If there weren't situations like that, I'd have obsolesced Telepathic Misdirection with my hypothesized change. Quite obviously, I wasn't trying to do that as I made the above point. > If, however, TC at superior AUS were something like "Reduce a bleed by > 2 and the acting minion does not untap as normal during its next untap > phase." That's a card I would play with. Perhaps. I don't know how far you'd have to go improving Telepathic Counter to make the two cards seem equally strong, which is a pretty subject assessment anyway. As I said in my previous post, adding more strength to the defenders' options doesn't strike me as something that would make the game better at all. So ultimately, I wouldn't care to make either adjustment. Fred

Xian wrote: > > I think what previous bleed reduction cards had been missing (Ecstasy, > Banner of Neutrality) had been missing is that they only reduce a bleed > by 1. Played by themselves they only reduce a bleed by one true but if you play both thats a reduction of possibly 2 and they can be played by the same minion. Not saying its superior to TC just that it does work. Besides, is bleed reduction really a waste? If your getting bled for 5 it may seem that way but anything that keeps my pool IN my pool is a good thing to my mind.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > I mean, like, you are perfectly welcome to think that is the stupidest > thing you have ever read on this newsgroup, but unless you bother to > back up your statement with support and evidence, you look, shall we > say, foolish. Well, let's see. Telepathic Counter does not tap you. It's free. This especially shows for a better card when you're tapped, and have to spend 2 blood to force/misdirect. And then your predator gets a spying mission. That's what obf bleeders do, you know. If they have the slightest idea of what they're doing. A good player is going to go to provoking bleeds to tap you and then go do important actions when you're tapped. Telepathic counter takes care of that. And please, do try misdirecting a setite's bleed. And let him get the edge anyway. I mean, there are millions of situations where it's just more sane to reduce the bleed than it is to misdirect it. Every auspex deck I have had, has 6 TC's in it. Because, it is the best bleed defense card there is. And, I didn't even start to talk about what happens if your prey has some bleed bounce available. But hey, if you say that telepathic counter is stupid, then it must be so.

[ quoted text not captured ] IMHO, the real problems of bleed-reduction cards are: 1). You have to leave a vampire untapped (or spend a Wake) to play them. 2). They become "dead cards" when nobody bleeds you. Thus, there is no need for making TC stronger - we need a *disciplineless* card that work for a tapped vampire and can provide another benefit. Something like this: Card Name: Elder's Knowledge Card Type: Action Modifier/Reaction [Action Modifier] Usable by a vampire if a younger vampire attempted to block this action or played a reaction card during this action. Draw a card, then discard a card. [Reaction] Usable by a vampire (possibly tapped) when a younger vampire bleeds you. Reduce the bleed by 1. This card is playable, but not broken. It favors large vampires and does nothing for weenies. It saves your pool or improves your hand, and it doesn't require any Disciplines. What else one could expect from a single card? Best regards, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] I can only second that. To simplify it, TM is an anti-big bleed tech, TC is anti-weenie tech. If you have 2 minions bleeding for 5 behind you, TM is great. So is TC, if there is 5 minions bleeding for 2 each - and you dont have infinite amount of blood and WWEF available. I always included both in my decks, in a rough 50:50 ratio. If I look into the TWDA (and make a statistical assumption of it :)), in one third of the archive, there is 65 Telepathic Counters (then I got bored and stopped to count), ranging from 2-16 pieces in each deck using it. Not too bad for a "clearly inferior card", which needs to be fixed :) again, usenet provides me with a big LOL.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > I realize that, yeah, once and a while, you'll have a deck where you > regularly have multiple untapped minions with AUS Oh, and you don't have to have a deck with "regularly multiple untapped minions" to properly use TC. You get a TC, leave a 5-cap with AUS untapped. Or have a hand full of TC's, leave 2 minions untapped, and watch the bleeder waste his actions. And you reshuffle your hand. And, as far as bleeding for 3+ goes, it's irresponsible and risky, and no good bleeder is ever going to go over 3, because of AI, deflections, misdirections, and such. I really don't remember the last time I've seen a good bleeder going over 3 in my surrounding. Those kind of bleeds end up at seriously fuck up places around the table, or get the bleeding minion burned. Or generate so much hate from usually no-bleed-defense-combat's that they're happy to go cross table torn signpost-grapple-blur-agg burn them. Holding 6 TC's in your deck is the best thing you can do with an auspex deck, because TC is NEVER, and i mean NEVER a dead card. Presuming you can play, though, and I can understand that can be tough. It saves you exactly 2/5 of your 30 pool, if used correctly. I consider that to be quite much, don't know about you.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Bleed reduction of less than 2 is garbage. Telepathic Counter sees play ONLY for its superior. Folderol sees play because: - -- You can leave Bartholomew untapped and play TC + Folderol to reduce by 3, while also gaining a pool at the start of your turn - -- You can jerk your prey up short on any bleed for 1. - -- You can draw table hate by randomly neutralizing bleeds. Note that Folderol doesn't see play as bleed defense in and of itself; only when coupled with TC or when intended to be used as an aggressive means of forcing your prey to show his bleed mods or bleed for 0. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFEvNJztQZlu3o7QpERAhk2AJj3kAXuPwAKneKOGu0noVjMKIQWAJwLNXTQ bV8CgxmmX6sMV8xGYXGAKg== =kRzO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fred Scott wrote: > Sometimes you get one or two mondo bleeders, and then TM is better, all > things considered - including your point about giving your prey a bleed > to occupy his resources. Well, let's look at the two scenarios presented. Assume that I can't beat whatever stealth I'm bled with, and that I will be bled by either two Vampires for 5, or 5 Vampires for 2. I have 2 cards which are either Telepathic Counter or Telepathic Misdirection, an untapped Vampires with AUS and a Wake in hand. With two TCs, I take 6 pool either way, at the cost of zero blood. With one TC and one TM, I take 3 pool in the first scenario, and 6 in the second. This costs me one blood and I still have my Wake. In the first scenario, my prey is bled for 5, and in the second, he is bled for 2. With two TMs, then in the first scenario, I get bled for nothing, and my prey is bled for 10. In the second, I get bled for 6, and my prey for 4. This costs me 2 blood and my Wake. Now clearly, in the first scenario, investing entirely in TMs is the way to go. In the second scenario, two TCs isn't the way to go, and arguments can be made on both sides of the question as to whether to go with two TMs, or one TC and one TM. So TM is looking better, right? Well, how about scenario 3? I will be bled by 4 guys for 1, who will not be bleeding with stealth, but will tear my head off if I block. If I bounce them to my prey, he can block with no negative consequences. At worst, they will strike for hands, and it's quite possible they'll do some Maneuver/Dodge deal, or my prey will block and untap with Majesty. In this situation, reducing the first two bleeds and taking the next 2 on the chin seems like the best option to me. Using TMs costs me blood, which I will need on my Vampires in order to prevent them from going into torpor or for pulling them out of torpor if this is some kind of Disarm deck. And unless my prey is really on the ropes, spending 1 blood to do 1 pool damage is not likely to be a great investment, since my own offence probably has greater returns. Also, if I'm on the ropes, and Tension isn't in play, then with two TCs I can reduce two bleeds, and block the other two. Kevin Walsh

Kevin Walsh wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > > Sometimes you get one or two mondo bleeders, and then TM is better, all > > things considered - including your point about giving your prey a bleed > > to occupy his resources. > > Well, let's look at the two scenarios presented. Assume that I can't > beat whatever stealth I'm bled with, and that I will be bled by either > two Vampires for 5, or 5 Vampires for 2. I have 2 cards which are > either Telepathic Counter or Telepathic Misdirection, an untapped > Vampires with AUS and a Wake in hand. well, this reasoning, while interesting, is obviously biased in favor of TM. Why dont you assume that the bleeds are without any stealth, and/or or your prey can easily deal with them while spending minimum of resources, with blocking/earth meld, reducing the bleed, predator playing spying mission, change of target? Than the whole part about "prey being bled for x" is highly questionable. also, you automatically assume that you have a Wake in your hand, so you arent actually comparing 2 TCs _vs_ 2 TMs, but 2 TCs _vs_ 2 TMs AND a Wake. Without that Wake, you can still use both TCs (and maybe draw into a third), but only one TM.. [ quoted text not captured ]

dome wrote: > Well, let's see. Telepathic Counter does not tap you. It's free. This > especially shows for a better card when you're tapped, and have to spend > 2 blood to force/misdirect. See, that is a much better response. Yeah, it does not tap you and it is free. Those are both good. But it only reduces a bleed by 2 (we are assuming AUS here), so most of the times that you use it, you are going to end up losing pool anyway. And Telepathic Misdirection not only saves you from an entire bleed (so you lose no pool), but it potentially makes your prey lose the pool instead. Which is rediculously efficient. Even costing a blood and tapping your guy. And if you are using Telepathic Misdirection as bleed defense, why would you be using Forced to play it while tapped? That is why Wake is still useful. > And then your predator gets a spying > mission. That's what obf bleeders do, you know. Sometimes, sure. Yet still, you are taking no pool loss from the bleed, as opposed to X-2. Unless you are suggesting that you have multiple minions available to Telepathic Counter, which is even more inefficient. And even then, it isn't like Spying Mission tech has made people not use bleed bounce. > Telepathic counter takes care of that. And please, do try > misdirecting a setite's bleed. And let him get the edge anyway. I mean, > there are millions of situations where it's just more sane to reduce the > bleed than it is to misdirect it. You are going to build a whole deck defense around not wanting the Settites to get the Edge? That seems like sketchy deck design to me. There are certainly decks that sometimes want to use Telepathic Counter instead of Telepathic Misdirection, sure. But not many. I'm sure if you went to the TWDA and searched to see how many decks contained Telepathic Misdirection compared to how many decks contained Telepathic Counter, you would be (apparently) surprised. > Every auspex deck I have had, has 6 > TC's in it. Because, it is the best bleed defense card there is. Umm, ok. > And, I > didn't even start to talk about what happens if your prey has some bleed > bounce available. But hey, if you say that telepathic counter is stupid, > then it must be so. I'm not quite sure what your native language is, but I'm unsure what words I wrote that you read as "Telepathic Counter is stupid", 'cause I didn't write any. Telepathic Counter is wildly less effective than Telepathic Misdirection in the vast majority of the situations one would use them, yes. Stupid? No. You were the one who introduced the word "stupid" to the discussion. -Peter

Alias wrote: > Not too bad for a "clearly inferior card", which needs to be fixed :) > > again, usenet provides me with a big LOL. And usenet provides me with a big laugh at how quickly discussions become misconstrued. Where in this discussion is anyone claiming that Telepathic Counter needs to be fixed? Telepathic Counter is clearly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection, in terms of efficient bleed defense. It is fine, in and of itself, but because AUS allows you to use Telepathic Misdirection instead of Telepathic Counter, Telepathic Counter gets the short shrift. Which is why I am suggesting that non Auspex disciplines should have access to bleed reduction of a similar power level of Telepathic Counter. This does not equate "Telepathic Counter needs to be fixed". I'm not quite sure where you got that from. -Peter

dome wrote: > Oh, and you don't have to have a deck with "regularly multiple untapped > minions" to properly use TC. You get a TC, leave a 5-cap with AUS > untapped. Or have a hand full of TC's, leave 2 minions untapped, and > watch the bleeder waste his actions. Or, you could do the same thing, watch the bleeder waste his actions, and make your prey lose 6-10 pool at the same time. I dunno about you, but the second seems like a much better deal to me. > And you reshuffle your hand. And, > as far as bleeding for 3+ goes, it's irresponsible and risky, and no > good bleeder is ever going to go over 3, because of AI, deflections, > misdirections, and such. And yet, people still do it all the time. And win by doing so all the time. 'Cause the gain that you get by bleeding for 5+ is so huge compared to the risk of getting occasionally AIed and Deflected when you can't Spying Mission makes it worth doing. Bleeding for more than 3 in a Supersar deck is a bad idea, as if your single important vampire gets AIed, that is usually the end of the game. But bleeding for 4+ with mid sized, generic minions (Malkavians, Lasombra, Kisayid, anyone with Presence, anyone with Dominate) has a vastly inappropriate gain vs risk ratio. > I really don't remember the last time I've seen > a good bleeder going over 3 in my surrounding. You live in a special and wonderful place, apparently. Where no one ever bleeds for more than 3 and Telepathic Counter is the best bleed defense in the world. If only we all lived there. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > But since more ways of constucting defense this game does NOT need, > I'm just as happy not to create more. I'd much prefer that another > means of ousting your prey were added to the game. See, I don't know that this is true. Yeah, it is easy to defend one's self, as long as you are playing Dominate or Auspex. If you aren't playing one of those disciplines, and you sit down stream from a heavy bleed deck, you are likely just dead regardless of what your deck does. I think adding more viable (i.e. flexible) bleed defense to non Dominate/Auspex disciplines would not make the game harder to play. It would just make Dominate/Auspex less of a necessity. Instead of seeing 50% of the decks in the game having some amount of Dominate in them (simply because Deflection is so good), you'd have the same number of decks with bleed defense, but fewer of them would involve Dominate, say. -Peter

dome <le...@email.htnet.hr> wrote in news:e9iee2$g66$1...@ss408.t-com.hr: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > >> I realize that, yeah, once and a while, you'll have a deck where you >> regularly have multiple untapped minions with AUS > > > > Oh, and you don't have to have a deck with "regularly multiple > untapped minions" to properly use TC. You get a TC, leave a 5-cap with > AUS untapped. Or have a hand full of TC's, leave 2 minions untapped, > and watch the bleeder waste his actions. And you reshuffle your hand. > And, as far as bleeding for 3+ goes, it's irresponsible and risky, and > no good bleeder is ever going to go over 3, because of AI, > deflections, misdirections, and such. Yeah, that turns out to be simply Not Accurate. It turns out, AI is typically a very acceptable risk vs. the return you get in bleed offense, given the low per-minion investment made by the bleeder, and big bleeders now pack tech so as to deal with bleeds going astray (cf. Short Leash Bleed, Responsible Bleed). > I really don't remember the last > time I've seen a good bleeder going over 3 in my surrounding. Those > kind of bleeds end up at seriously fuck up places around the table, or > get the bleeding minion burned. Or generate so much hate from usually > no-bleed-defense-combat's that they're happy to go cross table torn > signpost-grapple-blur-agg burn them. Cool! Now all you have to do, is realize how your local meta-game is affecting your assessment of TC vs. TM, and you'll be set! DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > Cool! Now all you have to do, is realize how your local meta-game is > affecting your assessment of TC vs. TM, and you'll be set! Dave, will you marry me? -Peter

Derek Ray wrote: > sutekh_23 wrote: > > Xian wrote: > > > [ stuff about Ecstasy, Banner of Neutrality] > > > > Played by themselves they only reduce a bleed by one true but if you > > play both thats a reduction of possibly 2 and they can be played by the > > same minion. Not saying its superior to TC just that it does work. So you're going to use 2 cards to reduce a bleed by 2? How many slots are you devoting to this tactic? I've *seen* this done, I just think it's...wasteful. > > Besides, is bleed reduction really a waste? If your getting bled for 5 Ineffective bleed reduction is a waste. Reducing a bleed of 5 by 1 just delays the inevitable. Alternatively, consider that reducing a Govern the Unaligned bleed (3) by 1 reduces it to a bleed of 2, still worth the acting vampire paying 1 blood. Reducing the GtU by 2 turns it into a normal bleed of 1 (that costs 1)...to me, that 2 reduction is kind of a watershed point. > > it may seem that way but anything that keeps my pool IN my pool is a > > good thing to my mind. > > Yes. Bleed reduction of less than 2 is garbage. > Telepathic Counter sees play ONLY for its superior. Yup. Well, people play it at inferior if forced to by a bad crypt draw or something, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone put TC in a deck that only had aus. > Folderol sees play because: > - -- You can draw table hate by randomly neutralizing bleeds. I prefer to think of it as "gaining table love". > Note that Folderol doesn't see play as bleed defense in and of itself; > only when coupled with TC or when intended to be used as an aggressive > means of forcing your prey to show his bleed mods or bleed for 0. Also true. Xian mostly just plays bleed redirection anyway

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153229165.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Alias wrote: >> Not too bad for a "clearly inferior card", which needs to be fixed :) >> >> again, usenet provides me with a big LOL. > > And usenet provides me with a big laugh at how quickly discussions > become misconstrued. Where in this discussion is anyone claiming that > Telepathic Counter needs to be fixed? ...er, ahem...too much hubris, Peter. I may have said something that sounded an awful lot like (but wasn't exactly) that. Fred

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Alias wrote: > > Not too bad for a "clearly inferior card", which needs to be fixed :) > > > > again, usenet provides me with a big LOL. > > And usenet provides me with a big laugh at how quickly discussions > become misconstrued. Where in this discussion is anyone claiming that > Telepathic Counter needs to be fixed? come and see, and I saw: "If, however, TC at superior AUS were something like "Reduce a bleed by 2 and the acting minion does not untap as normal during its next untap phase." That's a card I would play with." "It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a reduction of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction." > > Telepathic Counter is clearly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection, in > terms of efficient bleed defense. it is not, but you can try to repeat this more times, maybe the reality will change for you :)) there were arguments said, you didnt reply to them yet - so lets discuss :) > because AUS allows you to use Telepathic Misdirection instead of > Telepathic Counter, Telepathic Counter gets the short shrift. Which is > why I am suggesting that non Auspex disciplines should have access to > bleed reduction of a similar power level of Telepathic Counter. In the first place, I agree with Fred Scott, that this game doesnt really need more defensive options for *any* clan. The games are already too slow and boring sometimes. If you feel that clans without AUS or DOM are so handicapped, give them more *offensive* power, to compensate for their lesser durability. > > This does not equate "Telepathic Counter needs to be fixed". I'm not > quite sure where you got that from. btw, please, dont always stick to one sentence from my post, try to reply to the obvious main issue, which is: To simplify it, TM is an anti-big bleed tech, TC is anti-weenie tech. If you have 2 minions bleeding for 5 behind you, TM is great. So is TC, if there is 5 minions bleeding for 2 each - and you dont have infinite amount of blood and WWEF available. > > -Peter

I wrote: > I'm sure if you > went to the TWDA and searched to see how many decks contained > Telepathic Misdirection compared to how many decks contained Telepathic > Counter, you would be (apparently) surprised. So feeling full of beans, I did just this. I checked the decks in the TWDA from today back till Origins, 2004 (Which was last weekend of June, as two full years of tournament winning decks seemed like a reasonable sample, but I'm sure we could go back further and the same thing would hold), and here is what I found: -Telepathic Misdirections shows up in 72 (seventy two) of the decks in the sample. -Telepathic Counter shows up in 17 (seventeen) of the decks in the sample. In the vast majority of those 17 occurances of Telepathic Counter, the deck also has Telepathic Misdirection, and more of them as well. There were a couple decks that had Telepathic Counter and no Telepathic Misdirection. And a couple decks that had a lot of Telepathic Counter and a few Telepathic Misdirection. But mostly, there was a bunch of Telepathic Misidrection and a few Telepathic Counters thrown in. Please carry on with the discussion. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > ...er, ahem...too much hubris, Peter. Which inevitably gets me struck down. Damn those gods. > I may have said something that > sounded an awful lot like (but wasn't exactly) that. Sure, but in the context of "how do you make Telepathic Counter as good as Telepathic Misdirection", not in the conext of "Telepathic Counter is bad in and of itself." I think if bleed bounce didn't exist? Telepathic Counter would probably be everyone's favorite card. As a lot of other people pointed out elsewhere, Telepathic Counter doesn't necessarily need upgrading, bounce probably needs downgrading. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > So feeling full of beans, I did just this. I checked the decks in the > TWDA from today back till Origins, 2004 (Which was last weekend of > June, as two full years of tournament winning decks seemed like a > reasonable sample, but I'm sure we could go back further and the same > thing would hold), and here is what I found: See, this is why I need to get back on my project of charting all the TWDA decks. Dang. Gotta get on that. Soon...ish. Xian lazy

Alias wrote: > "If, however, TC at superior AUS were something like "Reduce a bleed by > 2 and the acting minion does not untap as normal during its next untap > phase." That's a card I would play with." > > "It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic > Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a > reduction of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division > of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction." Which is an argument to make Telepathic Counter as good as Telepathic Misdirection, which is a different argument than simply "Telepathic Counter needs an upgrade". 'Cause bleed bounce is arguably already too good, and asking to upgrade Telepathic Counter to the level of Telepathic Misdirection is asking, essentially, to upgrade everything in the game to the most powerful measuring stick. Like, yeah, a few people mentioned making Telepathic Counter better, but I don't think anyone actually cares if this happens or not. > it is not, but you can try to repeat this more times, maybe the reality > will change for you :)) there were arguments said, you didnt reply to > them yet - so lets discuss :) Please go look at my numbers from the TWDA. I suspect that a 72 to 17 disparity of Telepathic Misdirection to Telepathic Counter certainly supports the idea that Telepathic Misdirection is far more efficient. -Peter

"Kevin Walsh" <hja...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message news:1153226039.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Now clearly, in the first scenario, investing entirely in TMs is the > way to go. In the second scenario, two TCs isn't the way to go, and > arguments can be made on both sides of the question as to whether to go > with two TMs, or one TC and one TM. So TM is looking better, right? > > Well, how about scenario 3? I will be bled by 4 guys for 1, who will > not be bleeding with stealth, but will tear my head off if I block. (yadda, yadda) Same as the last guy: cook up specific scenarios and present them as if they accurately demonstrate the relative value of the two cards when they don't. For one thing, I don't think you're paying as much attention to Telepathic Counter not tapping the defender as you should. For instance, I didn't see you give any mouth time to the point that playing two Telepathic Misdirections in the same turn requires that you leave two vampires untapped or have a Wake as well. Or that reducing the bleed leaves you untapped to simply block another guy eventually. In my experience, it's much more common to be bled by four guys for one at no stealth who will NOT tear your head off if you block than the way you proposed it. If my predator has four vampire who can tear my vampires' heads off if they block, then fuck it. I'll let 'em have the extra bleed for one. They deserve it. Fred

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153229781.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> But since more ways of constucting defense this game does NOT need, >> I'm just as happy not to create more. I'd much prefer that another >> means of ousting your prey were added to the game. > > See, I don't know that this is true. Yeah, it is easy to defend one's > self, as long as you are playing Dominate or Auspex. If you aren't > playing one of those disciplines, and you sit down stream from a heavy > bleed deck, you are likely just dead regardless of what your deck does. Good. There SHOULD be such disciplines. Because, frankly, I don't actually see "heavy bleed decks" winning that much and I haven't for a long time. Especially in the finals, where I see far too many timeouts with no one winning or people having to negotiate in order to put any pressure on their prey without the whole table ganging up on them. I don't think the ACTUAL CONCEPT that heavy bleed decks can once in while get an oust without the whole table's permission is necessarily a bad thing. > I think adding more viable (i.e. flexible) bleed defense to non > Dominate/Auspex disciplines would not make the game harder to play. I would make it yet harder for people to get ousts. More bleed defense is not what the game needs. Those "non Dominate/Auspex" disciplines need better ways to get faster ousts. Fred

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153235052.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I think if bleed bounce didn't exist? Telepathic Counter would probably > be everyone's favorite card. Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. But I suppose it would see more use. > As a lot of other people pointed out > elsewhere, Telepathic Counter doesn't necessarily need upgrading, > bounce probably needs downgrading. I think I'd go with that. I'd also want Deflection downgraded, while you're at it. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Good. There SHOULD be such disciplines. Because, frankly, I don't > actually see "heavy bleed decks" winning that much and I haven't for a > long time. See, I don't actually think this is true. Heavy bleed (i.e. Malk94, weenie dominate, weenie presence, whatever) *still* is the most effective method to actually win a game. And they still win games all the time. > Especially in the finals, where I see far too many timeouts > with no one winning or people having to negotiate in order to put any > pressure on their prey without the whole table ganging up on them. > I don't think the ACTUAL CONCEPT that heavy bleed decks can once in > while get an oust without the whole table's permission is necessarily a > bad thing. I think this is an impression 'caused by personalities rather than rules. The best players tend to not play much heavy bleed, as they tend to like experimenting with other stuff. So the best players still get in the finals, and aren't playing heavy bleed decks for reasons other than "cause they aren't good at winning". Heavy bleed decks still oust and win games with regularity. > I would make it yet harder for people to get ousts. More bleed defense > is not what the game needs. Those "non Dominate/Auspex" disciplines > need better ways to get faster ousts. It isn't hard to get ousts now. I played in a total of 6 tournaments at Origins, playing 14 games. Of those games, 1 timed out. That is including the draft games. I'm simply not seeing the same environment that you are. Yeah, sometimes games time out. Especially final games with lots of very heady/scheemy/talky players. But not as much as you seem to think. And heavy bleed decks still oust reliably and win. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote in news:1153233348.592317.108100 @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, dude. It's not that you aren't _dead_ sexy, but I'm pretty well taken (Amy and I passed 13 years, as of April). DaveZ Atom Weaver

Xian wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > sutekh_23 wrote: > > > Xian wrote: > > > > [ stuff about Ecstasy, Banner of Neutrality] > > > > > > Played by themselves they only reduce a bleed by one true but if you > > > play both thats a reduction of possibly 2 and they can be played by the > > > same minion. Not saying its superior to TC just that it does work. > > So you're going to use 2 cards to reduce a bleed by 2? How many slots > are you devoting to this tactic? I've *seen* this done, I just think > it's...wasteful. > Yeah, it is wasteful on its own(using both cards), but as others have pointed out this, like every other subject discussed on this forum, is local metagame dependant. if my predator is constantly only bleeding for 1 or 2 then bleed reduction is fine (however it is done) If I'm constantly being bled for 3+ then, not so good and bounce or AI becomes a more attractive option. By the way, I personaly don't use this tactic nor do I think its a good one, i'm just trying to keep my comments within the realms of the stated topic i.e: Auspexless bleed reduction. > > > Besides, is bleed reduction really a waste? If your getting bled for 5 > > Ineffective bleed reduction is a waste. Reducing a bleed of 5 by 1 > just delays the inevitable. > How many games have you seen someone claw their way back into the game after having been reduced to ONE measly pool? If there is one thing i've learnt whilst playing V:tes its not to pack up your cards until that pool is beyond a shadow of a doubt, gone. Anything that helps me survive can also help me to win.

[ quoted text not captured ] ....make them cost a pool like they were originally printed in Jyhad Comments Welcome. Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153236463.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Good. There SHOULD be such disciplines. Because, frankly, I don't >> actually see "heavy bleed decks" winning that much and I haven't for a >> long time. > > See, I don't actually think this is true. Heavy bleed (i.e. Malk94, > weenie dominate, weenie presence, whatever) *still* is the most > effective method to actually win a game. And they still win games all > the time. I'm not sure what "Malk94" is. But I agree, weeny bleeds of the various sorts is still a pretty sensitive area. But where the level of tournament competence is fairly high, it's usually not so much a matter of winning games as it is throwing table balance way off. It's hard to stop them from getting their first oust and when they are prevented, the "victim" almost always winds up in pretty bad shape anyway. But I usually see such decks getting more table hate than they can stand to have any chance of getting a table win. But what of it? Tupdog decks and original tech Imbued decks are worse in this respect. All of these decks need fixing (and disciplineless bounce or a better Telepathic Counter is not going to do it). >> Especially in the finals, where I see far too many timeouts >> with no one winning or people having to negotiate in order to put any >> pressure on their prey without the whole table ganging up on them. >> I don't think the ACTUAL CONCEPT that heavy bleed decks can once in >> while get an oust without the whole table's permission is necessarily a >> bad thing. > > I think this is an impression 'caused by personalities rather than > rules. The best players tend to not play much heavy bleed, as they tend > to like experimenting with other stuff. It's not "experiementing with other stuff". The players at the finals tables represent the best players in the tournament - and their decks are defensive. Why? Because it WORKS, that's why. Simple Darwinism tells you what you need to know about what's wrong with this game. Defensive play works. So you often get five defensive players in the finals and get ready for a snorefest. We don't need more imaginative means of constructing defensive decks. We need enough different routes to go offensively that it's a lot harder to rely on your defense. >> I would make it yet harder for people to get ousts. More bleed defense >> is not what the game needs. Those "non Dominate/Auspex" disciplines >> need better ways to get faster ousts. > > It isn't hard to get ousts now. I played in a total of 6 tournaments at > Origins, playing 14 games. Of those games, 1 timed out. I don't worry about the preliminary games so much. I don't see an alarming number of timeouts in the preliminary games, either. It's the finals that concern me. Because the people who get to the finals did so because their style of play works. And the fact that their style is much more often a defensive style than the population at large says a lot. Fred

sutekh_23 wrote: > Xian wrote: > > > > So you're going to use 2 cards to reduce a bleed by 2? How many slots > > are you devoting to this tactic? I've *seen* this done, I just think > > it's...wasteful. > > > Yeah, it is wasteful on its own(using both cards), but as others have > pointed out this, like every other subject discussed on this forum, is > local metagame dependant. if my predator is constantly only bleeding Okay, true. > for 1 or 2 then bleed reduction is fine (however it is done) If I'm > constantly being bled for 3+ then, not so good and bounce or AI becomes > a more attractive option. By the way, I personaly don't use this tactic I guess I just have trouble imagining a metagame where (for an extended period) there: a) is no one bleeding for more than 1 or 2 ever b) no one playing bounce c) people willing to devote something on the order of 20 card slots to bleed reduction > nor do I think its a good one, i'm just trying to keep my comments > within the realms of the stated topic i.e: Auspexless bleed reduction. Understood. > > Ineffective bleed reduction is a waste. Reducing a bleed of 5 by 1 > > just delays the inevitable. > > > How many games have you seen someone claw their way back into the game > after having been reduced to ONE measly pool? If there is one thing Claw their way back and actually win? Not many. Mostly just Jay Kristoff. > i've learnt whilst playing V:tes its not to pack up your cards until > that pool is beyond a shadow of a doubt, gone. Anything that helps me > survive can also help me to win. Nor am I suggesting that you should quit before you're really and truly done. It's just that bleed reduction for 1 is generally vastly inefficient compared to every other method of dealing with bleeds. You just spent 1/90th of your deck (or 1/45th if you used a Wake) on reducing the innate, cardless bleed that any vampire can take. Generally, I can't afford to do stuff like that for the savings of 1 pool. I'd rather spend that card slot on gaining pool or better defense or something. Xian a friend in need is a friend indeed, and a friend with bleed is better?

pd...@lightlink.com napsal: [ quoted text not captured ] You are right. TM is used more often that TC. And what does it prove? See, I was also really bored today, so I made the total count of TCs in the TWDA and it is something around 260. 260 copies of a "clearly inferior card"? what motivation those tournament winners had to play, in your opinion, clearly suboptimal decks? simple masochism, desire for a challenge, they didnt have enough TMs in their box? I dont think so. if a card is clearly inferior,it tends to appear in the winning decks not-at-all, except, maybe, for the reasons mentioned above.

Fred Scott wrote: > In my experience, it's much more common to be bled by four guys for one > at no stealth who will NOT tear your head off if you block than the way > you proposed it. If my predator has four vampire who can tear my > vampires' heads off if they block, then fuck it. I'll let 'em have the > extra bleed for one. They deserve it. IME if they can only bleed for one, they can probably knock your block off. Generally.

Xian wrote: > sutekh_23 wrote: > > Xian wrote: > > > > > > So you're going to use 2 cards to reduce a bleed by 2? How many slots > > > are you devoting to this tactic? I've *seen* this done, I just think > > > it's...wasteful. > > > > > Yeah, it is wasteful on its own(using both cards), but as others have > > pointed out this, like every other subject discussed on this forum, is > > local metagame dependant. if my predator is constantly only bleeding > > Okay, true. > > > for 1 or 2 then bleed reduction is fine (however it is done) If I'm > > constantly being bled for 3+ then, not so good and bounce or AI becomes > > a more attractive option. By the way, I personaly don't use this tactic > > I guess I just have trouble imagining a metagame where (for an extended > period) there: > > a) is no one bleeding for more than 1 or 2 ever > b) no one playing bounce > c) people willing to devote something on the order of 20 card slots to > bleed reduction > No, don't get me wrong, being bled for 3+ happens often and bouncing is a staple defence, as is AI. As to C, you might be suprised exactly how much of a deck is dedicated to bounce. In addition in our local metagame being the "bouncer" often draws the ire of the combat deck that you just bounced too and in thier next turn you may find yourself wishing for minionless bounce as all your vamps have developed sudden cases of armlessness, headlessness, or are smoking piles of ash on the floor. Simply reducing a bleed draws no table hate. > > nor do I think its a good one, i'm just trying to keep my comments > > within the realms of the stated topic i.e: Auspexless bleed reduction. > > Understood. > > > > Ineffective bleed reduction is a waste. Reducing a bleed of 5 by 1 > > > just delays the inevitable. > > > > > How many games have you seen someone claw their way back into the game > > after having been reduced to ONE measly pool? If there is one thing > > Claw their way back and actually win? Not many. Mostly just Jay > Kristoff. > Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. > > i've learnt whilst playing V:tes its not to pack up your cards until > > that pool is beyond a shadow of a doubt, gone. Anything that helps me > > survive can also help me to win. > > Nor am I suggesting that you should quit before you're really and truly > done. > I never thought you would :) Generally, I can't > afford to do stuff like that for the savings of 1 pool. I'd rather > spend that card slot on gaining pool or better defense or something. > See, I don't understand this comment Xian. You are willing to spend the slot on gaining pool, but not saving that pool? Admittedly most single cards wont just gain you just 1 pool, but can you see my point? You can say it's inefficient use of resources, sure, thats fine, but if I'm not playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. > > Xian > a friend in need is a friend indeed, and a friend with bleed is better? Sutekh_23 Doesn't like being "forced" to play disciplines

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Telepathic Counter is clearly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection, in > terms of efficient bleed defense. > I won't go as far as the other poster, since I respect you, Peter (well, at least to some degree... =P ;) ), but I think this statement is just plain false. First off, weenie bleed is, depending on metagame, often more scary than bazooka bleed. TC is way better against weenie bleed. In addition, bounce is most effective when you attempt to block, because when they stealth past, you suddenly have a stealth bleed against your opponent. (I'm not saying, it's only useful when you attempt to block, but generally more so.) When you attempt to block, you run the risk of a) cycling your opponent's hand, or b) actually succeeding in your block, which if you have a bounce in your hand, is often not what you really wanted. When you bounce without blocking, most of the advantage of bounce over TC is lost, since your prey just blocks. If he has plenty of untap, or the responsible bleeder Changes Target, then he has lost little. Telepathic Counter, on the other hand, denies your predator the ability to cycle. Even in the case where you bounce without blocking, your predator usually has the choice of stealthing past your prey (good for you, but may also be good for him), or cycling combat cards. With TC, you don't tap a vamp, you don't spend a blood, and you don't give him the opportunity to cycle anything but bleed mods. As such, TC over TM is a strongly meta-game dependent variable, as well as being based on your deck having large vamps versus small vamps (large vamps, IME, tend to prefer TM, small vamps prefer TC). And then there's the small bonus that TC helps with withdrawing, if you end up wanting/needing to do that.

Alias wrote: > You are right. TM is used more often that TC. And what does it prove? > See, I was also really bored today, so I made the total count of TCs in > the TWDA and it is something around 260. Did you count the number of copies of Telepathic Misdirection? Xian

Fred Scott wrote: > > See, I don't actually think this is true. Heavy bleed (i.e. Malk94, > > weenie dominate, weenie presence, whatever) *still* is the most > > effective method to actually win a game. And they still win games all > > the time. > > I'm not sure what "Malk94" is. Malk94 is I assume Malkavian Dom Obf Bleed, with entirely cards from the Jyhad set. Gilbert Duane, Didi Meyers, Bonding, Threats, Conditioning, Govern, etc etc. best - chris

>>> See, I don't actually think this is true. Heavy bleed (i.e. Malk94, >>> weenie dominate, weenie presence, whatever) *still* is the most >>> effective method to actually win a game. And they still win games all >>> the time. >> >> I'm not sure what "Malk94" is. I believe this is a statement that exemplifies how Fred is "deliberately obtuse". :) Ankur

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153239555.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Four different vampires? All combat monsters? No, not usually. Usually that's where someone's trying to overwhelm you with harmless weenies. And it usually says more about your inability to knock _their_ blocks off then the other way 'round. Because if you're a real threat to torp one of them (or more, if you have Wakes in your hand), three bleed isn't enough payoff to allow that. Fred

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1153241652.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think his point was not about which is the better/more useful card overall. His point was that if Telepathic Misdirection was perceived as positively obsolescing Telepathic Counter, you wouldn't see any copies of it in TWDA at all, or next to none. Why would a good, tournament-winning player ever choose to use one? Wherever you wanted one, just replace it with the just-as-common Telepathic Misdirection. So the point is that although overall TM may be the better card, some decks and/or some metagame environments call for Telepathic Counter instead. Fred

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] 'scuse me, sir. Can I ask someone for a fucking definition to a term they used without PLEASE being accused of being "deliberately obtuse"? Is that asking too much? sheesh

Fred Scott wrote: > "Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message > news:1153241652.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Alias wrote: > >> You are right. TM is used more often that TC. And what does it prove? > >> See, I was also really bored today, so I made the total count of TCs in > >> the TWDA and it is something around 260. > > > > Did you count the number of copies of Telepathic Misdirection? > > I think his point was not about which is the better/more useful card > overall. His point was that if Telepathic Misdirection was perceived > as positively obsolescing Telepathic Counter, you wouldn't see any > copies of it in TWDA at all, or next to none. Why would a good, > tournament-winning player ever choose to use one? Wherever you > wanted one, just replace it with the just-as-common Telepathic > Misdirection. Ah, I understood it as an attempt to confuse the issue, by avoiding Peter's point, and coming up with an unrelated number without providing the corresponding number for the other card he was talking about. Xian

> > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > but 90% of the time, the deck is just going to use > > > Telepathic Misdirection instead. > > > > this must be the stupidest thing i have read on this newsgroup so far. > > Durp durp! I eat paint! And taunt sharks! And catch javelins! And > combo Coma with Tortured Confessions! Durp! This MUST be the stupidest thing I read on this newsgroup that I didn't write myself. And one of the funniest too. But then I do love Monty Python... -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

>> I believe this is a statement that exemplifies how Fred is >> "deliberately obtuse". :) > > 'scuse me, sir. Can I ask someone for a fucking definition to a term > they used without PLEASE being accused of being "deliberately obtuse"? > Is that asking too much? Not usually, no. I find it ridiculously hard to believe that a long-time player such as yourself is unaware of what the term "Malk94" is, coming from a knowledgeable individual such as Peter. I'm not nearly as long-standing a player as the two of you, and *I* know what it means. I call shennanigans. Ankur

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:7WTug.2607$Mz3.796@fed1read07... > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1153167080....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> As noted by many previously, Auspex having bleed reduction is, for the >> most part, redundant, as if you can use superior Telepathic Counter, >> you can also play Telepathic Misdirection, and as bleed bounce is *so* >> much better than bleed reduction, Telepathic Counter (and as such, >> bleed reduction as a general defense) mostly gets left by the wayside. > > It's not so much that Telepathic Counter is redundant to Telepathic > Misdirection. It's just that it's not good enough. Make it a reduction > of 2 at inferior and 3 at superior, and there would be a good division > of decks between bleed bounce and bleed reduction. > > But since more ways of constucting defense this game does NOT need, > I'm just as happy not to create more. I'd much prefer that another > means of ousting your prey were added to the game. I would very much prefer that another means of ousting your prey is *not* added to the game. That is, if you mean "another means besides reducing their pool to 0". If you just mean "another means of reducing your prey's pool to 0", I would be totally fine with that. I just don't want to see anything else like Brinksmanship. I think effects like that totally destroy the inherent balance and beauty of VTES. I would say you make a good point about defense currently appearing to be stronger, relative to offense, than is ideal for the VTES environment, since offense beating defense is what makes games come to an end at a decent pace. No argument there. I'm just picky about some of the core elements of VTES. :-) Josh snobby connoisseur of ousting mechanisms

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >>> I believe this is a statement that exemplifies how Fred is "deliberately obtuse". :) >> >> 'scuse me, sir. Can I ask someone for a fucking definition to a term they used without PLEASE being accused of being >> "deliberately obtuse"? Is that asking too much? > > Not usually, no. I find it ridiculously hard to believe that a long-time player such as yourself is unaware of what the term > "Malk94" is, coming from a knowledgeable individual such as Peter. I don't know why you think that when the term is hardly very popular. A google search of this newsgroup turns up all of *five* hits - including this thread. The earliest usage was January 5th of this year. So what has being a "long-time" player have to do with anything? And, while the name is clearly suggestive of some sort of retro Malk deck popular 10 years ago, obviously I can't know if there's supposed to be some special feature to the deck implied in the name unless I actually ask, can I? Frankly, I think you're kind of fixated on "deliberately obtuse" thing because I have no problem questioning orthodox thinking about strategy in this newsgroup. If someone questions your beloved doctrines and tenets in public, it's comforting to accuse them of being deliberately obtuse. But not very accurate. Fred

Alias wrote: > You are right. TM is used more often that TC. And what does it prove? That Telepathic Misdirection is considered more useful than Telepathic Counter. Which has been my point all along. > See, I was also really bored today, so I made the total count of TCs in > the TWDA and it is something around 260. As an aside, 260, as a point of data, illustrates nothing at all. We don't know how many decks those are in (10? 50? 100? 300?), or how many Telepathic Misdirections are in decks as a comparison. Maybe I'll make that point of data into something useful. > 260 copies of a "clearly inferior card"? what motivation those > tournament winners had to play, in your opinion, clearly suboptimal > decks? I'm not quite sure why you are taking my statement that Telepathic Misdirection is just better than Telepathic Counter as such an afront. I think it is quite obvious that Telepathic Misdirection is just better. I mean, yeah, once and a while, a deck might want to use Telepathic Counter in preference (Heck, I have such a deck--it uses 12 Telepathic Counters and zero Telepathic Misdirections. But it is a fringe deck. And not very good.) And once and a while, you might want to include some Telepathic Counters *with* your Telepathic Misidrections. But trying to claim that Telepathic Counter is as good as, or better than, Telepathic Misdirection strikes me as folly. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > So the point is that although overall TM may be the better card, > some decks and/or some metagame environments call for Telepathic > Counter instead. I've never claimed otherwise. I'm pretty certain that in my initial post in this thread, I said something along the lines of "Once and a while, you'll have a deck where Telepathic Counter is preferable to Telepathic Misdirection, but most of the time, not so much." Which is pretty much what I am seeing in the TWDA. And what I have seen in play. -Peter

Chris Berger wrote: > I won't go as far as the other poster, since I respect you, Peter > (well, at least to some degree... =P ;) ), but I think this > statement is just plain false. See, but I'm unconvinced that it is. Weenie bleed generally still bleeds for more than 2 per action and the Telepathic Misdirection is still sending the bleed to your prey. In a small number of situations, TC is going to be preferable. But not many. To the point that if you are walking into a blind environment (like, say, a tournament), most people in most cases are going to choose Telepathic Misdirection over the Counter. -Peter

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4i4shdF...@individual.net... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:7WTug.2607$Mz3.796@fed1read07... >> But since more ways of constucting defense this game does NOT need, >> I'm just as happy not to create more. I'd much prefer that another >> means of ousting your prey were added to the game. > > I would very much prefer that another means of ousting your prey is *not* > added to the game. That is, if you mean "another means besides reducing > their pool to 0". If you just mean "another means of reducing your prey's > pool to 0", I would be totally fine with that. I just don't want to see > anything else like Brinksmanship. I think effects like that totally destroy > the inherent balance and beauty of VTES. > > I would say you make a good point about defense currently appearing to be > stronger, relative to offense, than is ideal for the VTES environment, since > offense beating defense is what makes games come to an end at a decent pace. > No argument there. I'm just picky about some of the core elements of VTES. > :-) I'm not sure I'm as afraid of such things as you are, though I'd have to agree that I don't think the decking/Brinkmanship route to ousting players has really contributed anything positive to the game. And I would also agree that a totally new ousting mechanism having nothing to do with reducing a prey's pool to zero is a pretty radical thing to consider and has some distinct problems that I think would need to be addressed. All in all, such animals are probably difficult to do well and should only be undertaken with a lot of care, testing, and paranoid checking and rechecking. Anyway, I wasn't necessarily suggesting such a thing. The "another means of reducing their pool to 0" is helpful, too. One thing that I'd like to see are more ways of getting around intercept as a means of pushing actions through. I see too many viable deck archetypes that place such a heavy reliance on intercept that it can be difficult to effect ANY kind of offense against them. That shouldn't be. There should be some real risk to the all-intercept-defense-very-limited-offense path to victory besides just that the table might time out and leave you with only half a victory point. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "Ankur Gupta" > > Not usually, no. I find it ridiculously hard to believe that a long-time player > > such as yourself is unaware of what the term > > "Malk94" is, coming from a knowledgeable individual such as Peter. > > I don't know why you think that when the term is hardly very popular. > A google search of this newsgroup turns up all of *five* hits - > including this thread. The earliest usage was January 5th of this > year. So what has being a "long-time" player have to do with anything? I got 40 hits going back to 2003, searching on: "Malk94" | "Malk 94" | "Malk 1994" | "Malk '94". Which is, admittedly different from just searching for "Malk94", but I've certainly seen the terminology before, and only recently have I seen it abbreviated without the space. Xian

Fred Scott wrote: > I'm not sure what "Malk94" is. Heh. I'm not getting involved in the other part of this particular aspect of this discussion, but as pointed out "Malk94" or some other such version of that phrase ("Malk'94", "Malkavian'94" or whatever) has been floating around here for a while to stand for "Hey! Look at this deck I have that I put together in 1994! It has Malkavians with Dominate and Obfuscate!". Which still works. I think I was using the term "Malk '94" up until recently, when someone else shortened it to Malk94, which I thought was funny, so I adopted it. -Peter

>> Not usually, no. I find it ridiculously hard to believe that a >> long-time player such as yourself is unaware of what the term "Malk94" >> is, coming from a knowledgeable individual such as Peter. > > I don't know why you think that when the term is hardly very popular. A > google search of this newsgroup turns up all of *five* hits - including > this thread. The earliest usage was January 5th of this year. So what > has being a "long-time" player have to do with anything? And, while the > name is clearly suggestive of some sort of retro Malk deck popular 10 > years ago, obviously I can't know if there's supposed to be some special > feature to the deck implied in the name unless I actually ask, can I? I think it's quite clear from context what was being discussed. Your quest for over-precision is precisely what is considered "deliberately obtuse". A long-standing player would know (within a few card slots) the popular retro Malk deck from 10 or so years ago. A long-standing player would consider the fact that such a deck is an ousting cannon (as was abundantly clear from context). A long-standing player would know that Malkavians from 1994 had two disciplines that created an obvious and popular strategy: s&b. There is no archetype that is more vivid for old players than s&b. Old-school s&b, malk bleed, 94 in the house, whatever. It's not unknown. No special feature was required according to context. Simply put: you're reaching. You're being. . . say it with me, now. . . deliberately obtuse. > Frankly, I think you're kind of fixated on "deliberately obtuse" thing > because I have no problem questioning orthodox thinking about strategy > in this newsgroup. If someone questions your beloved doctrines and > tenets in public, it's comforting to accuse them of being deliberately > obtuse. But not very accurate. I think you're barking up the wrong tree as far as "questioning orthodox thinking" is concerned. I'm more than willing to concede to correctly-made points and interesting new angles on issues that I haven't considered. You can find a wealth of such posts by me to that effect. A large majority of my posts deal with non-standard responses to things. Post threads that have been with you include "the benefits of going to torpor when recruiting cry wolf", "the strength of ani/ser combat", and "the viability of ousting with brinksmanship". I am sure there are others. In none of these cases can you *possibly* paint a picture that I'm not questioning orthodox strategy. Besides, the above example of you being deliberately obtuse had absolutely nothing at all to do with a discussion of orthodox. It requires you to simply *know* what is orthodox. Ankur

Xian wrote: > I got 40 hits going back to 2003, searching on: "Malk94" | "Malk 94" | > "Malk 1994" | "Malk '94". Which is, admittedly different from just > searching for "Malk94", but I've certainly seen the terminology before, > and only recently have I seen it abbreviated without the space. This post, for example: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1feed8b9b5914a7c Xian

> I wrote: > > I'm sure if you > > went to the TWDA and searched to see how many decks contained > > Telepathic Misdirection compared to how many decks contained Telepathic > > Counter, you would be (apparently) surprised. > > So feeling full of beans, I did just this. I checked the decks in the > TWDA from today back till Origins, 2004 (Which was last weekend of > June, as two full years of tournament winning decks seemed like a > reasonable sample, but I'm sure we could go back further and the same > thing would hold), and here is what I found: > > -Telepathic Misdirections shows up in 72 (seventy two) of the decks in > the sample. > > -Telepathic Counter shows up in 17 (seventeen) of the decks in the > sample. In the vast majority of those 17 occurances of Telepathic > Counter, the deck also has Telepathic Misdirection, and more of them as > well. There were a couple decks that had Telepathic Counter and no > Telepathic Misdirection. And a couple decks that had a lot of > Telepathic Counter and a few Telepathic Misdirection. But mostly, there > was a bunch of Telepathic Misidrection and a few Telepathic Counters > thrown in. And of course we're just talking Auspex here. If we compare the number of decks using bleed reducers (including Folderol, and I wouldn't quite include Confusion of the Eye because the bleed reducer is more a cycling effect than the reason why I would include it in decks) against the number of decks using bleed bounce (adding Redirection and Deflection to TM) the numbers will talk for themselves !! As a matter of facts, if we looked at the Winning Decks including Bleed Bounce as opposed to those chosing other solutions (Second Trad, Intercept without bounce, pool strategies...) we still will have an overwhelming number of decks chosing to deflect rather than reduce / block. There must be a reason for that. -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153253918.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] On further point of technicality (or possible differences of definition), to my mind, Malk '94 does not imply that all the cards in the deck must have existed in the 1994 printing of Jyhad. The term "Malk '94" just means we're talking about group 1/2 Malkavian stealthy bleed decks, which normally will include a bunch of cards printed later than 1994 (Dreams of the Sphinx, Direct Intervention, Elder Impersonation, for example). But probably not so many printed since 1996, I admit. :-) Josh maybe erciyes fragments, jake washington, perfectionist, gambit accepted...

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in messagenews:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >>> Not usually, no. I find it ridiculously hard to believe that a >>> long-time player such as yourself is unaware of what the term "Malk94" >>> is, coming from a knowledgeable individual such as Peter. >> >> I don't know why you think that when the term is hardly very popular. A >> google search of this newsgroup turns up all of *five* hits - including >> this thread. The earliest usage was January 5th of this year. So what >> has being a "long-time" player have to do with anything? And, while the >> name is clearly suggestive of some sort of retro Malk deck popular 10 >> years ago, obviously I can't know if there's supposed to be some special >> feature to the deck implied in the name unless I actually ask, can I? > > I think it's quite clear from context what was being discussed. It absolutely is not. > Your quest > for over-precision is precisely what is considered "deliberately obtuse". > A long-standing player would know (within a few card slots) the popular > retro Malk deck from 10 or so years ago. Sorry, but it is NOT over-precision to assume there might be a special feature implied by a name like Malk94. To me, I guess that point seems pretty obvious and I consider your attitude about terminology to be rather bizarre. A person doesn't know what a name might imply unless he actually asks - even if it may not have anything to do with the issue at hand. How hard is that to understand? > A long-standing player would > consider the fact that such a deck is an ousting cannon (as was abundantly > clear from context). Sure. But who said I didn't understand that? All *I* said was, "I'm not sure what Malk94 is." Which was true. > No special feature was required according to context. No special feature was required. But that doesn't mean no special feature was present. There's a difference. > Simply put: you're > reaching. You're being. . . say it with me, now. . . deliberately obtuse. Say it with me now...BULLLLLLLLLLSHIT!!! What an arrogant, idiot stance: "If someone encounters a new term that's suggestive of its meaning, he's being deliberately obtuse to request clarification about it." I take it the saying that, "there are no dumb questions", doesn't much rate with Ankur. Bah, I'll leave the accusations of ulterior motives since there's no place productive to go with them. But it's pretty clear to me that the whole "deliberately obtuse" thing is pretty much just a backhanded way of belittling someone without actually having to put up some real argument and discussion about something. Fred

> One thing that I'd like to > see are more ways of getting around intercept as a means of pushing actions > through. I see too many viable deck archetypes that place such a heavy > reliance on intercept that it can be difficult to effect ANY kind of offense > against them. Doesn't that already exist in the form of block fails, better combat, or a lot of stealth? If you have a problem with intercept walls, play a deck that takes only 0 stealth actions and they'll jam on intercept. Nonetheless, I agree with you that timeouts are no fun, and playing against decks that are intentionally designed without much forward pressure isn't fun, either. I don't see that as much a flaw in card design, but the deck building choices of some people. Ira

> One thing that I'd like to > see are more ways of getting around intercept as a means of pushing actions > through. I see too many viable deck archetypes that place such a heavy > reliance on intercept that it can be difficult to effect ANY kind of offense > against them. Doesn't that already exist in the form of block fails, better combat, [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1153254304....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Heh! That's not a question of obtuseness. That's just my really bad case of CRS showing. (Especially about things that come up in a long verbose argument.) And nearly three whole years ago! I'm not sure I even remember what my name was three years ago. Fred (CRS = "Can't Remember, er, Stuff")

Fred Scott wrote: > Four different vampires? All combat monsters? No, not usually. Usually > that's where someone's trying to overwhelm you with harmless weenies. > And it usually says more about your inability to knock _their_ blocks > off then the other way 'round. Because if you're a real threat to torp > one of them (or more, if you have Wakes in your hand), three bleed isn't > enough payoff to allow that. There's not much point in engaging in dueling "IME's", which is where this is rapidly heading. But for the sake of clarity, I was thinking mainly of weenie potence, weenie fortitude (dammit I shouldn't say this, but..... still the most underrated monster weenie deck out there. Thank god most people can't resist screwing them up with Force of Wills), weenie guns, and midcap crypts based around Assamites, Gangrel, and Nos. The list could go on, but IME what I described as common is common.

[ quoted text not captured ] Heh. I wasn't going to mention it, but I *think* I might have been the one to coin the term. Or maybe not.... it's a pretty natural nickname to come up with.

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153255956....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> One thing that I'd like to >> see are more ways of getting around intercept as a means of pushing actions >> through. I see too many viable deck archetypes that place such a heavy >> reliance on intercept that it can be difficult to effect ANY kind of offense >> against them. > > Doesn't that already exist in the form of block fails, better combat, > or a lot of stealth? Some ways exist, sure. I'd like more. The more ways there are, the harder it is to cover all of them, which is my point. > If you have a problem with intercept walls, play > a deck that takes only 0 stealth actions and they'll jam on intercept. Agreed - and then do something else: overwhelm them with numbers or with better combat or things like Red Herring. But intercept wall decks can cover a certain amount of them so it's not like these are ultimately real solutions to the overall problem. The overall problem is that in the real metagame, you don't encounter intercept walls enough to justify gearing a whole deck around beating them. For that matter, the problem isn't exactly total intercept walls as much as it is just the overall emphasis placed on defense in the better decks; the decks of players making the final. I'd like to see the overall balance of the game shifted a bit more towards offense, which I think would be more possible if there was more variety in the number of offensive stragegies decks could employ. > Nonetheless, I agree with you that timeouts are no fun, and playing > against decks that are intentionally designed without much forward > pressure isn't fun, either. I don't see that as much a flaw in card > design, but the deck building choices of some people. If it were only an occasional problem, I'd agree with you. But I see these timeouts if finals so often that I have to conclude it isn't personalities and specific deck building choices that just happened to turn up by chance in one particular final. It's got to be because these are good deckbuilding choices that tend to get one to the final more often. Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153258370.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] All right, fair enough. The only one of these I've encountered lately to speak of are the weeny guns. And you're the only one in the newsgroup I ever see arguing for efficiency in combat modules (i.e. your advocacy of "short chain combat") - a stance that seems to dovetail nicely with the notion of combat weenies of various forms. So I'd nibble it around the edges: bleeds by four them are somewhat unusual until they've got their defense straightened away. And saying they can "knock your blocks off" seems an exaggeration with a lot of these - I was thinking more in terms of Enkidu or Fatima whose combats frequently end with their victim getting burned by some means or another. So forgive me if I see more harmless weenies doing the BleedBleedBleedBleed thing ("let me know if you want to block any of these and I'll stop", he says, hand rapidly tapping four minions) than by minions with real combat abilities. (Not saying such decks aren't a good idea, mind you.) Fred

Xian napsal: [ quoted text not captured ] well, I was naive, and hoped, that a sentence "You are right. TM is used more often that TC." will clarify that - sorry, next time I will use capslock for those **** with selective blindness as their defence in discussions :) Anyway, this thread is already hopelessly lost, I unfortunately cannot anyhow enrich a discusion about "issue Malk94", so goodbye guys :) > > > Xian

Fred Scott wrote: > I'd like to see the overall balance of the game > shifted a bit more towards offense, which I think would be more possible > if there was more variety in the number of offensive stragegies decks > could employ. Doesn't this just shift the game towards "whoever can oust fastest wins," with little thought given to defense, though? 'Cause that's the path of who-has-the-biggest-stealth-bleed/who-has-the-most-weenies, and those aren't particularly fun. Particularly if everyone at the table is playing them. John Eno

<invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153266146.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Not at all. Is any particular archetype really dominant right now? You're reading too much or the wrong things into what I said. My point is just that lots of defense is too rewarding, based on the types of decks that tend to make it to the finals. It's not that no offense-oriented decks make it to the finals. As was forcefully pointed out to me last month, apparently weenie Ravnos and !Toredor decks make it to the finals and win too much in some peoples' estimation. Likewise, adding some new elements to the game to outmaneuver the various defensive modes that are popular (overly popular for purposes of fun in the game, IME) now is hardly tantamount to shifting it totally over to heavy stealth bleed and weeny bleed. At least, not if done correctly. It would just mean that clever offensively oriented decks would be rewarded more and clever defensively oriented decks would be rewarded less. And thus we could expect more finals to actually FINISH, allowing them to be decided more by metagame choices and good card play and less by negotiations - which tend to go on endlessly and often uselessly in the finals. Fred

In message <1153240883.3...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >Telepathic Counter, on the other hand, denies your predator the ability >to cycle. Even in the case where you bounce without blocking, your >predator usually has the choice of stealthing past your prey (good for >you, but may also be good for him), or cycling combat cards. With TC, >you don't tap a vamp, you don't spend a blood, and you don't give him >the opportunity to cycle anything but bleed mods. But, at the same time, while your predator cycles against your prey, you've got your prey having to work out how he can afford to take the bleed, or block it - forcing him to "waste" an untapped minion, or a wake, or whatever. This isn't insignificant, because it can disrupt the plans of your prey, without him having a chance to untap and regroup before you get your turn to come in and bleed him, or do whatever it is that he might have been blocking before. So it defends you AND can cause him problems. In the general case, this is much better for you because it's defence and helps your offence. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1153234518.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Alias <ransom...@seznam.cz> writes: >The games are already too slow and boring sometimes. >If you feel that clans without AUS or DOM are so handicapped, give them >more *offensive* power, to compensate for their lesser durability. That move the game away from a bunch of players interacting with interestingly crafted offence and defence, towards a bunch of players just seeing who can get their particularly strong offensive combo off first. Without usable, useful defence, it's just a bunch of people playing solo games that happen to occur one on the same table, and the first one to assemble their kit wins. That's very, very, very counter to the design that Garfield set up, where he wants to balance too much free interaction with too little sterile non-interaction, whilst giving players different motives and incentives to guide their interactions into conflicts. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <U3bvg.2638$Mz3.788@fed1read07>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Frankly, I think you're kind of fixated on "deliberately obtuse" thing >because I have no problem questioning orthodox thinking about strategy >in this newsgroup. If someone questions your beloved doctrines and >tenets in public, it's comforting to accuse them of being deliberately >obtuse. But not very accurate. No, see, you think you're Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun, in blatant disregard of accepted norms. Unfortunately, you're actually one of his helpers, wondering what people mean by the word "telescope". [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > Not at all. Is any particular archetype really dominant right now? > You're reading too much or the wrong things into what I said. My > point is just that lots of defense is too rewarding, based on the > types of decks that tend to make it to the finals. I think you are right about this. That being said, I don't think giving non Ausepx disciplines access to viable bleed reduction (i.e. a cards that let non Auspex disciplines reduce bleeds by 2 at superior, that are low opportunity cost and flexible) would actually increase the amount of defense in play. Currently, every deck built has to answer the question "How is this deck going to deal with a significant bleed predator". Always. Or it isn't a viable deck. Which means that all decks are built with some sort of bleed defense. Which might be bounce (and really, more often than not, it is). Or might be intercept. Or might be bloat. Or might be outrace. Decks that can't do *one* of these things are, from the inception, inviable. And a great deal of the time, the answer is "I use bounce, either 'cause I have AUS, or I have dom, or 'cause I bolt one of those things on to my deck". I can't think of how many decks I have built that look like "5 of an important Superstar and then 7 dom weenies" or "5 of an important Superstar, and then 7 AUS weenies". Really, it is a lot. Introducing reasonable bleed reduction to non Auspex disciplines (again, my best yet possibly flawed example is an Obfuscate mod/reaction card that says +1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2) would not, for my money, make the game any more defensive that it currently is. It would just mean that all those decks that have fringe dominate just for the 8 deflections, or all those decks that are built to include AUS, just for the Telepathic Misdirections, would get to avoid that kind of kludgey (but incredibly common) magic defense option. -Peter

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:PYI8sakV...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <U3bvg.2638$Mz3.788@fed1read07>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Frankly, I think you're kind of fixated on "deliberately obtuse" thing >>because I have no problem questioning orthodox thinking about strategy >>in this newsgroup. If someone questions your beloved doctrines and >>tenets in public, it's comforting to accuse them of being deliberately >>obtuse. But not very accurate. > > No, see, you think you're Galileo claiming that the Earth revolves > around the Sun, in blatant disregard of accepted norms. > > Unfortunately, you're actually one of his helpers, wondering what people > mean by the word "telescope". Guess our descendents will know in 400 years. In any event, neither visionaries nor the stupid are being deliberately obtuse. So fuck it. Fred

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153267943.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Not at all. Is any particular archetype really dominant right now? >> You're reading too much or the wrong things into what I said. My >> point is just that lots of defense is too rewarding, based on the >> types of decks that tend to make it to the finals. > > I think you are right about this. That being said, I don't think giving > non Ausepx disciplines access to viable bleed reduction (i.e. a cards > that let non Auspex disciplines reduce bleeds by 2 at superior, that > are low opportunity cost and flexible) would actually increase the > amount of defense in play. It might - depending on the actual card and discipline. If it allows some type of deck that covers a lot of defensive considerations but needs a good answer to weeny bleeds the ability to reduce the bleeds and stay untapped, you might create another good defensive archetype in the process where only a kind of spotty, unreliable deck existed before. > Currently, every deck built has to answer the question "How is this > deck going to deal with a significant bleed predator". Always. Or it > isn't a viable deck. Which means that all decks are built with some > sort of bleed defense. Which might be bounce (and really, more often > than not, it is). Or might be intercept. Or might be bloat. Or might be > outrace. Decks that can't do *one* of these things are, from the > inception, inviable. And a great deal of the time, the answer is "I use > bounce, either 'cause I have AUS, or I have dom, or 'cause I bolt one > of those things on to my deck". I can't think of how many decks I have > built that look like "5 of an important Superstar and then 7 dom > weenies" or "5 of an important Superstar, and then 7 AUS weenies". > Really, it is a lot. I don't know. Dueling "IMEs", like David Cherryholmes and I were having earlier today about weeny bash decks being more common then harmless weeny decks: although I do see lots of decks that have bounce, I don't necessarily see a lot of decks that have a *lot* of bounce. I keep seeing successful players using more intercept than bounce because if they don't use intercept, too many other things go uncontested. > Introducing reasonable bleed reduction to non Auspex disciplines > (again, my best yet possibly flawed example is an Obfuscate > mod/reaction card that says +1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2) would not, > for my money, make the game any more defensive that it currently is. It > would just mean that all those decks that have fringe dominate just for > the 8 deflections, or all those decks that are built to include AUS, > just for the Telepathic Misdirections, would get to avoid that kind of > kludgey (but incredibly common) magic defense option. I think you're probably right about all the parts except where you say it wouldn't make the game more defensive. It might not. But it seems more likely to me that it probably would make it at least a little more defensive. Fred

>> I think it's quite clear from context what was being discussed. > > It absolutely is not. Then you have poor reading comprehension skills. >> Your quest for over-precision is precisely what is considered >> "deliberately obtuse". A long-standing player would know (within a few >> card slots) the popular retro Malk deck from 10 or so years ago. > > Sorry, but it is NOT over-precision to assume there might be a special > feature implied by a name like Malk94. To me, I guess that point seems > pretty obvious and I consider your attitude about terminology to be > rather bizarre. A person doesn't know what a name might imply unless he > actually asks - even if it may not have anything to do with the issue at > hand. How hard is that to understand? It's quite understandable. I quite agree with it in fact. I don't, however, believe that you didn't know what the term meant. >> A long-standing player would consider the fact that such a deck is an >> ousting cannon (as was abundantly clear from context). > > Sure. But who said I didn't understand that? All *I* said was, "I'm > not sure what Malk94 is." Which was true. If you understand that, then you understood the thrust of the point and had no need to muddy the waters. >> No special feature was required according to context. > > No special feature was required. But that doesn't mean no special > feature was present. There's a difference. No special feature was relevant. You knew this (as you admitted in this post). > >> Simply put: you're reaching. You're being. . . say it with me, now. . . >> deliberately obtuse. > > Say it with me now...BULLLLLLLLLLSHIT!!! What an arrogant, idiot > stance: "If someone encounters a new term that's suggestive of its > meaning, he's being deliberately obtuse to request clarification about > it." I take it the saying that, "there are no dumb questions", doesn't > much rate with Ankur. It's not a term that you find as new. There are several instances in which you have specifically responded to a post with a nearly identical phrase, with virtually 100% understanding of its meaning. You're calling shennanigans. Dumb questions are fine, Fred. I'm quite patient about them. But a person such as yourself (who knows the term, in all honesty) shouldn't need to ask about it. To do so is to act deliberately obtuse. I'm giving you the credit to know what you're talking about (which you do). > Bah, I'll leave the accusations of ulterior motives since there's no > place productive to go with them. But it's pretty clear to me that the > whole "deliberately obtuse" thing is pretty much just a backhanded way > of belittling someone without actually having to put up some real > argument and discussion about something. I think I've been quite clear. And it's an insult only in the sense that you could likely "cut to the chase" far more often with your discussions if you would avoid revisiting things you already know. Far be it from me to make a suggestion. If you note, my original post had a smiley face in it. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >>> I think it's quite clear from context what was being discussed. >> >> It absolutely is not. > > Then you have poor reading comprehension skills. In the context given, the term could have meant an unlimited number of things, blatant assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Certain things could be assumed, obviously. But that's a far cry from knowing what the deck is, exactly. Hardly the stuff of deliberate obtuseness just because I happen to mention that I hadn't had the term defined for me up to that point. >>> Your quest for over-precision is precisely what is considered >>> "deliberately obtuse". A long-standing player would know (within a few >>> card slots) the popular retro Malk deck from 10 or so years ago. >> >> Sorry, but it is NOT over-precision to assume there might be a special >> feature implied by a name like Malk94. To me, I guess that point seems >> pretty obvious and I consider your attitude about terminology to be >> rather bizarre. A person doesn't know what a name might imply unless he >> actually asks - even if it may not have anything to do with the issue at >> hand. How hard is that to understand? > > It's quite understandable. I quite agree with it in fact. I don't, > however, believe that you didn't know what the term meant. Well, I didn't. Get used to the concept. I don't know what your problem is with it. >>> A long-standing player would consider the fact that such a deck is an >>> ousting cannon (as was abundantly clear from context). >> >> Sure. But who said I didn't understand that? All *I* said was, "I'm >> not sure what Malk94 is." Which was true. > > If you understand that, then you understood the thrust of the point and > had no need to muddy the waters. I *didn't* muddy the waters. Look at the damn exchange, for crying out loud! It was just a throwaway comment: "Malk94? I don't know what that is." - and on we go. I even agreed with the point Peter was making at that moment, albeit being uncertain about what he meant by the Malk94 reference. Then you came in on the side with your accusation that is a total non-sequitar right up to this very minute. I'm competely confused why you did that or where you're going with this. >>> No special feature was required according to context. >> >> No special feature was required. But that doesn't mean no special >> feature was present. There's a difference. > > No special feature was relevant. You knew this (as you admitted in this > post). Nor this. I did not just admit I knew that. I admitted that no special feature was required - to pretty much understand Peter's point, which I did. Or close enough to respond to it. >>> Simply put: you're reaching. You're being. . . say it with me, now. . . >>> deliberately obtuse. >> >> Say it with me now...BULLLLLLLLLLSHIT!!! What an arrogant, idiot >> stance: "If someone encounters a new term that's suggestive of its >> meaning, he's being deliberately obtuse to request clarification about >> it." I take it the saying that, "there are no dumb questions", doesn't >> much rate with Ankur. > > It's not a term that you find as new. There are several instances in which > you have specifically responded to a post with a nearly identical phrase, > with virtually 100% understanding of its meaning. Sorry, but I have not. Xian pointed at one post in which David peripherally used the term "Malk 1994s". I let it pass at the time - probably not understanding what he meant at that moment either, though I can't honestly say I recall one way or the other - and responded directly to David's point without worrying too much about it. Searching the way Xian searched (I think), I found another instance where John Flournoy used the term peripherally in an argument about Victor Pelletier. Same thing - had no clue what John meant and it didn't matter because it wasn't the least bit central to his point. So, again, I just let it pass. Where else? What is "several instances"? > Dumb questions are fine, Fred. I'm quite patient about them. But a person such as yourself (who knows the term, in all honesty) > shouldn't need to ask about it. To do so is to act deliberately obtuse. I'm giving you the credit to know what you're talking > about (which you do). I don't understand what your issue is with this, but convince yourself: I DID NOT KNOW exactly what a Malk94 deck was when Peter used the term this morning - and what I did know about it was purely from contextual assumptions, which were sketchy. Because I did not know, an accusation of being deliberately obtuse is an error. AN ERROR, Ankur. Do you know what that term means? Not to mention a huge, unnecessary, stupid diversion to the rest of the newsgroup, especially considering my mentioning that I didn't know didn't have any real importance in the dialogue. Sheesh. > I think I've been quite clear. And it's an insult only in the sense that you could likely "cut to the chase" far more often with > your discussions if you would avoid revisiting things you already know. Given that you don't seem very good at discerning deliberate obtuseness from true ignorance, I'd guess you're seeing things my arguments that I didn't put in them. It is true that I use deliberate obtuseness from time to time in order to get people to back up and justify assumptions they accept as gospel which I question. Sometimes that's actually the quickest way to cut to the chase: make the person stop and justify his logic step by step so I can point at exactly the step that's wrong and we can get down to bickering about it. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen nearly as often as you apparently think. Fred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 sutekh_23 wrote: >> > No, don't get me wrong, being bled for 3+ happens often we'll just remember this. > In addition in our local > metagame being the "bouncer" often draws the ire of the combat deck > that you just bounced too and in thier next turn you may find yourself > wishing for minionless bounce as all your vamps have developed sudden > cases of armlessness, headlessness, or are smoking piles of ash on the > floor. You play with chimps. If you bounce to your prey and he Rushes you, well, he was likely to Rush you anyway; no harm done. If your prey overreacts by killing all your minions for a single bleed bounce, well, it's his choice to lose the game, but it still is the play of a chimp. If you bounce to your prey, who bounces to his prey, and HE rushes you, that's _really_ the play of a chimp. Teach your playgroup to actually try to win if you want to get rid of THAT problem; don't blame the cards. > Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. Second place is the first loser. Try to win. > See, I don't understand this comment Xian. You are willing to spend the > slot on gaining pool, but not saving that pool? Admittedly most single > cards wont just gain you just 1 pool, Which is surely the point he was making. > but can you see my point? You mean the one that you just said wasn't really a point at all? >You can say it's inefficient use of resources, sure, thats fine, It is. Reducing bleeds by only 1 for a card slot is ineffective. Part of this is because bleeding for 1 is ineffective as an ousting mechanism (unless you have 12 minions, and there won't be enough reduce in your deck to handle that after the first turn). Since you can expect people to bleed for more than 1 routinely, why would reducing it by only 1 ever even come close to making the cut in a deck? Answer: it wouldn't, and that's why all these crap bleed reduction cards don't see play. (Worth noting: Greta reduces _without_ the card slot, and she sees a LOT more play. It's a fine line with the resources, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.) > playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp Reduces a bleed by 2. See the theme? > and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. Yeah, let me know how well Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality work to keep the Setites from being powerbled out by Malk '94. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEvadAtQZlu3o7QpERAozIAKDtKGuYzVkMJxF4urSdFQgw+myWJQCguCqD BH9mRqiSsHu0LR3GRDQEWyY= =8xKy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Oh, and you don't have to have a deck with "regularly multiple untapped > minions" to properly use TC. You get a TC, leave a 5-cap with AUS > untapped. And reduce a bleed by 2. > Or have a hand full of TC's, leave 2 minions untapped, and > watch the bleeder waste his actions. And you reshuffle your hand. And reduce a few bleeds by 2. As already said, it IS good. But not nearly as good as sending 1 or 2 bleeds your prey's way, or wherever else you want to deal it ! Let's not forget that redirecting can also be dealt, while reducing can only be dealt in the case of the weak Folderol. And I know this thread is about Auspex, but let's not forget that the Ultimate Boucne Card, Deflection, doesn't even tap you at superior. > And, > as far as bleeding for 3+ goes, it's irresponsible and risky, and no > good bleeder is ever going to go over 3, because of AI, deflections, > misdirections, and such. THAT is the most false and irrelevant statement I ever read on this newsgroup, no offense intended mate. Because : 1) there are ways to know if your prey plays AI or not (Monocle : "Do you play AI in this deck ?" ; relevations sup etc) 2) A number of these tactics can also be used to bleed more "responsibly" and take your Intercept, TC, TM, Deflections, whatever, from your hand, so you know it's safe to bleed for a lot. 3) Most of the decks using Intercept or Bounce don't bother to also include AI (they just don't have the space or use for it), so I'm more cautious about not bleeding too strongly a deck without bleed defense (or, say, just a bunch of 2nd Trads). 4) There are moments when you can be perfectly sure that your prey can't play AI : when she already played an OOT Master ; and this happens quite often, with Sudden and Direct and what-have-you (played Life Boon, uh ? Now PAY !!). 5) Many players, including very good players, consider that being bounced isn't that bad because it hurts their "next prey" or, at the very worst, takes a player from the table (that may be a good reasoning or not depending on the table, I'm just saying that it is widely spread) ; many players also think that a BIG bleed is worth risking the AI. I wouldn't do it with a big vamp (some do...) but Gloria Giovanni bleeding for 6 is definitely worth it. Oh, and she can be Possessed back too, necromantics are marvelous ain't they ? ;-) > I really don't remember the last time I've seen > a good bleeder going over 3 in my surrounding. Those kind of bleeds end > up at seriously fuck up places around the table, or get the bleeding > minion burned. Not in my competitive experience. I also recall the finals at Heidelberg (not sure if it was the EC or the day before) where there was a "I bleed the hell out of you with Inner Circles" deck. It made it to the finals, that could mean something. It's not the only time this happens either. > Or generate so much hate from usually > no-bleed-defense-combat's that they're happy to go cross table torn > signpost-grapple-blur-agg burn them. Maybe in friendly games, or in light competitive environments. In tournaments where every deck is dangerous, a totally irresponsible deck might make unwanted enemies, but a good "big bleeds" deck will be just as dangerous as another deck. Of course if it has no way of dealing and is too offensive, good players will kill it with crosstable votes, but that isn't just because he can bleed hard. > Holding 6 TC's in your deck is the > best thing you can do with an auspex deck, because TC is NEVER, and i > mean NEVER a dead card. Another false statement. It is never a dead card if your prey bleeds. If it's a voter or a rusher your hand will jam. Whereas TM is seldom a dead card, because you can try to intercept with it too so it can help against Ventrue Old School, +1 stealth rushes on your Famed vamp, etc. And in the endgame you'll always find a way to cycle it, if it's more important to you than the blood cost. Being able to really reduce everything that comes your way (or enough to be comparable to a bounce) will require a LOT of TCs, that will totally jam your hand if no bleeds come your way. But I get your meaning that TC is never dead against bleeds. Sure. It still makes it a poor choice most of the times compared to bounce cards, for reasons already stated all over this thread by Peter, James et al. > Presuming you can play, though, and I can > understand that can be tough. It saves you exactly 2/5 of your 30 pool, > if used correctly. I consider that to be quite much, don't know about you. I often play with quite a few deflections. I can't count the number of times when my pred killed my first prey for me. A bounce will save ALL your pool. As James mentionned, even redirecting bleeds for 2 (let's say Palla or Nightmare bleeds ?) has many uses. All this with just one card per bleed, while even the single Govern the Unaligned will either require 2 TC from you or bleed you for one anyway (and pleaaaaase don't tell me nobody plays Govern or an equivalent in your playgroup !). So, given all this, and more (I just won't repeat all the sensible arguments already stated), I really don't see how TC can be considered half as good as bounce _in most cases_ (I did try a few Bartholomew decks with bleed reductions when he came out, it sure was fun but under-optimized lol). -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

Fred Scott wrote: > Same as the last guy: cook up specific scenarios and present them as if > they accurately demonstrate the relative value of the two cards when they > don't. I was using the same scenarios previously presented, and adding a third for the sake of balance. Because, in fact, I don't think TC is as bad as Peter has been making it out to be, or Deflection/Misdirection as good. Often, I find myself bouncing bleeds for 1 at 1 blood per pop just to get the damn cards out of my hand. This depends on how combat heavy the metagame is, of course. But even in a combat heavy metagame, you do need to plan for the occasional big bleeder. For one thing, I don't think you're paying as much attention to > Telepathic Counter not tapping the defender as you should. For > instance, I didn't see you give any mouth time to the point that > playing two Telepathic Misdirections in the same turn requires that you > leave two vampires untapped or have a Wake as well. I'm pretty sure I pointed out in the case of each scenario whether the Wake was used or not. Or that reducing > the bleed leaves you untapped to simply block another guy eventually. > In my experience, it's much more common to be bled by four guys for one > at no stealth who will NOT tear your head off if you block than the way > you proposed it. If I can block my predator easily without serious consequences, I probably don't need reduction or bounce. 2-3 pool loss a turn is annoying, and not a good thing by any means, but a competently built deck should be able to deal with it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen (I do it frequently myself when I get Master-jammed with a combat deck), but if this was the only thing anyone had to fear, then bleed defence beyond Wakes wouldn't be necessary. Of course, in that situation, TC isn't the best passive defence. Ecstasy is. And we all know that Ecstasy is pants, not least because SER is so much more expensive than AUS. Kevin Walsh

Kevin Walsh wrote: > I was using the same scenarios previously presented, and adding a third > for the sake of balance. Because, in fact, I don't think TC is as bad > as Peter has been making it out to be, or Deflection/Misdirection as > good. To be fair here, I have never said that Telepathic Counter is that bad (otherwise, why would I be advocating for other disciplines getting similar cards--I think reducing a bleed for 2 at a superior discipline for no blood and not tapping is a very reasonable defensive ability. Just not for Auspex.). Just that *compared to Telepathic Misdirection*, it generally isn't worth using. 'Cause I *do* think that Deflection/Misdirection is that good. >Often, I find myself bouncing bleeds for 1 at 1 blood per pop > just to get the damn cards out of my hand. Sure. Everyone does. Yet still, Deflection is likely one of the most commonly included cards in the game. The effect is so strong that the low opportunity cost is not even a factor to including it in your deck. -Peter

>> It's not a term that you find as new. There are several instances in >> which you have specifically responded to a post with a nearly identical >> phrase, with virtually 100% understanding of its meaning. > > Sorry, but I have not. Xian pointed at one post in which David > peripherally used the term "Malk 1994s". I let it pass at the time - > probably not understanding what he meant at that moment either, though I > can't honestly say I recall one way or the other - and responded > directly to David's point without worrying too much about it. I find it incredible that you didn't know. Truly, truly incredible. The reason for my vehemence on the issue is largely due to that. In terms of a viable metaphor, it's like suddenly realizing that someone who has finished a Calculus course doesn't know what the word "derivative" means. > I don't understand what your issue is with this, but convince yourself: > I DID NOT KNOW exactly what a Malk94 deck was when Peter used the term > this morning - and what I did know about it was purely from contextual > assumptions, which were sketchy. Because I did not know, an accusation > of being deliberately obtuse is an error. AN ERROR, Ankur. Do you know > what that term means? Not to mention a huge, unnecessary, stupid > diversion to the rest of the newsgroup, especially considering my > mentioning that I didn't know didn't have any real importance in the > dialogue. Sheesh. Don't patronize me with the meaning of "error". I admit it was an error if you truly didn't know. It's truly incredible that you didn't. And, since you do sometimes use the "play the fool" technique in order to get someone to clarify their response, it's virtually undetectable which is which. Assuming that you did know what Malk94 meant, your response was wildly inappropriate. If you truly didn't know (which I still find incredible, but ok, whatever), then I'm sorry. > Given that you don't seem very good at discerning deliberate obtuseness > from true ignorance, I'd guess you're seeing things my arguments that I > didn't put in them. It is true that I use deliberate obtuseness from > time to time in order to get people to back up and justify assumptions > they accept as gospel which I question. Sometimes that's actually the > quickest way to cut to the chase: make the person stop and justify his > logic step by step so I can point at exactly the step that's wrong and > we can get down to bickering about it. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't > happen nearly as often as you apparently think. It is certainly a valid tactic. I think that you do it rather routinely. Perhaps I give you more credit for knowing your shit than I ought to. Forgive me. Deliberate obtuseness vs true ignorance is virtually impossible to distinguish based on words alone (by the law of "duh"). You make such a distinction based on what you think a person knows. You're a prolific, long-standing poster in this newsgroup. It's insulting (to you) and a waste of other similarly prolific writers' time to assume that you're unaware of well-known theory and terminology about the game -- whether you agree with it or not, whether you use it or not. Almost any person who posts here would assume that you have this base of knowledge. For myself, though I don't necessarily agree with the orthodox belief system, I certainly do know it. It is *more than reasonable* to assume you do as well. So sue me for giving you more credit than you deserve. I hereby retract all accusations of "deliberately obtuse". In future discussions with you, I'll be sure to define terms like "wall", "law firm", and "arika vote", just in case you happen to have avoided learning the meanings of those terms in your rather long stay here. Ankur must be deliberately obtuse or something

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > This might be a horrible idea. But maybe not. And maybe the key is to > do away with the idea that only Auspex gets good bleed reduction. For the sake of illustrating this idea, here are some cards off the top of my head that I think might be viable. Not necessarily the best of ideas, but the kinda thing I'm talking about: Shroud Resources Obfuscate Action Mod/Reaction obf: +1 stealth OBF: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. Forced Defense Fortitude Combat/Reaction for: Prevent 1 damage FOR: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. Cut Them Off At The Pass! Celerity Combat/Reaction cel: Manuver or Press CEL: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. Insect Swarm Animalism Combat/Reaction ani: Strike: 1R with optional manuver. ANI: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. And whatever. Not all disciplines would need this kind of card. Amd these are all possibly stronger than they need to be (or maybe not). The Obfuscate one, for instance, would probably be overpowered in S+B decks (as it provides easily cycled stealth for when your prey declines to try and block you), so that example is probably one that would need to be something else. The combat/reaction examples are probably less easily cycled, as you need to get into combat to use them for the inferior version (i.e. you need to Rush someone, someone needs to block you or you need to block someone, and if you can block them, you probably don't need to reduce their bleeds anyway; this being said, giving this sort of ability to combat decks means that they'll less often be in a spot where they have to agressively back Rush, which helps maintain table balance), but this is the kind of thing I am proposing. White Wolf, please feel free to take these ideas and run with them. I claim no possession over them :-) -Peter

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > One thing that I'd like to > > see are more ways of getting around intercept as a means of pushing actions > > through. I see too many viable deck archetypes that place such a heavy > > reliance on intercept that it can be difficult to effect ANY kind of offense > > against them. > > Doesn't that already exist in the form of block fails, better combat, > or a lot of stealth? If you have a problem with intercept walls, play > a deck that takes only 0 stealth actions and they'll jam on intercept. > > Nonetheless, I agree with you that timeouts are no fun, and playing > against decks that are intentionally designed without much forward > pressure isn't fun, either. I don't see that as much a flaw in card > design, but the deck building choices of some people. > > Ira I have to agree that there a ton of ways around intercept walls. Some are much better than others. No Secrets has the potential to create some seriously mean walls. The big trump to intercept heavy decks is combat. I myself often play wallish decks at tournaments because of the low frequency of combat. I think that combat (good combat) is often the missing link in the balance equation because it is so rare at tournaments. I don't have to sneak past a minion that I can burn/torporize. Combat is not a very direct means of ousting, however, and I'm sure why it is not seen more at big-time tournaments. I find myself often frustrated with my own decks. Most of my defensive decks really suffer from the time-out issue. At the same time, in the last 18 months or so, I have been seated next to many aggressive predators that would have quickly ousted a non-defensive deck. At the same time, I don't enjoy playing sneak-bleed. I also have had some ugly experiences with speedy decks, as I cripple and oust my first prey, only to get a second prey I can't get through due to their build-up of permanents that my first prey couldn't stop because of my pressure. Perhaps I am just bringing the wrong deck for a given metagame, but no matter how I jump, it always seems to serve another at my tables.

"Kevin Walsh" <hja...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message news:1153309037.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Same as the last guy: cook up specific scenarios and present them as if >> they accurately demonstrate the relative value of the two cards when they >> don't. > > I was using the same scenarios previously presented, and adding a third > for the sake of balance. Ah, you did say that. But I have no idea where you got them, nor does it matter. They don't really reduce down to something that accurately demonstrates relative value. > Because, in fact, I don't think TC is as bad > as Peter has been making it out to be, or Deflection/Misdirection as > good. Often, I find myself bouncing bleeds for 1 at 1 blood per pop > just to get the damn cards out of my hand. This depends on how combat > heavy the metagame is, of course. But even in a combat heavy metagame, > you do need to plan for the occasional big bleeder. Sure. And thus, Telepathic Misdirection is more popular than the existing version of Telepathic Counter. > For one thing, I don't think you're paying as much attention to >> Telepathic Counter not tapping the defender as you should. For >> instance, I didn't see you give any mouth time to the point that >> playing two Telepathic Misdirections in the same turn requires that you >> leave two vampires untapped or have a Wake as well. > > I'm pretty sure I pointed out in the case of each scenario whether the > Wake was used or not. You didn't mention it in the 2nd and 3rd scenarios (I suppose it could be easily assumed; I just hadn't noticed the Wake-in-hand part of your description and use of it in the 1st scenario) and particular you said nothing about being untapped to block a bleed in the last two scenarios. >> Or that reducing >> the bleed leaves you untapped to simply block another guy eventually. >> In my experience, it's much more common to be bled by four guys for one >> at no stealth who will NOT tear your head off if you block than the way >> you proposed it. > > If I can block my predator easily without serious consequences, I > probably don't need reduction or bounce. 2-3 pool loss a turn is > annoying, and not a good thing by any means, but a competently built > deck should be able to deal with it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen > (I do it frequently myself when I get Master-jammed with a combat > deck), but if this was the only thing anyone had to fear, then bleed > defence beyond Wakes wouldn't be necessary. Huh? I didn't say blocking had no consequences. It usually does. And there's issues about stealth and intercept that may come up, like perhaps you won't successfully block, but at least you'll scare the stealth out of his hand. And you have the option if you have an untapped minion. It also means you have the option to block against other things, like a guy swooping in with a Sensory Deprivation or something you really REALLY want block, never mind the combat issues. You can't just reduce the situation down into two perfectly separate buckets, can-block-and-its-OK and dont-want-to-block-or-I'll-be-sorry, just to wave your hand over the value of untapped minion. Fred

I wrote: > As an aside, 260, as a point of data, illustrates nothing at all. We > don't know how many decks those are in (10? 50? 100? 300?), or how many > Telepathic Misdirections are in decks as a comparison. Maybe I'll make > that point of data into something useful. Clearly, I should be doing something useful with my time, but instead, I'm doing this. Going back to the TWDA, here is what I found, again. My sample is all the TWDs in the archive back through Origins 2004, which is roughly 2 full years of tournament winning decks. Counting them, the sample size is 223 decks (it might be a couple more or a couple less, as I counted by eye rather than doing it with a computer, so we'll give it a margin of error of +/-3 decks :-) As noted before: -Telepathic Misdirection is used in 72 of 223 decks (32%) -Telepathic Counter is used in 17 of 223 decks (8%) -There are 336 copies of Telepathic Misdirection in those 72 decks (4.7 per deck) -There are 80 copies of Telepathic Counter in those 17 decks (4.8 per deck) So when folks use Telepathic Counter, they are using slightly more of them per deck than Telepathic Misdirection ('cause they are less efficient?). I found multiple decks that included 8-12 Telepathic Misdirections. I found 1 deck that included 16 Telepathic Counters. Looking for Deflection, I found: -Deflection is used in 80 of 223 decks (36%) I didn't count the individual number of Deflections. I also looked for My Enemy's Enemy, which didn't show up much (once in 223 decks?), and it is hard to find as people tend spell it differently, but the occurance of Folderol is probably roughly equivelant to My Enemy's Enemy, so we'll ignore those. Redirection also only shows up once or twice in 223 decks, so we'll ignore that, too. Realizing that some of the decks using Deflection are also using Telepathic Misdirection, and that some of (well, most of, really--maybe 3 or 4 of the 17 decks using Telepathic Counter are not also using Telepathic Misdirection) the decks using Telepathic Misdirection are also using Telepathic Counter, so there is some level of error in the following numbers (but probably not enough to really be significant): 68% of the decks in the sample use bleed bounce. 8% of the decks in the sample use bleed reduction. I think that is reasonable evidence that people consider bleed bounce to be significantly more useful than bleed reduction, given the choice. -Peter

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >>> It's not a term that you find as new. There are several instances in which you have specifically responded to a post with a >>> nearly identical phrase, with virtually 100% understanding of its meaning. >> >> Sorry, but I have not. Xian pointed at one post in which David peripherally used the term "Malk 1994s". I let it pass at the >> time - probably not understanding what he meant at that moment either, though I can't honestly say I recall one way or the >> other - and responded directly to David's point without worrying too much about it. > > I find it incredible that you didn't know. Truly, truly incredible. The reason for my vehemence on the issue is largely due to > that. In terms of a viable metaphor, it's like suddenly realizing that someone who has finished a Calculus course doesn't know > what the word "derivative" means. Why is that? Where do you come up with these attitudes? There's no "Jyhad School" that I had to go to post here. The term shows up in about, what, 40 or 50 posts amongst the THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of posts that have turned up in this newsgroup since 2003 - and apparently didn't even exist before that - and you think this is like a person who finishes a Calculus class having to know what a derivative is? I don't know what to say. > Don't patronize me with the meaning of "error". I admit it was an error if you truly didn't know. It's truly incredible that you > didn't. No, it's not. Apparently you have some truly bizarre idea about people needing to read every post in the newsgroup in order to pick up on all the nuances of very esoteric terminology. I don't know how you got so far off base with that idea that you're screaming "deliberate obtuseness" when someone happens to let a couple years pass before he actually needs to know what some sporadically used term means but it's something you need to get more realistic about. > If you truly didn't know (which I still find incredible, but ok, whatever), then I'm sorry. All right, fine. But I have to say, I find it incredible that you find it incredible. This shit happens all the time. > Deliberate obtuseness vs true ignorance is virtually impossible to distinguish based on words alone (by the law of "duh"). You > make such a distinction based on what you think a person knows. You're a prolific, long-standing poster in this newsgroup. It's > insulting (to you) and a waste of other similarly prolific writers' time to assume that you're unaware of well-known theory and > terminology about the game -- whether you agree with it or not, whether you use it or not. Sure. But where you're off base here is the idea that "Malk94" and it's variants are "well-known terminology". If you look at the number of hits in the searches Xian and I did, they may look like a lot when aggragated. But amongst the huge amount of overall traffic in the group, finding a post using those terms is looking for a needle in a haystack. They really aren't used very often at all. And the couple of times I've encountered them in the past, I'm sure I frankly didn't care. In both cases, they came up in long, verbose posts where I was talking too much and responding to too many other issues to need to stop and ask the other guy what it was when it didn't matter a rat's ass in those contexts. I don't know why you think the term is so well-known. Maybe it gets kicked all over the place in threads where you've posted and somehow you've gotten the idea that everybody used it all the time. This is a huge newsgroup with lots of threads and, frankly, I don't read the vast majority of posts here. Or, at least, I don't read more than the first couple of lines in a post that doesn't interest me. > So sue me for giving you more credit than you deserve. I hereby retract all accusations of "deliberately obtuse". In future > discussions with you, I'll be sure to define terms like "wall", "law firm", and "arika vote", just in case you happen to have > avoided learning the meanings of those terms in your rather long stay here. I don't think you need to do that unless someone specifically asks. Just don't blame them for asking. Asking questions is a good thing. Fred

> Fred Scott wrote: > > I'm not sure what "Malk94" is. > > Heh. I'm not getting involved in the other part of this particular > aspect of this discussion, but as pointed out "Malk94" or some other > such version of that phrase ("Malk'94", "Malkavian'94" or whatever) has > been floating around here for a while to stand for "Hey! Look at this > deck I have that I put together in 1994! It has Malkavians with > Dominate and Obfuscate!". Which still works. I think I was using the > term "Malk '94" up until recently, when someone else shortened it to > Malk94, which I thought was funny, so I adopted it. Actually, it looks like a hunter's name, and as I didn't buy any NoR I wondered for a while if they had dared name an Imbued by that name !! After all, there's a Laibon called Camaria, so everything's possible... But after a very quick reflection (of 3-4 days and nights non-stop) I understood what the term was supposed to mean. But is it really necessary to blame Fred if he didn't get it right away ? And can we get back to the core discussion and avoid that type of *not quite* flame wars ? This thread actually has interesting parts, and is quite long and sometimes hard to follow without it... Orpheus '99

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > sutekh_23 wrote: > >> > > No, don't get me wrong, being bled for 3+ happens often > > we'll just remember this. > > > In addition in our local > > metagame being the "bouncer" often draws the ire of the combat deck > > that you just bounced too and in thier next turn you may find yourself > > wishing for minionless bounce as all your vamps have developed sudden > > cases of armlessness, headlessness, or are smoking piles of ash on the > > floor. > > You play with chimps. If you bounce to your prey and he Rushes you, > well, he was likely to Rush you anyway; no harm done. If your prey > overreacts by killing all your minions for a single bleed bounce, well, > it's his choice to lose the game, but it still is the play of a chimp. No, Its the reply of a deck that cannot bounce or reduce but can fight. If your personal deck constucting skills are so atrophied that you need dom or aus to survive or win a game, then thats your problem, let the people who want to try something else try it. Play with chimps, Hell, I'm replying to a monkey. > > If you bounce to your prey, who bounces to his prey, and HE rushes you, > that's _really_ the play of a chimp. Teach your playgroup to actually > try to win if you want to get rid of THAT problem; don't blame the cards. > No, thats the play of a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at stealth. Remember, the idea is to maximise your VP's. If my deck maximises Its VP's by back ousting everyone well then thats the way the deck works. Just because you find it offensive, quite honestly don't mean shit. > > Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. > > Second place is the first loser. Try to win. Comes back to "winning" Yes I like to win but if all my deck does to win is "I bleed you for lots which you can't stop", I find the deck boring. Sorta like the boring shit that happens in magic that V:tes tried to move away from, maybe you should be playing M:tg? >> > See, I don't understand this comment Xian. You are willing to spend the > > slot on gaining pool, but not saving that pool? Admittedly most single > > cards wont just gain you just 1 pool, > > Which is surely the point he was making. > Oh look, I admit someone else has a viable point of view, please crucify me now because I am no longer the V:tes god you actually think I am > >You can say it's inefficient use of resources, sure, thats fine, > > It is. Reducing bleeds by only 1 for a card slot is ineffective. Part > of this is because bleeding for 1 is ineffective as an ousting mechanism > (unless you have 12 minions, and there won't be enough reduce in your > deck to handle that after the first turn). > > Since you can expect people to bleed for more than 1 routinely, why > would reducing it by only 1 ever even come close to making the cut in a > deck? Answer: it wouldn't, and that's why all these crap bleed > reduction cards don't see play. Because the point of the discussion was auspexless bleed reduction. I'm trying to work within the paramaters of the thread, something that you seem unable to grasp. Start another thread about bounce or how I suck, quite frankly at this stage I don't give a rats ass about what you say. > > (Worth noting: Greta reduces _without_ the card slot, and she sees a LOT > more play. It's a fine line with the resources, but sometimes you gotta > do what you gotta do.) > Oh, so reduction of a bleed of 5 is ok as long as it doesn't cost a card place?, Get your head out of the "94" sand and realise what is going on around you. > > playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp > > Reduces a bleed by 2. See the theme? > Costs a master phase action as opposed to a non-tapping reaction, surely a stickler for "effectivness" such as yourself would see it as a waste as opposed to bounce > > and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. > > Yeah, let me know how well Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality work to keep > the Setites from being powerbled out by Malk '94.> Have I proven my point yet? The topic is "auspexless bleed reduction" moron, not "how does deflection rate against telepatic misdirection" If you somehow learnt to actually talk about the actual subject posted, I might find the time to listen to your drivel.

Fred Scott wrote: > Not at all. Is any particular archetype really dominant right now? I can't get to the TWDA from work, where I am now. So I can't say for sure. I do recall seeing a lot of weenie decks at Origins though (and I'm lumping breed and ally decks into the "weenie" category here). > You're reading too much or the wrong things into what I said. My > point is just that lots of defense is too rewarding, based on the > types of decks that tend to make it to the finals. It's not that > no offense-oriented decks make it to the finals. As was forcefully > pointed out to me last month, apparently weenie Ravnos and !Toredor > decks make it to the finals and win too much in some peoples' > estimation. Is this just a metagame thing, though? I'm pretty sure I see aggressive as much as defensive decks in most finals. And why is lots of defense too rewarding? I see way more defensive decks that don't make it to the finals of a tournament due to not being able to get enough VPs in the first three rounds than I do decks that do get there. And the bigger the tournament is, the more this is true. > Likewise, adding some new elements to the game to outmaneuver > the various defensive modes that are popular (overly popular for > purposes of fun in the game, IME) now is hardly tantamount to > shifting it totally over to heavy stealth bleed and weeny bleed. > At least, not if done correctly. See, there's the rub. What I worry about is that any kind of outmaneuvering tech is going to be easily added to the stealth/bleed and weenie/whatever decks that are currently the most aggressive decks around. I don't expect you to be a game designer and have the answers to this issue, but I think it's going to be VERY tough to come up with new offensive options that don't just bolster the hyperaggressive decks even more. In theory, I agree with you that more offensive options would be good (I always like more options, of whatever stripe). In practice, I'm not sure that "more offensive options" won't just translate directly to "better Arika decks," which the game really doesn't need. > It would just mean that clever > offensively oriented decks would be rewarded more and clever > defensively oriented decks would be rewarded less. I'm not really sure why you think this is a good thing. Shouldn't two decks of equal cleverness be rewarded equally, regardless of what they do? > And thus we > could expect more finals to actually FINISH, allowing them to be > decided more by metagame choices and good card play and less by > negotiations - which tend to go on endlessly and often uselessly > in the finals. I'm all for finals finishing, but I have to say that all of the finals I've ever seen time out didn't do so because of negotiation. That seems to be something that comes up more with vote decks than wall decks, no? Or is there some other definition of "defensive decks" that I'm missing? John Eno

Fred Scott wrote: > "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message > Sure. But where you're off base here is the idea that "Malk94" and it's > variants are "well-known terminology". If you look at the number of hits > in the searches Xian and I did, they may look like a lot when aggragated. I actually expected to find many more hits than I did. Perhaps my google-fu is weak. Or it really hadn't been printed as much as I thought it had. > But amongst the huge amount of overall traffic in the group, finding a > post using those terms is looking for a needle in a haystack. They really > aren't used very often at all. And the couple of times I've encountered I suspect that although they're not used often on the newsgroup (Malk S&B probably being more common), they're *very* frequently used in multiple playgroups across the country in face-to-face conversations. Enough so that I heard the term in separate references to at least 5 (different) decks at Origins. > I don't know why you think the term is so well-known. Maybe it gets > kicked all over the place in threads where you've posted and somehow > you've gotten the idea that everybody used it all the time. This is a It seems likely that it is used in face-to-face conversations with newsgroup frequenters at tournaments and conventions and such, possibly allowing for some confusion about where the term has been used. Xian

invisibl...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't expect you to be a game designer and have the answers to this > issue, but I think it's going to be VERY tough to come up with new > offensive options that don't just bolster the hyperaggressive decks > even more. In theory, I agree with you that more offensive options > would be good (I always like more options, of whatever stripe). In > practice, I'm not sure that "more offensive options" won't just > translate directly to "better Arika decks," which the game really > doesn't need. You could print more cards like Fame and Dragonbound. The rest of the combat-oriented pool-reducers are weak. I know there are some people who are repulsed by the idea of further encouraging combat decks, but things that encourage those decks to go forward really aren't the sorts of things they should object to. In fact, it should make them hate combat decks less. Properly printed, they might give incentive to play something other than weenie guns/potence/fortitude/war ghouls for competitive rush decks. > I'm all for finals finishing, but I have to say that all of the finals > I've ever seen time out didn't do so because of negotiation. That seems > to be something that comes up more with vote decks than wall decks, no? Either that or methodical players trying to figure out what to do with minion action #427. So, weenie decks and vote decks are the real problems. Oh wait, what are the current top dog archetypes!?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Don't hurt yourself reading what's being said. sutekh_23 wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> You play with chimps. If you bounce to your prey and he Rushes you, >> well, he was likely to Rush you anyway; no harm done. If your prey >> overreacts by killing all your minions for a single bleed bounce, well, >> it's his choice to lose the game, but it still is the play of a chimp. > > No, Its the reply of a deck that cannot bounce or reduce but can fight. Such a deck should be able to survive by killing a single minion (ideally, the minion who bounced the bleed), NOT by spazzing and backousting. At least, a competently built deck should. An incompetently built deck might have no way of handling to bleeds other than "vaporize _all_ my predator's vampires", in which case it's just going to help its prey (or possibly grandpredator) win. > If your personal deck constucting skills are so atrophied that you need > dom or aus to survive or win a game, then thats your problem, let the > people who want to try something else try it. If your playgroup's inability to construct decent decks leads you to believe that the only way for a combat deck to survive is to kill all the minions of any deck that offends it (thus losing the game itself), then that's your problem. Just don't sit around pretending that it's a winning strategy. >> If you bounce to your prey, who bounces to his prey, and HE rushes you, >> that's _really_ the play of a chimp. Teach your playgroup to actually >> try to win if you want to get rid of THAT problem; don't blame the cards. >> > No, thats the play of a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at > stealth. Wait, let's think this through. The object of the game is to oust your prey. You oust your prey by reducing his pool to zero. One effective way of doing this is huge bleeds at stealth. One very common deck type is huge bleeds at stealth. Conclusion: Building a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at stealth except by completely disrupting the table dynamic is not a winning decision. > Remember, the idea is to maximise your VP's. If my deck > maximises Its VP's by back ousting everyone well then thats the way the > deck works. The idea is to win the game by getting more VPs than anyone else. If you find that you are routinely having to spend time giving your grandpredator VPs, and your idea of maximizing VPs is "sometimes you get a VP out of it", you have missed the point of the game. > Just because you find it offensive, quite honestly don't Again, read what was said. I don't find it offensive: I find it stupid and a telling sign of weak play, and weak deckbuilding. You can make decks that fight without having them be so totally ass-up defenseless so that they have to cross-table spaz after a single bounced bleed. >>> Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. >> Second place is the first loser. Try to win. > > Comes back to "winning" Yes I like to win but if all my deck does to > win is "I bleed you for lots which you can't stop", I find the deck > boring. There are a large number of articles on the net about "boring" strategies in games which still win, and there has been endless discussion in this very newsgroup about why there is no such thing as "cheese". If your deck can't deal with some of the most common, most effective strategies in the game, your deck isn't "exciting" and "innovative", it sucks. Build a better deck. >>>> See, I don't understand this comment Xian. You are willing to spend the >>> slot on gaining pool, but not saving that pool? Admittedly most single >>> cards wont just gain you just 1 pool, >> Which is surely the point he was making. >> > > Oh look, I admit someone else has a viable point of view, But you didn't. You went on to repeat the point he had just refuted, seemingly believing that it was worth repeating anymore. >>> You can say it's inefficient use of resources, sure, thats fine, >> It is. Reducing bleeds by only 1 for a card slot is ineffective. Part >> of this is because bleeding for 1 is ineffective as an ousting mechanism >> (unless you have 12 minions, and there won't be enough reduce in your >> deck to handle that after the first turn). >> >> Since you can expect people to bleed for more than 1 routinely, why >> would reducing it by only 1 ever even come close to making the cut in a >> deck? Answer: it wouldn't, and that's why all these crap bleed >> reduction cards don't see play. > > Because the point of the discussion was auspexless bleed reduction. Exactly. And if you paid attention, I'm responding to your suggestion that all the reduce-for-1 cards are worthwhile. They aren't. If we are going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in the form of "reduce by 2" or better, even though it will make Telepathic Counter slightly less effective. >> (Worth noting: Greta reduces _without_ the card slot, and she sees a LOT >> more play. It's a fine line with the resources, but sometimes you gotta >> do what you gotta do.) >> > Oh, so reduction of a bleed of 5 is ok as long as it doesn't cost a > card place?, You bet. Card slots are valuable, especially when the card slot is devoted to only a single type of defense and is largely ineffective anyway. Greta can do a lot more things than just reduce bleeds, so she's well worth it even without her special -- but that special is icing on the cake. >>> playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp >> Reduces a bleed by 2. See the theme? >> > Costs a master phase action as opposed to a non-tapping reaction, Correct. It's far from an ideal defense. But it doesn't cost you hand size (which reactions do), since it sits around until you need it. > surely a stickler for "effectivness" such as yourself would see it as > a waste as opposed to bounce I like playing both, honestly. Put the DC out to encourage people to bleed big, then bounce the big bleeds downstream. Good stuff. If you ever run out of bounce, you can burn the DC and get some EFFECTIVE bleed reduction against one. > >>> and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. >> Yeah, let me know how well Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality work to keep >> the Setites from being powerbled out by Malk '94.> > > Have I proven my point yet? Honestly, I don't think you have a point. Except on top of your head. > The topic is "auspexless bleed reduction" And that's the one I've been discussing. Are you reading the posts? If the Setites get a reduce-by-2 card available to them, they have a pretty good shot against Malk '94 by simply not blocking, pool gaining, and reducing. Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality ain't gonna save 'em though. > moron, not "how does deflection rate against telepatic misdirection" Strawman. Please quote message-ID and text from this thread where I compared Deflection to Telepathic Misdirection? (You can't, of course. I suggest reading what's being said instead of reading what you wish was being said.) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEvmwhtQZlu3o7QpERAgraAKCsGQl6BKSmiePTlTI8VRqDi7MIbACgyn+Z tJQVlP52qatIqkHkFgeItVw= =QZn3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Xian wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > > But amongst the huge amount of overall traffic in the group, finding a > > post using those terms is looking for a needle in a haystack. They really > > aren't used very often at all. And the couple of times I've encountered > > I suspect that although they're not used often on the newsgroup (Malk > S&B probably being more common), they're *very* frequently used in > multiple playgroups across the country in face-to-face conversations. > > Enough so that I heard the term in separate references to at least 5 > (different) decks at Origins. > > > I don't know why you think the term is so well-known. Maybe it gets > > kicked all over the place in threads where you've posted and somehow > > you've gotten the idea that everybody used it all the time. This is a > > It seems likely that it is used in face-to-face conversations with > newsgroup frequenters at tournaments and conventions and such, possibly > allowing for some confusion about where the term has been used. Or maybe just Origins. I haven't heard the term bandied about at the conventions I've gone to. Such decks, when discussed, are indicated with longer descriptions. When I've heard them discussed, anyway.

LSJ wrote: > Or maybe just Origins. I haven't heard the term bandied about at the > conventions I've gone to. I'm pretty sure you've heard it floating up front from the back seat of your car. Maybe you were distracted by your fear of The License Plate?

LSJ wrote: > Xian wrote: > > It seems likely that it is used in face-to-face conversations with > > newsgroup frequenters at tournaments and conventions and such, possibly > > allowing for some confusion about where the term has been used. > > Or maybe just Origins. I haven't heard the term bandied about at the > conventions I've gone to. Such decks, when discussed, are indicated > with longer descriptions. When I've heard them discussed, anyway. FWIW, I didn't recall having ever seen or heard the term before either. I was pretty sure I knew roughly what was being talked about based on the context but it occurred to me that there may have been some more specific meaning that I might have been missing. -Robert

> Why is that? Where do you come up with these attitudes? There's no > "Jyhad School" that I had to go to post here. > > The term shows up in about, what, 40 or 50 posts amongst the THOUSANDS > AND THOUSANDS of posts that have turned up in this newsgroup since 2003 > - and apparently didn't even exist before that - and you think this is > like a person who finishes a Calculus class having to know what a > derivative is? I don't know what to say. The reason is because I hear the term kicked around all over the place in casual conversation about Jyhad. It was a staple understanding when I first started to play. Every player that I've ever talked to knows what Malk94 is. *shrug*. From my world view, it's incredible -- to the level of the metaphor that I gave. Moreover, I don't think my world view is particularly kooky: a large majority would post similar experiences. > No, it's not. Apparently you have some truly bizarre idea about people > needing to read every post in the newsgroup in order to pick up on all > the nuances of very esoteric terminology. I don't know how you got so > far off base with that idea that you're screaming "deliberate > obtuseness" when someone happens to let a couple years pass before he > actually needs to know what some sporadically used term means but it's > something you need to get more realistic about. Again, it's not just newsgroup posts. And, you didn't "need to know" the use of Malk94 any better than your understanding. Hell, it's used precisely to avoid specifically discussing the details. >> If you truly didn't know (which I still find incredible, but ok, >> whatever), then I'm sorry. > > All right, fine. But I have to say, I find it incredible that you find > it incredible. This shit happens all the time. Sure. Prolific poster? Commonly-used term? Not so much. But again, whatever. You didn't know. Fine. >> Deliberate obtuseness vs true ignorance is virtually impossible to >> distinguish based on words alone (by the law of "duh"). You make such a >> distinction based on what you think a person knows. You're a prolific, >> long-standing poster in this newsgroup. It's insulting (to you) and a >> waste of other similarly prolific writers' time to assume that you're >> unaware of well-known theory and terminology about the game -- whether >> you agree with it or not, whether you use it or not. > > Sure. But where you're off base here is the idea that "Malk94" and it's > variants are "well-known terminology". If you look at the number of > hits in the searches Xian and I did, they may look like a lot when > aggragated. But amongst the huge amount of overall traffic in the group, > finding a post using those terms is looking for a needle in a haystack. > They really aren't used very often at all. And the couple of times I've > encountered them in the past, I'm sure I frankly didn't care. In both > cases, they came up in long, verbose posts where I was talking too much > and responding to too many other issues to need to stop and ask the > other guy what it was when it didn't matter a rat's ass in those > contexts. Meh. You get to win by talking more. You didn't know. Fine. But to argue that it's not a commonly-used term seems silly, since virtually every person I've ever talked about Jyhad to knows what Malk94 means. >> So sue me for giving you more credit than you deserve. I hereby retract >> all accusations of "deliberately obtuse". In future discussions with >> you, I'll be sure to define terms like "wall", "law firm", and "arika >> vote", just in case you happen to have avoided learning the meanings of >> those terms in your rather long stay here. > > I don't think you need to do that unless someone specifically asks. Just > don't blame them for asking. Asking questions is a good thing. Usually, yes. It can, however, hinder a discussion as well. I "jumped" because it was rather incredible to me that you didn't know what Malk94 meant. To the point that I'd feel as if I have to clarify the use of every term. . . just to make sure. Ankur

bluedevil wrote: > You could print more cards like Fame and Dragonbound. The rest of the > combat-oriented pool-reducers are weak. So true. I really wish Path of Lilith's burn clause were for the torture counters rather than the Path itself. That would've made it strong, but not uber. As it is, it's really weak. > I know there are some people > who are repulsed by the idea of further encouraging combat decks, but > things that encourage those decks to go forward really aren't the sorts > of things they should object to. In fact, it should make them hate > combat decks less. Properly printed, they might give incentive to play > something other than weenie guns/potence/fortitude/war ghouls for > competitive rush decks. Yeah, I agree with this assessment. I've noticed that weenie combat tends to win just based on bleeding for four, rather than rushing (which helps, but doesn't do the lion's share of the pool damage). It would help rush decks a lot if there were more hurt-minions-to-remove-pool cards. > Either that or methodical players trying to figure out what to do with > minion action #427. So, weenie decks and vote decks are the real > problems. Oh wait, what are the current top dog archetypes!? Heh. David Cherryholmes: Proudly poking people with a stick since 1998. John Eno

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... > The reason is because I hear the term kicked around all over the place in > casual conversation about Jyhad. It was a staple understanding when I > first started to play. Every player that I've ever talked to knows what > Malk94 is. *shrug*. OK, fine. But why would you assume that someone else, living in another part of the country, necessarily has any of those experiences? I never comprehend why certain people can't grasp the fact that other people live in different worlds that may be nothing like their own. Casual conversation about Jyhad? I barely ever meet another person who knows what the game is. This newsgroup is 98% of my casual conversation about Jyhad. > From my world view, it's incredible Well, time to wake up and stop being so presumptuous about others. > Again, it's not just newsgroup posts. And, you didn't "need to know" the > use of Malk94 any better than your understanding. Hell, it's used > precisely to avoid specifically discussing the details. And again, I realized I didn't need to know it any better than I did. If you read what I wrote in context, you'll see that I functioned just fine picking up the necessary nuances from context and the suggestion of the name alone. I just happened to casually preface my subsequent remarks with the comment that "I don't know what this means" - allowing for the possibility that I was naive to some feature of the deck that wasn't obvious. That was what gave your "deliberate obtuseness" comment such an Alice-in- Wonderland feel. Why on earth would I choose to be deliberately obtuse in an exchange like that?!? >>> If you truly didn't know (which I still find incredible, but ok, whatever), then I'm sorry. >> >> All right, fine. But I have to say, I find it incredible that you find it incredible. This shit happens all the time. > > Sure. Prolific poster? Commonly-used term? I think we differ on the essence of what a "commonly-used term" is. On the newsgroup alone (absent the in-person cues), I think it's pretty clear that Malk94 is not all that commonly-used. > Meh. You get to win by talking more. No, that just means I have Typing-Fingers-O-Steel (tm) and talk enough to be a tedious pontificating bore. ...erm, that's a good place to finish this post, now that I think about it. The rest is just beating the same dead horse. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I rememer that (and I remembered it when I wrote the above). But, as I remember, it was prefaced with a descriptive definition if it was ever used on its own. I also remember that my car is not a convention.

<invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153326664.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> You're reading too much or the wrong things into what I said. My >> point is just that lots of defense is too rewarding, based on the >> types of decks that tend to make it to the finals. ... > Is this just a metagame thing, though? I'm pretty sure I see aggressive > as much as defensive decks in most finals. And why is lots of defense > too rewarding? I see way more defensive decks that don't make it to the > finals of a tournament due to not being able to get enough VPs in the > first three rounds than I do decks that do get there. And the bigger > the tournament is, the more this is true. I don't think it matter what decks don't get there. What matter to me is the decks that do. If it's just me or the finals I see in the parts of the country I play (which is mostly just LA these days with a few sporatic assumptions), then great. I would find it very comforting to know that in most places, aggressive decks are making the finals and doing just fine ones they get there. If that were true, though, I'd expect a lot more good players on the newsgroup contesting this point. >> Likewise, adding some new elements to the game to outmaneuver >> the various defensive modes that are popular (overly popular for >> purposes of fun in the game, IME) now is hardly tantamount to >> shifting it totally over to heavy stealth bleed and weeny bleed. >> At least, not if done correctly. > > See, there's the rub. What I worry about is that any kind of > outmaneuvering tech is going to be easily added to the stealth/bleed > and weenie/whatever decks that are currently the most aggressive decks > around. Yea, I can appreciate why that would bother you. I would hope that there are more alternatives to new card design in the game than just making all offense benifit equally - thus making the most effective offense that much more unstoppable - and not doing anything at all. But I agree, it's not an easy or riskless goal when you put it that way. >> It would just mean that clever >> offensively oriented decks would be rewarded more and clever >> defensively oriented decks would be rewarded less. > > I'm not really sure why you think this is a good thing. Shouldn't two > decks of equal cleverness be rewarded equally, regardless of what they > do? Note that I used the relative terms, "more" and "less". So you're ignoring the point that I think defensive decks are already rewarded too highly and offensive decks not highly enough. I'd like to balance the two better. But even the concept of balancing offense vs. defense is really kind of naive. The truth is, I've seen lots of terribly clever decks in this game which aren't rewarded because they're clever at doing things that ultimately aren't strong enough routes to victory to be worth doing in the first place. CCG design ultimately doesn't worry about rewarding all cleverness equally and can't. All it can do is try to make the game as fun as possible by balancing as many paths to victory as possible (thus facilitating diversity) and making the ultimate character of the game fun to play (by, for instance, avoiding heavy arbitrary luck components to play). It is the latter point that makes me want to see the game rebalanced towards more offense. I don't see the game having nearly as much problem with overly offensive decks making games too fast and arbitrary as I see it having problems with static, boring, endless or timeout games in which deadlocks are never broken. (And, just to rehash a clarification, I'm looking at finals games in particular as I say that.) > I'm all for finals finishing, but I have to say that all of the finals > I've ever seen time out didn't do so because of negotiation. I agree. But the fact that negotiations are effective enough that they can often effortlessly block players trying to push the game forward is exactly part of the problem. That, to me, is a sign that the game is too defensive in nature. You complain about lack of player interaction when offense is too effective. This is the flip side caused by too much player interaction. When players have so much ability to block other players' progress, the game naturally goes nowhere because the only thing all players can agree on is the point that no other player should be allowed to win. There has to be some solution to that and the solution is to limit the amount of power the table has in terms of stopping any one player from getting an oust. Fred

> OK, fine. But why would you assume that someone else, living in another > part of the country, necessarily has any of those experiences? I explained that assumption. You have played for 10+ years. You have been prolific. You presumably have played with lots of people. >> From my world view, it's incredible > > Well, time to wake up and stop being so presumptuous about others. Oh, stop. It's not overly presumptuous to make such a suggestion. It's entirely reasonable. And I'd suggest you revise *your* world view to accomodate the fact that you are likely an outlier with respect to regular vtes. > That was what gave your "deliberate obtuseness" comment such an > Alice-in- Wonderland feel. Why on earth would I choose to be > deliberately obtuse in an exchange like that?!? I don't know. But, I think it's great how we're still arguing when I've agreed with you. >>> All right, fine. But I have to say, I find it incredible that you >>> find it incredible. This shit happens all the time. >> >> Sure. Prolific poster? Commonly-used term? > > I think we differ on the essence of what a "commonly-used term" is. On > the newsgroup alone (absent the in-person cues), I think it's pretty > clear that Malk94 is not all that commonly-used. You mean that 90% of the vtes population uses the term? You're right. Clearly, that's not enough usage. > > Meh. You get to win by talking more. > > No, that just means I have Typing-Fingers-O-Steel (tm) and talk enough > to be a tedious pontificating bore. Truth. > ...erm, that's a good place to finish this post, now that I think about > it. The rest is just beating the same dead horse. That's been going on for a while now. It's really too late. Ankur

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Don't hurt yourself reading what's being said. > > sutekh_23 wrote: > > Derek Ray wrote: > >> You play with chimps. If you bounce to your prey and he Rushes you, > >> well, he was likely to Rush you anyway; no harm done. If your prey > >> overreacts by killing all your minions for a single bleed bounce, well, > >> it's his choice to lose the game, but it still is the play of a chimp. > > > > No, Its the reply of a deck that cannot bounce or reduce but can fight. > > Such a deck should be able to survive by killing a single minion > (ideally, the minion who bounced the bleed), NOT by spazzing and > backousting. > Unless, of couse the entire crypt can do the bouncing, which from what I have seen/ experienced/ read is the case > At least, a competently built deck should. An incompetently built deck > might have no way of handling to bleeds other than "vaporize _all_ my > predator's vampires", in which case it's just going to help its prey (or > possibly grandpredator) win. The perfect predator has often been described as one who soak up bleeds for you but cannot apply forward pressure, It's not entirely a bad thing is it? I don't want my grad-predator/ grand-prey to win, but I don't want to lose either > > If your personal deck constucting skills are so atrophied that you need > > dom or aus to survive or win a game, then thats your problem, let the > > people who want to try something else try it. > > If your playgroup's inability to construct decent decks leads you to > believe that the only way for a combat deck to survive is to kill all > the minions of any deck that offends it (thus losing the game itself), > then that's your problem. Just don't sit around pretending that it's a > winning strategy. > Straw man, you are avoiding the question. the statement pertains to relying on 2 disciplines to win any game of v:tes. If the use of aus of dom is madatory, why do so many clans exist without them? what you are essentially saying is decks that don't use aus or dom are sub-optimal and should be relegated to the trash heap cause they are just not viable or winning deck archetypes. Hey WW print whatever you want, my dom deck will still win, game development or diversity means squat to me. Yup, thats the way I want the game to go. By the way, I never said it was a winning strategy, just a reasonable defence against a deck style it cannot handle. if my predator is S&B, and his predator is more build up orientated, I'll quite happily give away a vp that will oust me in return for a predator that my deck can deal with. It's called maximizing your vps, you know, one of the rules of the game. > >> If you bounce to your prey, who bounces to his prey, and HE rushes you, > >> that's _really_ the play of a chimp. Teach your playgroup to actually > >> try to win if you want to get rid of THAT problem; don't blame the cards. > >> > > No, thats the play of a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at > > stealth. > > Wait, let's think this through. > > The object of the game is to oust your prey. No, the object of the game is to maximise your VP's > You oust your prey by reducing his pool to zero. > One effective way of doing this is huge bleeds at stealth. > One very common deck type is huge bleeds at stealth. > > Conclusion: Building a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at > stealth except by completely disrupting the table dynamic is not a > winning decision. > Removing the player who can do this is a fine play. It's like removing the idiot imbued player who drops events just because they can without any thought on how it effects the game dynamic, and I'm yet to see an argument that says it's bad play to remove the disruptive influence on a table. > > Remember, the idea is to maximise your VP's. If my deck > > maximises Its VP's by back ousting everyone well then thats the way the > > deck works. > > The idea is to win the game by getting more VPs than anyone else. > > If you find that you are routinely having to spend time giving your > grandpredator VPs, and your idea of maximizing VPs is "sometimes you get > a VP out of it", you have missed the point of the game. > No I don't want to give my GP VP's, just sometimes with the deck someone uses it makes more sense to remove a threat. > > Just because you find it offensive, quite honestly don't > > Again, read what was said. I don't find it offensive: I find it stupid > and a telling sign of weak play, and weak deckbuilding. > > You can make decks that fight without having them be so totally ass-up > defenseless so that they have to cross-table spaz after a single bounced > bleed. > Ahh, IME, they don't. They ask the bouncer to stop, politely stating that their combat deck cannot absorb multiple bleeds each turn for X. After being ignored by the bouncer trying to advance thier own game, the aformensioned combat deck turns their predator into a meat shield. To my mind, bounce is offensive. It's a way to turn an attack on me to my prey, hopefully doing my work for me. A combat deck will always prefer to beat up its prey rather thant its predator, but if needs be, why not beat the crap out of the obnoxious deck behind you? > >>> Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. > >> Second place is the first loser. Try to win. > > > > Comes back to "winning" Yes I like to win but if all my deck does to > > win is "I bleed you for lots which you can't stop", I find the deck > > boring. > > There are a large number of articles on the net about "boring" > strategies in games which still win, and there has been endless > discussion in this very newsgroup about why there is no such thing as > "cheese". > > If your deck can't deal with some of the most common, most effective > strategies in the game, your deck isn't "exciting" and "innovative", it > sucks. Build a better deck. > Fine, I build the better deck, I consistantly win, no deck is a threat or challange *yawn*, can I go to sleep yet? Actually enjoying the game, having someone claw thier way back and ousting only to be ousted is what makes the game enjoyable, not just a well constructed steamroller. If that is your idea of a fun game, go play type 1 unrestricted magic, have your ass handed to you before you even play a card, don't worry, It's not cheese, It's your poorly designed deck that cost you a chance to play even one card. Honestly dude if you see winning as the only way to enjoy the game, lets enter into a pact now. I never post on your responses, and you never post on mine. Our thoughts on fun are too wildly divergent to keep any discussion civil. > >>>> See, I don't understand this comment Xian. You are willing to spend the > >>> slot on gaining pool, but not saving that pool? Admittedly most single > >>> cards wont just gain you just 1 pool, > >> Which is surely the point he was making. > >> > > > > Oh look, I admit someone else has a viable point of view, > > But you didn't. You went on to repeat the point he had just refuted, > seemingly believing that it was worth repeating anymore. You seem to forget that when I post I'm trying to be neutral, the fact that I stated someone else has a viable point of view seems to be cause for you to denegrate someone, congratulations, can I be you? please? > > >>> You can say it's inefficient use of resources, sure, thats fine, > >> It is. Reducing bleeds by only 1 for a card slot is ineffective. Part > >> of this is because bleeding for 1 is ineffective as an ousting mechanism > >> (unless you have 12 minions, and there won't be enough reduce in your > >> deck to handle that after the first turn). > >> > >> Since you can expect people to bleed for more than 1 routinely, why > >> would reducing it by only 1 ever even come close to making the cut in a > >> deck? Answer: it wouldn't, and that's why all these crap bleed > >> reduction cards don't see play. > > > > Because the point of the discussion was auspexless bleed reduction. > > Exactly. And if you paid attention, I'm responding to your suggestion > that all the reduce-for-1 cards are worthwhile. They aren't. If we are > going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in > the form of "reduce by 2" or better, even though it will make Telepathic > Counter slightly less effective. No I never said any of them were worthwhile, I even said I don't use them. I never said they were worthwhile using. I only tried to point out what does exist right now in the game, thats all. The only point I made if favor of them is that I like to keep my pool in my pool, no matter what the cost. All you are doing in strengthening the argument that decks without dom or auspex are sub-optimal and should not be used because they are crap. > > >> (Worth noting: Greta reduces _without_ the card slot, and she sees a LOT > >> more play. It's a fine line with the resources, but sometimes you gotta > >> do what you gotta do.) > >> > > Oh, so reduction of a bleed of 5 is ok as long as it doesn't cost a > > card place?, > > You bet. Card slots are valuable, especially when the card slot is > devoted to only a single type of defense and is largely ineffective > anyway. Greta can do a lot more things than just reduce bleeds, so > she's well worth it even without her special -- but that special is > icing on the cake. > Yes card slots are valuable, you'll get no argument from me, but to reduce a bleed of 5 to 4 is fine because it costs no card spots as opposed to reducing it to 4 by a easily cycled card is useless? Sorry dude, makes no sense to me. After all, reducing a bleed by 1 is just delaying the inevitable, right? > >>> playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp > >> Reduces a bleed by 2. See the theme? > >> > > Costs a master phase action as opposed to a non-tapping reaction, > > Correct. It's far from an ideal defense. But it doesn't cost you hand > size (which reactions do), since it sits around until you need it. > No, Just costs you a MPA in a game where "theoreticly" you only get 10-14 of them (according to what others say, me, I disagree) As far as sitting aroud until you need it, well arn't we all playing bleedzooka's or 3 bleed multiple minions? Of course we are, hell, thats the only way to win this game. > > surely a stickler for "effectivness" such as yourself would see it as > > a waste as opposed to bounce > > I like playing both, honestly. Put the DC out to encourage people to > bleed big, then bounce the big bleeds downstream. Good stuff. > > If you ever run out of bounce, you can burn the DC and get some > EFFECTIVE bleed reduction against one. > > > > >>> and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. > >> Yeah, let me know how well Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality work to keep > >> the Setites from being powerbled out by Malk '94.> > > > > Have I proven my point yet? > > Honestly, I don't think you have a point. Except on top of your head. Look man, insult me all you like, that's cool by me. It's a qustion of mind over matter. I don't mind cause you never mattered. Feel free to do your worst. > > > The topic is "auspexless bleed reduction" > > And that's the one I've been discussing. Are you reading the posts? > Yes I have been, they are about TM or TC (at least the ones you have written which are worth reading), both of which are auspex cards which sort of fall out of the "auspexless bled reduction" Stay on topic instead of being an obnoxious "I've been playing since Jyhad" troll and I will pay attention to you. > If the Setites get a reduce-by-2 card available to them, they have a > pretty good shot against Malk '94 by simply not blocking, pool gaining, > and reducing. Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality ain't gonna save 'em though. > > > moron, not "how does deflection rate against telepatic misdirection" > > Strawman. Please quote message-ID and text from this thread where I > compared Deflection to Telepathic Misdirection? (You can't, of course. > I suggest reading what's being said instead of reading what you wish > was being said.) > > - -- > Derek > If you can't follow a usenet thread in regards to timing or response, don't blame me. -----

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... > I don't know. But, I think it's great how we're still arguing when I've agreed with you. Look, just to be very concise about it, I'll put this way: Your ideas about who should know what are fucked. And you're not going to admit that so you won't change them so you'll make the same mistake again later. Oh, well...

sutekh_23 wrote: > > If your deck can't deal with some of the most common, most effective > > strategies in the game, your deck isn't "exciting" and "innovative", it > > sucks. Build a better deck. > > > Fine, I build the better deck, I consistantly win, no deck is a threat > or challange *yawn*, can I go to sleep yet? Actually enjoying the game, > having someone claw thier way back and ousting only to be ousted is > what makes the game enjoyable, not just a well constructed steamroller. True. But that doesn't eliminate the need to prepare any deck that you expect to sit down with from being able to deal with common strategies. If you build an "awesome" deck that can only be foiled if your predator is playing, say, a Fos Breed/Baby deck, but you have defense against virtually everything else (including Ravnos babies!), that's an acceptable deck design decision. If you build an "awesome" deck that has can only be foiled if your predator is playing stealth bleed, your deck sucks. > If that is your idea of a fun game, go play type 1 unrestricted magic, > have your ass handed to you before you even play a card, don't worry, > It's not cheese, It's your poorly designed deck that cost you a chance > to play even one card. "Cheese" is a social construction. Sure, it's not always fun to be ousted quickly by Malk94 (or Malk S&B or Malk 1994 or whatever), but just because a deck design is effective doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It means that your group needs to design more effective defenses against it. > Honestly dude if you see winning as the only way to enjoy the game, > lets enter into a pact now. I never post on your responses, and you Winning isn't the only way to enjoy the game, but if you actively make decisions that make it unlikely that your deck will *ever* win, I would rather not play with you. (I realize the comment was directed at Derek, but still.) > > sutekh23 wrote: > > > Oh, so reduction of a bleed of 5 is ok as long as it doesn't cost a > > > card place?, > > > > You bet. Card slots are valuable, especially when the card slot is > > devoted to only a single type of defense and is largely ineffective > > anyway. Greta can do a lot more things than just reduce bleeds, so > > she's well worth it even without her special -- but that special is > > icing on the cake. > > > Yes card slots are valuable, you'll get no argument from me, but to > reduce a bleed of 5 to 4 is fine because it costs no card spots as > opposed to reducing it to 4 by a easily cycled card is useless? Sorry 1 blood off Greta is typically less valuable than 1 card in your hand. Greta can theoretically always be full of blood. Cards in your deck are inherently limited. [Dummy Corp] > > Correct. It's far from an ideal defense. But it doesn't cost you hand > > size (which reactions do), since it sits around until you need it. > > > No, Just costs you a MPA in a game where "theoreticly" you only get > 10-14 of them (according to what others say, me, I disagree) As far as On average, unless you're running Rumors/Parthenon. > sitting aroud until you need it, well arn't we all playing bleedzooka's > or 3 bleed multiple minions? Of course we are, hell, thats the only way > to win this game. An MPA is typically more valuable than one transient card. However, if your choice is between Ecstasy and Dummy Corporation, most of the time I'd rather have DC, because it provides a greater effect for the card slot than Ecstasy (or Banner, or whatever). Yes, I do tend to think of all cards that go in my decks in terms of how efficient they are. This doesn't mean I don't make bad decks, or I don't make toolbox decks, or I don't put stupid splash cards in. It does mean that if I don't have bleed reduction (or bounce) in my deck, I have some other way of dealing with bleeds. If I'm playing a FoS deck, for example, I'd much rather have Voter Cap in the deck (typically) than Ecstasy. Ecstasy saves me 1 pool, but Voter Cap is likely to gain me 2. If I die to lots of bleeds, at stealth, I don't say "oh, if only I had been able to keep more of my pool." I think, "oh, if only I had been able to gain more pool so that I could offset the loss." > > > The topic is "auspexless bleed reduction" > > > > And that's the one I've been discussing. Are you reading the posts? > > > Yes I have been, they are about TM or TC (at least the ones you have > written which are worth reading), both of which are auspex cards which > sort of fall out of the "auspexless bled reduction" Stay on topic > instead of being an obnoxious "I've been playing since Jyhad" troll and > I will pay attention to you. It's hard to discuss "auspexless bleed reduction" without referring to the auspex bleed reduction that is basically the gold standard. For reference, if for nothing else. And really, asking someone to stay on-topic on usenet is an exercise in futility. Xian

LSJ wrote: > I also remember that my car is not a convention. Best non-"Correct" response. EVER. Xian moot

> Look, just to be very concise about it, I'll put this way: Your ideas > about who should know what are fucked. And you're not going to admit > that so you won't change them so you'll make the same mistake again > later. Oh, well... Clearly I know nothing. Noted. Ankur

Fred Scott wrote: > <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > Is this just a metagame thing, though? I'm pretty sure I see aggressive > > as much as defensive decks in most finals. And why is lots of defense > > too rewarding? I see way more defensive decks that don't make it to the > > finals of a tournament due to not being able to get enough VPs in the > > first three rounds than I do decks that do get there. And the bigger > > the tournament is, the more this is true. > > I don't think it matter what decks don't get there. What matter to > me is the decks that do. Right...but if the game is skewed so strongly in favor of defense that there don't need to be more defensive cards printed, why are any aggressive decks making into the finals at all? Why have the last few years' NAC and EC been won by uberaggressive decks? > If it's just me or the finals I see in > the parts of the country I play (which is mostly just LA these > days with a few sporatic assumptions), then great. I would find it > very comforting to know that in most places, aggressive decks are > making the finals and doing just fine ones they get there. If > that were true, though, I'd expect a lot more good players on the > newsgroup contesting this point. And to support your argument, Josh Duffin did chime in and say that defense is probably too strong right now. But, geez, what does that guy know? I think that we've both been ignoring the "good players" bit until now, though, and it's an important bit. To wit: are more defensive decks played by good players making it into finals because they're defensive decks, or because they're being played by good players? My guess is that it's the second reason. The game isn't necessarily lacking in offensive options; good players are playing more defensive decks. That doesn't mean they're doing so because defensive decks are necessarily better than agressive ones. > > See, there's the rub. What I worry about is that any kind of > > outmaneuvering tech is going to be easily added to the stealth/bleed > > and weenie/whatever decks that are currently the most aggressive decks > > around. > > Yea, I can appreciate why that would bother you. I would hope that > there are more alternatives to new card design in the game than just > making all offense benifit equally - thus making the most effective > offense that much more unstoppable - and not doing anything at all. > But I agree, it's not an easy or riskless goal when you put it that > way. And that's really my only problem with your suggestion. Not being a game designer, I don't know of any way to add good offensive options to the game that don't also bolster strong, aggressive deck archetypes already. More pool-damaging options for the wackier disciplines, maybe? Arika and the Malks aren't going to care much if Quietus gets some powerful cards, for instance. > > I'm not really sure why you think this is a good thing. Shouldn't two > > decks of equal cleverness be rewarded equally, regardless of what they > > do? > > Note that I used the relative terms, "more" and "less". So you're > ignoring the point that I think defensive decks are already rewarded > too highly and offensive decks not highly enough. I'd like to > balance the two better. Right on. I missed your point the first time around. In that case, I do agree with you - it's just that I don't see a big power disparity between offense and defense in the card pool right now. > But even the concept of balancing offense vs. defense is really > kind of naive. The truth is, I've seen lots of terribly clever decks > in this game which aren't rewarded because they're clever at doing > things that ultimately aren't strong enough routes to victory to be > worth doing in the first place. Is rewarding things which are wacky routes to victory what you're referring to about when you talk about more offensive options, then? If so, I'm all in favor. > CCG design ultimately doesn't worry > about rewarding all cleverness equally and can't. All it can do > is try to make the game as fun as possible by balancing as many > paths to victory as possible (thus facilitating diversity) The problem with this is that in V:TES, there are only so many delivery systems. And since the most unusual payload in the world isn't effective at all without a good delivery system, there doesn't seem to be a good way to introduce new offensive options without dramatically changing the character of the game (and I'm talking about much bigger changes than, like, mortals in the crypt, and look at the responses to that). So there can't be all that much diversity without some pretty huge alterations, seems like. > and making the ultimate character of the game fun to play (by, for > instance, avoiding heavy arbitrary luck components to play). It > is the latter point that makes me want to see the game rebalanced > towards more offense. That doesn't make sense to me. If everyone's deck is heavier on offense than defense, you're introducing more randomness into the game, since you're basically playing paper/rock/scissors at that point - will my mostly aggressive deck's one defensive answer work against my predator's mostly aggressive deck? As opposed to decks with intercept (which is what I assume we're talking about when we talk about defensive decks), which can theoretically handle a variety of different predators and thereby reduce unnecessary, arbitrary luck's role. > I don't see the game having nearly as much > problem with overly offensive decks making games too fast and > arbitrary as I see it having problems with static, boring, > endless or timeout games in which deadlocks are never broken. > (And, just to rehash a clarification, I'm looking at finals > games in particular as I say that.) I'm not sure that making more offensive options available will change that, though. Particularly in finals games, people play slowly. If the overall tone of the game changes to more aggressiveness, is that all that likely to change significantly? > I agree. But the fact that negotiations are effective enough that > they can often effortlessly block players trying to push the > game forward is exactly part of the problem. That, to me, is > a sign that the game is too defensive in nature. You complain > about lack of player interaction when offense is too effective. > This is the flip side caused by too much player interaction. > When players have so much ability to block other players' > progress, the game naturally goes nowhere because the only > thing all players can agree on is the point that no other > player should be allowed to win. I don't think I made my point very clearly, then. I'm trying to avoid IME's here, but it seems to me that most finals that time out do so due to vote decks, not wall decks. More specifically, finals time out because people won't shut the hell up. Now, I don't have a problem with some tabletalk - it's clearly a vital part of the game. But if the defensive decks quietly play their games, I don't think the game is really more likely to time out than any other game. When players have a lot of pseudo-psychic back and forth about who's going to win early in the game, yeah, it's going to time out. But that's got little to do with what kind of decks were being played, unless everyone was playing a deck that had no table presence (which decks don't usually make the finals). > There has to be some solution > to that and the solution is to limit the amount of power the > table has in terms of stopping any one player from getting > an oust. That still sounds to me like we'd be playing "V:TES Racing" then, which doesn't really suit me. I like games that have a dynamic pacing, rather than being all-out from the word go. John Eno

Xian wrote: > > Winning isn't the only way to enjoy the game, but if you actively make > decisions that make it unlikely that your deck will *ever* win, I would > rather not play with you. (I realize the comment was directed at > Derek, but still.) > No, I don't activly try to make decks that don't ever win. It's the fact that my deck construction/deck choice does rely on the environment I'm playing in. If we are playing just the weekly social game, then I might take some of that time to try out different aproaches, play with a "sub-optimal" deck or whatever. Tournaments are a different story. I will activley go in with the most effective deck I've got because in a tournament my goal is to win.

yay! someone walked away from the flame war fun and decided to give spiffy examples! huzzah! pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >> This might be a horrible idea. But maybe not. And maybe the key is to >> do away with the idea that only Auspex gets good bleed reduction. > > For the sake of illustrating this idea, here are some cards off the top > of my head that I think might be viable. Not necessarily the best of > ideas, but the kinda thing I'm talking about: > > Shroud Resources > Obfuscate > Action Mod/Reaction > obf: +1 stealth > OBF: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. i dig it. but i like the idea of an action tying up OBF minions so as to seem less frightening. Out of Sight Action 1 blood If successful put this card in play. A Methuselah can have only 1 Out of Sight in play. obf: You may burn this card to reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 2. OBF: Only usable by a vampire with a capacity above 4. Vampires with capacity below 3 get -1 bleed against you. Burn this card during your next untap. potential responsible bleeding or bleed reduction. deliberately no +1 stealth to the action. is it too strict? it does work against weenie horde, though. > Forced Defense > Fortitude > Combat/Reaction > for: Prevent 1 damage > FOR: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. Triumph of the Will Combat/Reaction 4 blood for: Prevent all damage from the opponent's cards this round, with an optional press. FOR: Usable only when the target of a bleed greater than 2. The bleed against you fails and the bleeding minion goes to torpor. it's such a silly name, and i really couldn't see too easily how fortitude could prevent pool destruction. but i thought, what if they pushed themselves beyond all limits to soak up the damage, like, ran to the doorway all bloodied and refused to budge, just takes a beating w/o letting anyone pass. i think i made it a bit expensive, perhaps it should be 3 blood. but people hate Kiss of Ra and this one would be playable as a reaction and thus pretty damn scary. but, hey, big, silly name gotta get a big, silly card. > Cut Them Off At The Pass! > Celerity > Combat/Reaction > cel: Manuver or Press > CEL: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. well, there's already Aversion, so i don't want to neuter it too much... maybe something between Flurry and Draba. Spring Cleaning Action +1 stealth 2 blood A Methuselah can have only one Spring Cleaning in play. cel: Put this card in play. You may burn this card to reduce a bleed against you by 3. CEL: As above, and this minion untaps. > Insect Swarm > Animalism > Combat/Reaction > ani: Strike: 1R with optional manuver. > ANI: Reduce a bleed you are taking by 2. Killer Bees +1 stealth Put this card in play. A Methuselah can have only 1 Killer Bees in play. Minions with capacity or life less than 4 get -1 bleed when bleeding you. Bleeding minions takes 1 point of damage if their bleed action is successful. Each untap phase remove 1 blood or life counter from a minion you control or lose 1 pool. Any minion may burn this card as a (D) action. i'm still debating whether stackable, but damaging bees is better, instead of only 1 copy at a time. more fun, more personal risk, more potential abuse... who knows, someone will think of what i did wrong with these cards anyways. :D > And whatever. Not all disciplines would need this kind of card. Amd > these are all possibly stronger than they need to be (or maybe not). > The Obfuscate one, for instance, would probably be overpowered in S+B > decks (as it provides easily cycled stealth for when your prey declines > to try and block you), so that example is probably one that would need > to be something else. The combat/reaction examples are probably less > easily cycled, as you need to get into combat to use them for the > inferior version (i.e. you need to Rush someone, someone needs to block > you or you need to block someone, and if you can block them, you > probably don't need to reduce their bleeds anyway; this being said, > giving this sort of ability to combat decks means that they'll less > often be in a spot where they have to agressively back Rush, which > helps maintain table balance), but this is the kind of thing I am > proposing. > > White Wolf, please feel free to take these ideas and run with them. I > claim no possession over them :-) > > -Peter >

LSJ wrote: > Xian wrote: >> It seems likely that it is used in face-to-face conversations with >> newsgroup frequenters at tournaments and conventions and such, possibly >> allowing for some confusion about where the term has been used. > > Or maybe just Origins. I haven't heard the term bandied about at the > conventions I've gone to. Such decks, when discussed, are indicated > with longer descriptions. When I've heard them discussed, anyway. Curse-words don't count. -- salem ousted by f**king sh*tty malk 94 AGAIN, FFS.

> Realizing that some of the decks using Deflection are also using > Telepathic Misdirection, and that some of (well, most of, really--maybe > 3 or 4 of the 17 decks using Telepathic Counter are not also using > Telepathic Misdirection) the decks using Telepathic Misdirection are > also using Telepathic Counter, so there is some level of error in the > following numbers (but probably not enough to really be significant): > > 68% of the decks in the sample use bleed bounce. > 8% of the decks in the sample use bleed reduction. > > I think that is reasonable evidence that people consider bleed bounce > to be significantly more useful than bleed reduction, given the choice. Not exactly, no. It means that the people who actually WIN tournaments do it lots more often with bleed bounce than bleed reduction. It is actually even more significant : even if lots of players chose the reduction way, they didn't win with it. And if we're talking choices, these were done by players who know what's needed to win tournaments. It doesn't matter which comes first - the choice by good players or the winning because of good choice - but I think it illustrates your point pretty well and I can't agree more, from my experience at playing with or without Bounce (I'm pretty much unable to win without it, maybe some day I will). This being said, I also agree with you that bleed reduction could be nice for anyone who can't redirect, on the condition that it's either possible to reduce a big bleed consequently or that the card has a very good second-option cycling possibility. -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

> > Because the point of the discussion was auspexless bleed reduction. > > Exactly. And if you paid attention, I'm responding to your suggestion > that all the reduce-for-1 cards are worthwhile. They aren't. If we are > going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in > the form of "reduce by 2" or better, even though it will make Telepathic > Counter slightly less effective. All "little flame war" comments put aside, I second that position. And Peter's : we don't have to pretend that TC was a good card for Auspex, too bad if new cards make it totally obsolete (like we never had that before), at least they would make some clans / decks / strategies *playable*, or at least more so. -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Again, please try not to hurt yourself reading what's being said. sutekh_23 wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> Such a deck should be able to survive by killing a single minion >> (ideally, the minion who bounced the bleed), NOT by spazzing and >> backousting. >> > Unless, of couse the entire crypt can do the bouncing, which from what > I have seen/ experienced/ read is the case So what if the whole crypt has bounce? Kill one minion. Is he going to sit there with the rest of his guys untapped, playing no cards, and hope to bounce more bleeds? He won't have the cards in hand to do that, so your problem is solved without actually having to erase your predator. Is he instead going to continue to try to oust you? Well, that's what predators do. Is your deck's response to all predators trying to oust you always going to be "spaz and backoust?" Then you play like a chimp, too. >> At least, a competently built deck should. An incompetently built deck >> might have no way of handling to bleeds other than "vaporize _all_ my >> predator's vampires", in which case it's just going to help its prey (or >> possibly grandpredator) win. > > The perfect predator has often been described as one who soak up bleeds > for you but cannot apply forward pressure, That is not the perfect predator. The perfect predator is one who is locked into active defense mode, and thus will not apply forward pressure. THAT predator will not likely get ousted soon, and thus you will not hand a VP away, nor will you suddenly have a new predator with 6 extra pool on your ass that you have to spaz on as well. > It's not entirely a bad > thing is it? Yes, it is entirely a bad thing to remove all your predator's minions. He cannot defend, and may well transfer out just to screw you. > I don't want my grad-predator/ grand-prey to win, but I > don't want to lose either Then build decks that can manage a response other than "spaz and backoust" when threatened with a predator who, god forbid, might attempt to win the game themselves. >>> If your personal deck constucting skills are so atrophied that you need >>> dom or aus to survive or win a game, then thats your problem, let the >>> people who want to try something else try it. >> If your playgroup's inability to construct decent decks leads you to >> believe that the only way for a combat deck to survive is to kill all >> the minions of any deck that offends it (thus losing the game itself), >> then that's your problem. Just don't sit around pretending that it's a >> winning strategy. >> > Straw man, you are avoiding the question. You didn't ask a question; you tried to put words in my mouth. > the statement pertains to > relying on 2 disciplines to win any game of v:tes. If the use of aus of > dom is madatory, why do so many clans exist without them? Straw man yourself. Please quote the message-ID in this thread where I said AUS or DOM was mandatory? Oh yeah, you can't, because I never said anything even remotely like it. (retarded rant about strawman snipped) > By the way, I never said it was a winning strategy, just a reasonable > defence against a deck style it cannot handle. A non-winning strategy is not a reasonable defense. A reasonable defense would not cripple your own chances of winning in the process. > if my predator is S&B, > and his predator is more build up orientated, I'll quite happily give > away a vp that will oust me in return for a predator that my deck can > deal with. It's called maximizing your vps, you know, one of the rules > of the game. It's called "Giving your grandpredator a free ride", honestly. What will you do when your new predator quits building up and starts ousting you with his 6 new pool? Spaz and backoust again? You don't really get it, do you? You need defenses that DON'T include "turn right like a stupid salmon". >> Wait, let's think this through. >> >> The object of the game is to oust your prey. > > No, the object of the game is to maximise your VP's Which you can only do by ousting your prey. Do you know a way to gain VP without ousting your prey? Moving on. >> You oust your prey by reducing his pool to zero. >> One effective way of doing this is huge bleeds at stealth. >> One very common deck type is huge bleeds at stealth. >> >> Conclusion: Building a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at >> stealth except by completely disrupting the table dynamic is not a >> winning decision. >> > Removing the player who can do this is a fine play. Except that above you admitted that it's a non-winning strategy to do so. Which is true; it's a non-winning strategy to spaz and backoust whenever someone tries to oust you in an effective manner. If this is all your deck has as a response, build better decks. > It's like removing > the idiot imbued player who drops events just because they can without > any thought on how it effects the game dynamic, and I'm yet to see an > argument that says it's bad play to remove the disruptive influence on > a table. A big bleed deck is not a disruptive influence, though. It's pretty straightforward; it ousts prey. Big bleeders are not even remotely similar to Imbued/Event or old-school Anarch Revolt decks. >> The idea is to win the game by getting more VPs than anyone else. >> >> If you find that you are routinely having to spend time giving your >> grandpredator VPs, and your idea of maximizing VPs is "sometimes you get >> a VP out of it", you have missed the point of the game. >> > No I don't want to give my GP VP's, just sometimes with the deck > someone uses it makes more sense to remove a threat. Except that it's a non-winning strategy to do so. >> Again, read what was said. I don't find it offensive: I find it stupid >> and a telling sign of weak play, and weak deckbuilding. >> >> You can make decks that fight without having them be so totally ass-up >> defenseless so that they have to cross-table spaz after a single bounced >> bleed. >> > Ahh, IME, they don't. They ask the bouncer to stop, politely stating > that their combat deck cannot absorb multiple bleeds each turn for X. > After being ignored by the bouncer trying to advance thier own game, > the aformensioned combat deck turns their predator into a meat shield. And loses by doing so. However, note that you've already tried to dodge your own statements where you said someone would come cross-table. I assume you recognize now that cross-table ousting is a VERY bad play? > To my mind, bounce is offensive. It's a way to turn an attack on me to > my prey, hopefully doing my work for me. A combat deck will always > prefer to beat up its prey rather thant its predator, but if needs be, > why not beat the crap out of the obnoxious deck behind you? Because it makes you lose. Build decks with ways to defend that don't involve completely erasing your predator. >> There are a large number of articles on the net about "boring" >> strategies in games which still win, and there has been endless >> discussion in this very newsgroup about why there is no such thing as >> "cheese". >> >> If your deck can't deal with some of the most common, most effective >> strategies in the game, your deck isn't "exciting" and "innovative", it >> sucks. Build a better deck. >> > Fine, I build the better deck, I consistantly win, no deck is a threat > or challange *yawn*, can I go to sleep yet? Actually enjoying the game, > having someone claw thier way back and ousting only to be ousted is > what makes the game enjoyable, not just a well constructed steamroller. Before you get completely owned in this discussion, you need to go read this article, and think it through carefully: http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/ Right now you're a scrub. Sounds like your whole playgroup is, too. There's a big wide world of fun out there involving playing decent decks, where everyone tries to win and uses all the tools available, and you're denying this to yourself because you have a very narrow viewpoint of what is a challenge. Read the article... and then if you think you can continue this discussion, we will. >>> Oh look, I admit someone else has a viable point of view, >> But you didn't. You went on to repeat the point he had just refuted, >> seemingly believing that it was worth repeating anymore. > > You seem to forget that when I post I'm trying to be neutral, Hardly, as seen by all of your posts so far. > the fact > that I stated someone else has a viable point of view seems to be cause > for you to denegrate someone, congratulations, can I be you? please? I just don't understand why you kept repeating the point that Xian had just refuted, after admitting that Xian had in fact refuted the point. Is logic so foreign down under? >>>> Since you can expect people to bleed for more than 1 routinely, why >>>> would reducing it by only 1 ever even come close to making the cut in a >>>> deck? Answer: it wouldn't, and that's why all these crap bleed >>>> reduction cards don't see play. >>> Because the point of the discussion was auspexless bleed reduction. >> Exactly. And if you paid attention, I'm responding to your suggestion >> that all the reduce-for-1 cards are worthwhile. They aren't. If we are >> going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in >> the form of "reduce by 2" or better, even though it will make Telepathic >> Counter slightly less effective. > > No I never said any of them were worthwhile, Quote from you: "but if I'm not playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes." > matter what the cost. All you are doing in strengthening the argument > that decks without dom or auspex are sub-optimal and should not be used > because they are crap. Again, please try to read what was said. I said, quote, "If we are going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in the form of 'reduce by 2' or better,..." >> You bet. Card slots are valuable, especially when the card slot is >> devoted to only a single type of defense and is largely ineffective >> anyway. Greta can do a lot more things than just reduce bleeds, so >> she's well worth it even without her special -- but that special is >> icing on the cake. >> > Yes card slots are valuable, you'll get no argument from me, but to > reduce a bleed of 5 to 4 is fine because it costs no card spots as > opposed to reducing it to 4 by a easily cycled card is useless? Yes. It is useless. You could be using that card to advance your own offense instead, which will gain you 6 pool. Or you could be using it for (Xian's example) a Voter Cap, which will gain you 2 pool and a lot of blood on your vampire. There are many better uses for the card slot than 'reduce by 1'. Also, those cards are not always so easily cycled. Not all decks bleed, and you have to have an untapped minion, or waste a Wake. In general, I prefer my minions to be taking actions each turn -- I do not like leaving them untapped just to reduce a couple bleeds by 1. > Sorry > dude, makes no sense to me. After all, reducing a bleed by 1 is just > delaying the inevitable, right? Pretty much, yeah. But with Greta, it only costs me a vampire blood, which I can regain if I'm completely desperate by hunting, or by doing more efficient things like calling a KRC and Voter Capping it. >> >>> playing Dominate or Auspex (which I rarely do), cards like dummy corp >>>> Reduces a bleed by 2. See the theme? >>> Costs a master phase action as opposed to a non-tapping reaction, >> Correct. It's far from an ideal defense. But it doesn't cost you hand >> size (which reactions do), since it sits around until you need it. >> > No, Just costs you a MPA in a game where "theoreticly" you only get > 10-14 of them (according to what others say, me, I disagree) You can disagree all you want, but it was my playgroup that did the recording and statistical tests, so don't mind me if I think you're talking out your ass. We averaged 12 turns per game. Other groups did similar tests and found roughly the same thing. People have been using the number as a basis for deckbuilding and found it to be sufficiently accurate. > As far as > sitting aroud until you need it, well arn't we all playing bleedzooka's > or 3 bleed multiple minions? Of course we are, hell, thats the only way > to win this game. This is of course a huge strawman from a person who's rapidly becoming so angry that they can't think clearly. Really, you should calm down. It's just USENET. >>>>> and banner of neutrality gain some stature in my eyes. >>>> Yeah, let me know how well Ecstasy and Banner of Neutrality work to keep >>>> the Setites from being powerbled out by Malk '94.> >>> Have I proven my point yet? >> Honestly, I don't think you have a point. Except on top of your head. > > Look man, insult me all you like, that's cool by me. It's a qustion of > mind over matter. I don't mind cause you never mattered. Feel free to > do your worst. And yet, you're so angry over this you can barely type, you can't remember what I said from post to post, and you aren't really able to form a coherent argument. I don't think your statement is very true. >>> The topic is "auspexless bleed reduction" >> And that's the one I've been discussing. Are you reading the posts? >> > Yes I have been, they are about TM or TC Please quote which message-ID I mentioned Telepathic Misdirection in? Oh yeah, you can't. Calm down, breathe, read the posts. Or just read the posts, hell, I don't care. > (at least the ones you have > written which are worth reading), both of which are auspex cards which > sort of fall out of the "auspexless bled reduction" You are welcome to explain how it would be possible or useful to discuss new forms of bleed reduction without comparing and contrasting them to existing forms of bleed reduction. TC is the only form of bleed reduction that currently sees play. Therefore, all new forms need to be at least as good as TC. >Stay on topic > instead of being an obnoxious "I've been playing since Jyhad" troll and > I will pay attention to you. Honestly, if you're not going to bother to read what I write, I would prefer you just not bother responding. You haven't produced any useful discussion since you started spazzing about things I never said, and you aren't likely to in the near future anyway. >> Strawman. Please quote message-ID and text from this thread where I >> compared Deflection to Telepathic Misdirection? (You can't, of course. >> I suggest reading what's being said instead of reading what you wish >> was being said.) >> > If you can't follow a usenet thread in regards to timing or response, > don't blame me. Oh, you mean you can't quote me because I never said it? You were just making things up so you could argue with what you WANTED to hear, instead of what you actually heard? That seems to be your pattern of operation. Well, get with it, Sparky. Don't they speak English down there? - -- Derek nothing worse than arguing with an illiterate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEv3YitQZlu3o7QpERAuhzAJ9tjbFPKC+4yQAnPcI5HSXfAI8/TwCgh/k/ 9U2dnp1Hjmhw76a45BrkZ6g= =/prF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ok, I'll try to reply to the point, duncaring about personnal issues between posters, so those parts will me mercilessly sniped. > > > No, Its the reply of a deck that cannot bounce or reduce but can fight. > > > > Such a deck should be able to survive by killing a single minion > > (ideally, the minion who bounced the bleed), NOT by spazzing and > > backousting. > > > Unless, of couse the entire crypt can do the bouncing, which from what > I have seen/ experienced/ read is the case Yes, this might be the case. If your prey has absolutely no crosstable power and doesn't at least try to deal with you in some way, then maybe it's his deck - or play tactics - which should be reviewed, and you might be making him a favor by destroying his face on a regular basis. But generally speaking I agree that a deck that can do nothing but backrush you to the point of destroying you and then lose then game has some problems. > > At least, a competently built deck should. An incompetently built deck > > might have no way of handling to bleeds other than "vaporize _all_ my > > predator's vampires", in which case it's just going to help its prey (or > > possibly grandpredator) win. > > The perfect predator has often been described as one who soak up bleeds > for you but cannot apply forward pressure, It's not entirely a bad > thing is it? I don't want my grad-predator/ grand-prey to win, but I > don't want to lose either Not winning a game is "losing". Surviving with 0,5 doesn't equate with winning anything if you're not trying to make "as many points as possible" in a tournament. In a single game, playing to win has nothing to do with surviving. I know that's not what you're implying, I'm just saying that giving VPs to your grand-predator rather than to your initial pred is still a losing choice, and that you shouldn't have to do it in the first place. > Straw man, you are avoiding the question. the statement pertains to > relying on 2 disciplines to win any game of v:tes. If the use of aus of > dom is madatory, why do so many clans exist without them? what you are > essentially saying is decks that don't use aus or dom are sub-optimal > and should be relegated to the trash heap cause they are just not > viable or winning deck archetypes. Hey WW print whatever you want, my > dom deck will still win, game development or diversity means squat to > me. Yup, thats the way I want the game to go. We all hope for some ways to win without Dom, Aus or the third winning "discipline" : Princeship !! Alas, I know few decks that do, except a few weenies (and do I hate those !!) or sometimes, very marginally, Animalism intercept. Yes, we need WW to make other options more viable, but as of now we have to choose between options that won't totally screw up a table. > By the way, I never said it was a winning strategy, just a reasonable > defence against a deck style it cannot handle. if my predator is S&B, > and his predator is more build up orientated, I'll quite happily give > away a vp that will oust me in return for a predator that my deck can > deal with. It's called maximizing your vps, you know, one of the rules > of the game. The problem is that on a good table everyone's a threat, and if you oust a s'n'b just to get another one with 6 more pool on your face (or a voter, or whatever) it won't change things much !! That is why backrushing on tournament-level tables seldom gives you anything but... Kingmaker's Mantle ! > > Conclusion: Building a deck that cannot deal with huge bleeds at > > stealth except by completely disrupting the table dynamic is not a > > winning decision. > > > Removing the player who can do this is a fine play. It's like removing > the idiot imbued player who drops events just because they can without > any thought on how it effects the game dynamic, and I'm yet to see an > argument that says it's bad play to remove the disruptive influence on > a table. Distruptiveness is one things. Efectiveness is another. Players will agree to remove a player who induces randomness on a table, or one who goes way too fast around the table. It will be no use removing one player with an efficient deck if there are 3 others (I'm not counting the type of decks you're mentionning, as they're obviously not efficient against their prey if they have a predator worthy of the name). > > > Remember, the idea is to maximise your VP's. If my deck > > > maximises Its VP's by back ousting everyone well then thats the way the > > > deck works. > > > > The idea is to win the game by getting more VPs than anyone else. > > > > If you find that you are routinely having to spend time giving your > > grandpredator VPs, and your idea of maximizing VPs is "sometimes you get > > a VP out of it", you have missed the point of the game. > > > No I don't want to give my GP VP's, just sometimes with the deck > someone uses it makes more sense to remove a threat. Once more, it depends if it's the only such deck on the table. > > You can make decks that fight without having them be so totally ass-up > > defenseless so that they have to cross-table spaz after a single bounced > > bleed. > > > Ahh, IME, they don't. They ask the bouncer to stop, politely stating > that their combat deck cannot absorb multiple bleeds each turn for X. > After being ignored by the bouncer trying to advance thier own game, > the aformensioned combat deck turns their predator into a meat shield. > To my mind, bounce is offensive. It's a way to turn an attack on me to > my prey, hopefully doing my work for me. A combat deck will always > prefer to beat up its prey rather thant its predator, but if needs be, > why not beat the crap out of the obnoxious deck behind you? I might misunderstand here, but I don't think you're talking about the same thing. Derek mentions "crosstable" because I believe you mentionned rushing the guy who did the initial bleed ? At least that's the way I understood it in the other posts, so maybe it wasn't very clear (at least for a non-english native). Rushing your pref is one thing (that doesn't make you win), rushing every offender on the table (like the Malk who doesn't understand that all his bleeds will come in your face) is another completely, and if you have to do that - or think you do - you've lost already. If rushing is your only defense and because of that you can't hurt your prey, you might want to try one of the following : - make your deck more "multi-rush" so you can hurt various methuselahs in one turn (prey, predator and more if needed) - include some permanent intercept ; Carlton is among the viable options (of course he might get contested as many decks play him). - alas, include some Dom weenies for bounce also might give you a surviving alternative. Please note that this won't help at all against voters. > > >>> Maybe not sweep a table, but get a VP, sure. > > >> Second place is the first loser. Try to win. > > > > > > Comes back to "winning" Yes I like to win but if all my deck does to > > > win is "I bleed you for lots which you can't stop", I find the deck > > > boring. Of course. Not to mention that it doesn't really work on good tables (where a dealing power has become essential). But nobody asks you to play that ! > > There are a large number of articles on the net about "boring" > > strategies in games which still win, and there has been endless > > discussion in this very newsgroup about why there is no such thing as > > "cheese". > > > > If your deck can't deal with some of the most common, most effective > > strategies in the game, your deck isn't "exciting" and "innovative", it > > sucks. Build a better deck. > > > Fine, I build the better deck, I consistantly win, no deck is a threat > or challange *yawn*, can I go to sleep yet? When you get to that point, please mail me the decklist ! ;-) IME there can be no such deck, although there are roughly 15 archetypes that are superior to all the others and win repeatedly. In the LCQ / FC I met and sometimes killed decks that were better than mine, and in the hands of excellent players. Why ? Because : - there is such a thing as luck (or bad luck) and table seating has great importance in what happens (like, the weenie's prey is sure to die, maybe not the grand'prey...) - hyper-optimised decks often rely on one strategy only and therefore will die if they meet their nemesis - these decks will attract table hate, and if there aren't too many newbies in the game, or if you can talk some sense into them, you will be able to destroy the disruptive / dangerous player, if any. - the winning archetypes are pretty much identified by now, and when someone gets Arika out for instance they will have trouble saying "I'm not dangerous please let me be !". So I really don't believe in decks that actually fear no threat or are not challenging to play against other good decks / players. > Actually enjoying the game, > having someone claw thier way back and ousting only to be ousted is > what makes the game enjoyable, not just a well constructed steamroller. > If that is your idea of a fun game, go play type 1 unrestricted magic, > have your ass handed to you before you even play a card, don't worry, > It's not cheese, It's your poorly designed deck that cost you a chance > to play even one card. > Honestly dude if you see winning as the only way to enjoy the game, > lets enter into a pact now. I never post on your responses, and you > never post on mine. Our thoughts on fun are too wildly divergent to > keep any discussion civil. Ok, then I can post. ;-) I'm well known for trying silly and marginal strategies, and sometimes even scoring with them. But when they obviously can't do the job outside a fun table, I just don't bring them anywhere where I want to have a chance at winning (says the guy who played a Pariah Anarch Cry Wolf Abomination in a tournie and played the finals - it was a small tournament ! lol). >> I'm responding to your suggestion > > that all the reduce-for-1 cards are worthwhile. They aren't. If we are > > going to add any more bleed reduction to the game, it needs to come in > > the form of "reduce by 2" or better, even though it will make Telepathic > > Counter slightly less effective. > > No I never said any of them were worthwhile, I even said I don't use > them. I never said they were worthwhile using. I only tried to point > out what does exist right now in the game, thats all. The only point I > made if favor of them is that I like to keep my pool in my pool, no > matter what the cost. All you are doing in strengthening the argument > that decks without dom or auspex are sub-optimal and should not be used > because they are crap. As of now, decks without *Aus / Dom / Princes / weenie fucks / Animalism* (and those last two being weaker survivors than the rest) are sub-optimal. Which doesn't mean they can't be built the best way possible and eventually be made to win. And by all means, play what you want and enjoy in casual play !! Just don't be surprised it bounce is too strong against decks that don't use it. (snip the rest of the worthless arguments) But we're sort of gettin out-of-topic here. If the real question is : do decks without Aus / Dom need a card to reduce bleeds, my answer is YES ! Now, would a card that reduces bleeds by 1 max be useful, my answer is NO. All the rest is background noise... -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

> > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > For the sake of illustrating this idea, here are some cards off the top > > of my head that I think might be viable. ... The strength of many midcap decks is that they use two to three disciplines including one defensive discipline. By giving most discipline, even they are not defensive, a bleed reducing card, you will strengthen the one discipline weenie decks and therefore weaken the three discipline midcap decks. Not the right direction for the game IMO. And multipurpose cards (reaction and action modifier, combat and reaction) should mostly be reserved for double discipline cards, so bigger vampires will profit not weenies. frank

I may be wrong here, and no doubt someone will correct me if I am. But I believe the original motivation of this thread was to propose the introduction of more widespread and usable bleed reduction cards as a means of improving bleed defence for non-bounce clans, without the perceived "homogenising" effect that introducing disciplineless bleed bounce would have. So it's interesting to see in some parts of the thread people have been bending over backwards to show that Telepathic Counter (a "reduce by two" card) is markedly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection (a bounce card) in most situations (which I agree with). Yet those same people elsewhere advocate that giving non-bounce disciplines "reduce by 2" cards rather than (disciplineless) bounce cards will be adequate to bridge the bleed defence gap. Isn't there some hint of a contradiction here? I'm not saying the whole concept sucks - I think the "(inf) <useful effect> / (SUP) Reduce by 2" cards are a nice idea and would definitely see some play. But they will not level the playing field as much as introducing disciplineless bounce would. Auspex decks currently tend to go for TM over TC, and in the same way I predict non-bounce decks that currently jam a "bounce module" into their crypt would choose to continue to do so, rather than use these new cards. I still think we need disciplineless bounce. Appolonius.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote in news:1153401654.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com: >> > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >> > For the sake of illustrating this idea, here are some cards off the >> > top of my head that I think might be viable. ... > > The strength of many midcap decks is that they use two to three > disciplines including one defensive discipline. By giving most > discipline, even they are not defensive, a bleed reducing card, you > will strengthen the one discipline weenie decks and therefore weaken > the three discipline midcap decks. Not the right direction for the > game IMO. > Howso? Look for mid-caps that have multiple bleed reduction disciplines, and they amplify their reduction capabilities (_if_ reduction is given to more than one discipline, that is...), by being able to play different reduction reaction cards on the same bleed action. Seems to me more of a step in the right direction, vis a vis weenies (greater return of defense on an untapped mid-cap). Follow Peter's sample, where inferior version effects are just another source for inferior effects available elsewhere, and you'd have to get the superior discipline on each of your weenies you intend to leave untapped for defense, in order to have this angle function as reliable bleed reduction. Thats not impossible, but it does give the defense more moving parts, before the one-discipline weenie has set up an adequate-to-solid defense... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Appolonius wrote: > I may be wrong here, and no doubt someone will correct me if I am. But I > believe the original motivation of this thread was to propose the > introduction of more widespread and usable bleed reduction cards as a > means of improving bleed defence for non-bounce clans, without the > perceived "homogenising" effect that introducing disciplineless bleed > bounce would have. No, no, you are correct. > So it's interesting to see in some parts of the thread people have been > bending over backwards to show that Telepathic Counter (a "reduce by > two" card) is markedly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection (a bounce > card) in most situations (which I agree with). Yet those same people > elsewhere advocate that giving non-bounce disciplines "reduce by 2" > cards rather than (disciplineless) bounce cards will be adequate to > bridge the bleed defence gap. Isn't there some hint of a contradiction here? I don't belive there is (being a person who is doing both). It is simply an illustration that bleed reduction being stapled Auspex is a redundancy, and thus a bad design concept (i.e. that Auspex has *both* bounce and reduction, and that presumably, other disciplines are prevented from getting good bleed reduction simply because auspex=good bleed reduction). If non Auspex disciplines had viable bleed reduction (i.e. a non conditional, superior "reduce bleed by 2" for no blood that had a reasonable inferior ability for cycleability), it would open up defensive venues for decks without Auspex or Dominate. I think currently, an inordinate number of decks use Auspex or Dominate (Dominate for many resons other than bounce as well as bounce), as there isn't really a viable alternative. I postulate that viable, non Auspex bleed reduction would be a viable alternative. > Auspex decks currently tend to > go for TM over TC, and in the same way I predict non-bounce decks that > currently jam a "bounce module" into their crypt would choose to > continue to do so, rather than use these new cards. Maybe. But as someone who is thinking about it a bunch, if, say, there was a viable Obfuscate bleed reduction card (i.e. something similar to the +1 stealth/reduce bleed by 2 card I have proposed multiple times, full well realizing that it might be too good of a card), I'd use it all the time. And a lot of the "5x Superstar + 7 dom weenie" decks I build would get to avoid that particularly klunky defense angle. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153407382.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Appolonius wrote: >> So it's interesting to see in some parts of the thread people have been >> bending over backwards to show that Telepathic Counter (a "reduce by >> two" card) is markedly inferior to Telepathic Misdirection (a bounce >> card) in most situations (which I agree with). Yet those same people >> elsewhere advocate that giving non-bounce disciplines "reduce by 2" >> cards rather than (disciplineless) bounce cards will be adequate to >> bridge the bleed defence gap. Isn't there some hint of a contradiction >> here? > > [...] > If non Auspex disciplines had viable bleed reduction (i.e. a non > conditional, superior "reduce bleed by 2" for no blood that had a > reasonable inferior ability for cycleability), it would open up > defensive venues for decks without Auspex or Dominate. I think > currently, an inordinate number of decks use Auspex or Dominate > (Dominate for many resons other than bounce as well as bounce), as > there isn't really a viable alternative. I postulate that viable, non > Auspex bleed reduction would be a viable alternative. It might. It would probably depend on the deck. You'd have to leave guys untapped (or play lots of Wakes) to benefit much from this. Auspex decks (the ones that use bleed reduction now) don't have much trouble with that because they're typically already defense-oriented decks that like to leave multiple vamps untapped in the first place. Non-Auspex decks may very well find these non-Auspex bleed-reduction reactions to have a much greater cost for them to use effectively, because they have to leave someone with the superior discipline untapped to play them, or else take up even more cardslots with a bunch of Wakes. This is also one of the reasons that people crowbar Dominate into their decks rather than Telepathic Counters, of course: you can Deflect with inferior Dominate, and it's less card-intensive than Telepathic Counters to do so (because the net effect of each played Deflection is, on average, higher than that for TC). >> Auspex decks currently tend to >> go for TM over TC, and in the same way I predict non-bounce decks that >> currently jam a "bounce module" into their crypt would choose to >> continue to do so, rather than use these new cards. > > Maybe. But as someone who is thinking about it a bunch, if, say, there > was a viable Obfuscate bleed reduction card (i.e. something similar to > the +1 stealth/reduce bleed by 2 card I have proposed multiple times, > full well realizing that it might be too good of a card), I'd use it > all the time. And a lot of the "5x Superstar + 7 dom weenie" decks I > build would get to avoid that particularly klunky defense angle. I think Frank Moeller also has a good point on what disciplines ought to be considered for these kinds of cards, and in what way the cards should work. You don't really want to give weenie decks better defenses with these things; I kind of think there should either be a capacity restriction on the bleed-reduction superior (e.g. requires a vampire with capacity above 4) or, as Frank suggested, make 'em dual-discipline (though I don't entirely like that solution since it frequently ties down each particular bleed-reduction card to a specific clan). Plus, they probably shouldn't go into disciplines (at least without capacity restrictions or something) that are already incredibly great disciplines on their own. Obfuscate, for example, no matter how nice it would be for the Nosferatu and Setites. :-) Josh still thinks there's no reason not to make actual bounce cards for other disciplines

<invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153350742.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> I don't think it matter what decks don't get there. What matter to >> me is the decks that do. > > Right...but if the game is skewed so strongly in favor of defense that > there don't need to be more defensive cards printed, why are any > aggressive decks making into the finals at all? Just because there's some variation and sometimes, randomly, they do. > Why have the last few > years' NAC and EC been won by uberaggressive decks? Has that been the case? I haven't followed these continental championships except for Christian Chenard's Toredor Antitribu breed deck a couple years ago. If so, possible explanations are: 1) the random variation theory - Continental Championships are very major and large tournaments obviously but the number of them is tiny so their outcomes might easily vary considerably from the norm; 2) there's some reason I'm unaware of that explains why Continental Championships buck the trend of lesser major tournaments; and 3) I'm just wrong and there's no such trend or the trend is other than I think it to be. I don't know. I can only react to what I've seen. > To wit: are more defensive decks > played by good players making it into finals because they're defensive > decks, or because they're being played by good players? I can't see how that's an issue. If the finals are full of defensive decks (granted you think that's a questionable assumption but for purposes of argument...), then it doesn't matter how you want to look at it. The problem is that, in the end, the finals are full of defensive decks. In fact, I think the above question - if I understand it correctly - is a comparison between identical quantities. Good players choose good decks that allow them to win and make it to the finals. If I saw good players choosing offensive-oriented decks and making it to the finals, then I wouldn't see timed-out finals and I wouldn't be worrying about this issue. > The game isn't necessarily lacking in > offensive options; good players are playing more defensive decks. That > doesn't mean they're doing so because defensive decks are necessarily > better than agressive ones. Of course it does - otherwise good players wouldn't choose them. In any event, I don't care. > Not being a > game designer, I don't know of any way to add good offensive options to > the game that don't also bolster strong, aggressive deck archetypes > already. More pool-damaging options for the wackier disciplines, maybe? > Arika and the Malks aren't going to care much if Quietus gets some > powerful cards, for instance. Something like that. The thing I like best is the idea of more effective ways to bypass intercept so make it risky to depend on intercept as much as players seem to. I'm not sure that will work and I think it would need to exist only in specialized discipline(s) because my aim is certainly not to obsolesce intercept. It's just to discourage its use a bit and encourage a general shift towards offense. Having a couple more really viable archetypes that don't care about intercept (and not just because of superior combat abilities) seems like just the thing to me. > Is rewarding things which are wacky routes to victory what you're > referring to about when you talk about more offensive options, then? If > so, I'm all in favor. Sort of, kind of. The word "wacky" kind of bothers me because too often, wack decks are interesting and clever but for various reasons don't turn out to be tournament quality. But, yea. The aim is to create new archetypes with new strengths and new weaknesses, not to buck up stealth bleed or weeny bleed. >> CCG design ultimately doesn't worry >> about rewarding all cleverness equally and can't. All it can do >> is try to make the game as fun as possible by balancing as many >> paths to victory as possible (thus facilitating diversity) > > The problem with this is that in V:TES, there are only so many delivery > systems. And since the most unusual payload in the world isn't > effective at all without a good delivery system, there doesn't seem to > be a good way to introduce new offensive options without dramatically > changing the character of the game (and I'm talking about much bigger > changes than, like, mortals in the crypt, and look at the responses to > that). So there can't be all that much diversity without some pretty > huge alterations, seems like. Well, yea. The way I think about it is that the objective is to balance different archetypes. And there's just a limit to how many can be balanced at any given time. I'm sure the job has elements of patting your head and rubbing your tummy as it is. Still, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And my perception of the current situation bothers me - assuming it's accurate. >> and making the ultimate character of the game fun to play (by, for >> instance, avoiding heavy arbitrary luck components to play). It >> is the latter point that makes me want to see the game rebalanced >> towards more offense. > > That doesn't make sense to me. If everyone's deck is heavier on offense > than defense, you're introducing more randomness into the game, since > you're basically playing paper/rock/scissors at that point - will my > mostly aggressive deck's one defensive answer work against my > predator's mostly aggressive deck? Well, again, is there *enough* randomness in the game currently, in this sense? I mean, I'd hate to be perceived as advocating more dumb luck into the game but right now it bothers me that the deckbuilding/ metagaming aspects of Jyhad - which have been a bit of whipping boy amongst the elite discussing the game in forums like this newsgroup - have gotten short shrift over the years. Everybody hates the idea that if they build a rock deck and they sit down next to a guy with a paper deck that they'll get waxed and there'll be nothing they can do about it. But shouldn't astute choices on a metagame level be rewarded, too? Right now, the above problem doesn't scare me, because I don't think a limited shift would make things all that bad in the sense of what you've described above. I think we can stand a bit of movement in that direction as long is doesn't go too far. > I don't think I made my point very clearly, then. I'm trying to avoid > IME's here, but it seems to me that most finals that time out do so due > to vote decks, not wall decks. More specifically, finals time out > because people won't shut the hell up. I agree with your assessment of vote decks vs. wall decks. Let me stress, it's not really that I've seen a huge influx of wall decks in finals causing the problem. Yes, talk is a big part of the problem though it's not only vote decks that are doing that. It's negotiation in general, AFAICS. This includes negotiation over intercepting actions, people Eagle Sighting cross table, and other forms of cross-table interference to stop someone else from accomplishing something. Someone once described to me the reason crab buckets need no tops: because if a crab gets far enough up the side of the crab bucket to be a threat to climb out, the other crabs pull him back down into the bucket. Large tournament finals look too much like crab buckets to me. I'd like to give tennis shoes to the crabs so someone can have a chance of getting over the top. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why have the last few > > years' NAC and EC been won by uberaggressive decks? > > Has that been the case? [snip] > I don't know. I can only react to what I've seen. Just as a quick note...in theory, one could look at the TWDA and go through it, checking for offense (actions and action mods?) and defense (reactions and defensive masters?). It'd be somewhat subjective, but could be done. For example, the most recent deck (as of this posting, of course) http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k6frenchchamp 14 reactions (3 Confusion of the Eye, 6 TM, 5 WWEF) 20 Political Actions, 25 Action Mods So, overall, mostly offense. The next two down are more skewed towards "offense". Again, highly subjective, but as a generalization, pretty fair, I think. Imbued decks won't fit neatly, nor will Superstar decks that rely on No Secrets/Eternal Vigilance, but I think that one could figure that out as well. And of course various others... Anyway, the point is that this could be done for the entire TWDA, giving you a better idea. No time for me though, I've got important work to do...go get a drink! Xian dammit, yet another project

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > If non Auspex disciplines had viable bleed reduction (i.e. a non > conditional, superior "reduce bleed by 2" for no blood that had a > reasonable inferior ability for cycleability), it would open up > defensive venues for decks without Auspex or Dominate. I think > currently, an inordinate number of decks use Auspex or Dominate > (Dominate for many resons other than bounce as well as bounce), as > there isn't really a viable alternative. I postulate that viable, non > Auspex bleed reduction would be a viable alternative. OK. But haven't you shown in the TC vs TM discussion that such bleed reduction is, in fact, not a viable alternative (to bounce)? Appolonius.

[ quoted text not captured ] The point that Peter has been making (I think) is that it would be a viable alternative to bounce for decks that have to graft Dominate or Auspex on to a clan or discipline spread in order to defend their pool. Rather than needing to use Dominate skillcards to give Nosferatu bounce, for example, the presence of a Potence bleed reduction card of sufficient power (reduce by two seems to be a good standard) means you could just use enough of the in-clan discipline bleed reduction to stay alive. John Eno

In message <12bvvmv...@corp.supernews.com>, Appolonius <appol...@jyhad.com> writes: >OK. But haven't you shown in the TC vs TM discussion that such bleed >reduction is, in fact, not a viable alternative (to bounce)? That discussion has largely been "If you have bounce and reduction in the same discipline, bounce is the superior alternative." The cost of getting a lot of Auspex or Dominate onto a specific clan can be very high, to the point that the actual clan part of the deck is diluted or just not attempted in the first place, leaving a given deck without potent bleed defence. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Appolonius wrote: > OK. But haven't you shown in the TC vs TM discussion that such bleed > reduction is, in fact, not a viable alternative (to bounce)? When you have access to both bounce and reduction, the likelyhood of reduction being a viable alternative is very small. That being said, when you don't have access to bounce, reduction is a vastly superior option to no bounce. The discussion about TC being inferior to TM is meant to illustrate the redundancy of bleed defense in Auspex (which has both) and refute the folks who are saying "Are you insane? Bleed reduction is th best bleed defense out there!", which it clearly is not. But bleed reduction is certainly better than not bleed reduction. And bleed reduction is certainly better than not bounce. Currently, plenty of clans have no access to bleed bounce (Nosferatu, Brujah, Gangrel, Settites, Ravanos, Assamites, Ishtari, Akunanse, Guhuri, most of the anti-clans of the above, lots of the bloodlines) without grafting Auspex or Dominate into a crypt. Which happens a lot, as bounce is such a good, efficient defense, to that point that while grafting it onto a crypt is klunky, it is usually worth it for the 8-10 deflections that end up in the deck. If these clans had access to viable bleed reduction from in clan disciplines, they would have other options for defense that they currently don't have. And usually are covered by grafiting dominate into the crypt. Perhaps if in clan disciplines provided bleed reduction (that was actually useful bleed reduction--not highly conditional, difficult to cycle, reduction for 1 cards), the "graft dominate" plan wouldn't happen so much. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > The discussion about TC being inferior to TM is meant to illustrate the > redundancy of bleed defense in Auspex (which has both) and refute the > folks who are saying "Are you insane? Bleed reduction is th best bleed > defense out there!", which it clearly is not. But bleed reduction is > certainly better than not bleed reduction. And bleed reduction is > certainly better than not bounce. Fair enough. I was under the impression that the cards were suggested as a viable alternative to giving the non-bounce clans disciplineless bounce. Which the TM/TC experience shows they wouldn't be. But yes, I agree they would be better than nothing. Still, it seems strange to me that you're suggesting stopping at "better than nothing." Given most people agree that bounce > reduction, why say to the non-bounce clans "OK guys, we're going to finally cut you a break... here, have the inferior option!" Why not just give them bounce already? Appolonius. (PS. I think your obfuscate card as suggested is a bit overpowered - I'd prefer something like "(inf) +1 stealth, only usable on an action to enter combat (SUP) Reduce a bleed by 2" to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands...)

Appolonius wrote: > Still, it seems strange to me that you're suggesting stopping at "better > than nothing." Given most people agree that bounce > reduction, why say > to the non-bounce clans "OK guys, we're going to finally cut you a > break... here, have the inferior option!" Why not just give them bounce > already? I think that's covered in the other thread...does anyone really want to turn V:tES into a game of "whose bounce runs out first?" Also, I like direction you modified Peter's OBF card. Maybe capacity above 4? And just crib the text from Shroud of Night, "+1 stealth, only usable for a non-bleeding action." Xian capacity below 4

Appolonius wrote: > Fair enough. I was under the impression that the cards were suggested as > a viable alternative to giving the non-bounce clans disciplineless > bounce. Which the TM/TC experience shows they wouldn't be. But yes, I > agree they would be better than nothing. Well, I suggested them as a viable alternative to disciplinless bleed bounce, as I really don't think disciplinless bleed bounce is that good of an idea--as mentioned elsewhere it seems like disciplinless bounce would either be inferior to disciplined bleed bounce that it wouldn't actually see use, or close enough to discilined bleed bounce that it would see use in every single deck in the game. I'd like to see more variety in that. > (PS. I think your obfuscate card as suggested is a bit overpowered - I'd > prefer something like "(inf) +1 stealth, only usable on an action to > enter combat (SUP) Reduce a bleed by 2" to ensure it doesn't fall into > the wrong hands...) I've mentioned as well that I think that particular example is likely overpowered. But maybe "+1 stealth, not usable on a bleed action/reduce a bleed by 2." would probably be fine. -Peter

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1153499819.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Appolonius wrote: >> Still, it seems strange to me that you're suggesting stopping at "better >> than nothing." Given most people agree that bounce > reduction, why say >> to the non-bounce clans "OK guys, we're going to finally cut you a >> break... here, have the inferior option!" Why not just give them bounce >> already? > > I think that's covered in the other thread...does anyone really want to > turn V:tES into a game of "whose bounce runs out first?" Is VTES already a game of "whose bounce runs out first"? If not, why not? And if not, why would disciplined bounce in disciplines beyond Dominate and Auspex - or even entirely disciplineless bounce - succeed in turning it into a game of whose bounce runs out first, if Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy, and Major Boon haven't had that effect in the last twelve years? :-) Josh capacity reduced by 4 while at work

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Is VTES already a game of "whose bounce runs out first"? If not, why not? > And if not, why would disciplined bounce in disciplines beyond Dominate and > Auspex - or even entirely disciplineless bounce - succeed in turning it into > a game of whose bounce runs out first, if Deflection, Redirection, > Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy, and Major Boon haven't had that > effect in the last twelve years? :-) 'Cause people still play, however reluctantly, decks that don't have Dominate or Auspex. If bleed bounce was disciplinless and effective enough to actually use? I suspect that it would be seen all the time. -Peter

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Xian" <xi...@visi.com> > > I think that's covered in the other thread...does anyone really want to > > turn V:tES into a game of "whose bounce runs out first?" > > Is VTES already a game of "whose bounce runs out first"? If not, why not? Depends on the seating. ;) I don't think that it currently is. Other people may feel differently. > And if not, why would disciplined bounce in disciplines beyond Dominate and > Auspex - or even entirely disciplineless bounce - succeed in turning it into > a game of whose bounce runs out first, if Deflection, Redirection, > Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy, and Major Boon haven't had that > effect in the last twelve years? :-) I don't (yet, heh) have specific objections to "disciplined" bounce in non-aus, non-dom disciplines. I meant to indicate that I thought discipline-less bounce would turn V:tES into "whose bounce runs out first?" (WBROT!) If every single deck (maybe not Imbued) has access to bounce, it seems like there would be little incentive to not play it. Of course, this might provide more incentive to play Rush or "pure" Vote, but pretty much everyone takes the default bleed of 1 every now and again. Okay, I admit I haven't been following the other thread...and I could be convinced that discipline-less bounce won't turn the game into WBROT, but it seems likely that is where it would head...at least for a while. Now, if there were more cards that provided incentives for combat, in addtion to Fame/Dragonbound, then maybe bounce would be less useful. Last I checked, vote decks can oust with Parity Shift/KRC, but it's still pretty hard to oust with combat using *just* Fame/Dragonbound (and to a lesser extent, their poorer cousins). Xian bounce-a-riffic

Xian wrote: > V:tES into "whose bounce runs out first?" (WBROT!) If every single Obviously, I meant WBROF. D'oh. Xian disciplineless

In message <1153517824.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Xian <xi...@visi.com> writes: >Now, if there were more cards that provided incentives for combat, in >addtion to Fame/Dragonbound, then maybe bounce would be less useful. >Last I checked, vote decks can oust with Parity Shift/KRC, but it's >still pretty hard to oust with combat using *just* Fame/Dragonbound >(and to a lesser extent, their poorer cousins). Hmmm. Can we do both? That is, provide cards that - via combat - offer bleed defence, whatever it might be. Here's a clunky suggestion. Compromising Threat Action Modifier Requires Assamite Play when you announce an action to enter combat with a minion using a contract card. You cannot play this card if you have a Compromising Threat in play. If that minion is no longer ready at the end of this action, put this card in play; you may burn this card to reduce a bleed by that minion's controller by X. If that minion was burned during this action, you may burn this card to reduce a bleed by that minion's controller by X+1 instead. If that minion is still ready at the end of this action, burn a pool. X might be 1 or 2, say (so 2 or 3 for an outright burn). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Hmmm. Can we do both? That is, provide cards that - via combat - offer > bleed defence, whatever it might be. Not a bad idea... > Here's a clunky suggestion. > [snip card] So you're suggesting we reward going backwards? :) Okay, once it got down to 2-player, it might be reasonable, and I know you're just tossing ideas around...but I'm not sure about that. I'd rather see something like: You Lookin' Fer Trouble? Combat Potence Only usable before range is determined. Only usable once per combat. [pot]: If this minion inflicts more than 3 damage in any round this combat, put this card in play. When a minion (vampire?) successfully takes a (D) action against you, you may burn this card at the end of the action to inflict 1 damage on the acting minion. [POT]: As above, but you may choose to burn this card to reduce a bleed by 2 instead. As usual, standard disclaimer that I hold no interest in this card, anyone is free to steal/modify/use this card idea for their own purposes. Still probably not strong enough, though it's useful in that it provides the reward no matter who you go beat up. Unless that, in and of itself, is too strong. (Seems unlikely, though.) While I'm looking at other cards for templates, I just noticed that Travelers Obey the Tenets has "unpreventable" as (presumably) reminder text in it. Huh. Xian preventable

Xian wrote: > > I think that's covered in the other thread...does anyone really want to > turn V:tES into a game of "whose bounce runs out first?" I don't see the "let's not turn VtES into pinball" argument as a particularly valid refutation of adding more bounce to the game. As an argument against adding bounce in the first place, sure. As an argument for (gulp!) banning or errataing bounce, I can see it. But since bounce already exists (for some), the "don't add more or it will just be pinball" argument seems analagous to addressing a too-powerful card by making it rare. If bounce really does turn VtES into pinball, then the solution is not to restrict bounce but to modify it. If the problem isn't big enough for that, then at least let everyone _play_ pinball, rather than leaving bounce-less clans to their roles as pop-up targets and bonus spinners. Appolonius.

In message <1153524056....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Xian <xi...@visi.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Hmmm. Can we do both? That is, provide cards that - via combat - offer >> bleed defence, whatever it might be. >> Here's a clunky suggestion. >> >[snip card] > >So you're suggesting we reward going backwards? :) Hmmm, yes, that is a problem. I think what I was doing when writing it was thinking "Okay, combat decks go backwards a bit to protect themselves, so if we add on that..." When the advantage of your way would, obviously, be to encourage decks to go forwards but give them protection. It was late, I plead insanity. :-) Though that does make me think, say, could we have a card that, say, operated on a minion being there with a contract. Hmmm. So we get something like. Compromising Threat Action Requires Assamite Put this card in play. (You can only have 1 Compromising Threat in play.) If you are being bled by a Methuselah who controls a ready minion for whom one of your vampires has been chosen for a contract, you may tap this card to reduce the bleed by one. Burn this card if a ready minion you control leaves the ready region. So, you could throw a threatening Contract backwards but you'd need to leave the minion ready to use it, so it has ups and downs for you. You could argue about the amount of reduction. Or I wondered if you could put a counter on it for every opposing minion you burn (though then you could get into interesting situations with Informants, natch), in an Alamut sort of style. Alas, this incarnation doesn't actually reward you for playing combat - just contracts. >I'd rather see something like: > >You Lookin' Fer Trouble? >Combat >Potence >Only usable before range is determined. Only usable once per combat. >[pot]: If this minion inflicts more than 3 damage in any round this >combat, put this card in play. When a minion (vampire?) successfully >takes a (D) action against you, you may burn this card at the end of >the action to inflict 1 damage on the acting minion. >[POT]: As above, but you may choose to burn this card to reduce a >bleed by 2 instead. I have a slight objection here, in that I don't like Potence being given the ability. It's one of those things that's hard to quantify, but Potence for me is a thumping discipline. I'm quite happy with Iron Glare, though, because that can be seen as Presence with Potence on top, and is less of an issue for me. But I see what you're doing. For Potence, I ended up thinking more like... Concealed Threat Action Modifier/Reaction 1 blood [obf pot] [Act-Mod] +1 stealth on an undirected action, and if the action is blocked, the opposing minion takes 1 damage during strike resolution in the first round. [OBF POT] [Reaction] Reduce a bleed against you by 2, and the acting minion burns a blood. ... but that ignores the help-yourself-via-combat bit, but satisfies my "don't make potence too non-thumpy" urges by involving Obfuscate. But then, to do it in a thumpy way I'm happy with, you get the same problem as going backwards with my first Assamite suggestion. Burble. >While I'm looking at other cards for templates, I just noticed that >Travelers Obey the Tenets has "unpreventable" as (presumably) reminder >text in it. Huh. Most cards that deal damage outside combat have it. Back when Blood Tears could be used outside of combat, it made a difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, at 1:11pm, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > As noted by many previously, Auspex having bleed reduction is, for the > most part, redundant, as if you can use superior Telepathic Counter, you > can also play Telepathic Misdirection, and as bleed bounce is *so* much > better than bleed reduction, Telepathic Counter (and as such, bleed > reduction as a general defense) mostly gets left by the wayside. I often prefer Telepathic Counter to Telepathic Misdirection. I enjoy one of the classic defenses against sneak/bleed (or bruise/bleed,) which is not to block, thus choking your predator's hand with stealth (combat) cards. Reducing the bleed works with this, but bouncing the bleed lets her collaborate with your prey to cycle out of these cards in whatever way best suits them. Other benefits of TC are that it's free, it leaves you untapped, and it's still useable when the game gets down to two players. It can also keep your predator from getting the Edge. I still like TM for its flexibility -- intercept OR bleed bounce -- but I don't think it's that much better than TC. This may just be a matter of playstyle, though. Some of the new reducers are interesting, but I still think TC is the king. I'd love it if they made another free, non-tapping, reduce-by-2 reaction card.

davey wrote: > I often prefer Telepathic Counter to Telepathic Misdirection. I enjoy one > of the classic defenses against sneak/bleed (or bruise/bleed,) which is > not to block, thus choking your predator's hand with stealth (combat) > cards. Reducing the bleed works with this, but bouncing the bleed lets > her collaborate with your prey to cycle out of these cards in whatever way > best suits them. For what it is worth, you might go and read all the responses in the thread addressing these points--there are a lot of them. Yeah, sometimes, Telepathic Counter is worth using in lieu of Telepathic Misdirection. But most of the time, not so much. Which is why I'm suggesting removing bleed reduction from Ausepex (in the sense that you can make new, good reduction cards without feeling beholden to making them less effective than Telepathic Counter) and giving other disciplines good, non conditional bleed reduction. 'Cause when you can use bleed reduction or bleed bounce, most of the time, you are going to use bleed bounce. But if you can use bleed reduction when you can't use bleed bounce, you'll use bleed reduction and it will be effective. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It looks like he has read all the responses, and summed up the thread quite nicely. There are pros and cons to both TC and TM. Blood cost, bleeder cycling opportunity, target cycling opportunity, edge holding opportunity, tapping, pool reduction opportunity, and additional bounce opportunity all factor in to making it a strategic decision. There's also the withdrawal adhering opportunity (hi Ben!), but that doesn't really factor in to any strategic decision making, I hope. That your local metas have lead you to choose bounce "most of the time" is great. But that doesn't mean it isn't a strategic decision in general, rather than one of casually noting that "TM is most of the time better than TC in most cases".

LSJ wrote: > That your local metas have lead you to choose bounce "most of the time" > is great. But that doesn't mean it isn't a strategic decision in > general, rather than one of casually noting that "TM is most of the > time better than TC in most cases". As noted multiple times, once and a while, Telepathic Counter will be a better plan than Telepathic Counter. But the vast majority of the time, Telepathic Misdirection is just a better card to include in a deck, given the choice between the two. There is nothing casual about that note. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It keeps being said, yes (as if it were some underlying truth of the universe) while other opinions are painted as "derivative of some local meta". Where is this hidden knowledge coming from? How is it not similarly derived from various meta? Some people find TC useful in this-or-that deck in this-or-that meta. Some people use TM in their (different) decks in their (different) metas. Some people find TC more commonly chosen. Some find TM to be. Why the compulsion to declare as "the norm" the thing that you find?

LSJ wrote: > It keeps being said, yes (as if it were some underlying truth of the > universe) while other opinions are painted as "derivative of some local > meta". Sigh. This is the internet. It is where you go to argue about things, and in doing so, state things as if they are absolute truth. As it makes for a discussion. No interesting discussion has ever come out of "Uh, maybe, uh, I dunno, this thing might be possibly true? Nah. Never mind. I don't want to make an absoilute statement. Forget it..." > Where is this hidden knowledge coming from? The best support I have for the discussion is A) having, ya know, played the game and B) the incredible disparity in numbers between Telepathic Misdirection and Telepathic Counter used in decks in the TWDA. But then, this too has all been detailed up above. > Why the compulsion to declare as "the norm" the thing that you find? 'Cause this is the internet, where people go to argue about things. You've seen the internet before, right? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] <Scarlett O'Hara voice> "Oh, LSJ, I do declare how you go on. You know there's only one thing on my mind. And it ain't a bunch of ol' mealy-mouth compulsions!" </Scarlett O'Hara voice> Ya know....cuz I could. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153915203.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You could make the same kind of argument for Phobia versus Temptation, but that doesn't mean that Phobia is really worth using. Some metagames are more like the 'blind' tournament environment than others, and while it's possible to list pros and cons for any two things you might want to compare, the fact that both *have* pros and cons doesn't show that they're actually equivalent. If your predator is jamming on stealth, for example, bouncing a bleed and allowing him or her to "collaborate" with your prey to cycle those stealth cards is not that often going to be possible without either harming your prey (which would help you) or failing to give any significant help to your predator's hand-jam situation. > That your local metas have lead you to choose bounce "most of the time" > is great. But that doesn't mean it isn't a strategic decision in > general, rather than one of casually noting that "TM is most of the > time better than TC in most cases". It's also a strategic decision to play with Blood Doll "most of the time" rather than Gird Minions. That doesn't make Gird Minions an especially worthwhile card, though. I think this is kind of a side-track to the main point of the thread, which I think was more about whether it'd be worthwhile to give bleed reduction at least as good as Telepathic Counter to non-Auspex disciplines. But I guess it does relate, since it might be necessary to convince you (or anyone) that Telepathic Counter isn't quite at the top tier of Auspex cards in order for it to seem reasonable to give the same kind of effect to non-Auspex cards. Josh inauspicious

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > It keeps being said, yes (as if it were some underlying truth of the > > universe) while other opinions are painted as "derivative of some local > > meta". > > Sigh. This is the internet. It is where you go to argue about things, [...] > 'Cause this is the internet, where people go to argue about things. > You've seen the internet before, right? "This is the internet" is just code for "oops, you're right, what I've been painting as fact vs. other people's opinion really does just boil down to personal (and meta) preference."

LSJ wrote: > "This is the internet" is just code for "oops, you're right, what I've > been painting as fact vs. other people's opinion really does just boil > down to personal (and meta) preference." Uhh, no. Like, I'm sure that there are "metas" (when did "meta" become a word in and of itself as opposed to a prefix?) where Mummify is a good card to use. That doesn't mean that it isn't a bad card. You are correct that all statements come down to personal preference. That is inherrent in all discussion. Me saying something, even though I don't prefix it with "this is just my opinion, but..." is clearly my opinion. My opinion is likely backed by supporting evidence (in this particular case, the supporting evidence comes from playing the game a lot and from looking at the TWDA and discovering that Telepathic Misdirection shows up about 5 times more often than Telepathic Counter). But that it is my opinion is inherrent in the discussion. That being said, in the context of this game, some cards are simply more effective than others, based on a general, blind play environment. Yeah, as I have said many times over, occasionally, someone will have a good reason to use Telepathic Counter instead of Telepathic Misdirection. But more often than not, Telepathic Misdirection is going to force Telepathic Counter to the wayside. I'm not quite sure why you are getting het up about this. Like, in some instances Growing Fury is worth using too, but it is unlikely that someone would successfully argue that it is not overall less effective than Undead Strength. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > "This is the internet" is just code for "oops, you're right, what I've > > been painting as fact vs. other people's opinion really does just boil > > down to personal (and meta) preference." > > Uhh, no. Like, I'm sure that there are "metas" (when did "meta" become > a word in and of itself as opposed to a prefix?) where Mummify is a > good card to use. That doesn't mean that it isn't a bad card. True. > You are correct that all statements come down to personal preference. > That is inherrent in all discussion. Me saying something, even though I > don't prefix it with "this is just my opinion, but..." is clearly my > opinion. My opinion is likely backed by supporting evidence (in this > particular case, the supporting evidence comes from playing the game a > lot and from looking at the TWDA and discovering that Telepathic > Misdirection shows up about 5 times more often than Telepathic > Counter). But that it is my opinion is inherrent in the discussion. OK. It didn't seem to be. The discussion seemed to paint the opinion you support as some underlying truth while painting opposing opinions as meta-based opinions. This being the Internet, such things are sometimes pointed out. > That being said, in the context of this game, some cards are simply > more effective than others, based on a general, blind play environment. > Yeah, as I have said many times over, occasionally, someone will have a > good reason to use Telepathic Counter instead of Telepathic > Misdirection. But more often than not, Telepathic Misdirection is going > to force Telepathic Counter to the wayside. More often than not to you. As expressed by the people you keep taking issue with though, some people find otherwise. > I'm not quite sure why you > are getting het up about this. Sigh. I'm not. You're familiar with the Internet as a means of voicing opinions as facts, surely you're also familiar with someone getting called on overstating things (even if unintentionally). Or, to put it another way, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset. That is, I'm not sure why you keep feeling called to jump anyone who voices the contrary opinions with this "most of the time" universal truth thing. > Like, in some instances Growing Fury is > worth using too, but it is unlikely that someone would successfully > argue that it is not overall less effective than Undead Strength. True, but not like the TC vs. TM case, where the disparity, if any, is not so clear cut.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153928154.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >> Like, in some instances Growing Fury is >> worth using too, but it is unlikely that someone would successfully >> argue that it is not overall less effective than Undead Strength. > > True, but not like the TC vs. TM case, where the disparity, if any, is > not so clear cut. There is some inherent math to the Telepathic Counter versus Telepathic Misdirection case, though. Against a bleed of 1: TC costs: 1 card, must have minion with at least [aus] untapped or Woken TC yields: 1 pool saved to you TM costs: 1 card, 1 blood, must have minion with [AUS] untapped or Woken, taps that minion TM yields: 1 pool saved to you, 1 pool lost by your prey (or he/she must do something about it) Against a bleed of 2: TC costs: 1 card, must have minion with [AUS] untapped or Woken TC yields: 2 pool saved to you TM costs: 1 card, 1 blood, must have minion with [AUS] untapped or Woken, taps that minion TM yields: 2 pool saved to you, 2 pool lost by your prey (unless he/she does something) Against a bleed of 3: TC costs: 1 card, must have minion with [AUS] untapped or Woken TC yields: 2 pool saved to you TM costs: 1 card, 1 blood, must have minion with [AUS] untapped or Woken, taps that minion TM yields: 3 pool saved to you, 3 pool lost by your prey (unless he/she does something) The benefits of TM vs TC continue to increase as the bleed amount goes up, of course. Notice that TM's 'net swing in pool' for you versus your prey goes from 2 for a bleed of 1, to 4 for a bleed of 2, 6 for a bleed of 3, etc. TC gives you a net swing of 1 for a bleed of 1, 2 for a bleed of 2, 2 for a bleed of 3, and remains 2 at all higher bleed levels. This is the math behind why Telepathic Misdirection is more popular in tournament decks than Telepathic Counter. It is more card efficient and has a greater effect in hurting your prey at the same time it helps you. Despite the blood cost, it is an inherently stronger card. Very possibly you already know this math. But your argument that TC vs TM is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. There is. Josh still thinks the real point is supposed to be that non-auspex bleed reduction should be more like telepathic counter than like banner of neutrality

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Very possibly you already know this math. Indeed. And I know the big picture involves much more. To wit: factors of subsequent cycling, bouncing, edge movement, &c. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/19a4b4a3e547049b > But your argument that TC vs TM > is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there > being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. > There is. The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled".

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:1153933921.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] You've specified only a lower limit for your requested demonstration (more complex than "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled") but what is the upper limit? If its more than a card or two, and/or a play or two of forward-looking prediction, then don't you just devolve the discussion into who can contrive a scenario which better suits their position? Since we're also talking about "How Things Work in Usenet discussions", let me be the first to say this is a direction I'd rather not have the thread go... DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > > The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single > > case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled". > > > > You've specified only a lower limit for your requested demonstration > (more complex than "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is > uncontrolled") but what is the upper limit? If its more than a card or > two, and/or a play or two of forward-looking prediction, then don't you > just devolve the discussion into who can contrive a scenario which > better suits their position? The point being that it is not demostrable? That is the point, yes. > Since we're also talking about "How Things > Work in Usenet discussions", let me be the first to say this is a > direction I'd rather not have the thread go... I agree. I wasn't really looking for such a demonstration of masochistic typing; just illustrating my point. Such being USENET. If I really had my druthers, the posts that prompted me to drag my typing into this thread wouldn't have been made -- people would just agree that opinions are opinions and would have moved on long ago. Such is USENET.

> If I really had my druthers, the posts that prompted me to drag my > typing into this thread wouldn't have been made -- people would just > agree that opinions are opinions and would have moved on long ago. The real take home questions here are: Does anyone ever get to have their druthers? What is a druthers, exactly? Can you meet up with a druthers and drink with it in a bar? Has anyone ever seen LSJ's druthers? If so, do you feel ashamed? Proud? Discuss. Ankur

On 26 Jul 2006 05:00:03 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >> For what it is worth, you might go and read all the responses in the >> thread addressing these points--there are a lot of them. [snip] > It looks like he has read all the responses, and summed up the thread > quite nicely. [snip miracle] Such is the power of the Bakeejah. I actually agree with LSJ for once. USENET never ceases to amaze me... -- Regards, Daneel

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4iplgdF...@individual.net... > This is the math behind why Telepathic Misdirection is more popular in > tournament decks than Telepathic Counter. It is more card efficient and has > a greater effect in hurting your prey at the same time it helps you. The problem with the math is that it fails to account for the tapping effect of TM that TC doesn't have. And the benefit of that is _very_ hard to reduce to math. So claims that that "we've reduced this comparison down to some neat balance sheet" have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Which, I think, is exactly Scott's point. > But your argument that TC vs TM > is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there > being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. I disagree. I think it rests on non-comparibility of the two cards' effects. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153933921.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Very possibly you already know this math. > > Indeed. And I know the big picture involves much more. To wit: factors > of subsequent cycling, bouncing, edge movement, &c. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/19a4b4a3e547049b If the big picture turns my analysis on its head, surely it must also be quantifiable how that happens. Otherwise, the big picture's effects would appear to be hearsay. :-) >> But your argument that TC vs TM >> is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there >> being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. >> There is. > > The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single > case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled". Your point is that the world is complicated? That's all very well and good, but it doesn't negate the utility of analysis that can be done at a simple level, even if it doesn't hold 100% true for *all* times, places, and people. Yes, we all know that the effectiveness of cards is different in different situations, and when other cards are played in the same series of events. But the base point for evaluating cards is still what they do on their own, as single-card plays. Josh the truth is out there

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:nBOxg.5029$Mz3.2769@fed1read07... > "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4iplgdF...@individual.net... >> This is the math behind why Telepathic Misdirection is more popular in >> tournament decks than Telepathic Counter. It is more card efficient and >> has >> a greater effect in hurting your prey at the same time it helps you. > > The problem with the math is that it fails to account for the tapping > effect > of TM that TC doesn't have. And the benefit of that is _very_ hard to > reduce to math. So claims that that "we've reduced this comparison down > to some neat balance sheet" have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. > Which, I think, is exactly Scott's point. Sure. A huge grain of salt to go with the huge mathematical difference in effect. OK: if you've Woken to play the two cards, they have the same tapping cost (you're tapped when you started, you're tapped when you're done). If you didn't Wake to play them, then it costs you 1 tapping to play the Telepathic Misdirection vs 0 for the Telepathic Counter. I would argue that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by not being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). Even taking that cost into consideration, Telepathic Misdirection continues to outperform Telepathic Counter when Misdirecting versus Countering bleeds of all sizes above 1. >> But your argument that TC vs TM >> is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there >> being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. > > I disagree. I think it rests on non-comparibility of the two cards' > effects. If cards can't be analyzed logically, why not just write new cards with a random-text generator? No one will be able to show the difference, right? Josh everything in vtes is math (granted, the players are a little difficult to parametrize)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:1153933921.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> Very possibly you already know this math. > > > > Indeed. And I know the big picture involves much more. To wit: factors > > of subsequent cycling, bouncing, edge movement, &c. > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/19a4b4a3e547049b > > If the big picture turns my analysis on its head, surely it must also be > quantifiable how that happens. Otherwise, the big picture's effects would > appear to be hearsay. :-) ? > >> But your argument that TC vs TM > >> is a strictly metagame/strategy-dependent choice seems to rest on there > >> being no demonstrable difference in the magnitude of the cards' effects. > >> There is. > > > > The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single > > case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled". > > Your point is that the world is complicated? The point is that the thing you claim is demonstrable is not demonstrable. Or, at least, that it has not yet been demonstrated. > That's all very well and good, > but it doesn't negate the utility of analysis that can be done at a simple > level, even if it doesn't hold 100% true for *all* times, places, and > people. So "you can't claim that what holds true for negligible set of cases doesn't also hold true for the "most" cases". Is that it? You're right. It may be that what holds true on some insignificant set of cases also holds true in "most" cases. But the point is (and what I've been saying is) that it is also true that it may not. And that the sample you've analyzed is small (negligible even, compared to the whole). And besides, it (the sample) ignores most of TC's strengths (curtailing cycling, holding the edge, remaining untapped) and TM's weaknesses (rebounce, tapping), so naturally will weight TM stronger than the general case analysis would. > Yes, we all know that the effectiveness of cards is different in > different situations, and when other cards are played in the same series of > events. But the base point for evaluating cards is still what they do on > their own, as single-card plays. Hardly. It is an obvious place to start, but far from a baseline for general evaluation. By that baseline, Channeling theBeast is better than Concealed Weapon. But some people have the nerve to claim CW strong and CtB is weak. Must be their local meta, I guess.

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... > I would argue > that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by not > being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. Using Telepathic Counters ad naseum allows you to block infinite single base bleeds. I mean, if you're just asserting some rule of thumb you've found to be useful in your games, fine. But the reason you've given doesn't strike me as valid. And, of course, rules of thumb are very personal, play-style and metagame dependent so we're back to non-comparibility. > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:nBOxg.5029$Mz3.2769@fed1read07... >> I disagree. I think it rests on non-comparibility of the two cards' >> effects. > > If cards can't be analyzed logically, why not just write new cards with a > random-text generator? No one will be able to show the difference, right? That's a false dichotomy. Cards frequently can't be analyzed logically, if only for reasons of unfathomable complexity in two player games. In multiplayer games, player personality/philosophy issues make can it totally impossible. This doesn't make it unimportant to design cards with care and avoid practically useless cards, highly undercosted cards, and other problematic conditions. Common sense and game experience will help you avoid these. They just don't prove anything in a rigid, analytical sense. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:1153935336.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com: > atomweaver wrote: >> > The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single >> > case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is >> > uncontrolled". >> > >> >> You've specified only a lower limit for your requested >> demonstration >> (more complex than "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is >> uncontrolled") but what is the upper limit? If its more than a card >> or two, and/or a play or two of forward-looking prediction, then >> don't you just devolve the discussion into who can contrive a >> scenario which better suits their position? > > The point being that it is not demostrable? > That is the point, yes. > If so, then is anything in this game 'demonstrable'? (OK, _maybe_ we could demonstrate that Sawed-Off Shotgun is superior to Chainsaw. What else?). If so, all we're left with is Josh's math, and the TWDA's statistic that TM is preferred five times to one over TC (in tournament winning decks reported to the newsgroup, blahditty blah, with all the other disclaimers about using TWDA data.) Even if that's all we have to go on, IMO its adequate enough to make the point that TM is better than TC, for most times that you'd be making that choice in deck construction. Which, in turn, is adequate enough to put at least a _little_ energy into investigating the merit of some non-Auspex disciplines getting bleed reduction on par with TC (again, IMO, since I wouldn't want you getting on _me_ about stating opinion as fact! :-). DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > If so, then is anything in this game 'demonstrable'? (OK, _maybe_ we > could demonstrate that Sawed-Off Shotgun is superior to Chainsaw. What > else?). > If so, all we're left with is Josh's math, Which has about 0 impact. >and the TWDA's statistic > that TM is preferred five times to one over TC (in tournament winning > decks reported to the newsgroup, blahditty blah, with all the other > disclaimers about using TWDA data.) Rendering it slightly above Josh's math. But still with the result that the assertion "most of the time, any TC will be replaced by TM" leaves somethinng lacking -- since so many TC's made it into TWDA decks without being substituted for TMs themselves. > Even if that's all we have to go > on, IMO its adequate enough to make the point that TM is better than > TC, for most times that you'd be making that choice in deck > construction. It is not, clearly (meaning IMO <- USENET). It is far from adequate for anything of the sort. And the other stuff you have left to go on includes the list of pros and cons -- the stuff that factors into the decision as to which cards to include in this or that deck in this or that quantities in this or that meta. As stated. > Which, in turn, is adequate enough to put at least a > _little_ energy into investigating the merit of some non-Auspex > disciplines getting bleed reduction on par with TC (again, IMO, since > I wouldn't want you getting on _me_ about stating opinion as fact! > :-). A separate subject. Whether TM is as obviously better than TC in most cases as a few people vocally assert in this thread has nothing to do with giving some non-Auspex card a reduction ability on par or above that of TC.

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ipr3nF...@individual.net... > Yes, we all know that the effectiveness of cards is different in > different situations, and when other cards are played in the same series of > events. But the base point for evaluating cards is still what they do on > their own, as single-card plays. ...er, except for combo cards, right? I hope? Fred

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns980C9BDF5A...@207.115.17.102... > If so, all we're left with is Josh's math, and the TWDA's statistic > that TM is preferred five times to one over TC (in tournament winning > decks reported to the newsgroup, blahditty blah, with all the other > disclaimers about using TWDA data.) And how many times is TC preferred over, say, Week of Nightmares - a card I was recently told was broken? Fred card counting things that make you say, "DOH!"

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:1153942184.977080.226480 @s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Right, but to a certain extent, don't the TWDA stats quantify that (for cards of sufficient similarity)? Presumably, each winner went through the whole thought process you outlined, and arrived at a decision, one which helped them win them a tournament. IF the sample size is large enough (big IF, I know... it probably isn't) then we can set aside each individual's block of reasons for choosing TM over TC, and see that the choice of TM itself wins more tournaments. After all, every TM had the opportunity to be a TC, but TC wasn't chosen. Who cares why... the proof is in the wins. > As stated. > >> Which, in turn, is adequate enough to put at least a >> _little_ energy into investigating the merit of some non-Auspex >> disciplines getting bleed reduction on par with TC (again, IMO, since >> I wouldn't want you getting on _me_ about stating opinion as fact! >> :-). > > A separate subject. 'K. > Whether TM is as obviously better than TC in most > cases as a few people vocally assert in this thread has nothing to do > with giving some non-Auspex card a reduction ability on par or above > that of TC. > IYO, you meant to put, right? I guess you don't need to, since your "O" is the only "O" that _really_ matters, wrt new VTES cards. So what _is_ relevant to non-Auspex reduction, then? DaveZ Atom Weaver ...4 out of 5 tournament winners preferred the taste of TM over TC

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns980CADBDCA...@207.115.17.102: > IYO, you meant to put, right? I guess you don't need to, since your > "O" is the only "O" that _really_ matters, wrt new VTES cards. > *groan* LSJ's big "O", heh... I didn't just type that, did I? Yah, well... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1153940267.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:1153933921.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> >> Very possibly you already know this math. >> > >> > Indeed. And I know the big picture involves much more. To wit: factors >> > of subsequent cycling, bouncing, edge movement, &c. >> > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/19a4b4a3e547049b >> >> If the big picture turns my analysis on its head, surely it must also be >> quantifiable how that happens. Otherwise, the big picture's effects >> would >> appear to be hearsay. :-) > > ? You're claiming that in the "big picture" Telepathic Counter is as good as Telepathic Misdirection. If you aren't going to quantify the big picture's effects, how do you know that? >> > The please demonstrate it, accounting for more than just the single >> > case of "if no one else plays any cards and the edge is uncontrolled". >> >> Your point is that the world is complicated? > > The point is that the thing you claim is demonstrable is not > demonstrable. > Or, at least, that it has not yet been demonstrated. If nothing is demonstrable, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? >> That's all very well and good, >> but it doesn't negate the utility of analysis that can be done at a >> simple >> level, even if it doesn't hold 100% true for *all* times, places, and >> people. > > So "you can't claim that what holds true for negligible set of cases > doesn't also hold true for the "most" cases". Is that it? ? > You're right. It may be that what holds true on some insignificant set > of cases also holds true in "most" cases. > > But the point is (and what I've been saying is) that it is also true > that it may not. And that the sample you've analyzed is small > (negligible even, compared to the whole). > > And besides, it (the sample) ignores most of TC's strengths (curtailing > cycling, holding the edge, remaining untapped) and TM's weaknesses > (rebounce, tapping), so naturally will weight TM stronger than the > general case analysis would. Maybe. Except for tapping, the "strengths" of TC and "weaknesses" of TM that you cite are speculative in a way that the inherent effects of the simple play of the two cards in question are not. It's not "a negligible set of cases". It's the simple case, looking at the cards in the least complicated situation. If the simple case isn't useful, is there no such thing as analysis that *is* useful? It doesn't seem productive to me to declare that we can't know anything for sure about the world. >> Yes, we all know that the effectiveness of cards is different in >> different situations, and when other cards are played in the same series >> of >> events. But the base point for evaluating cards is still what they do on >> their own, as single-card plays. > > Hardly. It is an obvious place to start, but far from a baseline for > general evaluation. In general, it's a good baseline. Cards that don't do anything unless combined with other cards are special cases. (And, might I add, not very good cards unless the combination is exceptionally strong. This is why Magazine is rather weak.) > By that baseline, Channeling theBeast is better than Concealed Weapon. > But some people have the nerve to claim CW strong and CtB is weak. Must > be their local meta, I guess. Concealed Weapon can give quite a large effect when combined with a second card to make it playable at all (saves an action, equips unblockably, gives you a weapon to use in the combat you're already in). Channeling the Beast doesn't give a large effect. I feel like I'm getting a little snarkier than I would like to be in this thread. But what exactly is supposed to be the benefit of insisting that everything is opinion and nothing is known? OK, I can't disprove it, but I don't feel like that makes it a tenable way to live in the world. :-) Josh is pretty sure reality is real

LSJ wrote: > OK. It didn't seem to be. The discussion seemed to paint the opinion > you support as some underlying truth while painting opposing opinions > as meta-based opinions. Not by me. I simply pointed out what I thought to be the case. > As expressed by the people you keep taking issue with though, some > people find otherwise. Which is fine. And why I keep pointing out why I think otherwise. > Sigh. I'm not. > You're familiar with the Internet as a means of voicing opinions as > facts, surely you're also familiar with someone getting called on > overstating things (even if unintentionally). Sure. > Or, to put it another way, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset. ??? Wha? Where is "upset"? This has been one of the most civil and calm discussions in this forum for weeks. > That is, I'm not sure why you keep feeling called to jump anyone who > voices the contrary opinions with this "most of the time" universal > truth thing. 'Cause I like posting stuff. This new sub thread started 'cause someone showed up (Davey?) and made a comment on a discussion that had been silent for 3 or 4 days, and his comment seemed to me to indicate that he hadn't actually read the discussion that followed the post he responded to. Which is fine, but also why I pointed to the following discussion (as I really don't think he read it and was summing it up. I think he read the first post, responded, and moved on.) rather than repeating the discussion. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > If I really had my druthers, the posts that prompted me to drag my > typing into this thread wouldn't have been made -- people would just > agree that opinions are opinions and would have moved on long ago. Yeah, see, I'm unclear why you did that in the first place. Like, literally, I just responded to the post by saying "go check out the rest of the discussion that specifically addresses all the points you brought up" and then that was that. It seemed that this particular post flared up your need to jump into this discussion for reasons that are beyond me. Like, considering how usenet works, why did you decide that *that* particular post was the one to jump into to point out the obvious "opinions are opinions", and not all the other countless threads that could call for the same thing? -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Such is the power of the Bakeejah. I actually agree with LSJ for > once. USENET never ceases to amaze me... Wow. I was doing such a good job of ignoring you up till now. Man. You are a prick. But ok. If only google had a kill file. Unless it does... -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess this is a good spot for me to interject my personal opinion (and expose the way to send me on my way to tilting)... Telepathic Counter is my *MOST HATED CARD IN VTES.* It stems from me playing combat Assamites so much when I got back into the game. Some people around here sprinkle TCs in their decks and there is nothing more frustrating to an Assamite player who wants to cycle red cards have their prey nullify their action entirely while preventing that desperate card flow cyclage. Not only that, but it totally hoses Flurry of Action as well. Anyway, for what it is worth, I am actually less frustrated in a game when I am bounced, but TC really annoys me to no end when it is played against me when I wield certain decks. Jeff

Fred Scott wrote: > "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... >> I would argue >> that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by not >> being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). > > Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. Really? I think it's extremely obvious. Consider: Redirection (sup) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the Deflection does not tap you, and costs a(n extra) blood. Deflection (inf) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the superior does not tap you, but requires an extra discipline level (= effect is "one blood" more powerful). Ditto Claiming the Body (san), ditto Shell Game (san), ditto Siren's Lure (mel) (in each case the superior taps one fewer of your minions than the inferior). Or, as in Josh's example: A generic minion bleeds you cardlessly with no modifiers. You do not wish to tap a blocker. The cost to you: 1 pool. Clearly, not tapping when an effect would normally tap you is worth 1 blood or pool. I'm also surprised to see claims that mathematical analysis of cards "has 0 impact" and "should be taken with a large grain of salt". Games _are_ maths, and this one is no exception. Appolonius.

Appolonius wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > > "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> > > wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... > >> I would argue > >> that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by not > >> being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). > > > > Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. > > Really? I think it's extremely obvious. > > Consider: > Redirection (sup) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the Deflection > does not tap you, and costs a(n extra) blood. > > Deflection (inf) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the superior > does not tap you, but requires an extra discipline level (= effect is > "one blood" more powerful). > > Ditto Claiming the Body (san), ditto Shell Game (san), ditto Siren's > Lure (mel) (in each case the superior taps one fewer of your minions > than the inferior). > > Or, as in Josh's example: A generic minion bleeds you cardlessly with no > modifiers. You do not wish to tap a blocker. The cost to you: 1 pool. > > Clearly, not tapping when an effect would normally tap you is worth 1 > blood or pool. > If we can assume this is true, then TC is _clearly_ better by Josh's observation for another pool-iteration, so TM doesn't become "better" until the bleed is for 4, since leaving the untapped minion is the equivalent of "saving" another pool. I guess i should go swap out all my TM's for TC, since AI keeps bleeds around 3 in some (a large amount of my) games. Merlin

Joshua Duffin wrote: > You're claiming that in the "big picture" Telepathic Counter is as good as > Telepathic Misdirection. No, I'm not. I'm claiming that the claims that the foundation for the claims that TM is superior in some absolute, non-opinion way is shaky. I'm claim that the decision to use TM or TC (or both in this or that ratio) is a strategic one, given that each has its own pros and cons. That each has pros and cons w.r.t. the other is true (not simply opinion). > If nothing is demonstrable, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? And here ends my part in this "discussion". If there was anything substantive in the remainder, this derailment overshadows it.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > OK. It didn't seem to be. The discussion seemed to paint the opinion > > you support as some underlying truth while painting opposing opinions > > as meta-based opinions. > > Not by me. I simply pointed out what I thought to be the case. I must have misinterpretted http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a53e7151b2dc15f3 > > Or, to put it another way, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset. > > ??? Wha? Where is "upset"? This has been one of the most civil and calm > discussions in this forum for weeks. Exactly. And yet you labelled my part in it as "getting het up" (meaning something like "upset"), when I see nothing less civil or more agitated in my part than, say, in yours. > > That is, I'm not sure why you keep feeling called to jump anyone who > > voices the contrary opinions with this "most of the time" universal > > truth thing. > > 'Cause I like posting stuff. This new sub thread started 'cause someone > showed up (Davey?) and made a comment on a discussion that had been > silent for 3 or 4 days, and his comment seemed to me to indicate that > he hadn't actually read the discussion that followed the post he > responded to. Which is fine, but also why I pointed to the following > discussion (as I really don't think he read it and was summing it up. I > think he read the first post, responded, and moved on.) rather than > repeating the discussion. Yes, and so I responded by indicating that it didn't appear that he needed to reread the thread as you indicted, since his post seemed to be one which could have been posted with the knowledge base contained in the thread already absorbed. That is, that TC and TM have their pros and cons, when looking beyond the lopsided "with both a free minion standing around to be tapped (or a free wake) and no other card plays" angle that some people keep focusing on.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > If I really had my druthers, the posts that prompted me to drag my > > typing into this thread wouldn't have been made -- people would just > > agree that opinions are opinions and would have moved on long ago. > > Yeah, see, I'm unclear why you did that in the first place. Probably for the same reason you cited for your own: it's the USENET and I like posting stuff. >Like, > literally, I just responded to the post by saying "go check out the > rest of the discussion that specifically addresses all the points you > brought up" and then that was that. And so I point out that his post would still stand since the thread that supposedly supplied the answers did not supply the same information to me that it apparently had to you. > It seemed that this particular post > flared up your need to jump into this discussion for reasons that are > beyond me. Like, considering how usenet works, why did you decide that > *that* particular post was the one to jump into to point out the > obvious "opinions are opinions", and not all the other countless > threads that could call for the same thing? Well, given how USENET works, that exactly what happens all the time. You can only follow-up to one post at a time.

LSJ wrote: > I must have misinterpretted > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a53e7151b2dc15f3 I thought Dave's post was funny. > Exactly. And yet you labelled my part in it as "getting het up" > (meaning something like "upset"), when I see nothing less civil or more > agitated in my part than, say, in yours. There wasn't anything less civil in your post. But you did seem het up in the sense of it looked like you suddenly felt compelled to jump into a discussion that you were otherwise not so much involved in, based on what you seemed to think was me "jumping on" a guy who entered the discussion. And then later on, you mention how you would have rather avoided the whole thing, but felt it was necessary to point out how "opinions are opinions", more or less. I didn't think you were upset. I thought you were feeling compelled to respond to somthing for reasons other than you enjoyed doing so. Thus "het up". > Yes, and so I responded by indicating that it didn't appear that he > needed to reread the thread as you indicted, since his post seemed to > be one which could have been posted with the knowledge base contained > in the thread already absorbed. And therein lies the crux of our particular discussion. Why did you feel compelled to do this, especially when indications are you only did it 'cause you felt compelled to? I simply suggested he read the rest of the discussion to avoid rehashing it. You could have just as easily ignored it and the discussion would have likely gone no where and it would have been over. I wasn't, like, busting on the guy, or being particularly snarky or pretty much anything of the sort. I simply, in lieu of rehashing the argument, suggested reading what was already there. Like, I have no need to have an argument with you about this sort of thing--you are the lead game designer, and as such, it is entirely in my best interest to stay on your good side, and thus in my best interest to not get involved in stupid discussions with you about discussion. So I'm gonna move on here. -Peter

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > And therein lies the crux of our particular discussion. Why did you > feel compelled to do this, especially when indications are you only did > it 'cause you felt compelled to? I simply suggested he read the rest of > the discussion to avoid rehashing it. You could have just as easily > ignored it and the discussion would have likely gone no where and it > would have been over. Well, yes, just as you could have ignored his post (since you consider it "nothing new"). And he the one before. And so on. But you felt the call to respond, and did. And then I did. And so on.

LSJ wrote: > Well, yes, just as you could have ignored his post (since you consider > it "nothing new"). And he the one before. And so on. > But you felt the call to respond, and did. > And then I did. And so on. See, but I was responding to him 'cause he directly addressed me (in that usenet sense--he posted a response to my post). I did not feel dragged in to the discussion. If I had my druthers, I would not have prefered he didn't make that post and compell me to respond. I responded, mostly, 'cause in the sense of the internet, he said "Hey! I got a comment!" and in the name of him not feeling snubbed by the internet, I responded with a perfectly civil post, and heck, even avoided machine-gunning him with the same points over and over again (as is my general modus operandi) with a short post that simply said "your comments have been addressed elsewhere". -Peter

LSJ wrote: > I'm claiming that the claims that the foundation for the claims that TM > is superior in some absolute, non-opinion way is shaky. All I know is that now I don't know what to think about Ascendance anymore. Oh wait, I still know I want PTO banned! /me runs away :)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1154001561.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> You're claiming that in the "big picture" Telepathic Counter is as good >> as >> Telepathic Misdirection. > > No, I'm not. > > I'm claiming that the claims that the foundation for the claims that TM > is superior in some absolute, non-opinion way is shaky. > > I'm claim that the decision to use TM or TC (or both in this or that > ratio) is a strategic one, given that each has its own pros and cons. > That each has pros and cons w.r.t. the other is true (not simply > opinion). The claim that nothing is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt is an uninteresting one, to say the least. >> If nothing is demonstrable, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? > > And here ends my part in this "discussion". > > If there was anything substantive in the remainder, this derailment > overshadows it. Oh, thanks. It read to me like you were basically ridiculing both the idea of applying math to card analysis and the attempt to use logic in evaluating VTES cards. Now I make a comment to the effect that if nothing can be proven because 'opinions are opinions', why should anyone bother arguing at all, and it's derailing the argument? I'm not allowed to be rhetorical? No point in reading the rest of my message now? Oy. Josh thrown from the train

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > If I really had my druthers, the posts that prompted me to drag my > > typing into this thread wouldn't have been made -- people would just > > agree that opinions are opinions and would have moved on long ago. > > The real take home questions here are: > > Does anyone ever get to have their druthers? What is a druthers, exactly? > Can you meet up with a druthers and drink with it in a bar? Has anyone > ever seen LSJ's druthers? If so, do you feel ashamed? Proud? > > Discuss. WHASSUP! SLAP ME SOME SKIN MY DRUTHERS! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message news:12ch7mv...@corp.supernews.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> >> wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... >>> I would argue >>> that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by not >>> being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). >> >> Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. > > Really? I think it's extremely obvious. > > Consider: > Redirection (sup) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the Deflection does not tap you, and costs a(n extra) blood. ...and is clearly the more popular card for that reason. > Deflection (inf) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the superior does not tap you, but requires an extra discipline level (= > effect is "one blood" more powerful). > > Ditto Claiming the Body (san), ditto Shell Game (san), ditto Siren's Lure (mel) (in each case the superior taps one fewer of your > minions than the inferior). The inferior vs. superior examples make no sense whatsoever - the difference is the advantage of being able to use the superior of a discipline. How does that say anything meaningful which supports Josh's contention? > Or, as in Josh's example: A generic minion bleeds you cardlessly with no modifiers. You do not wish to tap a blocker. The cost to > you: 1 pool. Sure. And, as in my reply, it can save you more than 1 pool. > Clearly, not tapping when an effect would normally tap you is worth 1 blood or pool. > > I'm also surprised to see claims that mathematical analysis of cards "has 0 impact" and "should be taken with a large grain of > salt". Games _are_ maths, and this one is no exception. Sorry, I don't think you've added any evidence to the contrary. I did not say mathematical analysis has 0 impact (why the quotes? did someone use those words?). I just said that the value of cards frequently can't be reliably understood using such analysis, which is absolutely true. Fred

bluedevil wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > I'm claiming that the claims that the foundation for the claims that TM > > is superior in some absolute, non-opinion way is shaky. > > All I know is that now I don't know what to think about Ascendance > anymore. I love Ascendance! Remember that DC tournament where Matt Morgan complained bitterly about my deck. There were about 20 Ascendances in that deck. Wow! Was he mad. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:C8Pxg.5031$Mz3.509@fed1read07... > "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... >> I would argue >> that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by >> not >> being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). > > Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. Using Telepathic Counters ad > naseum allows you to block infinite single base bleeds. I mean, if you're > just asserting some rule of thumb you've found to be useful in your games, > fine. But the reason you've given doesn't strike me as valid. And, of > course, rules of thumb are very personal, play-style and metagame > dependent > so we're back to non-comparibility. The baseline concept of "1 action equals 1 bleed or pool" is pretty solid in VTES, I think. I know! Cards can change that! But it is the basic math of the game: you have 30 pool, your vampires can bleed for 1 cardlessly, they strike for 1 in combat, hunt for 1, etc. If you are untapped and tap to block a bleed, it saves you a pool (usually at the cost of a blood). If you are untapped and *don't* tap to block this bleed, instead staying untapped to block the next one, it usually saves you a pool (as a starting point, again, cards can change that). I think that's a pretty good reason for giving tapping a "base cost" of 1 pool. Again, cards can change that... but then, you might have Wakes! The point of this kind of basic analysis is to look at the particular costs and effects of these cards in the most basic case. >> If cards can't be analyzed logically, why not just write new cards with a >> random-text generator? No one will be able to show the difference, >> right? > > That's a false dichotomy. Cards frequently can't be analyzed logically, > if only for reasons of unfathomable complexity in two player games. > In multiplayer games, player personality/philosophy issues make can it > totally impossible. That's not true at all. The *cards* can still be analyzed logically. Their *effect on the game* may not be logically deducible, if we're going to assume that players don't act rationally. (I would say there is certainly quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of that assumption. :-) Yeah, it's possible for the ultimate effects even of the cards themselves to be too complex to calculate, if there are a lot of interactions that you need to take account of to do so. But people model things in the real world all the time by looking at only the most significant interactions and ignoring the others. > This doesn't make it unimportant to design cards with care and avoid > practically useless cards, highly undercosted cards, and other problematic > conditions. Common sense and game experience will help you avoid these. > They just don't prove anything in a rigid, analytical sense. True "proof" may be impossible, but that doesn't make mathematical analysis useless. It's a good way, in my opinion, of figuring things out beyond appealing to common sense or anecdotal experience. Appolonius's examples are, I think, pointing to the idea that the baseline effect of cards in VTES typically starts at 1 pool or blood. That is, playing a card (compared to not playing a card) is often going to give you a "1 pool" benefit; if it costs blood, that cost may give you an additional pool benefit; if it requires additional discipline levels, that requirement may give you an additional pool benefit; etc. For example: Ascendance: costs 0 and an MPA, gains 1 pool Computer Hacking: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed (ie 2 total) Social Charm [pre]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed Social Charm [PRE]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed and 1 pool Scouting Mission [dom]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed Scouting Mission [DOM]: costs 0 and an action, gives 2 pool/transfers Govern the Unaligned [dom]: costs 1 and an action, gives +2 bleed Govern the Unaligned [DOM]: costs 1 and an action, gives 3 pool/transfers Restoration [for]: costs 0 and an action, gives 2 blood Restoration [FOR]: costs 0 and an action, gives 3 blood Perhaps this is all accidental, but I think maybe not. :-) Also notice here that Telepathic Counter, costing a card for each use, is right in line with the "base" level of saving you 1 pool per card played (equal to 1 tapping per card played in my idea of baseline costs). Then I might go further and say that the strongest card-plays are the ones whose benefits can grow beyond 1 pool per card played. That is (IMO) why Telepathic Misdirection (or Deflection, etc) is so impressive: the larger the bleed amount, the bigger the savings TM can give you. That is *also* true of Wake with Evening's Freshness - as a floating "untappedness", being able to block a bleed of, say, 6 at the cost of a single card is a huge payoff - which is why Wake is such a strong effect. Telepathic Counter, on the other hand, tops out at 2 for a single card-play - not bad, but also not the kind of "judo" effect that some cards can give you. Josh in next week's episode: why going to torpor is bad

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1154002193.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Yes, and so I responded by indicating that it didn't appear that he > needed to reread the thread as you indicted, since his post seemed to > be one which could have been posted with the knowledge base contained > in the thread already absorbed. > > That is, that TC and TM have their pros and cons, when looking beyond > the lopsided "with both a free minion standing around to be tapped (or > a free wake) and no other card plays" angle that some people keep > focusing on. Two small paragraphs?!? Bah! Your fingers are puny and you have no steely tenacity!

[ quoted text not captured ] lol man now are you a jerk or what, you should really get a newsreader that has killfile, your responses are pathetic lol. telepathic counter rocks (of course you need to be a good plyr to use it, poor plrz who suck and cant win just use misdirection coz they think its all about bleed but it isnt its strategy but you probably dont understand that coz you suck dude get a life man -- Regards, Daneel

Joshua Duffin wrote: > The claim that nothing is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt is an > uninteresting one, to say the least. Could be, but non-sequitur, since I am not making such a claim. > It read to me like you were basically ridiculing both the idea of applying > math to card analysis and the attempt to use logic in evaluating VTES cards. No. I said that the "analysis" being done was so myopic (ignoring far too many of the pros and cons of the issue) as to be useless. > Now I make a comment to the effect that if nothing can be proven because > 'opinions are opinions', why should anyone bother arguing at all, and it's > derailing the argument? Pros and cons can be discussed, obviously. Suggesting otherwise is nonsensical, like ignoring all the pros of TC and assuming that any resulting conclusion is solidly founded. > I'm not allowed to be rhetorical? No point in > reading the rest of my message now? Pointless rhetoric is, well, pointless. The misplaced rhetoric as an attempt at reduction to absurdity was a indication as to the constructiveness of continuing the conversation, so it did not seem to be the best use of my time.

>> All I know is that now I don't know what to think about Ascendance >> anymore. > > I love Ascendance! Remember that DC tournament where Matt Morgan > complained bitterly about my deck. There were about 20 Ascendances in > that deck. Wow! Was he mad. . . . because he didn't get a chance to test his deck out fully, since he kept ousting you too quickly? <ducks> Ankur

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1154020913....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> It read to me like you were basically ridiculing both the idea of >> applying >> math to card analysis and the attempt to use logic in evaluating VTES >> cards. > > No. I said that the "analysis" being done was so myopic (ignoring far > too many of the pros and cons of the issue) as to be useless. Okay. Your steely tenacity has defeated me. I give up. And yes, I am quite nearsighted. That's why I wear glasses. Josh can't trust anyone cause he's untrustable

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4is4i7F...@individual.net... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:C8Pxg.5031$Mz3.509@fed1read07... >> "Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> >> wrote in message news:4ipropF...@individual.net... >>> I would argue >>> that 1 tapping can be base-costed at 1 pool (that's how much you lose by >>> not being able to block a single base bleed with your untapped guy). >> >> Jeeze, I find that an awfully tough sell. Using Telepathic Counters ad >> naseum allows you to block infinite single base bleeds. I mean, if you're >> just asserting some rule of thumb you've found to be useful in your games, >> fine. But the reason you've given doesn't strike me as valid. And, of >> course, rules of thumb are very personal, play-style and metagame >> dependent so we're back to non-comparibility. > > The baseline concept of "1 action equals 1 bleed or pool" is pretty solid in > VTES, I think. I know! Cards can change that! Cards like Una, in combination with Freak Drive. > But it is the basic math of > the game: you have 30 pool, your vampires can bleed for 1 cardlessly, they > strike for 1 in combat, hunt for 1, etc. ... > I think that's a pretty good reason for giving tapping a "base cost" of 1 > pool. Again, cards can change that... but then, you might have Wakes! The > point of this kind of basic analysis is to look at the particular costs and > effects of these cards in the most basic case. But how do you know when you have the basic rule and when you have Una-with- Freak-Drives? Or any superior auspex vampire with Telepathic Counters that can be likewise played repeatedly? >>> If cards can't be analyzed logically, why not just write new cards with a >>> random-text generator? No one will be able to show the difference, >>> right? >> >> That's a false dichotomy. Cards frequently can't be analyzed logically, >> if only for reasons of unfathomable complexity in two player games. >> In multiplayer games, player personality/philosophy issues make can it >> totally impossible. > > That's not true at all. The *cards* can still be analyzed logically. Their > *effect on the game* may not be logically deducible, if we're going to > assume that players don't act rationally. (I would say there is certainly > quite a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of that assumption. :-) Well, that, and the fact one person's "rational" way of acting is frequently another guy's idea of stupidity/insanity or whatever. And vica versa. There are a lot of issues in multiplayer games that are purely philosophical, such as playing for second place vs. the first-place-or-nothing outlook. > Yeah, it's possible for the ultimate effects even of the cards themselves to > be too complex to calculate, if there are a lot of interactions that you > need to take account of to do so. But people model things in the real world > all the time by looking at only the most significant interactions and > ignoring the others. But again, how do you analyze which interactions are significant and which to ignore? The problem is that you're presenting the analysis as irrefutable and trying to hide some of the glue you're using to put the whole thing together that's undeniably human judgement. The analysis is fine as long as others agree with the judgement parts. But if they don't, you might might as well talk to the wall because you'll never convince them of anything. > True "proof" may be impossible, but that doesn't make mathematical analysis > useless. It's a good way, in my opinion, of figuring things out beyond > appealing to common sense or anecdotal experience. OK. I can agree with that. I just think it's good to know where the limitations are lurking when using it to convince others of something. If someone doesn't want to be convinced, they'll attack the judgement pieces and totally ignore the analysis (assuming the analysis is logically correct, of course). > Appolonius's examples are, I think, pointing to the idea that the baseline > effect of cards in VTES typically starts at 1 pool or blood. Sure. And one of tricks in the game is to combine cards to get better efficiency out of these effects. That's what you're trying to do when you tap (or wake) and spend a blood to retarget a bleed targetted at you. I believe your point has been, "This works very well!" - which I'll give you is true. But Telepathic Counter works by spending no blood and no tap and can be used repeatedly much better than TM. It _also_ allows you to get more efficiency out of your untapped vampire. Now the question is, which trick works better? Clearly (to me, at least), this all depends on what's bleeding you, what vampire(s) you're using, and how you're deck is composed. It seems to defy analysis. In practice, of course, I agree with you. I often use Telepathic Misdirection and seldom use Telepathic Counter. But it seems to be justifiable only through experience and based on what's popular in the metagame. If, for some reason, the metagame shifted away from stealthy, large bleeds and towards repeated bleeds of 1 or 2, I can possibly imagine that Telepathic Counter could become more useful in practice. (Don't ask me why that would happen, I'm just saying...) > Then I might go further and say that the strongest card-plays are the ones > whose benefits can grow beyond 1 pool per card played. That is (IMO) why > Telepathic Misdirection (or Deflection, etc) is so impressive: the larger > the bleed amount, the bigger the savings TM can give you. That is *also* > true of Wake with Evening's Freshness - as a floating "untappedness", being > able to block a bleed of, say, 6 at the cost of a single card is a huge > payoff - which is why Wake is such a strong effect. Right. Agreed. > Telepathic Counter, on > the other hand, tops out at 2 for a single card-play - not bad, but also not > the kind of "judo" effect that some cards can give you. On the other hand, it's a single-card effect over and over. TM taps your minion, so after the first, it needs to be combo card with Wake, which is an argument for TC. Not that good an argument - but again, I think it might be a better one were the metagame and nature of effective offense different than it is right now. Fred

Daneel wrote: > lol man now are you a jerk or what, you should really get a newsreader > that has killfile, your responses are pathetic lol. telepathic counter > rocks (of course you need to be a good plyr to use it, poor plrz who suck > and cant win just use misdirection coz they think its all about bleed but > it isnt its strategy but you probably dont understand that coz you suck > dude get a life man Strike: You are a tool. -Peter

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Computer Hacking: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed (ie 2 total) > Social Charm [pre]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed I agree with all this, but as an interesting(?) aside, note that Computer Hacking is a good card to avoid presenting in cost/effect discussions, as it is actually overpowered! It gives the same effect as the base-level discipline bleed action cards with no drawbacks. To be correctly costed it should have a "do not replace until the end of the action" clause or similar (cf. Fake Out, Boxed In, Dodge, etc). And you thought that weenie Computer Hacking decks were strong because of the weenies... Appolonius.

Fred Scott wrote: > "Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message > >> Deflection (inf) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the superior does not tap you, but requires an extra discipline level (= >> effect is "one blood" more powerful). >> >> Ditto Claiming the Body (san), ditto Shell Game (san), ditto Siren's Lure (mel) (in each case the superior taps one fewer of your >> minions than the inferior). > > The inferior vs. superior examples make no sense whatsoever - the difference > is the advantage of being able to use the superior of a discipline. How > does that say anything meaningful which supports Josh's contention? Even more obvious that Josh's contention is the fact the the superior level of a discipline card, where the effects are comparable, should give you one blood more "bang for the buck" than the inferior version. See: Threats, Legal Manipulations, Undead Strength, Venenation, Voice of Madness, etc etc etc. My examples quoted above illustrate discipline cards in which the superior version of the card is identical to the inferior, except a minion in question is allowed to remain untapped (rather than tapping). The inference is that the "remaining untapped" effect is worth 1 blood (by the "superior effect should be one blood more powerful than the inferior effect" rule). Appolonius.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Like, I have no need to have an argument with you about this sort of > thing--you are the lead game designer, and as such, it is entirely in > my best interest to stay on your good side, and thus in my best > interest to not get involved in stupid discussions with you about > discussion. So I'm gonna move on here. OK, this thread has had its amusing and interesting points, but "it is entirely in my best interest to stay on your good side" is totally, totally weak, and so I have no clue where this is coming from. Were you about to browbeat him or what? :) Scott is just a man, like the rest of us, and if I were in his position I would care less that someone revered me in some absurd fashion and therefore discontinued the relevant discussion than someone felt their point was worthwhile and demonstrably arguable and continued the relevant discussion. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

"Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message news:12cilkf...@corp.supernews.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message >>> Deflection (inf) vs Deflection (sup). Same effect except the >>> superior does not tap you, but requires an extra discipline level (= >>> effect is "one blood" more powerful). >>> >>> Ditto Claiming the Body (san), ditto Shell Game (san), ditto >>> Siren's Lure (mel) (in each case the superior taps one fewer of your >>> minions than the inferior). >> >> The inferior vs. superior examples make no sense whatsoever - the difference >> is the advantage of being able to use the superior of a discipline. How >> does that say anything meaningful which supports Josh's contention? > > Even more obvious that Josh's contention is the fact the the superior > level of a discipline card, where the effects are comparable, should > give you one blood more "bang for the buck" than the inferior version. ... > My examples quoted above illustrate discipline cards in which the superior version of the card is identical to the inferior, > except a minion in question is allowed to remain untapped (rather than tapping). The inference is that the "remaining untapped" > effect is worth 1 blood (by the "superior effect should be one blood more powerful than the inferior effect" rule). Of course, as of the time I wrote the above, Josh hadn't made that contention. I find it even more tenuous and less relavent. Sometimes the pattern holds; sometimes it fails in spectacular ways: Kiss of Ra, Sensory Deprivation, Elder Impersonation, Torment the Soul, Psyche!, Call of the Hungry Dead. These cards are all fantastically better at superior than inferior. On the other hand, once in a while there is little real additional advantage to playing the card at superior, at least in comparison with the inferior: Illusions of the Kindred, Disarm, Coma, Contagion are good examples. Sometimes, there is _no_ superior at all, thus no advantage to possessing the discipline at superior): Army of Rats, Rampage. Sometimes the advantage is in the currency of stealth and intercept or some other quantity, the value of which is impossible to fix in terms of pool and blood: Enhanced Senses, Lost In Crowds, Thrown Sewer Lid, Night Moves, probably a lot of other cards. Sometimes the value of advantage is just very difficult analyze at all because the two choices are completely different: Trainer, Truth of a Thousand Lies, My Enemy's Enemy, Nimble Feet, Pulse of the Canaille, Terror Frenzy, things like Govern the Unaligned, many, MANY cards really. So this "pattern" is seen in a fair number of cards, in many more it's not. Really, the cards vary all over the map. Superior tends to be better than inferior and (since you can always make inferior choice, if need be) is never worse to have. That's about all you can say about the matter. In any event, I don't see much relevance. I was talking about the the value of an untapped minion. This thing is about the value of cards; it doesn't support the actual argument really. It's just the continuation of Josh's shorthand description of how he looks at the game. It doesn't prove anything about anything when it comes right down to it. It's just another rule of thumb. Fred

"Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message news:12ciiqt...@corp.supernews.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> Computer Hacking: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed (ie 2 total) >> Social Charm [pre]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed > > I agree with all this, but as an interesting(?) aside, note that > Computer Hacking is a good card to avoid presenting in cost/effect > discussions, as it is actually overpowered! It gives the same effect as > the base-level discipline bleed action cards with no drawbacks. To be > correctly costed it should have a "do not replace until the end of the > action" clause or similar (cf. Fake Out, Boxed In, Dodge, etc). Not really. The advantage to Social Charm (and the other +1 bleed at inferior presence actions) is that you have the option to use them at superior. So if your crypt is completely or nearly all presense minions and some have superior presence (or could be upgraded), the presense bleeds are better. There's no rule stating how much better a discipline minion card has to be over a discipline one. It just needs to be at least a little bit better, so as not to be obsolete. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > OK, this thread has had its amusing and interesting points, but "it is > entirely in my best interest to stay on your good side" is totally, > totally weak, and so I have no clue where this is coming from. Were you > about to browbeat him or what? :) Nah. It was just a stupid argument that wasn't worth pursuing as it is entierly in my best interest to not irritate him too much over a stupid argument. Like, if it were a discussion about something actually significant (as opposed to a meta discussion about the discussion, and whether or not it is worth pointing out that an opinion is an opinion or whatever), it might be worth pursuing and possibly risking irritating him. But it wasn't a worthwhile discussion. > Scott is just a man, like the rest of us, and if I were in his position I > would care less that someone revered me in some absurd fashion and > therefore discontinued the relevant discussion than someone felt their > point was worthwhile and demonstrably arguable and continued the relevant > discussion. Well, he is also the lead game designer, to whom we need to appeal for game fixes/repairs/rulings/whatever. And it is usually more fruitfull to attempt this sort of thing when you haven't pissed off the lead game designer by arguing over something stupid. And as the discussion at hand (i.e. which wasn't actually about the game any more) wasn't worth pursuing at the risk of irritating LSJ. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Well, he is also the lead game designer, to whom we need to appeal for > game fixes/repairs/rulings/whatever. And it is usually more fruitfull > to attempt this sort of thing when you haven't pissed off the lead game > designer by arguing over something stupid. I dunno. Sometimes you get a Yoruba Shrine! :) The fact is, LSJ is a Malk. Randomly buying everybody a Chinese dinner will take you farther in getting what you want than all the logical arguments in the world. So I say, keep slapping that keyboard with your scrotum.... you just might accidentally spell the magic phrase with the third letter of every word, or whatever else His Whimsey has decided for the day, and presto! You're golden.

[ quoted text not captured ] When you crush a Tzimisce wall deck, it's gotta be the Ascendance, baby. [ quoted text not captured ]

bluedevil wrote: > The fact is, LSJ is a Malk. Randomly buying everybody a Chinese dinner > will take you farther in getting what you want than all the logical > arguments in the world. So I say, keep slapping that keyboard with > your scrotum.... you just might accidentally spell the magic phrase > with the third letter of every word, or whatever else His Whimsey has > decided for the day, and presto! You're golden. Here's a hint: the <blank> argument will work, where <blank> is an English word composed of only even letters (A=1, B=2, C=3, &c.)

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154092487....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > So I say, keep slapping that keyboard with your scrotum.... you just > might accidentally spell the magic phrase This has _got_ to be the most imaginative version of the 10,000 monkeys theory I've ever heard. Now how the hell am I supposed to scrape that image out of my head?!?

LSJ wrote: > Here's a hint: the <blank> argument will work, where <blank> is an > English word composed of only even letters (A=1, B=2, C=3, &c.) Oh crap. And I had work to do today. Oh well! /me off to brute force this puppy......

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, XZealot wrote: >>> I love Ascendance! Remember that DC tournament where Matt Morgan >>> complained bitterly about my deck. There were about 20 Ascendances in >>> that deck. Wow! Was he mad. >> >> . . . because he didn't get a chance to test his deck out fully, since he >> kept ousting you too quickly? > > When you crush a Tzimisce wall deck, it's gotta be the Ascendance, > baby. Mine was a Tzimisce combat deck. Yours was 1 cap Hack. I didn't mind the Ascendances. I minded your horde of guys bleeding for 2. Also, your predator (who did oust you eventually) was not a bleed deck at all, so I don't see what this has to do with bleed defense/reduction/whatever. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] Back from brute forcing, and let me tell you: there are no vowels in there! Jackass!!! :)

[ quoted text not captured ] A=1 E=5 I=9 O=15 U=21 Y=25 So it's an English word without vowels?

Jadasc wrote: > So it's an English word without vowels? Yes. I believe the word is "hrrvrrtsky". Oh, wait. That is probably just Croatian. Never mind. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] In truth, there is an English word without A,E,I,O,U, or Y (or any other odd letter) that fits in the blank.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Is it "nth"? What do I win?

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. (Note: I pick the value of n :-) > What do I win? Fame.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > In truth, there is an English word without A,E,I,O,U, or Y (or any > > > other odd letter) that fits in the blank. > > > > Is it "nth"? > Yes. (Note: I pick the value of n :-) It could also have been "brr" (at least that appears in my dictionary file) Note: "Mike Ooi" is completely odd-lettered.

>> Here's a hint: the <blank> argument will work, where <blank> is an >> English word composed of only even letters (A=1, B=2, C=3, &c.) > > A=1 > E=5 > I=9 > O=15 > U=21 > Y=25 > > So it's an English word without vowels? No kind of argument has a magical property. :( I weep. I weep. Ankur

>> pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >>> Jadasc wrote: >>>> So it's an English word without vowels? >>> >>> Yes. I believe the word is "hrrvrrtsky". Oh, wait. That is probably >>> just Croatian. Never mind. > >> In truth, there is an English word without A,E,I,O,U, or Y (or any >> other odd letter) that fits in the blank. > > Is it "nth"? I use this thing all the time, but I had no idea it was an actual word. I always use it like $n$th. (Learn LaTeX to know what that means.) Ankur

>> Is it "nth"? > > Yes. (Note: I pick the value of n :-) > >> What do I win? > > Fame. A copy of, or just in general? Ankur

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:57:11 -0700, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If you compare to parallels existing between Fake Out and Pursuit, Lucky Blow and Undead Strength, etc., you really get the feeling that Appolonious is pretty much right. I also tended to wonder a number of times why Computer Hacking is different. Having a "do not replace" clause wouldn't really kill the card. The best reason I can think of is probably includability (?) in combat decks, especially bruise decks. Having -1 hand size could hurt in the combat; a sneak bleeder, on the other hand, can freely choose to play a bleed and a sneak discipline, and wouldn't be relying on CH anyway. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optdgzgl...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:57:11 -0700, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Appolonius" <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message >> news:12ciiqt...@corp.supernews.com... >>> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>>> Computer Hacking: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed (ie 2 total) >>>> Social Charm [pre]: costs 0 and an action, gives +1 bleed >>> >>> I agree with all this, but as an interesting(?) aside, note that >>> Computer Hacking is a good card to avoid presenting in cost/effect >>> discussions, as it is actually overpowered! It gives the same effect as >>> the base-level discipline bleed action cards with no drawbacks. To be >>> correctly costed it should have a "do not replace until the end of the >>> action" clause or similar (cf. Fake Out, Boxed In, Dodge, etc). >> >> Not really. The advantage to Social Charm (and the other +1 bleed at >> inferior presence actions) is that you have the option to use them >> at superior. ... > If you compare to parallels existing between Fake Out and Pursuit, > Lucky Blow and Undead Strength, etc., you really get the feeling that > Appolonious is pretty much right. I also tended to wonder a number of > times why Computer Hacking is different. Having a "do not replace" > clause wouldn't really kill the card. No, it wouldn't. On the other hand, my point is that not having a "do not replace" clause (or some other kind of drawback vs. standard discipline +1 bleed cards) doesn't make it overpowered, either. The truth is that there isn't really a rule at all. Just kind of a pattern that seems to hold for disciplineless combat cards that someone chose not to apply to Computer Hacking. If it's overpowered, it's overpowered because (some people think, anyway) it's too easy to make the weeniest decks full of 1-caps and 2-caps that do nothing but Computer Hack. > The best reason I can think of is probably includability (?) in combat > decks, especially bruise decks. Having -1 hand size could hurt in the > combat; a sneak bleeder, on the other hand, can freely choose to play > a bleed and a sneak discipline, and wouldn't be relying on CH anyway. Perhaps. I think you're probably dead on in the case of combat decks. Since there's so many different forms of combat, allowing, say, a celerity-only clan to freely use Lucky Blow or a clan that has trouble maneuvering to use Fake Out without penalty would tend to rob the various clans and disciplines of their personalities. But I suppose the intent, in the case of Computer Hacking, was that any clan should have access to splash in +1 bleed actions. And in my observation, it really turns out to be kind of weak to do so. It's just the weeny thing that turns it into a nuisance. And adding a DNR clause probably wouldn't do much for that. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > If it's overpowered, it's overpowered > because (some people think, anyway) it's too easy to make the weeniest > decks full of 1-caps and 2-caps that do nothing but Computer Hack. I don't know if it is "overpowered" in the sense of "it makes you win too much", as I think it clearly does not. But I certainly think that it is "overpowered" in a design sense when compared to (as previously mentioned) Fake Out, Lucky Blow, Boxed In, and Legwork. All of those cards provide an effect identical to an effect provided by an inferior discipline card (manuver, +1 hand damage, press, +1 intercept) but with an added cost (DNR--I think Legwork might even have further increased cost). Computer Hacking provides the same kind of effect (identical to an inferior discipline), but without the added cost of similar disciplinless cards. Is it game breaking? Not really, no. Yeah, it allows you to make "all caitif computer hacking" decks, but really, those aren't much more effective than weenie presence. But in the sense of cost and effect, yeah, I think Computer Hacking is certainly arguably too good. Does it need to be fixed? Probably not. And maybe a specific exception was made for a +1 bleed action that was not made for other effects in the name of making the game (or clans without +bleed disciplines) more playable, which is fine. -Peter

On 19 Jul 2006 16:12:22 -0700, invisibl...@gmail.com wrote: >> > See, there's the rub. What I worry about is that any kind of >> > outmaneuvering tech is going to be easily added to the stealth/bleed >> > and weenie/whatever decks that are currently the most aggressive decks >> > around. >> >> Yea, I can appreciate why that would bother you. I would hope that >> there are more alternatives to new card design in the game than just >> making all offense benifit equally - thus making the most effective >> offense that much more unstoppable - and not doing anything at all. >> But I agree, it's not an easy or riskless goal when you put it that >> way. > >And that's really my only problem with your suggestion. Not being a >game designer, I don't know of any way to add good offensive options to >the game that don't also bolster strong, aggressive deck archetypes >already. More pool-damaging options for the wackier disciplines, maybe? >Arika and the Malks aren't going to care much if Quietus gets some >powerful cards, for instance. It's often a problem when you come up with a card idea to help something not so good that you end up with something that helps what is already buff. I didn't have time to read through the latest help the fatties thread, but I'm sure that came up there. There's a couple ways to solve that which aren't too difficult. One, add power restricted in ways that are difficult for the best to access. For instance, help any of the !Ventrue (individual) disciplines and the total power curve jumps. But, give them a noncrappy clan card [whoa, crazy talk] and maybe they wouldn't be so outclassed by the Ventrue*. Come up with a power AUS/FOR card and you elevate them and Harbingers. You also buff Salubri and the likes of Omaya or Laz. But, say the card was designed in some way that it was better with multiple similar vampires. * I've long since stopped complaining that the !Ventrue suck as there's enough others who could use more help, just that they are the Ventrue are so much stronger. Still, they should get better clan cards (that aren't vampires). For instance: Shared Intensity Action +1 stealth action. [aus]/[for]: Put this card in the acting vampire. All other vampires you control that possess both Auspex and Fortitude may prevent 1 damage each combat. Burn this card during your next untap phase. [AUS]/[FOR]: As above, but the affected vampires also gain +1 intercept and an optional press each combat. There's the list of checklist problems to go through: Does it help weenie decks? Does it help known strong decks? Does it kill existing decks that are interesting? Etc. Glancing at it, I'd say the greatest problem is lack of power. Maybe the inferior should be an optional press and the superior should be prevent 2 damage each combat as there's a big jump between one damage and two even if the Imbued discourage random agg. Oh well, I didn't do *that much* design back in the day. The other simple thing to do to prevent the best from getting better is give others what the best already have. If Quietus had Govern and Conditioning or Govern and Deflection or Conditioning and Deflection, it still wouldn't be as good as Dominate and, being far less frequently available, people would find it difficult to come up with something better than what's already possible. So, one way to create a new card to fill a helper role is to go through what strong vampires/decks are already capable of and simulate for the disenfranchised. A Necromancy Voter Cap would be ...

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1154273065.6...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> If it's overpowered, it's overpowered >> because (some people think, anyway) it's too easy to make the weeniest >> decks full of 1-caps and 2-caps that do nothing but Computer Hack. > > I don't know if it is "overpowered" in the sense of "it makes you win > too much", as I think it clearly does not. But I certainly think that > it is "overpowered" in a design sense when compared to (as previously > mentioned) Fake Out, Lucky Blow, Boxed In, and Legwork. Well, OK, then would you mind responding the argument in the last post about why disciplineless combat cards need a penalty whereas Computer Hacking doesn't? Also, the part where I mention that actually, aside from weenie use, a disciplineless +1 bleed action is really a lame function and for that reason doesn't need an addition penalty. The disciplineless combat cards without penalty would actually be a lot more useful to non-weenie decks than Computer Hacking. They're actually useful to fill out the combat functions that discipline-based combat decks lack. And disciplineless stealth (Legwork) and intercept are likewise clearly more useful than a +1 bleed action. For that matter, a disciplineless +1 bleed action modifier would also be useful enough to warrant a distinct penalty. > All of those > cards provide an effect identical to an effect provided by an inferior > discipline card (manuver, +1 hand damage, press, +1 intercept) but with > an added cost (DNR--I think Legwork might even have further increased > cost). They're NOT "identical". That's my point. A +1 bleed action is a lot lamer than all those other things. > Computer Hacking provides the same kind of effect (identical to > an inferior discipline), but without the added cost of similar > disciplinless cards. Is it game breaking? Not really, no. In fact, it's not even a problem outside of weenie decks. > But in the sense > of cost and effect, yeah, I think Computer Hacking is certainly > arguably too good. No it's not. What problem does is cause? It doesn't. You're comparing unlike quantities and expecting a pattern to hold that doesn't need to be there. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Well, OK, then would you mind responding the argument in the last post > about why disciplineless combat cards need a penalty whereas Computer > Hacking doesn't? I saw that you presented a rational to differentiate between disciplinless combat cards and disciplinless non combat cards, which certainly wasn't completely out of the realm of reason, yet still doesn't seem to hold much water in the face of other, disciplinless non combat cards that duplicate discipline abilities like Legwork and Arson (both of which are disciplinless non combat cards that duplicate abilities provided by other inferior discipline cards, yet are saddled with increase DNR costs). Again, I mentioned that maybe in the name of making the game a little easier to play, Computer Hacking specifically was made "too good" (in the sense that Arson and Fake Out were not) so that clans without bleed bonus disciplines (Nosferatu, Gangrel, whatever) would have access to reasonable offense. Which is a reasonable decision to make, if it was intentional. But that doesn't mean that in contrast to similar cards, Computer Hacking doesn't come off as too good in terms of cost and effect. > Also, the part where I mention that actually, aside > from weenie use, a disciplineless +1 bleed action is really a lame > function and for that reason doesn't need an addition penalty. Uhh, wha? Are you honsetly claiming that discipliness +1 bleed action is lame? Computer Hacking is a very effective card in many situations. 'Cause it gives clans without access to bleed bonuses reasonable offense, which the game needs to go anywhere. For zero cost, it effectively doubles the number of actions you have (i.e. bleed for 2 in one action instead of 1 in one action). I mean, yeah, that is a real simplification, but Computer Hacking is certainly a good card. Is it good to the point that it needs extra cost added on to it 'cause of how it compares to Fake Out and Arson? Probably not. But I think the comparison certainly is legitimate. > And disciplineless stealth (Legwork) and intercept are likewise clearly > more useful than a +1 bleed action. I disagree (at least on the disciplinless intercept of Legwork--there is very little discipliness stealth; Stealth Ritus is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and it is comparably very expensive). Legwork is not a good card, and sees (at least in my experience) very little, to any actual play, where Computer Hacking sees play all the time in countless decks. > For that matter, a disciplineless > +1 bleed action modifier would also be useful enough to warrant a > distinct penalty. Sure. But I still don't think that means that Computer Hacking *shouldn't* have a distinct penalty (like, say, DNR). I'm not arguing that one should be added to it, as it don't think the power level is such that it needs to be "fixed". And it is certainly possible that Computer Hacking was specifically *not* given a DNR clause or something, knowing full well that doing so made it "too good". > They're NOT "identical". That's my point. A +1 bleed action is a lot > lamer than all those other things. Again, I disagree. +1 bleed for a card and no other cost is a very useful effect. And in practice, shows up far more often than any of the other similar cards (i.e. Lucky Blow, Arson, Legwork). > In fact, it's not even a problem outside of weenie decks. No where in my argument am I claiming it is a problem anywhere. I will state this very clearly here: Computer Hacking Does Not Need An Increased Cost. It Is Fine The Way It Is. It Is Not Over Powered In The Sense Of Needing To Be Fixed. It Does Not Create Problems. At All. Right. Now that that is clear, I think it is a very obvious design outlier, when compared to similar disciplinless cards. And maybe that was a mistake that was ratified by the passage of time. Or maybe it was a specific design decision. But still, in a game design sense, Computer Hacking is a card that is clearly more effective than it should be. > No it's not. What problem does is cause? It doesn't. You're comparing > unlike quantities and expecting a pattern to hold that doesn't need > to be there. Go back and read my paragraph 3 up from here. The one where all the words start with capital letters. And come back down when you are done... Ok. This is just like Ian Forrestal all over again. Ian Forrestal is arguably "too powerful" in the context of how the rest of the game is designed ('cause he is an 8 cap vampire with, effectively, 30+ points in disciplines). I'm not restarting that argument, just using it as a paralell. Ian Forrestal does not need to be "fixed" in any sense, as he doesn't have really any negative impact on the game at all. Neither does Computer Hacking. Yet still, in a design sense, it is more powerful than it should be, compared to all other similar disciplinless cards. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1154282496.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Well, OK, then would you mind responding the argument in the last post >> about why disciplineless combat cards need a penalty whereas Computer >> Hacking doesn't? > > I saw that you presented a rational to differentiate between > disciplinless combat cards and disciplinless non combat cards, which > certainly wasn't completely out of the realm of reason, yet still > doesn't seem to hold much water in the face of other, disciplinless non > combat cards that duplicate discipline abilities like Legwork and Arson > (both of which are disciplinless non combat cards that duplicate > abilities provided by other inferior discipline cards, yet are saddled > with increase DNR costs). I think you're missing the point. The point was not, "all disciplineless combat cards are good and all non-disciplineless combat cards are bad". The rational only went as far to point out why disciplineless combat cards are good and therefore needed a drawback attached for balance. But, specificially, +1 bleed actions are lame so a disciplineless one didn't need a drawback. If anything, the whole matter just points to the fact that presence got some of the lamer action cards any discipline gets, looking at it from the standpoint of only the inferior discipline, at lease. But the Arson function and a +1 intercept function are decent enough to warrant penalties on disciplineless cards. > Again, I mentioned that maybe in the name of > making the game a little easier to play, Computer Hacking specifically > was made "too good" (in the sense that Arson and Fake Out were not) so > that clans without bleed bonus disciplines (Nosferatu, Gangrel, > whatever) would have access to reasonable offense. It's not too good. It's possibly arguble that Social Charm is not good enough. Although a lot of the presence bleed action cards, like Entrancement, have kind of nice superior versions that arguably balance the lameness of the inferior version. I also suspect that's why Presence was given Marijava Ghoul in Ancient Hearts. The designers were realizing that the wealth of presence plus bleed action cards were gathering dust in peoples' boxes without any kind of delivery systems. >> Also, the part where I mention that actually, aside >> from weenie use, a disciplineless +1 bleed action is really a lame >> function and for that reason doesn't need an addition penalty. > > Uhh, wha? Are you honsetly claiming that discipliness +1 bleed action > is lame? Absolutely! I think it's lame to graft Computer Hacking to almost any deck archetype other than weenie swarms that doesn't inherently have better bleed options. In most cases, it's not worth dedicating the card slots to it. > Computer Hacking is a very effective card in many situations. > 'Cause it gives clans without access to bleed bonuses reasonable > offense, which the game needs to go anywhere. For zero cost, it > effectively doubles the number of actions you have (i.e. bleed for 2 in > one action instead of 1 in one action). So what? It doesn't make enough of difference to warrant a card slot. Your prey has the option of blocking it and if he does, it's like you never played it. > I mean, yeah, that is a real > simplification, but Computer Hacking is certainly a good card. Sorry, I guess our judgement differs on that matter. >> And disciplineless stealth (Legwork) and intercept are likewise clearly >> more useful than a +1 bleed action. > > I disagree (at least on the disciplinless intercept of Legwork--there > is very little discipliness stealth; Stealth Ritus is the only one I > can think of off the top of my head, and it is comparably very > expensive). Legwork is not a good card, Almost all disciplineless cards are not good cards, Computer Hacking (as it is) included. The main ones that are, off the top of my head, are Forced Awakening and WwEF. Legwork falls right in with the rest. > and sees (at least in my > experience) very little, to any actual play, where Computer Hacking > sees play all the time in countless decks. I don't know. I don't see Computer Hacking much at all. Where I do see it, I almost never care about it. I'm always thinking to myself, "Computer Hacking? Bah, so what?!? He probably could have found something better to do with that card slot." (stuff that's the same argument ellided for sanity ;-) ) > Ok. This is just like Ian Forrestal all over again. Ian Forrestal is > arguably "too powerful" in the context of how the rest of the game is > designed ('cause he is an 8 cap vampire with, effectively, 30+ points > in disciplines). I'm not restarting that argument, just using it as a > paralell. Ian Forrestal does not need to be "fixed" in any sense, as he > doesn't have really any negative impact on the game at all. Neither > does Computer Hacking. Yet still, in a design sense, it is more > powerful than it should be, compared to all other similar disciplinless > cards. (Did we have an argument about Ian Forrestal? Or were you recalling an argument you had with someone else? My memory is so bad I can't be sure but I don't remember it...) OK, you don't think it's "bad" enough to need to be fixed. I don't think it's really bad at all. Fred

On 19 Jul 2006 08:25:24 -0700, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >Going back to the TWDA, here is what I found, again. My sample is all >the TWDs in the archive back through Origins 2004, which is roughly 2 >full years of tournament winning decks. Counting them, the sample size >is 223 decks (it might be a couple more or a couple less, as I counted >by eye rather than doing it with a computer, so we'll give it a margin >of error of +/-3 decks :-) > > >I didn't count the individual number of Deflections. I also looked for >My Enemy's Enemy, which didn't show up much (once in 223 decks?), and >it is hard to find as people tend spell it differently, but the >occurance of Folderol is probably roughly equivelant to My Enemy's >Enemy, so we'll ignore those. Redirection also only shows up once or >twice in 223 decks, so we'll ignore that, too. I found My Enemy's Enemy in at least 5 decks in 2006 alone. I found Folderol in 3 decks total. I found Redirection in 3 decks in 2006.

Fred Scott wrote: > OK, you don't think it's "bad" enough to need to be fixed. I don't think it's really bad at all. I don't think Computer Hacking is bad at all. I think it is fine just the way it is. But I also think it is important to recognize that Computer Hacking is the exception to the "how to design disciplinless cards" system, not the rule. Fake Out, Lucky Blow, and Arson are all fine as they are, and see use enough to justify them existing (Legwork and Boxed In, less so), even with their added cost. Computer Hacking is clearly outside of that design system (i.e. it provides an effect identical to that of a discipline card, yet has no added cost) for reasons that are unknown (maybe an accident; maybe by design). Further disciplinless cards should follow the general rule provided by Lucky Blow, Fake Out, and Arson. Not Computer Hacking. Just like how Ian Forrestal is the exception, rather than the rule, for vampire design--it isn't actually problematic that Ian Forrestal exists, as long as other vampires aren't built, using him as a precident (which hasn't happened since Ian Forrestal was printed, notably). -Peter

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, XZealot wrote: > > >>> I love Ascendance! Remember that DC tournament where Matt Morgan > >>> complained bitterly about my deck. There were about 20 Ascendances in > >>> that deck. Wow! Was he mad. > >> > >> . . . because he didn't get a chance to test his deck out fully, since he > >> kept ousting you too quickly? > > > > When you crush a Tzimisce wall deck, it's gotta be the Ascendance, > > baby. > > Mine was a Tzimisce combat deck. Yours was 1 cap Hack. I didn't mind the > Ascendances. I minded your horde of guys bleeding for 2. > I had 4 Jimmy Dunn's in that deck and 2 two caps. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > Absolutely! I think it's lame to graft Computer Hacking to almost > any deck archetype other than weenie swarms that doesn't inherently > have better bleed options. In most cases, it's not worth dedicating > the card slots to it. I think a two card combo that is a bleed for 3 is an absolutely solid foundation upon which to build a deck. Computer Hack is an integral part of many such combos. I know I will collapse in the face of your steely-fingered tenacity, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154349513.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Absolutely! I think it's lame to graft Computer Hacking to almost >> any deck archetype other than weenie swarms that doesn't inherently >> have better bleed options. In most cases, it's not worth dedicating >> the card slots to it. > > I think a two card combo that is a bleed for 3 is an absolutely solid > foundation upon which to build a deck. Computer Hack is an integral > part of many such combos. OK, but at least explain to me what you're talking about. What is a two card combo that creates a bleed for 3? Maybe I'm missing an obvious use for it. > I know I will collapse in the face of your steely-fingered tenacity, > but I just thought I'd throw it out there. Heh, the intimidation factor, cool! But I must have the chance to argue vociferously against your methods before I start to unconsciously incorporate them into my decks. Fred Damn, did I throw another Dreams of the Sphinx into that deck?!? Why?!?

Fred Scott wrote: > OK, but at least explain to me what you're talking about. What is a > two card combo that creates a bleed for 3? Maybe I'm missing an > obvious use for it. Fata morgana would be the poster child..... two cards, bleed for 3 at 1 stealth. That would be what we call a "Git 'er dun" down here in the land of *REALLY* friendly family reunions. But there are lots of little +1 bleed action mods scattered around the disciplines. Leaving out the ones that occur in PRE, DOM, or DEM you have: AUS: Ancestor's Insight VAL: Burning Touch VIC: Changeling CHI: Fata Morgana Guruhi: Guruhi Are the Land, The ABO: Predator's Mastery SER: Revelations of Desire, Weight of the Heart (with aus), Truth of 1K Lies (+2 bleed) So any deck using those disciplines could feasibly run a Hack + juice core and bleed for 3. Then you could stretch the model a little further and encorporate something akin to "transients padding permenants" which works so well with intercept and combat (everything really, but that's where it's been demonstrated over and over again). It's not so much a combo anymore, but doing something like this: 1 Tasha, 1 J.S Simmons, 2xLaptops, 8x Computer Hacks .... could be good. That's just 12 cards for the payload. It's not huge and you probably want to stir it up with something else, but as part of a two-pronged assault it looks totally reasonable. What is it without the hacks? Just 4 prayerish cards you hope you can flow into. And lastly there's "my crypt has +1 bleed" type of affairs. > Heh, the intimidation factor, cool! But I must have the chance to > argue vociferously against your methods before I start to unconsciously > incorporate them into my decks. Get back to me when you start proxying Assault Rifles. ;) > Damn, did I throw another Dreams of the Sphinx into that deck?!? Why?!? Beats me... didn't you get the memo? DI is the new hotness.

bluedevil wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > > > OK, but at least explain to me what you're talking about. What is a > > two card combo that creates a bleed for 3? Maybe I'm missing an > > obvious use for it. > > Fata morgana would be the poster child..... two cards, bleed for 3 at 1 > stealth. That would be what we call a "Git 'er dun" down here in the > land of *REALLY* friendly family reunions. > > But there are lots of little +1 bleed action mods scattered around the > disciplines. Leaving out the ones that occur in PRE, DOM, or DEM you > have: > > AUS: Ancestor's Insight > VAL: Burning Touch > VIC: Changeling > CHI: Fata Morgana > Guruhi: Guruhi Are the Land, The > ABO: Predator's Mastery > SER: Revelations of Desire, Weight of the Heart (with aus), Truth of 1K > Lies (+2 bleed) > *cough* Assamites: Khabar: Glory (bonus for the "git 'er dun") Merlin