Return to Innocence

On the errata for Return to Innocence, when it says "Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted." Does that mean if I have a blood doll on my Return'd Vampire and remove a blood I get to then burn him and bleed my prey for his capacity during my next untap phase ?

In article <4SNw5.22$Y24....@nnrp1.sbc.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] No, it means you Burn the Card (RtI) with no effect. The card has to be in play at the start of your next untap phase for it to have any effect on the game. The sentence you quote is designed to be the defense mechanism for your prey. If they can Cryptic Mission, Jar the Soul, Bum's Rush, or otherwise remove blood from the vampire that played the RtI, they do not lose the pool that RtI would have caused. Full text of the card (errata): "Return to Innocence [AH] - Action (4) New card text: "Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the capacity of this vampire." [RTR 19980707]" http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulings.html Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8q0hn2$cjo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] While the above is entirely fair and right, i would add that Return to Innocence is now banned at tournament level. This means it is only going to see play at the playgroup level and i think it would be wise to see how your playgroup feel about the different possible texts [original or errata] and, indeed, the question of whether the card should be allowed at all in your group. For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the original text. It's simpler, and provided you don't allow proxies it should focus your decks on being/becoming able to cope with HUGE bleeds. Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent message tailing Buffer line to prevent messag [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com writes: >In article <8q0hn2$cjo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, >While the above is entirely fair and right, i would add that Return to >Innocence is now banned at tournament level. This means it is only going >to see play at the playgroup level and i think it would be wise to see >how your playgroup feel about the different possible texts [original or >errata] and, indeed, the question of whether the card should be allowed >at all in your group. > >For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the >original text. It's simpler, and provided you don't allow proxies it >should focus your decks on being/becoming able to cope with HUGE bleeds. Er, why does it matter if you allow proxies? Fred

"De Nada" <a...@media.net> wrote: > On the errata for Return to Innocence, when it says > "Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or goes to > torpor, or if your Prey is ousted." Does that mean if I have > a blood doll on my Return'd Vampire and remove a blood > I get to then burn him and bleed my prey for his capacity > during my next untap phase ? It would mean that, if you were able to keep the vampire around until your Master Phase to pull a blood off of him via the Blood Doll. As it is, the vampire (assuming the RtI is unburned) will be removed from the game on your next untap phase, before you get a chance to use the Blood Doll. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8q3bk3$5qo$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] LOTS of RtI's just makes it too easy to build a boring big-vamps deck, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com writes: >In article <8q3bk3$5qo$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> legb...@my-deja.com writes: >> >> >In article <8q0hn2$cjo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, >> >While the above is entirely fair and right, i would add that Return to >> >Innocence is now banned at tournament level. This means it is only going >> >to see play at the playgroup level and i think it would be wise to see >> >how your playgroup feel about the different possible texts [original or >> >errata] and, indeed, the question of whether the card should be allowed >> >at all in your group. >> > >> >For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the >> >original text. It's simpler, and provided you don't allow proxies it >> >should focus your decks on being/becoming able to cope with HUGE bleeds. >> >> Er, why does it matter if you allow proxies? >> >LOTS of RtI's just makes it too easy to build a boring big-vamps deck, >IMO. I don't understand your point. What if someone in your playgroup had lots of real RtIs? How does it help play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice to the fanatic collector/players? It sounds like what you're really trying to say is that RtI is only too unbalanced if not card-limited, which is probably arguable but a different thing than saying it shouldn't be proxied. If you're going to allow the original RtI but card-limit it, use the same card limits for everyone in the group rather than depending on "ecomomic card limits". I suspect most play groups would use either the original text or the errata but just say, "be reasonable". Unless they wanted to deliberately duplicate a tournament environment. Fred

legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > While the above is entirely fair and right, i would add that Return to > Innocence is now banned at tournament level. This means it is only > going to see play at the playgroup level and i think it would be wise > to see how your playgroup feel about the different possible texts > [original or errata] and, indeed, the question of whether the card > should be allowed at all in your group. > > For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the > original text. Actually, I'd like to plug the NJL's errata for RtI. A simple, yet balanced (as close as RtI gets to being balalnced) solution is using the original text except the vampire is removed from the game (not burned) and you can't use action modifers with it. It's still possible to do Very Bad Things [tm] with it, but most of them require a lot of forethought and several moving parts. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Sep 2000 14:44:02 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >legb...@my-deja.com writes: >>> >For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the >>> >original text. It's simpler, and provided you don't allow proxies it >>> >should focus your decks on being/becoming able to cope with HUGE bleeds. >>> >>> Er, why does it matter if you allow proxies? >>> >>LOTS of RtI's just makes it too easy to build a boring big-vamps deck, >>IMO. > >I don't understand your point. What if someone in your playgroup had lots >of real RtIs? How does it help play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice >to the fanatic collector/players? It plays the game by the rules? Besides, I think he's talking about a group that as a whole has relatively few cards, and never did any of the manic trading. In this case, just saying "ok, don't proxy it, just play with what you got" will provide a pretty good impression of what RtI does, why it was banned, and help with the top paragraph about coping with huge bleeds. =) We permit proxies in Atlanta, as long as you don't go apeshit on any 'very good' card. If you want to proxy 10 Disarms or 10 Tier of Souls, for example, we're going to frown on that a little bit, since EVERYONE would love to have 10 Disarms and, while it's fun, we would really prefer to see you make decks out of cards that you HAVE, as opposed to speculating wildly about cards you may NEVER have. If you want to proxy 10 Disarms to test out a deck for a tournament, that's different - especially if you have a way to borrow and/or get the 10 lined up, if you like your idea. And if you want to proxy 15 Malkavian Time Auctions or the like, (i did), go for it, since the card is so marginally useful anyway. =) We proxy Embraces on a regular basis (Mike Perlman uses sleeved Pokemon cards to represent them - which is VERY convenient, since now the Embraces have names and can be referred to by such instead of "Um, third from the left with one blood and the Vicissitude card."), for example. Basically, we believe that you should more or less just play with the cards you got. This doesn't hurt play balance, as NL is inherently balanced. It does mean that I can't make a 10-Disarm deck. Rats. If I really want to make a 10-Disarm deck, I ought to get 10 Disarms. We have done all kinds of lending back and forth around here on previous occasions - in fact, someone still has all my Brujah Debates, come to think of it. But I have 7 of his Mark of Damnations, so it's no biggie. If you play with proxies for some of the ultra-rare Sabbat cards, though, it tends to disturb people - esp. when NOBODY in the group has enough to make such a deck. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Hey, I have alot of Return to Innocence if anyone would like to trade for them. Trades Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 18 Sep 2000 14:44:02 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>legb...@my-deja.com writes: >>>> >For what VERY little it's worth, my advice would be to go for the >>>> >original text. It's simpler, and provided you don't allow proxies it >>>> >should focus your decks on being/becoming able to cope with HUGE bleeds. >>>> >>>> Er, why does it matter if you allow proxies? >>>> >>>LOTS of RtI's just makes it too easy to build a boring big-vamps deck, >>>IMO. >> >>I don't understand your point. What if someone in your playgroup had lots >>of real RtIs? How does it help play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice >>to the fanatic collector/players? > >It plays the game by the rules? You mean the rules that proxies are illegal? It does that, if you hold that as a "rule" in your playgroup. But regardless of how you feel about that issue, this doesn't address my question. Which was: How does it help play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice to the fanatic collector/players? Eliminating proxies do not, as near as I can see, do anything at all for play balance. >We permit proxies in Atlanta, as long as you don't go apeshit on any >'very good' card. If you want to proxy 10 Disarms or 10 Tier of >Souls, for example, we're going to frown on that a little bit, since >EVERYONE would love to have 10 Disarms and, while it's fun, we would >really prefer to see you make decks out of cards that you HAVE, as >opposed to speculating wildly about cards you may NEVER have. So if a Mr. Suitcase shows up, he can go apeshit with his collection but others can not. I see no point whatsoever in such a policy. I've also never found a 'very good' card I'd want to use 10 of. I have a couple of very rare cards (Sabbat rares) I use over and over in a couple of decks I have but they're not the classic chase cards. (I guess LoP would qualify in this category, too.) Like rich desserts, there's on so many Direct Interventions, Dreams of the Sphinx, Protected Resources, War Ghouls, Succubi, Disarms, and so forth a deck can stomach. Thankfully. Fred

On 18 Sep 2000 18:59:17 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>It plays the game by the rules? > >You mean the rules that proxies are illegal? It does that, if you hold >that as a "rule" in your playgroup. But regardless of how you feel about Uh, it's sort of the basic concept of selling the cards in random boosters in the first place, as opposed to just letting people buy "X" of whichever cards they want - some cards are supposed to be rarer than others. >that issue, this doesn't address my question. Which was: How does it help >play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice to the fanatic collector/players? >Eliminating proxies do not, as near as I can see, do anything at all >for play balance. Correct. It doesn't really affect play balance AT ALL, although the guy who consistently has 2 DIs in every deck IS going to have a small advantage. Should we let people freely proxy DI, then? Would YOU? We feel that DI was difficult enough to get that it ought to matter SOME - again, the whole concept of CCGs in the first place is "play with the cards you got". V:TES is great, in that the guy without THAT many cards is capable of competing with the guy with multiple DIs and fifty-rare decks. We see it ALL the time in our group. >>We permit proxies in Atlanta, as long as you don't go apeshit on any >>'very good' card. If you want to proxy 10 Disarms or 10 Tier of >>Souls, for example, we're going to frown on that a little bit, since >>EVERYONE would love to have 10 Disarms and, while it's fun, we would >>really prefer to see you make decks out of cards that you HAVE, as >>opposed to speculating wildly about cards you may NEVER have. > >So if a Mr. Suitcase shows up, he can go apeshit with his collection >but others can not. I see no point whatsoever in such a policy. It gives us an incentive to actually GET the cards ourselves, instead of just printing out copies of whatever we need on a color printer and sticking them in sleeves. Mr. Suitcase is welcome to come play with us anytime he wants to, and if he has 10 Disarms, good for him. We aren't going to worry about it very much, nor are we suddenly going to let ourselves start proxying 10 Disarms in a deck. If you allow unlimited proxies, nobody bothers to buy any cards, and the game rots for lack of sales. Bad idea. But the occasional proxy for experimental or entertainment value? Sure, no problem. >I've also never found a 'very good' card I'd want to use 10 of. I have >a couple of very rare cards (Sabbat rares) I use over and over in a couple >of decks I have but they're not the classic chase cards. (I guess LoP >would qualify in this category, too.) Like rich desserts, there's on so >many Direct Interventions, Dreams of the Sphinx, Protected Resources, War >Ghouls, Succubi, Disarms, and so forth a deck can stomach. Thankfully. Hm. Don Cruez, Donal O'Connor, Constanza Vinti... Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm, Amaranth. Minion Tap/5th as blood gain to get all of them out. Several Archon votes to provide the Rush actions, and Bum's Rush or Bloodhunt cards to get rid of opposing voters who can't be talked into voting your way on the Amaranth. A few Flashes to chase people down. Six Conditionings, to provide the "oust punch". I could see putting 10 Disarms in that deck, no problem. Nobody in our group wants to see it unless I actually GET the 10 Disarms, though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 18 Sep 2000 18:59:17 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>It plays the game by the rules? >> >>You mean the rules that proxies are illegal? It does that, if you hold >>that as a "rule" in your playgroup. But regardless of how you feel about >>that issue, this doesn't address my question. Which was: How does it help >>play-balance to limit a deckbuilding choice to the fanatic collector/players? >>Eliminating proxies do not, as near as I can see, do anything at all >>for play balance. > >Correct. It doesn't really affect play balance AT ALL, although the >guy who consistently has 2 DIs in every deck IS going to have a small >advantage. Should we let people freely proxy DI, then? Would YOU? Sure. Why not? I can think of a few reasons but none that really matter to me. I want my opponents to do their worst as my loyal competition. I wouldn't want people wholesale proxying cards as an alternative to buying cards at retail prices but when you have $250 boxes of Sabbat which only have less than half the number of rares that got printed on a rare sheet (48 rares in a box vs. 110 on the rare sheet, IIRC), I don't really care about the effect on sales. Hand-scrawled proxies are ugly and often a problem for rules if the person doesn't have the actual wording on hand (which isn't even an issue for the wholesale errataed cards) but again, as long as their entire deck isn't proxies I don't care. I honestly can't think why I shouldn't let them. >If you allow unlimited proxies, nobody bothers to buy any cards, and >the game rots for lack of sales. Bad idea. But the occasional proxy >for experimental or entertainment value? Sure, no problem. I guess I agree with that. But I think of some specialized deck with lots of an extreme rare as also falling into the "no problem" category. I wouldn't want people to limit themselves just because a key card is absurdly rare. >>I've also never found a 'very good' card I'd want to use 10 of. I have >>a couple of very rare cards (Sabbat rares) I use over and over in a couple >>of decks I have but they're not the classic chase cards. (I guess LoP >>would qualify in this category, too.) Like rich desserts, there's on so >>many Direct Interventions, Dreams of the Sphinx, Protected Resources, War >>Ghouls, Succubi, Disarms, and so forth a deck can stomach. Thankfully. > >Hm. Don Cruez, Donal O'Connor, Constanza Vinti... Torn Signpost, >Immortal Grapple, Disarm, Amaranth. Minion Tap/5th as blood gain to >get all of them out. Several Archon votes to provide the Rush >actions, and Bum's Rush or Bloodhunt cards to get rid of opposing >voters who can't be talked into voting your way on the Amaranth. A >few Flashes to chase people down. Six Conditionings, to provide the >"oust punch". I could see putting 10 Disarms in that deck, no >problem. Nobody in our group wants to see it unless I actually GET >the 10 Disarms, though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. I don't know. I'm a little skepical that that deck can really use 10 Disarms. You need enough other combat cards to make the Disarms work and with all that other stuff in their, I doubt there'd be room for 10. Fred

On 18 Sep 2000 20:23:32 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >>Correct. It doesn't really affect play balance AT ALL, although the >>guy who consistently has 2 DIs in every deck IS going to have a small >>advantage. Should we let people freely proxy DI, then? Would YOU? > >Sure. Why not? I can think of a few reasons but none that really >matter to me. I want my opponents to do their worst as my loyal There is the simple "since no individual card has a huge effect on the game, I want to have SOME benefit from trading my butt off for the one DI i own" reason. Otherwise nobody would even bother to TRADE cards, much less buy them - can always just proxy, right? I don't really like THAT thought at all, sorry. Besides, there are very, very few "good rare" cards that you would have to proxy in large quantities - and it's obvious which ones would be a little bit over the top. >>If you allow unlimited proxies, nobody bothers to buy any cards, and >>the game rots for lack of sales. Bad idea. But the occasional proxy >>for experimental or entertainment value? Sure, no problem. > >I guess I agree with that. But I think of some specialized deck with >lots of an extreme rare as also falling into the "no problem" category. >I wouldn't want people to limit themselves just because a key card is >absurdly rare. Of course. I did mention Malkavian Time Auction - hardly an overpowered card, and one that I proxied for a deck. It happens to be absurdly rare - i have only four real ones. Strange. But hardly a game-breaker in and of itself. It's only a couple Sabbat cards that have even that -potential-. Oh yeah, Psychic Veil would be kind of nasty too. And probably a couple others. But there are really very few. >>Hm. Don Cruez, Donal O'Connor, Constanza Vinti... Torn Signpost, >>Immortal Grapple, Disarm, Amaranth. Minion Tap/5th as blood gain to >>get all of them out. Several Archon votes to provide the Rush >>actions, and Bum's Rush or Bloodhunt cards to get rid of opposing >>voters who can't be talked into voting your way on the Amaranth. A >>few Flashes to chase people down. Six Conditionings, to provide the >>"oust punch". I could see putting 10 Disarms in that deck, no >>problem. Nobody in our group wants to see it unless I actually GET >>the 10 Disarms, though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. > >I don't know. I'm a little skepical that that deck can really use >10 Disarms. You need enough other combat cards to make the Disarms >work and with all that other stuff in their, I doubt there'd be room >for 10. Uhh... Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm will torporize anyone who can't prevent 3 points of damage, hit for 3 themselves, or do aggravated hand damage. That's only 3 cards for the combo, and there are NOT that many decks out there that can get around it. It might be time to borrow/steal the Disarms necessary to build this and take it to the next tournament, just as an experiment - I don't think Fortitude has been putting in much of an appearance these days either. So let's see, 10 Signposts, 10 Grapples, 10 Disarms, 6 Minion Tap, 6 5th Tradition, 4 Archon, 6 Bum's Rush, 8 Flash, 6 Conditioning... let's see, we're up to 66 cards. 8 Amaranth for 74. Need six more cards - take your pick. Barrens, Elder Library, Fraggie make 3, and probably 3 Alacrity cards would be a good idea as well. That's an 80 card library, and fairly functional. To slim it down and make a good chance of drawing your stuff, drop 2 each of the Signpost, Grapple, and Disarm, and drop 1 Minion Tap, 1 5th, 1 Archon, and 1 Alacrity. Now you've got a nasty little 70 card wonder, although it is somewhat combat light and can only burn 8 vampires - better pick carefully. Crypt is easy. 3 Don, 3 Constanza, 3 Donal, and 3 of ...well, take your pick. Anvil fits in there best - he can't do the 5th, but he is cheap, has the full skillset, and adds to the voting power a little. Want to go big? Ulugh Beg has pot/cel/DOM, although you probably don't want him fighting since he only punches for 2. If you want, you can even go Angelica, with POT/DOM/cel - 3 more votes, but she can't do the 5th either and is kind of big. No, I think there'd be plenty of room for 10 Disarms. Especially if you go up to a 90 card deck, when you have room for all kinds of additional toys to help out. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 18 Sep 2000 20:23:32 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>>Correct. It doesn't really affect play balance AT ALL, although the >>>guy who consistently has 2 DIs in every deck IS going to have a small >>>advantage. Should we let people freely proxy DI, then? Would YOU? >> >>Sure. Why not? I can think of a few reasons but none that really >>matter to me. I want my opponents to do their worst as my loyal > >There is the simple "since no individual card has a huge effect on the >game, I want to have SOME benefit from trading my butt off for the one >DI i own" reason. Otherwise nobody would even bother to TRADE cards, >much less buy them - can always just proxy, right? > >I don't really like THAT thought at all, sorry. Besides, there are Again, there's a difference between wholesale proxying and filling in key cards. Even if you're filling them in in large number. I don't want advantages just because a person has some huge amount of resources to draw on. I don't consider trading per se to be part of the game playing. It's just the acquistion of the game components to play the game, it isn't a game skill. If you think it is, consider that with sufficient money, any amount of any cards can be obtained. (At least, any amount of any cards needed to play with in a single deck; maybe not a totally unlimited number.) Any game skill that is replicatable with sufficient amounts of money is not a game skill. >>>Hm. Don Cruez, Donal O'Connor, Constanza Vinti... Torn Signpost, >>>Immortal Grapple, Disarm, Amaranth. Minion Tap/5th as blood gain to >>>get all of them out. Several Archon votes to provide the Rush >>>actions, and Bum's Rush or Bloodhunt cards to get rid of opposing >>>voters who can't be talked into voting your way on the Amaranth. A >>>few Flashes to chase people down. Six Conditionings, to provide the >>>"oust punch". I could see putting 10 Disarms in that deck, no >>>problem. Nobody in our group wants to see it unless I actually GET >>>the 10 Disarms, though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. >> >>I don't know. I'm a little skepical that that deck can really use >>10 Disarms. You need enough other combat cards to make the Disarms >>work and with all that other stuff in their, I doubt there'd be room >>for 10. > >Uhh... Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm will torporize anyone >who can't prevent 3 points of damage, hit for 3 themselves, or do >aggravated hand damage. That's only 3 cards for the combo, and there >are NOT that many decks out there that can get around it. It might be >time to borrow/steal the Disarms necessary to build this and take it >to the next tournament, just as an experiment - I don't think >Fortitude has been putting in much of an appearance these days either. Yea, but you're talking about running some other stuff, too: the Minion Tap/5th tradition, the rushes to get the chance to torporize, and that other stuff. That recipe just has too many ingredients in it to throw in 10 of the finisher card of a 3-card combat combo. >So let's see, 10 Signposts, 10 Grapples, 10 Disarms, 6 Minion Tap, 6 >5th Tradition, 4 Archon, 6 Bum's Rush, 8 Flash, 6 Conditioning... That's too many Disarms. The signposts you need the most of. (Or were some of the vamps + hand damage?) The grapples are mainly there to hold down the S:CEs, since you don't have any extra strikes (and I suspect this deck wants extra strikes) so 10 is probably too many. Otherwise, the presses to continue aren't nearly as fun. >let's see, we're up to 66 cards. 8 Amaranth for 74. Need six more >cards - take your pick. Barrens, Elder Library, Fraggie make 3, and >probably 3 Alacrity cards would be a good idea as well. Hunting grounds. Ancilla Empowerments (as I discovered at Gencon) to hold off weeny decks. Information Highway. Sudden Reversals to hold off Tap & Bleed preditors and 5th/Minion tap blood gaining by your prey. Wakes or more like Forced Awakening. Intercept - I usually like KCRG-type things in a deck that doesn't feature auspex but Sport Bikes are another way to go. And I'm not sure there's enough rush in this deck, old 6. You might want to throw in some Haven Uncovereds, which work very well with torporizing decks (they can't get rid of the Havens in torpor, hence they're a pain to remove as they come out of torpor). I'd be very surprised if this deck wound up with 10 Disarms after you got through tuning it. Even with 90 cards. Fred

On 19 Sep 2000 00:16:29 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Again, there's a difference between wholesale proxying and filling in >key cards. Even if you're filling them in in large number. I don't So you wouldn't mind if I proxied four or five Protected Resources in every vote deck I made? (because I sure as hell would like to have that many in most vote decks, so I could lose the stupid Deflections and slim the thing down a bit)... >want advantages just because a person has some huge amount of resources >to draw on. I don't consider trading per se to be part of the game >playing. It's just the acquistion of the game components to play the >game, it isn't a game skill. If you think it is, consider that with >sufficient money, any amount of any cards can be obtained. (At least, >any amount of any cards needed to play with in a single deck; maybe not >a totally unlimited number.) Any game skill that is replicatable with >sufficient amounts of money is not a game skill. None of us are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the game, however. Given THAT limitation, it begins to make a little more sense, yes? Many of us were drawn in when Jyhad boxes were $5 each from the Edgeman (in bulk) - as such, we have a huge chunk of cards, but really haven't blown our wallets on the game. Chasing Disarms at the odds of one per box of Sabbat is just ridiculous. And nobody is selling 10 Disarms. >Yea, but you're talking about running some other stuff, too: the Minion >Tap/5th tradition, the rushes to get the chance to torporize, and that >other stuff. That recipe just has too many ingredients in it to throw >in 10 of the finisher card of a 3-card combat combo. Minion Tap and 5th don't have to happen on the same turn. If I get Don Cruez out first with a Minion Tap in hand, I'll yank him down to 3-4 and leave him there for awhile until I see a 5th. If someone makes him go away, OH WELL, HE COST FOUR. And in the meantime, he can be beating things up waiting for his 5th, since if I don't have a 5th in hand, I must have all my combat... and with only 6 5ths in the deck, I'm not going to worry about hand jamming on them. Hand jamming on MT is a laugher, since it's much worse to be stuck with a handful of combat and no pool than it is to have a handful of pool and no combat. Rushes will only hurt if I can't get to an Archon fast enough. I should be able to pass an Archon with a little table management and the amount of votes that can land on the table. Once the first Archon hits the table, I have one guaranteed Rush action per turn, which is usually all you -need-. 3-card combat combos are ridiculously easy to pull off if you include enough cards in the deck, and there just aren't that many other cards in there. Probably too many Flashes, really, but those maneuvers will matter. >>So let's see, 10 Signposts, 10 Grapples, 10 Disarms, 6 Minion Tap, 6 >>5th Tradition, 4 Archon, 6 Bum's Rush, 8 Flash, 6 Conditioning... > >That's too many Disarms. The signposts you need the most of. (Or were >some of the vamps + hand damage?) The grapples are mainly there to hold >down the S:CEs, since you don't have any extra strikes (and I suspect >this deck wants extra strikes) so 10 is probably too many. Otherwise, >the presses to continue aren't nearly as fun. Both the Signposts and the Disarms are equally crucial. It does me no good to strike for 3 without ripping their arm off. It also does me no good to strike for 1 and have a Disarm in hand. The grapples are there both to hold down S:CE and Dodge, and to provide some combat defense against the wack decks (Coma, Entombment come to mind), or any other deck that might want to pull some strange strike or other out of its ass. Grapple solves both that AND half of the Disarm requirements - if you're not playing Potence, then I grab you and you're striking for 1 point of hand damage, or 2 with Lucky Blow/Scorpion Sting. I can see Protean and Vicissitude coming a mile away, so I can take some extra care for those decks. So, I need equal numbers of all the above. 10, 10, 10. Hence the Barrens, Fraggie, and Elder - I want to be able to go fishing for all the cards if necessary, although since it's only 3 cards i'm likely to have them in hand lots. >>let's see, we're up to 66 cards. 8 Amaranth for 74. Need six more remember this number ^^^^^^^^^^ >>cards - take your pick. Barrens, Elder Library, Fraggie make 3, and >>probably 3 Alacrity cards would be a good idea as well. > >Hunting grounds. Ancilla Empowerments (as I discovered at Gencon) to What the FRO do i want hunting grounds for? My guys are gaining large quantities of blood from both 5th Tradition and Amaranth, and the only thing that costs blood in the deck is Conditioning... a wopping 1. Oh, and I'm probably getting punched for 1 each combat. Ancilla Empowerment wouldn't make a bad 3-card inclusion. Bag the 3 Alacrities and add those instead - odds are you'll never have more than 3 guys out with this deck anyway. >hold off weeny decks. Information Highway. Sudden Reversals to hold Info Highway only good in this deck if you draw it first turn. No good anytime after that - waste of space. 5th/MT blood gain by my prey won't get off more than once, IF that, before I burn that vampire and stop all that shit, so I don't care that much. Dead guys commit no Traditions. I should worry about tap & bleed more, but hell, I don't have enough minions to piss around trying to block Samson and Ohanna, or to waste time trying to Deflect them all. I might as well just add some more "kill" to the deck, and off them first. None of my guys will be untapped ANYWAY. >off Tap & Bleed preditors and 5th/Minion tap blood gaining by your >prey. Wakes or more like Forced Awakening. Intercept - I usually like >KCRG-type things in a deck that doesn't feature auspex but Sport Bikes >are another way to go. Dead guys don't do things worth intercepting, or worth Waking for. Now you know why I am worried about the slimmed down version only having 8 full combats in it - I may need to make more than 8 dead guys. >And I'm not sure there's enough rush in this deck, old 6. You might Not just 6 Rush cards. The 4 Archons provides a nasty lot of Rush, and also handles a lot of the pesky diablerie problem - although with 8 built-in votes in the deck, it probably doesn't have as much of a problem, especially if it threatens/rushes voters first. >want to throw in some Haven Uncovereds, which work very well with >torporizing decks (they can't get rid of the Havens in torpor, hence >they're a pain to remove as they come out of torpor). except if you notice, i have a lot of Amaranth in there. Diablerie is featured heavily in this deck. Burned vampires take no actions. >I'd be very surprised if this deck wound up with 10 Disarms after you >got through tuning it. Even with 90 cards. What good would it do with being able to kill any less than 10 vampires? Its whole idea is "make stuff dead". =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 19 Sep 2000 00:16:29 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Again, there's a difference between wholesale proxying and filling in >>key cards. Even if you're filling them in in large number. I don't > >So you wouldn't mind if I proxied four or five Protected Resources in >every vote deck I made? (because I sure as hell would like to have >that many in most vote decks, so I could lose the stupid Deflections >and slim the thing down a bit)... No, not for informal play. I'm personally surprised anyone would object to it. Maybe your group should allow it. Then I believe you'd discover that Protected Resources isn't that attractive a card, even in vote decks, to be using four or five of them. (Anyone want to help me here? Question to the masses: Would you put four or more Protected Resourses into any voting deck you made?) >>want advantages just because a person has some huge amount of resources >>to draw on. I don't consider trading per se to be part of the game >>playing. It's just the acquistion of the game components to play the >>game, it isn't a game skill. If you think it is, consider that with >>sufficient money, any amount of any cards can be obtained. (At least, >>any amount of any cards needed to play with in a single deck; maybe not >>a totally unlimited number.) Any game skill that is replicatable with >>sufficient amounts of money is not a game skill. > >None of us are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the >game, however. Given THAT limitation, it begins to make a little more >sense, yes? No - because you can't speak for others in your group. Any single person who doesn't agree screws up the system. I suppose if you have a closed group and you're all pretty much in agreement about how much a "ridiculous amount of money" would be and noone who doesn't hold the same opinion ever joins it, then maybe you have the framework of a reasonable system of limiting your deckbuilding. To each his own, I suppose. >Many of us were drawn in when Jyhad boxes were $5 each from the >Edgeman (in bulk) - as such, we have a huge chunk of cards, but really >haven't blown our wallets on the game. Chasing Disarms at the odds of >one per box of Sabbat is just ridiculous. It's actually less than one per two boxes. And I would agree. Though if you can use the other cards you get with the two plus boxes of Sabbat (for instance, all the Forced Awakenings, Immortal Grapples, other Sabbat rarres) it may not be quite so insane. >And nobody is selling 10 Disarms. You mean you doubt 10 Disarms can be obtained? Au Contraire. If you keep you ear to the network long enough and work at it, you can buy 10 Disarms eventually. >>>So let's see, 10 Signposts, 10 Grapples, 10 Disarms, 6 Minion Tap, 6 >>>5th Tradition, 4 Archon, 6 Bum's Rush, 8 Flash, 6 Conditioning... >> >>That's too many Disarms. The signposts you need the most of. (Or were >>some of the vamps + hand damage?) The grapples are mainly there to hold >>down the S:CEs, since you don't have any extra strikes (and I suspect >>this deck wants extra strikes) so 10 is probably too many. Otherwise, >>the presses to continue aren't nearly as fun. > >Both the Signposts and the Disarms are equally crucial. It does me no >good to strike for 3 without ripping their arm off. I disagree. You strike for three, your opponent strikes for one. That's not useless. If you think it is, that right there explains a different way you and I think about combos. "Useless" is having the Disarm without the means to make it legal to play, which incurs hand jam. >The grapples are there both to hold down S:CE and Dodge, and to provide >some combat defense against the wack decks (Coma, Entombment come to mind), >or any other deck that might want to pull some strange strike or other out of >its ass. Yea but that doesn't do much without the signposts (and preferably the Disarms as well) since you have a meaningless encounter with your opponent and he holds on to its strikes for next time. Anyway you cook it, you need more Signposts than the other two. Nothing else works without them - or some other means to have a better-than-even exchange with your opponent, such as a potence strike or an extra strike. >I can see Protean and Vicissitude coming a mile away, so I can take >some extra care for those decks. What "extra care" can you take just because you see it coming? The deck totally depends on having good things happen in combat. I don't see anything other than the Flash Maneuvers that will allow you to do anything besides really, really HATE them as they torporize you. >>>let's see, we're up to 66 cards. 8 Amaranth for 74. Need six more > remember this number ^^^^^^^^^^ >>>cards - take your pick. Barrens, Elder Library, Fraggie make 3, and >>>probably 3 Alacrity cards would be a good idea as well. >> >>Hunting grounds. Ancilla Empowerments (as I discovered at Gencon) to > >What the FRO do i want hunting grounds for? My guys are gaining large >quantities of blood from both 5th Tradition and Amaranth, and the only >thing that costs blood in the deck is Conditioning... a wopping 1. Because Hunting Gounds are always good. And since you only have 10 IGs, you're likely to get punching for more than 1 each combat a hellalot. >>hold off weeny decks. Information Highway. Sudden Reversals to hold > >Info Highway only good in this deck if you draw it first turn. No >good anytime after that - waste of space. I disagree. With the Minion Tap/5th combo, you could run into a sudden windfall of pool at any time during the game. >5th/MT blood gain by my prey won't get off more than once, IF that, >before I burn that vampire and stop all that shit, so I don't care >that much. Dead guys commit no Traditions. Perhaps. I think you have a little more confidence in the power of this combo always working than I do. On the whole, I really don't like Suddens myself but I have to admit they seem get used very effectively in tournament play at times. If for nothing else, sometimes you can intervene when someone across the table is getting too scary. >>off Tap & Bleed preditors and 5th/Minion tap blood gaining by your >>prey. Wakes or more like Forced Awakening. Intercept - I usually like >>KCRG-type things in a deck that doesn't feature auspex but Sport Bikes >>are another way to go. > >Dead guys don't do things worth intercepting, or worth Waking for. >Now you know why I am worried about the slimmed down version only >having 8 full combats in it - I may need to make more than 8 dead >guys. Then you're going to incredibly vulnerable to weeny decks, either preditor or prey. >>And I'm not sure there's enough rush in this deck, old 6. You might > >Not just 6 Rush cards. The 4 Archons provides a nasty lot of Rush, >and also handles a lot of the pesky diablerie problem - although with >8 built-in votes in the deck, it probably doesn't have as much of a >problem, especially if it threatens/rushes voters first. Ah, my mistake. Forgot about the Archons. >>I'd be very surprised if this deck wound up with 10 Disarms after you >>got through tuning it. Even with 90 cards. > >What good would it do with being able to kill any less than 10 >vampires? Its whole idea is "make stuff dead". =) Yea my experience is that it typically doesn't work that way in collectable card games. You assume you can use all 10 but since they're the finisher card, there will be times during the game (LOTS of times if you're not particularly lucky), when the Disarms will show up and jam your hand and you'll be dumping them hand over fist. There will be other times you couldn't draw one to save your life. It usually turns out to just be easier to put a bunch of different types of combat cards (signposts, potence strikes, extra strike cards, immortal grapples, even dodges or dodge-with-an-additional-strike) in that will allow you to combo them effectively in whatever order they turn up in. You can frequently acheive the torporizing just through non-Disarm but otherwise favorable combats and all your Amaranth, Archon diablerizing stuff is just as useful. You still want SOME Disarms because they're still incredibly useful - as long the other stuff is always on hand. So you wind up reducing their number and using other cards instead. Anyway, that's always been my experience. Conceiving of how powerful 10 Disarms could be in a deck and actually making the cards turn up in optimal order against opponents who don't have any defense against it is one thing. Seeing how often that happens in real life is another. Fred

> Yea my experience is that it typically doesn't work that way in > collectable card games. You assume you can use all 10 but since they're > the finisher card, there will be times during the game (LOTS of times > if you're not particularly lucky), when the Disarms will show up and jam > your hand and you'll be dumping them hand over fist. There will be other > times you couldn't draw one to save your life. It usually turns out to > just be easier to put a bunch of different types of combat cards (signposts, > potence strikes, extra strike cards, immortal grapples, even dodges or > dodge-with-an-additional-strike) in that will allow you to combo them > effectively in whatever order they turn up in. You can frequently > acheive the torporizing just through non-Disarm but otherwise favorable > combats and all your Amaranth, Archon diablerizing stuff is just as useful. > You still want SOME Disarms because they're still incredibly useful - as > long the other stuff is always on hand. So you wind up reducing their > number and using other cards instead. Actually, I have solved that problem in this deck. I put 2xCarlotta Giovanni in my deck. She fishes whichever card I am missing out of the ash heap plus she has POT and dom. Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

On 19 Sep 2000 15:40:59 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >No, not for informal play. I'm personally surprised anyone would object >to it. Maybe your group should allow it. Then I believe you'd discover >that Protected Resources isn't that attractive a card, even in vote decks, >to be using four or five of them. > >(Anyone want to help me here? Question to the masses: Would you put >four or more Protected Resourses into any voting deck you made?) Not having to worry about anyone bleeding for tons at any given moment is a very handy thing. A good vote deck ought to have enough pool gain to deal with consistent multiple bleeds for 1 or 2, and PR ensures that you won't be seeing anything more than that - permitting you to dump a ton of Deflections and Wakes. Putting 4 in a 90-card deck ensures that you'll get one fairly early, and it also ensures that if you need to bleed for 1 to make an oust, that you can toss PR back out afterwards and regain your defense. =) >>None of us are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the >>game, however. Given THAT limitation, it begins to make a little more >>sense, yes? > >No - because you can't speak for others in your group. Any single person >who doesn't agree screws up the system. I suppose if you have a closed >group and you're all pretty much in agreement about how much a "ridiculous >amount of money" would be and noone who doesn't hold the same opinion >ever joins it, then maybe you have the framework of a reasonable system >of limiting your deckbuilding. To each his own, I suppose. (shrug) We are recruiting new players actively, and we have quite a few who've joined us over the past year or so - none of the new players wants to go out and blow wads of cash on cards (although we've offered them the opportunity by telling them about the $250 Sabbat boxes on ebay =), they want to LEARN first. I can't speak DIRECTLY for the other players in my group, but I do know how they think and some about them. They have the cash on hand to successfully chase Disarms or the like in a 'brute force' manner - they MUCH prefer to do it the "trade, network, network, wait a long time" way. I can't blame them at all. =) >It's actually less than one per two boxes. And I would agree. Though if >you can use the other cards you get with the two plus boxes of Sabbat (for >instance, all the Forced Awakenings, Immortal Grapples, other Sabbat >rarres) it may not be quite so insane. Yeah, but those of us who might be inclined to chase Disarms, however, already had bought a few boxes of Sabbat. I could use more IGs, but I really only need like four more - not worth the rest of the box. Sure, I'd have trade bait then for other cards (the rest of the box), but I really kind of cringe at the thought of throwing money at a problem this way. =) >>And nobody is selling 10 Disarms. > >You mean you doubt 10 Disarms can be obtained? Au Contraire. If you >keep you ear to the network long enough and work at it, you can buy 10 >Disarms eventually. No, I mean nobody is selling 10 Disarms. The only way to get them fast is to brute-force boxes until you get them. Otherwise, you do have to wheedle, deal, and probably mortgage your left one to get 10. =) >>Both the Signposts and the Disarms are equally crucial. It does me no >>good to strike for 3 without ripping their arm off. > >I disagree. You strike for three, your opponent strikes for one. That's >not useless. If you think it is, that right there explains a different >way you and I think about combos. "Useless" is having the Disarm without >the means to make it legal to play, which incurs hand jam. (frown) Merely striking for three doesn't necessarily (doesn't USUALLY) kill though, and that's not a good purpose in this deck. It has too many moving parts and too-large vampires to not be killing things with every action - otherwise it'll move too slowly. I have a POT/PRE bruise-and-bleed that just has a big pile of Signposts, Undead Strength, and Pushing the Limit in it - if you block its bleeds, it swats you for anywhere from 3 to 6, depending on what I have in hand. Whether it kills or not isn't relevant to the success of the deck - it doesn't HAVE to make your vampires dead, it just has to provide a reason for you not to block it anymore - or better, for you to WORRY about blocking it. >Yea but that doesn't do much without the signposts (and preferably the >Disarms as well) since you have a meaningless encounter with your opponent >and he holds on to its strikes for next time. Anyway you cook it, you I don't see deliberately entering combat without "the works" in hand, myself. =) I also don't see people choosing to enter combat with me unless they can poke me in the eye, especially after they lose one vampire. >need more Signposts than the other two. Nothing else works without >them - or some other means to have a better-than-even exchange with your >opponent, such as a potence strike or an extra strike. Actually, I should really be using Undead Strength instead of the Signposts, so they don't know whether or not they'll get bopped ahead of time, and so I won't waste cards when they have enough maneuvers in hand. But again, a simple 3/1 exchange is just not a useful action for this deck to take, unless 3 can put the guy in torpor. It serves me better to wait around a bit, use my Barrens, Fraggie, and Elder Library, and -get- the 3 cards I need. >>I can see Protean and Vicissitude coming a mile away, so I can take >>some extra care for those decks. > >What "extra care" can you take just because you see it coming? The deck >totally depends on having good things happen in combat. I don't see >anything other than the Flash Maneuvers that will allow you to do anything >besides really, really HATE them as they torporize you. Every deck has a weakness, and agg hand damage is usually a Potence deck's Achilles heel. I could get frantic trying to stop them, which would add even more moving parts to the deck and reduce its ability to make things dead.... or I could just figure "ok, i'll be screwed if my prey is Gangrel". If my predator is Gangrel, I can just refuse to Rush backwards, refuse to block, and save all my Flashes to run away from them. That's about the only care I can take, but (shrug) it happens. >>What the FRO do i want hunting grounds for? My guys are gaining large >>quantities of blood from both 5th Tradition and Amaranth, and the only >>thing that costs blood in the deck is Conditioning... a wopping 1. > >Because Hunting Gounds are always good. And since you only have 10 IGs, >you're likely to get punching for more than 1 each combat a hellalot. Hunting Grounds are NOT always good - they cost pool and a Master action. I'm fairly light on Master actions in this deck, so that's no big deal, but the 2 pool could be very expensive. The blood gain via MT is sufficient, but there ARE only 6 in the deck, so I won't be consistently Incredibly Bloating Up - especially if I want to get a 10-cap and two 8-caps out. With 5th, and the fact that I'll be diablerizing/amaranthing vampires with blood on them, I should have plenty of ways to put blood back on the vampires. A HG would be an extra moving part that might keep me from getting the IG/US/Disarm in hand. (Also, I probably WANT my guys to get fairly low on occasion, to make me feel like the 5ths actually matter. =) >>Info Highway only good in this deck if you draw it first turn. No >>good anytime after that - waste of space. > >I disagree. With the Minion Tap/5th combo, you could run into a sudden >windfall of pool at any time during the game. I've only got 6 Minion Taps, and I hope to be playing with ~26 pool worth of vampires. =) Also realizing that some of my defense is "shrug off your predator via blood gain", I don't want to dip into things TOO far. There's another point - a sudden windfall of pool doesn't benefit me much. I only have 4 different vampires in my crypt. There's only so many I can get out. =) >>5th/MT blood gain by my prey won't get off more than once, IF that, >>before I burn that vampire and stop all that shit, so I don't care >>that much. Dead guys commit no Traditions. > >Perhaps. I think you have a little more confidence in the power of this >combo always working than I do. On the whole, I really don't like Suddens It won't always work, but the trick is in what you can do when it's NOT available. If it's not available, that must be because I have other cards in my hand. What other cards could I have in my hand? Well, a MT, or a 5th, or a Conditioning, or a hand-cycler master, or an Archon/Ancilla Empowerment, or a Flash, or an Amaranth. All of these cards are playable (except the Flash/Amaranth, but those are freely discardable) without the combat in hand AND will do useful things when they are played, even if I don't have the combat yet. It helps that it's only 3 cards, so I will usually ALWAYS have two in my hand and be chasing just one. =) It also helps that I'm at an 80-card deck (with 10/10/10) or a 70-card deck (with 8/8/8), and THAT increases the odds of me seeing them as well just because there ain't enough cards to get in my WAY. With a 70-card deck, you are always looking at 10% of your deck in your hand. =) With the Barrens/Fraggie/EL, you are in VERY good shape when you NEED to just move cards around. The biggest problem I worry about is, of course, getting to the Rush actions and getting into combat. If that happens consistently enough, I won't have a problem keeping the combo cards in hand or near to my hand, and won't have a problem just taking other actions as they appear in my hand and/or are appropriate. >myself but I have to admit they seem get used very effectively in tournament >play at times. If for nothing else, sometimes you can intervene when someone >across the table is getting too scary. I tend to include one SR and one DI as the last touches to any "tournament" deck. SR for that pesky Hostile Takeover or Minion Tap by your prey, and DI for any crap-ass card that you don't like happening. (Sense Deps are favourite.) >>Dead guys don't do things worth intercepting, or worth Waking for. >>Now you know why I am worried about the slimmed down version only >>having 8 full combats in it - I may need to make more than 8 dead >>guys. > >Then you're going to incredibly vulnerable to weeny decks, either preditor >or prey. that would be why i'm -worried-. =) But the Ancilla Empowerments will help out a lot there, as I can always start chucking nukes around. The Conditionings at least give me a little forward punch. One Kindred Restructure in the deck might be a good option, as a lucky bailout card to have handy. >>What good would it do with being able to kill any less than 10 >>vampires? Its whole idea is "make stuff dead". =) > >Yea my experience is that it typically doesn't work that way in >collectable card games. You assume you can use all 10 but since they're >the finisher card, there will be times during the game (LOTS of times >if you're not particularly lucky), when the Disarms will show up and jam >your hand and you'll be dumping them hand over fist. There will be other It would be just as unlucky to be looking at 3 Undead Strength or 3 Immortal Grapples. But that is, in fact, the luck of the draw, and in these instances you must rely on the other cards in your hand to give you something to do in the meantime while you try to draw into the rest of your stuff. Discarding randomly will only hurt you later, although with 3 of one card in hand, I would probably ditch one and figure I'll need to ditch one of each of the other two as well at some point. Hand management is always tricky. Not panicking helps. >times you couldn't draw one to save your life. It usually turns out to >just be easier to put a bunch of different types of combat cards (signposts, >potence strikes, extra strike cards, immortal grapples, even dodges or >dodge-with-an-additional-strike) in that will allow you to combo them >effectively in whatever order they turn up in. You can frequently Except when you do this, you often end up with a deck that has a pile of glop in it and can't consistently put ANYTHING in torpor. We see a lot of mid-range vampires (5-7) around here, usually supported by a number of small ones, and that's what this deck is designed to be most effective against. It kills the big guy first and erases him forever. Then it deals with the little ones as it sees fit, since usually dropping someone's 7-cap puts a huge crimp in their strategy. The problem with lots of multiple cards is that you don't decrease the difficulty of getting a good combo in hand. Torn Signpost/IG/Blur is great and will vaporize someone's head, but it's still 3 cards. Torn Signpost/IG/Undead Strength is much less great, and still 3 cards. Torn Signpost/Acrobatics/Pushing the Limit is nice, but it's 3 cards, and people S:CE away from it. And if I have an Acrobatics/IG/Undead Strength in my hand, I probably feel small and silly since I can't even get all 3 of those to move. >acheive the torporizing just through non-Disarm but otherwise favorable >combats and all your Amaranth, Archon diablerizing stuff is just as useful. well, you don't get the blood on them from diablerie, which was planned for. =) >Anyway, that's always been my experience. Conceiving of how powerful 10 >Disarms could be in a deck and actually making the cards turn up in >optimal order against opponents who don't have any defense against it >is one thing. Seeing how often that happens in real life is another. (shrug) a lot of play involves making the best out of crummy-looking hands. =) [ quoted text not captured ]