Card Idea: Ambush Defence

From the thread on Ill-Gotten Gains... So below you will find a card designed to be a proactive defence, rather that a purely reactive defence. The idea is taken from Familial Bond & Yawp Court with one change: It seems unfair to penalise the deck playing Celerity to basically make this card worthless with Psyche!. It should be set up so that if the opponent S:CE you can 'recover' from that by Psyche!. Ambush Defence (Amended) 1 blood Only usable once per turn per minion. +1 intercept Only playable by an untapped minion during a bleed action before blocks are declared. This reacting vampire enters combat with the acting minion. If the acting minion is ready after the last combat between these two minions, the action continues at +1 stealth and cannot be blocked by this reacting minion. As above, but usable on any action targeting you. The secret of a good defence, is a strong offence. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Good idea, but i really think that is too powerfull because you can play it with a wake or otqv ... so a CEL pro gun become so big ! But really do'nt know how to make it violentless perhaps add: a methuselah can only play a ambush defense per turn ...

The drawback for this is that the minion which plays Ambush Defence cannot block if it doesn't bin the opposing minion AND the action gains additional stealth. So if you don't whack them, they get advantages against you. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

come on .... cel pro is not a wall deck so there is no real drawback, your card just kill about half of the twd i think, it's really too strong

> pcgeol wrote: > your card just kill about half of the twd i think, it's really too strong > What ? Can you please use constructed arguments and cite real card and/or deck that would be especially impacted ? AFAIK, wall deck based on 5+ animal retainer on a star have more or less the same kind of ability, and don't utterly destroy all deck. The card is pretty strong, the ability to stop a cross table rescue attempt a bit silly, but your opinion would be easier to swallow if you were citing card.

I think that superior effect should also require at least basic protean, as written you don't need protean at all to play the card if you have superior celerity.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > pcgeol wrote: > > your card just kill about half of the twd i think, it's really too strong > > > What ? Can you please use constructed arguments and cite real card and/or deck that would be especially impacted ? > Any deck relying on stealth to pass their actions. That's a lot. > Ohlmann wrote: > AFAIK, wall deck based on 5+ animal retainer on a star have more or less the same kind of ability, and don't utterly destroy all deck. > Pentex, block fails, unblocable actions all get through. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Any deck relying on stealth to pass their actions. That's a lot. > It's factually wrong (since to be killed by that card you need in addition to heavy rely on stealth) Even then there is some additional question, like whether there is counter readily accessible, which lead us to ... > Ankha wrote: > Pentex, block fails, unblocable actions all get through. > You may pass to the next step of reasoning and propose to rewrite the card as +5 intercept with an auto-continue at +1 stealth as if unblocked clause. That's why it's better to propose argument. It help to see the problem and propose solution

Ankha, The point is that it isn't actually a block. It's a Yawp Court for bleeds more than a "auto-block". Plus, if you did have some light intercept (which isn't that rare... Winthrop, Sports Bike/Media Locations) you're also shooting your own chances if you don't bin the minion. It's moderately strong against S:CE combat IF your deck contains a number of Psyche!s, otherwise you might as well have had a "block fails" played on the reacting minion. The actions will still get through if you have a way to survive the combat. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Any deck relying on stealth to pass their actions. That's a lot. > > > It's factually wrong (since to be killed by that card you need in addition to heavy rely on stealth) > I don't get your point. Either you rely on stealth, or you don't. You can't "heavily" rely on stealth. > Ohlmann wrote: > Even then there is some additional question, like whether there is counter readily accessible, which lead us to ... > > > Ankha wrote: > > Pentex, block fails, unblocable actions all get through. > > > You may pass to the next step of reasoning and propose to rewrite the card as +5 intercept with an auto-continue at +1 stealth as if unblocked clause. > > That's why it's better to propose argument. It help to see the problem and propose solution > +5 intercept, or even more, since your card can block unblockable actions. Compare it to Yawp court which works only once per turn, requires a untapped minion, and works only on unblocked political actions. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I don't get your point. Either you rely on stealth, or you don't. You can't "heavily" rely on stealth. > The emphasis was on the wrong part. If you can deal with the gangrel coming at your throat - it's neither easy nor difficult, after all a flak jacket already do a lot of the job for you - then the card does not cause you trouble. It may also not cause you trouble if you plan on having some part of your action being blocked. For example, if you play 5 perfect parangon and 5 resist the earth grasp as stealth, that something happen to block you will cause trouble, but not more than someone playing auspex + abbot. > Ankha wrote: > +5 intercept, or even more, since your card can block unblockable actions. > Compare it to Yawp court which works only once per turn, requires a untapped minion, and works only on unblocked political actions. > The amount was taken as "too much to usually pass throught, but be a block to allow all block denial shenanigans". For me, the main problem of the card is the fact it can intercept cross-table rescue attempt or pentex subversion removal - problem which is also solved by writing it as a block attempt.

> Ohlmann wrote: > What ? Can you please use constructed arguments and cite real card and/or deck that would be especially impacted ? > just an exemple 5 min on feldb: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 14, Max: 20, Avg: 4,16) 3 Scarlet Carson O`Toole pro CEL 4 Gangrel Antitribu 2 Skryta Zyleta obf pot pro CEL5 Gangrel Antitribu 2 Steve Booth CEL pot pre pro5 Brujah 2 Sarah Brando CEL 3 Brujah Antitribu 1 Jimmy Dunn CEL for POT 4 Pander 1 Parmenides CEL qui 4 Assamite 1 Victor Tolliver CEL pot 4 Brujah Antitribu Library: (90 cards) Master (9 cards) 4 Vessel 2 Fame 1 Tension in the Ranks 1 Yawp Court 1 Carver`s Meat Packing and Storage Action (14 cards) 14 Bum`s Rush Reaction (14 cards) 4 On the Qui Vive 2 Wake with Evening`s Freshness 2 Delaying Tactics 6 Ambush Defense Combat (44 cards) 8 Concealed Weapon 14 Psyche! 8 Pursuit 2 Blur 5 Taste of Vitae 4 Sideslip 3 Infernal Pursuit Equipment (8 cards) 8 .44 Magnum Event (1 cards) 1 Dragonbound try to do something, or perhaps it's not enought a good "constructed argument" for you ^^

Ambush Defence wouldn't work for the majority of that crypt against non-bleed actions, which is as intended, but also it does allow a deck like that to concentrate on ousting and not just obliterating their predator first and then focussing forward. Althought with that deck, I expect to see you leak pool to a Voter unless you rush hard (which the proposed card won't help you do in the slightest). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I believe it's too strong. The card most similar to it is Strix which requires superior striga (a huge condition) and it taps you. Even if it would cause you to tap I still believe it's too powerful. When you are bypassing one of the fundamental mechanics in the game, stealth and intercept, you're treading on really thin ice. Yawp Court, Familial Bond and Strix do that as well but with a lot more restrictions. Sorry if I seems a little negative, new ideas are great but this one seemed a little too strong! Lidingö Scourge

> [CEL][PRO] As above, but usable on any {d} action targeting you. > ...What if we change this to: [CEL][PRO] As above, but usable on any {d} action targeting your minion, or card on that minion. -- so it would protect from rush cards, sensory deprivations, steal ally and equipment cards, but won't protect the master cards or you from enticement.

Actually, it won't protect against Enticement as it is. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Strix? It's WAY more powerful than this. Strix Type: Reaction Requires: Striga Cost: 1 blood [str] +1 intercept, even if intercept is not yet needed. If this vampire successfully blocks this action, he or she untaps at the end of the action. [str] is not a Discipline. [STR] Only usable when a bleed against you is successful. The bleed burns no pool. Instead, this vampire taps and enters combat with the acting minion. Burn option. Ambush Defence (Amended) Reaction 1 blood Only usable once per turn per minion. [cel] +1 intercept [cel][pro] Only playable by an untapped minion during a bleed action before blocks are declared. This reacting vampire enters combat with the acting minion. If the acting minion is ready after the last combat between these two minions, the action continues at +1 stealth and cannot be blocked by this reacting minion. [CEL][PRO] As [cel][pro] above, but usable on any action targeting you. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> pcgeol wrote: > try to do something, or perhaps it's not enought a good "constructed argument" for you ^^ > Well, as other have said the deck can't play the superior version at all. So, the card will only be a +1 intercept for 1 blood for a lot of very nasty action. It will be efficient against, say, a kyaside S&B, but you will still be mind raped / spirit marionneted, and just avout anything that work against redirection. You may create a crypt that have CEL / PRO, since they are 3 group 4 with both at superior, but the vampire will be significantly bigger., will need more time to hit play, and will have more problems if your (pretty basic) combat is not enough (say, if your opponent use carrion / canine horde) If the card is just a watered-down Telepathic Misdirection (like in the linked deck), and you still call it overpowered, then maybe there another couple of card that would need editing

> Ohlmann wrote: > Well, as other have said the deck can't play the superior version at all. So, the card will only be a +1 intercept for 1 blood for a lot of very nasty action. It will be efficient against, say, a kyaside S&B, but you will still be mind raped / spirit marionneted, and just avout anything that work against redirection. > spirit marionette & mind rape .... shit happens, those cards exist ! i never saw a mind rape deck in finals in Paris, oh, sorry once but the player play it for bleed because it's better to kill your prey. bleeds are the only real action against you. OMG entincement (bleed before?). Like said Louhi : you are bypassing one of the fundamental mechanics in the game, stealth and intercept That's true. i deseagree with a lot of cards givin intercept in all discipline or stealth in pot (why not) but it's even better than that.

Perhaps the double-superior could benefit the combat instead of expanding the actions for which the cars was usable. [CEL][PRO] As above, and this vampire gains an optional press and an optional maneuver in the initial combat. Then it would be an anti-bleed non-bounce card that punishes decks who disregard combat defense. I suggest a new strategy...let the Wookie win.

Perhaps the double-superior could benefit the combat instead of expanding the actions for which the card was usable. [CEL][PRO] As above, and this vampire gains an optional press and an optional maneuver in the initial combat. Then it would be an anti-bleed non-bounce card that punishes decks who disregard combat defense. I suggest a new strategy...let the Wookie win.

"Feral Impulse" 1 +1 intercept against a action. as above with an optional maneuver or press. On;y usable during a bleed action. This vampire enters combat with the acting minion and is considered the acting vampire during combat. If the opposing minion is ready at the end of the combat the action continues as if unblocked and the reacting vampire may not play reaction cards. I made the inferior version protean because it seemed to make more sense. I felt that entering combat as a reaction was such a huge benefit that the reacting vampire should play their cards first. Call it a tax on "bending the rules. You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood." Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

> direwolf wrote: > You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood." > You do understand that a card that allow either to burn a blood or to survive a combat to be completely canceled is so weak it would be somewhere between eye of the dead and twisting the knife ? Compare to crocodile Tongue for a quick example. Who does not cost blood, and cancel directly the block if it's not paid.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > direwolf wrote: > > You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood." > > > You do understand that a card that allow either to burn a blood or to survive a combat to be completely canceled is so weak it would be somewhere between eye of the dead and twisting the knife ? > > Compare to crocodile Tongue for a quick example. Who does not cost blood, and cancel directly the block if it's not paid. > I would agree if it were an ACTION to enter combat, but it is not. You want a vampire without intercept to enter combat as a reaction? You bet your ass there has to be restrictions. What I offered as a suggestion was an after-thought, and you treat it like it was in print. You could offer something along the lines of "Costing a blood to cancel the card is comparable to Crocodile's Tongue which doesn't cost a blood, so maybe this card shouldn't cost a blood as well." That is the difference from constructive criticism and otherwise. Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

> direwolf wrote: > I would agree if it were an ACTION to enter combat, but it is not. You want a vampire without intercept to enter combat as a reaction? You bet your ass there has to be restrictions. What I offered as a suggestion was an after-thought, and you treat it like it was in print. > Like blocking, which have the direct effect of canceling the card anyway ? Or Strix, which also cancel the action anyway in addition to the combat ? Please note that I say this because I believe you don't understand how weak of an effect it is enter combat compared to outright canceling. You can lose combat you have initiated, which is both good for the game and explain why it should not be too much of an hassle to enter combat If you want another argument, look at combat-entering vampires. They are not exactly priced at such extreme prices. The Beast have not shabby discipline for a 7-cap. The fact that it's a reaction that enter combat is not too much of an advantage anyway (so, I have an ambush defence, an OTQV, a magnum on the vampire, a pursuit, and a psyche. Good to go, only 4 card on 7 needed !) (but I think you just don't understand that when the blood will not be burned, you will almost alway lose the combat or be trumped by S:CE, prevent, or anything)

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > direwolf wrote: > > > > Please note that I say this because I believe you don't understand how weak of an effect it is enter combat compared to outright canceling. You can lose combat you have initiated, which is both good for the game and explain why it should not be too much of an hassle to enter combat > > > Stopping an action that has stealth, without using intercept runs contrary to the basis of the game. I'm not saying it's strong or weak. I'm saying it's bending the rules. > > I often overlook what is "strong" or "weak" because I try to work out an idea as it makes sense to me. > Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

> direwolf wrote: > Stopping an action that has stealth, without using intercept runs contrary to the basis of the game. I'm not saying it's strong or weak. I'm saying it's bending the rules. > One card for you then... Yawp Court. It basically give you the chance to 'block' an action after it is successful. This card was modelled of Yawp Court. It is surprising that this card, and not the card which is basically "Potence Hide the Heart" is the one drawing all the heat... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > direwolf wrote: > > Stopping an action that has stealth, without using intercept runs contrary to the basis of the game. I'm not saying it's strong or weak. I'm saying it's bending the rules. > > > One card for you then... Yawp Court. It basically give you the chance to 'block' an action after it is successful. This card was modelled of Yawp Court. It is surprising that this card, and not the card which is basically "Potence Hide the Heart" is the one drawing all the heat... > You mean > > Ankha wrote: > Compare it to Yawp court which works only once per turn, requires a untapped minion, and works only on unblocked political actions. > ? Yawp court is much much more restrictive. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Yawp court is much much more restrictive. > Yes, but Yawp Court is: - A sect card (allowing even the smallest capacity vampire to play it) - A permanent location (once they have one, it is not going away any time soon) - Comes with similar 'downsides' (if you fail to dunk, the action continues and you get 'hurt' for trying). The difference here is: - Opportunity (You must have one in hand. Drawing one, once in a game is not enough) - Has a cost (1 blood) - Requires larger capacity vampires ( appears on 6+ caps only without playing M:Disciplines which is the 'broad scope', otherwise it is a Yawp Court for bleeds as a reaction) - Comes with downsides (Failure to dunk adds a stealth and excludes the reacting minion) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > One card for you then... Yawp Court. It basically give you the chance to 'block' an action after it is successful. This card was modelled of Yawp Court. > I would be extremely cautious about adding more such abilities to the game, especially when they can both be usefully played in the same deck. Things would be somewhat different for - say - a card that required clan Giovanni, because it wouldn't stack with Yawp Court. Stealth, Secure Haven, Sleep Unseen, chump blockers, unblockability, Seduction, and other such tools are the common ways that a stealth-bleed or stealth-vote deck can aim to avoid the problems of combat decks and combat walls. Key vampires are protected, and blocks are hard (or sometimes impossible). Providing a deck with perma-anti-stealth-vote tech and easily played anti-stealth-bleed tech and generically usable intercept provides a high level of aggravation for a wide range of predators. (Thinking about using two votes in one turn to avoid me? House of Sorrow provides options of a sort.)

there's options too against s&b deck : protected ressources, archon investigation, retribution (master exemple) defection redirection my ennemy's ennemy telepathic (reaction discipline) vendetta (lol exemple) etc... and what have we against vote delaying vox domini and yawp court .... ok, it's not that much.... i have one card working against bleed and politics: BUM'S RUSH ! .... good card don't you think that if "non-combat" deck have to put a lot of defense to be protect, combat deck can put some archon or delaying if they are not able to eradicate any problems with bum's rush? I'm a combat deck players, and really i don't need this card, it's unfair for decks which are created around stealth. against stealth use intercept i agree when someone say this card runs counter to the rules.

> direwolf wrote: > Stopping an action that has stealth, without using intercept runs contrary to the basis of the game. > ... > How about adding restriction of zero stealth to play this card? So no combo "try to intercept and then enter combat".

My main problem with this card is what I said in one other topic. Vtes should be about actions and blocking. Just entering combat with reaction or action modifier messes about the basics of the game which work great. Entering combat without an action is a bit lazy design. There are cards which does this already but I wouldn't want to see more of them especially with easily used. Yawp Court I find cool designed card. It is restricted so effect doesn't happen too often and also it is very Sabbat like. Blissful Agony kind of does this also but it fits with bloodline discpline.