How does Summon History interact with Imbued? And can it really interact with them?
Summon History
Type: Action
Requires: Temporis
Cost: X blood
[tem] Search your library and/or ash heap for an ally, retainer or equipment whose cost is X or less. Put that card in play (on this vampire and with starting life from the bank as needed).
[TEM] Search your crypt and/or ash heap for a non-scarce vampire with capacity X or less. Put that vampire in play, with no blood.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
Even if you have a imbued in your ash heap, they are crypt cards in your ash heap and not allies. Too bad because Imbued having no cost, the dictatrix would come in play with 6 life and a nice special.
So short answer is : does not work
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
While you can't locate your Imbueds in your library since they are crypt cards, the inferior version works with Imbueds (=ally) in your ash heap.
Superior specifically targets with (non-scarce) vampires so that is a no-go.
Finnish Politics!
> Reyda wrote:
> Even if you have a imbued in your ash heap, they are crypt cards in your ash heap and not allies.
>
They're allies and ally cards in your ash heap, as well as crypt cards. Ditto, vampires are both "vampire cards" and "crypt cards" in your ash heap.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/HiTYjONwpzM/iu30Xs43EVAJ
[LSJ 20061108]
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > It would seem unusual for Imbued to be crypt cards but not also ally
> > cards.
>
> Correct.
>
> Imbued are allies.
> Imbued cards are ally cards.
>
It is also, for example, possible to use Compel the Spirit (NEC) and Resurrection (OBE) with Imbued. (Those are the versions that move from ash-heap to in-play, and not hand.)
James, hate ti interuppt, but your post does not really explains point of my question... How does this card interact? Or - Can I summon imbued and under what conditions?
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> James, hate ti interuppt, but your post does not really explains point of my question... How does this card interact? Or - Can I summon imbued and under what conditions?
>
James addresses the inferior level of the card.
For superior level, Lönkka is correct.
Your question being quite vague, do you have anything specific in mind not covered by the previous posts?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Reyda wrote:
> Too bad because Imbued having no cost
>
Wrong, remember Kindred Segregation?
Imbued have a cost equal to their capacity.
Imbued have a recruit cost equal to 0.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/1da7c706c4541208/7159707ce096ec23?lnk=gst&q=imbued+recruit+cost+-author%3Alsj#7159707ce096ec23
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Reyda wrote:
> Ok, my bad, another ruling i didn't read.
>
> so now FFS, is it possible for someone to answer if you can play inferior summon history to bring back an imbued from the ash heap ?
> Anybody with superior knowledge WILLING TO HELP ?
>
You mean Professor Xavier, or Floppy?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
In short: Inferior version can get Imbued from the ash heap (not from uncontrolled region or crypt) with cost as their capacity. Superior version can not get Imbued.
www.vekn.net/index.php/rulebook/appendix-imbued-rules
>
> Their cost is also their starting life, and it is specified on each card individually (like capacity).
>
Jussi Hattara
Webmaster Extraordinaire
Finnish Politics!
> Megabaja wrote:
> Ok.
>
> Do they come with max life or empty/one life?
>
6.1.5.
.
.
When an ally is brought into play (by any means), he receives blood counters from the blood bank to represent his life (listed on the ally's card).
> jhattara wrote:
> In short: Inferior version can get Imbued from the ash heap (not from uncontrolled region or crypt) with cost as their capacity. Superior version can not get Imbued.
>
> www.vekn.net/index.php/rulebook/appendix-imbued-rules
> >
> > Their cost is also their starting life, and it is specified on each card individually (like capacity).
> >
Correct.
And as quoted by Suoli, the Imbued would come in play with an amount of blood counters equal to his/her life (listed on the card).
EDIT: @ Reyda: The fact that Imbueds have a cost isn't a ruling. It's the rules, as written in the Rulebook:
Rulebook,Imbued Appendix wrote:
>
> Their cost is also their starting life, and it is specified on each card individually (like capacity).
>
thank you.
know : providing that "the cost of an ally" and " the cost to recruit an ally" are two separate entity, may I ask a question : is it really worth making the distinction ?
It's an innocent question and no trolling will ensue, I swear
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> know : providing that "the cost of an ally" and " the cost to recruit an ally" are two separate entity, may I ask a question : is it really worth making the distinction ?
>
It flows from the fact that Imbued aren't recruited in recruit actions.
Similarly, an Assault Rifle has a "cost" and a "cost to equip", but not a "cost to be recruited" - because, obviously, they aren't recruited. Similarly, Arika has a cost, but not a cost to be recruited.
At that point, it's just following card text. And while Nights of Reckoning could have changed all sorts of cards (and it might have been nice if it did), that didn't happen. And every ruling/errata/clarification has a "cost", in terms of communication, changing the game etc.
Further, it's probably not a good idea that a political deck can call Kindred Segregation and totally blow an Imbued deck up from more or less nowhere. So the distinction works to overall balance in this case. Or you'd potentially have to issue a ruling collapsing the distinction, but also errata Kindred Segregation.
(Imbued may have been overpowered at various points in the past, but even then, you don't generally achieve useful game balance by creating a single "zOMG my whole deck is on fire" moment. Much like Return to Innocence suddenly whacking you for 14 damage in one go was a bit too much "Aargh, I'm covered in bees".)
(Oh, and then the Daughters deck playing Echo of Harmonies sets your trousers on fire again. Sad face.)
> Reyda wrote:
> thank you.
> know : providing that "the cost of an ally" and " the cost to recruit an ally" are two separate entity, may I ask a question : is it really worth making the distinction ?
> It's an innocent question and no trolling will ensue, I swear
>
It would require to 1/ issue an errata that states that cost and recruitment cost are the same, leading to some confusion "why is it written here cost and here cost to recruit if they are the same?!"
2/ to avoid this confusion, errata Orgy of Blood and Kindred Segregation so they consider the cost of allies and not the recruitment cost.
3/ it would have a big impact on Imbued because of Kindred Segregation that would become an Imbued hoser.
I doubt it's worth it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Further, it's probably not a good idea that a political deck can call Kindred Segregation and totally blow an Imbued deck up from more or less nowhere. So the distinction works to overall balance in this case.
>
Why?
How is this different than any deck playin scourge of enochians and killing any embrace deck?
> Pendargon wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Further, it's probably not a good idea that a political deck can call Kindred Segregation and totally blow an Imbued deck up from more or less nowhere. So the distinction works to overall balance in this case.
> >
> Why?
>
> How is this different than any deck playin scourge of enochians and killing any embrace deck?
>
Because while burning 1 and a bit 2-capacity vampires per cycle round the table is annoying (and I dislike Scourge, but for other reasons), losing 15 pool or 15 pool worth of protagonists right now is totally nuts. Additionally, only one Scourge can be played per game.
More to the point, one does not justify creating face-scrapingly awful clusterfucks by saying "We already have one - why not two?" If Scourge is that bad (it probably isn't), the correct thing to do is fix it, not create more.
> How is this different than any deck playin scourge of enochians and killing any embrace deck?
>
Or any other weenie deck for that matter... Say you have 6 twocaps... They're dead in two turns...
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
>
> > How is this different than any deck playin scourge of enochians and killing any embrace deck?
> >
> Or any other weenie deck for that matter... Say you have 6 twocaps... They're dead in two turns...
>
You really have no friend on the table then.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Because while burning 1 and a bit 2-capacity vampires per cycle round the table is annoying (and I dislike Scourge, but for other reasons), losing 15 pool or 15 pool worth of protagonists right now is totally nuts.
>
Isn't that what Poison Pill is for?
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Megabaja wrote:
> >
> > > How is this different than any deck playin scourge of enochians and killing any embrace deck?
> > >
> > >
> > Or any other weenie deck for that matter... Say you have 6 twocaps... They're dead in two turns...
> >
> You really have no friend on the table then.
>
Same thing would go for imbued ...
And, I do not play small caps and imbued... ever.
EDIT:
Imbued have really petty interaction with cross table buddies... They cannot vote, they usually do not give blood, and they, altogether, cannot do much good cross-table... so I guess Kindred Segregation could burn them without much grief from my side.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> Or any other weenie deck for that matter... Say you have 6 twocaps... They're dead in two turns...
>
Let's say my predator plays it in his turn. Table is A->B->C->D->me. D is my predator, A my prey.
So D plays it. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to C.
My turn (turn 1). I have 5.
Go round the table to C. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to B.
My turn (turn 2). I have 4.
Go round the table to B. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to A.
My turn (turn 3). I have 3.
Go round the table to A. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to me.
My turn (turn 4). I have 2. I have Scourge. I choose not to burn my own vampire! Scourge goes to D. I still have 2.
Go round the table to D. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to C.
My turn (turn 5). I have 1.
Go round the table to C. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to B.
My turn (turn 6). I have 0.
How are you calculating two turns? It does not go forwards round the table, but to your predator, like Millicent.
Further, in the general case, C (grand-predator) and B (grand-prey) do not automatically have an incentive to kill your vampires.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Because while burning 1 and a bit 2-capacity vampires per cycle round the table is annoying (and I dislike Scourge, but for other reasons), losing 15 pool or 15 pool worth of protagonists right now is totally nuts.
> >
> Isn't that what Poison Pill is for?
>
That line of argument means you can support any card, no matter how powerful the effect, so long as there's a single way of causing an upset with it.
That's generally led to really bad times for the game, such as dealing with an unblockable pre-errata Return to Innocence. Even post-errata-pre-ban RtoI, which allowed for a greater range of interactions, was too destabilising. (It actually removed one, but added multiple other ways of defeating it.) RtoI is comparable, in that losing three Imbued can easily be into the same range as RtoI with Arika, which is typically how it was played.
Well James, on my language turn and circle are synonymous terms.
What I meant is: While this card makes two circles around five-men table, weenie deck will die.
And yes, I know that you will assume that game does not last that long, but my meta is such that we have many, many turns instead of tournament's usual 10-12.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> Well James, on my language turn and circle are synonymous terms.
> What I meant is: While this card makes two circles around five-men table, weenie deck will die.
> And yes, I know that you will assume that game does not last that long, but my meta is such that we have many, many turns instead of tournament's usual 10-12.
>
I can't see how you can put losing 15 pool in 1 action and losing 6 2-cap in 10 turns on the same level.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Megabaja wrote:
> What I meant is: While this card makes two circles around five-men table, weenie deck will die.
>
Over 10 complete trips round the table, yes, it's quite possible for a weenie deck to die.
Many cards can destroy a deck if you spend 10 turns without combating them. So don't do that.
If the player who controls Scourge is ousted, the Scourge goes and it cannot be replayed. Weenie Dementation bleed can oust cross-table. Weenie vote (e.g. Legacy of Pander) can too. Breed-boon (e.g. Gratiano Power structure) can probably fuel more weenies with its pool gen, and it can potentially oust cross-table too - many, but by no means all, Con Boon decks include a clutch of offensive votes. You may, of course, get your timing wrong - a player pulls a hitherto unexpected bounce or Delaying Tactics or what have you. Luck, skill and timing play a significant role.
(Weenie rush is somewhat screwed here, but it's screwed in lots of other ways too.)
You can also play the Uncoiling, which is far from perfect, but if you have 10 complete rotations of the table, you've had plenty of time to draw it, play it, and have it go off. Guaranteed? Of course not. But a weenie deck not considering packing Uncoiling is probably missing a trick.
Also, you've had ten complete rotations of the table. That's 10 turns for your weenies to do stuff. Go offensive, oust your prey, and you've got 6 pool - potentially 2 to 3 new weenies for you. If you're playing weenie Tumnimos, 10 turns is plenty of time to crack out Week of Nightmares and destroy a table, ousting Methuselahs in turn.
In those 10 complete rotations of the table where you're sitting on your hands doing nothing:
- Antediluvian Awakening has done up to 50 pool damage (1 pool * 5 meths * 10 rotations)
- Smiling Jack has done something on the order of 160 pool OR blood (OR a combination) damage - 1+2+...+9 = 45, times by 4 other Methuselahs
The response "But I wouldn't sit on my hands doing nothing" applies equally to Scourge. And you can't interact with - for example - Antediluvian yourself as a pure weenie deck, so you can just go on the offensive and oust the crap out of people. If your deck is dead (in ten complete rotations of the table), doesn't matter if you lose your weenies now or then.
There are various criticisms I have of Scourge (most of which are to do with interactivity, rather than outright power), but it's not "Play now, kill a deck now", like a variety of other cards could be or have been.
> And yes, I know that you will assume that game does not last that long, but my meta is such that we have many, many turns instead of tournament's usual 10-12.
>
Then your meta must be an insanely weird one where you play 3-player tables where everyone plays decks that can't hurt other decks and take 1 undirected action per turn that goes unblocked.
That, or you don't play with the intended time limit of 2 hours.
In either case, your meta is not a representation of what the actual game looks like and thus can be completely ignored when it comes to balancing cards.
Scourge shutting down a weenie deck in ~5-8 turns is annoying, but balanced. Kindred Segregation blowing up Imbued decks in one action is not.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Megabaja wrote:
> > Or any other weenie deck for that matter... Say you have 6 twocaps... They're dead in two turns...
> >
> Let's say my predator plays it in his turn. Table is A->B->C->D->me. D is my predator, A my prey.
>
> So D plays it. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to C.
> My turn (turn 1). I have 5.
> Go round the table to C. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to B.
> My turn (turn 2). I have 4.
> Go round the table to B. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to A.
> My turn (turn 3). I have 3.
> Go round the table to A. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to me.
> My turn (turn 4). I have 2. I have Scourge. I choose not to burn my own vampire! Scourge goes to D. I still have 2.
> Go round the table to D. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to C.
> My turn (turn 5). I have 1.
> Go round the table to C. He burns one of my 2 caps. Scourge goes to B.
> My turn (turn 6). I have 0.
>
> How are you calculating two turns? It does not go forwards round the table, but to your predator, like Millicent.
>
> Further, in the general case, C (grand-predator) and B (grand-prey) do not automatically have an incentive to kill your vampires.
>
He forgot to mention that he obviously had played reversal of fortunes first ;D
> In either case, your meta is not a representation of what the actual game looks like and thus can be completely ignored when it comes to balancing cards.
>
Ignored? Why? Our meta is as different as every other is. We have much more table talk than usual - that's all.
And I guess your meta is pure representation of game balance...
Well, Anka, Segregation needs to be in deck, needs to be drawn, needs to be called, then needs to pass, then needs a player that will want to keep all of his minions... and that is a plenty of "needs" to lose 15 pool. And I guess that Imbued will suffer more than any Gangrel Garou deck with three werevolves... Not.
This card is completely unusable against most decks and, in my opinion, would not be overpowered if it would work with 'influence pay' also.
On the other hand, Enochians probably cannot be canceled as played and it can burn at least one weenie before leaving play.
Also, there is a total of five Kindred Segregation cards on TWDA making it one of MVP cards of VtES.
PS - on topic:
I found the card that burns crypt cards.... Yeeeeey. It's Goodnight Sweet Prince... You just need one Ravnos, also pullable with Summon...
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
>
> > In either case, your meta is not a representation of what the actual game looks like and thus can be completely ignored when it comes to balancing cards.
> >
> Ignored? Why? Our meta is as different as every other is. We have much more table talk than usual - that's all.
>
Your meta varies significantly from the standard. While I wouldn't go far enough to agree that your meta can be ignored, it doesn't have nearly as much relevance when it comes to game balance as others, because it is so uncommon. If VTES has to choose between being properly balanced for your games, or for the majority of games, it's an easy choice.
> Segregation needs to be in deck, needs to be drawn, needs to be called,
>
This applies to literally any card ever, and is therefore a ridiculously horrible argument.
> then needs to pass,
>
You've already mentioned earlier that Imbued offer no real cross table support, and have no votes. If this card hits a table with an imbued deck, it will pass because no one has any real incentive to keep the Imbued alive.
> then needs a player that will want to keep all of his minions... and that is a plenty of "needs" to lose 15 pool.
>
That is plenty of "needs", yes. But the first few "needs" qualify for every card and the next "need" is almost automatic. The last "need" comes between 'Will I pay a lot of pool to keep my Imbued or will I just try to play the game without any minions?' Either way, its a loss.
> And I guess that Imbued will suffer more than any Gangrel Garou deck with three werevolves... Not.
>
I'll be honest, I know nothing about Gangrel Garou decks, so I can't say much on this point. But I assume that Gangrel need to be ready to play the allies, whereas most Imbued decks run few or no vampires. So the Gangrel deck loses a lot of resources, but still has at least one ready minion. The Imbued don't have anything left.
> This card is completely unusable against most decks and, in my opinion, would not be overpowered if it would work with 'influence pay' also.
>
Several decks run allies, but I will agree that it is pretty useless. However, it immediately shuts down an Imbued deck (and, apparenttly, a Gangrel Garou deck), thereby making it "overpowered".
> On the other hand, Enochians probably cannot be canceled as played and it can burn at least one weenie before leaving play.
>
Yes, and it takes a very long time to do a severe amount of damage. A long enough time that, in average games, you'll be dead before that point if you haven't ousted the Methuselah controlling it, as was already proposed. Also, against an Imbued deck, as I've already said, though Segregation can be canceled, it won't be, because no one has anything to gain by doing so (save the Imbued deck itself).
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
> This applies to literally any card ever, and is therefore a ridiculously horrible argument.
>
No it doesn't - It's much easier to draw Govern the Unaligned than this card. Assume you have only one copy of it (I never saw more than one in a deck). You need to call it (and imbued have easy access to +1 intercept, and determine). Then it needs to pass (imbued have a minion of capacity 4 that has three votes against)even if no other players would help (guess why?). Then you need to choose to keep 3-4 minions. I you reached the point of the game where you should burn 15 pool and all other Methusaleh's agree on that, you should ask yourself if you are playing right game... Same goes for MonoUna, Nergal crap and Cybelotron.
On the other hand you need to draw Enochians, and as you play it, you immediately burn one weenie. One of your choice, not owners, even a Justicar in a weenie vote.
I have no intention to defend my standpoint for a deck that most of players do not want in their games. While I'm not such hater that I would consider putting Segregation in my decks, I would admire 'till death people who would. Same goes for people who play Whispers of the Nictuku or similar stuff...
> But I assume that Gangrel need to be ready to play the allies, whereas most Imbued decks run few or no vampires.
>
That is really a question for Imbued players. There is plenty of vampires in groups 3,4 and 5. Nobody said it was illegal to mix vampires and imbued.
> as I've already said, though Segregation can be canceled, it won't be, because no one has anything to gain by doing so (save the Imbued deck itself).
>
We agree on that. Same stands for Cybele and Pentex, but nobody thinks Pentex is overpowered just because it hoses one or two decks with star vampires. It is my general point that, if the rest of the table agrees on a single oust, then oust should be completed as soon as possible, so the game might continues in normal manner (which is a rare scene on the tables with Imbued)
Let's draw a parallel - Talking about Kindred Segregation being overpowered (if used as I suggest) in the case of Imbued, is like arguing that Archon Investigation is overpowered versus Lucian, the Perfect as a star vampire of your deck.
What I want to say is:
Kindred Segregation clearly says - "Burn all allies. Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit."
If you follow card by text, you should burn all allies. The you could keep them by repaying their pool cost. Imbued do not have pool cost, so they cannot be saved from burning. This is logical. Ruling as it is ruled now, rules consistency was broken.
Saying that something is allowed just because it has no written text is like, say, using Horrific Countenance after combat just because it has no text barring it.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> What I want to say is:
> Kindred Segregation clearly says - "Burn all allies. Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit."
>
> If you follow card by text, you should burn all imbued.
>
No. If you follow YOUR interpretation of rules reading which is neither the current reading nor logical nor consistent, they should burn.
> Megabaja wrote:
>
> > This applies to literally any card ever, and is therefore a ridiculously horrible argument.
> >
> No it doesn't - It's much easier to draw Govern the Unaligned than this card. Assume you have only one copy of it (I never saw more than one in a deck).
>
Alright, that is a good point. But if you're expecting an Imbued deck at the table and this card gets ruled as you want it to, you'd be ridiculous not to run multiple copies of it. Even if you don't draw it as often as Govern the Unaligned, you still have a great chance of drawing it by turn eight or so (assuming it takes that long for the Imbued to make a strong presence).
> You need to call it (and imbued have easy access to +1 intercept, and determine).
>
That's true, but only applies if the imbued is your prey/predator. Otherwise, it passes automatically. And, as I said before, if Imbued are expected to make an appearance, every deck that can reasonably fit it in should run a couple of copies, so someone cross-table should get one off.
> Then it needs to pass (imbued have a minion of capacity 4 that has three votes against)even if no other players would help (guess why?).
>
Okay, Maman Boumba does have a potential three votes. Let's add one to that from the edge that the Imbued might have. Four votes is the absolute maximum an Imbued player can ever get. You get one automatically from playing the card, if four votes exist on the table, if you have any vote boost in your hand, if someone other than the Imbued player has the edge, or if other players have their own vote cards in their hand to discard, the vote passes.
> Then you need to choose to keep 3-4 minions. I you reached the point of the game where you should burn 15 pool and all other Methusaleh's agree on that, you should ask yourself if you are playing right game... Same goes for MonoUna, Nergal crap and Cybelotron.
>
You can either choose to lose all the pool, cards, and time used getting your Imbued into play, or you can give up essentially all of your remaining pool. And the game is played as someone wants to play the game. There have always been decks where the entire table wants you dead. That's just part of the game. It's supposed to be self-balancing, because the most hated, threatening decks are targeted by the entire table. It doesn't need a rather easy-to-play vote that instantly defeats the deck.
> On the other hand you need to draw Enochians, and as you play it, you immediately burn one weenie. One of your choice, not owners, even a Justicar in a weenie vote.
>
Yes, and lets see how that would likely go with a couple of weenie decks.
Dominate: The Methuselah with Enochians is bled to death by the focused power of five weenies. Enochians goes away forever after defeating one weenie.
Presence: The Methuselah with Enochians is ousted through votes by the power of (likely) three-to-four weenies. Enochians goes away forever after defeating two or three weenies.
Potence: After a long amount of time, with several minions still being torpored, the weenie potence player loses his last minion. During that time, assuming every one of his vampires torps another vampire each turn, 15 vampires have been sent to torpor.
On the other hand, Kindred Segregation with your ruling instantly defeats the Imbued deck, or cripples it to the point of making it impossible for the Imbued to win. Enochians do significant damage to a weenie deck over time, but weenie dominate and presence still have pretty reasonable chances of surviving. (Obviously my examples have no data behind them, but are used as rhetorical examples of how it reasonably could play out)
> I have no intention to defend my standpoint for a deck that most of players do not want in their games. While I'm not such hater that I would consider putting Segregation in my decks, I would admire 'till death people who would. Same goes for people who play Whispers of the Nictuku or similar stuff...
>
If people don't want it in their games, they should concentrate their efforts into ousting it. I hate weenie bleed decks, and there was always a guy at our local games who ran weenie dementation. After the first couple of games, everyone began teaming up on him, rushing his minions and crippling him with votes. Because that's what should happen when the entire table hates one player. There is no need to create a card that instantly destroys a hated deck, because the Methuselahs should have to take some effort to defeat a deck, regardless of how much they hate playing with it.
> > But I assume that Gangrel need to be ready to play the allies, whereas most Imbued decks run few or no vampires.
> >
> That is really a question for Imbued players. There is plenty of vampires in groups 3,4 and 5. Nobody said it was illegal to mix vampires and imbued.
>
No its not, it's just not common. It's also not illegal for every deck to run !Toreador, but it would be stupid for every deck to run Obsession, just in case. People can play whatever they want, but strong decks have to work well together, and Imbued work better with Imbued than vampires. Running random cards just because it's not illegal will easily cripple your deck.
> > as I've already said, though Segregation can be canceled, it won't be, because no one has anything to gain by doing so (save the Imbued deck itself).
> >
> We agree on that. Same stands for Cybele and Pentex, but nobody thinks Pentex is overpowered just because it hoses one or two decks with star vampires. It is my general point that, if the rest of the table agrees on a single oust, then oust should be completed as soon as possible, so the game might continues in normal manner (which is a rare scene on the tables with Imbued)
>
The game is defined by what's on the table. I've said it several times before and justified my point, so all I'll repeat is that a hated deck knows it goes into the game 4-vs-1, which is often crippling enough to not need a 100% hosing card.
> Let's draw a parallel - Talking about Kindred Segregation being overpowered (if used as I suggest) in the case of Imbued, is like arguing that Archon Investigation is overpowered versus Lucian, the Perfect as a star vampire of your deck.
>
I can understand your parallel, but still disagree with it, because an Archon Investigation on Lucian is not an instant defeat. You still have other vampires, and while your deck has suffered a huge loss, you have a chance at making a comeback. The Imbued deck loses everything at once, and has no chance at a comeback.
> Kindred Segregation clearly says - "Burn all allies. Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit."
>
> If you follow card by text, you should burn all allies. The you could keep them by repaying their pool cost. Imbued do not have pool cost, so they cannot be saved from burning. This is logical. Ruling as it is ruled now, rules consistency was broken.
> Saying that something is allowed just because it has no written text is like, say, using Horrific Countenance after combat just because it has no text barring it.
>
Imbued are allies. They have no pool cost. Ergo, their pool cost is zero. Horrific Countenance is not a combat card. It has no text allowing it after combat. Ergo, it cannot be played after combat.
Zero is not equivalent to unplayable.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
> Megabaja wrote:
> Well, Anka, Segregation needs to be in deck, needs to be drawn, needs to be called, then needs to pass, then needs a player that will want to keep all of his minions... and that is a plenty of "needs" to lose 15 pool. And I guess that Imbued will suffer more than any Gangrel Garou deck with three werevolves... Not.
>
WG decks play 1 Break the Code to be able to rush Imbued. Some decks include 1 or 2 copies of Fear of Mekhet to destroy IC/Justicars. Each time they hit the table, there's a big swing in the game. Playing a card that would deal 15 pool of damage to an Imbued (and handle other allies decks) would most probably find some slots.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
@121
>
> I can understand your parallel, but still disagree with it, because an Archon Investigation on Lucian is not an instant defeat.
>
Really? Have you tried to play with 11 pool less? At least three turns to influence this vampire back, keeping in mind that he can rarely act before fourth turn, pretty much ends your game. You do not want a game with seven turns without your star vampire.
> You still have other vampires, and while your deck has suffered a huge loss, you have a chance at making a comeback. The Imbued deck loses everything at once, and has no chance at a comeback.
>
As I previously wrote, you lose as much pool as is the cost of minions you want to keep. If you want to keep everyone, well that's expensive. Same goes for Big Guns Deck with Peace Treaty or Guillaume Giovanni and Jericho Founding. If you want to keep your minion at any cost, the worst card is Temptation of Greater Power.
@Anka:
>
> Playing a card that would deal 15 pool of damage to an Imbued (and handle other allies decks) would most probably find some slots.
>
I guess that you do not put Temptation of Greater Power in every justicar deck just because it can potentially damage some decks.
@Ohlmann:
> [tem] Search your library and/or ash heap for an ally, retainer or equipment whose cost is X or less. Put that card in play (on this vampire and with starting life from the bank as needed).
>
> Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit.
>
If imbued are allies and their cost is 0 in case of Segregation, how comes that their cost is their capacity in the case of Summon History? If Mylan the Goblin is an ally, and his cost is the same in case of both cards, how comes that, in case of any Imbued - that is an ally also, this cost is different for Kindred Segregation and Summon History? If the cost to recruit is looked at in case of Segregation, then it should be looked in case of Summon History also.
Ignorance is bliss.
Cypher, Matrix
> Megabaja wrote:
> @121
> >
> > I can understand your parallel, but still disagree with it, because an Archon Investigation on Lucian is not an instant defeat.
> >
> Really? Have you tried to play with 11 pool less? At least three turns to influence this vampire back, keeping in mind that he can rarely act before fourth turn, pretty much ends your game. You do not want a game with seven turns without your star vampire.
>
I agree with your point here. Right now, all we're arguing over on this topic is the subjective opinion on whether losing Lucian is comparable or not to losing all Imbued. I have nothing new to add now, but feel free to continue discussing this point if you would like to add anything more.
> > You still have other vampires, and while your deck has suffered a huge loss, you have a chance at making a comeback. The Imbued deck loses everything at once, and has no chance at a comeback.
> >
> As I previously wrote, you lose as much pool as is the cost of minions you want to keep. If you want to keep everyone, well that's expensive. Same goes for Big Guns Deck with Peace Treaty or Guillaume Giovanni and Jericho Founding. If you want to keep your minion at any cost, the worst card is Temptation of Greater Power.
>
Yes, but assuming they don't want to keep all of their minions, they lose several turns worth of time and resources. The Big Guns Deck still has acting minions, as much as it has suffered. Guillaume Giovanni loses his extra hand size, but can still act. The Imbued deck has to choose between paying several pool or giving up its ability to act. At this point, the Imbued player has to give up around eight pool for the privilege of continuing the game with two minions.
And I will agree, Temptation of Greater Power is the worst for minion wiping. But it's a master card (generally more powerful), requires a ready justicar, and you have a chance to bid for your own minion. And I know that you can pay for your own minion with Kindred Segregation, but the significant difference is that Kindred Segregation removes all minions instead of one and only the Imbued player suffers from it. With Temptation of Greater Power, whoever attempts to steal your minion has to pay a great amount of pool.
> @Anka:
> >
> > Playing a card that would deal 15 pool of damage to an Imbued (and handle other allies decks) would most probably find some slots.
> >
> I guess that you do not put Temptation of Greater Power in every justicar deck just because it can potentially damage some decks.
>
For reasons already discussed, players really hate Imbued decks. If a card instantly defeats Imbued decks, why not remove a card already in your deck that slightly damages them in exchange for an instant defeat?
> @Ohlmann:
>
> > [tem] Search your library and/or ash heap for an ally, retainer or equipment whose cost is X or less. Put that card in play (on this vampire and with starting life from the bank as needed).
> >
> > Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit.
> >
> If imbued are allies and their cost is 0 in case of Segregation, how comes that their cost is their capacity in the case of Summon History? If Mylan the Goblin is an ally, and his cost is the same in case of both cards, how comes that, in case of any Imbued - that is an ally also, this cost is different for Kindred Segregation and Summon History? If the cost to recruit is looked at in case of Segregation, then it should be looked in case of Summon History also.
>
For whatever reason, 'cost' and 'recruit cost' are ruled as two separate things (possibly to prevent this very scenario of Kindred Segregation being broken). For Imbued, cost = capacity (Because that is the total influence required to control the Imbued). Recruit cost = 0 (Because when you bring an Imbued out, you technically pay no pool. All you have done is transfer pool).
Since Summon History says 'cost', the Imbued must have a capacity of X or less. Since Kindred Segregation says 'recruit cost', you must pay 0 to keep every Imbued alive (or, theoretically, you could allow any of your Imbued to burn by refusing to pay the recruit cost of 0).
As for Mylan Horseed, since he is not an Imbued, his cost = recruit cost = 1. Therefore, you must pay one to play him with Summon History or to keep him alive after a Kindred Segregation.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
> Megabaja wrote:
> @Anka:
> >
> > Playing a card that would deal 15 pool of damage to an Imbued (and handle other allies decks) would most probably find some slots.
> >
> I guess that you do not put Temptation of Greater Power in every justicar deck just because it can potentially damage some decks.
>
I do put ToGP in every justicar deck I play. Why wouldn't I play one of the most powerful cards available for this kind of deck? And I play Giant's Blood in every deck on mine as soon as I play a vampire with capacity 6 or more.
> Megabaja wrote:
> @Ohlmann:
>
> > [tem] Search your library and/or ash heap for an ally, retainer or equipment whose cost is X or less. Put that card in play (on this vampire and with starting life from the bank as needed).
> >
> > Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit.
> >
> If imbued are allies and their cost is 0 in case of Segregation, how comes that their cost is their capacity in the case of Summon History?
>
Because it's written in the rules. Your emphasis on Kindred Segregation is wrong, it's : Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying their pool cost to recruit. Imbued are not recruited. Their "pool cost to recruit" is 0.
> Megabaja wrote:
> If Mylan the Goblin is an ally, and his cost is the same in case of both cards, how comes that, in case of any Imbued - that is an ally also, this cost is different for Kindred Segregation and Summon History? If the cost to recruit is looked at in case of Segregation, then it should be looked in case of Summon History also.
>
Blahblah moot.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director