Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter for November. Vol. 2 No. 1.

Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter for November 2000 Vol. 2 No. 1 This issue is dedicated to "a friend." Hello? The Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter writer has awakened from his deep comatose slumber and has found himself in the midst of a deadly battle for control of the U.S. between the Sabbat and Camarilla. Actually it's the national election between the Republicans and the Democrats, but close enough . . . there's new cards in any case. I didn't expect the kind of !Malk support in the new expansion. It's great! In this edition, I'll briefly list the new !Malk and dementation cards and post a new deck I created. Expect further focus on each card in the future . . . ------------- Vamps: Dolphin Black 6 AUS OBF DEM Idalia, Prophet of Guadalajara 4 AUS dem untap if successfully equips Kite 7 DEM AUS obf pre +1 intercept In summary: these are great, much needed vamps that round out the clan perfectly. Dementation cards: Haunting, The Action Common (D) Put this card on any minion. The minion with this card burns one blood or life during his or her untap phase. Any minion can burn this card as an action. A minion can have only one of The Haunting. SUP: As above, but this action is at +1 stealth. Lunatic Eruption Action Rare Blood Cost: 2 (D) Put this card on any ready minion. During his or her minion phase, the minion with this card must enter combat with a ready minion controlled by his prey as a (D) action (unless the minion must hunt). Any minion may burn this card as an action. SUP: As above, and the minion taking the action to burn this card takes one damage (damage not preventable) when this card is burned. Patterns in the Chaos Action Modifier Rare Only usable when a bleed is successful. Look at the top card in the library of the Methuselah being bled. SUP: Only usable when a bleed is successful. Look at the cards in the hand of the Methuselah being bled. Personal Scourge Combat Common Strike: 1 damage, only usable at close range. This damage cannot be prevented by equipment or cards that require fortitude. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. SUP: As above, with an optional press, only usable to end combat. Restructure Action Blood Cost 1 Put this card on an ally. This ally does not untap as normal during his or her controller's untap phase. His or her controller can burn a pool during his or her untap phase to untap this ally. SUP: Take control of an ally controlled by another Methuselah. Total Insanity Action (D) Put this card on an ally or a younger vampire. The minion with this card has -1 stealth. During this minion's untap phase, put a counter on this card from the blood bank. Burn this card when it has 3 counters on it. SUP: As above, and the minion with this card cannot play action cards. Voice of Madness Reaction Only usable when this vampire successfully blocks an ally or younger vampire. Tap this reacting vampire. Combat does not occur. SUP: As above, and the acting minion burns one blood or life. In summary: again, great stuff. Increase the !Malks ability to mess with your vamps and allies individually. !Malk only cards: Combat Rare Reality Mirror Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap, and use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from your hand (pay cost as normal). If the card requires a discipline this vampire does not have, you can only use the basic ability of that card. Only one Reality Mirror can be played during a game. In summary: really cool. If only I had one. Deck concept. Haunted by Voices The idea behind this deck is to mostly use The Haunting (which, you'll recall, makes a minion lose one blood during each untap) and Voice of Madness (which is like obedience but makes the blocked minion lose one blood). They are a perfect compliment, as you block someone who is trying to get rid of the Haunting and make them lose even more blood! Lunatic eruption would work for the deck, but I don't have any. I did include Society of Leopold as it is similar to The Haunting (and will burn folks when they have no more blood). Hannibal's special ability fits neatly in (particularly in games that have a lot of Sabbat, which should be most of the games for quite a while). So, basically what you do is put the Haunting on a minion and block any attempts to get rid of it. If blocking resorts to combat, prevent damage with the jackets and pull fangs. That way they won't be able to hunt for more blood (and if they have to hunt they go to torpor). There's also some basic bleed too. Anyway, I'm trying it out tomorrow night. If you want to try predicting what will happen, please do. As you'll see, I don't have many of the new cards, so think of this as a prototype and a deck that will improve with trading! ----------------- Haunted by Voices Vamps: 3x Hannibal 2x Kite (his +1 intercept is very helpful for this deck) Muriel Foucade Idalia, Prophet of Guadalajara Dolphin Black Yorik Claven Korah Boy Toy Cards: Masters 3x Minion Tap 3x Blood Doll 3x Society of Leopold 2x Institution Hunting Ground XTC Laced Blood (works great prior to pulled fangs) Purchase Pact Dementation 3x Mind Tricks 4x Kindred Spirits 4x Eyes of Chaos 2x The Haunting (please sir . . .) Coma Voice of Madness (can I have some more?) Obfuscate 5x Swallowed by the Night 4x Faceless Night 3x Lost in Crowds Auspex 5x Telepathic Counter 5x Precognition 5x Eagle's Sight 5x Spirit's Touch Misc 5x Lucky Blow 5x Flak Jacket 5x Leather Jacket 5x Pulled Fangs 2x Arson (to get rid of pesky blood transferring hunting grounds) 2x Eternal Vigilance (ideally put on Hannibal) 3x Wake with Minty Freshness 2x Forced Awakening Taste of Vitae That's all for now. Catch you later. paan...@ix.netcom.com Neil Paananen Archbishop of Denver

Woooohooooo! Thanks Neil wonderful cards, definately enabling the !Malks the pranksters they were meant to be. Voice of Madness and Lunatic Eruption are the coolest cards ever. makes my s&b easier to defend. for some reason everytime i play there is always a bully brujah in the game. Lunatic Eruption if he's my prey, making Cruez my bitch, and Voice of Madness if he's my predator to keep him at bay. Idalia, mi princesa latina, has a wonderful ability for equiping the enchanted marionette.(I love that damn clown.) Oh and Dolphin Black paired with Korah make a killer combo. mega cost efficient and they can play any card in my deck at superior. I just need a high cap vamp to use voice of madness for the block. and a couple mid cap vamps to bleed my prey. yumm yumm yumm keep those newsletters comin Neil "Pentex loves me!" Skippy Malk-Antitribu

> !Malk only cards: > Combat > Rare > Reality Mirror > Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap, and use > the ability of that card as if that card had been played from your hand (pay > cost as normal). If the card requires a discipline this vampire does not > have, you can only use the basic ability of that card. Only one Reality > Mirror can be played during a game. What!? Only one *per game*? How useful will this card ever be? You don't want to include too many because, after all, it can only be used *once*, ever. But including too few, which is just about required, is useless because it significanly reduces the odds of you drawing one. I can understand why cards like Giant's Blood (well, not really GB), Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence can only be used once per game, but Reality Mirror? It's effect doesn't come nearly close to the effect that the aforementioned cards have. I could understand once per combat, but once per *game*? Why? Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

Sorrow wrote: > > > !Malk only cards: > > Combat > > Rare > > Reality Mirror > > Choose a combat card in the opposing minion's controller's ash heap, and > > use the ability of that card as if that card had been played from your hand > > (pay cost as normal). If the card requires a discipline this vampire does not > > have, you can only use the basic ability of that card. Only one Reality > > Mirror can be played during a game. > > What!? Only one *per game*? How useful will this card ever be? > You don't want to include too many because, after all, it can only be > used *once*, ever. But including too few, which is just about required, > is useless because it significanly reduces the odds of you drawing one. > I can understand why cards like Giant's Blood (well, not really GB), > Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence can only be used once > per game, but Reality Mirror? It's effect doesn't come nearly close > to the effect that the aforementioned cards have. I'm not so sure. I think the strength of the card is that you have the opposing meth's entire graveyard to choose from. And you get to use his card at the basic ability even when your vampire doesn't have the discipline at all. If your opponent just used a combat card to maneuver to long or press to continue, you can press or maneuver back. If by some quirk or by deck design you manage to outdamage an opposing Brujah, you might be able to use his own Disarm against him. I'm sure there's other interesting uses that this can be put to at various times. I think this is going to be a card people whose strength people will discover over time. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be very good for the type of player who thinks on his feet well - of which sadly, I'm not an example. At the very least, it will be a fun card, though. Fred

> > What!? Only one *per game*? How useful will this card ever be? > > You don't want to include too many because, after all, it can only be > > used *once*, ever. But including too few, which is just about required, > > is useless because it significanly reduces the odds of you drawing one. > > I can understand why cards like Giant's Blood (well, not really GB), > > Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence can only be used once > > per game, but Reality Mirror? It's effect doesn't come nearly close > > to the effect that the aforementioned cards have. > I'm not so sure. I think the strength of the card is that you have the > opposing meth's entire graveyard to choose from. But combat cards only. > And you get to use his card at the basic ability even when your vampire > doesn't have the discipline at all. This isn't dissimilar to allies using combat cards that require a discipline. > If your opponent just used a combat card to maneuver to long or > press to continue, you can press or maneuver back. Right. But you wasted a card that you could only ever use *once* on a maneuver. > If by some quirk or by deck design you manage to outdamage an > opposing Brujah, Once, ever > you might be able to use his own Disarm against him. True. But once, ever. Also, once you've used that Disarm, it is no longer in the ashheap to be used again. > I'm sure there's other interesting uses that this can be put to at various times. Indeed. But only once, ever. And only using *combat cards*. There are no overpowering combat cards in the game. Certainly none that would cause this card to be only usable *once per game*. > I think this is going to be a card people whose strength people will > discover over time. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be very good > for the type of player who thinks on his feet well Yes, but how amazing a "play" would it ever be if you can only use it once in a game? Or, if you never even draw it. Where this card is going to be really useful is when the !Malk blocks. The !Malk will be able to use whatever card the opposing acting minion used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But it costs the !Malk 4 blood. Plus, the !Malk has to worry about the damage they are going to take on top of the total cost. There aren't that many (if any) really abusable combos that would not already carry a significant cost (not including the fact that RM is usable only once per game). I think that once per combat would have been a fair way to reign the card in. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

Sorrow wrote: > used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror > and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But > it costs the !Malk 4 blood. Plus, the !Malk has to worry about the > damage they are going to take on top of the total cost. Burning Wrath costs 3 blood, not 4. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror > > and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But > > it costs the !Malk 4 blood. Plus, the !Malk has to worry about the > > damage they are going to take on top of the total cost. > Burning Wrath costs 3 blood, not 4. Indeed. I thought RM cost a blood making the total cost '4'. While you are paying attention to this thread, LSJ, could you explain exactly *why* this card was made to be playable only once per game? The only thing the rest of us can do is speculate and this just seems to be way too harsh a restriction. Sorrow --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

Sorrow wrote: > While you are paying attention to this thread, LSJ, could you > explain exactly *why* this card was made to be playable only > once per game? The only thing the rest of us can do is speculate > and this just seems to be way too harsh a restriction. (O'er brief initial reply canceled. My apologies to any who had to suffer through two replies). Why it was made one way instead of another is no really useful for a design, unless the design is "obviously" flawed (cf. Concealed Weapon). The Whys are only interesting for cards that are changed. One doesn't ask why Flame Thrower costs 4 pool instead of 3, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > While you are paying attention to this thread, LSJ, could you > > explain exactly *why* this card was made to be playable only > > once per game? The only thing the rest of us can do is speculate > > and this just seems to be way too harsh a restriction. > Why it was made one way instead of another is no really useful for > a design, unless the design is "obviously" flawed (cf. Concealed Weapon). Not true. The "Why" with regards to the superior Fata Morgana would be useful. > The Whys are only interesting for cards that are changed. Again, not true. So noone would ever be interested in "why" Pier 13 costs 2 instead of 1? > One doesn't ask why Flame Thrower costs 4 pool instead of 3, for > example. But we know why. It costs that much because it has an effect that justifies it. Reality Mirror does not have such a cost, it seems to me. Since the card doesn't seem to have a justified cost, it's perfectly valid to wonder why and so is why I asked in the first place. If you really didn't want to answer, you could have just said "It's a secret". That's essentially what you are saying here anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

>One doesn't ask why Flame Thrower costs 4 pool instead of 3, for >example. One assumes it is for card balance. Reality Mirror doesn't appear balanced. It appears to be an incredibly cool card that has no play value. I can certainly understand the frustration with having this card and having no way to make use of it that matters. Even with all the errata that exists for the game, there is probably little desire to add more. However, in an ideal world, maybe a change to once per turn, once per action, or once per combat would make some sense ... unless those of us who haven't played it yet are missing some abusive combo, which is what Sorrow was trying to elicit.

> > Yes, but how amazing a "play" would it ever be if you can only use it > > once in a game? Or, if you never even draw it. > Well, sure. So it's only good once a game if you draw it. I don't how > that's actually a drawback, though. The fact that it is a combat card that you can only ever use once. How is the fact that it is a one shot not a draw back? I mean, if you don't really care whether or not you use any particular card, why bother putting it in your deck in the first place? > You don't have to put more than one copy in your deck to use it once. True. But if you don't put more than one in your deck, the odds of you drawing it go way down. > deck slots than the number of times you'll be allowed to use it. It just > means you can't go to the same well over and over and over. The once in > a while you do draw it, though, you can do some interesting things with it. Not anything that interesting. And certainly not anything that is abusable. And because the effect it has isn't all that great, if, on the infrequent occasion that you do happen to draw it, what would it ever do for you? Unless you have a combat opponent, it's use is going to be marginal at best. Against a combat opponent, it's only ever be just a bit more useful. Let's also look at the fact that it is a combat card. When you are planning out your combat strategy, you are going to use cards/strategies that are going to be consistent. Anti-combat? Include lots of Dodges, Maneuvers and S:CE if possible. Combat? Include a lot of damage dealing and anti- anti-combat cards. Whatever it is you are doing in combat, you are going to want to be able to have it available when you need it. RM, however, is something totally different. It is something that you'd include only for the chuckle factor in seeing what you could possibly use it for. It's not going to be there when you need it (either you've included too few or too many and you've already used it once) and when it is there, the odds of it being able to help you with your current combat strategy is 50/50 at best. > > Where this card is going to be really useful is when the !Malk blocks. > > The !Malk will be able to use whatever card the opposing acting minion > > used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror > > and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But > > it costs the !Malk 4 blood. > Man, you're totally losing me here. 1) Who cares about the card you're > quote "using" unquote out of your opponents graveyard. I don't see what > practical effect that has. Exactly. So why bother limiting RM's use to once per game? And the point I was trying to illustrate was an instance where RM is moderately useful/powerful and even in that instance it's not un- balanced. And if it can only be used once per game, why bother including it? There are better things to include. > And 2) why would the !Malk pay 4 blood to use a Burning Wrath? Reality > Mirror has no cost that I can see. This was caught by LSJ as well. I thought RM cost 1 blood. 1 blood and once per combat would have been a much more balanced cost than the one currently in place. This would have at least made the card more useful than it is now. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

> Since it's so marginal, it doesn't particularly matter how often or how > rarely it can be played in a game, nu? It does matter because this sets a precedent. > RM is clearly a shits-n-grins card like Madness of the Bard, Malkavian > Game, or Time Auction with non-stupid players. I love it when people patronize me. It makes me feel all warm and tingly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh! White-Wolf please change this card. This card is not worth putting in a deck if i can only use it once. A deck should be so carefully constructed that not one card space is wasted. In my opinion putting more than one of this card in a deck is wasteful. oh yeah, whoever said you'll be able to outdamage a brujah with this card is flippin nuts. now, stealing an additional strike and Coma-ing someone is an idea. "Hands.. touchin hands.... reachin out.......touchin me..... touchin youuuuuuuuuu.... sweet caroliiiiiine, bah bah bah....good times never felt sooo good." uh , hehe, sorry bout that Skippy "Affected by the Bard's madness." !Malk

All right kids, i want a clean fight. No eye gouging or shots to the nads. Come out of your corners and play real nice. :-) Skippy "Raging rowdy referee." !Malk

> Goddam, you're a prickly bastard. Indeed. I always have been > the 1998 version of Noal McDonald (rather than the Kinder > Gentler Pod Person that seems to have replaced him), Don't let him hear you say that. :p > but you've always been first in line at the Bitching Table. I just call things as I see them. > Until such time as you run out my patience, however, > kindly refrain from finding insult where there is none. My apologies then. It just appeared that was it was. Evidently I took it the wrong way. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > I think this is going to be a card people whose strength people will > > discover over time. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be very good > > for the type of player who thinks on his feet well > > Yes, but how amazing a "play" would it ever be if you can only use it > once in a game? Or, if you never even draw it. Well, sure. So it's only good once a game if you draw it. I don't how that's actually a drawback, though. You don't have to put more than one copy in your deck to use it once. It's not like it needs to take up more deck slots than the number of times you'll be allowed to use it. It just means you can't go to the same well over and over and over. The once in a while you do draw it, though, you can do some interesting things with it. > Where this card is going to be really useful is when the !Malk blocks. > The !Malk will be able to use whatever card the opposing acting minion > used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror > and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But > it costs the !Malk 4 blood. Man, you're totally losing me here. 1) Who cares about the card you're quote "using" unquote out of your opponents graveyard. I don't see what practical effect that has. You take it out of his graveyard, point it at him, and put it back in his graveyard. And 2) why would the !Malk pay 4 blood to use a Burning Wrath? Reality Mirror has no cost that I can see. Fred

In article <zwIO5.7349$A2.5...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >RM, however, is >something totally different. It is something that you'd include only for >the >chuckle factor in seeing what you could possibly use it for. It's not going >to be there when you need it (either you've included too few or too many >and you've already used it once) and when it is there, the odds of it being >able to help you with your current combat strategy is 50/50 at best. Since it's so marginal, it doesn't particularly matter how often or how rarely it can be played in a game, nu? RM is clearly a shits-n-grins card like Madness of the Bard, Malkavian Game, or Time Auction with non-stupid players. gomi -- "I wanted to feel that tug of a body as it jerks and kicks while I hold the handle and the life erupts from it like water from the cold springs of the Eastern Mountains. That's what I wanted, and what you want makes you who you are." - Steven Brust, Teckla

In article <A7JO5.7418$A2.5...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >I love it when people patronize me. It makes me feel all warm and >tingly. Goddam, you're a prickly bastard. I'd say you're channeling for the 1998 version of Noal McDonald (rather than the Kinder Gentler Pod Person that seems to have replaced him), but you've always been first in line at the Bitching Table. When I patronize you, Sorrow, you'll know it. It'll sound like I'm talking down to you. Until such time as you run out my patience, however, kindly refrain from finding insult where there is none. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <DDJO5.7455$A2.5...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >My apologies then. It just appeared that was it was. Evidently >I took it the wrong way. Accepted! But on a calmer note -- you _do_ seem to have more negative things to say about expansions-in-general than the average newsgroup fellow (casting about here from my possibly fuzzy memory of Years Agone). Are the bad things the ones you get all vocal about, or do you really feel that, on balance, there's more Problem Cards than Good Things coming out of the House of Rules n' Cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Yes, but how amazing a "play" would it ever be if you can only use it > > > once in a game? Or, if you never even draw it. > > Well, sure. So it's only good once a game if you draw it. I don't how > > that's actually a drawback, though. > > The fact that it is a combat card that you can only ever use once. How > is the fact that it is a one shot not a draw back? I mean, if you don't > really care whether or not you use any particular card, why bother putting > it in your deck in the first place? > > > You don't have to put more than one copy in your deck to use it once. > > True. But if you don't put more than one in your deck, the odds of you > drawing it go way down. No. The odds of drawing a single card never change. The accumulated odds of drawing one of a number of cards that you've placed in the deck are greater than the odds of drawing a single card (well, duh!), but you have pay for that by spending multiple card slots on them. On reflection, though, I take back my comment about it not being a drawback. It actually is a bit of a drawback to only be able to effectively use a single copy of a card because you can't focus a deck around a card like that - there's no point to building in support cards that would have synergy for a single copy of RM. I'm not really sure what support you'd give it anyway so I doubt it matters much, though. Still, I think it might be reasonable to throw that one copy into most !Malk decks, or decks that are largely !Malk. I think it's probably useful for things like canceling an opposing maneuver or press or opportunistically using an opponent's previous strike against one of his minions. But if you only like combat cards you can devise a whole strategy around, no, this one isn't it. > Unless you > have a combat opponent, it's use is going to be marginal at best. Against a > combat opponent, it's only ever be just a bit more useful. I'm not sure that's true. The fact that it allows you to use a combat card's discipline at basic since extremely flexible to me. I can't come up with any specific examples. But I'm betting people will come up with more good uses in the course of real games than you're expecting. > > > Where this card is going to be really useful is when the !Malk blocks. > > > The !Malk will be able to use whatever card the opposing acting minion > > > used after they've used it. But at the cost of both the Reality Mirror > > > and the card used. You use Burning Wrath on me? I use it on you. But > > > it costs the !Malk 4 blood. > > > > Man, you're totally losing me here. 1) Who cares about the card you're > > quote "using" unquote out of your opponents graveyard. I don't see what > > practical effect that has. > > Exactly. So why bother limiting RM's use to once per game? I suspect that was done out of fear that allowing wholesale use of the card may allow someone to break it. While I agree that that seems unlikely, this card is sufficiently wild that I can understand the conservatism about it. > And the point I was trying to illustrate was an instance where RM is > moderately useful/powerful and even in that instance it's not un- > balanced. And if it can only be used once per game, why bother > including it? There are better things to include. I think it's a classic toolbox card. At least, it seems to me to be worth playing with. Maybe you're right. But I don't think we'll know until we actually draw it in a competitive game. Fred

Sorrow wrote: > > > Since it's so marginal, it doesn't particularly matter how often or how > > rarely it can be played in a game, nu? > > It does matter because this sets a precedent. Um, Giant's Blood? (Thought you brought that one up yourself.) Anything unique, which isn't exactly the same but has practically the same effect for the most part. Fred

In article <3A0B5BA7...@here.com>, A friend <m...@here.com> wrote: > Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh! > > White-Wolf please change this card. > > This card is not worth putting in a deck if i can only use it once. A > deck should > be so carefully constructed that not one card space is wasted. In my > opinion putting > more than one of this card in a deck is wasteful. It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. > > oh yeah, whoever said you'll be able to outdamage a brujah with this > card is flippin nuts. now, stealing an additional strike and Coma-ing > someone is an idea. > > "Hands.. touchin hands.... reachin out.......touchin me..... touchin > youuuuuuuuuu.... > sweet caroliiiiiine, bah bah bah....good times never felt sooo good." > uh , hehe, sorry bout that > > Skippy "Affected by the Bard's madness." > !Malk i think you got it right in an earlier post when you said the !Malkies have been made the psychopathic pranksters of VTES. Reality Mirror and Lunatic Eruption do this nicely IMO and aren't as ludicrously table- destabilising as malkavian Game and Prank or Game of Malkav. But to move them in the direction you seem to be advocating would make the !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think would be silly. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8ugjqp$m2k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Be that as it may, still Blessing of Chaos, Mind of a Child, Coma of Disguised weapons decks are very scary IMO. Heh Mr Brujah, no disciplines hahaha. Check out Mr Templar coming to get you. Coma...munch munch, and all the princes are Deranged..hahahaha. [Other that that, you are right though] Tim > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > -- PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Since it's so marginal, it doesn't particularly matter how often or how > > > rarely it can be played in a game, nu? > > It does matter because this sets a precedent. > Um, Giant's Blood? (Thought you brought that one up yourself.) Also Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence. The bad precedent being set here is the fact that it is a *combat* card that is being restricted in this manner. The most a combat card should ever be restricted to is once per combat. Otherwise, why bother printing it as a combat card? Masters you can only play once per turn already (barring special circumstances). Action cards, too, only once per turn per minion (barring special circumstances). Combat cards, however, can flow freely for the most part (barring special circumstances). You can play as many maneuvers as you need to, presses as you need to, strikes, additional strikes, modifiers. Most to all can be played multiple times not only in a particular combat but within each seperate combat. With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. > Anything unique, which isn't exactly the same but has practically the same > effect for the most part. Except that even with unique cards, you can still play them. If you do, it'll contest the card, but you are not restricted as to whether or not you can actually take it from your hand and put it into play. RM, however, mimics the wording on GB, PS and PA where you can only ever play it once. If you get other copies, the best you can do is discard them. You cannot play it to no effect. This restriction for a *combat card*? That's just wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] I agree that there seems to be a bad precedent in limiting a combat card like this, but keep in mind that the !Malks are not a combat clan, nor is Dementation a combat discipline. While I don't see the card as being very usefull, a copied Skin of Steel can be a lifesaver at times. Tim [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ugn85$ofk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough! Lots of moving parts, though, and arguably not a competitive deck, though fun to play. i certainly agree with you that ALL the clans, even the apparently-feeble Malkies and !Malkies have [and should have] decent combat strategies available to them - both for fighting hard and for running away hard. All of these require thoughtful deck construction, and careful consideration both before and during play of table dynamics. But unlimited Reality mirrors would effectively be counter-spells to any and all combat strategies, and that would be bad IMO, because it would require no thought at all. <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a >sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. Please, a real combat deck would deal out so much damage that anything i could do with RM would pale in comparison, barely worth it, especially if i can only use it once a game. > But to move > them in the direction you seem to be advocating would make the > !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think would be > silly. > > > > > I never conteded that the !Malks were a combat clan. I know that for sure. Malkavian Game, game of malkav and malkavian prank are different cards altogther. They are definately prank cards in the spirit of the clan (oooh i'm gonna screw with you and your mother). RM is a different card. It's more of a defense (don't hit me or i'll hit you back).but, you can only use it once, what kind of fun is that? Skippy "Crazy bastard" !Malk

[snip] > But unlimited Reality mirrors would effectively be counter-spells to any > and all combat strategies, and that would be bad IMO, because it would > require no thought at all. > Ah, there we totally agree. I was referring to the combat part of the clan. But you would need something to back RM up too. I can see the Infernal Familiar deck getting way too powerfull with unlimited PM as it could actually do something hidiously effective with it. But limiting it to once per game for a combat card seems to nuter it too much. Would be better if it were an out-of-turn master, instead of a combat card IMO. Tim -- PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > You don't have to put more than one copy in your deck to use it once. > > True. But if you don't put more than one in your deck, the odds of you > > drawing it go way down. > No. The odds of drawing a single card never change. The accumulated odds of > drawing one of a number of cards that you've placed in the deck are greater > than the odds of drawing a single card (well, duh!), but you have pay for that > by spending multiple card slots on them. This is essentially what I said. If I put 10 Immortal Grapples in my deck, the odds of me drawing an Immortal Grapple are roughly 1 in 9, I believe. If I put only one in my deck, the odds just went down to 1 in 90. Again, I believe. That one may be at the top of the deck after you shuffle, it may be at the bottom. But the odds are still significantly lower than if you put multiple copies in. > On reflection, though, I take back my comment about it not being a drawback. > It actually is a bit of a drawback to only be able to effectively use a single > copy of a card because you can't focus a deck around a card like that - there's > no point to building in support cards that would have synergy for a single copy > of RM. And when you are dealing with combat, you need some sort of focus: damage prevention, combat ends, heavy damage, etc. You cannot afford to throw in things that might be kind of cool or might possibly work. Having the wrong (or no) combat card at the wrong time could mean the difference between Torpor and Ready. > I'm not really sure what support you'd give it anyway so I doubt it matters much, > though. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of combat cards out there that use little to no support already. Why should this one need it? It would still be a useful card if it could be played multiple times. As it is, it really can't be. > Still, I think it might be reasonable to throw that one copy into most !Malk > decks, or decks that are largely !Malk. I think it's probably useful for things > like canceling an opposing maneuver or press or opportunistically using an > opponent's previous strike against one of his minions. But what's the point? If you have a combat card, you can use it in combat. And the odds of you getting into combat are pretty high; I figure it is one of the most common things in the game. However, if you draw a RM, you can either waste it's one use for something frivilous to get it out of your hand or you can let it sit there clogging you up. > But if you only like combat cards you can devise a whole strategy around, > no, this one isn't it. You need to be effective one way or the other in combat. RM, as printed, doesn't help at all. > > have a combat opponent, it's use is going to be marginal at best. Against a > > combat opponent, it's only ever be just a bit more useful. > I'm not sure that's true. The fact that it allows you to use a combat card's > discipline at basic since extremely flexible to me. That doesn't mean that it is going to necessarily be useful. The opportunity cost for such usefulness is high. And it's made even higher by RMs own cost. > I can't come up with any specific examples. But I'm betting people will come > up with more good uses in the course of real games than you're expecting. I would be very surprised if someone did using a one shot card. Again, the best you can do with it is possibly put the opposing vamp into torpor (which the !Malks can already do on their own). And that is only when and if there is a card available in the opposing vamps ashheap. If not, you're either holding the card or wasting the card. > I suspect that was done out of fear that allowing wholesale use of the card > may allow someone to break it. While I agree that that seems unlikely, this > card is sufficiently wild that I can understand the conservatism about it. I believe once per combat would have been conservative enough. Again, the opportunity cost is too high. > I think it's a classic toolbox card. At least, it seems to me to be worth > playing with. Maybe you're right. But I don't think we'll know until we > actually draw it in a competitive game. No, I guess we won't. But I'm pretty sure that in the end I'll be right and RM is just another wallpaper card that wasted space. [ quoted text not captured ]

> But on a calmer note -- you _do_ seem to have more negative > things to say about expansions-in-general than the average > newsgroup fellow (casting about here from my possibly fuzzy > memory of Years Agone). Are the bad things the ones you get > all vocal about, or do you really feel that, on balance, there's > more Problem Cards than Good Things coming out of the House > of Rules n' Cards? Just the ones I get vocal about. For the most part, good things have come from LSJ since he took the reigns. However, some really bad things have come about as well and, again, I just call it as I see it. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a > sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. Except that the combat deck also knows that you'll only ever be able to use it once against it. > But to move them in the direction you seem to be advocating would > make the !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think > would be silly. As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it so that there is even less that they can do. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > While you are paying attention to this thread, LSJ, could you > > > explain exactly *why* this card was made to be playable only > > > once per game? The only thing the rest of us can do is speculate > > > and this just seems to be way too harsh a restriction. > > Why it was made one way instead of another is no really useful for > > a design, unless the design is "obviously" flawed (cf. Concealed Weapon). > > Not true. The "Why" with regards to the superior Fata Morgana > would be useful. You're claiming that Fata Morgana isn't obviously flawed? > > The Whys are only interesting for cards that are changed. > > Again, not true. So noone would ever be interested in "why" > Pier 13 costs 2 instead of 1? Apparently not. Those questions haven't been raised. Perhaps there's some special reason you singled out Reality Mirror instead of the more obvious Fata Morgana. > > One doesn't ask why Flame Thrower costs 4 pool instead of 3, for > > example. > > But we know why. It costs that much because it has an effect that > justifies it. Reality Mirror does not have such a cost, it seems to > me. Since the card doesn't seem to have a justified cost, it's perfectly > valid to wonder why and so is why I asked in the first place. It seems to me that it has a cost appropriate to its effect. This assertion doesn't help anything. > If you really didn't want to answer, you could have just said > "It's a secret". That's essentially what you are saying here anyway. If you like. If it's so bad already, why did you assume it would also cost one blood? By assuming a blood cost where there is none, it seems like you considered this effect good enough to warrant a blood cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

A friend wrote: > White-Wolf please change this card. > > This card is not worth putting in a deck if i can only use it once. A > deck should > be so carefully constructed that not one card space is wasted. In my > opinion putting > more than one of this card in a deck is wasteful. And some people find Distraction not worth putting in any deck. The key is: not all people find it so. It's not overpowered in your estimation, I imagine, so it won't bother you when someone else plays it, and since it won't clog your hand if you never put one in your deck, you've got a solution. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A0BDD72...@here.com>, A friend <m...@here.com> wrote: > > > legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a > >sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. > > Please, a real combat deck would deal out so much damage that anything i > could do with RM would pale in comparison, barely worth it, especially if i > can only use it once a game. Really not barely worth it. You're forgetting how fragile combat is if even one of the rushes goes wrong. > > > But to move > > them in the direction you seem to be advocating would make the > > !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think would be > > silly. > > > > > > > > > > I never conteded that the !Malks were a combat clan. I know that for sure. > Malkavian Game, game of malkav and malkavian prank are different cards > altogther. They are definately prank cards in the spirit of the clan (oooh > i'm gonna screw with you and your mother). RM is a different card. It's more > of a defense (don't hit me or i'll hit you back).but, you can only use it > once, what kind of fun is that? Lots of fun, because you can hand back all sorts of vicious stuff in an unexpected and unpredictable manner. But FAR more importantly IMO you will give a combat deck which is up against you pause for thought. The thing is that even ONE combat going wrong is usually enough to spoil a combat deck's day, so at the very least they will be slowed up until their hand contains enough stuff to prevent you doing them over with their own card. For example, a protean-rush deck will have to wait until one of its vamps gets a fortitude prevention card or leathers or something before it comes after you. A weenie potence-rush deck will just have to accept that you are going to torporise one of its vamps if it smacks you with Pushing the Limit. See what i'm getting at? The card gives you TIME, and in that time an impatient rush deck may go after an easier target than you are, or appear to be, while you will have an extra turn or two to deal out horrid bleeds and stuff, all of which is to your good. > > Skippy "Crazy bastard" > !Malk [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <uORO5.8508$A2.7...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a > > sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. > > Except that the combat deck also knows that you'll only ever be able to > use it once against it. But as you well know, Chris, ONE failed rush combat per game is usually enough to screw over a combat deck. > > > But to move them in the direction you seem to be advocating would > > make the !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think > > would be silly. > > As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't > going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. > And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only > once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it > so that there is even less that they can do. > i think the way it is, RM gives combat decks a good reason not to rush the !malkies until their hand is JUST right. This could well take time, and that is time during which the malky deck can happily go about its nefarious business. Meanwhile, the combat monster may well go after somebody else just to cycle its hand. All of this is good from the mad amlky point of view, i would have thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't > going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. > And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only > once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it > so that there is even less that they can do. How do they have less that they can do in combat now as opposed to before Reality Mirror was printed? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Why it was made one way instead of another is no really useful for > > > a design, unless the design is "obviously" flawed (cf. Concealed Weapon). > > Not true. The "Why" with regards to the superior Fata Morgana > > would be useful. > You're claiming that Fata Morgana isn't obviously flawed? It is flawed. That is why it would be useful to know "Why" it was designed that way. This was my point and I apologize if it didn't come across that way. > > > The Whys are only interesting for cards that are changed. > > Again, not true. So noone would ever be interested in "why" > > Pier 13 costs 2 instead of 1? > Apparently not. > Those questions haven't been raised. The reason why it hasn't been raised is because the cost seems justified for the effect. > Perhaps there's some special reason you singled out Reality Mirror > instead of the more obvious Fata Morgana. The issue of Fata Morgana has already been raised several times. Reality Mirror, on the other hand, is a new card. > > But we know why. It costs that much because it has an effect that > > justifies it. Reality Mirror does not have such a cost, it seems to > > me. Since the card doesn't seem to have a justified cost, it's perfectly > > valid to wonder why and so is why I asked in the first place. > It seems to me that it has a cost appropriate to its effect. > This assertion doesn't help anything. This is what I am trying to get from you! Why was the card designed with this cost? ie what is it about the effect that justifies the cost? > If it's so bad already, why did you assume it would also cost one blood? I was remembering something else. > By assuming a blood cost where there is none, it seems like you considered > this effect good enough to warrant a blood cost. Not true. First, see above. Second, the once per game cost was my concern. Coupled with the 1 blood cost made it al the worse, but even with it costing 0 blood doesn't bring the net cost into line. Sorrow --- Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, and all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in...

> > As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't > > going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. > > And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only > > once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it > > so that there is even less that they can do. > How do they have less that they can do in combat now as opposed to > before Reality Mirror was printed? The issue at hand is Reality Mirror. What I describe above, I describe *of* Reality Mirror. * The opportunity cost of Reality Mirror is too high. * Even if an !Malk is facing a combat deck, Reality Mirror won't be *overly* useful (or abusable) if it were made to be usable once per combat. * Since Reality Mirror was made to be usable once per game, there is even less that they [!Malk] can do [with Reality Mirror]. I'm not sure how the above wasn't clear from what I wrote in my previous post (quoted above), but if it wasn't then I apologize. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

> > Except that the combat deck also knows that you'll only ever be able to > > use it once against it. > But as you well know, Chris, ONE failed rush combat per game is usually > enough to screw over a combat deck. Only if the combat deck has absolutely no way to get into combat again in the near future. How many times have combat decks been screwed out of a combat by the likes of the Arboretum or Obedience? Lots and lots, I'd imagine. I know it's happened to me a ton of times. But only *very* rarely (and only when I didn't have another way to get into combat right away or soon after) were my combat decks totally screwed. These are (or were in the case of the Arboretum) common combat defenses that combat decks need to consider and overcome. > > As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't > > going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. > > And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only > > once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it > > so that there is even less that they can do. > i think the way it is, RM gives combat decks a good reason not to rush > the !malkies until their hand is JUST right. Hardly. What is the most *common* type of combat deck? Potence. What is the worst Potence card that could possibly be used against a potence combat deck. Burning Wrath. This is because unless that potence deck dodges (unlikely due to their use of IG more than likely) or prevents (even less likely) the potence vamp too will go to torpor. So if the potence deck doesn't use BW, what else would it use? Fists of Death, Torn Signpost, Undead Strength to name a few. So what's the worst the !Malk be able to do? Hit back for 2? Maybe maneuver away? And with the way that RM is printed, he can do that once per combat. Given all this, if I were a potence combat deck, especially if I wasn't using BW (who would, it's too cost prohibitive for all but large vamps), why would I bother waiting to rush an !Malk afraid of RM? The answer is, I wouldn't. Consider the following: Combat deck type RM's likely use Potence Combat TS, US, FoD, Lids Gangrel/Protean Claws Presensce S:CE Celerity(/Potence) Maneuver, Add. Strikes (and as above) Thaum Theft, B2W, Walk Vic BoA, BA With regards to the Gangrel/Protean, the odds will be that there will be damage prevention, so the !Malk using the claws isn't really that big of a deal. The only place above that RM might be problematic is with B2W and Body Arsenal. But both have a pretty high cost for not that much of an effect. And unless the !Malk is high cap, the odds would be if they used a high cost combat card, it too would go to Torpor. > This could well take time, and that is time during which the malky deck > can happily go about its nefarious business. Untrue. Again, if I were a combat deck, I'd hardly be hampered by RM as it is written. Even if it were once per combat it wouldn't frighten me that much. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:10:08 -0600, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> I think it's a classic toolbox card. At least, it seems to me to be worth >> playing with. Maybe you're right. But I don't think we'll know until we >> actually draw it in a competitive game. > >No, I guess we won't. But I'm pretty sure that in the end I'll be right and >RM >is just another wallpaper card that wasted space. The !Malks are not a combat clan, nor were they intended to be. Since all RM requires is that the card be in your ash heap, you may effectively duplicate anyone's strike. Permitting one RM per combat would have been truly excessive... "Pushing the Limit? Me too." "Wolf Claws? Me too." "Flesh of Marble? Me too." "I'll just get that Skin of Steel out of your ash heap." "Oh, look! A Walk of Flame!" "Let me borrow that Majesty." "Taste of Death, eh? That sounds like fun." While it doesn't turn the !Malks into a combat clan, it brings them way too close and provides a fairly big deterrent to all other combat clans, especially those that have highly effective inferior-form combat cards. (Skin of Steel, Wolf Claws, Majesty, Sewer Lid, etc.) With only one per game, it's still tricky; but you can hang on and use it as a "surprise factor" for that one Breath of the Dragon someone has hanging around. Wallpaper? Hardly. Wasted space? Not as a rare, since you'll never want more than about 3 of this card. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

In article <G8UO5.136$ju4....@monger.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > > Except that the combat deck also knows that you'll only ever be able to > > > use it once against it. > > But as you well know, Chris, ONE failed rush combat per game is usually > > enough to screw over a combat deck. > > Only if the combat deck has absolutely no way to get into combat again in > the near future. How many times have combat decks been screwed out of > a combat by the likes of the Arboretum or Obedience? Lots and lots, I'd > imagine. I know it's happened to me a ton of times. But only *very* rarely > (and only when I didn't have another way to get into combat right away or > soon after) were my combat decks totally screwed. These are (or were in > the case of the Arboretum) common combat defenses that combat decks > need to consider and overcome. Fair enough, but not getting into combat at all is not really failing. What i'm talking about is the cases where you DO get into combat and take a pounding, even if you do bring the other guy down. Sorry for the lack of clarity. You would agree with the point now i've put it that way, wouldn't you? [ quoted text not captured ] Again i think all this is fair enough, assuming the malky deck packs NO combat defense except RM. Then it WOULD deserve to get its loony arse kicked, IMO. But what RM will do is chuck a spanner in the card-combo factory of the typical rush-combat deck, as written once per game, and this is likely to result in the rush combat deck losing a vampire or losing a crucial card-combo or both. Currently quite nicely-balanced, then, IMO. Once per combat would pretty much totally hose combat strategies against the !malkies. Not nice and not balanced, again IMO. > > > This could well take time, and that is time during which the malky deck > > can happily go about its nefarious business. > > Untrue. Again, if I were a combat deck, I'd hardly be hampered by > RM as it is written. Even if it were once per combat it wouldn't > frighten me that much. Why wouldn't extra time be of benefit to a non-combat deck? Or are you saying that all your combat decks always have the combo they need to do the business in hand? In that case you're certainly a better deck-builder and or luckier drawer of cards than anybody else i know! > > Sorrow > --- > "This is my costume. > I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." > -- Wednesday Addams > > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <vFRO5.8501$A2.7...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >For the most part, good things >have come from LSJ since he took the reigns. <PEDANT> You're not the only one doing this, but please pass this around: It's 'reins.' Kings have reigns, and reign over their kingdoms. One takes over the reins for a project, since one then directs the projects as one would a horse. One also 'reins in' excesses, not 'reigns in'. And don't get me started on people using "it's" for "its" and vice versa. </PEDANT> gomi annoyed technical writer [ quoted text not captured ]

> With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card > can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. Not intrinsically. Setting a precedent for calling a given vote once a game (Political Stranglehold/Ancient Influence) might be considered a bad thing if it weren't for the fact that the base set had Ancient Influence. Having a "weak" combat card only playable once per game is problematic (or so it seems you're arguing) but an extremely powerful combat card playable once per game seems pretty reasonable, just as much as an extremely powerful vote. Though, I don't really see why Politial Stranglehold, that can gain you 6, 9, (rarely) 12 pool, can be called only once a game, while Autarkis Persecution, that can gain you 9 pool easily in a weenie vote deck, can be called again and again. But that's just a personal pet peeve. Anyone, point is; arguments of whether or not Reality Mirror would be more useful but still balanced at once per combat (perhaps with a cost) *aside*, the precedent isn't arbitrarily "a bad thing." I think you're letting this card upset your overall view of the game. Non-partisanship aside, I disagree with you for the same reason Leggy does; once per combat lets !Malk cheese player turn their brain off and put in several RM for combat prevention/avoidance. Sure, good players could do more with it, but that's not good enough; if it makes cheesy decks cheesier, it's a bad thing. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

>> This could well take time, and that is time during which the malky deck >> can happily go about its nefarious business. > > Untrue. Again, if I were a combat deck, I'd hardly be hampered by > RM as it is written. Even if it were once per combat it wouldn't > frighten me that much. But you have to see that it would hurt combat decks even MORE. What you're proposing is something to make it even *harder* for combat decks to win. Yes, you could use it to build a !Malk combat deck, certainly, that would have an easier time...only against other combat decks, though. As Peter Bajika and Joch Duffin will happily tell you, combat does not win, win, win, and the game does NOT need it to be even harder for combat to win, and the stronger you make Reality Mirror, only the harder it becomes, and pushes the game back to Big Vote and Stealth Bleed, a metagame, that almost all the experienced players, frankly, are tired of. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > Really not barely worth it. You're forgetting how fragile combat is if > even one of the rushes goes wrong. > You see, i always picture the worst case scenario, i got a buddy with the meanest brujah deck (we'll be there for crusade austin if you wanna see it). His rushes rarely go wrong and usually end up with my vamp burned or very torporised. i'm talkin with 2 additional strikes 15 damage, couple aggravated (compliments of burning wrath). > > > Lots of fun, because you can hand back all sorts of vicious stuff in an > unexpected and unpredictable manner. But FAR more importantly IMO you > will give a combat deck which is up against you pause for thought. The > thing is that even ONE combat going wrong is usually enough to spoil a > combat deck's day, so at the very least they will be slowed up until > their hand contains enough stuff to prevent you doing them over with > their own card. For example, a protean-rush deck will have to wait until > one of its vamps gets a fortitude prevention card or leathers or > something before it comes after you. A weenie potence-rush deck will just > have to accept that you are going to torporise one of its vamps if it > smacks you with Pushing the Limit. See what i'm getting at? The card > gives you TIME, and in that time an impatient rush deck may go after an Ok I agree. > > easier target than you are, or appear to be, while you will have an extra > turn or two to deal out horrid bleeds and stuff, all of which is to your > good. > Oh yeah that reminds me, Dementation needs more bleed cards. these non stackable eyes of chaos and confusion are fun and all but i need something a little scarier. I mean c'mon Malks get domination and huge bleeds, help us !Malks out white wolf. "We want Bush"-Crowd in front of the Capitol building in Austin tuesday night. I was there till 4 am it was great. Skippy "Political Prankster" !Malk

#1 Frankly i'm honored, seeing as how this is the first time LSJ replies to one of my posts since i started playing in this sandbox. It's not overpowered in your estimation, I imagine, so it won't bother you when someone else plays it, and since it won't clog your hand if you never put one in your deck, you've got a solution. #2 you're real condescending when your clever, i bet you're a real bastard in person.... we should do lunch Skippy !Malk

> > > legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> Really not barely worth it. You're forgetting how fragile combat is if >> even one of the rushes goes wrong. >> > > You see, i always picture the worst case scenario, i got a buddy with the > meanest > brujah deck (we'll be there for crusade austin if you wanna see it). His > rushes > rarely > go wrong and usually end up with my vamp burned or very torporised. i'm talkin > with 2 additional strikes 15 damage, couple aggravated (compliments of burning > wrath). And what does his hand do if he gets Obedienced or poked in the eye with a Claws of the Dead (especially with Scorpion Sting)? And how does he get around the one superior Skin of Steel? Also, does he actually win in 5 player games, and/or tournaments? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A0C44BD...@here.com>, A friend <m...@here.com> wrote: >> It's not overpowered in your estimation, I imagine, so it won't >> bother you when someone else plays it, and since it won't clog your >> hand if you never put one in your deck, you've got a solution. >#2 you're real condescending when your clever, i bet you're a real bastard >in person.... we should do lunch When we want any comeback from you, Skippy, we'll scrape out the back of your throat. If you're going to bitch at LSJ, do what Sorrow and Noal McD. do, and stick to game-related bitching, which is less annoying than ad-hominems followed by thinly veiled personal threats. gomi "look at me! i'm a wacky malkavian! pay attention to me!" feh. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Obviously fortitude in general is an obstacle but for vicissitude and protean and such (especially my Comas) he keeps a couple dodges, umm should i be giving his secrets away? shut up shut up ok ok . damn voices oh we've never played in a tournament before. austin should be fun, we're really lookin forward to it. we've always played in a small group of around 5-7 people, house rules and such. what format will this austin thing be played in? i'd like to know what i have to do to my deck before i go. can i play demo cards in my deck? Skippy !Malk

> #2 you're real condescending when your clever, i bet you're a real > bastard in person.... we should do lunch While LSJ can be condescending and patronizing (two things which I find very frusrating from someone representing any game), LSJ is very cool in person. One of the coolest I've met from the NG, as a matter of fact. So while you may have ideological difference with him (lord knows I do), name calling only hampers an otherwise productive discussion/debate. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

Evidently i was misinterpreted. i apologize for the earlier post. in retrospect i understand it should have had some substance. i'm not tryin to be a bastard, i really was happy to have LSJ respond to my post. anyways, i apologize again to LSJ, to you Gomi, lo siento mucho, and to anyone else i may have offended. i'll go to the back of you throat now. Skippy

A friend wrote: > Evidently i was misinterpreted. i apologize for the earlier post. in > retrospect i understand it should have had some substance. i'm not tryin > to be a bastard, i really was happy to have LSJ respond to my post. I reread your post, and still find nothing as offensive in it as Gomi has apparently found it. I believe I read your post in the spirit in which it was intended. As for being condescending, I reread my own post and do not find it so. Perhaps after years of explaining things, though, my perspective on that point has been shifted away from the norm. So now, back to our regularly scheduled newsgroup... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A0C5B17...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A0C5B17...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [snip] >So now, back to our regularly scheduled newsgroup... Bah. After flaming Sorrow, then Skippy, I think I'm officially Too Cranky this week. My apologies for tearing into Skippy -- the response was out of proportion. I suck, and all that. One of the things I've always appreciated in this newsgroup is the concerted effort to keep things civil even in the face of serious disagreement, and I'm bummed to have gone against that tradition. Bah, I say. gomi que me sirvan otra copa y muchas mas, as they say in the old country [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Floater wrote: > It is probably Xian's fault anyway. It's in the new rules book. Download a copy from the White Wolf site. "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for blaim shall be attributed to Xian." -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy." - Stephen Fry, Making History

"James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.4.21.001110...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk... > It's in the new rules book. Download a copy from the White Wolf site. > > "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for > blaim shall be attributed to Xian." Don't you mean: "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for *blame* shall be attributed to Xian." ?? Or is that an exact quote, and the rulebook has a really awful typo in it? :P Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

Why would I play with reality mirror? Erm. ...because it's fun? Geez guys :> Floatey. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > > Since it's so marginal, it doesn't particularly matter how often or > how > > > > rarely it can be played in a game, nu? > > > It does matter because this sets a precedent. > > Um, Giant's Blood? (Thought you brought that one up yourself.) > > Also Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence. The bad precedent being > set here is the fact that it is a *combat* card that is being restricted in > this manner. The most a combat card should ever be restricted to is once per > combat. Otherwise, why bother printing it as a combat card? Um, pardon me, but that's totally circular logic. Why should combat cards never be limited to one-per-game? Your answer appears to be, "because they're combat cards". That makes no sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with the notion that a combat card be limited in that manner. As near as I can determine, it's only your sensibilities that have been violated. Now, the question of whether the limitation is actually _necessary_ for play balance is a different one. I sort of neutralish about that, myself. I can see arguments either way. > With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card > can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. So, I challenge you: what is actually "bad" about it? Keeping in mind that the fact that you can normally play limitless cards in a combat and you can't play this one more than once is not by itself "bad" - any more than the fact that you can normally play multiple copies of non-permanent master cards in one game and get the same effect out of them but you can't do that with Giant's Blood is "bad". Fred

Pat Ricochet wrote in message ... > >> With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card >> can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. > > Not intrinsically. Setting a precedent for calling a given vote once a >game (Political Stranglehold/Ancient Influence) might be considered a bad >thing if it weren't for the fact that the base set had Ancient Influence. >Having a "weak" combat card only playable once per game is problematic (or >so it seems you're arguing) but an extremely powerful combat card playable >once per game seems pretty reasonable, just as much as an extremely powerful >vote. Though, I don't really see why Politial Stranglehold, that can gain >you 6, 9, (rarely) 12 pool, can be called only once a game, while Autarkis >Persecution, that can gain you 9 pool easily in a weenie vote deck, can be >called again and again. But that's just a personal pet peeve. > Anyone, point is; arguments of whether or not Reality Mirror would be >more useful but still balanced at once per combat (perhaps with a cost) >*aside*, the precedent isn't arbitrarily "a bad thing." I think you're >letting this card upset your overall view of the game. > > Non-partisanship aside, I disagree with you for the same reason Leggy >does; once per combat lets !Malk cheese player turn their brain off and put >in several RM for combat prevention/avoidance. Sure, good players could do >more with it, but that's not good enough; if it makes cheesy decks cheesier, >it's a bad thing. Uh-uh. No, no, no. Reality Mirror is not cheese. Imagine a deck making use of multiple Reality Mirrors. In combat, this deck will only be as good as the deck playing against it - and most often, only half as good due to the lack of combat disciplines on !Malks. The wonderful thing this card does is this: for a brief, flickering instant, it turns what a rush deck thinks is a "done deal" into an unpredictable sphere of chaos. In an intelligent player's hand, Reality Mirror is the type of card that can make the entire table go, "Whaawoo..." and golf claps all-around. Imagine the look on a player's face when you play their own Ritual of the Bitter Rose against them after a well-timed Coma. Imagine the shriek when a suicidal !Malk uses Burning Wrath (at great cost) against another Burning Wrath, the two vampires locked together in a torporous embrace. Suddenly, a possibly mindless Brujah Battering Ram must transcend itself into a deadly-serious chess-match predator. Suddenly, the frenzied anarch is face-to-face with...himself. The balance to this card? Against a combat avoidance deck, this card sits in a player's hand. Against a voting deck, it sits. Against a stealth-bleed deck, it sits. Sure, when used in a Stealth-Bleed deck, it makes combat almost survivable, but it's still fighting an uphill battle. And that's the beauty of the card. Mike Ooi Insane Prince of Houston, TX Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team sh...@texas.net

A friend wrote in message <3A0C4164...@here.com>... [cut to the quick] >Oh yeah that reminds me, Dementation needs more bleed cards. these non stackable >eyes of chaos and confusion are fun and all but i need something a little scarier. >I mean c'mon Malks get domination and huge bleeds, help us !Malks out white wolf. The !Malks have the best bleed card in the game: Kindred Spirits. It's a wonderful trade-off. A finely-tuned Kindred Spirits deck gains 3-4 pool a turn while draining ANYONE of theirs. Your grand-prey about to be ousted? Oust their prey for them. Laugh as your prey sees the 6 pool slipping through their fingers. Then oust them next turn. The flexibility of this card is amazing. At the inferior, even. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A0C4DBA...@here.com>, A friend <m...@here.com> wrote: > what format will this austin thing be played in? i'd like to know > what i have to do to my deck before i go. can i play demo cards > in my deck? What demo cards do you mean? All Sabbat War cards will be legal for play in the Austin tournament as it takes place on December 16, 15 days after the cards become legal for sanctioned tournament play. For further information, contact Ethan Burrow, Monger Utility Creator and VEKN Prince of Austin. Here's Ethan's Post about the tournament again, for those who failed to read it. ------------------------------------------------------------- What : VEKN Sanctioned Constructed Tournament. Sabbat War cards will be legal. When : Saturday December 16th; registration and lunch at 11:00 am with Round 1 beginning at Noon. 3 Rounds and a Final, we'll leave when we have a victor. Where : Double Daves (Pizza/beer joint) - 3000 Duval St. (here's a map - http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py? BFCat=&Pyt=Tmap&newFL=Use+Address+Below&addr=3000+Duval&csz=Austin+TX&co untry=us&Get%A0Map=Get+Map) Entry Fee - FREE (but bring your cards) Judge - Ethan Burrow - (i.e. I'm not playing) If you are still around by the 3rd round, I'll personally hand you some VTES boosters as I'll probably be a bit tipsy by then. No kidding, everyone will walk away with something! Did I mention there was beer at Double Daves? All finalists will receive Sabbat War boosters as prizes in addition to 2 VTES boosters each. 5th place - 2 SW boosters. 4th place - 4 SW boosters. 3rd place - 6 SW boosters. 2nd place - 8 SW boosters. 1st place - 10! SW boosters. As well as the admiration of all. Oh, and White Wolf will also likely throw goodies at us. And did I mention I found a Marianna Gilbert and Dan Murdock lying around? Fartherest Non-Prince to travel here get's them (sorry Norm and Sorrow). ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin et...@ddg.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ugukn$tru$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <uORO5.8508$A2.7...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > > It IS worthwhile, you know. You can ostentatiously DISCARD it. All of a > > > sudden combat decks will be treating you with new respect. > > > > Except that the combat deck also knows that you'll only ever be able to > > use it once against it. > > But as you well know, Chris, ONE failed rush combat per game is usually > enough to screw over a combat deck. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think combat decks are wholly better than most people on the newsgroup believe them to be, and I have seen these type of decks get screwed over in several combats and still magange 1-2 VPs. Maybe knowing James Hamblin and Josh Duffin does that to a player's opinion of combat decks. :) > > > But to move them in the direction you seem to be advocating would > > > make the !malkavians a pretty ferocious combat clan and that i think > > > would be silly. > > > > As I pointed out before, the opportunity cost is too high. They aren't > > going to be combat monsters if they aren't facing a combat deck. > > And if they are, there isn't a whole lot they can do if RM is usable only > > once per combat. Making RM usable only once per game makes it > > so that there is even less that they can do. > > > i think the way it is, RM gives combat decks a good reason not to rush > the !malkies until their hand is JUST right. I'm not sure what makes you say that. Since you can only use RM *ONCE A GAME*, why would you put in more than 1-2 in a deck? If you do, I think you're crazy. And since you don't have more than 1-2 in the deck, the chances of you having it in your hand are pretty remote, so why would anyone playing a rush-combat deck *properly* even care? > This could well take time, > and that is time during which the malky deck can happily go about its > nefarious business. See above. > Meanwhile, the combat monster may well go after > somebody else just to cycle its hand. All of this is good from the mad > amlky point of view, i would have thought. I think this idea works better on paper than in practice. -- Kevin J. Mergen, kjme...@home.com, Prince of Madison "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

[ quoted text not captured ] [snip Mike dream of blissful carnage Mirroring combat decks] > > The balance to this card? Against a combat avoidance deck, this card sits in > a player's hand. Against a voting deck, it sits. Against a stealth-bleed > deck, it sits. Sure, when used in a Stealth-Bleed deck, it makes combat > almost survivable, but it's still fighting an uphill battle. And that's the > beauty of the card. So, the existence of this card (assuming you can play multiples) means that stealth bleed, tap and bleed, and big vote are suddenly unhampered! Maybe they'll even start winning tournaments, instead of those combat decks that sweep tables left and right! This is great fun, and I forgive you for your madness and enjoying watching combat players tear their hair out, but is it really what the game needs? A single card that combat decks will fear, and push players even more toward the tried, true, done, dead, buried, boring, impressing nobody "sure winner" decks? A simple way to fix that problem is to allow it for it's "Ha-HA!" value, but keep it from hosing combat all together. Throw out the bathwater without the baby. Maybe if it was playable only once per game, or something. Hey, wait... [ quoted text not captured ]

>* The opportunity cost of Reality Mirror is too high. >* Even if an !Malk is facing a combat deck, Reality Mirror won't be *overly* >useful (or abusable) if it were made to be usable once per combat. While I agree that RM is too handicapped, like others, I have to state that it is potentially very powerful. Reality Mirror has no cost (in terms of blood and pool) and is usable by ANY Malkavian Antitribu. If you're playing a !Malk deck, you can be assured that any of your vamps can play it. With most other combat cards, you have to make sure your vamps have the discipline, and possibly whether they have superior or not. Since RM only requries !Malk, it can become extremely flexible. Let's say that you can use it once per combat. Even then it can become incredibly useful since each of your !Malk can use it each time they're in combat. (Once) every combat, you get your choice from a strike, press, manuever, or whatever you need. If they have a Majesty in their ash heap (for whatever reason) all of your RM's can essentially be S:CE's with untap (when fighting that guy of course). You just used Breath of the Dragon? That means every combat I can use a Breath of the Dragon back AT YOU (as long as I have RM's). Now here's a bogus idea: In order to allow it to be more usable (as in more than once), and to go along with the tradition of the Malks and !Malks how about something like: Cost in blood = the number of times RM has been played. So the first RM is free. The next one costs 1 blood, then 2 blood, etc. I'm sure it would be interesting and might make it at least slightly more usable. Of course I'd hate to see Dragos impersonate a !Malk or something equip with Ankara Citadel but... Halcyan 2

>> It's in the new rules book. Download a copy from the White Wolf site. >> >> "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for >> blaim shall be attributed to Xian." > >Don't you mean: >"10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for >*blame* shall be attributed to Xian." ?? > >Or is that an exact quote, and the rulebook has a really awful typo in it? > Don't you understand Xian! It was SUPPOSED to be "blame" but BECAUSE OF YOU, they messed up and misspelled it. Thanks a lot! =) Halcyan 2

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Xian wrote: > "James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:Pine.SOL.4.21.001110...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk... > > It's in the new rules book. Download a copy from the White Wolf site. > > > > "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for > > blaim shall be attributed to Xian." > > Don't you mean: > "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for > *blame* shall be attributed to Xian." ?? The spelling mistake is your fault too. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > soon after) were my combat decks totally screwed. These are (or were in > > the case of the Arboretum) common combat defenses that combat decks > > need to consider and overcome. > Fair enough, but not getting into combat at all is not really failing. > What i'm talking about is the cases where you DO get into combat and take > a pounding, even if you do bring the other guy down. Sorry for the lack > of clarity. You would agree with the point now i've put it that way, > wouldn't you? I would agree only insofar that it *might* screw a combat deck. There've been several times where my vamps were put into torpor by an unexpectadly large strike or a poke in the eye. It makes me waste an action to rescue but not often does it shut me down. Again, these are issues that combat decks *already* have to face. > Again i think all this is fair enough, assuming the malky deck packs NO > combat defense except RM. Then it WOULD deserve to get its loony arse > kicked, Even if it did, against the wrong types of decks, RM would do very little to nothing. > IMO. But what RM will do is chuck a spanner in the card-combo > factory of the typical rush-combat deck, as written once per game, and > this is likely to result in the rush combat deck losing a vampire or > losing a crucial card-combo or both. How would the combat deck lose a crucial card combo? And unless the opposing deck were using cards to generate agg HD, there is very little the RM could be used for that would cause the loss of a vampire to torpor. Again, using the most common type of combat deck (potence) the most the RM would be able to hit for is 2 due to the inferior potence. > then, IMO. Once per combat would pretty much totally hose combat > strategies against the !malkies. Not nice and not balanced, again IMO. I fail to see how. Even using the most exotic of combat strategies (Dawn Op - Weather Control for instance), it wouldn't hose the strategy but simply require a bit more planning. Again, were I a combat deck, RM would not deter me in the least. Not at once per combat and *certainly* not once per game. > > Untrue. Again, if I were a combat deck, I'd hardly be hampered by > > RM as it is written. Even if it were once per combat it wouldn't > > frighten me that much. > Why wouldn't extra time be of benefit to a non-combat deck? It would. > Or are you saying that all your combat decks always have the combo they > need to do the business in hand? Often, but not always when I need them. What I was saying is that I would not be deterred by the opponents use of RM and as such, I wouldn't necessarily hold back giving them the time they need. You know, you (and others) assert that RM is way too powerful to allow once per combat and that all it takes in one inopportune use of RM to screw over a combat deck. Well, as written, it can be used once. And if the !Malk deck is lucky enough to actually draw the one or two (rarely more, I'm sure, as it can only be used once and it would be stupid to include more than that) during a game where it is opposite a combat deck, as soon as it gets into combat there is that opportunity to screw the combat deck. Once per game or once per combat, the opportunity to screw is the same using your arguments above. The thing that hasn't been considerered is the fact that in using the RM, it has to be used smartly otherwise the !Malk is going to torpor right along with it's opponent. And I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that any deck losing a vamp to torpor is a bad thing(tm) that no deck wants to have happen. If this situation occurs when the !Malk is reacting, it is most certainlly diablerie bait before the combat vamp. Again, not a good thing. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Untrue. Again, if I were a combat deck, I'd hardly be hampered by > > RM as it is written. Even if it were once per combat it wouldn't > > frighten me that much. > But you have to see that it would hurt combat decks even MORE. What > you're proposing is something to make it even *harder* for combat decks to > win. Yes, you could use it to build a !Malk combat deck, certainly, that > would have an easier time...only against other combat decks, though. But *only* if the opposing combat deck uses agg damage and has no way to prevent it. One of the more fragile decks in this regards is potence. Barring Sidelip, it has no real way to prevent damage done to it. So what happens when it comes across a poke-you-in-the-eye deck? It rolls over and dies? No. It has to find some way to stay alive in those situations. So the most a RM based combat deck would be able to do against a potence deck is strike for 2 damage (barring Burning Wrath). But quite often, the RM deck would have to deal with any consequences. Even with the benefit of RM (assuming once per combat), !Malks just aren't a combat clan. They'd only ever be able to use something from the opposing deck once and it had really better be good or they're going to get pounded on just as bad as they would have w/o using RM. And depending on what they do use RM for, it could be even worse. > As Peter Bajika and Joch Duffin will happily tell you, combat does not > win, win, win, I never asserted that it does. > and the game does NOT need it to be even harder for combat to win, and the > stronger you make Reality Mirror, only the harder it becomes, Hardly. There is nothing that RM could do that a combat deck doesn't already have to account for. So *every* time that potence combat faces potence combat, they both get hosed? Protean v. Protean? Thaum v. Thaum? *Every* time that the Tzimsce face off against each other, they both get screwed? This is what you are asserting here and it is simply not true. And what makes RM even less effective is that it can only be used once. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

> >No, I guess we won't. But I'm pretty sure that in the end I'll be right and > >RM is just another wallpaper card that wasted space. > The !Malks are not a combat clan, nor were they intended to be. And RM doesn't turn them into a combat clan. > Since all RM requires is that the card be in your ash heap, you may > effectively duplicate anyone's strike. Permitting one RM per combat > would have been truly excessive... > "Pushing the Limit? Me too." Yup. At the cost of 1 to do 2 damage. A pricier lucky blow. > "Wolf Claws? Me too." Again, at the cost of one and the very liklihood that not only will it be prevented but also that the !Malk will go to torpor. > "Flesh of Marble? Me too." > "I'll just get that Skin of Steel out of your ash heap." Using Legbiter's assertion that all it takes is one failed combat, what's the difference between using these once in a game and once per combat? > With only one per game, it's still tricky; but you can hang on and use > it as a "surprise factor" for that one Breath of the Dragon someone > has hanging around. Wallpaper? Hardly. Wasted space? Not as a > rare, since you'll never want more than about 3 of this card. So rarity determines how many of a card you have in your deck? And not the usefulness of the card? Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

> > With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card > > can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. > Not intrinsically. Setting a precedent for calling a given vote once a > game (Political Stranglehold/Ancient Influence) might be considered a bad > thing if it weren't for the fact that the base set had Ancient Influence. The difference is that with PS/AI (and Giant's Blood to a lesser degree, though it's not that much different that 5thTrad) is that they can have a fairly profound effect almost (if not) every time it is used and that effect is pretty consistent. However, the use of RM is neither profound nor consistent so why was it limited in the same manner as the aforementioned cards? What criteria is used to determine whether a card is so powerful that it's use should be limited to once per game? > Having a "weak" combat card only playable once per game is problematic (or > so it seems you're arguing) but an extremely powerful combat card playable > once per game seems pretty reasonable, just as much as an extremely powerful > vote. But it is not an extremely poweful combat card. <aside> > Though, I don't really see why Politial Stranglehold, that can gain > you 6, 9, (rarely) 12 pool, can be called only once a game, while Autarkis > Persecution, that can gain you 9 pool easily in a weenie vote deck, can be > called again and again. But that's just a personal pet peeve. Agreed. </aside> I'm going to address 2 different posts here... Pat Wrote: > Anyone, point is; arguments of whether or not Reality Mirror would be > more useful but still balanced at once per combat (perhaps with a cost) > *aside*, the precedent isn't arbitrarily "a bad thing." I think you're > letting this card upset your overall view of the game. No, I don't believe I am. Frederick wrote: > So, I challenge you: what is actually "bad" about it? Keeping in mind that > the fact that you can normally play limitless cards in a combat and you can't > play this one more than once is not by itself "bad" - any more than the fact > that you can normally play multiple copies of non-permanent master cards in > one game and get the same effect out of them but you can't do that with Giant's > Blood is "bad". The difference is that "once per game" cards can have a profound effect on the game in which they are played and that effect is pretty consistent. RM does not seem to fit that criteria. Also, of all the types of cards in the game, combat cards are meant to be the most freely used. You can use multiples of the same card in a given combat (not so Action Modifiers or Reactions) and are easier (and sometimes better?) used in combination (not so Actions and Action Modifiers). And all the cards that are limited to once each combat (a count of 30 as reported by ELDB, not including those modified via errata <ie, Immortal Grapple>) have a consistent (and significant?) effect. Again, this is not so with RM. If RM was thought to be abusive, why was it printed? And if it was going to be limited to once per game, why bother making it a combat card? It would have been better served printed as a different type of card, one that is more limited (than a combat card) by it's very nature. By printing RM in this way, you are opening a door that should have remain closed, IMO. Back to Pat's post... > Non-partisanship aside, I disagree with you for the same reason Leggy > does; once per combat lets !Malk cheese player turn their brain off and put > in several RM for combat prevention/avoidance. And this cannot already be done by including things like Fake Out or Dodge in place of the RMs? > Sure, good players could do more with it, but that's not good enough; if it > makes cheesy decks cheesier, it's a bad thing. Cheesy decks are generally cheesy 100% of the time. The percentage that this type of deck can be cheesy (_if at all_) is *significantly* less. And if RM is such an unbelievably powerful combat card that whose cost had to be made to be usable once per game, why was it printed in the first place? And certainly why was it printed as a combat card and not, as some- one suggested in another post, an M:OoT? What real use can it have in the game now? Why bother including it in your deck when there is no guarantee that you'll be facing a combat deck (where everyone asserts that it is overly abusive against) coupled with the odds of you ever drawing the very few you include when you need it? Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Sorrow wrote: > > "Flesh of Marble? Me too." > > "I'll just get that Skin of Steel out of your ash heap." > > Using Legbiter's assertion that all it takes is one failed combat, what's > the difference between using these once in a game and once per combat? All it takes is one failed combat for a deck to be unable to go far, in my experience. It can try to get somewhere (e.g. 1 VP), however. Multiple failed combats would be catastrophic for it, which, potentially, Relity Mirror could do in spades. (I acknowledge the point you make about the fact that facing against any other combat deck, it could do this too. I am merely, here, addressing the point of the difference between 1 failed combat and many.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:43:00 -0600, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> >No, I guess we won't. But I'm pretty sure that in the end I'll be right >and >> >RM is just another wallpaper card that wasted space. >> The !Malks are not a combat clan, nor were they intended to be. > >And RM doesn't turn them into a combat clan. Nope, but it makes them a light-combat clan; and worse, it's whatever combat they happen to be against. If including light combat just means 10 copies of one card, that really takes the brains out of the game. >> Since all RM requires is that the card be in your ash heap, you may >> effectively duplicate anyone's strike. Permitting one RM per combat >> would have been truly excessive... >> "Pushing the Limit? Me too." > >Yup. At the cost of 1 to do 2 damage. A pricier lucky blow. To do 3 damage, actually. Hand damage, so even while IG'd you can swat someone. A well-timed Pushing the Limit will screw with a weenie Potence deck pretty badly, since it is often relying on Taste and not being smacked for a bunch in return. >> "Wolf Claws? Me too." > >Again, at the cost of one and the very liklihood that not only will it >be prevented but also that the !Malk will go to torpor. Wolf Claws costs one for EVERYONE. Sure, maybe it'll be prevented. Maybe it WON'T though. Mono-Protean decks sometimes rely on Flesh of Marble a lot. Protean agg doesn't always come backed up by Fortitude, you know. >> "Flesh of Marble? Me too." >> "I'll just get that Skin of Steel out of your ash heap." > >Using Legbiter's assertion that all it takes is one failed combat, what's >the difference between using these once in a game and once per combat? You can potentially recover from one failed combat, although you're going to need to be lucky. Once per combat guarantees multiple failed combats, which almost no combat deck can recover from. >> With only one per game, it's still tricky; but you can hang on and use >> it as a "surprise factor" for that one Breath of the Dragon someone >> has hanging around. Wallpaper? Hardly. Wasted space? Not as a >> rare, since you'll never want more than about 3 of this card. > >So rarity determines how many of a card you have in your deck? And >not the usefulness of the card? No, rarity determines whether or not I consider it wasted space in the expansion. In an !Malk deck, I would probably put 2 of these in; as a last-ditch "Fine, you're going WITH ME" card, it does pretty well. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Sorrow wrote about RM's once-per-game limitation: > By printing RM in this way, you are opening a door that should have > remain closed, IMO. I guess this is the point that's maybe bothering people more than most of what you're saying. Though I don't complete disagree that Reality Mirror seems a little less impressive than a combat card I would expect to have this limitation, it doesn't actually hurt anything to use it on Reality Mirror. The worst thing I worry about is having another rare card which turns out to be wallpaper. Reality Mirror does not seem like wallpaper to me, even if I can't fill my decks with them. As for once-per-game limits on combat cards, open that door! If they allow for an interesting enough combat card that truly was overpowered in multiples (as Giant's Blood is for Master cards), then I have no problems with using this as a way to keep the card balanced. In general, I would hope they don't overdo it by making such a card too powerful since this would leave too much up to the luck of the shuffle. But this point bothers me WRT to any class of card, e.g. a master card like Giant's Blood. No reason to single out combat cards. Fred

>>> With RM you are setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card >>> can only be used once per game. This is a bad thing. >> Not intrinsically. Setting a precedent for calling a given vote once > a >> game (Political Stranglehold/Ancient Influence) might be considered a bad >> thing if it weren't for the fact that the base set had Ancient Influence. > > The difference is that with PS/AI (and Giant's Blood to a lesser degree, > though > it's not that much different that 5thTrad) is that they can have a fairly > profound > effect almost (if not) every time it is used and that effect is pretty > consistent. > However, the use of RM is neither profound nor consistent so why was it > limited > in the same manner as the aforementioned cards? What criteria is used to > determine whether a card is so powerful that it's use should be limited to > once > per game? > >> Having a "weak" combat card only playable once per game is problematic (or >> so it seems you're arguing) but an extremely powerful combat card playable >> once per game seems pretty reasonable, just as much as an extremely >> powerful >> vote. > > But it is not an extremely poweful combat card. No, no, you're getting ahead of myself. At this point I'm only arguing that the idea that "setting a precedent that makes it so that a combat card [that] can only be used once per game... is a bad thing." The argument "because you can play lots of combat cards, but only one master or one action modifier, it's ok to have once per game masters and votes, but it's a Bad Thing to have a combat card you can play only once per game" is meaningless. The reason cards are playable only once per game is so that they are balanced, and I was merely stating that if a given combat card was powerful enough, then it's a good idea to make it playable only once a game. The fact that it's a combat card sets no bad precedent in any way at all. > Pat Wrote: >> Anyone, point is; arguments of whether or not Reality Mirror would be >> more useful but still balanced at once per combat (perhaps with a cost) >> *aside*, the precedent isn't arbitrarily "a bad thing." I think you're >> letting this card upset your overall view of the game. > > No, I don't believe I am. Ok, then I think you're making some very irrational statements, like "combat cards being playable once per game is a bad precedent" that seem only to exist to back your opinion that Reality Mirror should be playable more than once per game. "Upset your overall view of the game" probably gives the connotation that your upset, which I assume you're not; rather, you'd call it "just calling it like I see it," I think. > The difference is that "once per game" cards can have a profound effect on > the > game in which they are played and that effect is pretty consistent. RM does > not seem to fit that criteria. Also, of all the types of cards in the game, > combat > cards are meant to be the most freely used. You can use multiples of the > same > card in a given combat (not so Action Modifiers or Reactions) and are easier > (and > sometimes better?) used in combination (not so Actions and Action > Modifiers). > And all the cards that are limited to once each combat (a count of 30 as > reported > by ELDB, not including those modified via errata <ie, Immortal Grapple>) > have a > consistent (and significant?) effect. Again, this is not so with RM. Well, that's a matter of opinion that you have yet to sway most of us on. I would say any, but Mike Ooi seemed to hop in on your side, but he's declared crazy anyway. =) > If RM was thought to be abusive, why was it printed? And if it was going to > be > limited to once per game, why bother making it a combat card? It would have > been better served printed as a different type of card, one that is more > limited > (than a combat card) by it's very nature. By printing RM in this way, you > are > opening a door that should have remain closed, IMO. And I guess we'll have to leave that at "agreeing to disagree," since I can't seem to fathom why "because combat cards are played in multiples...with exceptions...but this exception is *too* much!" is an argument. >> Non-partisanship aside, I disagree with you for the same reason Leggy >> does; once per combat lets !Malk cheese player turn their brain off and >> put >> in several RM for combat prevention/avoidance. > > And this cannot already be done by including things like Fake Out or Dodge > in place of the RMs? Not as well, no. Fighting Assamites, you always have the maneuver back, grappled and fighting potence, you always can smack the guy back with his worst, fighting animalism, you can drop the carrion crows as well. Yes, even at inferior, you can fight back. But instead of needing a mix of dodges and fake outs and presses, you can do it all with this one card. Is it abusable? Is it that bad? I'll admit I don't really know, but I think you'd have to admit you don't really know, either. But it is a bad thing to have one card you can put in !Malk decks, notably !Malk stealth bleed decks, and turn your brain off and put in 10 copies, knowing you'll screw most combat decks. Speaking of, lemme grab from that other post... *nab* >> As Peter Bajika and Joch Duffin will happily tell you, combat does not >> win, win, win, > > I never asserted that it does. I wasn't claiming you had, really, I was just arguing that your proposed errata to Reality Mirror disadvantaged only combat decks. But I apologize for the straw man look the sentence gives you. >> and the game does NOT need it to be even harder for combat to win, and the >> stronger you make Reality Mirror, only the harder it becomes, > > Hardly. There is nothing that RM could do that a combat deck doesn't > already > have to account for. So *every* time that potence combat faces potence > combat, > they both get hosed? Protean v. Protean? Thaum v. Thaum? *Every* time > that > the Tzimsce face off against each other, they both get screwed? This is > what > you are asserting here and it is simply not true. Actually, *I* didn't assert *that*, either. That's a big *every* you're putting in my mouth that doesn't fit. "There are no absolutes" is a statement truer of V:tES than many games; there is an exception to everything of course. But, yes I *do* assert that many kinds of combat *are* hosed by themselves. Potence grapple, especially weenies, doesn't like to get hit for more that 1, since you can't Taste on the way to Torpor. Protean claws doesn't in any way mean they have Prevent...you may play that way, but Flesh of Marble is a good 1-discipline combo that hosed by Claws. Tremere hate to Walk the Flames when they worked so hard to get to round 2 at long range. I'm asserting it (using *many*, not *every*) because it IS true. And, the !Malk player with 10+ Reality Mirrors, if playing one per combat, can hose ALL of those strategies, with ONE CARD. So instead of not playing potence weenie because you're afraid of other potence, or making sure you play only Claw decks that can also prevent, you have to worry about playing ANY and ALL combat decks that hose themselves, because if anyone plays !Malks, they can do it. As it is, it's a way for !Malks to strike a blow at those kind of decks, but making it playable once per combat is a huge deterrence to a whole array of deck ideas, which would otherwise be safely playable in a normal playgroup or tournament metagame. One reason people play combat in tournaments is because they feel they won't be up against anything they can't handle, and that's usually a safe bet. It seems you're proposing making a clan that can Sneak and Bleed (now premier cheeze, with Misdirection fixed) able to hose a plethora of combat strategies, all at once. IMO, that's a very bad thing for the game, both in making Sneak and Bleed stronger than it already is, and making combat less viable than it already is, which pushes the game towards the awful X or anti-X metagame, i.e., stagnation. > And what makes RM even less > effective is that it can only be used once. I think someone else already said this, or maybe I'm getting it mixed with something else, but "even less?" You seem to presuppose it used to be once per combat and you're fighting an errata, not a newly printed card? > And if RM is such an unbelievably powerful combat card that whose cost > had to be made to be usable once per game, why was it printed in the first > place? To give the !Malks a cool mad, suprising toy, allowing the joyous manaiacal laughter as you hose that one guy just at the crucial moment; and doing it because you planned it and saved it, not because you played yet ANOTHER Reality Mirror. > And certainly why was it printed as a combat card and not, as some- > one suggested in another post, an M:OoT? Well, because that would take a master phase action. If you're arguing that it's so weak already, don't you think it would be even weaker with that additional disadvantage? > Why bother including it in your deck when there is no guarantee > that you'll be facing a combat deck (where everyone asserts that it is overly > abusive against) coupled with the odds of you ever drawing the very few you > include when you need it? Because it only takes up a slot or two, depending if you put in 1(one) or 2(two). There *are* players who *will* put them in their !Malk decks. It's fun, It *could* save your ass, It doesn't take much to discard, or even play! You only have to have a single combat card in the opponent's ash heap to pick to get rid of it; it's certainly not going to jam up your hand unless you never ever get in combat. As you've asserted, !Malks aren't a combat clan, so never getting into combat would seem to mean you're doing well, so you're not hurting there, either. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> And this cannot already be done by including things like Fake Out or Dodge >> in place of the RMs? > > Not as well, no. Fighting Assamites, you always have the maneuver back, >grappled and fighting potence, you always can smack the guy back with his >worst, fighting animalism, you can drop the carrion crows as well. Yes, >even at inferior, you can fight back. But instead of needing a mix of >dodges and fake outs and presses, you can do it all with this one card. > Is it abusable? Is it that bad? I'll admit I don't really know, but I >think you'd have to admit you don't really know, either. But it is a bad >thing to have one card you can put in !Malk decks, notably !Malk stealth >bleed decks, and turn your brain off and put in 10 copies, knowing you'll >screw most combat decks. This section, I believe, is what causes me to not know whether it would have been better to allow more than one per game. By itself, I don't think it is possible to break the game with, say, 20 RMs in a deck. In fact, it would seem to me that it would make combat much more interesting. For instance, on a deck construction level, you might consider what would happen if a deck threw back your own cards. I could see it (it being a card just like it that got played often) encouraging weapons since those aren't combat cards. Etc. OTOH, limiting it to !Malks may indeed be a problem. Assuming it proves to have value (once per combat option?), it would likely give an unfair advantage to one of the more dangerous clans. BTW, I threw one in a deck and played it "successfully". I got Deflected to an ally. He had POT all over. We struck for hands. I Tasted with RM to not lose any blood. I guess it could be said that the card did exactly what it was intended - it amused. My guess is that it will likely end up being a maneuver or press the plurality of the time. Second BTW: I threw in Personal Scourges as well - what a horribly useless card. I'm still trying to figure out if any use at all can be found for it.

On 15 Nov 2000, Ian Lee wrote: > Second BTW: I threw in Personal Scourges as well - what a horribly useless > card. I'm still trying to figure out if any use at all can be found for it. Equipment hoser, for one. Also, it's effectively just the same as doing unpreventable hand damage (save that it *isn't* hand damage). If someone's doing interesting things like running up at you with an Archon-Assault Rifle deck, you scupper the assault rifle and press to end combat. Certainly not a card to throw in willy-nilly, but one to bear in mind if your environment gets top heavy. [ quoted text not captured ]