It seems I started quite a little debate. In any case, there are a
number of points I want to answer.
Definition of Sneak and Bleed
In order to limit the discussion somewhat, whenI am talking about
sneak and bleed, I am NOT referring to Tremere with permanent stealth, or
Gangrel with Protean/Form of Mist stealth. I am referring to Obfuscate
and a Bleed Discipline (such as Dominate or Presence). Most of my focus
lies on Malkavian S&B as compared to Set S&B.
Intercept vs. Sneak and Bleed
While it is true that there is a lot of Sneak cards, it simply can no
longer be said that stealth overpowers intercept. To put it simply, an
intercept deck is made to overcome a Sneak deck. If it cannot it has
failed, and with the cards available to any good intercept clan, there
can be no excuses. Any clan with animalism, auspex, or chimerstry can
attempt to go with intercept, and by mixing with permanents, should be
able to handle S&[whatever]. With intercept, a large amount of the cards
available are permanents. Sneak and Bleed permanents are relatively
limited (Opium Den and Forest of Shadows), one in the sense that it can
only be used for one stealth once, and the other from both that, and its
drain on the user.
Stealth's problem when it comes to an intercept deck is that it is mostly
powered by temporary cards, while its opponent will become more and more
prepared to block it. This can be slightly overcome with cards like
seduction, but seduction is limited in its use and only effective against
the "super-intercepter" deck in which only one minion has most of the
intercept.
If playing an intercept deck, if you are unable to stop a stealth decks
stealthed actions about half the time, then the deck needs a change.
Bounce vs. S&B
Bounce is a total destroyer of Sneak and Bleed. Depending on how heavily
bounce is being played, there are two options:
Pure Bounce bleed defense:
Don't really worry about blocking. Pass on the big bleeds or all the
bleeds you care to, depending on how much bounce your deck carries. In
any case, you aren't likely to be able to cause hand jam with this deck,
as the bounced bleeds will likely have someone attempt to block them.
Bounce and Intercept bleed defense:
Here, defense becomes mix and match. Save intercept for those with
inferior obfuscate, and bounce the rest. For the most part, attempting
to block with a poor bouncer is a good idea.
Combat vs. S&B
Obedience
This card is called up time and time again as "the" card that
stops combat short. In a way it does, but a good combat deck shouldn't
have a problem with this.
Limitations of Obedience:
Obedience requires that they keep a vampire untapped. They are bleeding
you for less each turn. Not only must a vampire be untapped, but unless
it has superior dominate, it is tapped. Thus it can only stop one
incoming attack. Finally, the vampire has to actually block the
attempted attack. Watering down a S&B deck with intercept to stop Haven
Uncovered, Bloodhunt, Archon, and Contract attacks will mean that less
bleed can be put into a deck. Putting in the Obediences will only
facilitate matters.
Obedience is good, but against a well designed combat deck, more than
obedience is needed. Obedience will not shut a combat deck down.
No other answers were really given to combat defense. In the Set deck,
you will see S:CE, but most combat decks have ways of dealing with this
(or are poorly designed).
S&B can compensate for inevitable combats a number of ways. The problem
is, that in doing so, it waters down its main focus. That is its biggest
weakness. S&B has no parralel strategy that enhances the main focus will
defending against rivals. Combat's methods of dealing with bleeders and
voters is effectively its own main strategy. Voters tend to have
anti-bleed cards (bounce) and anti-combat cards (S:CE) that are useful in
the context of their main strategy. Bleeding has no direct way that
helps it out in defense against the other two. It merely gets watered down.
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960630161905.441C-100000@pentode>,
sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu says...
[ quoted text not captured ]
All true, but the local intercept decks usually can't muster enough
intercept to stop my malkavian s&B consistently. Some advice, perhaps?
(They've stopped playing against it. And I liked that deck<whimper,
Whimper>.)
>Bounce vs. S&B
>
>Bounce is a total destroyer of Sneak and Bleed. Depending on how
heavily
>bounce is being played, there are two options:
>
>Pure Bounce bleed defense:
>Don't really worry about blocking. Pass on the big bleeds or all the
>bleeds you care to, depending on how much bounce your deck carries. In
>any case, you aren't likely to be able to cause hand jam with this deck,
>as the bounced bleeds will likely have someone attempt to block them.
>
>Bounce and Intercept bleed defense:
>Here, defense becomes mix and match. Save intercept for those with
>inferior obfuscate, and bounce the rest. For the most part, attempting
>to block with a poor bouncer is a good idea.
Bounce is less effective in a two player game, or when a larger game is
reduced in size to two. Deflection becomes useless, and Telepathic
Misdirection becomes an expensive intercept card. Of course, this is a
lot more major where I play, because two player games are usually the
only ones fast enough to get done before we have to go to class.
>Combat vs. S&B
>
>Obedience
>This card is called up time and time again as "the" card that
>stops combat short. In a way it does, but a good combat deck shouldn't
>have a problem with this.
>
>Limitations of Obedience:
>Obedience requires that they keep a vampire untapped. They are bleeding
>you for less each turn. Not only must a vampire be untapped, but unless
>it has superior dominate, it is tapped. Thus it can only stop one
>incoming attack. Finally, the vampire has to actually block the
>attempted attack. Watering down a S&B deck with intercept to stop Haven
>Uncovered, Bloodhunt, Archon, and Contract attacks will mean that less
>bleed can be put into a deck. Putting in the Obediences will only
>facilitate matters.
>Obedience is good, but against a well designed combat deck, more than
>obedience is needed. Obedience will not shut a combat deck down.
Very true. That summed up most of the arguments about Obedience very
nicely(from my POV, anyway).
>No other answers were really given to combat defense. In the Set deck,
>you will see S:CE, but most combat decks have ways of dealing with this
>(or are poorly designed).
If you have a few votes in the S&B, you can play with an Elysium: the
Arboretum or two. Mine has two inner circlers, a prince, and a legendary
vampire, so I can usually keep it around when I need it, unless someone
really doesn't like it. It's not the best defense, since it can be
burned and stolen any number of ways, but it is reusable.
>S&B can compensate for inevitable combats a number of ways. The problem
>is, that in doing so, it waters down its main focus. That is its
biggest
>weakness. S&B has no parralel strategy that enhances the main focus
will
>defending against rivals. Combat's methods of dealing with bleeders and
>voters is effectively its own main strategy. Voters tend to have
>anti-bleed cards (bounce) and anti-combat cards (S:CE) that are useful
in
>the context of their main strategy. Bleeding has no direct way that
>helps it out in defense against the other two. It merely gets watered
>down.
Pretty much, yeah. The question is, how watered down can your deck be to
survive, and still be able to bleed effectively? I have seven
anti-combat cards in my deck; but then again, I can almost always get
large bleeds through extremely quickly.
Alec Chang
On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
> In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960630161905.441C-100000@pentode>,
> sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu says...> >If playing an intercept deck, if you are unable to stop a stealth decks> >stealthed actions about half the time, then the deck needs a change.> All true, but the local intercept decks usually can't muster enough
> intercept to stop my malkavian s&B consistently. Some advice, perhaps?
> (They've stopped playing against it. And I liked that deck<whimper,
> Whimper>.)
They need to combine permanent and temporary intercept more often. Few
decks can do well with just one or the other.
> >Bounce and Intercept bleed defense:
> >Here, defense becomes mix and match. Save intercept for those with
> >inferior obfuscate, and bounce the rest. For the most part, attempting
> >to block with a poor bouncer is a good idea.> Bounce is less effective in a two player game, or when a larger game is
> reduced in size to two. Deflection becomes useless, and Telepathic
> Misdirection becomes an expensive intercept card. Of course, this is a
> lot more major where I play, because two player games are usually the
> only ones fast enough to get done before we have to go to class.
Two-player games are an anamoly in discussing Jyhad. Jyhad was simply
designed as a 3 or more player game, and two-player Jyhad, while fun, has
similar strange game mechanics as playing three-player Magic, with
2-player decks. Oftentimes, things just don't work out as they should.
The endgame uselessness of deflection is the nature of the beast. There
has to be some drawback to such an effective anti-bleed strategy.
> >No other answers were really given to combat defense. In the Set deck,
> >you will see S:CE, but most combat decks have ways of dealing with this
> >(or are poorly designed).> If you have a few votes in the S&B, you can play with an Elysium: the
> Arboretum or two. Mine has two inner circlers, a prince, and a legendary
> vampire, so I can usually keep it around when I need it, unless someone
> really doesn't like it. It's not the best defense, since it can be
> burned and stolen any number of ways, but it is reusable.
I agree on it being an extremely useful anti-combat defense, but it
requires larger vampires to defend (more time, less early speed), is
anti-locationable, and is extremely contested (at least around here).
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote:>They need to combine permanent and temporary intercept more often. Few
>decks can do well with just one or the other.
Good point!
>> If you have a few votes in the S&B, you can play with an Elysium: the
>> Arboretum or two. Mine has two inner circlers, a prince, and a legendary
>> vampire, so I can usually keep it around when I need it, unless someone
>> really doesn't like it. It's not the best defense, since it can be
>> burned and stolen any number of ways, but it is reusable.>>I agree on it being an extremely useful anti-combat defense, but it
>requires larger vampires to defend (more time, less early speed), is
>anti-locationable, and is extremely contested (at least around here).
Also only works for one combat at a time (a dubious usefulness). Adding Mariel can be helpful,
as well as playing with the protean or presence Malks. I maintain as always that a good
intercept combat deck has no problems against S&B, especially in 4cl. The addition of
Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder Intervention, etc. etc. etc. has only eased
this and increased the variety of deck that can deal with it.
TJH
On 8 Jul 1996 t...@nwlink.com wrote:
[Re: S&B vs. things]
> Also only works for one combat at a time (a dubious usefulness).
> Adding Mariel can be helpful, as well as playing with the protean or
> presence Malks. I maintain as always that a good intercept combat
> deck has no problems against S&B, especially in 4cl.
I would say that a good intercept/combat deck has no problems against
S&B, despite 4CL. :)
Intercept is able to deal with S&B in any CL environment. The amount of
intercept compared to sneak is roughly equivalent.
> The addition of
> Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder Intervention, etc. etc.
> etc. has only eased this and increased the variety of deck that can
> deal with it.
I agree, though as can be seen on another thread, I definitely feel AI
and Protected Resources (as well as Justicar Retribution) don't have a
place in Jyhad (as the cards are written).
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On 8 Jul 1996 t...@nwlink.com wrote:
>
> [Re: S&B vs. things]
>
> > Also only works for one combat at a time (a dubious usefulness).
> > Adding Mariel can be helpful, as well as playing with the protean or
> > presence Malks. I maintain as always that a good intercept combat
> > deck has no problems against S&B, especially in 4cl.
>
> I would say that a good intercept/combat deck has no problems against
> S&B, despite 4CL. :)
> Intercept is able to deal with S&B in any CL environment. The amount of
> intercept compared to sneak is roughly equivalent.
>
> > The addition of
> > Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder Intervention, etc. etc.
> > etc. has only eased this and increased the variety of deck that can
> > deal with it.
>
> I agree, though as can be seen on another thread, I definitely feel AI
> and Protected Resources (as well as Justicar Retribution) don't have a
> place in Jyhad (as the cards are written).
I agree with your point on AI... the card just has devastating effects on teh
game.. I think we'd all be better off without it... I'm not so sure about
Protected Resources. I know that it is pretty powerful in a vote deck, but I
don't really think it's game-breaking.. it doesn't prevent your ability to
bleed, just reduce it a little.. and if they ever hope to get a VP (minus
voting someone out... and his prey should be able to do SOMETHING about
that..), they have to bleed eventually. I just don't feel that it's nearly
as effective as AI... the only serious problem I see with it is the fact that
there is NO way to get rid of it once it comes into play.. if it were a
location, or could be burned as a D action, it would be slightly more
vulnerable.. but even as it is.. I rarely have any problem with the card...
WyldStar
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote:
[> I wrote:]
> > Protected Resources [...doesn't...] have a> > place in Jyhad (as the cards are written).
[Much snippage below]
> I'm not so sure about
> Protected Resources. I know that it is pretty powerful in a vote deck, but I
> don't really think it's game-breaking.. it doesn't prevent your ability to
> bleed, just reduce it a little.. and if they ever hope to get a VP (minus
> voting someone out... and his prey should be able to do SOMETHING about
> that..), they have to bleed eventually. I just don't feel that it's nearly
> as effective as AI... the only serious problem I see with it is the fact that
> there is NO way to get rid of it once it comes into play.. if it were a
> location, or could be burned as a D action, it would be slightly more
> vulnerable.. but even as it is.. I rarely have any problem with the card...
My basic instincts are, it should have been either:
1) A unique location (contestable and location prone)
2) Destroyable as an action (up to a -2 stealth penalty for all I care)
3) Destroyable as a vote (causes Bleed to be more diverse)
my personal favorite
4) "Protected Resources - Master - 0 pool
Any successful bleed against you is instead considered unsuccessful.
Burn two pool every time this happens. Any of your minions may burn.
Protected Resources as an action at +1 stealth."
(Makes all bleed and +bleed cards into virtual hand-jam (albeit easier
to get rid of) but does not provide easy an escape from all bleed
tactics. Since the controlling Meth. can get rid of it as an action,
this card can be used to tide over til handjam is achieved on a S&B
predator. Could be considered a little harsh, but given that it is
cheaper than PR, slows down big bleeders, and can be removed in the face
of weak bleeders, I fell it works well).
Opinions on #4 or PR in general?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote:(snip)> My basic instincts are, it should have been either:
> 1) A unique location (contestable and location prone)
> 2) Destroyable as an action (up to a -2 stealth penalty for all I care)
> 3) Destroyable as a vote (causes Bleed to be more diverse)
> my personal favorite
> 4) "Protected Resources - Master - 0 pool
> Any successful bleed against you is instead considered unsuccessful.
> Burn two pool every time this happens. Any of your minions may burn.
> Protected Resources as an action at +1 stealth."
> (Makes all bleed and +bleed cards into virtual hand-jam (albeit easier
> to get rid of) but does not provide easy an escape from all bleed
> tactics. Since the controlling Meth. can get rid of it as an action,
> this card can be used to tide over til handjam is achieved on a S&B
> predator. Could be considered a little harsh, but given that it is
> cheaper than PR, slows down big bleeders, and can be removed in the face
> of weak bleeders, I fell it works well).
>
> Opinions on #4 or PR in general?
>> @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
> # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
> @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?Well, I like the idea of #4, as opposed to what I think protected resources is
(I've never seen it, just like I've never actually seen a copy of AI{thank god}).
The idea of a card which cannot be destroyed which limits all bleeds to two
forever seems somewhat out of line.
What I like about your proposed fix:
1) All successful bleeds become a loss of two pool. Your predator does not
gain the edge; but does not need to play cards to increase bleed either. I
would probably find it to be a pain if I was playing a heavy bleed deck, but
not completely insufferable, because ALL my vamps would effectively bleed for
2. And if your prey gets a dose of that for too long, it can get rather painful.
What I don't like:
Predator can't gain the edge, letting someone else hold onto it. Also, would a
vampire be able to play a freak drive if it's bleed was "sucessful"? That might
get kind of odd.
Overall, though, I find your fix for PR elegant and much more balanced than the
actual card(or what I've heard of it). Just like the fix for AI was much more reasonable.
Too bad that WotC hasn't even acknowledged that the cards are unbalanced or broken...
Sigh. We'll just have to endure them in sanctioned tournament situations, I guess.
Alec Chang
On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
> The Corrupter wrote:
[Re: Protected Resources]
> > My basic instincts are, it should have been either:
> > 1) A unique location (contestable and location prone)
> > 2) Destroyable as an action (up to a -2 stealth penalty for all I care)
> > 3) Destroyable as a vote (causes Bleed to be more diverse)
> > my personal favorite
> > 4) "Protected Resources - Master - 0 pool
> > Any successful bleed against you is instead considered unsuccessful.
> > Burn two pool every time this happens. Any of your minions may burn.
> > Protected Resources as an action at +1 stealth."
> > (Makes all bleed and +bleed cards into virtual hand-jam (albeit easier
> > to get rid of) but does not provide easy an escape from all bleed
> > tactics. Since the controlling Meth. can get rid of it as an action,
> > this card can be used to tide over til handjam is achieved on a S&B
> > predator. Could be considered a little harsh, but given that it is
> > cheaper than PR, slows down big bleeders, and can be removed in the face> > of weak bleeders, I feel it works well).> > Opinions on #4 or PR in general?> (I've never seen it, just like I've never actually seen a copy of> AI{thank god}). The idea of a card which cannot be destroyed which
> limits all bleeds to two forever seems somewhat out of line.> What I like about your proposed fix:
> 1) All successful bleeds become a loss of two pool. Your predator does not
> gain the edge; but does not need to play cards to increase bleed either. I
> would probably find it to be a pain if I was playing a heavy bleed deck, but
> not completely insufferable, because ALL my vamps would effectively bleed for
> 2. And if your prey gets a dose of that for too long, it can get
> rather painful.> What I don't like:
> Predator can't gain the edge, letting someone else hold onto it.
> Also, would a vampire be able to play a freak drive if it's bleed was
>"sucessful"? That might get kind of odd.
It was considered unsuccessful, so Superior Freak Drive would be in
order. The fact that the predator can't get the edge from bleeding you I
like, because it gives an additional power to what might be considered to
difficult a card to use.
> Overall, though, I find your fix for PR elegant and much more balanced
> than the actual card(or what I've heard of it). Just like the fix for
> AI was much more reasonable. Too bad that WotC hasn't even acknowledged
> that the cards are unbalanced or broken...
If enough people complain and few people support it (from what we've seen
here, not likely to happen), maybe they'll be changed in the next printing...
> Sigh. We'll just have to endure them in sanctioned tournament
> situations, I guess.
:/ Yep.
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Corrupter wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
> > The Corrupter wrote:
> [Re: Protected Resources]
> > > My basic instincts are, it should have been either:> > > 4) "Protected Resources - Master - 0 pool
> > > Any successful bleed against you is instead considered unsuccessful.
> > > Burn two pool every time this happens. Any of your minions may burn.
> > > Protected Resources as an action at +1 stealth."
> > > (Makes all bleed and +bleed cards into virtual hand-jam (albeit easier
> > > to get rid of) but does not provide easy an escape from all bleed
> > > tactics. Since the controlling Meth. can get rid of it as an action,
> > > this card can be used to tide over til handjam is achieved on a S&B
> > > predator. Could be considered a little harsh, but given that it is
> > > cheaper than PR, slows down big bleeders, and can be removed in the face
> > > of weak bleeders, I feel it works well).
>
> > > Opinions on #4 or PR in general?> > What I don't like:
> > Predator can't gain the edge, letting someone else hold onto it.
> > Also, would a vampire be able to play a freak drive if it's bleed was
> >"sucessful"? That might get kind of odd.
>
> It was considered unsuccessful, so Superior Freak Drive would be in
> order. The fact that the predator can't get the edge from bleeding you I
> like, because it gives an additional power to what might be considered to
> difficult a card to use.
>
Superior Freak drive won't help either, since it only affects "blocked" actions.
If an action is both unblocked and still unsuccessful, Freak Drive cannot be
used at all (this also precludes using Freak Drive after having a successful
bleed reduced to zero - thus becoming an unsuccessful action).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | All generalizations are false.
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson |
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |