WotC has their head up their ass?? (very long)

In article <3iiuse$2...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> Jyhad is incredibly balanced ... relative to Magic. Talk about Fame. >> Talk about Wakes. Talk about Malk. Dementia. Talk about >> Giant's Blood, Hospitality, Minion Tap, and Golondia. >> The counters I've heard against them are mostly Magic-style >> (Sudden Reversal, etc.). Talk about expensive wallpaper, >> such as Chainsaw, Powerbase: Washington D.C., >> Protracted Investment, Enchant Kindred (undirected >> action at +0 stealth!)... > >Peace Alan, > > JFS&G, I'll try to defend the balance in Jyhad. [asbestos >underware on] Peace James. I prefer logical discussion to pointless flaming. But I will try to counter your arguments. >Fame's kinda nasty, but you never have to block a vampire. >Yes, several people have tried to do demi-illegal things to snuff people >with Fame. To them, I say, go play Magic, where that is appropriate. Unfortunately, telling "clever" players (who exploits the holes and holes of a game to gain an outrageous advantage) to leave is IMO /not/ the way to balance a game. If you have to do that for a game, the game itself is unbalanced, period. >WwEF is annoying, and probably should cost a blood off the reacting vampire, >but there are several solutions to WwEF: Change of Target, use any stealth >improving card after WwEF, do aggravated damage to reacting vampire (doubt >s/h/it WwEF again), etc. I'll not dwell into a lesson of game theory, but I believe that, if one player has WwEF in his deck, and the other has Change of Target, the one with WwEF still has an advantage. And it would be advantageous to (still) put WwEF in a deck against a deck with known CoT's. WwEF are easily disposable at no cost; and the fact is, it would not hurt you to actually play a WwEF, even if enemy has CoT in hand. You may even burn an important action card (such as Ivory Bow). Notice that I'm not talking about whether to tap or not in the first place; I'm talking about whether having a WwEF in the hand to play or not, given a certain situation. The same reasoning goes for stealth. Yes, the stealth renders the WwEF ineffective, but his WwEF forced you to use up the stealth card (against a tapped vampire). Playing the WwEF does not hurt him. And this is even a lamer case than CoT, because if you can get by with the stealth, you can get by the same even if he was never tapped (and consequently don't play a WwEF). Change of Target and stealth only counters WwEF (without giving a significant advantage to the player bearing the CoT or Stealth - a card for a card); they don't "defeat" WwEF. This is unlike an Itercept Combat deck vs. a S&B Malk. deck; the Intercept combat deck actually smashes the S&B deck real flat, to the extent that the S&B deck hopes that it (the S&B deck itself) /is/ something else. Aggravated damage beats up WwEF, but it similarly beats up any blocking, with or without WwEF. It doesn't hurt him any more by doing an action and tapping, then playing WwEF to block and get torporized, than not doing an action and staying untapped, and block and get torporized. In fact, he's better off with the former case, because he got to perform an action. Combat deck counters blocking in general; it doesn't counter WwEF in particular. A WwEF deck does not fare much worse than a deck without WwEF against a combat deck, except for the small hand-space taken up by the WwEF. And, in fact, a number of WwEF decks are combat decks themselves. A WwEF combat deck would defeat a non-WwEF combat deck a lot of the time; try it and you'll see. >Malk Dem: every clan has a hoser card, like Letter >from Vienna is a picknick. Don't play the same deck over and over. But Letter from Vienna only taps vampires for a turn. If Malk. Dem "only" takes a vampire for a turn, it's not unbalanced; but in practice it also takes all the vampire's equipment, possibly all its blood, and may torporize or burn it. >Giant's >Blood is effectively unique, which is in itself balancing. /Before/ the start of the game. The player who luckily finds an opportunity to play it first and gain 6+ pool (you know what I mean) has a huge advantage. The card, if nothing else, "unnecessarily" brings in a /huge/ element of luck to the game. >Hospitality is >limited to the larger vampires, bringing one into play is more costly. But the effect of the card is worth way more than its cost. Some of the Princes aren't that expensive (6 blood?), anyway. Forgive me if my argument doesn't make sense; I don't even know the card's descriptions. >Minion >Tap: good card, but you risk losing the use of that minion for a long time - >someone could Bum's Rush that vampire into torpor. Golconda: used on yourself >its a fair trade, you get your investment back. Used on an opponent, it also >seems fair: s/h/it looses a minion, but gains enough pool to bring at least >one more out. Noticed that in the original post, I put all these cards together? You get it - Minion Tap + Golconda combo. Minion Tap + Giant's Blood/Hospitality combo. Malk. Dementia + Golconda/Minion Tap + 2 Masters combo. These cards are not /too/ bad if used alone; IMO Minion Tap should cost 1 pool, and Golconda is a bit questionable (if played on yourself), because you get a lot of blood out of a very trashed vampire. However, the combos are being used more and more commonly now, among $$$ richer players. (Don't try to tell me that two masters ability is not common; it's a good enough ability on its own, without allowing any combo's. When the combo abilities are added, the game turns into Magic-style.) About Minion Tap - I think it's still more advantageous to bring out a 8 blood vampire and then Minion Tap it for 4, rather than bring out a 4 blood vampire and then play a skill card on it, even if the 8 blood vampire comes out a turn later. So what if I get Bum's Rushed - I only spent 4 blood (net) on it anyway. If I brought out a 4 blood vampire instead, it'd be worse off if Bum's Rushed, because it's got less skills to defend itself with in combat. >Chainsaw: it is a melee weapon, WotC is wrong. I do agree with you on that. :-) (I have 2 Chainsaws.) >Powerbase Wash >D.C.: I agree, it is inferior to Chicago (on the surface). The thing is if >you are player A and player B wants the blood on PbWDC, but he might not get it >(you have equal #s of minions), what does he gain by trying? He weakens you >so that player C can get the blood when B doesn't and player Z now has >a weaker prey. When Z ousts A, B has a strong preditor to contend with. A similar argument goes for Powerbase: Chicago. If there's blood to steal, there's blood to steal, it doesn't matter who paid for it in the first place. Powerbase: Washington is plain wallpaper (unless you haven't got Chicago), period. It's not difficult to fix, as follows: -------------------------- Powerbase: Washington D.C. Master, Unique Location, cost 1 pool In your untap phase, you may either place 1, 2, or 3 blood on Powerbase:Washington (which is immediately matched by the bank), or take ALL, I repeat, ALL blood from Powerbase: Wash. Any other Meth.'s vampire (minion? what's originally on the card?) may perform a (D) action to steal all blood from Powerbase: Wash. -------------------------- What are your opinions? >Protracted Investment: it is more effective than Shortterm Investment, gain >of 3 (net) [PI] vs. gain of 2 (net) [SI]. If you have several PIs in your >library, you can afford to use fewer Master cards, so you can concentrate on >whatever else you deck is supposed to be good at (more skill/vote/weapon cards). Yes ... there are "some" uses for PI, but that's 7 masters for 3 blood, rather than 4 masters for 2 blood; and the investment is risky (you may be unable to bring out another vampire for several turns, for fear that the invested blood may cause you to be ousted). And who can afford to not use the Masters, with those great combos/hosers? There are several ways this can be fixed: make it cost 2 pool, and put 5 or 6 blood, or costs stay the same, but allow one unplayed Master to take 2 blood off PI. Or someone can come up with a better balance. >Enchant Kindred: yes, this is the Govern the Unaligned's poor relative. So, >it doesn't have a plus to stealth! Think of it as a Computer Hacking with >an optional use. Which can be blocked at least as easily - and possibly by my predator (who certainly wants to!). The +0 stealth undirected really sucks. Revise it and give it +1 stealth. >> Compare it to a good non-trading card game, and you'll >> see Jyhad as incredibly broken. > >Why would I want to compare a CCG to a non-CCG? Compared to other CCGs, Jyhad >stands head and shoulders above them. This I agree. I would never dispute your point that Jyhad is better than Magic, or the [flamebait statement] stupid $T:TNG. But this doesn't mean that the game cannot be yet improved by balancing it out. And it's not really that hard to do that, I believe. Although doing it would annoy a lot of people (for non-gamesmanship reasons) - imagine what would happen if WoTC issues an errata that Ivory Bow now costs 2 pool! (I'm not too much concerned about the Ivory Bow's balance at this moment - just using this as an example. Please don't flame me.) >> Take it, man. A trading-card game /need/ unbalancing >> cards such as Fame, and game-under-priced & cash-highly- >> priced cards such as Ivory Bow to get players to >> buy box after box of cards ... > >I disagree that CCGs "NEED" unbalanced cards. CCGs are still games and >games should be balance, elsewise there is no reason to play (cf: Magic). >Just because a few people put a disproportional economic value to a card, >Ivory Bow, Word of Command, whatever, doesn't mean that that card is >unbalancing, it just means that those people really want that card (or >think they want that card. Wasn't my original statement sacrastic? :-) I agree heartedly (despite having "said" the opposite, /in italics/) with the first part of your statement, but would disagree with the second. Mind you, the reason I use is a very strong one: the actual fact, the real world. People pay huge cash for a card because they feel that it helps them win the game, and they're not far from right. Look at Magic: the Fallen Empires. In the real world, there are a lot of people who care a lot more about whether they win, than about whether the game they're playing is well-balanced. To many, if I can buy a killer card and you can buy a killer card, and you didn't spend the $$$ to buy the killer card and you lose because you don't have the killer card while I do, then the game is "balanced". $$$ is part of a (big-seller) collectable card game. Man, this may even be "realistic". You know in what sense I meant by "need". Magic, the inferior game that people and I quote, has got sales manyfold that of Jyhad. Despite the fact that you and I (yes, I do, on a relative basis) agree that Jyhad is a better game than Magic. >I fully expect to be flamed to hell and back for this post, but I've had >my say and I've been gaming quite a while. I've played unbalance games, >so I know one when I see one. I still say Jyhad is a good game. You certainly sound like an experienced gamer. Your arguments are logical, and I have no intention of flaming you. But I still have to argue against you, in a logical, friendly manner. I too have played balanced games and unbalanced ones; there certainly are /a lot of/ board games balanced worse than Jyhad. Jyhad is a good game (useful commons, for example), but can be better. I tried to point out what IMO are the (few, but possibly /bad/ for a "good" game) unbalancing elements in Jyhad; I believe that might be a first step in improving it. Jyhad Revised, V:TES, will be coming soon. I'll wait to see how balanced it is before spending money on it. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <1995Feb24....@cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) says: [Much stuff from Alan and James deleted....] Everyone always talks about limiting 'power' cards but they very rarely consider the side effects of limiting cards. If you limit WwEF and you botch up the attempt and make it to restrictive then the must have card will just become something like Misdirection. WwEF does several things 1. It allows you to attack your prey more aggresively. Strongly encouraging predators to focus on thier prey was one of the design tenants that WoTC used we designing Jyhad. 2. It allows you to defense cards like Letter from Vienna and Misdirection. 3. It allows decks that get fewer larger vampires out to defend against decks that go for the weenie hordes of small vampires. (Remember for the most part a 1 b Caitif can bleed you for as much as a 10 b Justicar) When you take a broader look (Alan, James flame if you like but I think you guys are taking a too narrow view in your WwEF debate) at the game I think WwEF is a far more balancing factor than it is an unbalancing one. Fame - I agree. This card is bad. I have to specifically put defense against this card in my decks. Not defenses against a specific style like intercept, stealth or polit. act. but specific defenses against this card. In my opinion that makes Fame what Wizards of the Coa$t would call a game breaker. Especially when you consider that Fame in concert with Day Operation is a combination that is virtually impossible to defend against if it is played with any stealth. Minion Tap, Goloconda, Hospitality, and other get blood cards. I could go with either one of you in this debate. Leave them like they are or make them cost something (just don't go buck wild with the cost). I will still use them either way. Blood is just like mana in Magic - the more you have at you disposal the stronger your position is. Although my previous sentence doesn't seem pertitent to the debate my point is that blood is the name of the game and people will use and abuse these cards what ever you do. Unless you make thier use prohibitively expensive. I will admit that Minion Tap may be open to a bit too much abuse. Having someone repeatedly Minion Tap a vampire with Aarons Feeding Razor or The Rack directed at it can get to be very annoying. Malkavian Dementia and Letter from Vienna - I think this cards are more balancing than unbalancing. Only the Brujah are more fearsome in combat than the Tremere. And no other clan can match the sneak and bleed capa- bilities of the Malkavians. With out cards to keep the players of these clans honest the game would be much weaker because every one would be playing the same clans and deck types. Just think about magic and how dominating a not to tightly built blue deck can be (the tight well constructed ones are really a major BITCH). Anyway enough of my two cents on the debate. Now cards I do think will be altered or dropped in the revised version of Jyhad. Fame - I think this card will either be dropped or altered greatly. I could live with this card if they dropped the 3 blood penalty for the prey. WwEF - I think this card will only be altered in response to other card changes (i.e. changes in cards like Misdirection) Blood Cards - Minion Tap, Blood Doll, Investments, Hospitality...etc. I don't think these cards will be altered but you may see them restricated in terms of deck quantity or use (i.e. you can't Minion Tap and Blood Giant on consecutive turns). Cauldron of Blood - For some reason (just a hunch really) I think that this cards damage will be lowered from 3/5 to 2/4. Chris cca...@promus.com

cca...@promus.com (Chris Carter) writes: >When you take a broader look (Alan, James flame if you like but I think >you guys are taking a too narrow view in your WwEF debate) at the game >I think WwEF is a far more balancing factor than it is an unbalancing one. I think most suggestions for containing WwEF prefer increasing its cost to card number restrictions. (Mine did) I agree, in spite of my concern that WwEF is too good, that it must exist to counter Misdirection. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

>WwEF does several things >1. It allows you to attack your prey more aggresively. Strongly encouraging >predators to focus on thier prey was one of the design tenants that WoTC >used we designing Jyhad. This is just silly. There is already an overwhelming compulsion to want to kill your prey. No one ever looked at the WwEF card and said, "hmmm... I can change to an 'oust my prey' strategy if I use these cards." >2. It allows you to defense cards like Letter from Vienna and Misdirection. That's why it's bad!! Letter from Vienna is the Tremere hoser and it is already pretty weak: It hurts you when you have that clan (unlike Dementia, Frenzy, Putresence or De-ev,) only really works against your Prey and is now so easy to get ignore with WwEF. Misdirection already costs pool and can be countered by Rat's Warning or Sudden Reversal. I think it's a bit powerful, but it's easier to fix by changing the cost a little. >3. It allows decks that get fewer larger vampires out to defend against >decks that go for the weenie hordes of small vampires. (Remember for the >most part a 1 b Caitif can bleed you for as much as a 10 b Justicar) Weenie hordes already have built-in counters. You only get 4 vampires right away, have a higher chance of being contested (esp. a Famed, gun- wielding Catiff,) and lack stamina. I'd say WwEF allows any non-weenie deck to utterly crush a weenie deck by negating the weenie's only real advantage (extra actions.) >I will admit that Minion Tap may be open to a bit too much abuse. >Having someone repeatedly Minion Tap a vampire with Aarons Feeding Razor >or The Rack directed at it can get to be very annoying. Blood Doll is much better at this. By itself, it's a "combo" Doll/Hunt that gives you 1 blood/turn (which WwEF makes more effective.) >Cauldron of Blood - For some reason (just a hunch really) I think that this >cards damage will be lowered from 3/5 to 2/4. Pretend a Brujah and a Tremere are fighting the second round of a combat and they have normal Potence/Thaum. The Brujah plays Growing Fury and the Tremere play CoB. Net effect is the Tremere loses 4 blood and the Brujah loses 3. Now give them both superior disciplines. They each lose 5 blood. CoB isn't usable at range (since it doesn't say it is,) doesn't add to hand or melee weapon damage (like GF,) and costs you a blood for what will probably be overkill, anyways. The common steal blood card is the nasty Tremere one. At normal it effectively gives you range _and_ prevents a point of damage. At superior it gives range, +1 damage and prevents 2 damage.

In article <1995Feb28.2...@cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu> reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: > > >>I will admit that Minion Tap may be open to a bit too much abuse. > >>Having someone repeatedly Minion Tap a vampire with Aarons Feeding Razor > >>or The Rack directed at it can get to be very annoying. > > > > Blood Doll is much better at this. By itself, it's a "combo" Doll/Hunt > >that gives you 1 blood/turn (which WwEF makes more effective.) > > I'm just thinking, if Revised Blood Doll looks like this: > > Blood Doll > Master (no cost) > > Place on any ready vampire you own and control. During an Untap > phase, you may either move 1 blood from your pool to this > vampire, or remove 2 blood from this vampire and put > 1 blood in your pool. > > -------------------- > > That would be much more balanced, wouldn't it? People would > still sometimes get pool if they are at capacity, > so the change is not "too steep". But this would require > players to really think about its use (rather than > using it trivially, as it is now). > > > >The common steal blood card is the > >nasty Tremere one. At normal it effectively gives you range _and_ prevents > >a point of damage. At superior it gives range, +1 damage and prevents > >2 damage. > > I think the normal version is okay, but the Superior version > is one point too many. Or the normal version is 1/2 point > too many, too. Some kind of restrictions would be good, > like "only one 'Steal Blood' strike can be played in > a combat". Or make the card "Do not replace until > end of combat". > sorry for the entire repost, but i thought you might like to see the whole thing if you didn't still have the old one. anyway, why are you still griping about all the cards? if you think the masters are really unbalanced, start trading for sudden reversals, and reverse everybody! i agree with your comments about the fame thingy, as that card is way out o wack in my opinion, but blood doll is fine as is. it is a staple card that is not necessarily "abused." if you think about what a blood doll is, you won't think that it's unbalanced. if it has the rack and that pisses you off, steal the rack. if it has a hunting ground that keeps recycling blood, use a disputed territory and take the hunting ground. if he hunts with a feeding razor (rare anyway) intercept. or fix the problem at the source, bum's rush the little jerk with a brujah and burn his ass. the theft of Vitae is fine. just dodge the damn thing. there must be at least 4 different cards that can give you a dodge. if you hate strikes, dodge with an additional strike or 4. i think that Jyhad is remarkaably balanced for a "1st edition". i'll agree with the fact that there's a few unbalanced cards here and there, but overall, you can't expect strategy to work- it's bound to get stuffed by another. that's why you have to experiment and find what works best. then you can ignore the unbalance cards because they're not an issue anymore. i could care less whether or not you use fame, or 6 of them. in a 3 player game, it's my predater's problem. when you oust him, or i reverse play, i'll stop sending the fames to torpor and start burning them instead. WwEF is a little unbalanced if your opponent has a million of them, but you can do things to make them drop. i.e. declare stealth later, change of target, majesty blah blah blah. unbalanced cards can be like a double edged sword if you capitalize on them. every thing has it's weakness and advantages, and most things are balanced. the thing i like about jyhad is that the common cards are really useful. (well, most of them) keep playing, it's an awesome game as is. Harpua

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > Blood Doll > Master (no cost) > > Place on any ready vampire you own and control. During an Untap > phase, you may either move 1 blood from your pool to this > vampire, or remove 2 blood from this vampire and put > 1 blood in your pool. > > -------------------- > > That would be much more balanced, wouldn't it? People would > still sometimes get pool if they are at capacity, > so the change is not "too steep". But this would require > players to really think about its use (rather than > using it trivially, as it is now). Peace Alan, I disagree (I bet you're getting sick of me beginning every post with that). Maybe the people that you play with have found some way to make Blood Doll unbalancing, but in my group it is not. If you have a Blood Doll & Hunting Ground combo, yes, it is VERY nice, but, the people I play with would do one of the following: contest either your Blood Dolled vamp or Hunting Ground, destroy your hunting ground, attack your Blood Doll. Without some way to keep putting new blood on the BDed vamp, it is going to get weaker. Yes, it can hunt, but that can (and will) be intercepted. I've actually seen people PUT blood ONTO their Blood Doll, just so it wouldn't be too weak (easily sent to torpor). > >The common steal blood card is the > >nasty Tremere one. At normal it effectively gives you range _and_ prevents > >a point of damage. At superior it gives range, +1 damage and prevents > >2 damage. > > I think the normal version is okay, but the Superior version > is one point too many. Or the normal version is 1/2 point > too many, too. Some kind of restrictions would be good, > like "only one 'Steal Blood' strike can be played in > a combat". Or make the card "Do not replace until > end of combat". So does that mean that Superior Acrobatics is too powerful, especially with Fists of Death or Undead Strength? Gee, Superior Blur + Superior Undead Str = 9 damage! That's way too powerful! It should be outlawed! Brujah are too mega! Remove them from the revised edition! Sorry, got carried away. 8^) I don't believe that Theft of Vitae is unbalanced. In a "normal" combat (no pluses to either vamps strikes), ToV means that Tremere stays equal while other vamp takes one damage. That doesn't look too unbalancing to me. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3j7d8o$k...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > >Peace Alan, > >I disagree (I bet you're getting sick of me beginning every post with that). Peace James, No, I don't get sick, I just get turned on. :-) >Maybe the people that you play with have found some way to make Blood Doll >unbalancing, but in my group it is not. If you have a Blood Doll & Hunting >Ground combo, yes, it is VERY nice, but, the people I play with would do one >of the following: contest either your Blood Dolled vamp or Hunting Ground, >destroy your hunting ground, attack your Blood Doll. Without some way to >keep putting new blood on the BDed vamp, it is going to get weaker. Yes, it >can hunt, but that can (and will) be intercepted. I've actually seen people >PUT blood ONTO their Blood Doll, just so it wouldn't be too weak (easily sent >to torpor). A Hunting Ground has its limitations and vulnerabilities (pool cost is one), so I won't call it the unbalancing factor in the combo. If a Blood Doll attracts so much attention in your group, that's an evidence that it's unbalanced, isn't it? > >> >The common steal blood card is the >> >nasty Tremere one. At normal it effectively gives you range _and_ prevents >> >a point of damage. At superior it gives range, +1 damage and prevents >> >2 damage. >> >> I think the normal version is okay, but the Superior version >> is one point too many. Or the normal version is 1/2 point >> too many, too. Some kind of restrictions would be good, >> like "only one 'Steal Blood' strike can be played in >> a combat". Or make the card "Do not replace until >> end of combat". > >So does that mean that Superior Acrobatics is too powerful, especially with >Fists of Death or Undead Strength? Gee, Superior Blur + Superior Undead Str >= 9 damage! That's way too powerful! It should be outlawed! Brujah are too >mega! Remove them from the revised edition! Sorry, got carried away. 8^) >I don't believe that Theft of Vitae is unbalanced. In a "normal" combat (no >pluses to either vamps strikes), ToV means that Tremere stays equal while >other vamp takes one damage. That doesn't look too unbalancing to me. Blur + Undead Strength is two disciplines; Thamataurgy is only one. Tremere has Dominate (which is better than Presence) and Auspex (which is very useful) to match a missing combat discipline relative to the Brujah. Many Tremeres have Celerity; if a Tremere Blurs with normal Celerity and plays Superior Theft of Vitae twice, she isn't too much behind the above "too powerful" Brujah that you described. Let's do a serious comparison: Undead Strength : (assuming hand damage 1) +1/+2 hand, equivalently 2pt/3pt strike, effective only at close range Throw Sewer Lid : 3 dmg/3dmg + op. Press, = 3pt strike (with Press for superior), usable only at long range Theft of Vitae : steal 1/2 blood, = 2pt/4pt strike (add damage to opponent + blood added to yourself), usable at long range OR close range Because the Theft of Vitae is usable at either range, it seems much more flexible than the Potence strike cards ... Do people really use Blood Fury's? I'd say that as it is, Thamataurgy rules over Potence because of this one card (it doesn't rule over Potence + Celerity, of course, because that's two disciplines), at least until Chainsaw becomes a Melee Weapon ... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <rhoward-0203...@150.209.22.22> rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) writes: >anyway, why are you still griping about all the cards? if you think the >masters are really unbalanced, start trading for sudden reversals, and >reverse everybody! I've already covered this argument before. NO, relying on SR to counter unbalanced Masters is a losing strategy. Unlike MtG's blue counterspells (where your opponent loses the mana used to cast the spell), your opponent doesn't lose anything more than you do (a card and a Master Phase). And, I can play only 1 Sudden Reversal in a turn when everyone else is trying to play Blood Dolls. The correct strategy is getting Blood Dolls myself, so that everybody is using Blood Dolls - same strategy for everybody, isn't it great. >i agree with your comments about the fame thingy, as >that card is way out o wack in my opinion, but blood doll is fine as is. >it is a staple card that is not necessarily "abused." if you think about >what a blood doll is, you won't think that it's unbalanced. if it has the >rack and that pisses you off, steal the rack. if it has a hunting ground >that keeps recycling blood, use a disputed territory and take the hunting >ground. if he hunts with a feeding razor (rare anyway) intercept. or >fix the problem at the source, bum's rush the little jerk with a brujah >and burn his ass. I'm happy with the Rack or the Hunting Ground's balance, exactly for the reasons you mentioned. However, the Bum's Rush counter for the Blood Doll has exactly the same weakness as the Sudden Reversal: the Blood Doll's user suffer no additional disadvantage, since he can be Bum's Rushed all the same even if he's not a Blood Doll. Having the Blood Doll card on his vampire doesn't put him in a worse game position than without the card, and the potential gains of the Blood Doll card far out-weights the cost of it, namely putting an extra Master card in your library. Unlike using Malks for S&B: if you build a S&B deck on Malks, you'll be using many cards for Obfuscate and Dominate, and your combat capabilities will be severely hampered. The cost, in the latter case, is likely to be the combat capability of your entire army. An unbalanced card's power is not justified just because there are counters for it, unless the counter is readily availiable (written on the powerful card itself) or the user suffers some real loss (other than just a card) when countered. >the theft of Vitae is fine. just dodge the damn thing. there must be at >least 4 different cards that can give you a dodge. if you hate strikes, >dodge with an additional strike or 4. The invalidity of this argument is obvious when we look at the following analogy: Assume there is a Potence strike card as the following: ------------------- Elastic Iron Arms Potence, Combat, no blood cost Strike: 6R Superior: Strike: 8R ------------------- So what? Just dodge the damn thing. > >i think that Jyhad is remarkaably balanced for a "1st edition". This is true, especially if you compare it with Magic. I deliberately bitch about it here and there so that Revised can be even better. >agree with the fact that there's a few unbalanced cards here and there, >but overall, you can't expect strategy to work- it's bound to get stuffed >by another. that's why you have to experiment and find what works best. >then you can ignore the unbalance cards because they're not an issue >anymore. i could care less whether or not you use fame, or 6 of them. in >a 3 player game, it's my predater's problem. when you oust him, or i >reverse play, i'll stop sending the fames to torpor and start burning them >instead. The problem with unbalanced cards is exactly that they work a bit too often. Your fame argument is moot; if it's /your/ predator with the famous vampires, and your prey who keeps torporizing those famous vasmpires, there's not too much you can do against it. Of course no strategy works effectively against you unless it is directed against you. (Fame says "/prey/ loses 3 pool".) >WwEF is a little unbalanced if your opponent has a million of them, but >you can do things to make them drop. i.e. declare stealth later, change of >target, majesty blah blah blah. unbalanced cards can be like a double >edged sword if you capitalize on them. every thing has it's weakness and >advantages, and most things are balanced. the thing i like about jyhad is >that the common cards are really useful. (well, most of them) No, your argument about WwEF, when neutralized, and Masters, when Suddenly Reversed, becoming a double-edged sword is incorrect. You don't lose extra resources (unlike a Hunting Ground being burnt, in which case you lose the pool spent on it) other than the card, and your opponent has to prepare special counters for them which are generally not as useful as your WwEF or Masters. This argument has been covered throughoutly in my previous article; I'll be happy to e-mail you a copy if you want. > >keep playing, it's an awesome game as is. Yes, it's an awesome game, but that doesn't mean that some fine-tuning can't be done to make it even better. [ quoted text not captured ]

In <1995Feb28.2...@cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu> reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: >I think the normal version is okay, but the Superior version >is one point too many. Or the normal version is 1/2 point >too many, too. Some kind of restrictions would be good, >like "only one 'Steal Blood' strike can be played in >a combat". Or make the card "Do not replace until >end of combat". > Ok, call me biased, but as a Tremere player, I feel that 'blood magic' cards are not only precious, but also a necessity. Every clan has some 'killer' cards that I'm sure we all feel can be a darn nusiance. That's the nature of the game. Vampire Smilies ------------- >:)= =Vampire ><(= =Torpor >[)= =Fame .. More to come. G.

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > Peace James. I prefer logical discussion to pointless flaming. > But I will try to counter your arguments. Peace Alan, I didn't think logical discussion was allowed in USENET groups. Isn't there some net.rule that demands flaming? > >Fame's kinda nasty, but you never have to block a vampire. > >Yes, several people have tried to do demi-illegal things to snuff people > >with Fame. To them, I say, go play Magic, where that is appropriate. > > Unfortunately, telling "clever" players (who exploits the holes > and holes of a game to gain an outrageous advantage) to leave > is IMO /not/ the way to balance a game. If you have to > do that for a game, the game itself is unbalanced, period. There will always be people who try to exploit every loophole in a game system. For the most part, they are NOT fun people to play with, so don't and maybe they'll leave Jyhad alone (I don't need another SFB-sized rulebook). Yes, Fame needs to be changed to say "Controller loses three pool" vice "Prey loses three pool." ARE YOU LISTENING WIZARDS OF THE COAST???? > >WwEF is annoying, and probably should cost a blood off the reacting vampire, > >but there are several solutions to WwEF: Change of Target, use any stealth > >improving card after WwEF, do aggravated damage to reacting vampire (doubt > >s/h/it WwEF again), etc. > > I'll not dwell into a lesson of game theory, but I believe that, > if one player has WwEF in his deck, and the other has Change > of Target, the one with WwEF still has an advantage. And > it would be advantageous to (still) put WwEF in a deck > against a deck with known CoT's. WwEF are easily disposable > at no cost; and the fact is, it would not hurt you to > actually play a WwEF, even if enemy has CoT in hand. > You may even burn an important action card (such as Ivory Bow). I don't believe that WwEFs are as "easily disposable" as you say, Alan. Please, see my other post where I said that throwing Wakes away on 'impossible intercepts' violates the spirit of the rules. > Notice that I'm not talking about whether to tap or not > in the first place; I'm talking about whether having > a WwEF in the hand to play or not, given a certain > situation. Yes, it is better to have a Wake than not have a Wake, but isn't that true for just about every card? If you had a deck with every useful card in it (just in case) your deck would be too big to be playable. > The same reasoning goes for stealth. Yes, the stealth > renders the WwEF ineffective, but his WwEF forced you > to use up the stealth card (against a tapped vampire). > Playing the WwEF does not hurt him. > And this is even a lamer case than CoT, > because if you can get by with the stealth, you can > get by the same even if he was never tapped (and > consequently don't play a WwEF). I believe that the Waking player is just a harmed by losing his/her Wake to a failed intercept as the CoT or stealth player. In the case of stealth, the action succeeded and the target wasted a Wake, I'll take that. In the case of CoT, I really don't see to many other uses for CoT, so if it neutralized a Wake, I would consider that a proper use of CoT. > Change of Target and stealth only counters WwEF (without > giving a significant advantage to the player bearing > the CoT or Stealth - a card for a card); they don't > "defeat" WwEF. This is unlike an Itercept Combat deck Yes, stealth defeats a Wake. WwEF is supposed to allow you to block an action you otherwise wouldn't be able to block since you are tapped out. Since you failed to block the action, your tactic was defeated. The same holds true to a lesser degree with CoT (especially against Brujah & Gangrel combat decks). > Aggravated damage beats up WwEF, but it similarly beats up > any blocking, with or without WwEF. It doesn't hurt him [long spiel about WwEF deleted] My original point was, if you send the Waking vampire to torpor, it won't be blocking you again this turn (and maybe for several more turns) regard- less of how many Wakes you are holding. I do agree that having Wakes is better than having no Wakes, but this holds true for most cards. > >Malk Dem: every clan has a hoser card, like Letter > >from Vienna is a picknick. Don't play the same deck over and over. > > But Letter from Vienna only taps vampires for a turn. If Malk. Dem > "only" takes a vampire for a turn, it's not unbalanced; > but in practice it also takes all the vampire's equipment, > possibly all its blood, and may torporize or burn it. Misdirection only taps vampires for one turn and you don't think that it costs enough, well LfV cost ZERO, does that make it unbalanced? Yes, Malk Dem is quite nasty, but Malkavians in general have nice disciplines: Auspex = intercept and defense vs. bleed, Obfuscate = stealth, Dominate = increased bleed & defense vs. bleed, PLUS some very nice cards like MVH, Game of Malkav, Malkavian Prank, and **Madness Network**. I believe that this balances out. > >Giant's > >Blood is effectively unique, which is in itself balancing. > > /Before/ the start of the game. The player who luckily finds > an opportunity to play it first and gain 6+ pool (you know > what I mean) has a huge advantage. The card, if nothing > else, "unnecessarily" brings in a /huge/ element of luck to the game. Yes, as do all unique cards. See my reply to one of your other posts about getting Info Hiway out first turn or having twelve Sengir Daggers in your deck. > >Hospitality is > >limited to the larger vampires, bringing one into play is more costly. > > But the effect of the card is worth way more than its cost. > Some of the Princes aren't that expensive (6 blood?), anyway. > Forgive me if my argument doesn't make sense; I don't > even know the card's descriptions. 5th Tradition: Hospitality is {paraphrase} +1 stealth, Prince/Justicar only, any vamp of any meth fills up with blood, costs acting vamp 1 blood. Yes, it is quite effective, but most Princes are 7+ (all but one) and all Justicars are 10s (except one). It is as interceptable as any other +1 stealth action. It can be used to help (why would anyone want to do that?) another meth. Yes, it is nasty, but it is limited. > >Minion > >Tap: good card, but you risk losing the use of that minion for a long time - > >someone could Bum's Rush that vampire into torpor. Golconda: used on yourself > >its a fair trade, you get your investment back. Used on an opponent, it also > >seems fair: s/h/it looses a minion, but gains enough pool to bring at least > >one more out. > > Noticed that in the original post, I put all these cards together? > You get it - Minion Tap + Golconda combo. Minion Tap + Giant's > Blood/Hospitality combo. Malk. Dementia + Golconda/Minion Tap + > 2 Masters combo. These cards are not /too/ bad if used alone; > IMO Minion Tap should cost 1 pool, and Golconda is a bit > questionable (if played on yourself), because you get a lot > of blood out of a very trashed vampire. However, > the combos are being used more and more commonly now, > among $$$ richer players. Yes, those are effective combos and two masters at once is a great advantage, that is why it takes a 9 blood vampire or a vote to gain that advantage. Minion Tap is common, Malk Dam is uncommon (better hope someone is playing Malks), Giant's Blood & Golconda are rare, but GB is "unique" it only works once and not if someone else has used it (even to restore one blood to deny you the usage) and Golconda only works on 8+ blood vampires. Since you wrote to me that you never include more than two in your crypt of tweleve you have a 43% chance of not starting with an 8+ point vamp in your uncontrolled area and only a 25% chance that the next vamp in your crypt will satisfy Golconda. That is even before you figure in the chance that you will actually get both a Golconda & Minion Tap in your hand at the same time. Those odds are starting to look kinda long to me, Alan. I don't think that those combos you site are either likely or terribly unbalancing, relative to other combos. > (Don't try to tell me that two masters ability is not common; > it's a good enough ability on its own, without allowing any > combo's. When the combo abilities are added, the game > turns into Magic-style.) I will tell you that double master is NOT common (one vamp & one vote). It is such a good ability that your opponents had better not let you have it or they deserve what they get. I definitely wouldn't call double master a Magic-style thing. > About Minion Tap - I think it's still more advantageous to bring out > a 8 blood vampire and then Minion Tap it for 4, rather than > bring out a 4 blood vampire and then play a skill card > on it, even if the 8 blood vampire comes out a turn later. > So what if I get Bum's Rushed - I only spent 4 blood (net) > on it anyway. If I brought out a 4 blood vampire instead, > it'd be worse off if Bum's Rushed, because it's got less > skills to defend itself with in combat. Which would you Bum's Rush, given the choice: a 4 blood vampire or an 8 blood vampire. Well, given that Golconda & several other cards can be used when the 8er is ready and the 8er probably has votes and better disciplines, I'd bet all of us would go after the 8er. Any decent Brujah deck worth it's salt can torporize an intact 8er without too much luck of the draw (I torpored the Prince of Dallas during his first turn on the table, just last night. It is awfully difficult to Minion Tap an empty vampire). A have empty Prince/Primogen/ Justicar is just a bigger target for directed attacks (Haven Uncovered anyone?). Yes, Minion Tap is effective, but not unbalancing, IMO. > who paid for it in the first place. Powerbase: Washington > is plain wallpaper (unless you haven't got Chicago), period. Disagree. Pb:WDC is just like a reusable Protracted Investment, that can be stolen. Yes, it is difficult to use, but not wallpaper. > It's not difficult to fix, as follows: > > -------------------------- > Powerbase: Washington D.C. > > Master, Unique Location, cost 1 pool > > In your untap phase, you may either place 1, 2, or 3 blood on > Powerbase:Washington (which is immediately matched by the > bank), or take ALL, I repeat, ALL blood from Powerbase: Wash. > Any other Meth.'s vampire (minion? what's originally on the > card?) may perform a (D) action to steal all blood from > Powerbase: Wash. > -------------------------- > > What are your opinions? Change "take ALL" to "take ONE" and I think you've got something there. Take all is just too powerful - a 100% return on 3 blood in one turn! Too mega! > >Protracted Investment: it is more effective than Shortterm Investment, gain > >of 3 (net) [PI] vs. gain of 2 (net) [SI]. If you have several PIs in your > >library, you can afford to use fewer Master cards, so you can concentrate on > >whatever else you deck is supposed to be good at (more skill/vote/weapon cards). > > Yes ... there are "some" uses for PI, but that's 7 masters for 3 blood, > rather than 4 masters for 2 blood; and the investment is risky > (you may be unable to bring out another vampire for several > turns, for fear that the invested blood may cause you to be > ousted). And who can afford to not use the Masters, with > those great combos/hosers? There are several ways this can I can. I have a 44 card Gangrel deck with only 8 or 9 Master cards in it. I have a PI in that deck, since I know that I'll have unused Master Phases. AFATC, why would you ever use Short Term Invest vs. Ascendence? 4 Masters for 2 blood vs. 1 Master for 1 Blood. Does that make STI wallpaper or Ascend unbalanced? > be fixed: make it cost 2 pool, and put 5 or 6 blood, or > costs stay the same, but allow one unplayed Master to take > 2 blood off PI. Or someone can come up with a better balance. Costs two to get five may be a better card. Taking two off a master isn't right. > >Enchant Kindred: yes, this is the Govern the Unaligned's poor relative. So, > >it doesn't have a plus to stealth! Think of it as a Computer Hacking with > >an optional use. > > Which can be blocked at least as easily - and possibly by my > predator (who certainly wants to!). > The +0 stealth undirected really sucks. Revise it and give > it +1 stealth. Then you'd have to make it cost a blood like BtU does. > >> Compare it to a good non-trading card game, and you'll > >> see Jyhad as incredibly broken. > > > >Why would I want to compare a CCG to a non-CCG? Compared to other CCGs, Jyhad > >stands head and shoulders above them. > > This I agree. I would never dispute your point that Jyhad is > better than Magic, or the [flamebait statement] stupid > $T:TNG. But this doesn't mean that the game > cannot be yet improved by balancing it out. And it's not really > that hard to do that, I believe. Although doing it would > annoy a lot of people (for non-gamesmanship reasons) - > imagine what would happen if WoTC issues an errata that > Ivory Bow now costs 2 pool! (I'm not too much concerned about > the Ivory Bow's balance at this moment - just using this as an > example. Please don't flame me.) I agree that some *minor* tweeking needs to be done, i.e.: Ivory Bow. When WotC does release V:tES, they NEED TO STATE THAT THE REVISED TEXT IS THE CORRECT TEXT. ALL OLDER CARDS SHOULD BE TREATED AS IF THEY READ JUST LIKE THE NEW/CORRECT CARDS. This will prevent all sorts of arguments/problems. Please, WotC, if you are listening, implement this! [ quoted text not captured ] No, I missed the sarcasm of your original post. For the most part, win-at- all-cost players are not fun to game with anyway. Send them back to Magic the $$$ where they belong. Jyhad is an excellent strategy card game and attempts to degenerate it into some Magic the $$$-feeding-frenzy should be resisted forcably (sp). > You know in what sense I meant by "need". Magic, the inferior game > that people and I quote, has got sales manyfold that of Jyhad. > Despite the fact that you and I (yes, I do, on a relative > basis) agree that Jyhad is a better game than Magic. I think Magic outsells Jyhad for three reasons: 1) Magic is simpler (Jyhad requires real strategy to play, Magic does not), 2) Magic is faster (being a real strategy game, Jyhad takes longer to finish [children have low attention spans]) 3) Magic is unbalanced (I don't think I'll get any disagreement here). In that way Magic caters to the win-at-all-cost juveniles (sp). It is simple (the Nintendo generation), quick (instant gratification), and unbalance (my deck is better than your deck. is not. is too.) > >I fully expect to be flamed to hell and back for this post, but I've had > >my say and I've been gaming quite a while. I've played unbalance games, > >so I know one when I see one. I still say Jyhad is a good game. > > You certainly sound like an experienced gamer. Your arguments > are logical, and I have no intention of flaming you. But > I still have to argue against you, in a logical, friendly > manner. Thank you for the kind words and reasonable argument, Alan. It is good to see that discussion can be had on the Net without useless flames. > Jyhad Revised, V:TES, will be coming soon. I'll wait > to see how balanced it is before spending money > on it. I second that WotC! Don't fuck Jyhad up when you revise it! Don't try to turn it into Magic Jr (tm)! Just fix the minor card wording problems and be satified that you have produced THE most balanced, and best, CCG, even if it doesn't sell quite as well as you'd like. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> Peace James. >>(stuff deleted) >Peace Alan, >(stuff deleted) What all this Peace business? We're talking about a game called "Holy War" (more or less) in Arabic! Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3jia4c$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>If a Blood Doll attracts so much attention in your group, >>that's an evidence that it's unbalanced, isn't it? > >Cards generally attract attention because they're threats. Being a threat >doesn't make a card unbalanced. A Muddled Vampire Hunt is a serious threat, >but it's relatively easy to kill it or otherwise neutralize it, so it's >not what I'd kill unbalanced. Blood Doll works slowly enough that I would >consider it more balanced than a card like Minion Tap. Actually, I do agree that the "balance" of Blood Doll and Minion Tap is not too far off, /provided that some of the "gain blood" combos are not triggered/. Many playing groups overweight Blood Dolls because for some reason the playing decks are not effective enough, so there are long periods of inactivity, during which the Blood Doll just reaps in pool. In fast-paced games with more "deadly" decks, Blood Dolls are useful, but not as overwhelming as some see it. It takes much more resources to neutralize a Blood Doll than a MVH. A MVH has to attack to create damage, and he attacks at +0 stealth so can be easily blocked by a vampire that can triumph. It usually takes more than a single Acrobatics card to take out a Blood Doll. >>Undead Strength : (assuming hand damage 1) >>+1/+2 hand, equivalently 2pt/3pt strike, effective only >>at close range >> >>Throw Sewer Lid : >>3 dmg/3dmg + op. Press, = 3pt strike (with Press for superior), >>usable only at long range >> >>Theft of Vitae : >>steal 1/2 blood, = 2pt/4pt strike (add damage to opponent >>+ blood added to yourself), usable at long range OR close range >> >>Because the Theft of Vitae is usable at either range, it seems >>much more flexible than the Potence strike cards ... > >Undead Strength and Sewer Lid have their advantages, though: Depleting >the opponent's blood supply by 3 can be more useful than offsetting >the damage you're taking... especially if the other vampire has a Blood >Doll on it ;) The opposite applies if I am a Blood Doll. There can be many cases when healing yourself is more useful than hitting the opponent. I'd say that these two are about equally useful, but ToV does one more point. >Steal Blood is not damage, so can't send a vampire to torpor, This is used by some players as an advantage, in aggravated burn decks. I do agree that in general, this is a drawback. >Also, many vampires with superior potence have an inherent hand damage of 2, >or are habitually equipped with a melee weapon Unfortunately, none of the melee weapons are common. And Chainsaw isn't a Melee Weapon (and is just expensive wallpaper). I know this is irrelevent to the discussion; just some thoughts. I do agree that there are a lot of cases when an Undead Strength would be more useful than a ToV. But there is also an obvious case which is the reverse: Long Range. >>Do people really use Blood Fury's? > >All the time. Ignoring Fortitude cards is surprisingly useful. But Theft of Vitae can do the same. This, also, is one of the reasons why Theft of Vitae is superior to Potence. My idea was that it would be better to substitute the Blood Fury for ToV in most cases. Of course there are exceptions (Ivory Bow), and sometimes I'll just need to do the final blow to Torporize my opponent. But I'd bet that any Thamataurgy deck would contain a lot more ToV's (if the player has them) than Blood Fury's. The former is much "easier to use" than the latter, which would be better than the former in only a few cases (.44 excluded). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Curt, It is a greeting, like "Hello." In my case it is short for "May the Peace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you." Religion and gaming aren't mutually exclusive, Curt. I've been a devout Catholic my whole life and a dedicated gamer over two-thirds of it. Relax, Curt, its not a big deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article <3jia4c$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > > > Actually, I do agree that the "balance" of Blood Doll and > Minion Tap is not too far off, /provided that some of > the "gain blood" combos are not triggered/. Many > playing groups overweight Blood Dolls because for > some reason the playing decks are not effective > enough, so there are long periods of inactivity, > during which the Blood Doll just reaps in > pool. In fast-paced games with more "deadly" > decks, Blood Dolls are useful, but not as > overwhelming as some see it. Peace Alan, The same argument can be made for holding the Edge for several turns. One free blood at no cost is awful nice. Yes, if everyone sits around and glares at each other, Blood Doll, Minion Tap, the Edge, etc. are more effective. DON'T let that player just sit there and get fat on free blood! > It takes much more resources to neutralize a Blood > Doll than a MVH. A MVH has to attack to create > damage, and he attacks at +0 stealth so can be > easily blocked by a vampire that can triumph. > It usually takes more than a single Acrobatics > card to take out a Blood Doll. I think MVH is much better as a defense, so a single Acrobatics won't stop him. > >>Undead Strength : (assuming hand damage 1) > >>+1/+2 hand, equivalently 2pt/3pt strike, effective only > >>at close range > >> > >>Throw Sewer Lid : > >>3 dmg/3dmg + op. Press, = 3pt strike (with Press for superior), > >>usable only at long range > >> > >>Theft of Vitae : > >>steal 1/2 blood, = 2pt/4pt strike (add damage to opponent > >>+ blood added to yourself), usable at long range OR close range Alan, why do you feel that you need to add what you gained as part of the damage done?? ToV _does_ add, but it still only does 1 or 2 pts damage. How about this: a vampire with no disciplines fights another vamp with no disciplines - what is the end result (barring maneuvers/presses)? Each is one blood weaker. OK, now the first vamp has inferior Thaum and the second vamp has inferior Potence. Vamp 1 plays ToV, Vamp 2 plays UnStr - what is the end result? Each vampire is one blood weaker. Final example, Vamp 1 has superior Thaum, Vamp 2 has super Pot. V1 plays ToV, V2 plays US - what is the end result? Each vampire is one blood weaker. (Are you seeing a patern here?) > >>Because the Theft of Vitae is usable at either range, it seems > >>much more flexible than the Potence strike cards ... Yes, ToV (and several other Thaum cards) is very nice, but you basically have to play Tremere to use them and Tremeres have their own disadvantages (Letter from Vienna, anyone?) > >Undead Strength and Sewer Lid have their advantages, though: Depleting > >the opponent's blood supply by 3 can be more useful than offsetting > >the damage you're taking... especially if the other vampire has a Blood > >Doll on it ;) Most Potence cards are addative; I don't believe any Thaumaturgy cards are. [Ooh, you drained me for two blood. Ok, I Torn Signpost and Undead Strength for five!] > The opposite applies if I am a Blood Doll. There can be > many cases when healing yourself is more useful than hitting > the opponent. I'd say that these two are about equally > useful, but ToV does one more point. It doesn't! See above example. > >Also, many vampires with superior potence have an inherent hand damage of 2, > >or are habitually equipped with a melee weapon > > Unfortunately, none of the melee weapons are common. And Chainsaw > isn't a Melee Weapon (and is just expensive wallpaper). > I know this is irrelevent to the discussion; just some thoughts. > I do agree that there are a lot of cases when an Undead > Strength would be more useful than a ToV. But there is > also an obvious case which is the reverse: Long Range. Where Sewer Lids and Thrown Cars/Grates kick in. [You ToV me at long range for two, ok, I Throw a Car at you for four; I press; I play Growing Fury, US, Torn Sign, etc! *smear*] I'm not totally in disagreement with you, Alan, I just don't believe that Theft of Vitae is as powerful as you claim. It sure looks balanced to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >If a Blood Doll attracts so much attention in your group, >that's an evidence that it's unbalanced, isn't it? Cards generally attract attention because they're threats. Being a threat doesn't make a card unbalanced. A Muddled Vampire Hunt is a serious threat, but it's relatively easy to kill it or otherwise neutralize it, so it's not what I'd kill unbalanced. Blood Doll works slowly enough that I would consider it more balanced than a card like Minion Tap. >Let's do a serious comparison: > >Undead Strength : (assuming hand damage 1) >+1/+2 hand, equivalently 2pt/3pt strike, effective only >at close range > >Throw Sewer Lid : >3 dmg/3dmg + op. Press, = 3pt strike (with Press for superior), >usable only at long range > >Theft of Vitae : >steal 1/2 blood, = 2pt/4pt strike (add damage to opponent >+ blood added to yourself), usable at long range OR close range > >Because the Theft of Vitae is usable at either range, it seems >much more flexible than the Potence strike cards ... Undead Strength and Sewer Lid have their advantages, though: Depleting the opponent's blood supply by 3 can be more useful than offsetting the damage you're taking... especially if the other vampire has a Blood Doll on it ;) Steal Blood is not damage, so can't send a vampire to torpor, won't allow Pulled Fangs to be used, etc. A Sewer Lid will kill a Renegade Garou, whereas the Theft of Vitae just forces it to take time to heal. Theft of Vitae won't help with a Stake. And so on. Also, many vampires with superior potence have an inherent hand damage of 2, or are habitually equipped with a melee weapon, so the Undead Strength, at least, is doing at least 4 points a shot, and thus the Theft of Vitae doesn't have an "overall damage" edge over Undea Strength in most cases. >Do people really use Blood Fury's? All the time. Ignoring Fortitude cards is surprisingly useful. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3jia4c$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: : Steal Blood is not damage, so can't send a vampire to torpor, Does this mean that steal blood does nothing if the victim vampire is down to 0 blood?