More thoughts on AH

From: PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> > Well, I guess one man's "Power Escalation" is on man's "Play Balance". > You say tomato, I say tomato (that just doesn't translate into print real > well, does it :-) > The cards in AH, I found, mostly fix up what I had found to be problems in > the game. They were not huge problems, and the fixes are not huge fixes. > Mostly, I have noticed that the cards in AH have helped put the combat > deck up to par with the bleed deck and the vote deck. While this could > grow into a completely different thread, in my experience combat decks, > while viable, are much more difficult to make work than either of the > other two basic deck designs. Firstly, combat's mean to the basic end > (reducing its preys pool to zero) is incredibly obtuse and card combo > intensive (as opposed to S&B or KRC). ...to which I would respond that Vote needs to hope that the whole table isn't powerful enough to disagree (two vote decks at a table can really hurt each other, while two combat decks only hurt each other when they fight), and S&Bs versatility is almost nil. > Secondly, the amount of effort > needed to counteract a combat deck is much lesser than the effort needed > to make a combat deck work, i.e. an ounce of combat avoidance is worth a > pound of combat. Mind you, this is not something I wish to debate, this > is just something our gaming group has discovered over the last year of > playing Jyhad. At the Origin's Jyhad game last year and a half (the only > non-local Jyhad experience I have had), out of the 20 or so decks I saw > myself and the other 20 or so decks that were seen by my cohort, we saw > only 1 combat deck, and that was some "Zip Gun/Dragon Breath Round" > monstrosity that I don't even consider a honest combat deck. I don't know > if this was a result of a problem, or a symptom of a problem, but there it > was. The Zip Gun/Dragonbreath Rounds is (IMHO) one of the few card combos which shouldn't exist. Real zip guns couldn't fire DB rounds (or anything all that special, really). > All the problems you pointed out about celerity, I basically agree with, > but there have always been good ways to deal with celerity, be it sending > them to torpor before they get to use their additional strikes or playing > with Skin of Steel. The Nosferatu (or other Brujah) could always get away > with Immortal Grapple and big hits, hoping that the Brujah was relying on > Blur rather than stacked Potence strikes but the Gangrel could do nothing > but try to not die as they Dodge and multi-strike. Ahh, but for the Celeritous to have had that dodge, either they were stacking dodge cards in their hands (and thus using up their deck space), or were using Acrobatics for a single offensive strike. In either case, they were emminently dealable in a Gangrel Deck that could press to next round. > The Tremere never have > been as good at combat as they could have been, which is indeed made up > for by their versatility, but it would be nice to be able to make a > Tremere deck that could fight effectively. I've never really seen a problem. Dodge, press. With a mob connections or hawg, a lot of Tremere have vicious threat power. Gangrel can be afraid to deal with them, as so much of their damage prevention is ineffectual. Brujah can dodge that first strike each round, but for each dodge they throw in, that is one less offensive strike they are doing... > I guess, all in all, I agree with WOTCs development of the game. At some > point they realized that Sneak and Bleed was too easy to get away with, > and so they added stuff to fix that. ...they tried to fix that "problem" and horribly failed (IMHO). Of the new anti-bleed cards in VTES, only Elder Intervention is a successful card. Justicar Retribution and Archon Investigation are both too powerful, and neither make sense as for "game-world reality". S&B was eminently dealable with a huge amount of methods. > I guess now they have realized what > I have known all along, that combat was too difficult to make work > (relative to voting or bleeding), so thay have added stuff to fix that. > I am viewing the release of AH trough the eyes of a player in a group that > has evolved the combat deck to an art form, and in doing so, have found > all the big (and small) flaws with the various clans on that level. AH, > we have found, patched these up and made us happy. I've been happy with AH up to one point... I'm not sure if I like the ramifications of Scorpion Sting. As a card just for Nossies, I might have had no qualms, but I foresee some problems with Scorpion Sting, Dog Pack, Wolf Claws. (I'll withhold judgment til I see it in play...) > Jyhad is still a game where you can buy a couple of starters, a hand full > of boosters and play with, but in that enviornment, you will end up with a > bunch of people playing Malk S&B decks. Actually, My experience in league play is that most people make mongrel decks (here are a sample): Malk/Tor/Ven Sneak&Bleed Gan/Ven Bruise&Vote Gangrel Bruise Giovanni Bruise&Vote Malk Sneak&Combat Nossie Bruise&Bleed Tor/Bru Bruise&Vote Auspex Intercept&Runaway Tremere Bruise There was only one S&B deck (One Starter, Three Boosters, Three Vampires, free trading environment) > Then everyone will want to buy > more cards to try to deal with that and work from there. If they go out > and buy some AH, more power to them :-) Hmm... Once S&B started cropping up in our regular playcirlce (soon after starting), it was quickly dealt with by Deflection and Rush decks. Many (me, for example) settled on light deflection for the big bleeds, and never blocking (hand jam...). S&B is still occasionally around (and usually the first recourse to newbies), but people soon find out that while it is effective, it is not really any more effective than anything else, and it is almost certainly less fun/satisfying. @ 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*+?

From: Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> > Dark Sovereigns was the first expansion for V:TES, and we played it a bit > conservatively since it was unclear what the impact of an expansion would be. > While it is true that the average card power is ramping up slightly, this is > not aimed at catering to the munchkins. A weak card set is a boring card set; A weak card set is not a boring card set. A weak card set is a poorly tested card set. Being not weak, does not equate with being very strong, however. > I doubt that even a fourth of the Fourth Edition card set is used tournaments, > for example, and one would think that more like a third of the basic set > would appear in tournaments. Also, if we stop printing "wallpaper" cards, > which everyone seems to be in favor of, then the power level will escalate > by definition. Not true. Removal of "wallpaper" will not escalate anything. The removal of Concealed weapon and its replacement with a balanced card escalates nothing. On the contrary, while it increases breadth, the general power level of everything remains at the same level. > It was recognized early on that a trading card game can't help but escalate > slightly over time, as new cards make existing strategies slightly more > efficient, unless the designers actively try to tone things down. What we > don't want is for the power level to be making quantum jumps following the > release of an expansion, which I don't think has happened with either > Ancient Hearts or Alliances. One has other options with expansions: Introducing new styles of decks... This was done very effectively with Assamites (a new way of fighting), and Setites (corruption) and the DS clans were both finally given a true flavor in AH. Making sure that each particular card has an appropriate cost. Scorpion Sting, for example, negates the most common defenses against combat, the dodge. In addition, hand strikes become more powerful. A cost of 1 blood would make me have absolutely no qualms about a Dog Pack/Scorpion Sting/Wolf Claw deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> Dark Sovereigns was the first expansion for V:TES, and we played it a bit >> conservatively since it was unclear what the impact of an expansion would be. >> While it is true that the average card power is ramping up slightly, this is >> not aimed at catering to the munchkins. A weak card set is a boring card set >A weak card set is not a boring card set... If the cards in a set are so bad that nobody really wants to put them in their decks, but would rather stick with existing cards, then the card set is weak, and boring. Even a high enough percentage of such cards makes the overall card set weak on average. >> Also, if we stop printing "wallpaper" cards, >> which everyone seems to be in favor of, then the power level will escalate >> by definition. > >Not true. Removal of "wallpaper" will not escalate anything. The >removal of Concealed weapon and its replacement with a balanced card >escalates nothing. On the contrary, while it increases breadth, the >general power level of everything remains at the same level. Of course it escalate the game. The old card was never used; the new card is. Therefore, we have replaced one card with a better one, and the game has escalated, though maybe not by very much. Replace several cards in the same way, and the overall set definitely escalates. The same principle applies to comparing the worst cards of one set with the worst cards of the previous one. >> It was recognized early on that a trading card game can't help but escalate >> slightly over time, as new cards make existing strategies slightly more >> efficient, unless the designers actively try to tone things down. What we >> don't want is for the power level to be making quantum jumps following the >> release of an expansion, which I don't think has happened with either >> Ancient Hearts or Alliances. >One has other options with expansions: > Introducing new styles of decks... This was done very >effectively with Assamites (a new way of fighting), and Setites >(corruption) and the DS clans were both finally given a true flavor in AH. But creating new styles of decks will inevitably lead to at least minor escalation, since it's just not possible to allow playtesting to explore *all* possible ramifications of a new deck style, if we want to release expansions more than, oh, once a year. > Making sure that each particular card has an appropriate cost. >Scorpion Sting, for example, negates the most common defenses against >combat, the dodge. In addition, hand strikes become more powerful. A >cost of 1 blood would make me have absolutely no qualms about a Dog >Pack/Scorpion Sting/Wolf Claw deck. And again, there isn't time to make sure that every card is at exactly the right cost, and several cards wind up seeming like they're worth X-and-a-half cost anyway, with no obvious way to round the card effect up or down without making it hopelessly narrow and/or complex. In short: escalation will happen as long as expansions are put out. We can make every effort to minimize the damage, but there's just no way to stop it entirely unless we deliberately make bad expansions. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Howdy, Corrupter-san, I'm not sure that the Scorpion Sting/Dog Pack Gangrel deck is really all that scary as use of new cards goes, as it is something that could already be done. A Gangrel who uses SS/DP is basically using 2 cards, one of which is a fragile and expensive ally, to not quite have the effect of Immortal Grapple (yeah, yeah, I know, I know. Shut up about the Immortal Grapples already :-). Using IG prevents all strikes but hand strikes for the entire combat and if the vamp presses, it is automatically at close range. SS/DP does not prevent the opponents use of offensive strikes (i.e. they can still Blur with a Magnum), the opponent can still attempt to manuver to long range to avoid aggro Wolf Claw strikes. The opponent can manuver to long range on the first round, shoot the Dog Pack with some ranged damage, and then Dodge/S:CE on the second round or even as an additional strike. If I manage to get you at close range and Immortally Grapple you, you can do nothing but sit there and get hit for some rediculous ammount of hand damage, which can very well be aggro (many vamps have both Protean and Potence, and most of them are Gangrel. I can think of 6 Gangrel with Potence off the top of my head). You can't dodge, you can't S:CE, you can't use Guns, you can't use Thaumaturgy strikes, you can't do anything but punch me (and I will win a punching fight). At least with SS/DP, the defending vampire has some options and possibilities to fight. With Immortal Grapple, they usually don't. Even against other hand damage combat decks, the Celerity decks usually rely on multiple small (Torn Signpost) hits rather than big stacked ones, which doesn't help if you can't dodge the opponents first strike and you are sent to torpor imediately, and the Gangrel usually only do 1 point of damage per strike, which can be stopped by Flak Jackets. Yes, SS/DP screws any deck that relies solely on Dodge/S:CE as combat defense, but Immortal Grapple already did that, and SS/DP is much harder to use than IG. SS/DP requires a good card combo in hand, the expenditure of pool for the killable (or stealable or Cryptic Missionable) Dog Pack, and the opponent not having more manuvers than you. SS/DP just makes it so the Dodge/S:CE deck must put more thought in their combat defense. Maybe they could go with Fortitude, or Flak Jackets, or Manuvers rather than trying to Majesty out of everything. Again, as in most aspects of Jyhad, it pays to be flexible and not too reliant on one deffense. As for the Tremere, the Dodge/Press concept never quite works out as nicely as it sounds. The Dodges are countered by Multiple Strikes, the presses are put down, the opponent S:CE out of combat, or the Tremere is Immortally Grappled :-) On an entirely different angle, I am interested to hear why you are so unfond of the new bleed-screw cards. I am not particularly bothered by them, myself. Archon Investigation exisiting just means that you shouldn't bleed some one for more than 3 unless you are sure that they can't play AI (i.e. they have already played an OOT master, you have had the chance to see their hand, whatever). 3 points a bleed is perfectly sufficient to make a S&B deck work, and if you want to bleed for 7, you should have to take the gamble. I can see Protected Recources being kind of viscious if used by a Vote deck, but it won't help them at all if their preadator is a non-bleed deck (just like AI). Yes, bleeding can be dealt with by conventional means, but the Nosferatu, Brujah, Gangrel, Ravanos, Setities, and Assamites can neither bounce or effectively intercept an effective S&B deck (animalism intercept is not quite as good at stopping massed stealth as Auspex is), and while all these clans can fight, putting all your effort into fighting a S&B preadator means you are not hurting your prey, and you are just making it easier for your grand-preadator to gain 6 pool and then come for you next. At least with the threat of AI, the S&B deck needs to not kill quite as quickly. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Some of you are going to die Martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide." -Genesis

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >Whether you speak of weak in the sense of a badly done card set, or weak >in the sense of little strength, a weak card set is nothing more than a >badly tested card set. "Boring" has nothing to do with weakness. They >are mutually exclusive. A weak card set is one that is underpowered. It may be the result of bad testing, it may be the result of bad design. >> Of course it escalate the game. The old card was never used; the new card >> is. Therefore, we have replaced one card with a better one, and the game >> has escalated, though maybe not by very much. Replace several cards in the >> same way, and the overall set definitely escalates. The same principle >> applies to comparing the worst cards of one set with the worst cards of the >> previous one. >I think we are conflicting on definitions. By escalation, I mean that >the general power level of each strategy increases. I.e., a Brujah Rush >deck suddenly does a little more damage on all levels. In my opinion, >removal of wallpaper cards with useful cards would not necessarily escalate >strategy. If Brujah rush has new ways to do things, breadth can be >gained. For example, if Nossies never had Spawning Pool until now, its >inclusion would not be an escalation of power. Spawning Pool is costly, >a unique, and only useful in certain circumstances. Escalation can mean either increasing the average card power, or increasing the maximum card power. Stopping escalation of the latter sort is relatively easy, and generally desirable, but the occasional card will still slip through the cracks. Stopping escalation of the average card power is impossible without deliberately making bad cards that nobody plays with, which is sort of missing out on the point of expansions. >> But creating new styles of decks will inevitably lead to at least minor >> escalation, since it's just not possible to allow playtesting to explore >> *all* possible ramifications of a new deck style, if we want to release >> expansions more than, oh, once a year. > >Of course it is impossible to explore _all_ possible ramifications. >However, I don't see how this statement proves your point. The new ways >of the new clans id sn introduction, not an escalation. It is difficult >to escalate something that never existed. In terms of whole game >escalation, the introduction of quietus runs parralel to a >Thaumaturgy/Protean combat deck, and its power level seems equivalent to >a number of other combat decks. Again, no escalation, merely more >breadth. Setites S&B is less powerful than its dominate based kin, but >gives back more benefits (pool return). Obviously you can't escalate something that didn't exist (unless you consider creation to be escalation), but this threat is about the escalation of the overall card set, or so I thought. New clans are definitely part of the overall card set, and if the new clans are more powerful than the weakest of the existing clans, then by introducing them, you have escalated the general card set. And judging power isn't always easy. For example, as you point out, Setite stealth/bleed decks are different than existing ones. If it turns out that gaining pool for bleeds more than compensates for the loss in sheer bleeding power, then the new clan has just escalated the stealth/bleed strategy. [ quoted text not captured ]

From: Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >>Tom Wylie wrote: > >A weak card set is not a boring card set... [to keep this in context, it continued.. "... a weak card set is a badly playtested card set" or something to that effect] > If the cards in a set are so bad that nobody really wants to put them in their > decks, but would rather stick with existing cards, then the card set is weak, > and boring. Even a high enough percentage of such cards makes the overall > card set weak on average. Whether you speak of weak in the sense of a badly done card set, or weak in the sense of little strength, a weak card set is nothing more than a badly tested card set. "Boring" has nothing to do with weakness. They are mutually exclusive. > >> Also, if we stop printing "wallpaper" cards, > >> which everyone seems to be in favor of, then the power level will escalate > >> by definition. > >Not true. Removal of "wallpaper" will not escalate anything. The > >removal of Concealed weapon and its replacement with a balanced card > >escalates nothing. On the contrary, while it increases breadth, the > >general power level of everything remains at the same level. > Of course it escalate the game. The old card was never used; the new card > is. Therefore, we have replaced one card with a better one, and the game > has escalated, though maybe not by very much. Replace several cards in the > same way, and the overall set definitely escalates. The same principle > applies to comparing the worst cards of one set with the worst cards of the > previous one. I think we are conflicting on definitions. By escalation, I mean that the general power level of each strategy increases. I.e., a Brujah Rush deck suddenly does a little more damage on all levels. In my opinion, removal of wallpaper cards with useful cards would not necessarily escalate strategy. If Brujah rush has new ways to do things, breadth can be gained. For example, if Nossies never had Spawning Pool until now, its inclusion would not be an escalation of power. Spawning Pool is costly, a unique, and only useful in certain circumstances. I think your definition of escalation is anything that improves any possible strategy. This definition is too broad to be useful. If I am wrong, what is your definition? > >> It was recognized early on that a trading card game can't help but escalate > >> slightly over time, as new cards make existing strategies slightly more > >> efficient, unless the designers actively try to tone things down. What we > >> don't want is for the power level to be making quantum jumps following the > >> release of an expansion, which I don't think has happened with either > >> Ancient Hearts or Alliances. > >One has other options with expansions: > > Introducing new styles of decks... This was done very > >effectively with Assamites (a new way of fighting), and Setites > >(corruption) and the DS clans were both finally given a true flavor in AH. > But creating new styles of decks will inevitably lead to at least minor > escalation, since it's just not possible to allow playtesting to explore > *all* possible ramifications of a new deck style, if we want to release > expansions more than, oh, once a year. Of course it is impossible to explore _all_ possible ramifications. However, I don't see how this statement proves your point. The new ways of the new clans id sn introduction, not an escalation. It is difficult to escalate something that never existed. In terms of whole game escalation, the introduction of quietus runs parralel to a Thaumaturgy/Protean combat deck, and its power level seems equivalent to a number of other combat decks. Again, no escalation, merely more breadth. Setites S&B is less powerful than its dominate based kin, but gives back more benefits (pool return). Your definition of escalation would make it a lot easier to understand what you mean, because right now, I don't see your argument. > > Making sure that each particular card has an appropriate cost. > >Scorpion Sting, for example, negates the most common defenses against > >combat, the dodge. In addition, hand strikes become more powerful. A > >cost of 1 blood would make me have absolutely no qualms about a Dog > >Pack/Scorpion Sting/Wolf Claw deck. > And again, there isn't time to make sure that every card is at exactly > the right cost, and several cards wind up seeming like they're worth > X-and-a-half cost anyway, with no obvious way to round the card effect up > or down without making it hopelessly narrow and/or complex. This specific example is the only one I've seen that might be questionable. I like AH on the whole, and saw very little (thankfully) in what I consider escalation. As a person who has been involved in game design, I undertand the "in-between" problem you describe. Making sure a card has appropriate cost seems to have been done well in AH (unlike DS), but time can be taken. It needn't take a year to catch these things. > In short: escalation will happen as long as expansions are put out. We can > make every effort to minimize the damage, but there's just no way to stop it > entirely unless we deliberately make bad expansions. This may be true under your definition of escalation, but if you mean escalation as I do (the increase in power on all levels of a general strategy) then you are quite wrong. The escalation that I am worried about can be avoided, or at the very least minimalized. AH did a relatively good job at this, but I am worried by the tone you set in this thread. It seems as though you are willing to "settle" on a set that has minor escalation. Escalation can only lead to an inevitable collapse of balance. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>Whether you speak of weak in the sense of a badly done card set, or weak >>in the sense of little strength, a weak card set is nothing more than a >>badly tested card set. "Boring" has nothing to do with weakness. They >>are mutually exclusive. >A weak card set is one that is underpowered. It may be the result of bad >testing, it may be the result of bad design. I would just like to take this moment and thank WotC and WW for providing a great game where such differences as one card (or up to an expansion) can be strategically analyzed and debated, causing such discussions as the one above. Someday, my dreamhouse WILL be wallpapered with Jyhad cards. Good and Bad. (hopefully all 10 expansions... :) ) Dustin

On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > On an entirely different angle, I am interested to hear why you are so > unfond of the new bleed-screw cards. I am not particularly bothered by > them, myself. Overall, their poor design. S&B may have been good, but not any better than any other strategy in NL. While the basic concept (a stealth card and a bleed card) made for an easy to get off combo, the S&B deck was never robust, and setting it up to defend against rush/bleed bounce/intercept watered down its strength. Not setting up for these defenses was a surefire way to death. While there is one exception, the rest... > Archon Investigation exisiting just means that you > shouldn't bleed some one for more than 3 unless you are sure that they > can't play AI (i.e. they have already played an OOT master, you have had > the chance to see their hand, whatever). 3 points a bleed is perfectly > sufficient to make a S&B deck work, and if you want to bleed for 7, you > should have to take the gamble. ARCHON INVESTIGATION Archon Investigation has a huge problem: insufficient cost. For 3 pool, the bleed against you fails, you use a master phase, and you burn a predator's vampire. While this is one of many cards that could sit in your hand (like Return to Innocence or Far Mastery), the cost is not applicable. No matter what, you are losing less pool than if you took the bleed (and burning a vamp - I had to say it again). More appropriate would be: Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get Edge) Cost x, bleed not successful (x is amount of bleed) > I can see Protected Recources being kind > of viscious if used by a Vote deck, but it won't help them at all if their > preadator is a non-bleed deck (just like AI). Protected Resources is TOO effective a card for the cost. At least it could be a location. In a vote deck, this is not a wasted card. Unless no one at the table has any bonus bleed cards/bleeders (highly unlikely) it will be useful. Justicar Retribution is awful too, though. A vote to destroy all big bleeders? Any vote that can destroy IC members is a little crazy. I object to this card on simple realism principle. If IC members were immune, it would be an OK card. The only card really done well was Elder Intervention. This card gives everyone some decent anti-bleed intercept, and at an appropriate cost. I almost wonder if this card was done by the same people that did the others, it is so much better. > Yes, bleeding can be dealt > with by conventional means, but the Nosferatu, Brujah, Gangrel, Ravanos, > Setities, and Assamites can neither bounce or effectively intercept an > effective S&B deck Nosferatu, Brujah, Gangrel, and Assamites all have rush defense. Ravnos can have Rush (trap/drawing out beast/apparation) or combined Chimerstry/Animalism intercept (which I have found to be _the_ best intercept ever). Setites can do stealthed presence bleeds for blood return or go (as I would suggest) to stealthed votes with blood gain included. With serpentis, they can steal away the low or weak vamps. (animalism intercept is not quite as good at stopping > massed stealth as Auspex is), and while all these clans can fight, putting > all your effort into fighting a S&B preadator means you are not hurting > your prey, and you are just making it easier for your grand-preadator to > gain 6 pool and then come for you next. At least with the threat of AI, > the S&B deck needs to not kill quite as quickly. The attack on your predator for survival is a large part of the game. When you are put on the defense (whether passively, or aggressively), your prey is always off. This will happen when any deck (rush, vote, bleed, whatever) is doing well. But you need not finish of your predator for your grandpredator. The best bet is too hold off and use intimidation on your predator. They can't attack you if their predator is on them and their speed is gone because you killed all their other vamps... Simply put, the cards weren't needed. Elder Intervention was a good card, but the others were just too cheap for their effect. @ 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*+?

On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > I'm not sure that the Scorpion Sting/Dog Pack Gangrel deck is really all > that scary as use of new cards goes, as it is something that could already > be done. A Gangrel who uses SS/DP is basically using 2 cards, one of > which is a fragile and expensive ally, to not quite have the effect of > Immortal Grapple (yeah, yeah, I know, I know. Shut up about the Immortal > Grapples already :-). > Using IG prevents all strikes but hand strikes for > the entire combat and if the vamp presses, it is automatically at close > range. SS/DP does not prevent the opponents use of offensive strikes > (i.e. they can still Blur with a Magnum), the opponent can still attempt > to manuver to long range to avoid aggro Wolf Claw strikes. The opponent > can manuver to long range on the first round, shoot the Dog Pack with some > ranged damage, and then Dodge/S:CE on the second round or even as an > additional strike. Non-combat decks have a larger chance of survival in combat with the IG deck as opposed to the dog pack/sting deck, because the range of disciplines in dog pack/sting/claw (essentially a two card combo once the permanent is out) is in-clan, while the two card IG/claw require some disciplines not normal to the clan. [snip] > Yes, SS/DP screws any deck that relies solely on Dodge/S:CE as combat > defense, but Immortal Grapple already did that, and SS/DP is much harder > to use than IG. SS/DP requires a good card combo in hand, the expenditure > of pool for the killable (or stealable or Cryptic Missionable) Dog Pack, > and the opponent not having more manuvers than you. SS/DP just makes it > so the Dodge/S:CE deck must put more thought in their combat defense. > Maybe they could go with Fortitude, or Flak Jackets, or Manuvers rather > than trying to Majesty out of everything. Again, as in most aspects of > Jyhad, it pays to be flexible and not too reliant on one deffense. I agree with the near necessity of such a card, but essentially the IG/Claw combo takes as many ephemeral cards as SS/Claw (with Pack). However, SS/Claw is far easier to pull off. While a number of Gangrel have potence and a number of potence-carriers have protean, putting IG in a Protean deck takes up far more deck space and requires far more work than putting in SS/DP. @ 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.3.91.960621114440.382B-100000-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > [snip again] >[snip] > >> Yes, SS/DP screws any deck that relies solely on Dodge/S:CE as combat >> defense, but Immortal Grapple already did that, and SS/DP is much harder >> to use than IG. SS/DP requires a good card combo in hand, the expenditure >> of pool for the killable (or stealable or Cryptic Missionable) Dog Pack, >> and the opponent not having more manuvers than you. SS/DP just makes it >> so the Dodge/S:CE deck must put more thought in their combat defense. >> Maybe they could go with Fortitude, or Flak Jackets, or Manuvers rather >> than trying to Majesty out of everything. Again, as in most aspects of >> Jyhad, it pays to be flexible and not too reliant on one deffense. > >I agree with the near necessity of such a card, but essentially the >IG/Claw combo takes as many ephemeral cards as SS/Claw (with Pack). >However, SS/Claw is far easier to pull off. While a number of Gangrel >have potence and a number of potence-carriers have protean, putting IG in >a Protean deck takes up far more deck space and requires far more work >than putting in SS/DP. Huh? Why's that? As you say, may with protean have potence, and vice versa. A few potence cards con't hurt, and potence really works well combined with aggravated damage. A play a Gangrel/Nosferatu combo that is hardly unstoppable, but kicks _plenty_ of ass in combat. The only thing that's ever really stood a chance is a Celerity combat deck with lots of dodges... and a little skin of steel makes that about even. Burning your opponent with aggravated potence is brutal, and having the option doesn't seem to clog my hand. Scorpion Sting is nice if your deck doesn't have Potence, but potence just isn't that hard to come by. Certainly I think the dog pack isn't worth it -- Immortal grapple does the same thing for less pool, and can be used by which ever vamp happens to be in combat, not to mention that nobody's gonna shoot or cryptic mission your immortal grapple. Immortal grapple is also usefull against other combat decks, whereas the dog pack is only usefull against combat ends decks. > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ -Jasper -- /\ Jasper Phillips (Pit Fiend) ______,....----, /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|==================="""""""""""" ___,..-' `^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|======================----------"""""" \/ http://www.cs.orst.edu/~philljas/

I completely agree with you about Justicar Retribution. The only vampires that Justicar Retribution will burn are Inner Circle members and vamps with Pulse of the Canille. Being that the card basically only burns IC members, and IC members are supposed to be the most powerful of vampires, that card is just plain brown wrong. Yes, IC members have 4 votes, but if they are not in a vote deck, 4 votes won't save them from a Justicar Retribution. I also agree that Protected Recources is a overly powerful card for its cost, but only in non bleed decks, and those generally are slower at killing their prey than bleed decks are. Combat decks only reduce their preys pool in a roundabout way, and vote decks are fairly easily shut down by intercept or other vote decks. Without bleeding your prey, your path to victory can be a very slow one, and PR can help to even the pace. Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for more then 3, and there is generally no need to. If a good bleed deck bleeds their prey for 3 an action, they will still kill them fairly quickly. If they cannot manage to bleed their prey due to intercept or bleed bounce, it does not mater how much you plan on bleeding, as it will not hurt your prey, and AI has no effect. If you can manage to bleed your prey, then 3 per bleed will kill them just fine. Bleeding someone for 6 or 7 points in one action is a fairly easy thing to arrange (Govern+Conditioning), and I have always found it absurd to have to worry about losing upwards of 25% (if not more) of your pool to one vampires action. How bleeding someone for 7 in one action is in any way balanced with beating up someones vampire or even voting someone 3 or 4 pool damage has always completely escaped me. The fact that it is so easy to do so much damage to someone always was cause for much concern, and AI solved that problem. Yes, it could burn up your vampire, but you are never forced to bleed for more than 3, ever. Again, if you are managing to bleed your prey consistiently, then 3 is perfectly sufficient to kill them. If you can't bleed your prey for whatever reason, then AI makes no difference anyway. AI does not prevent you from trying to bleed your prey for 7 or even 14 for that matter (IC member+Return to Innocence), but if you are going to attempt that, there is a risk that you may fail and lose a vampire in the process. It is a gamble that sometimes you may wish to take (i.e. you have 1 vamp to act and your prey has 5 pool), but sometimes when you gamble, you lose. If you don't want to risk your vampires getting burned, then don't bleed for more than 3. The power of AI is not that it can burn your preadators vampire, but that the threat of AI slows down bleed decks to acceptable levels, comperable to other decks. Vote decks generally will also only do 3 pool per action (KRC), and combat decks are obtuse and fairly slow in their way to victory (ousting their prey), so bleed decks working at 3 per bleed is just fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Jun 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >I think we are conflicting on definitions. By escalation, I mean that > >the general power level of each strategy increases. I.e., a Brujah Rush > >deck suddenly does a little more damage on all levels. In my opinion, > >removal of wallpaper cards with useful cards would not necessarily escalate > >strategy. If Brujah rush has new ways to do things, breadth can be > >gained. For example, if Nossies never had Spawning Pool until now, its > >inclusion would not be an escalation of power. Spawning Pool is costly, > >a unique, and only useful in certain circumstances. > Escalation can mean either increasing the average card power, or increasing > the maximum card power. Stopping escalation of the latter sort is > relatively easy, and generally desirable, but the occasional card will > still slip through the cracks. Stopping escalation of the average card > power is impossible without deliberately making bad cards that nobody > plays with, which is sort of missing out on the point of expansions. One can not increase the average card power without making bad cards. This can be done as was done with Mercy for the Weak. This cards cost decreases its effective power. It has its place in a number of decks, is a good card, but is a weak (in terms of power) card. Disciplineless cards are typically where the higher powered cards can have leave the average power level of a set at relatively the same level. These cards are weak, not bad, just as Fake Out is weak, not bad. > And judging power isn't always easy. For example, as you point out, > Setite stealth/bleed decks are different than existing ones. If it turns > out that gaining pool for bleeds more than compensates for the loss in > sheer bleeding power, then the new clan has just escalated the > stealth/bleed strategy. Not really. Presence based bleeding is far different than Dominate based bleeding. You have introduced a new type of strategy. As Tremer can be Dominate based Bruise-n-Bleed, Brujah can be Presence based. Neither part can be looked at to talk about the whole. I don't expect Presence S&B to be more powerful. It has less ways to get the bleed thru (no Seduction, no Bonding), bleeds for less, and when it does bleed for more, costs more blood (Followers of Set essentially pay 1 blood fro the equiavalent to Threats). The benefit? At superior presence, pool gain. If less bleed/more pool gain is more effective, it can't be called an escalation, because it is essentially a different strategy from a new clan. Were this strategy suddenly easily available to dominate (thru pool gaining dominate bleed cards) that would be an escalation. @ 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*+?

On 21 Jun 1996, Jasper Phillips wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960621114440.382B-100000-100000@pentode>, > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > >I agree with the near necessity of such a card, but essentially the > >IG/Claw combo takes as many ephemeral cards as SS/Claw (with Pack). > >However, SS/Claw is far easier to pull off. While a number of Gangrel > >have potence and a number of potence-carriers have protean, putting IG in > >a Protean deck takes up far more deck space and requires far more work > >than putting in SS/DP. > Huh? Why's that? As you say, may with protean have potence, and vice versa. > A few potence cards con't hurt, and potence really works well combined > with aggravated damage. Yes, Potence works well, but putting Potence into a Gangrel deck almost necessarily requires either more skill cards than just a pure Gangrel deck, or mixing clans, which waters down the possibility of getting your Gangrelish disciplines yet more (necessitating more skill cards) and Gangrel only locations etc. Its more work than merely throwing in a few Scorpion Stings. > A play a Gangrel/Nosferatu combo that is hardly unstoppable, but kicks > _plenty_ of ass in combat. The only thing that's ever really stood a chance > is a Celerity combat deck with lots of dodges... and a little skin of > steel makes that about even. Burning your opponent with aggravated potence > is brutal, and having the option doesn't seem to clog my hand. The hand clog comes in early in setting up the deck. If you don't yet have a vampire with both Protean or Potence, you can't use half your cards. > Scorpion Sting is nice if your deck doesn't have Potence, but potence > just isn't that hard to come by. Certainly I think the dog pack isn't > worth it -- Immortal grapple does the same thing for less pool, and can > be used by which ever vamp happens to be in combat, not to mention that > nobody's gonna shoot or cryptic mission your immortal grapple. While Immortal Grapple is nice, it necessitates work if you want it in a Protean deck. See above. > Immortal > grapple is also usefull against other combat decks, whereas the dog pack > is only usefull against combat ends decks. Dog Pack is a permanent, however. @ 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*+?

Hi Rory, On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > On 23 Jun 1996 21:45:25 -0400, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > > Actually sometimes you have no choice about how much you bleed with a > vampire. > An IC or vampire with Pulse cannot bleed for less. > Nonetheless, I agree. > Rory > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > Actually, retainers are not optional either, so Tasha Morgan and J. S. Simmons could get you in trouble also.... Algustas *****If there is a wrong way to do something, then someone will do it.***** Edward A. Murphy, Jr.

On 25 Jun 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. > > If that's how you feel the game should be played, then your preferences > differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI works, an IC > member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any type. You don't > find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. > --- > Eric Pettersen > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) > > > > Wow. Wierd. The people I play with think these cards to be the best fix done for the game thus far (Atonement may be the new best fix). We do play that Sudden Reversals can be played at any time other than your own master phase, but they tend to fall fast and furious so we've never seen an AI suddenly reversed...yet. The Super Bleed decks had to be stopped. Now the Malks and other bleeders have to play the odds to get that super bleed in, and once one gets through, they can 'go for it!'. I've seen games where a well-done bluff about the AI has saved someone. I've seen games where a well-timed AI has burned an IC vamp and turned the game around. I've also seen games where a S&B deck bleed for 6+ a turn for three turns straight, giving the vote-deck defender no chance. Of the three, the first two were fun and exciting games. The third was a waste of everyone's time and ended in the retirement of that deck. Of course, our group plays Vampire because it isn't like MAGIC. We discourage 'efficient' decks and encourage decks that make the game fun for everyone. AI is a great card because it is 'just'. It only punishes the greedy and so makes for great story. So saying, I don't like Return to Innocence because, as far as we can tell, it makes for bad story. Maybe that is just because we don't understand the concept. I suppose if it was called 'The Ultimate Sacrifice' or something, it would be less jarring.

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > ARCHON INVESTIGATION > Archon Investigation has a huge problem: insufficient cost. For 3 pool, > the bleed against you fails, you use a master phase, and you burn a > predator's vampire. While this is one of many cards that could sit in > your hand (like Return to Innocence or Far Mastery), the cost is not > applicable. No matter what, you are losing less pool than if you took > the bleed (and burning a vamp - I had to say it again). More appropriate > would be: > Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get > Edge) > Cost x, bleed not successful (x is amount of bleed) I agree with your all your assessments (Elder Intervention good; Protected Resources, Justicar Retribution and Archon Investigation from bad to awful). The problem with your suggested fixes to AI is that they are fairly useless in the face of The Return to Innocence. When a 10+ bleed is coming in, any card cost that involves taking the bleed is fairly useless. My group was using a house rule that you had to take the bleed in order to use AI. We are now contemplating leaving AI as is and using a house rule that Sudden Reversal can be used on your own turn, except during your own master phase. In fact, that SR change allows some defense to Rotschreck as well, which is also a pretty big hose, though not as bad as AI is. All the OOTs are actually fairly unstoppable (barring an SR from across the table) and changing SR to allow it on your own turn offers some possibility of defence against them. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. If that's how you feel the game should be played, then your preferences differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI works, an IC member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any type. You don't find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Petterson wrote: >If that's how you feel the game should be played, then >your preferences >differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI >works, an IC >member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any >type. You don't >find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. Yes, you are correct in stating that IC members will rarely use bleed modifiers. Perhaps their power comes from the fact that they don't need to use bleed modifiers, and can bleed for 3 each action on their own. My main point about AI is that it slows down bleed decks to an acceptable level, about equal to all other strategies. There is never any real need to bleed someone for more than 3, ever. No one should ever have to take a 7 point bleed from one vampire, as it is too destructive to their ability to play the game. Big bleeding is too quick as a way to victory, as not only does further the basic victory contitions of the game (reducing your preys pool to zero), but it also reduces your preys ability to resist as well. Combat decks pretty much only reduce your targets ability to resist. Direct damage vote decks work the same was as bleed decks, but not as quickly, as a KRC deck will only cause 3 points of pool loss an action, where a bleed deck (before the advent of AI) would cause 5-7 points of pool loss per action. There are defenses against all decks, but in situations where your defenses fail, before AI, bleed decks were far and away more effective and damaging than any other type of deck per action. Yes, you can stop vote decks with intercept or other votes, and you can stop bleed decks with intercept and bleed bounce, and you can stop combat with combat defense, but there will always be a situation where your defenses fail. Against a combat deck, if your defenses fail, you get a vampire torporized or (rarely) burned, which is usually no big deal in the grand scheem of the game. Against a vote deck, if your defenses fail, you lose 3 or 4 pool, which is pretty hefty, but not as bad as a bleed deck. Before AI, when your defenses failed against a bleed deck, you would lose 6-8 pool, which is very bad, much worse than either of the other two outcomes. This needed to be changed, and AI caused that change. With AI in existance, bleed decks are brought down to the same level of effectivness as other designs. Yes, you can no longer sneak bleed someone for 7 without worry, but you should never have been able to do that anyway (IMHO). I our local group, AI has been actually played only once (on Queen Anne, none the less), but now people rarely bleed for more than 3 at a time. The Bleed decks are still just as effective as they used to be, but when they oust someone, it is not because they were faster at killing than their prey was at defending. It is because they were crafty and clever and had a well designed deck that killed people 3 pool at a time (and ocasionaly more when they felt gutsy.) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter wrote: > > On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > > Overall, their poor design. S&B may have been good, but not any better > than any other strategy in NL. While the basic concept (a stealth card and a > bleed card) made for an easy to get off combo, the S&B deck was never > robust, and setting it up to defend against rush/bleed bounce/intercept > watered down its strength. Not setting up for these defenses was a > surefire way to death. While there is one exception, the rest... > >>Rest of message deleted... << A stealth bleed deck, neverthless is extremely powerful deck. In our circle, every Stealth Bleed deck that has been played has swept the table at least once, many more than that. No other deck allows for that kind of surefire success. Malkavians in V:TES are just incredibly powerful, with their combination of Dominate & Obfuscate, they can slide in for 6+ bleed and enough Stealth to slip past anything. Trust me, a Stealth Bleed deck is going to have more +X Stealth cards than any deck is going to have Intercept. I, to be perfectly honest, haven't seen these cards, so I cannot pass judgement on them, but Stealth Bleed decks are just too powerful, and, beside the fact, they make the game less fun for everyone else. I play an Assamite Burn deck, and it's absolutely no fun when I go to block one of these meddlesome Malkavians, they just Stealth past me. Yes, I have Intercept, in the form of KRCG and Market Square, but it just isn't enough. 2 Lost in Crowds will take care of those two nicely, and I cannot use them again. Wee need to have powerful cards to counter these decks, because whenever a Malkavian hits someone at 6 Stealth and 6 Bleed, the game isn't fun anymore. There's nothing worse in any game to be beaten in a way that there's nothing you can do about it. It's the infamous Channeled-Fireball all over again. Yes, it will win the game for you, but, to be perfectly honest, winning with a Stealth Bleed deck isn't fun for anyone in the game, including one's self. +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Assamite | | (assa...@inlink.com) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | http://www.angelfire.com/pages0/assamite/index.html | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | If there were a Cell Z, I'd be a member of it... | +-------------------------------------------------------+

On 25 Jun 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > Date: 25 JUN 1996 01:48:14 GMT > From: Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards (was More thoughts on AH) > > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. > > If that's how you feel the game should be played, then your preferences > differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI works, an IC > member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any type. You don't > find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. > --- > Eric Pettersen > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) > > > > OUCH. This card sounds like a total shafting. I'll have to bring a spare pair of underpants to my next game. ********************************************************************** "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." -Catwoman (Issue #30) *************************************** Dharia McGrew damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew **********************************************************************

In article <31D08D...@inlink.com>, assa...@inlink.com wrote: Yes, I have Intercept, in the form of KRCG and Market Square, but it just isn't enough. 2 Lost > in Crowds will take care of those two nicely, and I cannot use them again. When can a minion play two Lost in Crowds. The rules say only one of any Reaction or Acion Modifier can be played by a minion per turn. Whoever plays 2 Lost in Crowds on you is playing incorrectly. Randy.

> > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. Just a question here...How many people have and play with Archon Investigation? It's a Vampire card (rare, I assume), not a _Jyhad_ card, and no one in my playgroup has even seen it. It would definitely be used, but not in quantity, and I doubt most of us would buy Vampire at retail instead of Ancient Hearts.

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:01:33 -0700, Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: >> > Actually, retainers are not optional either, so Tasha Morgan and >J. S. Simmons could get you in trouble also.... > Algustas >*****If there is a wrong way to do something, then someone will do >it.***** Edward A. Murphy, Jr. Yet more examples, but I still agree. The Ref at refp...@best.com

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Eric Petterson wrote: > >If that's how you feel the game should be played, then >your preferences > >differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI >works, an IC > >member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any >type. You don't > >find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. > > Yes, you are correct in stating that IC members will rarely use bleed > modifiers. Perhaps their power comes from the fact that they don't need > to use bleed modifiers, and can bleed for 3 each action on their own. > > My main point about AI is that it slows down bleed decks to an acceptable > level, about equal to all other strategies. There is never any real need > to bleed someone for more than 3, ever. No one should ever have to take a > 7 point bleed from one vampire, as it is too destructive to their ability > to play the game... [some deletia] > With AI in existance, bleed decks are brought down to the same level of > effectivness as other designs... While it has not been my experience that bleed decks are really a big problem in a NL environment, for the sake of this discussion we'll assume that they are. AI is still a bad card: it's an overreaction. It doesn't just bring the big bleed strategy in line with other strategies -- it eliminates it entirely. Any superior Conditioning can result in an unpreventable burn of your vampire? Who on earth is going to base a strategy around a big bleed anymore, or even risk a Conditioning? AI's big problem is that it's an OOT, which is unstoppable without help from other players. If SR were usable on one's own turn (except master phase) then at least there would be some way to possibly deal with AI (on top of the other things big bleeders have to worry about, such as Deflection, intercept, rush combat, etc.). If AI were an OOT that cost nothing and reduced a bleed to 3, I don't think there would be such a strong negative reaction to it. Is it really your feeling that the burning the bleeder is balanced? It would seem to me that AI turns the game into a crapshoot: if you're not holding AI, bleeder wins; if you are, bleeder loses. Archon Investigation is just way too harsh for a card that cannot be countered. Big bleeds, if they are a problem, could have (and should have) been dealt with in a less extreme manner than AI (Elder Intervention is one good example). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > Date: Mon, 24 JUN 1996 19:50:02 -0700 > From: Malcolm McCallum <mcca...@tubby.pacificcoast.net> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards (was More thoughts on AH) > > > > On 25 Jun 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. > > > > If that's how you feel the game should be played, then your preferences > > differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI works, an IC > > member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any type. You don't > > find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. > > --- > > Eric Pettersen > > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) > > > > > > > > > Wow. Wierd. The people I play with think these cards to be the best fix > done for the game thus far (Atonement may be the new best fix). We do > play that Sudden Reversals can be played at any time other than your own > master phase, but they tend to fall fast and furious so we've never seen > an AI suddenly reversed...yet. The Super Bleed decks had to be stopped. > Now the Malks and other bleeders have to play the odds to get that super > bleed in, and once one gets through, they can 'go for it!'. I've seen > games where a well-done bluff about the AI has saved someone. I've seen > games where a well-timed AI has burned an IC vamp and turned the game > around. I've also seen games where a S&B deck bleed for 6+ a turn for > three turns straight, giving the vote-deck defender no chance. Of the > three, the first two were fun and exciting games. The third was a waste > of everyone's time and ended in the retirement of that deck. Well, it seems that, that particular Vote-deck was poorly made to begin with. Next time add: Second tradition,obedience,deflection,elder intervention,majesty,pentex subversion,Archon with sengir dagger and minor boon(a real killer), Kindred restructure(make'em eat eachother for a change), Bloodhunt(with the affore mentioned minor boon), or any of about a dozen new cards that any good Political deck would have as a defense against ANY deck, not just S&Bs. Creativity and guile are important here. Use Succubus Club and Bloodhunt to offer that Brujah deck across the table a few pool to put Leandro into torpor for a bit.Or promise to include his predator(or prey) in the next sabbat threat. Don't force the people who make the game to make a one card spoiler for a whole deck concept because you can't be creative enough to stop it with the cards that you already have. > > Of course, our group plays Vampire because it isn't like MAGIC. > We discourage 'efficient' decks and encourage decks that make the game > fun for everyone. AI is a great card because it is 'just'. It only > punishes the greedy and so makes for great story. So saying, I don't like > Return to Innocence because, as far as we can tell, it makes for bad > story. Maybe that is just because we don't understand the concept. I > suppose if it was called 'The Ultimate Sacrifice' or something, it would > be less jarring. > If you know anything about vampires you should know that they are rarely "just" and hardly ever punish the greedy unless motivated by greed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. > > If that's how you feel the game should be played, then your preferences > differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI works, an IC > member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any type. You don't > find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. That's the only bit that seems odd to me... I think that Justicars and IC members should be immune to this card... since they bnasically control the archons, anyway.. :) WyldStar [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:06:36 -0700, Brian Kallenbach <assa...@inlink.com> wrote: Um, 2 Lost in Crowds in one action? Rory (probably a typo/quick thought but wants to be sure your well defended) The Ref at refp...@best.com

Nathan Harada wrote: > > > > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > > > Archon Investigation, on the other hand, I find completely acceptable. > > > > Yes, AI has the ability to burn your preadators vampire for very low cost, > > > > but only if your preadator lets you. You never have to bleed someone for > > > > more then 3, and there is generally no need to. > Just a question here...How many people have and play with Archon > Investigation? It's a Vampire card (rare, I assume), not a _Jyhad_ > card, and no one in my playgroup has even seen it. It would definitely > be used, but not in quantity, and I doubt most of us would buy Vampire > at retail instead of Ancient Hearts. I have Archon Investigation and use it sometimes. It is a great deterrent to **own** one or two. After a few IC members or greedy malks were burned via AI, most people only bleed for 3 or less. For a while, when VTES first came out, I was the only one in my playgroup without an AI. They pummled me! I was forced to play decks with heavy bleed bounce until I aquired an AI or two. Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

All right, all right. There's gotta be somebody out there who agrees with Peter, right? Well, I do. I think Archon Investigation (AI) is a great card. Why _should_ anyone ever have to be bled for 10, anyway? I mean, granted, there are a lot of anti-bleed strategies out there, but how can any clan that was not designed for such defend against a well designed bleed deck (this is a rhetorical question; I've seen some answers, and they're pretty feeb)? AI gives everyone a good anti-bleed card and actually (*gasp*) makes bleed decks have to worry about bleeding for insane amounts. Getting bled for 3 at least once a turn is certainly sufficiently good to kill your prey. Who wants to be ousted because their esoteric bleed defense strategy takes a few turns to get going? Stealth and Bleed (S&B) has always, in my mind, been Cheese Factor #1 in this game. It's just so mindless, yet so incredibly effective. Ventrue bleed isn't as effective. Vote-damage isn't as effective. And everyone knows combat isn't as effective. So why doesn't everyone just make a cheeze-supreme Malkavian S&B deck and make this game far less interesting than it is? Because around here we've shamed everyone out of playing stupid, boring decks. AI goes a long way towards evening out the playing field for people less willing to risk alienating their peers. James -- James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"

: Rush Bounce Intercept Race We've had this argument before, and I just still don't agree that _any_ of these (except bounce) are reliable defenses against S&B. Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. Zip. Zero. Bounce: Works fine. Unfortunately, the S&B'er has it too. Intercept: Stealth is much easier by far to acquire. Permanent intercept is too little, and only Auspex has a ghost of a chance. Race: I'm not quite sure what this is... [ quoted text not captured ]

Actually, Archon investigation is only a VtES uncommon !! Chick...@aol.com 3930 Cody Road Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 day 714-558-9444 eve 818-784-8476

On 26 Jun 1996 20:55:35 -0400, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > >Of course, many decks have no bleed bounce at all and inadequate intercept >for real S&B. >A real question is the Setites. Has anybody thought of an adequate >defense for a Setite Corruption deck vs. S&B? >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Well thier Stealth and Bleed is less powerful then Malks and so they will need to do more thus even though they have the same stealth options the prey has more oppertunities to stop them. Thier compensating advantage is the extra pool from pre bleeds, although they will need skill cards to reliably pull it off. As for thier corruption it is all slow and either blockable or rushable. They are not very good at Intercept. Still corruption cards will be effective, just how effective is hard to guage in overall play without testing. I basically see the same defenses that work against the Malks will work the same against the Setites. Also they have plenty of hostile/hoser cards to deal with. I think they would make a god new deck using most of the strategies as well as most clans and the new strategy of corruption would be an interesting duel. Thier primary offense adds to thier defense whether you use bleed or theft. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >On 18 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: >> On an entirely different angle, I am interested to hear why you are so >> unfond of the new bleed-screw cards. I am not particularly bothered by >> them, myself. >Overall, their poor design. S&B may have been good, but not any better >than any other strategy in NL. While the basic concept (a stealth card and a >bleed card) made for an easy to get off combo, the S&B deck was never >robust, and setting it up to defend against rush/bleed bounce/intercept >watered down its strength. Not setting up for these defenses was a >surefire way to death. While there is one exception, the rest... >> Archon Investigation exisiting just means that you >> shouldn't bleed some one for more than 3 unless you are sure that they >> can't play AI (i.e. they have already played an OOT master, you have had >> the chance to see their hand, whatever). 3 points a bleed is perfectly >> sufficient to make a S&B deck work, and if you want to bleed for 7, you >> should have to take the gamble. >ARCHON INVESTIGATION >Archon Investigation has a huge problem: insufficient cost. For 3 pool, >the bleed against you fails, you use a master phase, and you burn a >predator's vampire. While this is one of many cards that could sit in >your hand (like Return to Innocence or Far Mastery), the cost is not >applicable. No matter what, you are losing less pool than if you took >the bleed (and burning a vamp - I had to say it again). More appropriate >would be: > Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get Edge) > Cost x, bleed not successful (x is amount of bleed) >> I can see Protected Recources being kind >> of viscious if used by a Vote deck, but it won't help them at all if their >> preadator is a non-bleed deck (just like AI). >Protected Resources is TOO effective a card for the cost. At least it >could be a location. In a vote deck, this is not a wasted card. Unless >no one at the table has any bonus bleed cards/bleeders (highly unlikely) >it will be useful. I have two copies of Archon Investigation and I only use them once in a long while. BUT, the people I play with know I own them and they think twice before laying a fat bleed on me. I think this is a great card and here's why... 1) The element of bluff--makes games a lot of fun 2) It costs 3 pool. I don't know about you, but it hurts me to lose or pay more than 1 for any reason 3) Unless you really load your deck with them (both foolish and difficult to pull off in my opinion) it's dicey whether you have it when you need it 4) If you do get it and hang on until you need it, you're playing with a 6-card hand for so many turns until you unload it. That's a severe liability if your strategy relies on exercising your deck. Bleeds for 2 or 3 can be just as harmful as big bleeds--given time. Well, that's my 2cents and a hooray for the Archon Investigations. regards, Gary

Brian Kallenbach <assa...@inlink.com> wrote: >A stealth bleed deck, neverthless is extremely powerful deck. Of course. Its one of your basic types on decks. It happens to be the easiest really good deck to build (for most people. Somehow I've never been able to get it right. :) ) Therefore you see S&B from many players. Hopefully, more mature players realize that it isn't fun to play and that it isn't significantly better, so it balances out. >In our circle, every >Stealth Bleed deck that has been played has swept the table at least once, many more >than that. No other deck allows for that kind of surefire success. Two little phrases: Rush Combat, Bleed Bounce. In our group, if a S&B deck gets going it tends to get ugly. And by gets going I mean ousting 2 other players with little pressure from his pred. That is probably a key. If a SB deck has an ineffective pred, it gain a lot of poer (just like any other deck, but probably a little worse b/c of the speed and ability to tap out). If the SB deck gets 12 free blood, it will generally start marching. However, as soon as it hits a combat rush monster or a _heavy_ bleed bouncer, it crashes. The key is, the deck very rarely gets going that well. A _lot_ of our players play significant bleed bounce (which is probably a reason I play a lot of combat decks). Several of us play combat type decks on a regular basis. Everyone plays with at least a light dose of intercept. >Malkavians in V:TES >are just incredibly powerful, with their combination of Dominate & Obfuscate, they can >slide in for 6+ bleed and enough Stealth to slip past anything. Trust me, a Stealth >Bleed deck is going to have more +X Stealth cards than any deck is going to have >Intercept. So give them hand jam. If you don't have much intercept (and I mean at least +2) let them in, take the one or 2 big hits, and be careful with your pool expenditures (my primary flaw :) ). If you have bleed bounce, I'd try to block 1st, let him boost it (if he wants to), and then introduce him to you prey (who now mostlikely gets hit by a boosted bleed). I'd take a 1 point bleed in general. Remember, if you're willing to take a 1 point bleed, you can wait and see if he pumps the bleed before bouncing. >I, to be perfectly honest, haven't seen these cards, so I cannot pass judgement on them, >but Stealth Bleed decks are just too powerful, and, beside the fact, they make the game >less fun for everyone else. Not if you can easily Rush, blur and hit for ~9 points of damage (hello Tiger's Claw :) ). Have a nice day mr torpor. :) Or Haven Uncovered, and do it twice. :) And if you want to talk non-fun, lets talk Weenie Vote Push. :) >I play an Assamite Burn deck, and it's absolutely no fun >when I go to block one of these meddlesome Malkavians, they just Stealth past me. Yes, I >have Intercept, in the form of KRCG and Market Square, but it just isn't enough. 2 Lost >in Crowds will take care of those two nicely, and I cannot use them again. 2 LoC... nope sorry, denied. >Wee need to have powerful cards to counter these decks, because whenever a Malkavian >hits someone at 6 Stealth and 6 Bleed, the game isn't fun anymore. There's nothing worse >in any game to be beaten in a way that there's nothing you can do about it. It's the >infamous Channeled-Fireball all over again. Yes, it will win the game for you, but, to >be perfectly honest, winning with a Stealth Bleed deck isn't fun for anyone in the game, >including one's self. If the Malk just pulled a 6 stealth he used about 4 cards... not to good I would say, even for a 6 bleed. :) Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

On 25 Jun 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > ARCHON INVESTIGATION [snip] > > More appropriate > > would be: > > Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get > > Edge) [other options snipped] > I agree with your all your assessments (Elder Intervention good; Protected > Resources, Justicar Retribution and Archon Investigation from bad to > awful). The problem with your suggested fixes to AI is that they are > fairly useless in the face of The Return to Innocence. No real need with Return to Innocence. Building a deck around it requires some work, and has its own real costs (effectively pay x pool and (x/4) influence phases to cause prey to possibly lose x pool, ineffectiveness in early game). Loss to Return to Innocence is wholly justifiable. > When a 10+ bleed > is coming in, any card cost that involves taking the bleed is fairly > useless. My group was using a house rule that you had to take the bleed > in order to use AI. We are now contemplating leaving AI as is and using > a house rule that Sudden Reversal can be used on your own turn, except > during your own master phase. I would suggest not changing it until you see Return to Innocence in use a few times. Our playgroup has found it nice, but unless you are playing Carlotta Giovanni, hard to actually get to work. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Malcolm McCallum wrote: [Re: AI and views that it is a Bad Card] > Wow. Wierd. The people I play with think these cards to be the best fix > done for the game thus far (Atonement may be the new best fix). Atonement is excellent. Most of the discussion on "badly done anti-bleed cards" refers to those in VTES, with Archon Investigation in particular. >We do > play that Sudden Reversals can be played at any time other than your own > master phase, but they tend to fall fast and furious so we've never seen > an AI suddenly reversed...yet. The Super Bleed decks had to be stopped. In our playgroup, they were never a problem. If you knew you didn't have the intercept to stop them, don't try and let them sit on stealth cards. Pretty quickly they can't bleed you worth a damn anymore. See a post of mine earlier this week on the subject: Every clan except Followers of Set have many ways of dealing with a S&B predator: bounce, rush, intercept, etc... > Now the Malks and other bleeders have to play the odds to get that super > bleed in, and once one gets through, they can 'go for it!'. I've seen > games where a well-done bluff about the AI has saved someone. And you would still see it. Loosing a vampire is a big loss > I've seen > games where a well-timed AI has burned an IC vamp and turned the game > around. This is a specific example I have _huge_ problems with. An IC vampire would not even have to listen to a Justicar, let alone a lowly Archon. These vampires are so vastly powerful, no one card should just destroy them and cause their action to be invalidated. At least golconda can be countered, and gives pool back. > I've also seen games where a S&B deck bleed for 6+ a turn for > three turns straight, giving the vote-deck defender no chance. Of the > three, the first two were fun and exciting games. The third was a waste > of everyone's time and ended in the retirement of that deck. Because of one experience? Was the voter trying to block? > Of course, our group plays Vampire because it isn't like MAGIC. > We discourage 'efficient' decks and encourage decks that make the game > fun for everyone. AI is a great card because it is 'just'. Not at all. It is not just to lose a vampire, have your prey take less loss, and not even get the edge in return for your prey using a master phase. Hardcore S&B is eminently dealable by nearly all decks. > It only > punishes the greedy and so makes for great story. If the bleed was successful, it would still punish the greedy. As written, it utterly destroys a (typically) expensive investment, and usually ends the game of the bleeder. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > Eric Petterson wrote: > >If that's how you feel the game should be played, then >your preferences > >differ from mine. It irks me that given the way that AI >works, an IC > >member will virtually never use a bleed modifier of any >type. You don't > >find this odd? It seems ridiculous to me. > Yes, you are correct in stating that IC members will rarely use bleed > modifiers. Perhaps their power comes from the fact that they don't need > to use bleed modifiers, and can bleed for 3 each action on their own. That's a stretch. In light of AI and Justicar Retribution, bleeding with ICs will only happen in a non-bleed deck. To do otherwise is to risk monumental loss. Seems strange that having an IC member in a bleed deck would be a detriment. > My main point about AI is that it slows down bleed decks to an acceptable > level, about equal to all other strategies. There is never any real need > to bleed someone for more than 3, ever. No one should ever have to take a > 7 point bleed from one vampire, as it is too destructive to their ability > to play the game. Taking a seven point bleed is equivalent to seeing a vampire with 7 blood on it burn. > Big bleeding is too quick as a way to victory, as not > only does further the basic victory contitions of the game (reducing your > preys pool to zero), but it also reduces your preys ability to resist as > well. Combat decks pretty much only reduce your targets ability to > resist. Direct damage vote decks work the same was as bleed decks, but not > as quickly, as a KRC deck will only cause 3 points of pool loss an action, > where a bleed deck (before the advent of AI) would cause 5-7 points of > pool loss per action. Not reallistic in NL with an intelligent prey. An intelligent NL prey will NOT block if it can't reallistically succeed. As a result, you start to lose 1 or 2 pool per bleed, your predator stops getting master cards, and you can afford to get to your Bum's Rushes, your bleed bouncers, your better intercept, etc.. > There are defenses against all decks, but in > situations where your defenses fail, before AI, bleed decks were far and > away more effective and damaging than any other type of deck per action. I contest that claim. In CL, without a question, but not NL. > Yes, you can stop vote decks with intercept or other votes, and you can > stop bleed decks with intercept and bleed bounce, and you can stop combat > with combat defense, but there will always be a situation where your > defenses fail. Against a combat deck, if your defenses fail, you get a > vampire torporized or (rarely) burned, which is usually no big deal in the > grand scheem of the game. I completely disagree. Loosing any vampire is a _huge_ loss. In order to put up an acceptable defense, you have one less action per turn. That's a big deal. > Against a vote deck, if your defenses fail, you > lose 3 or 4 pool, which is pretty hefty, but not as bad as a bleed deck. > Before AI, when your defenses failed against a bleed deck, you would lose > 6-8 pool, which is very bad, much worse than either of the other two > outcomes. This needed to be changed, and AI caused that change. You might lose 6-8 pool early, but late, you would only lose one or (sometimes) two. Against the aforementioned vote deck, you are still losing 3. I don't see anything wrong with the pre-AI times at all. > With AI in existance, bleed decks are brought down to the same level of > effectivness as other designs. AI didn't bring anything down but game balance. The cost is _totally_ insufficient. Even if you still took the bleed, the card would be a devastating blow to your predator. > Yes, you can no longer sneak bleed someone > for 7 without worry, but you should never have been able to do that anyway > (IMHO). I our local group, AI has been actually played only once (on > Queen Anne, none the less), but now people rarely bleed for more than 3 at > a time. The Bleed decks are still just as effective as they used to be, > but when they oust someone, it is not because they were faster at killing > than their prey was at defending. It is because they were crafty and > clever and had a well designed deck that killed people 3 pool at a time > (and ocasionaly more when they felt gutsy.) Does your playgroup attempt to block every bleed in a non-intercept deck? Most of your statements make me think so, but I'm not certain. In any case, I don't agree with your assessment, but I doubt we'll change each others mind. IMO, A card like AI is no problem, but AI itself needs to pack more bite to the user. If the bleed were successful, AI would still be a card that would cause people to think before bleeding, but it would not be out of line like it is now. Jyhad is a card game in which (excepting those few who slip thru) the cards all have appropriate cost; AI is one of the exceptions. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:56:04 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > However I dispute your judgement of Rush as a good strategy for > several of those clans. > First the best bleeders can use Obedience to protect themselves from > a rush deck They need to be untapped to use Obedience. > and other bleeders can Majesty out to protect themselves. Combat decks should be prepared for S:CE (Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Psyche, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack). Gangrel have intercept to fall back on, and now Dog Pack. In addition, a decent Gangrel deck (knowing full well there will be S:CE) should have Owl Companions to make the most of its rush, and Haven Uncovered to make the most of its knowledge. > Also Rush combat is card intensive and you should have other options. While Rush is card intensive, the loss on the minion whom your intensity was directed at is usually worth it. > Mind you I feel Intercept and bleed bounce are usually good enough > anyway and I'm not disputing that part of your arguement. At least I don't feel as alone in my opinion that AI is awful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Gary Bateman wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > >Overall, their poor design. S&B may have been good, but not any better > >than any other strategy in NL. While the basic concept (a stealth card and a > >bleed card) made for an easy to get off combo, the S&B deck was never > >robust, and setting it up to defend against rush/bleed bounce/intercept > >watered down its strength. Not setting up for these defenses was a > >surefire way to death. While there is one exception, the rest... [snip] > >ARCHON INVESTIGATION > >Archon Investigation has a huge problem: insufficient cost. For 3 pool, > >the bleed against you fails, you use a master phase, and you burn a > >predator's vampire. While this is one of many cards that could sit in > >your hand (like Return to Innocence or Far Mastery), the cost is not > >applicable. No matter what, you are losing less pool than if you took > >the bleed (and burning a vamp - I had to say it again). More appropriate > >would be: > > Cost 1, the bleed is successful (i.e., still pool loss, they get Edge) > > Cost x, bleed not successful (x is amount of bleed) > >Protected Resources is TOO effective a card for the cost. At least it > >could be a location. In a vote deck, this is not a wasted card. Unless > >no one at the table has any bonus bleed cards/bleeders (highly unlikely) > >it will be useful. > I have two copies of Archon Investigation and I only use them once in > a long while. BUT, the people I play with know I own them and they > think twice before laying a fat bleed on me. I think this is a great > card and here's why... > 1) The element of bluff--makes games a lot of fun Bluff still happens with my version. > 2) It costs 3 pool. I don't know about you, but it hurts me to lose > or pay more than 1 for any reason That's no cost considering that if you don't play it you'll lose at least four. > 3) Unless you really load your deck with them (both foolish and > difficult to pull off in my opinion) it's dicey whether you have it > when you need it Still doesn't matter. Unlike Return to Innocence which is totally useless in early game, AI is useful if someone has the possibility of bleeding you big. Where Return to Innocence hurts you when used, AI hurts your predator when used. The cost is totally insufficient. > 4) If you do get it and hang on until you need it, you're playing with > a 6-card hand for so many turns until you unload it. That's a severe > liability if your strategy relies on exercising your deck. Bleeds for > 2 or 3 can be just as harmful as big bleeds--given time. Definately, but the possibility for big bleeds should still exist without the threat that they mean nothing. AI would still pose a threat to the big bleeder if its cost was equal to the bleed. > Well, that's my 2cents and a hooray for the Archon Investigations. Unhappy that the Design Team didn't consider appropriate card cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Jun 1996, J. Hamblin wrote: > : Rush Bounce Intercept Race > We've had this argument before, and I just still don't agree that _any_ > of these (except bounce) are reliable defenses against S&B. > Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > Zip. Zero. You have to be untapped to use Obedience. If you have another vampire step in, that will stop it, true. But that doesn't stop the Haven Uncovered, Blood Hunt, Archon, Contract attacks. With this, they need intercept as well, watering down their offense. Sorry, but you need more of an arguement to convince me. > Bounce: Works fine. Unfortunately, the S&B'er has it too. > Intercept: Stealth is much easier by far to acquire. Permanent intercept > is too little, and only Auspex has a ghost of a chance. Chimerstry/Animalism is by far the best intercept. Remember, though, that Auspex intercept also has bounce. While stealth is easier to acquire, you are burning nearly all of their stealth cards for them to get through. The more permanent intercepts you have, the more they need. A best blend is mixing Permanent and Transient intercept cards. > Race: I'm not quite sure what this is... Out run them. Either oust your own prey so fast it doesn't matter, or work on blood gain so fast that they are running in place. A key to this one is don't block. Soon they will barely be bleeding you, and you will pull ahead. Surprisingly highly effective. [ quoted text not captured ]

jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (J. Hamblin) writes: >: Rush Bounce Intercept Race >We've had this argument before, and I just still don't agree that _any_ >of these (except bounce) are reliable defenses against S&B. >Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >Zip. Zero. Actually, you could use Thoughts Betrayed to prevent the defender from playing Obedience. >Race: I'm not quite sure what this is... A Race to oust your respective Preys. Winner gets six extra pool. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, The Corrupter wrote: > Date: Wed, 26 JUN 1996 12:10:20 -0500 > From: The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Thoughts on Stealth Bleeding (Re: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Brian Kallenbach wrote: > > > The Corrupter wrote: > > > > Overall, their poor design. S&B may have been good, but not any better > > > than any other strategy in NL. While the basic concept (a stealth card and a > > > bleed card) made for an easy to get off combo, the S&B deck was never > > > robust, and setting it up to defend against rush/bleed bounce/intercept > > > watered down its strength. Not setting up for these defenses was a > > > surefire way to death. While there is one exception, the rest... > All this will change with the addition of the Lasombra in Sabbat. Their disciplnes form a potent mix when translated to V:tES: Potence--- Some massive offensive power Dominate--- The infamous Bleed Obtenebration (sp? am I even close?)----Shadow control. The translation into V:tES will prolly be like a more combat oriented Obfuscate IMHO. I have some further thoughts about this clan and the Tzmisce which I will include in one huge posting later on. > > I play an Assamite Burn deck, and it's absolutely no fun > > when I go to block one of these meddlesome Malkavians, they just > > Stealth past me. Yes, I > > have Intercept, in the form of KRCG and Market Square, but it just > > isn't enough. 2 Lost > > in Crowds will take care of those two nicely, and I cannot use them again. With Assamites the best defense is a good offense. You have to take the initiative to beat the piss out of those Malks. I have an Assamite/Nosferatu burn deck with just a tiny bit of Brujah for that savory goodness. Put up against a Tremere/Malkavian S&B as its PREDATOR I still hammered him good till I eventually came around and ousted him myself (twas a 3 player game). I put those sneaky punks in a hurt locker. Mainly this was accomplished with bum's rush (with some +stealth) followed with hidden Lurkers until the vampire was toast. If either action was blocked by some Tremere they would be suitably punished with the same treatment. Psyche helps with S:CE stuff (for those damn Ventrue). Another good thing with Assamites is that they can make full use of disguised weapon and concealed weapon cards. I did this once with the RPG launcher on a Nosferatu long ago and it was great joy then WITHOUT Celerity! Have Uncovered is cool too because it has inherent stealth and lasts at least your entire turn (save Madness Network or whatever) so you can give 'em the treatment (and wearing down what feeble defenses they can manage). Mask of a thousand faces is useful for defending your less combat oriented vamps when they get blocked. (i.e. switching Hadrian Garrick out so Thetmes can Punish that Damned blocker.) All in all the Assamites can (more than most) fight fire with Water when it comes to S&B. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960628111441.294O-100000@pentode> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> 4) If you do get it and hang on until you need it, you're playing with >> a 6-card hand for so many turns until you unload it. That's a severe >> liability if your strategy relies on exercising your deck. Bleeds for >> 2 or 3 can be just as harmful as big bleeds--given time. >Definately, but the possibility for big bleeds should still exist without >the threat that they mean nothing. AI would still pose a threat to the big >bleeder if its cost was equal to the bleed. Well since the bleed is often more than enough to oust, the card becomes wallpaper because you can't pay the cost. If the cost was 0 and you had to accept the bleed or you could pay a small cost before the bleed, then you would get some consolation that at least the 6 pool gain cost them a vampire. After 5 turns, most people only have about 5 pool left (ex. 3, 6, and 9 cost vampire and 7 pool worth of equip, masters, allies, and retainers) Bleed gain engines are just warming up by this point and so a quick bleed will take someone out. Reducing your hand size by 1 is a substantial cost as well. That is the same reason you can't stuff your deck with a lot of wakes. When you do react, you don't have the intercept cards or combat cards you need to play effectively. Having a hand size of 6 will severely hinder a player, just as having a hand size of 8 increases your playing strength by far more than you would expect. One hand slot is used by an untapper, another by the master card you intend to play on your next turn, leaving 5 slots for other uses. I need a 5 card combo for combat so any non-combat cards are very restricting not to mention leaving me with uncertain strength in another combat. >> Well, that's my 2cents and a hooray for the Archon Investigations. > >Unhappy that the Design Team didn't consider appropriate card cost. Another person who thinks that 3 pool , a hand slot, and a master phase action is a hefty enough cost for a little anti-ousting insurance.

On 27 Jun 1996, J. Hamblin wrote: > Date: 27 JUN 1996 21:12:40 GMT > From: J. Hamblin <jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards (was More thoughts on AH) > > All right, all right. There's gotta be somebody out there who agrees > with Peter, right? Well, I do. > > I think Archon Investigation (AI) is a great card. Why _should_ anyone > ever have to be bled for 10, anyway? I mean, granted, there are a lot of > anti-bleed strategies out there, but how can any clan that was not > designed for such defend against a well designed bleed deck (this is a > rhetorical question; I've seen some answers, and they're pretty feeb)? > What makes them so feeb?? (not a rhetorical question) > AI gives everyone a good anti-bleed card and actually (*gasp*) makes > bleed decks have to worry about bleeding for insane amounts. Getting > bled for 3 at least once a turn is certainly sufficiently good to kill > your prey. Who wants to be ousted because their esoteric bleed defense > strategy takes a few turns to get going? > It's not the fact that it responds to the S&B decks that makes it so ridiculous, its the fact that it is an EXTREMELY HARSH HOSER. Protected Resources is a much better idea and just as effective but it doesn't cripple in response. Who wants to be ousted because thier Inner Circle vamp got toasted on his first bleed? > Stealth and Bleed (S&B) has always, in my mind, been Cheese Factor #1 in > this game. It's just so mindless, yet so incredibly effective. Ventrue > bleed isn't as effective. Vote-damage isn't as effective. And everyone > knows combat isn't as effective. So why doesn't everyone just make a > cheeze-supreme Malkavian S&B deck and make this game far less interesting > than it is? Because around here we've shamed everyone out of playing > stupid, boring decks. AI goes a long way towards evening out the playing > field for people less willing to risk alienating their peers. > I agree there is an element of Limburger in S&B but don't fight Ricotta with Swiss. You'll get constipated. > James > > -- > James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu > -------------------------------------------------------------- > "Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're > missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math" > > ********************************************************************** [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Jun 1996, J. Hamblin wrote: > Date: 27 JUN 1996 21:22:49 GMT > From: J. Hamblin <jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > : Rush Bounce Intercept Race > > We've had this argument before, and I just still don't agree that _any_ > of these (except bounce) are reliable defenses against S&B. > We'll see about that. > Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > Zip. Zero. Except attack with the next vampire. > > Bounce: Works fine. Unfortunately, the S&B'er has it too. > Agreed. > Intercept: Stealth is much easier by far to acquire. Permanent intercept > is too little, and only Auspex has a ghost of a chance. > Don't forget Raven spy, Corpse minion, Elder intervention, Sport bike, KRCG, Veiled Sight, Ignis fatuus, Cat's Guidance, Second Tradition, and Aisha BESIDES the auspex cards. In contrast to: Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, Cloak the gathering, Mask of 1000 faces, Night moves, Psychic Veil(which is at 0 stealth to start) and Bonding. Plus the fact that Malks (the Main S&B clan) have NO permanent stealth. > Race: I'm not quite sure what this is... > Trying to hog as many VP as you can before you croak. Or, in other words, beating them at thier own game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 Jun 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > >However I dispute your judgement of Rush as a good strategy for > >several of those clans. > >First the best bleeders can use Obedience to protect themselves from > >a rush deck and other bleeders can Majesty out to protect themselves. > > Majesty is a problem, period. S&B can be built to handle Rush, sure, but > at the price of making it inadequate against other defenses. > Now with the Assamites (and always with Nosferatu) Majesty and other S:CE can be handled with hidden lurker or, even more efficiently, Psyche though Nos lack celerity Brujah can benefit. Hidden Lurker is more effective though cause they can play the same trick again and you get a free lick on the first round (no dodge or nothin) which could be extremely damaging if you have Celerity. Obidience is a little harder to respond to. Just remember it can only be used to block you on your turn and you remain untapped at inferior so you can just have the whole gang try and bust up someone (with Haven Uncovered) > >Also Rush combat is card intensive and you should have other options. > > Indeed it would be nice for Gangrel/Nos/Brujah to have alternate adequate > defenses vs. S&B. But 1 is enough. > Brujah can politically abuse S&B via Archon,Banishment,Con. Condemnation,etc or Prince//justicar stuff like Bloodhunt and 2nd tradition. Nosferatu without a good combat compliment are in trouble. Put a pentex subversion in your deck. Gangrel, are starting to be able to beat Malks at thier own game via Force of will, Horrific countenance, day operation, Earth Control. They are still unable to base a deck entirely on the concept, which is good. > >Mind you I feel Intercept and bleed bounce are usually good enough > >anyway and I'm not disputing that part of your arguement. > > Of course, many decks have no bleed bounce at all and inadequate intercept > for real S&B. > intercept is generally good to have and is getting easier to come by. +2 intercept will slow down S&B enough for you to have a chance. Bleed bounce is fun and useful but not always available. Mostly it depends on the deck you are playing. What's the concept?? I'll try and give advice on cards you can add. > A real question is the Setites. Has anybody thought of an adequate > defense for a Setite Corruption deck vs. S&B? > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) > > These decks can be slow to gain momentum. Intercept is hard to come by for settites. These two facts make it a rough ride if your predator is S&B. Try corrupting the predator's big bleeders (with thier inevitable eq and retainers) and bleeding your prey with them. This is a bit of a distraction from the theme but can be executed with a minimal alteration of the deck. Just add Computer hacking and let dry. Short term and protracted investments are a good way to bide time to corrupt without so much risk. A political setite deck would be much better off though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Jun 1996 21:22:49 GMT, jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (J. Hamblin) wrote: >: Rush Bounce Intercept Race >We've had this argument before, and I just still don't agree that _any_ >of these (except bounce) are reliable defenses against S&B. >Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >Zip. Zero. Agreed. >Bounce: Works fine. Unfortunately, the S&B'er has it too. Actually that doesn't matter. If your prey has it then its an issue, otherwise you get him doing the work for you either by bleeding or tapping out your preys blockers. >Intercept: Stealth is much easier by far to acquire. Permanent intercept >is too little, and only Auspex has a ghost of a chance. Well Intercept isn't that bad off since if you don't get enough then you don't block and let him jam up his hand with stealth. And Intercept is doable with Auspex and on a good day animailism. >Race: I'm not quite sure what this is... That refers (I believe) to gaining blood faster then you lose it or bleeding your opponent even faster. Fortitude and Prince decks are good at this, although Tremere theft can do pretty well also. Gangrel and Ventrue are the best since you get lots of fortitude, Princes and the ecoterroists to help out. This gives you good combat defense, bleed defense thru gain and deflections and vote defense all in moderation but adjustable. You throw in Rumors of Gehhenna to get extra master phase actions to use your blood dolls and Minion Taps. Rory >James >-- >James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu >-------------------------------------------------------------- >"Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're > missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math" The Ref at refp...@best.com

: > I think Archon Investigation (AI) is a great card. Why _should_ anyone : > ever have to be bled for 10, anyway? I mean, granted, there are a lot of : > anti-bleed strategies out there, but how can any clan that was not : > designed for such defend against a well designed bleed deck (this is a : > rhetorical question; I've seen some answers, and they're pretty feeb)? : : What makes them so feeb?? (not a rhetorical question) Okay, how to stop S&B: Bounce: Only works with Dominate & Auspex Intercept: Intercept is harder to come by than stealth, and for those who say "Don't block; jam their hand", I say that that's fine if you have no intercept at all, but if you are an intercept deck, it's your job to try to block. And then, when they play 2 or 3 stealth cards to your Raven Spy/Cat's Guidance or Sport Bike/Enhanced Senses and get the bleed through anyway, you've taken 6 damage: Them: Pulse of the Canaille, Gov. the Unaligned, Bonding, Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, Cloak the Gathering (x2) = 6 bleed, +6 stealth You (Gangrel): Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance, KRCG = Yeah, whatever. You (Toreador): Sport Bike, Enhanced Senses, Spirit's Touch, KRCG = +5 intercept. Oops. Rush combat: Obedience shuts you down. : It's not the fact that it responds to the S&B decks that makes it so : ridiculous, its the fact that it is an EXTREMELY HARSH HOSER. Protected : Resources is a much better idea and just as effective but it doesn't : cripple in response. Who wants to be ousted because thier Inner Circle : vamp got toasted on his first bleed? I agree thatt Protected Racehorses is a fine card, and I wish I had one, since my deck rarely bleeds anyone. But the fact of the matter is, S&B is an extremely harsh strategy. Who says that you have to get your IC member burned? They have base bleeds of 3, and are protected from AI, unless you decide to get uppity and try to bleed for 10. My philosophy is, if you try to bleed someone for that much, you deserve what you get. : I agree there is an element of Limburger in S&B but don't fight : Ricotta with Swiss. You'll get constipated. What recourse do those of us who play clans which have bounce capability have? All we can do is sit there and take it. AI is balanced in its own way. It takes up a card slot, and against a cautious bleed deck, it is useless. Regardless, isn't 3 damage per bleed still a goodly amount of damage, seeing that you only start with 30? [ quoted text not captured ]

Immortal Grapple is very good at stopping S:CE, and doesn't require a second minion, or anything other than Potence, which you may very well have if you are going to beat up somebody. Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. The first time you are bled (without blocking), you get bled for 5 or 6 (moving 2 cards), that same turn the next minion bleeds you for 3 or 4 (moving one card), and then you get bled for 1 each by whatever is left over. You have just lost about10 pool, and have effectively lost about 2 potential vampires, and thus the ability to resist even further. If the bleed deck predator then discards a card at the end of his turn, and plays a master card at the beginning of his turn, you again get bled for 5 or 6 on the next turn (more if they happen to have any defensive cards that they got to play). You have now lost upwards of 15 pool, in 2 turns, in 3 or 4 actions. At this point, unless you are a very speedy pool gain deck, or luckily managed to play a Minion Tap that was not Sudden Reversaled, you are dead. If you are a Rush Combat deck, you have managed to kill one of their vampires (at the cost of possibly moving some of their cards), as you only have 1 or 2 vampires having already lost 10 pool. Then you still die. In any game where I stoicly decided not to block a S+B deck, I have died. In any situation where anyone at the table I have been playing has stoicly decided to try to hand jam the S+B deck by not blocking, they have died. I just don't buy it as a viable defense. Perhaps by the time you are dead, the S+B deck will have horrible hand jam for the next guy, but how does that help you? You are dead. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Some of you are going to die Martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide." -Genesis

On 29 Jun 1996, J. Hamblin wrote: > Date: 29 JUN 1996 15:26:56 GMT > From: J. Hamblin <jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards (was More thoughts on AH) > > : > I think Archon Investigation (AI) is a great card. Why _should_ anyone > : > ever have to be bled for 10, anyway? I mean, granted, there are a lot of > : > anti-bleed strategies out there, but how can any clan that was not > : > designed for such defend against a well designed bleed deck (this is a > : > rhetorical question; I've seen some answers, and they're pretty feeb)? > : > : What makes them so feeb?? (not a rhetorical question) > > Okay, how to stop S&B: > > Bounce: Only works with Dominate & Auspex > Given. But an option available to these decks > Intercept: Intercept is harder to come by than stealth, and for those who > say "Don't block; jam their hand", I say that that's fine if you have no > intercept at all, but if you are an intercept deck, it's your job to try > to block. And then, when they play 2 or 3 stealth cards to your Raven > Spy/Cat's Guidance or Sport Bike/Enhanced Senses and get the bleed > through anyway, you've taken 6 damage: > I have already pointed out that intercept is just as easy to come by as stealth and there are no permanent stealth cards for clans with dominate. where there are permanent intercept cards for EVERYONE. > Them: Pulse of the Canaille, Gov. the Unaligned, Bonding, Lost in Crowds, > Faceless Night, Cloak the Gathering (x2) = 6 bleed, +6 stealth > > You (Gangrel): Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance, KRCG = Yeah, whatever. > Rush combat works better for Gangrel but add elder intervention and sport bike and you have +6 intercept. An extreme situation as a 5 card combo but so is the attack and 3 of the gangrel's cards are Permanent. Try this out: You (Ravnos): Veiled sight. One card, one life, one hit, one kill. > You (Toreador): Sport Bike, Enhanced Senses, Spirit's Touch, KRCG = +5 > intercept. Oops. > Again add elder intervention. for +7 intercept. +2 permanent. > Rush combat: Obedience shuts you down. Hardly. Only untapped Vamps can play Obedience and only so many can go in a deck before it starts to water down the strategy. The above bleed would not be as likely. Unlikely as it is already. > > : It's not the fact that it responds to the S&B decks that makes it so > : ridiculous, its the fact that it is an EXTREMELY HARSH HOSER. Protected > : Resources is a much better idea and just as effective but it doesn't > : cripple in response. Who wants to be ousted because thier Inner Circle > : vamp got toasted on his first bleed? > > I agree thatt Protected Racehorses is a fine card, and I wish I had one, > since my deck rarely bleeds anyone. But the fact of the matter is, S&B > is an extremely harsh strategy. Who says that you have to get your IC > member burned? They have base bleeds of 3, and are protected from AI, > unless you decide to get uppity and try to bleed for 10. My philosophy > is, if you try to bleed someone for that much, you deserve what you get. > Bleeds for 10 are rare and a bit of an exagguration. Between 3 and 6 is the mean. To bleed for more would take a bit of preparation. The vampire would have to hire retainers (which could be blocked or killed) and/or aquire Equipment (which could be blocked or destroyed). 10 point (or even 5 or 6 point) bleeds take planning and plans can be thwarted. a 10 point bleed would take a bit of prep as well as alot of luck if you want to place the neccessary stealth on the action to get past whatever defenses are about which is especially difficult if your deck is stacked with Obedience which will do the bleeding vampire no good on your prey's turn. A one card, no planning, no thinking, non-avoidable, inexpensive, deck-crippling response to this kind of planning and effort smells deeply of cheese (see my previous comment below). > : I agree there is an element of Limburger in S&B but don't fight > : Ricotta with Swiss. You'll get constipated. > > What recourse do those of us who play clans which have bounce capability > have? All we can do is sit there and take it. AI is balanced in its own > way. It takes up a card slot, and against a cautious bleed deck, it is > useless. Regardless, isn't 3 damage per bleed still a goodly amount of > damage, seeing that you only start with 30? Yes, I agree that 3 bleed is plenty to kill someone with but I am unconvinced be your argument. 3 pool,a master phase and taking up a card slot is not cost enough for flattening your predator in one fell swoop because of an ambitious and occasionally thoroghly planned bleed. > > James > > -- > > James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu > -------------------------------------------------------------- > "Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're > missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math" > > ********************************************************************** [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:02:13 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >I would suggest not changing it until you see Return to Innocence in use >a few times. Our playgroup has found it nice, but unless you are playing >Carlotta Giovanni, hard to actually get to work. > > @ 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*+? 1 thought; Soul Gem on the vampire who is burning for the bleed. You will still often lose unless your crypt is set up for it but the loss is not as bad. I still think it would be okay though. I'll try putting it in my Anubis deck and see. Playing the deck is hard around here though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:53:08 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:56:04 -0500, The Corrupter >> <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >> However I dispute your judgement of Rush as a good strategy for >> several of those clans. >> First the best bleeders can use Obedience to protect themselves from >> a rush deck >They need to be untapped to use Obedience. So? A minion needs to be untaped (or play an untap reaction) to do anything. And as far as effiecincy goes this is very effective since you do not have to tap to play the card and if you keep one vampire with Superior Dominate untapped you can effectively stop any younger group of vampires. A very effective defense. I still remember using Lucretia to tell Democritious (with 1 skill card on him yet) to buzz off twice in one game as well as bouncing one of his boosted bleeds. In a Malk deck this is much easier. Personally I think Obedience is worse then S:CE; except for Form of Mist >> and other bleeders can Majesty out to protect themselves. >Combat decks should be prepared for S:CE (Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, >Psyche, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack). Gangrel have intercept to >fall back on, and now Dog Pack. In addition, a decent Gangrel deck (knowing >full well there will be S:CE) should have Owl Companions to make the most >of its rush, and Haven Uncovered to make the most of its knowledge. Preparing for combat ends is possible but not something lightly done. First it dilutes your hand and is more card and minion intensive then playing a strike combat ends. Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction require another minion open. Thoughts Betrayed is generally considered the most abusive card in the DS set. Dog Pack is very limited. That leaves Psyche as the only effeient card and guess who can play it best? Brujah and Toreador ! 2 of the clans that can play S:CE ends . And since it requires Superior Celerity it is hard for anyone else to use. NOSFERATU; Have no combat ends and cannot deal with it except as an Action; requiring 2 minions. Since they have no real combat defense I think it is weak for a combat clan but Cats Guidance protects them from multiple Actions. A lot better if more had it at superior though. GANGREL; The best combat ends clan (Form of Mist can let them continue thier action and Earth Meld has no cost) but since except for combat they are serious lightweights it rarely matters. They have no way until Dog Pack to deal with S:CE and then only 1 known minion. Cats guidence helps to protect against multiple actions. Pretty weak counter considering there a combat deck. BRUJAH; Plenty of S:CE and decent defense to deal with it using Psyche. TOREADOR; S:CE and they can deal with it really nice with Psyche and Fast reaction. This protects them from the multiple aspect action of S:CE and the ability to put away thier opponent if they so choose. MALKAVIANS; Obediance can stop S:CE multiple actions (and is itself very effective CE) and since they can't put away another vamp they don't need more. Of course Thoughts Betrayed mkaes them better. TREMERE; No S:CE or appreciable combat defenses but they can deal with S:CE actions by playing Obedience or Fast Reaction. VENTRUE; Good S:CE with Majesty and Obedience; They can thus do continous actions and deal with repeat actions very well. >> Also Rush combat is card intensive and you should have other options. >While Rush is card intensive, the loss on the minion whom your intensity >was directed at is usually worth it. If it works. But Psyche at superior is thus the only real effective counter with Hidden Lurker not bad (but only the Nos can pull that one) >> Mind you I feel Intercept and bleed bounce are usually good enough >> anyway and I'm not disputing that part of your arguement. >At least I don't feel as alone in my opinion that AI is awful. Glad to offer the support <g>. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On 28 Jun 1996 11:46:17 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >>Zip. Zero. >Actually, you could use Thoughts Betrayed to prevent the defender from >playing Obedience. - >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare. >http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep. >Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | I thought the ruling was that Obedience beat TB? The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:13:05 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >You have to be untapped to use Obedience. If you have another vampire >step in, that will stop it, true. But that doesn't stop the Haven >Uncovered, Blood Hunt, Archon, Contract attacks. With this, they need >intercept as well, watering down their offense. >Sorry, but you need more of an arguement to convince me. > Again 3 clans can reliably use Obedience and it only takes 1 old one to stop a wave (assuming the cards of course but this whole thread assumes the right cards) Tremere and Malks can use it well since they have Auspex. Ventrue aren't as good since they lack intercept but thier well rounded anyway. >Chimerstry/Animalism is by far the best intercept. Remember, though, >that Auspex intercept also has bounce. While stealth is easier to >acquire, you are burning nearly all of their stealth cards for them to >get through. The more permanent intercepts you have, the more they >need. A best blend is mixing Permanent and Transient intercept cards. > And enough minions have both Auspex and Animailism from several clans to make it work. I'd like to try Chimerstry Intercept someday. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On 29 Jun 1996 11:38:31 -0400, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: >Immortal Grapple is very good at stopping S:CE, and doesn't require a >second minion, or anything other than Potence, which you may very well >have if you are going to beat up somebody. Forgot about that one. But again the only ones who can use it effectively are the Brujah since you have to be at close, the Nos just arent that good at maneuvering, and most clans that play S:CE are better. I'd say its about as effective as Psyche though. One hope is that the other guy won't maneuver if he is planning on S:CE. >Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not >blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. >In any game where I stoicly decided not to block a S+B deck, I have died. >In any situation where anyone at the table I have been playing has stoicly >decided to try to hand jam the S+B deck by not blocking, they have died. >I just don't buy it as a viable defense. Perhaps by the time you are >dead, the S+B deck will have horrible hand jam for the next guy, but how >does that help you? You are dead. Well I have seen it work but you are correct it is not a valid defense just a slow down and often not by much. The other point being that next time he will play with less stealth. I often play with rather light stealth in my Nos decks because no one bothers to intercept, hoping to jam my hand. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:25:19 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: >> Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >> Zip. Zero. >Except attack with the next vampire. Which is also Obedienced. I had a malk deck loaded with Obedience and Deflection and the only thing that ever hurt it was a Garou or a Vote Deck as pred. It was without a doubt my most effective deck, until I retired it. The Ref at refp...@best.com

Bastet wrote: > > All this will change with the addition of the Lasombra in Sabbat. > Their disciplnes form a potent mix when translated to V:tES: > Potence--- Some massive offensive power > Dominate--- The infamous Bleed > Obtenebration (sp? am I even close?)----Shadow control. The translation > into V:tES will prolly be like a more combat oriented > Obfuscate IMHO. > yep... your spelling's correct. :).. I think these guys are going to be even worse than Malkavians.. they'll be able to bleed for as much, probably have as much stealth, and be monsters in combat (I can hardly imagine arms of the abyss... <shiver>).. not to mention Potence and the ability to play thoughts betrayed... pretty nasty, all things considered..... [ quoted text not captured ] I really haven't found too much to fear from Assamite decks with other combat decks so far... I've found that the biggest threat they pose is their ability to come at you time and time again with Contracts... I don't think Quietus is nearly as powerful in combat as Potence is, and almost all of their strikes are limited to a certain range, or to a certain round... whereas Potence is almost all close range, and has a lot of ways to keep you there (Storm Sewers for Nos, not to mention IG..).. and it can do a lot more damage in general.. and most Gangrel can end up just laughing off most Assamite strikes and doing a lot of damage in return, and a lot of times undodgeable damage... even Giovanni have an advantage with their ability to play thoughts betrayed... I just don't see Assamites as being all that frightening... WyldStar

Bastet wrote: > > Intercept: Intercept is harder to come by than stealth, and for those who > > say "Don't block; jam their hand", I say that that's fine if you have no > > intercept at all, but if you are an intercept deck, it's your job to try > > to block. And then, when they play 2 or 3 stealth cards to your Raven > > Spy/Cat's Guidance or Sport Bike/Enhanced Senses and get the bleed > > through anyway, you've taken 6 damage: > > > I have already pointed out that intercept is just as easy to come by as > stealth and there are no permanent stealth cards for clans with dominate. > where there are permanent intercept cards for EVERYONE. Actually, the Malkavians do have a permanent Stealth Card... the Forest of Shadows.. and the tremere have two vampires with permanent stealth... Rebekka and Muaziz (who can easily fit into a Malk deck.. :) > ********************************************************************** > "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." > -Catwoman (Issue #30) > *************************************** > Dharia McGrew > damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu > and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) > http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew > ********************************************************************** WyldStar

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >In any case, I don't agree with your assessment, but I doubt we'll change >each others mind. IMO, A card like AI is no problem, but AI itself needs >to pack more bite to the user. If the bleed were successful, AI would >still be a card that would cause people to think before bleeding, but it >would not be out of line like it is now. Jyhad is a card game in which >(excepting those few who slip thru) the cards all have appropriate cost; >AI is one of the exceptions. > @ 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*+? There is a pungent element of cheese in decks that rely on 4+ bleeds to win a game. In a well balanced game every tactic should have a counter-tactic and involve some risk. Cards like AI are only a "problem" if a player is too lazy (or perhaps incapable) to devise a strategy to work around it. 3 pool is a LOT to lose. 4+ is a hell of a lot to lose. I think it's hilarious to see a S&B deck fall on its face trying to go for the home run swing. regards, Gary

Rory <refp...@best.com> wrote: >>Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >>>Zip. Zero. >>Actually, you could use Thoughts Betrayed to prevent the defender from >>playing Obedience. >I thought the ruling was that Obedience beat TB? Obedience trumps TB, yes. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:52:58 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: > >> Rush combat: Obedience shuts you down. > Hardly. Only untapped Vamps can play Obedience and only so many can >go in a deck before it starts to water down the strategy. The above >bleed would not be as likely. Unlikely as it is already. I really disagree. Obedience does not Tap you so you may have just one blocker to use it and he can stop several attackers. Remember Rush is card intensive anyway since he needs some card to get into combat and most of those are only temp cards or ones that are burnable. Since a stealth deck only needs to fight when attacked and not when acting Obedience is a major defense. Yes you may get an occasional hand jam with a lot of them but thats just a matter of deck design. It is still easy enogh to have plenty to deal with rush and blocking bleeds you don't deflect without frequent hand jam. Getting rid of these cards is seldom a problem. The Ref at refp...@best.com

refp...@best.com (Rory) writes: >On 28 Jun 1996 11:46:17 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott >Johnson) wrote: >>Actually, you could use Thoughts Betrayed to prevent the defender from >>playing Obedience. >I thought the ruling was that Obedience beat TB? >The Ref at refp...@best.com Mugh. Right. Sorry about that. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I am Barney of Borg. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | You will be nauseated. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Sun, 30 JUN 1996 04:23:03 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:53:08 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > > >> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:56:04 -0500, The Corrupter > >> <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > > >> However I dispute your judgement of Rush as a good strategy for > >> several of those clans. > >> First the best bleeders can use Obedience to protect themselves from > >> a rush deck > > >They need to be untapped to use Obedience. > > So? > A minion needs to be untaped (or play an untap reaction) to do > anything. And as far as effiecincy goes this is very effective since > you do not have to tap to play the card and if you keep one vampire > with Superior Dominate untapped you can effectively stop any younger > group of vampires. > A very effective defense. [cut and paste] > In a Malk deck this is much easier. Personally I think Obedience is > worse then S:CE; except for Form of Mist > Sure, it is an effective defense but you must realize that if you put 10 obedience cards in your deck it will dilute your bleed potential and stealth capability and there is no gaurantee you will use them so they'll just sit in your hand. Also with an aggressive prey (particularly some weenie decks) you will have to bounce five or six attacks on one tapped vamp(usually the bleeding culprit) with a Haven uncovered on them. Also on each attack another untapped vampire must have the neccessary intercept to stop the rush before they play obedience. So suddenly this becomes a very card intensive defense for S&B. If you wanna keep up the big bleeds you can't afford this kind of watering down of your deck. > >> and other bleeders can Majesty out to protect themselves. > > >Combat decks should be prepared for S:CE (Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, > >Psyche, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack). Gangrel have intercept to > >fall back on, and now Dog Pack. In addition, a decent Gangrel deck (knowing > >full well there will be S:CE) should have Owl Companions to make the most > >of its rush, and Haven Uncovered to make the most of its knowledge. > You will find that those vamps that use S:CE most often have a hard time implementing the "sneak" half of s&b and so are less of a problem to begin with. Also if they are using S:CE that means you are in combat and have BLOCKED the bleed which is the whole point. In a rush situation S:CE can be a problem but if you're dealing with Malks or Tremere this shouldn't be a big problem because if they do this it means they're deck is watered down with Presence or Protean skill cards and the S:CE combat cards. Therefore you prolly won't see more than a 3 or 4 point bleed. [ quoted text not captured ] All this very true to a point. But, as I mentioned, this is hard to implement in S&B. This is an entirely different argument (subject is rush combat universally effective?). > > >> Also Rush combat is card intensive and you should have other options. > > >While Rush is card intensive, the loss on the minion whom your intensity > >was directed at is usually worth it. > > If it works. But Psyche at superior is thus the only real effective > counter with Hidden Lurker not bad (but only the Nos can pull that > one) Only good counter against what?? Majesty which only Ventrue, Brujah and Toreador can pull??? None of which have Obfuscate to S&B. Or Earth Meld and Form of Mist which only Gangrel can pull?? And they don't have dominate or presence for the heavy Bleed. The only worry for Rush combat defense is Followers of Set. But Presence doesn't give the truly massive bleeds that Dominate does and there are plenty of cards to screw over settites if they become too popular. > >> Mind you I feel Intercept and bleed bounce are usually good enough > >> anyway and I'm not disputing that part of your arguement. > > >At least I don't feel as alone in my opinion that AI is awful. > > Glad to offer the support <g>. > > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > > Amen. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > I suppose if someone plays in a play group where deck design is generally > slanted twards the bleed end of the spectrum, and in this group, everyone > likes playing Big Bleed decks, then AI would be extremely destructive to > the play enviornment and would piss everyone off, which I understand. Our group is definately not slanted towards the bleed end. Occasionally, newbies will bring in S&B and compete relatively well or an old player will bring one in to keep people on their toes, but we are not a S&B group. Despite this, we are unhappy, because the sheer effect of this card has no equivalent to hose other strategies, and bleed (especially S&B) was eminently handlable before this card. > Our group tended twards the heavy combat end of the spectrum, so in our > circle, decks need alot of combat defense or they will just die, but bleed > defense was minimal. In this envornment, not many people played big > bleeds, so our decks were generaly not designed to deal with them, and so > most of our decks were unaffected by AI anyway. Granted, occasionally a > big bleed deck would show up, and the big bleeds seemed to us to be too > damaging, regardless of how much we prepared for them. Occasionaly, > someone would be out of Deflections, or would lose the intercept war, and > they would be bled for 7. Given timing issues with Deflection, it would be easy to remember that the big bleeder can hit for a lot, and Deflect the "big" hits rather than the 1 to 3 pool hits. > Then they would be dead. Our group has always > felt that 7 pool is just too extreme a penalty for ones defenses failing, > just as many people involved in this thread feel that getting a vampire > burned is too extreme a penalty for playing a Conditioning at superior. I > guess it is all just a matter of perspective. I think our differences really lie at one major crux: you feel that bleed is too difficult to defend against, and I feel that bleed has never been too difficult to defend against. Given that difference in opinion, to you, a card like AI seems justifiable, but to me seems like grand overkill. To borrow from someone else's analogy, like fighting cheddar with provelone. > Corrupter wrote: > >Bleeding someone for seven is directly equivalent to >emptying a full 7 > capacity vampire (and in some ways >more damaging, they spent the _time_ > >to get it out as well). > Emptying and torporizing a 7 point vampire slows down its owner, yes, but > that now empty vampire can get out of torpor, refil its capacity, and be > good as new much easier than someone can get back that 7 pool. Being bled > for 7 points prevents you from getting that vampire out in the first > place, and without a vampire to rescue from torpor and refil, your options > are considerably fewer. The beat up 7 point vampire still leaves you with > a powerful recource-the vampire. A 7 point bleed leaves you with nothing > but less pool. Burning a full 7 point vampire (that has not been Minion > Taped or Blood Doll'ed, or used to superior Govern the Unaligned to fill > up some uncontrolled vamps...) is pretty much equivilant to a 7 point > bleed, but it is very difficult to arange a situation where you can burn a > vampire, and Diablere usually has the same disadvantage as AI-the vampire > gets burned. Absolution of the Diabolist. Before that, table talk. Dealmaking works wonders. The only people likely to be against it will be your predator and prey (and your prey won't mind if you look like you're in rough shape). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Daniel Hoffman wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [Re: Archon Investigation] > >Unhappy that the Design Team didn't consider appropriate card cost. > Another person who thinks that 3 pool , a hand slot, and a master > phase action is a hefty enough cost for a little anti-ousting insurance. But is it hefty enough for a nearly unstoppable burned vampire? Yes, the vampire has to be bleeding for a lot, but do the other strategies have this awful a hoser? S:CE can hose combat, but it won't burn the combatant. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: [Re: Obedience defense of Rush. Necessity of being untapped] > So? > A minion needs to be untaped (or play an untap reaction) to do > anything. And as far as effiecincy goes this is very effective since > you do not have to tap to play the card and if you keep one vampire > with Superior Dominate untapped you can effectively stop any younger > group of vampires. Even with a Haven Uncovered? You need intercept for that. For Archon? Ditto. For Contract? Ditto. For Bloodhunt. Ditto. > A very effective defense. Not without intercept as well. > I still remember using Lucretia to tell Democritious (with 1 skill > card on him yet) to buzz off twice in one game as well as bouncing one > of his boosted bleeds. > In a Malk deck this is much easier. Personally I think Obedience is > worse then S:CE; except for Form of Mist > Preparing for combat ends is possible but not something lightly done. In a combat deck it should be. > First it dilutes your hand and is more card and minion intensive then > playing a strike combat ends. However much more card intensive it is, the effects are _well_ worth it. ALL the anti-S:CE cards are effective against nearly all other combat decks (with the exception of Dog Pack). > Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction require another minion open. So what? You've just utterly murdered a vampire. It's well worth the cost, believe me. One of my decks (my Malk/Nos combat deck) is based on it, and pretty much slaughters everyone in that second combat (Fortitude Combat excepted). > Thoughts Betrayed is generally considered the most abusive card in the > DS set. The more I see it in action, the more I flip-flop my opinion on that one. Regardless, it is still very effective. > Dog Pack is very limited. As I noted above, but it utterly hoses S:CE as a defense. > That leaves Psyche as the only effeient card and guess who can play it > best? Psyche is efficient yes, but whether or not a small set of clans can play Psyche, every clan has options to deal with S:CE. > Brujah and Toreador ! 2 of the clans that can play S:CE ends . So? We are discussing ways to deal with S:CE, not whether or not those that can deal with S:CE can also S:CE. Besides, this is a discussion of S&B. > And since it requires Superior Celerity it is hard for anyone else to > use. Again, so? > NOSFERATU; Have no combat ends and cannot deal with it except as an > Action; requiring 2 minions. Don't forget Immortal Grapple. Using 2 minions is not a waste. They will be pummeled (Malks have no S:CE, Setites get creamed in the 2nd combat). > Since they have no real combat defense I > think it is weak for a combat clan but Cats Guidance protects them > from multiple Actions. A lot better if more had it at superior > though. They don't need combat defense. They are rushing a S&B not a Bruise and Bleed deck. > GANGREL; The best combat ends clan (Form of Mist can let them continue > thier action and Earth Meld has no cost) but since except for combat > they are serious lightweights it rarely matters. They have no way > until Dog Pack to deal with S:CE and then only 1 known minion. Remember Owl Companion, Haven Uncovered. These cards make it easy to know who to deal with. > Cats guidence helps to protect against multiple actions. > Pretty weak counter considering there a combat deck. They can still handle Malks. Setites might be more of a problem, but Setites can't bleed for as much. > BRUJAH; Plenty of S:CE and decent defense to deal with it using > Psyche. > TOREADOR; S:CE and they can deal with it really nice with Psyche and > Fast reaction. This protects them from the multiple aspect action of > S:CE and the ability to put away thier opponent if they so choose. > MALKAVIANS; Obediance can stop S:CE multiple actions (and is itself > very effective CE) and since they can't put away another vamp they > don't need more. Of course Thoughts Betrayed mkaes them better. > TREMERE; No S:CE or appreciable combat defenses but they can deal with > S:CE actions by playing Obedience or Fast Reaction. > VENTRUE; Good S:CE with Majesty and Obedience; They can thus do > continous actions and deal with repeat actions very well. Your point has lost me. I still see no reason why Rush is feeb (to use Hamblin's phrase) against S&B. In order to fully defend against Rush, S&B has to take away from its main offense, bleeding. Rush decks defense is their offense (no take away). Thus, S&B, as it more effectively deals with combat, starts to lose its bite, and if it doesn't deal with combat, gets destroyed. Malks: They add in obedience. With enough obedience to be consistent, their bleed loses out some. However, they are still slammed by any Stealthed attacks (Haven Uncovered, etc.). To defend against that, they need intercept. Still more bleed reduction. After fine tuning it out, you have a decent bleed deck which can defend against Rush given 3 considerations... 1) It is given enough time to set up a vampire with Superior Dominate, older than its attackers, and with Auspex or reliable permanent intercept (Likely a Sports Bike), 2) It holds back this vampire and gets out its worker be, 3) It keeps the first vampire untapped this whole time (clogging the hand) to keep it from being torn apart. This is very doable, but not a Scary Bleeder. Setites: They add in Majesty and Mummify. Mummify lets them escape from another combat, but at a huge price. Majesty is screwable (and should be in a combat deck). Where is the problem? Rush should be able to handle bleed to the point that bleed needs to be heavily distilled to have reliable defenses. Throw in non-blocking and you can create heavy hand jam in a non-intercept combat deck. Intercept combat decks should be able to block at least half the time. > If it works. But Psyche at superior is thus the only real effective > counter with Hidden Lurker not bad (but only the Nos can pull that > one) And assamites, and Combat Malks. I dispute your claim that Psyche is the only effective counter. In rush, Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Immortal Grapple, Dog Pack, and Thoughts Betrayed are all effective counters (Each clan having an option, should they be a combat deck). In Intercept, switch the Hidden Lurker for a Fast Reaction. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: [Re: obedience defense in S&B] > Again 3 clans can reliably use Obedience and it only takes 1 old one > to stop a wave (assuming the cards of course but this whole thread > assumes the right cards) Tremere and Malks can use it well since they > have Auspex. > Ventrue aren't as good since they lack intercept but > thier well rounded anyway. Tremere and Ventrue aren't sneaking, so who cares about them. Malkavians intercepting in a S&B deck are watering down their bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Jun 1996, J. Hamblin wrote: [Re: Rush vs. S&B " What makes them so feeb?? (not a rhetorical question) "] > Okay, how to stop S&B: > Bounce: Only works with Dominate & Auspex Is this bad? This gives Malkavians, Toreador, Tremere and Ventrue defenses. > Intercept: Intercept is harder to come by than stealth, and for those who > say "Don't block; jam their hand", I say that that's fine if you have no > intercept at all, but if you are an intercept deck, it's your job to try > to block. And then, when they play 2 or 3 stealth cards to your Raven > Spy/Cat's Guidance or Sport Bike/Enhanced Senses and get the bleed > through anyway, you've taken 6 damage: > Them: Pulse of the Canaille, Gov. the Unaligned, Bonding, Lost in Crowds, > Faceless Night, Cloak the Gathering (x2) = 6 bleed, +6 stealth > You (Gangrel): Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance, KRCG = Yeah, whatever. > You (Toreador): Sport Bike, Enhanced Senses, Spirit's Touch, KRCG = +5 > intercept. Oops. An intercept deck should be able to beat a stealth deck about half the time. If it can't, the intercept deck is a failure in design. > Rush combat: Obedience shuts you down. Requires an untapped, older vampire that can block the attack (what about Haven Uncovered etc.) If able to block, it is further watered down by intercept. Their bleed power will be less. [snip] > Who says that you have to get your IC > member burned? They have base bleeds of 3, and are protected from AI, > unless you decide to get uppity and try to bleed for 10. My philosophy > is, if you try to bleed someone for that much, you deserve what you get. Then I propose that we add out-of-turn masters that destroy vampires who successfully strike for more than 4 damage or vote more than 4 damage. If you try to hurt someone for that much... > : I agree there is an element of Limburger in S&B but don't fight > : Ricotta with Swiss. You'll get constipated. > What recourse do those of us who play clans which have bounce capability > have? Defend against a common strategy. _All_ good decks defend against bleed, combat, and vote in some way, and if they don't they deserve to fall to that strategy. > All we can do is sit there and take it. If your deck has no recourse for a bleeder deck, it is flawed. > AI is balanced in its own > way. It takes up a card slot, and against a cautious bleed deck, it is > useless. A card slot and a master phase are not enough to burn a vamp, lose less pool, and cause an unsuccessful bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > On 29 Jun 1996 11:38:31 -0400, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > >Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not > >blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. [snip] > Well I have seen it work but you are correct it is not a valid defense > just a slow down and often not by much. Slowing down a S&B deck is a partial defense (I never claimed that it stops Bleeders cold), but the slow down facilitates your own deck bringing up its defenses. > The other point being that next time he will play with less stealth. And be intercepted far more often by the intercept decks. It's difficult to find that happy medium (a major weakness for S&B). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Jun 1996, PDB6 wrote: > Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not > blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. The first time you are bled (without > blocking), you get bled for 5 or 6 (moving 2 cards), that same turn the > next minion bleeds you for 3 or 4 (moving one card), and then you get bled > for 1 each by whatever is left over. You have just lost about10 pool, and > have effectively lost about 2 potential vampires, and thus the ability to > resist even further. If the bleed deck predator then discards a card at > the end of his turn, and plays a master card at the beginning of his turn, > you again get bled for 5 or 6 on the next turn (more if they happen to > have any defensive cards that they got to play). You have now lost > upwards of 15 pool, in 2 turns, in 3 or 4 actions. At this point, unless > you are a very speedy pool gain deck, or luckily managed to play a Minion > Tap that was not Sudden Reversaled, you are dead. If you are a Rush > Combat deck, you have managed to kill one of their vampires (at the cost > of possibly moving some of their cards), as you only have 1 or 2 vampires > having already lost 10 pool. Then you still die. > In any game where I stoicly decided not to block a S+B deck, I have died. > In any situation where anyone at the table I have been playing has stoicly > decided to try to hand jam the S+B deck by not blocking, they have died. > I just don't buy it as a viable defense. Perhaps by the time you are > dead, the S+B deck will have horrible hand jam for the next guy, but how > does that help you? You are dead. I'm going to tackle your statements LIFO. If you are not playing intercept, why even bother to block? All you do is help them cycle their hand. On to the point at hand. The early pool loss (say from Govern the Unaligned, Conditioning) will be large, but most bleed decks will start bleeding right away with a smaller minion. If they are not, they are giving you time. This time will be used to set up defense. Let's look at the typical bleed deck (Malk, in this case). I will use these assumption about the deck: 1/3 Stealth 1/3 Bleed 1/3 Master and Other (playable immediately) An general hand will have, on (worst case) average 2 Stealth, 3 Bleed, 2 Other. With master cards, the first unblocked bleed will drain out the bleed cards and an Other card (4 cards). This is likely an early strike, and so won't as often hit very hard. Even if it does, a loss of 6 pool early is better than 4 pool or more every turn from multiple vampires. At this point, the bleeder will be relegated to turn after turn of 1 or 0 bleed cards in hand. If 1/3 the deck is bleed, only 1 bleed card, versus 6 non-bleed cards will return. After playing that bleed card, it is likely to have 7 non-bleed cards in hand. Not only is 1/3 of their deck effectively dead weight, but they aren't likely to start discarding their stealth (for fear they might need it) until they are clogging. During this time, you had better not have been idle. Since you are not playing an intercept deck (or else you would have been intercepting), you should be getting to your bleed bounce, your rush, your whatever you do to defend against bleeders. As another option, you could ignore your predator and race to finish your prey. The important thing is, since you are not blocking, unless you think someone else might (D) you, don't save any blockers. The 'not blocking' defense is a stall. It doesn't work by itself, but gives you time to bring out your defense against bleed by giving you more minion actions and clogging the stealth in your predator's hand. If you don't have the bleed defense to bring out, you should rethink your deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:52:58 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> > wrote: > > Hardly. Only untapped Vamps can play Obedience and only so many can > >go in a deck before it starts to water down the strategy. The above > >bleed would not be as likely. Unlikely as it is already. > I really disagree. > Obedience does not Tap you so you may have just one blocker to use it > and he can stop several attackers. Remember Rush is card intensive > anyway since he needs some card to get into combat and most of those > are only temp cards or ones that are burnable. The burnable ones still have a window of opportunity. In addition, it slows down the bleeder to burn them. Archon requires a successful vote (so do we have an intercepting, bleeding, obediencing, voter deck?) to destroy, and contract a specific vote. > Since a stealth deck > only needs to fight when attacked and not when acting Obedience is a > major defense. Yes you may get an occasional hand jam with a lot of > them but thats just a matter of deck design. It is still easy enogh > to have plenty to deal with rush and blocking bleeds you don't deflect > without frequent hand jam. Getting rid of these cards is seldom a > problem. A sophisticated player when attacking at stealth (typically +1), will not attack an older untapped vampire (doing so facilitates removal of hand jam) when obedience has been repeatedly played. While cards can be discarded, players are notoriously loath to discard potentially useful cards like stealth until their hand is so clogged with them that they have already been slowed down. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Gary Bateman wrote: > There is a pungent element of cheese in decks that rely on 4+ bleeds > to win a game. In a well balanced game every tactic should have a > counter-tactic and involve some risk. Bleed has multiple counter tactics. Bleeds basic strategy is in itself a risk, because the basic strategy does not itself have defense built into it as Rush or Vote does. > Cards like AI are only a > "problem" if a player is too lazy (or perhaps incapable) to devise a > strategy to work around it. The only strategy is to not bleed for much if you know they have it. That is not a strategy. That is a card without a counter. > 3 pool is a LOT to lose. 4+ is a hell of > a lot to lose. I think it's hilarious to see a S&B deck fall on its > face trying to go for the home run swing. I also like to see bleed decks fail. They do about as much as every other deck. If you think it's hilarious for AI to cause someone's downfall, fine. Not me. The card cannot be stopped by a bleed deck. They merely have to pull in even more. Bleed decks can no longer be made of the "slow to build, hard in the end" variety. Now, they all have to be repetitive cut decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Jun 1996 20:52:04 GMT, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Obedience trumps TB, yes. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Thank you again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:08:14 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >Tremere and Ventrue aren't sneaking, so who cares about them. Malkavians >intercepting in a S&B deck are watering down their bleed. Agreed with the first prt but I hardly think 4 or 5 sports bikes and Mr. Winthorp are much of a dilution. And if the rush puts in extra stealth they are diluting thier hand as well. (I respond to your bigger post later) The Ref at refp...@best.com

Corrupter wrote: >I think our differences really lie at one major crux: you >feel that bleed is too difficult to defend against, and I >feel that bleed has never been too difficult to defend >against. Given that difference in opinion, to you, a card >like AI seems justifiable, but to me seems like grand >overkill. You are pretty close, but my main problem with bleed is not that it is too hard to defend against, but that if you fail (for whatever reason) to defend against S+B, the consequences are FAR greater than if your defenses fail against a combat deck, and somewhat greater than if your defenses fail against a vote deck. For example, in a 4 player game I played recently, I was playing a fairly good rush combat deck, and my preadator was playing a weenie Presence bleed deck (all little vamps with Presence that bleed for 2 or 3 each action. If you kill 2 minions a turn with combat, he makes 3 new ones). In the middle of the game, I had 14 pool and four good fighting vamps out, and he had 4 stealthless 2 or 3 point weenie vamps (after I had killed 2 or 3) I felt I was in a good position and things were looking good for me. He then played Misdirection (The "Channel" of Jyhad. I hate this card. It should not exist. Sorry about the tangent.) to tap my two untapped vamps, and with four 2 or 3 point vamps with only Presence, he bled me for 14 points, using Social Charms and Aire of Elations. I was imediately ousted. My deck had plenty of Deflections, WWEF, Rats Warning, as well as AI, but by sheer dumb luck, none were in my hand and no one Sudden Reversaled the Misdirection (Another card I hate. This card should only exist because of Misdirection.), so I died. If I had a single one of these cards in my hand, I would have lived, but it was just not in the cards (Ooh. Sorry about that :-) My point is not that I was unable to defend vs the bleed deck (I was perfectly able to in a grand sense), but due to a series of obscure events, my defenses failed, and was ousted when I had 14 pool and 4 good vampires. If my Predator had been a combat deck, and I suffered the same sort of critical defense failure, I would have had a couple vamps killed, but as I a good deal of pool left, I could have kept fighting (i.e. playing, even if from a hamstrung positon). If my preadator had been a vote deck, I could have taken 12 pool loss at most (4 players, and my prey had even more pool than me), but at least my Primogens and other players could have helped swung things one way or another, but at worst I would have lost 12 pool. As my prey was a bleed deck, I was killed in a swift and merciless fashon. My biggest problem with the S+B, or just plain Bleed strategy is that it can be too swift and too decisive, and end the game way too quick, where combat decks and non "All KRC" vote decks tend to drag the game out, and let it develop. If your predator is a good bleed deck, and your defenses fail, you are ousted VERY quickly. This is simply not the way I like to play the game. To make a unneeded comparison to Magic (yeah, yeah, I know...), Red direct damage decks are perfectly workable, can be easily delt with, and are not particularly unbalancing, but I just don't like to play with one or against one. I just think they are boring, and when they work, the game ends real quick. I feel the same way about S+B decks (and to a lesser extent non Stealthy Bleed decks). Generally, either they are completely innefective ("Hey! I just happen to have 15 Deflections in my deck. Cool."), or they oust their prey really quickly. To tie this all together, yes, I think that Archon Investigation is justifiable, as while it could easily be viewed as overkill (and is by many), I just see it as a card that encourages the kind of play I prefer. If this is not to a play groups liking, it is just a game, and it is very easy to remove the card from a play enviornment with the agreement of the players. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Some of you are going to die Martyrs of course to the freedom I shall provide." -Genesis

In article <31D6CF...@ix.netcom.com>, Wyld...@ix.netcom.com says... > >Bastet wrote: >> > Intercept: Intercept is harder to come by than stealth, and for those who >> > say "Don't block; jam their hand", I say that that's fine if you have no >> > intercept at all, but if you are an intercept deck, it's your job to try >> > to block. And then, when they play 2 or 3 stealth cards to your Raven >> > Spy/Cat's Guidance or Sport Bike/Enhanced Senses and get the bleed >> > through anyway, you've taken 6 damage: >> > >> I have already pointed out that intercept is just as easy to come by as >> stealth and there are no permanent stealth cards for clans with dominate. >> where there are permanent intercept cards for EVERYONE. > >Actually, the Malkavians do have a permanent Stealth Card... the Forest of >Shadows.. and the tremere have two vampires with permanent stealth... Rebekka >and Muaziz (who can easily fit into a Malk deck.. :) Okay, one moment please. Forest of shadows, as a permanent stealth card, seriously bites. It costs 3 pool, costs blood off the malkavian to use, and can be burned as an action. Not only that, but as a DS uncommon, it's harder to get than, say, fortune-teller's shop. I personally think that it bites so much that it's not in my malkavian bleed deck, which doesn't need it anyway. And as for Rebekka and Muaziz fitting well into a Malk deck, please! Rebekka costs 8 pool, for a total of four points of disciplines which you might use, and the +1 stealth on all actions. Also, no obfuscate, and presence, not dominate. Sorry, not good enough a deal. Anyone with even a passable intercept deck can block her every time. The same thing goes for Muaziz, except more so. 7 capacity, for +1 stealth, basic dominate and basic auspex; no obfuscate. Sounds pretty bad to me... >> ********************************************************************** >> "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." >> -Catwoman (Issue #30) >> *************************************** >> Dharia McGrew >> damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu >> and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) >> http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew >> ********************************************************************** > >WyldStar Alec Chang

In article <4r5p3u$l...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com says... > >On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:52:58 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> >wrote: > >> >>> Rush combat: Obedience shuts you down. > >> Hardly. Only untapped Vamps can play Obedience and only so many can >>go in a deck before it starts to water down the strategy. The above >>bleed would not be as likely. Unlikely as it is already. > >I really disagree. >Obedience does not Tap you so you may have just one blocker to use it >and he can stop several attackers. Remember Rush is card intensive >anyway since he needs some card to get into combat and most of those >are only temp cards or ones that are burnable. Since a stealth deck >only needs to fight when attacked and not when acting Obedience is a >major defense. Yes you may get an occasional hand jam with a lot of >them but thats just a matter of deck design. It is still easy enogh >to have plenty to deal with rush and blocking bleeds you don't deflect >without frequent hand jam. Getting rid of these cards is seldom a >problem. > > >The Ref at refp...@best.com > Um... May I disagree here? Obedience can only be used by a blocker if the blocker can actually block the rushing vampire. I don't know about other people, but around here, rush decks use a huge section of haven uncovereds to attack vampires at stealth. And I haven't noticed any bleed decks with intercept in them recently. As mentioned above, obedience requires an untapped vampire, and has to be played by a large vampire if it's to have any effect at all. And in S&B, you want your large vampires to be bleeding your prey, which, although most of us haven't mentioned it, is the point of the game(Well, to be exact, it's getting your prey to zero pool, but every vampire can bleed without needing a card, as opposed to calling votes to make your prey lose pool, or whatever). Anything which waters down the main focus of the deck makes it slower, and thus more vulnerable to all of the myriad ways that other decks can counter the basic S&B concept. Alec Chang

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:06:06 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >Even with a Haven Uncovered? You need intercept for that. For Archon? > >Ditto. For Contract? Ditto. For Bloodhunt. Ditto. > +1 permanent intercept on 1 vampire really isn't much of a dilution. > maybe 5 to 7 cards. and a few tlepathic misdirections which can do > double duty of bouncing as needed. Telepathic Misdirection (and any other auspex) is temporary, and the permanent intercepts take an action or are relatively limited. > >In a combat deck it should be. > True but again your saying anyone can do it as a valid defense and in > truth very few could pull off decent rush. My arguement isn't that every deck can rush, but that those decks that have direct attack in them have options to use. > And then dealing with S:CE > and especially Obedience which is the likely defense for a malk deck > further dilutes it by requiring more rush cards like bums rush, Hidden > Lurker and, Psyche. You keep saying how he is diluting his deck to > deal with it and your right. > I just feel that your overstating how much of a dilution it is, > especially compared to Rush (which is the key defense for a couple of > clans on your chart) because Rush requires get into combat cards as > well as damage and prevention cards. Good rush decks should have some "permanent" get-into-combat ability. This far outweighs transient obedience cards which can't be in your hand and usable at all times like a permanent get-into-combat card would be. > Note that the rush deck probably > need some other defensive cards as well. Against vote? Rush. Against combat? More combat. > Malk S&B needs > Stealth and Bleed cards for offense. > Obedience and light Intercept to handle Rush and Votes both of which > are usually not at more then 1 stealth or are not very deadly because > of dilution of cards and disciplines. > Deflection to make a bleeder predator help you out. > A few Telepathic Misdirections to give boosted Intercept or bleed > bounce. In doing so, they are no longer a bleeding terror. They are handalable. > And of course a few wakes in case one of your Bleeders is rushed while > your out of Intercept. (Unless of course you used Maddness Network to > not bother tapping out until after your Pred was done anyway, but > lets not go there....) Good idea. :) > This is a very focused deck and not prone to hand jam unless you put > in too much stealth. But if the deck doesn't put enough stealth in, the intercept decks will screw it. It's a hard line to walk. Most Sneak decks have to figure out what they are more scared of: intercept or rush. If they choose intercept, they will be hand-jammed by a rush deck. If they choose rush, they will get screwed by the intercept deck. > And since Obedience does not cost blood to use and is played before > combat begins it is the best defensive combat ends card. Play this > and he can't Majesty out or play Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed > or even Form of Mist. So it takes a Psyche for that minion to come > back at you this turn while your still untapped and healthy waiting > for the next guy. A Freak Drive wouldn't even work since you could > not preform the same action and Rush again. Yes he will run you out > of cards unless that is a major part of your deck (and thus diluted) > but this is still the best Rush defense in the game and since they are > already fast with S&B being a very direct offensive strategy they > remain in very good shape. But the speed will be diluted if they are going for permanent intercept to stop stealthed attacks (via Havens, etc.), and their deck will be diluted if they choose transient cards (Auspex). > Remember that thier getting more use out of thier permanent Intercept > then most other decks. True. > They won't hurt you in a fight but they do well at keeping you from > hurting them and it is enogh. I dispute this. They can slow you down, as you slow them down. As you die, they run out of things to kill you with. I've seen it even most games (at least in my environment). > Oh and there is one final little thing to note and think about. > The rushed vampire can play the Obedience without Intercepting as long > as he is Untapped and older so your stuck going after the younger ones > who are likely his weaker bleeders unless he made a mistake. And they are stuck bleeding you for less because their big bleeder is defending. With one less minion bleeding, and that minion being a large one, the damage will be slowed down yet more. [snipped Hidden Lurker / Fast Reaction discussion] > >Psyche is efficient yes, but whether or not a small set of clans can play > >Psyche, every clan has options to deal with S:CE. > Yes but were not dealing with S:CE just a minor card called obedience > which a heavy bleeder is going to have available and since this thread > is about heavy bleeds and thier balance I think who can use Psyche is > important. I hadn't realized your earlier discussion revolved around Obedience. [snip] > >I still see no reason why Rush is feeb (to use Hamblin's phrase) against > >S&B. > Well how about now? No. The bleeder is still slowing down immensely to defend, as I said earlier. With stealth cards in hand, obedience and permanent/transient intercept (more actions or less S&B), and needing a large defender untapped, the more a S&B tries to defend, the weaker its S&B gets. Conversely, the less it defends, the more easily it can be slaughtered. I don't and haven't seen a problem, unless you are in a strange Jyhad environment (everyone having relatively limited card supply, CL, etc.) > And I'm not saying it is useless, because unless he prepares for it he > will be toasted. What I am saying is that it is weaker then any other > strategy in dealing with a S&B deck. I agree that it is weaker, but not that it is weak. > The cards he uses to protect him > from a Rush prey will help him out against a Rush predator or a low > stealth vote deck. Thus his cards will likely get used and not cause > hand jam. The defensive cards will almost certainly be used, but at the cost of not having as much S&B. If X% of your cards are not a main part of your strategy, you will not get your strategy up as often. > Stealth cards on the contrary only help him get an action > thru and are actually less effecient and more of a dilution and > usually they come out alright. Unless there is an intercepter at the table. > And if it takes 2 or more minions of > his prey or predator to attack then they are not hurting thier other > opponents and will soon have something else to worry about as well. The prey of the S&B? Well, he will be in fine shape. His prey will not usually turn to waste resources on him so that they can face an invigorated S&B deck. The predator of the S&B? She too will be okay. She is not under pressure from the S&B. She, like every other player, will be defending against her predator as needed, and working to oust her prey. > >In order to fully defend against Rush, S&B has to take away from its main > >offense, bleeding. Rush decks defense is their offense (no take away). > You are right but as it takes several cards to do a rush and only one > Obedience the Malk has the advantage. But obedience cannot be reused. It goes away. Elysium is Fragile. Mariel Requires a vamp. There is no permanent "go away, combat" card. If two or three attacks a turn hit the S&B deck, that will require 2 or 3 Obedience. In a non-intercept combat deck, why should the S&B's prey save blockers. One Haven Uncovered and the S&B will get into a fight unless it is so weighted down with obedience (and in combat defenses) that it can't bleed for much. > Now against a malk you will not use as many cards because you won't > need much prevention or heavy strikes but if your building a rush deck > you will have them anyway since you will have to deal with real combat > decks. If your rush deck cannot handle a combat deck I feel that it > is poorly designed, even more so then a deck that will not handle all > 3 main strategies equally well. > The problem that then comes up is your own hand jam as you fill up > with strike and prevention cards you can't use against him. What prevention cards can't you use. Likely, the S&B will either be hand striking (using up your prevention) or dodging. In either case, good Rush has few cases of hand jam in combat. Most of the damage prevention cards can be used for alternate methods (manuever, etc). Unusable strikes (sewer lids at close, for example), should only be in a deck that can consistently get to the correct range. If a non-combat deck can keep your combat deck from being at the right range or getting to the right round, then either your deck is feeb, or the S&B is again watering itself down. There are very few in combat cards that are useless to a rush deck. > So you > will probably slow down the rushes unless you have access to perm rush > such as An Archon. Which _every_ rush should have some of, whether it is Archon, Bloodhunt, Contract, Covenant of Blood, Haven Uncovered, Talbot's Chainsaw, or anything else. Permanent rush _seriously_ hampers S:CE, Obedience, and other anti-combat strategies because there are no permanent anti-combat strategies. Removable cards slow down the attacked as they spend actions getting rid of them, and permanent cards are there for good. > >Thus, S&B, as it more effectively deals with combat, starts to lose its > >bite, and if it doesn't deal with combat, gets destroyed. > >Malks: They add in obedience. With enough obedience to be consistent, > >their bleed loses out some. However, they are still slammed by any > >Stealthed attacks (Haven Uncovered, etc.). To defend against that, they > >need intercept. Still more bleed reduction. > Nope. Just an untapped vampire with modest intercept in most cases > and a few wakes to handle those you cannot intercept. See the above. > >Setites: They add in Majesty and Mummify. Mummify lets them escape from > >another combat, but at a huge price. Majesty is screwable (and should be > >in a combat deck). > Your right a good Rush deck will likely handle Setites pretty well. > They have more combat ability then a malk but a Rush deck should not > be afraid of a good fight. What makes Malks so different from Setites? While most anti-S:CE cards cannot deal with obedience, obedience is limited in that it is a reaction from an older vampire. After either S:CE or Obedience saves the vamp, a permanent method of attack will allow another vampire to join the fray. A large number of either are needed for defense against permanent attacks. [snipped agreement on intercept / Fast Reaction tearing Malks apart] > I just don't see Rush as effective as Bounce (remember bounce also > helps you by potentially hurting your prey) or even Intercept. While I agree that Rush is weaker than Bounce or Intercept, I still rate it 8 out of a possible 10 stars. Last night, I was playing my Assamite "Blood for Blood" deck. I had a S&B predator both games (the same player both times) who had excellent bleed bounce (he also had a bleeder predator). The first game, he ousted me, but the next turn, he would have lost 3 of his four vampire if I could have had a turn. The second game, he had me down pretty low, but I torped all of his vampires in two turns during midgame. Thereafter, I worked my way around to him, killing his vamps as they came out (and killing his predator's extra vamps. Can't have him ousting my eventual prey). 50/50. That's how I see (and saw) Rush vs. Bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4qv9ti$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, chick...@aol.com says... > >Actually, Archon investigation is only a VtES uncommon !! >Chick...@aol.com >3930 Cody Road >Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 >day 714-558-9444 >eve 818-784-8476 What!!?? Okay, that scares me. I was thinking that it was a rare(My playgroup has mainly Jyhad, and no one wants to carry V:tES because they haven't sold out of Jyhad yet). An uncommon card which burns a vampire, cancels a bleed, no matter how many cards and how much blood and pool has been invested into it, and costs less than the bleed would have? That is just ridiculous. As I believe has been mentioned before, any card which hoses a strategy completely has to have it's power balanced by something, and the impression that I'm under is that this card is way, way too powerful for it's cost(not to mention it's rarity, which makes me nauseous just thinking about how many copies of it must be out there). Sorry, I just think that someone being able to burn an Arika or Stanislava for three pool and the cost of a master phase because the vampire played a bonding is just plain ludicrous. If someone can tell me why the most efficient, most basic way to hurt your prey needs to be hosed this hard, and can convince me, I might not try to petition to ban the damn thing. But I don't think that's going to happen; there are plenty of ways of dealing with bleed decks, especially in multi-player games of four or more. I've seen conspiracies to torporize and diablerize every malkavian that entered play before, and believe me, that was not a fun game to play a bleed deck in. There are other ways to deal with large bleed beyond using a card which smells broken. Alec Chang

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > My whole debate on this thread was with Corruptors contention that > Rush was a very effective way of dealing with S&B. Obedience just > beats Rush up and weakens that strategy so much that it is in my > opinion the weakest defense. But permanent attack cards make obedience merely a staving off of the end. To be consistently Obediencing requires _huge_ dillution. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4r9bcf$4...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com says... > >On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:08:14 -0500, The Corrupter ><sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > >>Tremere and Ventrue aren't sneaking, so who cares about them. Malkavians >>intercepting in a S&B deck are watering down their bleed. >Agreed with the first prt but I hardly think 4 or 5 sports bikes and >Mr. Winthorp are much of a dilution. And if the rush puts in extra >stealth they are diluting thier hand as well. >(I respond to your bigger post later) >The Ref at refp...@best.com > Okay. I disagree with this. It's not just that the cards take up space in your deck, but that they require actions to play, as well as costing pool. The actions to equip or recruit can be blocked, which has the S&B vampire entering combat unless it wants to waste stealth so that it's action gets through(in most of the bleed decks that I've made, any use of stealth which isn't for bleeding qualifies as a real waste). And, also, since this is S&B, you're forfeiting the opportunity to bleed your prey, slowing down your own strategy, and temporarily exposing yourself to whatever your predator or any rush decks want to do to you. If the other player's decks are well made, that opening should be enough for them to do serious damage to you. But, then again, this is all just my opinion. Alec Chang

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:48:29 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >But permanent attack cards make obedience merely a staving off of the > >end. To be consistently Obediencing requires _huge_ dillution. > True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing > out your pool. But not for much. With hand jam (however minor) from stealth, and having to have the obediences, they will not be hurting you too badly. >Rushing your prey works better and if your going that > heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up > his defenses. True, but oftentimes one needs to direct their attention at one's predator at the expense of one's prey if survival is important. > Like I said this strategy works but we just have a different value on > its effectiveness. And on your chart this was the only defense you > believed a couple of clans had. I was referring to typical strategies. I didn't mean to give the impression I felt these were absolutes. For example, a friend of mine plays a Ravnos deck that would definately go in the "race" defense (It bleeds _very_ quickly, while another friend of mine would use Ventrue to Rush. Stereotyped clan decks have the options I mentioned. > I think each clan should have several ways of dealing with the main > strategies and that at least 2 of them ought to be more then > reasonably effective. I agree, but read the above. > To say that because you are playing a NOS deck > you must do rush combat hampers your play style and the game variety. :) Of course. My own Nos deck would work on pool gain (with rush as a secondary defense). My Tremere deck would (D)-bleed my predator to a pulp and life boon them away when 2nd Tradition finishes them off. I don't think that any of my comments are absolutes on what each clan can do, just what they are generally capable of. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > I disagree that making a card a rare gives it the right to be more > powerful though. THat just gives us the suitcase problem. > The best cards in the game are uncommons for the most part and the > rares are just specal flavoring and should not be so powerful that a > deck may be easily built as a One Trick Pony with them. I completely agree here. The rare cards that get introduced need to not be more powerful in terms of power per cost. If a card is powerful (like Smiling Jack is), it is often held back in terms of cost, utility, and general difficulties in bringing/keeping it out. Magic is plagued by rare cards that are ultra destructive or useful for little cost, simply because they are rare. This breeds the Mr. Suitcase effect. I like the fact that I could sweep a table of people in my regular play circle with my league deck (made from a _very_ limited random card selection). Few games can do this, and I hope this doesn't change. Most powerful cards are common and uncommon (Bum's Rush, Majesty) and this allows new players to compete. One of the reasons I am glad that S&B exists in Jyhad is that it gives new players a chance to be competitive without needing to have rares and without needing to figure out extreme combos early. Here's to keeping rares on a power level roughly equal to the other commonalities... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960701140205.293P-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:52:58 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> > > wrote: > > > > Hardly. Only untapped Vamps can play Obedience and only so many can > > >go in a deck before it starts to water down the strategy. The above > > >bleed would not be as likely. Unlikely as it is already. > > > I really disagree. > > Obedience does not Tap you so you may have just one blocker to use it > > and he can stop several attackers. Remember Rush is card intensive > > anyway since he needs some card to get into combat and most of those > > are only temp cards or ones that are burnable. > > The burnable ones still have a window of opportunity. In addition, it > slows down the bleeder to burn them. Archon requires a successful vote > (so do we have an intercepting, bleeding, obediencing, voter deck?) to > destroy, and contract a specific vote. I could build one from Tremere and Toreador--don't know how good it would be... J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:06:06 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >Even with a Haven Uncovered? You need intercept for that. For Archon? >Ditto. For Contract? Ditto. For Bloodhunt. Ditto. +1 permanent intercept on 1 vampire really isn't much of a dilution. maybe 5 to 7 cards. and a few tlepathic misdirections which can do double duty of bouncing as needed. >In a combat deck it should be. True but again your saying anyone can do it as a valid defense and in truth very few could pull off decent rush. And then dealing with S:CE and especially Obedience which is the likely defense for a malk deck further dilutes it by requiring more rush cards like bums rush, Hidden Lurker and, Psyche. You keep saying how he is diluting his deck to deal with it and your right. I just feel that your overstating how much of a dilution it is, especially compared to Rush (which is the key defense for a couple of clans on your chart) because Rush requires get into combat cards as well as damage and prevention cards. Note that the rush deck probably need some other defensive cards as well. Malk S&B needs Stealth and Bleed cards for offense. Obedience and light Intercept to handle Rush and Votes both of which are usually not at more then 1 stealth or are not very deadly because of dilution of cards and disciplines. Deflection to make a bleeder predator help you out. A few Telepathic Misdirections to give boosted Intercept or bleed bounce. And of course a few wakes in case one of your Bleeders is rushed while your out of Intercept. (Unless of course you used Maddness Network to not bother tapping out until after your Pred was done anyway, but lets not go there....) This is a very focused deck and not prone to hand jam unless you put in too much stealth. And since Obedience does not cost blood to use and is played before combat begins it is the best defensive combat ends card. Play this and he can't Majesty out or play Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed or even Form of Mist. So it takes a Psyche for that minion to come back at you this turn while your still untapped and healthy waiting for the next guy. A Freak Drive wouldn't even work since you could not preform the same action and Rush again. Yes he will run you out of cards unless that is a major part of your deck (and thus diluted) but this is still the best Rush defense in the game and since they are already fast with S&B being a very direct offensive strategy they remain in very good shape. Remember that thier getting more use out of thier permanent Intercept then most other decks. They won't hurt you in a fight but they do well at keeping you from hurting them and it is enogh. Oh and there is one final little thing to note and think about. The rushed vampire can play the Obedience without Intercepting as long as he is Untapped and older so your stuck going after the younger ones who are likely his weaker bleeders unless he made a mistake. >> Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction require another minion open. >So what? You've just utterly murdered a vampire. It's well worth the >cost, believe me. One of my decks (my Malk/Nos combat deck) is based on >it, and pretty much slaughters everyone in that second combat (Fortitude >Combat excepted). Well Fast Reaction would be for an Intercept combat deck and you were talking about rush as a standard defense against S&B. It does have its strength though in this case since you probably will not muster the intercept with all your minions you block one and concentrate your fire. Of course while your doing that your not attacking your prey but against malks you wouldn't need much to mangle them when they are acting (at least until Thoughts Betrayed kept you from playing your strike cards). Hidden Lurker however is handled just like any other rush card, except easier. Obedience is not a strike so it still works unlike the other S:CE cards. Now if you attack a tapped out minion fine. Psyche is the only one that keeps things even since you both are cycling 1 card for each combat until someone runs out. Of course you needed Superior Celerity which is a little harder to come by then any level of dominate and an older vampire. >> That leaves Psyche as the only effeient card and guess who can play it >> best? >Psyche is efficient yes, but whether or not a small set of clans can play >Psyche, every clan has options to deal with S:CE. Yes but were not dealing with S:CE just a minor card called obedience which a heavy bleeder is going to have available and since this thread is about heavy bleeds and thier balance I think who can use Psyche is important. >> Brujah and Toreador ! 2 of the clans that can play S:CE ends . >So? We are discussing ways to deal with S:CE, not whether or not those >that can deal with S:CE can also S:CE. Besides, this is a discussion of >S&B. Well you caught me on that one. I wandered into another topic. Sorry. >> NOSFERATU; Have no combat ends and cannot deal with it except as an >> Action; requiring 2 minions. >Don't forget Immortal Grapple. Using 2 minions is not a waste. They >will be pummeled (Malks have no S:CE, Setites get creamed in the 2nd combat). Obedience beats IG unless he was tapped out and then he deseves it. You should not have to rely on your opponent making a mistake in order to hurt him. >> Since they have no real combat defense I >> think it is weak for a combat clan but Cats Guidance protects them >> from multiple Actions. A lot better if more had it at superior >> though. >They don't need combat defense. They are rushing a S&B not a Bruise and >Bleed deck. Your right. I was just commenting that I thought they were a weak combat clan. <General agreement parts snipped.> >Your point has lost me. Sorry, I wandered off topic again. I was just summerizing my opinion of thier cabilities in a more broad sense. >I still see no reason why Rush is feeb (to use Hamblin's phrase) against >S&B. Well how about now? And I'm not saying it is useless, because unless he prepares for it he will be toasted. What I am saying is that it is weaker then any other strategy in dealing with a S&B deck. The cards he uses to protect him from a Rush prey will help him out against a Rush predator or a low stealth vote deck. Thus his cards will likely get used and not cause hand jam. Stealth cards on the contrary only help him get an action thru and are actually less effecient and more of a dilution and usually they come out alright. And if it takes 2 or more minions of his prey or predator to attack then they are not hurting thier other opponents and will soon have something else to worry about as well. >In order to fully defend against Rush, S&B has to take away from its main >offense, bleeding. Rush decks defense is their offense (no take away). You are right but as it takes several cards to do a rush and only one Obedience the Malk has the advantage. Now against a malk you will not use as many cards because you won't need much prevention or heavy strikes but if your building a rush deck you will have them anyway since you will have to deal with real combat decks. If your rush deck cannot handle a combat deck I feel that it is poorly designed, even more so then a deck that will not handle all 3 main strategies equally well. The problem that then comes up is your own hand jam as you fill up with strike and prevention cards you can't use against him. So you will probably slow down the rushes unless you have access to perm rush such as An Archon. >Thus, S&B, as it more effectively deals with combat, starts to lose its >bite, and if it doesn't deal with combat, gets destroyed. >Malks: They add in obedience. With enough obedience to be consistent, >their bleed loses out some. However, they are still slammed by any >Stealthed attacks (Haven Uncovered, etc.). To defend against that, they >need intercept. Still more bleed reduction. Nope. Just an untapped vampire with modest intercept in most cases and a few wakes to handle those you cannot intercept. >Setites: They add in Majesty and Mummify. Mummify lets them escape from >another combat, but at a huge price. Majesty is screwable (and should be >in a combat deck). Your right a good Rush deck will likely handle Setites pretty well. They have more combat ability then a malk but a Rush deck should not be afraid of a good fight. >Where is the problem? Rush should be able to handle bleed to the point >that bleed needs to be heavily distilled to have reliable defenses. >Throw in non-blocking and you can create heavy hand jam in a >non-intercept combat deck. Intercept combat decks should be able to >block at least half the time. And Intercept decks with Psyche or Fast Reaction should be able to tear up the Malks well enough that the half that do get thru are weaker and bleed for less each time. > >> If it works. But Psyche at superior is thus the only real effective >> counter with Hidden Lurker not bad (but only the Nos can pull that >> one) >And assamites, and Combat Malks. Yes but I retract my statement about Hidden Lurker being not bad in this case. >I dispute your claim that Psyche is the only effective counter. In rush, >Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Immortal Grapple, Dog Pack, and Thoughts Betrayed >are all effective counters (Each clan having an option, should they be >a combat deck). In Intercept, switch the Hidden Lurker for a Fast Reaction. Well I think I picked up the gauntlet well enough<g>. Psyche is Toreador and Brujah and thogh the Toreador are better off with Auspex giving them more options against S&B, the Brujah should do all right since its 1 Psyche for 1 Obedience. Fast Reaction counters Obedience nicely since he must be acting for you to play it and thus not able to play Obedience. Again we have Toreador, with the Tremere coming into the picture and of course Malks. I just don't see Rush as effective as Bounce (remember bounce also helps you by potentially hurting your prey) or even Intercept. Rory > @ 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*+? The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:24:52 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: > Sure, it is an effective defense but you must realize that if you >put 10 obedience cards in your deck it will dilute your bleed potential >and stealth capability and there is no gaurantee you will use them so >they'll just sit in your hand. Also with an aggressive prey (particularly >some weenie decks) you will have to bounce five or six attacks on one tapped >vamp(usually the bleeding culprit) with a Haven uncovered on them. Also on >each attack another untapped vampire must have the neccessary intercept >to stop the rush before they play obedience. So suddenly this becomes a >very card intensive defense for S&B. If you wanna keep up the big >bleeds you can't afford this kind of watering down of your deck. As long as the guy being attacked is older and has even inferior dominate he can handle the fight and does not need to intercept. The intercept is needed if you want one guy to do all the blocking and then you just give him a Sports Bike and Winthorp for perm +2 Intercept. Add a few Telepathic Misdirections or other intercept cards for early on and you can handle blocking most rush. A Nos for example would need a rush and 2 stealth cards plus a strike card to make it worth his while and cold never hurt an Untapped Vampire. Now who is diluting thier hand? > You will find that those vamps that use S:CE most often have a hard >time implementing the "sneak" half of s&b and so are less of a problem to >begin with. Dominate and Obfuscate are common enough on the same Malk. And remember he only needs inferior dominate. Also if they are using S:CE that means you are in combat and >have BLOCKED the bleed which is the whole point. In a rush situation S:CE >can be a problem but if you're dealing with Malks or Tremere >this shouldn't be a big problem because if they do this it means they're >deck is watered down with Presence or Protean skill cards and the S:CE >combat cards. Therefore you prolly won't see more than a 3 or 4 point bleed. My whole debate on this thread was with Corruptors contention that Rush was a very effective way of dealing with S&B. Obedience just beats Rush up and weakens that strategy so much that it is in my opinion the weakest defense. Intercept and Bounce defense strategies are fine since Intercept works against any Predator Strategy and if you need high levels of Intercept against a S&B then he has watered his Bleeds down. While Bounce is limited to protecting you against one form of predator the fact that he is helping you destroy your prey offsets that rather well. After all everyone can bleed so you will probably use at least some bounce in most games. >> >All this very true to a point. But, as I mentioned, this is hard to >implement in S&B. This is an entirely different argument (subject is rush >combat universally effective?). As I said in my reply to Corruptor I did wander off topic here. Sorry. >> >> >> Also Rush combat is card intensive and you should have other options. >> >> >While Rush is card intensive, the loss on the minion whom your intensity >> >was directed at is usually worth it. >> >> If it works. But Psyche at superior is thus the only real effective >> counter with Hidden Lurker not bad (but only the Nos can pull that >> one) > Only good counter against what?? Majesty which only Ventrue, Brujah >and Toreador can pull??? None of which have Obfuscate to S&B. Or Earth >Meld and Form of Mist which only Gangrel can pull?? And they don't have >dominate or presence for the heavy Bleed. Again, since were dealing with S&B I was thinking Obedience as the real hoser to Rush combat. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:58:20 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> The other point being that next time he will play with less stealth. >And be intercepted far more often by the intercept decks. It's difficult >to find that happy medium (a major weakness for S&B). Yes but if people are in the habit of not blocking unless they can muster a lot of Intercept then they might not realize how little he has. He will have to adjust often if they are paying attention though. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:54:09 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >The 'not blocking' defense is a stall. It doesn't work by itself, but >gives you time to bring out your defense against bleed by giving you more >minion actions and clogging the stealth in your predator's hand. If you >don't have the bleed defense to bring out, you should rethink your deck. > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ I agree on all points here. It definately helps. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:48:29 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >But permanent attack cards make obedience merely a staving off of the >end. To be consistently Obediencing requires _huge_ dillution. > @ 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*+? True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing out your pool. Rushing your prey works better and if your going that heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up his defenses. Like I said this strategy works but we just have a different value on its effectiveness. And on your chart this was the only defense you believed a couple of clans had. I think each clan should have several ways of dealing with the main strategies and that at least 2 of them ought to be more then reasonably effective. To say that because you are playing a NOS deck you must do rush combat hampers your play style and the game variety. Rory Perm attack cards do wear out his hand. Perm attack is harder to come by for many decks though. But while your wearing out his hand he his wearing out your pool The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Tue, 02 Jul 96 08:02:22 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: There are other ways to deal >with large bleed beyond using a card which smells broken. >Alec Chang Agreed. The card is broken IMHO and bleed defense is doable in most situations. Malks are really good at it but they can be handled. I disagree that making a card a rare gives it the right to be more powerful though. THat just gives us the suitcase problem. The best cards in the game are uncommons for the most part and the rares are just specal flavoring and should not be so powerful that a deck may be easily built as a One Trick Pony with them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 02 Jul 96 07:48:42 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: >> >Um... May I disagree here? >Obedience can only be used by a blocker if the blocker can actually block >the rushing vampire. Where did you get that idea? The card specifically say as you are about to enter combat and says nothing about if you blocked a vampire. You can play it just as you would say Telepathic Counter, no intercept needed unless you are trying to prevent an attack on someone else. I don't know about other people, but around here, >rush decks use a huge section of haven uncovereds to attack vampires at >stealth. And I haven't noticed any bleed decks with intercept in them >recently. As mentioned above, obedience requires an untapped vampire, >and has to be played by a large vampire if it's to have any effect at >all. And in S&B, you want your large vampires to be bleeding your prey, >which, although most of us haven't mentioned it, is the point of the >game(Well, to be exact, it's getting your prey to zero pool, but every >vampire can bleed without needing a card, as opposed to calling votes to >make your prey lose pool, or whatever). Anything which waters down the >main focus of the deck makes it slower, and thus more vulnerable to all >of the myriad ways that other decks can counter the basic S&B concept. >Alec Chang Well having one minion stand around to protect you is not that much of a sacrifice and +1 intercept will handle most rush decks, like your Haven Uncovereds. Saying that because the player has to leave a minion untapped he has no defense without crippling himself just does not make sense to me. Leaving a good blocker up to protect you is a basic part of most strategies and I have not heard someone calling them crippled decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 02 Jul 96 08:20:02 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: >In article <4r9bcf$4...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com says... >> >>On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:08:14 -0500, The Corrupter >><sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> >> >>>Tremere and Ventrue aren't sneaking, so who cares about them. >Malkavians >>>intercepting in a S&B deck are watering down their bleed. >>Agreed with the first prt but I hardly think 4 or 5 sports bikes and >>Mr. Winthorp are much of a dilution. And if the rush puts in extra >>stealth they are diluting thier hand as well. >>(I respond to your bigger post later) >>The Ref at refp...@best.com >> >Okay. I disagree with this. It's not just that the cards take up space >in your deck, but that they require actions to play, as well as costing >pool. The actions to equip or recruit can be blocked, which has the S&B >vampire entering combat unless it wants to waste stealth so that it's >action gets through(in most of the bleed decks that I've made, any use of >stealth which isn't for bleeding qualifies as a real waste). If an action furthers your goals it is not a waste. Getting a laptop or Pulse out for a perm bleed boost is not usually a waste and neither is an action to get +1 perm intercept which you can use to keep your vampires out of Torpor. Yes this does depend on number of defensive cards but we are talking a very few compared to what the prey has to use if he is rushing you and then he also is not concentrating on his prey and 'wasting' actions. And, also, >since this is S&B, you're forfeiting the opportunity to bleed your prey, >slowing down your own strategy, and temporarily exposing yourself to >whatever your predator or any rush decks want to do to you. If the other >player's decks are well made, that opening should be enough for them to >do serious damage to you. > But, then again, this is all just my opinion. >Alec Chang And its just mine as well, so were even. [ quoted text not captured ]

Perhaps if I put thing in a practical context I can convince some people that AI is unneccessary as there is sufficient balance between S&B and other concepts. I have four decks I play that are at various stages of development and each has its own way of dealing with S&B and I would like to summarize them for you. Perhaps seeing the application of a good bleed defense will make it more clear. My first deck is a Gangrel/Ravnos untap/intercept deck. This is prolly my most efficient in defending from S&B due to its concentration on intercept. First of all the deck is quick to set up. Usually by the end of the opening game I can have two or three vampires with permanent intercept (raven spys and sport bikes as well as KRCG) as well as being virtually indestrucable (via lots of fortitude). On occasion I can get +3 intercept on a Ravnos forcing Malks to pour out those +stealths and then Veiled Sight puts them right out of business. Ignis Fatuus does double duty in taking some of that stealth off the offender and taking some of the bite out of a bleed I can't (or won't) stop. The only problem i have with the deck is that its a slow killer and can't rack up victory points fast enough to win a game. Most of the damage is done through Army of rats and peck bleeds with Earth control or Backways. The second deck in my box is a Nos/Brujah/Assamite Rush deck I call The Black Hand (however unrealistic without Sabbat). It's a stealth/Rush/diablerie/vote combo that is still developing. It either works fabulously or fails miserably but there is no doubt that it can handle an S&B deck. Bum's Rush, Haven uncovered, Blood hunt, Archon to get to you. Hidden Lurker, Psyche to stay on you. Quietus, potence, celerity, Amaranth, Rit. of the bitter rose, and ALOT of weapons to make you into breakfast. This deck is far from competitive though and has some bugs that I have to work out. (mainly: its HUGE!) The third deck is, guess what, an S&B deck! It is a Malk/Tremere S&B with a touch of intercept/combat. It doesn't deliver those legendary (bordering on fictional) +8 bleed +6 stealth kill bleeds with any reliable frequency. What damage it does, it does with GREAT planning and effort as well as a coup de grace for a bunch of turns as I assemble the cards and await a moment of vulnerability in my prey. I like this tactic alot as it demonstrates the patience and planning of truly great Methuselahs. Unfotunately, AI has made this an unacceptable risk (potentially fatal). As far as bleed defense there is a fair amount of bounce and intercept including corpse minions and auspex. The combat portion of this deck is designed more to make the vampires self sufficient (i.e. lots of steal blood and hunting grounds) than to destroy or cripple vamps. It works on a slow to build/hard to hit bleed with Malks and a survival based defense with the Tremere. A very "vampire" deck. My final deck is my oldest and favorite though it has gone through recent tranformations. It is a Brujah/ventrue vote/diablerie deck. This deck has ravaged many a S&B in its many incarnations. It has all the rush combat stuff including archon (with camarilla exemp. ouch on those obedience blockers). Again this deck tries to have a card efficient combat base by concentrating on weapons and celerity (particularly Stakes and Ivory bow). Potence plays a supporting role for enhanced damage but is largely absent. As a secondary bleed defense and as secondary offense as well there are a number of political actions including Banishments, Sabbat threats, Archons, Parity Shift, Con. Boon, Cam. Exemplary, Kine Res. Contested, and Bribes, voter captivation for quick pool gain. Master cards include: Absolution of the Diabloist, Vulnerability, Pentex Subversion, etc. Also there are two each of second trad. and Elder intervention as well as 3 sport bikes and KRCG. If all this fails thre are 3 Deflections in the deck as well. though bulky at 127 cards it fares well. These are the ways I handle bleed defense without AI. If you feel this is insufficient I will tell you that at least two of these decks have stood the test of time from the early days of Jyhad without any particular fear of S&B. In fact the deck I most lose to is Gangrel Burn decks. If this still doesn't convince you I suggest settling it in the only way no one can argue about- in practice. You all can make your biggest baddest S&B and I will play you. In fact I will even email everyone a detailed list of my deck and crypt so everyone can plan accordingly and put 15 obidiences in their decks. If anyone wants to back me up, feel free. We can sit everyone: pro-AI/anti-AI and settle it once and for all. [ quoted text not captured ]

refp...@best.com (Rory) writes: >On Tue, 02 Jul 96 08:02:22 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: > There are other ways to deal >>with large bleed beyond using a card which smells broken. >>Alec Chang >Agreed. >The card is broken IMHO and bleed defense is doable in most >situations. Doubly agreed. House rules anyone? 1) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Sends the bleeder to Torpor. 2) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Taps the bleeder and is placed on the bleeder. While the card is on the minion, the minion cannot act. Any vampire may take an action to pay 3 blood to burn the card. 3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the card is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 stealth. 4) Doesn't cost anything and doesn't burn the bleeder. Bleed is unsuccessful. 5) Cost 1. Bleed is unsuccessful, and you must pay X pool, where X is the amount of the bleed had it been successful. If you cannot, you are ousted, otherwise the bleeding minion is burned. Comments and/or further ideas? -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I am Barney of Borg. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | You will be nauseated. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <4rc1bc$b...@nntp1.best.com> refp...@best.com (Rory) writes: >From: refp...@best.com (Rory) >True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing >out your pool. Rushing your prey works better and if your going that >heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up >his defenses. This is a very good point. If you have to use rush to stop a bleed deck you have given your grand-predator a boost, used up 1/3-1/2 of your deck and now you are weakened and your prey is well-defended. So even though you avoided being ousted by your first predator you are still ousted before you get a victory point. You did all the work of ousting someone but you don't get the pool. In a two-player game, rush works great against bleed but what about larger games? AI is a card that gives you a less card intensive defense that allows you to focus more on your prey like the game was intended. Defense is supposed to be less card intensive than offense or at least that is the way it is with combat and voting so why not with bleed? AI is a poor substitute for deflection but not every deck can have dominate available to it.

Re: fixes for AI: >3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the card > is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the > card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 stealth. This seems the most stylish to me. It would encourage variety in decks, too. 3 pool might be a bit much for this effect, however. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Re: fixes for AI: [ quoted text not captured ] Three pool to cancel a bleed of more than three cannot be considered too much cost, especially when the effect has added benefits beyond simply negating the bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:43:01 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> Note that the rush deck probably >> need some other defensive cards as well. >Against vote? Rush. Against combat? More combat. Well if you build a rush deck then you should be able to handle other combat decks. So if your fighting Brujah you had better have some way to stay alive. >But if the deck doesn't put enough stealth in, the intercept decks will >screw it. It's a hard line to walk. Most Sneak decks have to figure out >what they are more scared of: intercept or rush. If they choose >intercept, they will be hand-jammed by a rush deck. If they choose rush, >they will get screwed by the intercept deck. Well all strategies have to deal with that balance. IF they have to seriously think about rush then rush is a viable strategy. But not everyone can pull it off well. >> And since Obedience does not cost blood to use and is played before >> combat begins it is the best defensive combat ends card. Play this >> and he can't Majesty out or play Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed >> or even Form of Mist. So it takes a Psyche for that minion to come >> back at you this turn while your still untapped and healthy waiting >> for the next guy. A Freak Drive wouldn't even work since you could >> not preform the same action and Rush again. Yes he will run you out >> of cards unless that is a major part of your deck (and thus diluted) >> but this is still the best Rush defense in the game and since they are >> already fast with S&B being a very direct offensive strategy they >> remain in very good shape. >But the speed will be diluted if they are going for permanent intercept >to stop stealthed attacks (via Havens, etc.), and their deck will be >diluted if they choose transient cards (Auspex). Of course by having to deal with combat they will be slowed down, just as if they have to deal with Intercept they are slowed down. But they are still effective. All decks are slowed down when they start considering thier defensive strategy. >What prevention cards can't you use. Likely, the S&B will either be hand >striking (using up your prevention) or dodging. In either case, good >Rush has few cases of hand jam in combat. Most of the damage prevention >cards can be used for alternate methods (manuever, etc). Unusable >strikes (sewer lids at close, for example), should only be in a deck that >can consistently get to the correct range. If a non-combat deck can keep >your combat deck from being at the right range or getting to the right >round, then either your deck is feeb, or the S&B is again watering itself >down. All this assumes you get into combat. If your up against Obedience you canot play your strikes, maneuvers or whatever as the combat is over before it started. That is what really makes obedience so tough compared to the Other S:CE cards. The other S:CE cards are tough because they allow multiple actions but there are counters. This card has the weakness of being only defensive (reaction) and that the attacking minion must be a vampire and younger. Rush plays into its strengths however. >Which _every_ rush should have some of, whether it is Archon, Bloodhunt, >Contract, Covenant of Blood, Haven Uncovered, Talbot's Chainsaw, or >anything else. Permanent rush _seriously_ hampers S:CE, Obedience, and >other anti-combat strategies because there are no permanent anti-combat >strategies. Removable cards slow down the attacked as they spend actions >getting rid of them, and permanent cards are there for good. Frankly, after this I'm going to build some rush decks and see how they do. One thing seeing them its another building and using them. >While I agree that Rush is weaker than Bounce or Intercept, I still rate >it 8 out of a possible 10 stars. I really think 8 is too high but that is going to vary by group and situation. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:01:40 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >:) Of course. My own Nos deck would work on pool gain (with rush as a >secondary defense). My Tremere deck would (D)-bleed my predator to a >pulp and life boon them away when 2nd Tradition finishes them off. I >don't think that any of my comments are absolutes on what each clan can >do, just what they are generally capable of. > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ Well I think we have beat this one up. Were really of the same basic view and just differ in degree. That mainly comes from our individual play experiance and personality. I'd love to see your Nos gain blood deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:07:42 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >Most powerful cards are common and uncommon (Bum's Rush, Majesty) and this >allows new players to compete. One of the reasons I am glad that S&B >exists in Jyhad is that it gives new players a chance to be competitive >without needing to have rares and without needing to figure out extreme >combos early. >Here's to keeping rares on a power level roughly equal to the other >commonalities... > @ 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*+? You know that is the best reason for S&B general effectiveness I have ever heard. The previous being to keep us on our toes. Rory The Ref at refp...@best.com

On 3 Jul 1996 13:12:47 -0400, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >Re: fixes for AI: >>3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the >card >> is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the >> card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 >stealth. >This seems the most stylish to me. It would encourage variety in decks, >too. 3 pool might be a bit much for this effect, however. >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Nice list Scott. I'm with Curt on this one also. Sending them to Torpor would be my second choice but I like the vote to burn the card for thematic/style reasons. Also variety doesn't hurt. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Thu, 04 JUL 1996 02:30:37 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:43:01 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > > >> Note that the rush deck probably > >> need some other defensive cards as well. > > >Against vote? Rush. Against combat? More combat. > > Well if you build a rush deck then you should be able to handle other > combat decks. So if your fighting Brujah you had better have some way > to stay alive. Brujah, however brutal, are also very fragile. If you can get the jump on them with your Brujah, you're set. But this is more a matter of luck than strategy and is a notorious weakness in most combat decks. > > >But if the deck doesn't put enough stealth in, the intercept decks will > >screw it. It's a hard line to walk. Most Sneak decks have to figure out > >what they are more scared of: intercept or rush. If they choose > >intercept, they will be hand-jammed by a rush deck. If they choose rush, > >they will get screwed by the intercept deck. > > Well all strategies have to deal with that balance. IF they have to > seriously think about rush then rush is a viable strategy. But not > everyone can pull it off well. > I have to agree with you there. Anyone can make a deck full of combat cards and a bunch of Brujah but to create and efficient and dangerous Rush deck takes a special touch. Also, the aggresive requirements of the rush strategy is difficult to manage from the sense of scarcity that Jyhad players approach the game. There is alot of risk taking that MUST happen in order for the deck to accomplish its goal: To spill blood and collect skulls. If you're constantly worried about wether or not your opponent is holding a sixth tradition card in his hand then your deck will fail no matter how vicious it is in combat. > >> And since Obedience does not cost blood to use and is played before > >> combat begins it is the best defensive combat ends card. Play this > >> and he can't Majesty out or play Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed > >> or even Form of Mist. So it takes a Psyche for that minion to come > >> back at you this turn while your still untapped and healthy waiting > >> for the next guy. A Freak Drive wouldn't even work since you could > >> not preform the same action and Rush again. Yes he will run you out > >> of cards unless that is a major part of your deck (and thus diluted) > >> but this is still the best Rush defense in the game and since they are > >> already fast with S&B being a very direct offensive strategy they > >> remain in very good shape. > > >But the speed will be diluted if they are going for permanent intercept > >to stop stealthed attacks (via Havens, etc.), and their deck will be > >diluted if they choose transient cards (Auspex). > > Of course by having to deal with combat they will be slowed down, just > as if they have to deal with Intercept they are slowed down. But they > are still effective. All decks are slowed down when they start > considering thier defensive strategy. > But the whole argument for AI in this thread has been based on the fact that an S&B deck can bleed for 6 or more in consecutive turns with enough stealth to evade basic defenses. An S&B deck must be very concentrated to do this. "Distracting" the deck with Obedience and intercept cards will either reduce the level of the bleed (to 3 or 4 on consecutive turns, if you're lucky) or reduce the frequency the deck can execute these huge bleeds (though still rarely higher than 6 bleed at +4 stealth). Either way AI is unnessecary. > > >What prevention cards can't you use. Likely, the S&B will either be hand > >striking (using up your prevention) or dodging. In either case, good > >Rush has few cases of hand jam in combat. Most of the damage prevention > >cards can be used for alternate methods (manuever, etc). Unusable > >strikes (sewer lids at close, for example), should only be in a deck that > >can consistently get to the correct range. If a non-combat deck can keep > >your combat deck from being at the right range or getting to the right > >round, then either your deck is feeb, or the S&B is again watering itself > >down. > There is a good point made here. If your deck can't defend against one of the most basic strategies of the game then it is certainly broken (the deck not the strategy). > All this assumes you get into combat. If your up against Obedience > you canot play your strikes, maneuvers or whatever as the combat is > over before it started. That is what really makes obedience so tough > compared to the Other S:CE cards. The other S:CE cards are tough > because they allow multiple actions but there are counters. This card > has the weakness of being only defensive (reaction) and that the > attacking minion must be a vampire and younger. Rush plays into its > strengths however. > MOST rush decks do this yes, but not all. Rush decks, unlike S&B, are flexible and can usually be played "around" certain defenses. Against Obedience either you have a bunch of weenies which means you will prolly have more actions than the defender has obedience in thier deck and all you need (usually) is one combat. If you're not playing weenie then not only are your vamps harder to obedience (i.e. older) but are likely to do a great deal of damage to whoever they get in combat with so Obedience becomes your ONLY option until the endgame. By simply concentrating your skill cards on one vamp or making them an Archon or Cammarilla exemp. or BOTH you can make obedience a rougher ride. Sometimes plain psychological warfare works. Make an example of someone where you can. Make yourself appear vulnerable when the opposite is true and vice versa. An enemy can be very intimidated when they send dollface over to test the waters, after you tapped out last turn, and you pull a second tradition on Constanza Vinti and smack the Malk with a single hand strike doing 9 damage with an amaranth tacked on the end for spite. I have a Rush/vote deck that uses Blood bond and Inc. videotape to deal with obedience. Anvil can even use seduction. > >Which _every_ rush should have some of, whether it is Archon, Bloodhunt, > >Contract, Covenant of Blood, Haven Uncovered, Talbot's Chainsaw, or > >anything else. Permanent rush _seriously_ hampers S:CE, Obedience, and > >other anti-combat strategies because there are no permanent anti-combat > >strategies. Removable cards slow down the attacked as they spend actions > >getting rid of them, and permanent cards are there for good. > > Frankly, after this I'm going to build some rush decks and see how > they do. One thing seeing them its another building and using them. > Again, rush decks are difficult to execute. Good luck. :) > > >While I agree that Rush is weaker than Bounce or Intercept, I still rate > >it 8 out of a possible 10 stars. > > I really think 8 is too high but that is going to vary by group and > situation. > In my book all decks are a 7 > > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > > ********************************************************************** "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." -Catwoman (Issue #30) *************************************** Dharia McGrew damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew **********************************************************************

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Daniel Hoffman wrote: > Date: Wed, 3 JUL 1996 08:54:56 LOCAL > From: Daniel Hoffman <dhof...@cris.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > In article <4rc1bc$b...@nntp1.best.com> refp...@best.com (Rory) writes: > >From: refp...@best.com (Rory) > > >True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing > >out your pool. Rushing your prey works better and if your going that > >heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up > >his defenses. > > This is a very good point. If you have to use rush to stop a bleed deck you > have given your grand-predator a boost, used up 1/3-1/2 of your deck and > now you are weakened and your prey is well-defended. So even though you > avoided being ousted by your first predator you are still ousted before you > get a victory point. You did all the work of ousting someone but you don't > get the pool. In a two-player game, rush works great against bleed but what > about larger games? AI is a card that gives you a less card intensive defense > that allows you to focus more on your prey like the game was intended. > Defense is supposed to be less card intensive than offense or at least that is > the way it is with combat and voting so why not with bleed? AI is a poor > substitute for deflection but not every deck can have dominate available to it. > > First of all you don't need to oust your predator, just eliminate some of his//her offense which is, usually, concentrated into one or two vampires. Once Arika is dead she cannot bleed you and you can continue killing your prey with no difficulty. Once you have circumsised thier attack the bleeding will slow to a managable level. ONE vamp, (usually a pretty wussy one) against a deck designed to deal with your prey's entire entourage. If it's more than one (and it's rarely more than 2 or 3) then kill them too and get back to your prey later. Chances are that with pressure from both sides the S&B deck will weaken quickly enough for you to get back to gaining victory points without having to worry about your prey entrenching themselves too much. After all they have to kill thier prey too :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4rbvt5$a...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com says... > >On Tue, 02 Jul 96 07:48:42 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: > > >>> >>Um... May I disagree here? >>Obedience can only be used by a blocker if the blocker can actually block >>the rushing vampire. > >Where did you get that idea? >The card specifically say as you are about to enter combat and says >nothing about if you blocked a vampire. >You can play it just as you would say Telepathic Counter, no >intercept needed unless you are trying to prevent an attack on someone >else. I believe that what I meant to say was that if you were going to use obedience to stop combat, the vampire had to be untapped. In all the Malkavian bleed decks I've seen recently, most of the larger vampires get tapped almost every turn to bleed; and I was assuming that the player would be attacking the vampires which were bleeding, and were thus tapped, and unable to play Obedience. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was assuming that an untapped vampire would block the rushes, and then play obedience so that it could end combat and stay untapped. >I don't know about other people, but around here, >>rush decks use a huge section of haven uncovereds to attack vampires at >>stealth. And I haven't noticed any bleed decks with intercept in them >>recently. As mentioned above, obedience requires an untapped vampire, >>and has to be played by a large vampire if it's to have any effect at >>all. And in S&B, you want your large vampires to be bleeding your prey, >>which, although most of us haven't mentioned it, is the point of the >>game(Well, to be exact, it's getting your prey to zero pool, but every >>vampire can bleed without needing a card, as opposed to calling votes to >>make your prey lose pool, or whatever). Anything which waters down the >>main focus of the deck makes it slower, and thus more vulnerable to all >>of the myriad ways that other decks can counter the basic S&B concept. > >>Alec Chang > >Well having one minion stand around to protect you is not that much of >a sacrifice and +1 intercept will handle most rush decks, like your >Haven Uncovereds. >Saying that because the player has to leave a minion untapped he has >no defense without crippling himself just does not make sense to me. >Leaving a good blocker up to protect you is a basic part of most >strategies and I have not heard someone calling them crippled decks. >Rory >The Ref at refp...@best.com This probably is going to be a topic where we agree to disagree; I've been playing a malkavian bleed deck off and on since I started playing Jyhad, and it tends to be one heck of a lot more efficient of depriving one's prey of all his pool(The point of the game, I'll note once more) if as many vampires are used to bleed as you have stealth and bleed enhancers for, instead of leaving a large vampire who can potentially bleed for six or more sitting around to hold the fort. It's a matter of speed and the opportunity of other people to come in and beat you up; the slower you bleed, the more turns they have to get the cards and smash your vampires. And also, it's just a personal preference for a quick, efficient game manifesting itself. I hate games which drag on for hours, especially as I play in between classes at school, and don't have all that much time. Alec Chang

dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > In article <4rc1bc$b...@nntp1.best.com> refp...@best.com (Rory) writes: > >From: refp...@best.com (Rory) > > >True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing > >out your pool. Rushing your prey works better and if your going that > >heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up > >his defenses. > > This is a very good point. If you have to use rush to stop a bleed deck > you have given your grand-predator a boost, used up 1/3-1/2 of your deck > and now you are weakened and your prey is well-defended. So even though > you avoided being ousted by your first predator you are still ousted > before you get a victory point. You did all the work of ousting someone > but you don't get the pool. In a two-player game, rush works great > against bleed but what about larger games? AI is a card that gives you > a less card intensive defense that allows you to focus more on your prey > like the game was intended. Defense is supposed to be less card intensive > than offense or at least that is the way it is with combat and voting > so why not with bleed? AI is a poor substitute for deflection but not > every deck can have dominate available to it. > Um, have you ever played a Rush deck, or seen one played? All the Rush decks I've seen hit their predator first in order to weaken him/her enough that the predator pretty much has to exclusively defend with his/her remaining minions. They _don't_ hit them hard enough to make them easily oustable. There is no point in hitting your prey first if you are playing Rush because even if you wipe out all your prey's minions it will still typically take you a while to bleed out the prey's pool. In the meantime your predator has had a free hand. So the usual technique is to put a crimp in your predator and _then_ hit your prey. AI is a little too non-card-intensive, to put it mildly. Put three or four cards in your deck to stop an entire strategy? Can you name any other strategy you can destroy with 3 or 4 cards in your deck? --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > I guess this whole Archon Investigation thing comes down to a clear > matter of play style preference. Our group, who has been playing since > the game came out, has never had any problem with AI. It has been used > very few times, but now all the bleed decks only bleed for 3 at a time > and still win as frequently as before, it just takes them a little > longer. Once the threat of AI became apparent, the big 6-7 point bleeds > became too hazardous and so everyone just slowed themselves down a bit. > Now that everyone generally bleeds for 3 or less, AI does little more > than clog up your hand. We have always thought that big bleeds are too > destructive to the game, but that is just the way our group plays I > guess. We find that 3 point bleeds are just fine, even the people who > like to play bleed decks. As you point out above, AI blasts Big Bleed as a strategy entirely; no one plays it because it's too hazardous -- AI has no counter. Your play group dislikes Big Bleed and so is unperturbed by AI. Others might like the _possibility_ of playing Big Bleed, and are therefore not happy with AI when other less extreme counters to Big Bleed could have been put in the card mix. I don't like any card that reduces the number of viable strategies. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > Zip. Zero. Besides the need for intercept that others have pointed out, you beat Obedience by tapping or negating the defender: Misdirection, Incriminating Videotape, Pentex Subversion, Horrific Countenance. Most Rush decks won't carry these because they "want to be blocked", but just wanted to point out that there are things to counter Obedience. There is a good chance that a Rush deck will have a vampire old enough that it cannot be Obedienced. Basilia and Thetmes are the likely candidates. Of more relevance, the chances that an effective S&B deck will be holding enough Obedience to stop a Haven Uncovered attack (which will typically generate at least 3 attempted combats) is quite low. If the S&Ber is typically holding 3 Obedience, then there's only 4 hand slots left for Stealth/Bleed (presuming you don't mind missing your Master phase). That's either 3 Stealth cards (+4 stealth) and Conditioning (4-5 bleed), or 2 stealth (+3 stealth) and GtU+Conditioning (6-7 bleed). Any decent intercept deck should be able to stop a +3 stealth bleed (given that Elder Intervention is already +2 intercept) and should have a good shot at a +4 stealth bleed. The +4 stealth bleed is for 4-5, which is only 1-2 more than AI costs, and I think all the pro-AI people were screaming about 7-10 point bleeds, not 4-5 point bleeds. The point is that if you hold enough Obedience to stop Rush, you won't be able to S&B very well. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: [tale of ousting by weenie bleed deck deleted] > > To tie this all together, yes, I think that Archon Investigation is > justifiable, as while it could easily be viewed as overkill (and is by > many), I just see it as a card that encourages the kind of play I prefer. > If this is not to a play groups liking, it is just a game, and it is very > easy to remove the card from a play enviornment with the agreement of the > players. Even if your play group is completely closed, it is frequently difficult to remove a bad card/ruling/errata because it is official, unless the agreement in the play group is unaminous. For instance, if you and I were in the same play group then one of us would be unhappy with AI (me if it was used, you if it wasn't). If, say, two others agreed with me and one with you and 3 others didn't care, your position would still likely hold sway because it is "official". In a semi-open play group or in a tournament, there is no way to remove AI and it's pervasive effects on basic deck strategy. You could easily encourage the kind of play you prefer with a house rule. But AI, which nukes Big Bleed as a strategy, affects everyone. --- [ quoted text not captured ]

Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: > > Perhaps if I put thing in a practical context I can convince some > people that AI is unneccessary as there is sufficient balance between S&B > and other concepts. I have four decks I play that are at various stages > of development... [deleted] > > These are the ways I handle bleed defense without AI. If you feel > this is insufficient I will tell you that at least two of these decks > have stood the test of time from the early days of Jyhad without any > particular fear of S&B. In fact the deck I most lose to is Gangrel Burn > decks. If this still doesn't convince you I suggest settling it in the > only way no one can argue about- in practice. You all can make your biggest > baddest S&B and I will play you. In fact I will even email everyone a > detailed list of my deck and crypt so everyone can plan accordingly and put > 15 obidiences in their decks. If anyone wants to back me up, feel free. > We can sit everyone: pro-AI/anti-AI and settle it once and for all. > Yes we should have a pro-AI / anti-AI grudge match. :-) Maybe we could have a special Jyhad Online game with no AI allowed. The pro-AI people would build Big Bleed decks and the anti-AI people would build Rush decks. I think two pro-AI, two anti-AI, and two "neutrals" playing other strategies (so you couldn't make your deck specifically for one opponent strategy). Any opinions? I'd like to see it! [ quoted text not captured ]

Rory wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:06:06 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote. > >Setites: They add in Majesty and Mummify. Mummify lets them > >escape from another combat, but at a huge price. Majesty is > >screwable (and should be in a combat deck). > > Your right a good Rush deck will likely handle Setites pretty well. > They have more combat ability then a malk but a Rush deck should not > be afraid of a good fight. > Er.. I'm challenging the combat ability of Setites. Malks and Setites are about evenly miserable in rush combat, since Obedience is about equal to Majesty. Mummify is the easiest combat card to deal with for a decent rush deck, since I believe that Amaranth works very well against any vampire who S:CE's and goes to torpor. (And if you're rushing, who cares if the Setite untaps? He's in torpor on your turn. Go for it, Smudge!) This is going back to the 20 Majesties thread again, but the problem with having Setite combat cards, which aren't all that hot anyway, is that the Setites won't be able to bleed or stealth all that well. Yes, lack of stealth would mean more fights, but the point of the matter is that if the bleeders can be stopped, they're not doing their jobs. The Setite combat cards are mostly combat prep, and awful. Eyes of the Serpent S:CE's only allies, and wastes hand space vs. vampire rushes. Tongue of the Serpent is fairly decent, but pales in comparison to Theft of Vitae. (I was hoping for aggs damage at superior). Form of the Serpent costs blood for a maneuver, meaning less blood in the strike phase and your opponent can still maneuver, too. Phobia is an action that takes time to use-there's not enough time if you're playing a 2 player against a rush deck. Mark of Damnation is another action that increases hand damage against one attacker. Heart of Darkness (action) turns aggs to normal, and maybe prevents one. HoD is burned as a D action, MoD is as an action. If the Setites are wasting time, actions, and hand space on combat prep, they won't be bleeding you! Setites have few combat abilities that could remain in a focused bleed deck; these are still wasting space. It's easier to take them out with rush than intercept.

On 2 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > To tie this all together, yes, I think that Archon Investigation is > justifiable, as while it could easily be viewed as overkill (and is by > many), I just see it as a card that encourages the kind of play I prefer. I think the burn option of AI is justifiable, but the cost is not. Increase the cost, and the threat of AI is still as big to a bleeding vampire. They just lost a (minimum of) X pool and X/4 influence phases. > If this is not to a play groups liking, it is just a game, and it is very > easy to remove the card from a play enviornment with the agreement of the > players. Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 3 Jul 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: [AI Fixes] > 1) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Sends the bleeder to Torpor. Decent and far more in line for its cost. Not very stylish, but requires very little significant change. > 2) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Taps the bleeder and is placed on the bleeder. > While the card is on the minion, the minion cannot act. Any vampire may > take an action to pay 3 blood to burn the card. In a stealth deck, this is expensive for a card that could be removed by methods already in a OTP. > 3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the card > is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the > card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 stealth. VERY elegant. Very different from AI, but far better. > 4) Doesn't cost anything and doesn't burn the bleeder. Bleed is unsuccessful. Useful, but not a fearmaker. Part of the power from AI is that it slows bleeders down, regardless of whether or not the card is in hand. There needs to be more threat power. > 5) Cost 1. Bleed is unsuccessful, and you must pay X pool, where X is the > amount of the bleed had it been successful. If you cannot, you are > ousted, otherwise the bleeding minion is burned. To this one, I prefer: Cost 0: Bleed is considered successful. Burn the bleeding minion. (Perhaps with addendum to disallow Justicars and IC to be burned.) Of them all, I prefer the Vote solution (#3) for its elegance, but dislike that it is so disimilar to current AI. My own proposal I like (surprise). Others? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well your right it is easier to take them out wit h Rush then intercept. I don't see the rest of your point though. You just listed a bunch of cards that have some effect on combat (albeit minor) and that goes along with the bit about them being more dangerous in a fight then Malks. I really don't see your point about them needing to have cards in thier hand and diluting thier bleed effectiveness if they want to fight though. You either build a deck to handle the offensive and defensive strategies it is likely to be up against or you lose. That may be thru Majesties to keep them alive if they get in a fight and S&B cards to attack with as well as a few Dread Gazes to offset votes or by making a combat deck that is more effective in a fight then bleeding. You choose based on preference and available cards. Naturally some clans are stronger then others at some things. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Jul 1996 02:01:06 GMT, pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: >> Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. >> Zip. Zero. >Besides the need for intercept that others have pointed out, you beat >Obedience by tapping or negating the defender: Misdirection, Incriminating >Videotape, Pentex Subversion, Horrific Countenance. Most Rush decks won't >carry these because they "want to be blocked", but just wanted to point >out that there are things to counter Obedience. There is a good chance >that a Rush deck will have a vampire old enough that it cannot be Obedienced. >Basilia and Thetmes are the likely candidates. I was waiting for somwone to bring up the tap cards as an option. They have thier problems since most of them are 1 action to tap 1 minion and little or no stealth. As thier is a good chance of the Rusher having a high minion up there is an even greater chance that the bleeder will have an older minion. Since Obedience is a part of your strategy then having some skill cards and Embraces to clear them out of your hand as needed is doable. I nailed Democritus once with Lucretia and even though he freaked drive he couldn't bleed me again that turn. I did that to him twice as well as deflecting another bleed he made. That deck was not designed to do that, but it was fun and shows that it can be done. He also had a skill card on him at the time. Rory >Of more relevance, the chances that an effective S&B deck will be holding >enough Obedience to stop a Haven Uncovered attack (which will typically >generate at least 3 attempted combats) is quite low. If the S&Ber is >typically holding 3 Obedience, then there's only 4 hand slots left for >Stealth/Bleed (presuming you don't mind missing your Master phase). That's >either 3 Stealth cards (+4 stealth) and Conditioning (4-5 bleed), or 2 >stealth (+3 stealth) and GtU+Conditioning (6-7 bleed). Any decent intercept >deck should be able to stop a +3 stealth bleed (given that Elder Intervention >is already +2 intercept) and should have a good shot at a +4 stealth bleed. >The +4 stealth bleed is for 4-5, which is only 1-2 more than AI costs, and >I think all the pro-AI people were screaming about 7-10 point bleeds, not >4-5 point bleeds. The Obedience is just like Stealth. You should have, some but too much and you get a jammed hand. Not enough and you are utterly helpless against either the intercept deck or the rush deck. >The point is that if you hold enough Obedience to stop Rush, you won't be >able to S&B very well. True but I never said anything about stopping rush. I just said that it was the weakest strategy against S&B and that bounce, vote and intercept or even racing/blood gain were all significantly better. Remember I am not a pro AI player. The Ref at refp...@best.com

In article <4rk07j$m...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com says... [ quoted text not captured ] Okay, here we go again. As far as I can tell, Nathan Harada was making the point that even if the settites wanted to thin out their corruption/stealth/bleed strategy to better deal with combat, the quality of the cards which they have to deal with makes that proposition rather, well, ridiculous. I mentioned that if Malkavians are taking actions which do not directly further their goal of bleeding their prey, they are widening the window of opportunity for other decks to beat the snot out of them; rush, intercept, and vote specifically, although other bleeds are a slightly different problem. The same principle applies to the Settites, because of their comparative fragility in combat compared to even the Malkavians. They have Serpentis, Obfuscate, and Presence. Presence gives them Majesty, but the card is restricted. Obfuscate has behind you(rare, kinda hard to find), as a dodge or manuver, and the disguised weapon trick, if one wants to thin out the deck even more. Serpentis's quality of combat, as mentioned, is pretty miserable, unless you use all of the combat preparation cards, which don't meld with most Settite decks at all. Tongue of the Serpent: Junky Theft of Vitae. Eyes of the Serpent: Nobody even try to tell me that this is really useful. It's junk; I'd use it in the deck with the fifteen closed sessions I have. Form of the Serpent: Manuver. Any combat deck worth it's salt has strikes at long range or manuvers to return to close. Costs a blood. Mummify: Please, spare me. Strike: Co,mbat ends, go to torpor. As Nathan said; caitiff fodder, anyone? Phobia: Not bad, but you have to block. Settites have no intercept except for Aisha, and the settite decks that I've seen, when blocking, got completely splattered all over the place. This helps, a bit. Mark of Damnation: This would be good, if you had other vampires who were competent in combat fighting. For the settites, however, it doesn't help that much, especially against a combat deck. Heart of Darkness: Cool idea, but way too easy for someone else to get rid of. Refer to my earlier comments about settites blocking and you'll see what I mean. When you think about it, maybe the malkavians have less in actual volume of combat cards they can use(They have auspex instead of serpentis: Read intentions, all the intercept which makes it feasible to block, and celerity on five vampires, most of them small, making malkavian combat feasable). But the overall quality of their combat resources makes up for it by quite a lot; Malkaivans can make a weapon/intercept deck, whereas the Settites could try to make an attack deck... But they'd be totally out-classed by the Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Toreador, Assamites... Get the picture? Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that combat as a sideline in a settite deck will be mostly a matter of running away, and getting beaten into pulp when combat actually occurs. It's that the Settites don't even have the option of making something which could turn out to be a semi-feasable combat deck without introducing another clan; Their cards may be good, but not in conjunction with their vampires and their other cards.

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote: [Re:Nathan Hardy's statements regarding Setite fighting, and rebuttal by REF] > Okay, here we go again. > The same principle applies to the Settites, because of their comparative > fragility in combat compared to even the Malkavians. They have > Serpentis, Obfuscate, and Presence. Presence gives them Majesty, but the > card is restricted. Only in Duelist Convocation Tournament Rules which both major camps (CL and NL) find to be junk. In CL games, Rush combat will not be able to provide the constant challenge that makes the Majesties vital, and pretty much every deck (besides S&B) will be more broad, not necessitating the degree of combat defense of many Majesties. In NL games, you can pack as many majesties as will leave your deck viable. The point about Majesty really doesn't mean much. A better arguement is that most good combat decks should have some method of dealing with S:CE (yes, even gangrel without Dog Packs), and since most do, purely Majestic combat defense is fragile. > Obfuscate has behind you(rare, kinda hard to find), > as a dodge or manuver, and the disguised weapon trick, if one wants to > thin out the deck even more. Serpentis's quality of combat, as > mentioned, is pretty miserable, unless you use all of the combat > preparation cards, which don't meld with most Settite decks at all. Agreed. > Tongue of the Serpent: Junky Theft of Vitae. I like this card. Same effect, so how is it junky? > Mummify: Please, spare me. Strike: Co,mbat ends, go to torpor. As > Nathan said; caitiff fodder, anyone? If it is your turn, this can escape from a number of anti-S:CE cards. Just rescue them (you should have stealth). > Phobia: Not bad, but you have to block. Settites have no intercept > except for Aisha, and the settite decks that I've seen, when blocking, > got completely splattered all over the place. This helps, a bit. It helps quite a bit since a phobia counter is placed _every_ master phase, and not just your own. > Mark of Damnation: This would be good, if you had other vampires whowere > competent in combat fighting. For the settites, however, it doesn't help > that much, especially against a combat deck. Since we are talking about the archetypical Setite deck, I will agree. However, I can imagine a good Setite combat deck. > Heart of Darkness: Cool idea, but way too easy for someone else to get > rid of. Refer to my earlier comments about settites blocking and you'll > see what I mean. Agreed > When you think about it, maybe the malkavians have less in actual volume > of combat cards they can use(They have auspex instead of serpentis: Read > intentions, all the intercept which makes it feasible to block, and > celerity on five vampires, most of them small, making malkavian combat > feasable). But the overall quality of their combat resources makes up > for it by quite a lot; Malkaivans can make a weapon/intercept deck, > whereas the Settites could try to make an attack deck... But they'd be > totally out-classed by the Brujah, Gangrel, Nosferatu, Toreador, > Assamites... Get the picture? > Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that combat as a sideline in > a settite deck will be mostly a matter of running away, and getting > beaten into pulp when combat actually occurs. It's that the Settites > don't even have the option of making something which could turn out to be > a semi-feasable combat deck without introducing another clan; Their cards > may be good, but not in conjunction with their vampires and their other > cards. I think a Setite combat deck is feasible, but would require a lot of work. My candidates for the deck would be a few corruption's to steal weenies to diablerize your opponents vampire's _for_ you, Mark's of Damnation with disguised melee weapons, and using a few Majesties to escape bad combats. I might try it out, after I dismantle my current Setite/Toreador deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960706165127.382A-100000@pentode>, sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu says... >Only in Duelist Convocation Tournament Rules which both major camps (CL >and NL) find to be junk. In CL games, Rush combat will not be able to >provide the constant challenge that makes the Majesties vital, and pretty >much every deck (besides S&B) will be more broad, not necessitating >the degree of combat defense of many Majesties. In NL games, you can >pack as many majesties as will leave your deck viable. The point about >Majesty really doesn't mean much. A better arguement is that most good >combat decks should have some method of dealing with S:CE (yes, even >gangrel without Dog Packs), and since most do, purely Majestic combat >defense is fragile. Okay, I agree w/ you on this one. We play Cl almost all the time, and people have been able to cope with majesties reasonably well. >> Tongue of the Serpent: Junky Theft of Vitae. > >I like this card. Same effect, so how is it junky? Range. Tongue of the Serpent cannot be used successfully at long range; theft of Vitae can. >> Mummify: Please, spare me. Strike: Co,mbat ends, go to torpor. As >> Nathan said; caitiff fodder, anyone? > >If it is your turn, this can escape from a number of anti-S:CE cards. >Just rescue them (you should have stealth). Ah, the stealth bit is effective. But an intercept deck worth it's salt can block(of course, this can be said of just about anything worth doing). Personally, though, I just find the card to be too risky to be worthwhile. >> Phobia: Not bad, but you have to block. Settites have no intercept >> except for Aisha, and the settite decks that I've seen, when blocking, >> got completely splattered all over the place. This helps, a bit. > >It helps quite a bit since a phobia counter is placed _every_ master >phase, and not just your own. True, but you have to actually block the vampire, which can be kind of hard, given that the only Settites who can play intercept normally are Keminitri and Aisha. It does help; just not enough for those people who play settites around here to use it very often. >> Mark of Damnation: This would be good, if you had other vampires whowere >> competent in combat fighting. For the settites, however, it doesn't help >> that much, especially against a combat deck. > >Since we are talking about the archetypical Setite deck, I will agree. >However, I can imagine a good Setite combat deck. I can too; but it's not pure Settites. My friend is trying to use Mirembe Kabada, Amisa, Petru Sipos, and various other Settites and Gangrel to make an extremely unpleasant Mark of Damnation, rush, aggravated hand damage, shadow of the wolf deck. I hope that she can work it out; but it'll take some time. [ quoted text not captured ] Well, you already heard my rant on this one. I included it above, if anyone cares to go over it again. I'm not going to repeat myself down here. Alec Chang

In article <4reipt$g...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) says: > >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: > >>Re: fixes for AI: > >>>3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the >>card >>> is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the >>> card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 >>stealth. > >>This seems the most stylish to me. It would encourage variety in decks, >>too. 3 pool might be a bit much for this effect, however. > >Three pool to cancel a bleed of more than three cannot be considered >too much cost, especially when the effect has added benefits beyond >simply negating the bleed. >-- I think AI is made against terrible Malkavians bleeding decks. It`s the only good way to reduce bleed. Usually plyers are not going to bleed more than 3 if they know that their predator have AI (or couple) So I think it should`t be fixed by anyway. Without AI Malkavians bleeding deck would be the best.

On 7 Jul 1996, Marko Saari wrote: > I think AI is made against terrible Malkavians bleeding decks. It`s the > only good way to reduce bleed. Usually plyers are not going to bleed more > than 3 if they know that their predator have AI (or couple) > So I think it should`t be fixed by anyway. > Without AI Malkavians bleeding deck would be the best. This almost seems a troll, though I know it's not. We've already covered a lot of these points in the other thread. The AI-good camp basicly agrees that this card has appropriate cost, because one shouldn't need to bleed for more than 3, and its cost is appropriate. The AI-bad camp basicly feels that know one card should be able to totally hose a strategy and have such a devastating effect at no cost. In any case, Malk S&B has never been the best in NL/GT games. There has never been a best in NL/GT games. [ quoted text not captured ]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a Dog Pack? Thanks, Rich Rich Take life with a grain of salt.

In article <4reik7$i...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com (Rory) wrote: > On 3 Jul 1996 13:12:47 -0400, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > > >Re: fixes for AI: > > >>3) Doesn't burn the bleeder. Place the card on the bleeder. While the > >card > >> is on the minion, the minion cannot bleed. Any vampire may burn the > >> card by calling a vote as a political action, which would be at +1 > >stealth. > > >This seems the most stylish to me. It would encourage variety in decks, > >too. 3 pool might be a bit much for this effect, however. > > >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) > > Nice list Scott. > I'm with Curt on this one also. > Sending them to Torpor would be my second choice but I like the vote > to burn the card for thematic/style reasons. Also variety doesn't > hurt. > Rory > The Ref at refp...@best.com I am amazed at the sheer childishness of this thread. This is Vampire right? A game that is war, right?! Basically what I want to say is........STOP WHINING AND PLAY!!!!!!!!!!

Bastet wrote: > > >> Note that the rush deck probably > > >> need some other defensive cards as well. > > > > >Against vote? Rush. Against combat? More combat. > > > > Well if you build a rush deck then you should be able to handle other > > combat decks. So if your fighting Brujah you had better have some way > > to stay alive. > > Brujah, however brutal, are also very fragile. If you can get the > jump on them with your Brujah, you're set. But this is more a matter of > luck than strategy and is a notorious weakness in most combat decks. > I've had some games where the Brujah just don't want to get up and go... I got very few Bum's Rushes, and when I did I was hit by Obedience, Majesty, or the like... It all comes down to how the cards come up in your hand. And for a fight deck to survive, it really needs to get those rush cards out and get moving, or any reasonable bleed deck is going to sweep right over you... > > Well all strategies have to deal with that balance. IF they have to > > seriously think about rush then rush is a viable strategy. But not > > everyone can pull it off well. > > > > I have to agree with you there. Anyone can make a deck full of > combat cards and a bunch of Brujah but to create and efficient and > dangerous Rush deck takes a special touch. Also, the aggresive > requirements of the rush strategy is difficult to manage from the sense > of scarcity that Jyhad players approach the game. There is alot of risk > taking that MUST happen in order for the deck to accomplish its goal: To > spill blood and collect skulls. If you're constantly worried about wether > or not your opponent is holding a sixth tradition card in his hand then > your deck will fail no matter how vicious it is in combat. > Agreed, as well. Fight decks to me seem to walk an incredibly delicate line between killing your prey's vampires, and killing your predator's vampires without weakening him enough for his predator to plow right through him AND you... and if your prey happens to be a fight deck... you're in for on long, tough game. Especially if your prey just happen to be Gangrel.... [snip] > > Of course by having to deal with combat they will be slowed down, just > > as if they have to deal with Intercept they are slowed down. But they > > are still effective. All decks are slowed down when they start > > considering thier defensive strategy. > > > But the whole argument for AI in this thread has been based on the > fact that an S&B deck can bleed for 6 or more in consecutive turns with > enough stealth to evade basic defenses. An S&B deck must be very > concentrated to do this. "Distracting" the deck with Obedience and > intercept cards will either reduce the level of the bleed (to 3 or 4 on > consecutive turns, if you're lucky) or reduce the frequency the deck can > execute these huge bleeds (though still rarely higher than 6 bleed at +4 > stealth). Either way AI is unnessecary. > Ah, but a well timed Fragment gets you around this somewhat. Not getting into combat? Just cycle your deck a bit... Need those combat cards..? Cycle it some more... combined with either the Barrens or an Elder Library, you can almost always find the cards you need.. of course.. the Fragment is almost always contested around here.. and if not... it's constantly getting stolen.. ;) [snip] [ quoted text not captured ] Right.. and the primary way I get around Obedience is to Rush only tapped vampires.. granted, they may have a wake.. but if I'm rushing a bleed deck.. that's one less time they're going to wake and deflect a bleed to me.. and if they're staying untapped... that's one less 6-point bleed I have to worry about taking.. :) > > >Which _every_ rush should have some of, whether it is Archon, Bloodhunt, > > >Contract, Covenant of Blood, Haven Uncovered, Talbot's Chainsaw, or > > >anything else. Permanent rush _seriously_ hampers S:CE, Obedience, and > > >other anti-combat strategies because there are no permanent anti-combat > > >strategies. Removable cards slow down the attacked as they spend actions > > >getting rid of them, and permanent cards are there for good. > > > > Frankly, after this I'm going to build some rush decks and see how > > they do. One thing seeing them its another building and using them. > > > > Again, rush decks are difficult to execute. Good luck. :) > But the results are well worth it if you can do it correctly... nothing like having a vampire body count higher than the body count in Arnold Schwarzenegger's last movie.. :) > > > > >While I agree that Rush is weaker than Bounce or Intercept, I still rate > > >it 8 out of a possible 10 stars. > > > > I really think 8 is too high but that is going to vary by group and > > situation. > > > In my book all decks are a 7 > I personally think bounce is a 10 being almost unstoppable, but all the others I'd rate around 7.. Elder Impersonation kills intercept quickly, Obedience and S:CE hurt Rush, and Race is just a matter of who can get the cards they need faster... just my opinion, tho.. > > > > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." > -Catwoman (Issue #30) > *************************************** > Dharia McGrew > damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu > and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) > http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew > ********************************************************************** WyldStar

dlsh...@kendaco.telebyte.com (Shadow) writes: >In article <4reik7$i...@nntp1.best.com>, refp...@best.com (Rory) wrote: >> On 3 Jul 1996 13:12:47 -0400, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >> >Re: fixes for AI: >> >> Nice list Scott. >I am amazed at the sheer childishness of this thread. This is Vampire >right? A game that is war, right?! >Basically what I want to say is........STOP WHINING AND PLAY!!!!!!!!!! Welcome to the discussion (and to the newsgroup?). Yes, this is war. War as a game (simulation), though. Games are most interesting when the playing field is level. If you introduce a A-bomb to a war that was previously all gunpowder, do you know what happens? Not a very interesting way to play. Better to stick to gunpowder and let strategy prevail. (The fair alternative is mutally assured destruction, basically making playing the game a losing proposition.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I am Barney of Borg. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | You will be nauseated. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Sun, 30 JUN 1996 17:09:04 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > On 29 Jun 1996 11:38:31 -0400, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > > >Immortal Grapple is very good at stopping S:CE, and doesn't require a > >second minion, or anything other than Potence, which you may very well > >have if you are going to beat up somebody. > > Forgot about that one. > But again the only ones who can use it effectively are the Brujah > since you have to be at close, the Nos just arent that good at > maneuvering, and most clans that play S:CE are better. I'd say its > about as effective as Psyche though. > One hope is that the other guy won't maneuver if he is planning on > S:CE. What about the Giovanni? what about Patagia? Drawing out the Beast? IR goggles? How often can a Ventrue manuver? Why would a Toreador bother? > >Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not > >blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. > > >In any game where I stoicly decided not to block a S+B deck, I have died. > >In any situation where anyone at the table I have been playing has stoicly > >decided to try to hand jam the S+B deck by not blocking, they have died. > >I just don't buy it as a viable defense. Perhaps by the time you are > >dead, the S+B deck will have horrible hand jam for the next guy, but how > >does that help you? You are dead. > > Well I have seen it work but you are correct it is not a valid defense > just a slow down and often not by much. > The other point being that next time he will play with less stealth. > I often play with rather light stealth in my Nos decks because no one > bothers to intercept, hoping to jam my hand. > > The Ref at refp...@best.com > Again it is a matter of strategy. Not blocking is a useful delaying tactic when you are trying to assemble a, more potent(no pun intended), defense. It frees up you minions so you can concentrate on harrassing your prey while doing whatever it is you do (like add permanent intercept to your minions). By the way, I recently purchased some AH boosters and noticed that a great deal of permanent Intercept was in it. Particularly stuff like Guardian Angel and Atonement. Did someone say there was a scarcity of permanent intercept? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Sun, 30 JUN 1996 17:12:34 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > > On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:25:19 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> > wrote: > > >> Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > >> Zip. Zero. > > >Except attack with the next vampire. > > Which is also Obedienced. > I had a malk deck loaded with Obedience and Deflection and the only > thing that ever hurt it was a Garou or a Vote Deck as pred. > It was without a doubt my most effective deck, until I retired it. How much did you bleed for? Was there enough stealth? My point was that a S&B deck couldn't put ENOUGH obedience in the deck without reducing the effectiveness to a managable level. > > > The Ref at refp...@best.com [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] >Thanks, >Rich >Rich [ quoted text not captured ] Its a new card that is a retainer for Gangrel that keeps thier opponents from playing S:CE cards. 1 life and apparently 1 pool The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 23:26:17 -0800, dlsh...@kendaco.telebyte.com (Shadow) wrote: >I am amazed at the sheer childishness of this thread. This is Vampire >right? A game that is war, right?! >Basically what I want to say is........STOP WHINING AND PLAY!!!!!!!!!! I am not whining. Curt is not whining. Scott is not whining. Corruptor is not whining. Alec is not whining. Most are not whining. Were just debating, now we are going in circles a bit but thats life. The Ref at refp...@best.com

refp...@best.com (Rory) wrote: > On 4 Jul 1996 02:01:06 GMT, pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > > >> Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > >> Zip. Zero. > > >Besides the need for intercept that others have pointed out, you beat > >Obedience by tapping or negating the defender: Misdirection, Incriminating > >Videotape, Pentex Subversion, Horrific Countenance. Most Rush decks > >won't carry these because they "want to be blocked", but just wanted > >to point out that there are things to counter Obedience. There is a > >good chance that a Rush deck will have a vampire old enough that it > >cannot be Obedienced. Basilia and Thetmes are the likely candidates. > > I was waiting for somwone to bring up the tap cards as an option. > They have thier problems since most of them are 1 action to tap 1 > minion and little or no stealth. Hmm, well only one of the 4 examples I gave is an action, but the point is really moot since most Rush decks won't carry tap cards. Another effective anti-Obedience card that a Rush deck really _should_ carry is The Signet of King Saul. Getting it out against intercept would be a problem, but if the S&B has Obedience _and_ intercept, well, you know what my argument is going to be... > As thier is a good chance of the Rusher having a high minion up there > is an even greater chance that the bleeder will have an older minion. I agree, though the S&B would have to have a fairly strong focus on Obedience. [Example of strong Obedience watering down S&B deleted] > > >The point is that if you hold enough Obedience to stop Rush, you won't be > >able to S&B very well. > > True but I never said anything about stopping rush. > I just said that it was the weakest strategy against S&B and that > bounce, vote and intercept or even racing/blood gain were all > significantly better. I agree it's weaker than bounce and probably intercept. I guess vote as well if Protected Resources is available ... but wouldn't Protected Resources be available to Rush decks as well? In that case, Rush is on a par with vote in my opinion and certainly stronger than race (though not necessarily blood gain, which can also use PR). > Remember I am not a pro AI player. Good! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:14:20 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: > >> Which is also Obedienced. >> I had a malk deck loaded with Obedience and Deflection and the only >> thing that ever hurt it was a Garou or a Vote Deck as pred. >> It was without a doubt my most effective deck, until I retired it. > How much did you bleed for? Was there enough stealth? My point was >that a S&B deck couldn't put ENOUGH obedience in the deck without >reducing the effectiveness to a managable level. It was a light bleeder and relied on one or two moderate bleeders and bouncing my predators bleeds. But it stayed alive well and only race or vote would stop it. It was bounced often but since that was just light bleeds it made litle difference usually. Often rushed as at that time we had several rush decks including a Gangrel deck by a player who is still I hear playing the same deck. But as I said it handled the rush well. Master heavy as many of my decks but it worked well. The Ref at refp...@best.com

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960707195907.456B-100000@pentode> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In any case, Malk S&B has never been the best in NL/GT games. There has >never been a best in NL/GT games. The case is that Malk S&B ruins the fun for many people and if you can't always have gentlemen's rules or house rules then you can have AI. I don't enjoy having a suicidal predator who either wins or loses but takes me down with him. What fun is that? S&B isn't the winningest strategy but it is the most brutal (except weenie vote and other degeneracy) and takes someone out early and then they have to sit around with nothing to do.

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > Rush: Obedience stops Rush cold. There is nothing that can be done. > > Zip. Zero. > > Besides the need for intercept that others have pointed out, you beat > Obedience by tapping or negating the defender: Misdirection, Incriminating > Videotape, Pentex Subversion, Horrific Countenance. Most Rush decks won't > carry these because they "want to be blocked", but just wanted to point > out that there are things to counter Obedience. There is a good chance > that a Rush deck will have a vampire old enough that it cannot be Obedienced. > Basilia and Thetmes are the likely candidates. > I think of all hte above, Misdirection alone is probably the most effective.. most bleed decks aren't going to have that many wakes in them... but, just like putting in all those Obediences, putting in a ton of cards to counter Obedience will thin out the deck, and most Rush decks can't take that kind of thinning out as they're pretty loaded already... > Of more relevance, the chances that an effective S&B deck will be holding > enough Obedience to stop a Haven Uncovered attack (which will typically > generate at least 3 attempted combats) is quite low. If the S&Ber is > typically holding 3 Obedience, then there's only 4 hand slots left for > Stealth/Bleed (presuming you don't mind missing your Master phase). That's > either 3 Stealth cards (+4 stealth) and Conditioning (4-5 bleed), or 2 > stealth (+3 stealth) and GtU+Conditioning (6-7 bleed). Any decent intercept > deck should be able to stop a +3 stealth bleed (given that Elder Intervention > is already +2 intercept) and should have a good shot at a +4 stealth bleed. > The +4 stealth bleed is for 4-5, which is only 1-2 more than AI costs, and > I think all the pro-AI people were screaming about 7-10 point bleeds, not > 4-5 point bleeds. Remember, though, that you can keep cycling cards... if they force me to play my stealth, I get to re-draw.. which is usually either going to net me another bleed card, or maybe a stealth card.. so chances are that I'll get at least one big bleed through a turn... I personally think the best option to stop the big bleeds is just to not block unless you can produce 4-5 intercept.. let them keep their stealth cards in their hand and jam them... and as for those big 7-10 bleeds... I rarely see those happen... to get that kind of bleed you have to have equipment, retainers, and what have you... and they are very vulnerable, especially against Rush decks, where every turn you're not just bleeding away is a turn they have a shot at wasting another one of your vampires.... As for AI, I have mixed feelings.. (usually, I hate it when I'm playing a bleed deck, but love it otherwise.. :).. I tend to agree that the card is extremely over-powered, but that there needed to be some kind of anti-bleed card as around here they tend to eat everything else for breakfast.... > > The point is that if you hold enough Obedience to stop Rush, you won't be > able to S&B very well. Agreed.. and if you stick them holding stealth in their hand as well, eventually their hand will be going nowhere... WyldStar [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Rory > The Ref at refp...@best.com But I think his point was that the Setite combat cards that do exist are fairly weak, and that most of them will probably see little use... Majesty will obviously be included, but any deck with Pre usually has that.. but Heart of Darkness? It's an incrediblt fragile card, and what Setite in their right mind would jump in front of the rampaging Brujah who wants to burn it..? It's just simply more effective for them not to bother with the cards, and just bleed and corrupt... since that's what they're best at anyway.. :) While I;m on the subject.. I'd just like to say how dissapointed I was by the power of this particular clan... while they can bleed effectively (although I don't see them bleeding nearly as well as Malks or any other clan with Dom).. compared to the other Non-Cam clans, I'd say the Setites got the Shaft.. Assamites can bleed and fight very effectively, and vote well as well... Ravnos are just plain nasty in combat, and Chimerstry provides them with almost limitless neat abilities (Sensory Dep, Veilied Sight, etc..), and the Giovanni can constantly cycle through the Graveyard, fight, and bleed incredibly well.. the Setites just seem to lack the serious hitting power that all the other Non-Cam clans have... but that's just an opinion.. WyldStar

Bastet wrote: [snip arguements about S:CE] > > >Back to the point at hand, I question Corrupters statement that not > > >blocking a S+B deck keeps you alive. > > > > >In any game where I stoicly decided not to block a S+B deck, I have died. > > >In any situation where anyone at the table I have been playing has stoicly > > >decided to try to hand jam the S+B deck by not blocking, they have died. > > >I just don't buy it as a viable defense. Perhaps by the time you are > > >dead, the S+B deck will have horrible hand jam for the next guy, but how > > >does that help you? You are dead. > > > > Well I have seen it work but you are correct it is not a valid defense > > just a slow down and often not by much. > > The other point being that next time he will play with less stealth. > > I often play with rather light stealth in my Nos decks because no one > > bothers to intercept, hoping to jam my hand. > > > > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > > Again it is a matter of strategy. Not blocking is a useful delaying > tactic when you are trying to assemble a, more potent(no pun intended), > defense. It frees up you minions so you can concentrate on harrassing > your prey while doing whatever it is you do (like add permanent intercept > to your minions). By the way, I recently purchased some AH boosters and > noticed that a great deal of permanent Intercept was in it. Particularly > stuff like Guardian Angel and Atonement. Did someone say there was a > scarcity of permanent intercept? Agreed... the point is that if they are holding SOME anti-combat cards, and then some stealth cards, that's a lot less room for bleeding.. and if they're not holding anti-combat cards, then they're going to be extremely succeptible to Rush decks. And if you're playing intercept, you just have to not block them until you KNOW you can stop them (when you have 4-5 intercept readily available.. the only big problem I've seen with this lately has come from Elder Impersonation). As for permanent intercept, I really, really like Guardian Angel.. it's incredibl effective for it's cost, and it's non-clan specific.. I'm less hype about Atonement, being that I tend to play with larger vampires which lowers it's effectiveness for me.. but the one permanent intercept card I REALLY love is Sins of the Cauchemar.. permanent, unremovable intercept that doesn't take an action or a master phase.. :) WyldStar [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, WyldStar wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > stealth (+3 stealth) and GtU+Conditioning (6-7 bleed). Any decent intercept > > deck should be able to stop a +3 stealth bleed (given that Elder > > Intervention > > is already +2 intercept) and should have a good shot at a +4 stealth bleed. > > The +4 stealth bleed is for 4-5, which is only 1-2 more than AI costs, and > > I think all the pro-AI people were screaming about 7-10 point bleeds, not > > 4-5 point bleeds. > Remember, though, that you can keep cycling cards... if they force me to play > my stealth, I get to re-draw.. which is usually either going to net me > another bleed card, or maybe a stealth card.. so chances are that I'll get at > least one big bleed through a turn... If you are cycling like this, it would be because you are playing against either an intercept deck or a stupid prey. A stupid prey deserves to die. An intercept deck ought to be able to block at least half of your stealthed actions. If they are doing this, you are again in combat. Really, a moot point. > I personally think the best option to > stop the big bleeds is just to not block unless you can produce 4-5 > intercept.. You don't necesarilly need so much. Test them out the first time, if you are playing light intercept, just to make sure that they aren't playing light stealth. If they slam by you, light intercept won't cut it and then you can stop, but if they don't, you can really cut them down. >let them keep their stealth cards in their hand and jam them... > and as for those big 7-10 bleeds... I rarely see those happen... to get that > kind of bleed you have to have equipment, retainers, and what have you... > and they are very vulnerable, especially against Rush decks, where every turn > you're not just bleeding away is a turn they have a shot at wasting another > one of your vampires.... > As for AI, I have mixed feelings.. (usually, I hate it when I'm playing a > bleed deck, but love it otherwise.. :).. I tend to agree that the card is > extremely over-powered, but that there needed to be some kind of anti-bleed > card as around here they tend to eat everything else for breakfast.... We've never had that problem around here, and someone always makes it a point to play S&B every once in a while to keep us on our toes. In addition, new players tend to make S&B (its easy) and occasional players hold onto their S&B. S&B wins, but no more than anyone else. If it is winning more than that in any particular playground, there is something wrong with their play environment (they are unfamiliar with how to deal with it, they have constraints which make it impossible to answer, etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Daniel Hoffman wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960707195907.456B-100000@pentode> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >In any case, Malk S&B has never been the best in NL/GT games. There has > >never been a best in NL/GT games. I stand by this. See below. > The case is that Malk S&B ruins the fun for many people and if you can't > always have gentlemen's rules or house rules then you can have AI. The only fun I've seen lost on MS&B is by the player's that are playing it (a boring deck, after all) or the poor prey who doesn't know how to deal with it (usually a new player or CL player in our environment). "ruins the fun" can be said of a number of decks (I think of my "stasis" deck which utterly smushed any prey I had, even though I couldn't get past the next player usually. Another example is a gangrel rush'n'amaranth deck. If the prey isn't prepared, things are Bad.). It can't be said that S&B is in need of AI or "honorable" non-use in a NL/GT or even a NL environment.. > I don't > enjoy having a suicidal predator who either wins or loses but takes me down > with him. If you are "taken down" even as you deal with your S&B predator, your methods are suspect. > What fun is that? S&B isn't the winningest strategy but it is the > most brutal (except weenie vote and other degeneracy) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (As an aside, there is no problem in GT with these decks) > and takes someone out > early and then they have to sit around with nothing to do. Again, the same thing can be said of a quick Gangrel-combat deck, iff they don't have defenses prepared. In this case, they will be sitting and transfering to death though. If you haven't prepared a suitable defense for the 3 basics (B/C/V), you are taking a _large_ risk. [ quoted text not captured ]

WyldStar <Wyld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Eric Pettersen wrote: >> Of more relevance, the chances that an effective S&B deck will be holding >> enough Obedience to stop a Haven Uncovered attack (which will typically >> generate at least 3 attempted combats) is quite low. If the S&Ber is >> typically holding 3 Obedience, then there's only 4 hand slots left for >> Stealth/Bleed (presuming you don't mind missing your Master phase). That's >> either 3 Stealth cards (+4 stealth) and Conditioning (4-5 bleed), or 2 >> stealth (+3 stealth) and GtU+Conditioning (6-7 bleed). Any decent intercept >> deck should be able to stop a +3 stealth bleed (given that Elder Intervention i don't really know if this point has been brought up already because i just happened on this newsgroup a few days ago, but possibly the best card against an S&B deck in terms of slowing and even stopping power isn't an intercept or a combat card. i figure that MINOR BOON is probably the best due to the fact that any deck can play it, even a combat deck. this is especially effective on a malk s&b deck because the staple of an S&B deck is that huge bleed to take the prey out in one turn... with a minor boon, any deck, even poly or rush can play it, take the one point bleed, and then watch your predator wonder if he/she should bleed for 10 and get it bounced back or just pick you off... often that two or three turns of indecision is more than enough to turn the tide and either cream his vampires or build up enough of a defense to stop any new bleeds... heck, a minor boon is even good in an S&B deck but mainly for large games with at least 3 people. it's gets to be fun when there're three or four minor boons in play and the bleeds just get bounced back and forth, kinda' like tp misdirection... :) oh well, hope this isn't some old news.. Danny Chi dann...@uclink4.berkeley.edu

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 dann...@uclink4.berkeley.edu wrote: > Date: Mon, 15 JUL 1996 19:07:52 GMT > From: dann...@uclink4.berkeley.edu > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Archon Investigation (was Badly done anti-bleed: new VTES cards) > [ quoted text not captured ] I think the card you are refering to is Major Boon. Though, both, major and minor boon are a good defense against S&B I have found they can sit in your hand for a while. A rush deck can really put a cork in a Bleed deck with careful use of Minor boon but this takes a bit of orchestration on the part of the rusher. Major Boon is a good way to provide a deterent as you explained. Bleed decks (if this has not been changed in any rulings) can use Major Boon to set up a "deterent bounce" that may slow your predator enough for you to get the jump on Victory Points. I keep a couple of either in my decks as part of the bleed defense. I am developing a Settite deck that uses major boon excessively (5 of them) and it looks promising as a defense for this, normally vulnerable, clan. Works especially well with blood gain, presence bleeds. Again this is not withstanding any rulings preventing the use of this card on your own bleeds but it would still be useful (though not nearly enough to merit significant attention anymore). Nuff said. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:48:29 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > >But permanent attack cards make obedience merely a staving off of the > >end. To be consistently Obediencing requires _huge_ dillution. > True, although while your wearing out his hand and deck he is wearing > out your pool. Everyone's hit this point again and again. They may wear out your pool well _once_, but after that, they start hitting you for a small amount. > Rushing your prey works better and if your going that > heavy on your predator then your prey will have a chance to build up > his defenses. True, but there are numerous times you need to hit your predator. If I have a killer rush deck as my predator, and hir predator is a bleeder or aggressive voter, I might just (D) bleed my predator a few times to keep them low and on defensive. > Like I said this strategy works but we just have a different value on > its effectiveness. And on your chart this was the only defense you > believed a couple of clans had. > I think each clan should have several ways of dealing with the main > strategies and that at least 2 of them ought to be more then > reasonably effective. To say that because you are playing a NOS deck > you must do rush combat hampers your play style and the game variety. The chart I created was typical defense. My own Nosferatu deck would do two things: Rush the bleeder and Rush general voters on the table. More importantly, it would not block (hand jam) stealthers, and do blood gainers up the yazoo (this deck has gained 28 pool in 3 rounds). By no means did I mean that chart to be all inclusive. > Perm attack cards do wear out his hand. > Perm attack is harder to come by for many decks though. Not really. Put in less Bum's Rush and put in Haven Uncovered. > But while your wearing out his hand he his wearing out your pool See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: >The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >>In any case, Malk S&B has never been the best in NL/GT games. There has >>never been a best in NL/GT games. >The case is that Malk S&B ruins the fun for many people and if you can't >always have gentlemen's rules or house rules then you can have AI. I don't >enjoy having a suicidal predator who either wins or loses but takes me down >with him. What fun is that? S&B isn't the winningest strategy but it is the >most brutal (except weenie vote and other degeneracy) and takes someone out >early and then they have to sit around with nothing to do. Speaking for myself, I would say that they only time S&B "ruins the fun" is if their prey are not ready to combat it. I've had this experience, due to my personal inablility to design decks extremely well (though I think I'm slowly getting better... at least I hope). Of course there's always the 6 point (IC + condiitioned) bleed that got bounce all the way around the table and back at me (now that was damn depressing, bit quite funny, especially when one of the players described it to the other play group :) ). Now this may be my personallity, in that I'm playing to relax and work on my own skills and watching the "metagame" of our group (which is an enjoyable pursuit). And despite getting pissed, its never at the other players... only at myself (I know I made a couple of mistakes last week for instance). Well.. that isn't quite true, but I get pissed at other players only when they do _stupid_ things that aren't helping them (like... my predator is totally inefective, but I'm scared of my prey so I won't bleed them... sheesh, why play if you aren't going to try to do anything). As far as someone being taken out early... big deal. It happens, but only if the deck design is poor (or had bad bad luck). And if you know it might happen, either plan on leaving early (I never know when I'll be getting home on Jyhad nights... could be 8:30... could be 11:00) or bring something else to do if you do get ousted (like the rest of your cards and fix the deck you just used). Granted, I'm biased since we only play one game a night (unless its over _quick_, which has happened only once before that I can remeber... I had to do WVP at least once... right? :) ) so when I get ousted I leave (espcially if I can get home in time to watch ER :) ). Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: > Speaking for myself, I would say that they only time S&B "ruins the > fun" is if their prey are not ready to combat it. Greetings... (I play in Charles' game group...these observations are intended for people from that group, as well as others) Well, pretty much any deck design can ruin your fun if you aren't prepared, imo. S:CE decks really bite if you are playing combat and can never get a strike off, and celerity/gun decks hurt if you aren't playing enough combat defense, etc. etc. But...getting back to "ruining the fun", if someone does jump out and do something nasty in the early/midgame (ie, vote for 5+ pool loss on successive turns, big bleeds, nasty combos, etc) then the table tends to turn on such players and put them down quickly. Something I've intended to make lately is a deck (similar to Mike's of a few months ago) that sits back and tries not to look aggressive to anyone until later in the game, when it gets dangerous. > I've had this > experience, due to my personal inablility to design decks extremely > well (though I think I'm slowly getting better... at least I hope). And even if you aren't, you still take getting pounded very well. ;) I'll never forget the expression on his face after having his 2nd straight 7+ vampire diablerized in a game not too long ago. I would have been hopping mad, but he just sat there like he always does, calm as can be. > Of course there's always the 6 point (IC + condiitioned) bleed that > got bounce all the way around the table and back at me (now that was > damn depressing, bit quite funny, especially when one of the players > described it to the other play group :) ). How many times do you get to see something like that? :) I just had to let everyone know... ;) > Now this may be my > personallity, in that I'm playing to relax and work on my own skills > and watching the "metagame" of our group (which is an enjoyable > pursuit). And despite getting pissed, its never at the other > players... only at myself (I know I made a couple of mistakes last > week for instance). Such as? Well, I can think of the one deal you made that probably cost you a victory point. I think very few times do people (in our group) play a perfect game, where they didn't make some mistake or other. > Well.. that isn't quite true, but I get pissed at > other players only when they do _stupid_ things that aren't helping > them (like... my predator is totally inefective, but I'm scared of my > prey so I won't bleed them... sheesh, why play if you aren't going to > try to do anything). <chuckle> I do remember getting peeved at someone for not taking advantage of a week prey, but it turned out he was setting up his fame/day op/whatever cheese combo. ;) *poke pat* > As far as someone being taken out early... big deal. It happens, but > only if the deck design is poor (or had bad bad luck). Hey...I had bad luck last week, ok? :) Maybe the deck design wasn't so hot either... ;) > (espcially if I can get home in time to watch ER :) ). This'll be plus when the season starts up again... -ben -- Ben Matthews General Studies The University of Texas at Dallas (214) 883-2354

Well... of course I have to follow this one up... even though Ben will probably never read it.... others in our group I'm sure will. matt...@utdallas.edu wrote: >Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: >> Speaking for myself, I would say that they only time S&B "ruins the >> fun" is if their prey are not ready to combat it. >Well, pretty much any deck design can ruin your fun if you aren't >prepared, imo. S:CE decks really bite if you are playing combat and can >never get a strike off, and celerity/gun decks hurt if you aren't playing >enough combat defense, etc. etc. If the fact that a deck of a specific type hoses yours ruins your fun... too bad. You obviously messed up your deck deisgn. If I'm playing combat I need to be able to deal with S:CE. I need to be able to deal with other combat no matter what deck I'm playing, just like I need to be able to beat S&B and vote decks. >But...getting back to "ruining the fun", if someone does jump out and do >something nasty in the early/midgame (ie, vote for 5+ pool loss on >successive turns, big bleeds, nasty combos, etc) then the table tends to >turn on such players and put them down quickly. Something I've intended >to make lately is a deck (similar to Mike's of a few months ago) that sits >back and tries not to look aggressive to anyone until later in the game, >when it gets dangerous. Well... maybe thats part of deck design. Being effective but not dangerous to the whole table. >And even if you aren't, you still take getting pounded very well. ;) I'll >never forget the expression on his face after having his 2nd straight 7+ >vampire diablerized in a game not too long ago. I would have been hopping >mad, but he just sat there like he always does, calm as can be. It isn't worth my effort getting upset at a _game_. Actually it bothers me more to see other people getting mad and pissed and bitching about it then anything else. If you aren't going to enjoy the game, don't bother playing. If I'm losing I did something wrong (9 outta 10 times) or someone else at the table is doing something wrong. (Actually, if I'm losing it means I decided not to make the broken deck for our current rule set... can we say WVP?) Basicly getting mad at myself isn't going to help anything. Getting mad at others isn't going to help anything (though I have on occassion voiced my displeasure without getting mad, like last week at the Millicent Smith/Reversal of Fortune combo, now thats what I call frustrating). And that was more... this game is going to take forever, and I'm doing well so we are going to run out of time soon and I won't get the victory points unless the game spead ups and I've had to burn 2 of my vampires because of it. >> Well.. that isn't quite true, but I get pissed at >> other players only when they do _stupid_ things that aren't helping >> them (like... my predator is totally inefective, but I'm scared of my >> prey so I won't bleed them... sheesh, why play if you aren't going to >> try to do anything). ><chuckle> I do remember getting peeved at someone for not taking >advantage of a week prey, but it turned out he was setting up his >fame/day op/whatever cheese combo. ;) *poke pat* Well... no comment. However (ok so I lied about the no comment) in general the group is under agressive at times. And with the number of blood dolls and hunting ground and other blood gain the group runs on average, you need to keep the presure on else your prey will weasel out. >> As far as someone being taken out early... big deal. It happens, but >> only if the deck design is poor (or had bad bad luck). >Hey...I had bad luck last week, ok? :) Maybe the deck design wasn't so >hot either... ;) Yes and yes. :) After all, the guy who went around the table was basicly un-molested throughout the game (if I remeber right). Heck thats the main reason I won last week. I was hit with _one_ successful bleed azll night, and that cuz I didn't care b/c it was only one bleed by a gangrel and I didn't have my designated "sacrificial lambs" untapped at the time. Else I would have torped and then ate the poor little lost gangrel. [ quoted text not captured ]

WyldStar <Wyld...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >As for AI, I have mixed feelings.. (usually, I hate it when I'm >playing a bleed deck, but love it otherwise.. :).. I tend to >agree that the card is extremely over-powered, but that >there needed to be some kind of anti-bleed card as around >here they tend to eat everything else for breakfast.... My problem with AI is this: Yes, 1 or 2 giant bleeds can often oust in a way that's very unsatifying, and frustrating for the oustee. BUT, a successful AI hoses the bleeder as surely as the big bleed. So when a bleeder does a big bleed against someone using AI for defense, somebody will go home frustrated. It's a no-win situation. The more fundamental problem is that WotC is trying to fix a general problem (big whonker bleeds) with a specific card. But with over 500 cards, this only works if the card is so good that it appears in virtually every game. But if it's that good, it's probably a spoiler too, and you've just replaced one problem with another. For an example, look at Necropotence from magic - an attempt to control those boring blue/white decks just created another new type you see endlessly. A better kind of fix for big bleeds would be a rules change - like not allowing you to combine +bleed action modifiers with + bleed actions. I assume WotC avoids this because of the confusion multiple rules would engender. Fundamental aspects of CCGs should be fixed with rules changes, or lived with. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)