Static Virtue [LSJ]
Orpheus
move, can we still use the card ?
LSJ
> "You may move one Aye and one Orun...". What if we have only Aye to
> move, can we still use the card ?
You may use the card, since it says "may", but you cannot move just
the Aye (unless the vampire has been around too long for the first effect).
Note the "or library" part, too, which should allow deck-building strategy
to overcome this restriction in practice.
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
JH
who was moved to my ready region during my last influence phase
I should find 3 Aye and 3 Orun. What happens if I find for
example only 3 Aye and 2 Orun? Or what if I find only 3 Orun?
Chris Berger
LSJ wrote:
> Orpheus wrote:
>
> > "You may move one Aye and one Orun...". What if we have only Aye to
> > move, can we still use the card ?
>
> You may use the card, since it says "may", but you cannot move just
> the Aye (unless the vampire has been around too long for the first effect).
>
> Note the "or library" part, too, which should allow deck-building strategy
> to overcome this restriction in practice.
>
bonus, but it looks like it's a restriction as well, and you can't use
Static Virtue (at least not to any effect) if you're only playing one
or the other.
Others should probably note as well that you cannot use the second
effect *unless* the vampire has been around too long to use the first
part. The first effect as well is both a bonus *and* a restriction.
Daneel
wrote:
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>> "You may move one Aye and one Orun...". What if we have only Aye to
>> move, can we still use the card ?
>
> You may use the card, since it says "may", but you cannot move just
> the Aye (unless the vampire has been around too long for the first
> effect).
Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
Or say "or". It would still be better that way...
> Note the "or library" part, too, which should allow deck-building
> strategy to overcome this restriction in practice.
Well, in practice, you won't really include 3-4 Orun in an Aye deck
just to be able to use Static Virtue. Because then you mostly waste
the slots, and if the Static doesn't come up at the right time, you
are looking at a bunch of dead cards. One more thing to slip on, and
for no real gain (you are going to *do* something, so probably either
Aye or Orun would quickly burn off you anyway).
Well, so much for my Aye deck... ;(
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:42:41 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>> "You may move one Aye and one Orun...". What if we have only Aye to
>>> move, can we still use the card ?
>>
>> You may use the card, since it says "may", but you cannot move just
>> the Aye (unless the vampire has been around too long for the first
>> effect).
>
> Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
> really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
> allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
Would it have been really that much overpowering to allow a minion
to have both a Sport Bike and a Hawg?
LSJ
You may choose to find 3 and 3, 2 and 2, 1 and 1, or 0 and 0.
François
> JH wrote:
> > If I play Static Virtue on a Laibon vampire with capacity of 10
> > who was moved to my ready region during my last influence phase
> > I should find 3 Aye and 3 Orun. What happens if I find for
> > example only 3 Aye and 2 Orun? Or what if I find only 3 Orun?
>
> You may choose to find 3 and 3, 2 and 2, 1 and 1, or 0 and 0.
>
If I play Static Virtue on a Laibon vampire who was moved to my ready
region during my last influence phase, am I committed to choose the
first part of the card (1 Aye and 1 Orun for every 2 capacity above 4)
or can I choose the "Otherwise" part (1 Aye or Orun maximum) - for
example if I have only Ayes in my deck or if I play this card on a 4
cap vampire ?
François
James Coupe
writes:
>Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
> really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
> allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
Cards aren't always limited in some fashion because they're "over-
powering", but also to ensure diversity and to make them not no-
brainers. This way, decks planning to use only a few Orun but many Aye
(or the other way round, or other combinations) have a decision to make
about the best use of card slots.
Forcing players to make thoughtful decisions about the construction of
their deck is not a bad thing. Useful, powerful cards that require
careful consideration to use to best effect mean that deck-building
isn't a no-brain exercise in throwing the latest good cards into a deck;
they can still be used to good effect without that effort, but that's
the difference between a good player and a great one.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> If I play Static Virtue on a Laibon vampire who was moved to my ready
> region during my last influence phase, am I committed to choose the
> first part of the card (1 Aye and 1 Orun for every 2 capacity above 4)
> or can I choose the "Otherwise" part (1 Aye or Orun maximum) - for
> example if I have only Ayes in my deck or if I play this card on a 4
> cap vampire ?
The former. That is, card text is followed.
Similarly, you cannot choose the "otherwise" part of Fear of Mekhet to
move the card instead of burning your IC member, nor the "otherwise"
part of Filchware or Kiss of Lachesis to equip a card from your ash
heap at a reduced cost.
Emmit Svenson
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <ops0v86z...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
> Cards aren't always limited in some fashion because they're "over-
> powering", but also to ensure diversity and to make them not no-
> brainers. This way, decks planning to use only a few Orun but many Aye
> (or the other way round, or other combinations) have a decision to make
> about the best use of card slots.
>
> Forcing players to make thoughtful decisions about the construction of
> their deck is not a bad thing. Useful, powerful cards that require
> careful consideration to use to best effect mean that deck-building
> isn't a no-brain exercise in throwing the latest good cards into a deck;
> they can still be used to good effect without that effort, but that's
> the difference between a good player and a great one.
True in the general case, but this limitation turns Static Virtue from
a marginal strategy to a nutpuncher. Cards like Legendary Vampire and
Proxy Kissed show how difficult it can be to use OOT masters that are
played when influencing. Since I think that Orun and Aye will be
difficult to use effectively in any case, I don't foresee anyone using
SV to good effect, except perhaps with the Laibon Lasombra and Descent
Into Darkness.
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:42:41 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>> Orpheus wrote:
>>>> "You may move one Aye and one Orun...". What if we have only Aye to
>>>> move, can we still use the card ?
>>>
>>> You may use the card, since it says "may", but you cannot move just
>>> the Aye (unless the vampire has been around too long for the first
>>> effect).
>>
>> Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
>> really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
>> allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
>
> Would it have been really that much overpowering to allow a minion
> to have both a Sport Bike and a Hawg?
To reply in a similar fashion: would it have been really that much
underpowering to limit a minion from benefiting from more than a
single Flak Jacket?
I guess non-sequitur sparring aside, we are left with the original
question. I really think that limiting Static Virtue this way was
a bad idea because instead of helping an otherwise less than
apparently competitive aspect of the new set it only helps in
switching one problem with another, providing a questionable
contribution to the overal value of said strategy.
Nevertheless, I'll try the angle to see for myself.
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
writes:
>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:42:07 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
>>> really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
>>> allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
>>
>> Would it have been really that much overpowering to allow a minion
>> to have both a Sport Bike and a Hawg?
>
>To reply in a similar fashion: would it have been really that much
> underpowering to limit a minion from benefiting from more than a
> single Flak Jacket?
>
>I guess non-sequitur sparring aside, we are left with the original
> question.
What's non-sequitur-ish about providing concrete examples of the fact
that not "overpowering" cards is not the only design criteria applied?
Many, many cards have limitations which could be relaxed without
"overpowering" them but which leads to a general escalation of power
across the whole game. This, in and of itself, can be extremely bad for
a game.
James Coupe
Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes:
>True in the general case, but this limitation turns Static Virtue from
>a marginal strategy to a nutpuncher. Cards like Legendary Vampire and
>Proxy Kissed show how difficult it can be to use OOT masters that are
>played when influencing. Since I think that Orun and Aye will be
>difficult to use effectively in any case, I don't foresee anyone using
>SV to good effect, except perhaps with the Laibon Lasombra and Descent
>Into Darkness.
Proxy Kissed and Legendary Vampire both suffer from the fact that you
have to play them at exactly the right time (though have potentially
strong effects when played). Static Virtue has the significant
advantage that it can still be played to potentially useful - though
obviously not as useful - effect when you miss the timing slot.
Depending on the deck you're playing, too, there look to be some strong
strategies for bringing out quite a lot of vampires. For example,
Founders of the Ebony Kingdom has strong potential, IMO, to drive a deck
that wants to bring out lots of vampires - with more chances to play
Static Virtue with each one. Between that, Mbara Market and Belonging
Grants Protection, there are some solid options here for bringing out
lots of vampires such that you have a better chance of hitting Static
Virtue when you bring one out.
You might also find cards such as Social Ladder useful here, so that you
can time an influx of pool onto a vampire at the right time, or a
Storage Annex if that sort of thing floats your boat.
There are also a number of library searching or recycling strategies
that might help you use Static Virtue to reasonable effect. Say, have
some Laibon as support to a Mata Hari Sybil's Tongue. Throw in Maabara
(which Mata will let you play) to allow you to recycle it back for each
vampire you want to use it on. There are a number of small-ish Laibon
you could try here, with overlapping disciplines.
If Maabara appeals, don't forget that there are three Harbingers of
Skulls who are Laibon (5, 6, 7 capacities) which could help you recycle
Static Virtue onto each other, if you wanted, as well as any other
vampires you happen to be using.
Emmit Svenson
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1133186348.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Proxy Kissed and Legendary Vampire both suffer from the fact that you
> have to play them at exactly the right time (though have potentially
> strong effects when played). Static Virtue has the significant
> advantage that it can still be played to potentially useful - though
> obviously not as useful - effect when you miss the timing slot.
Static Virtue, OTOH, suffers from trying to combine two difficult
strategies (Aye and Orun) into one even more difficult strategy.
> Depending on the deck you're playing, too, there look to be some strong
> strategies for bringing out quite a lot of vampires. For example,
> Founders of the Ebony Kingdom has strong potential, IMO, to drive a deck
> that wants to bring out lots of vampires - with more chances to play
> Static Virtue with each one.
Not significantly different from Governing to bring out weenies to
Proxy Kiss, which is a tough deck to build.
> Between that, Mbara Market and Belonging
> Grants Protection, there are some solid options here for bringing out
> lots of vampires such that you have a better chance of hitting Static
> Virtue when you bring one out.
Again, not very different from any crypt machine strategy.
> You might also find cards such as Social Ladder useful here, so that you
> can time an influx of pool onto a vampire at the right time, or a
> Storage Annex if that sort of thing floats your boat.
>
> There are also a number of library searching or recycling strategies
> that might help you use Static Virtue to reasonable effect. Say, have
> some Laibon as support to a Mata Hari Sybil's Tongue. Throw in Maabara
> (which Mata will let you play) to allow you to recycle it back for each
> vampire you want to use it on. There are a number of small-ish Laibon
> you could try here, with overlapping disciplines.
>
> If Maabara appeals, don't forget that there are three Harbingers of
> Skulls who are Laibon (5, 6, 7 capacities) which could help you recycle
> Static Virtue onto each other, if you wanted, as well as any other
> vampires you happen to be using.
So you build an elaborate Rube Goldberg deck out of Static Virtue,
tinfoil and chewing gum, and once in a blue moon it sputters its way to
a table win. Fabulous. I still think the Aye and Orun strategies are
questionable enough that a less restrictive Static Virtue would have
been a good idea, enabling a wider variety of competitive decks.
Daneel
wrote:
> In message <ops0yyt7...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:42:07 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Daneel wrote:
>>>> Drat. This card is worse than it seemed at first. Would it have been
>>>> really that much overpowering to say "and/or" instead of "and", to
>>>> allow decks that use only one type of virtue to benefit from it?
>>>
>>> Would it have been really that much overpowering to allow a minion
>>> to have both a Sport Bike and a Hawg?
>>
>> To reply in a similar fashion: would it have been really that much
>> underpowering to limit a minion from benefiting from more than a
>> single Flak Jacket?
>>
>> I guess non-sequitur sparring aside, we are left with the original
>> question.
>
> What's non-sequitur-ish about providing concrete examples of the fact
> that not "overpowering" cards is not the only design criteria applied?
Since much lenience has already been demonstrated with regard to adapting
the concepts of the source material, I very much feel that questions
pertaining to game balance and card power levels are very valid.
> Many, many cards have limitations which could be relaxed without
> "overpowering" them but which leads to a general escalation of power
> across the whole game. This, in and of itself, can be extremely bad for
> a game.
Well, this has relatively little relevance here - Static Virtue is IMHO
nefred beyond all hope of contributing to a competitive strategy. Which
is unfortunate, and all, given how we are looking at what seems to be at
first glance a promising new angle. SV is kind of like an enabler for
the other cards - Aye, Orun and the High cards.
But anyway, the best you could do is build a deck that relies on SV and
prove that it can work. I'd be happy to see that. I don't think it is
possible, though.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Chris Berger
Daneel wrote:
>
> But anyway, the best you could do is build a deck that relies on SV and
> prove that it can work. I'd be happy to see that. I don't think it is
> possible, though.
>
unnecessarily hamstringed (hamstrung?), but on the other hand, I can't
agree with the statement above. If you make a deck that relies on both
Aye *and* Orun, Static Virtue will still be an unmitigated help to the
deck.
My first instinct is a vote&intercept deck, using High Aye to stealth
votes through, High Orun just splashed in to reduce the cost of things
like Heart of the City and combat cards (and to give you an extra hand
size in combat), Aye to prevent Rotschreck and to Wake, Orun to gain
votes (and the extra capacity vs. other meth's cards never hurts).
Probably splash No Secrets From the Magaji (though it's slightly
redundant with the ability from 3+ Aye, it's still awesome), maybe some
Eldest Command Undeath (even though it will burn an Aye.
The deck wouldn't rely too much on disciplines, more on using as many
Magaji as are available, with *reasonably* similar disciplines. Since
High Aye *and* High Orun both let you cycle a little, you can afford to
not have everyone in the deck able to play every card. I've only got
the basic skeleton for such a deck worked out, but my instincts tell me
that it could possibly be very good. Static Virtue would be very
useful in that deck, especially since most of the Magaji are 8caps, and
would gain 2 Aye and 2 Orun if you play it at the "superior level".
The complaint is that Static Virtue will only be useful in a deck based
around Aye *and* Orun. It won't be useful in a deck that only splashes
a few Aye and/or Orun, and it won't be useful in a deck based around
Aye or a deck based around Orun. Then, since we would be basing a deck
around Aye, Orun, High Aye, and High Orun, it drastically cuts down on
the different types of decks you can play with SV. There's a pretty
specfic deck skeleton that is sketched out for you (Laibon, large
vampires, vote deck, medium-to-high stealth, some untap, likely some
intercept, unlikely to be clan-based, plus 2 cards are "must use", and
2-3 cards are strongly indicated), and that skeleton is the only deck
that can make much use out of SV. There are very few cards in the game
that are *that* narrow.
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>>
>> But anyway, the best you could do is build a deck that relies on SV and
>> prove that it can work. I'd be happy to see that. I don't think it is
>> possible, though.
>>
> On the one hand, I agree with you, as I do think that SV was
> unnecessarily hamstringed (hamstrung?), but on the other hand, I can't
> agree with the statement above. If you make a deck that relies on both
> Aye *and* Orun, Static Virtue will still be an unmitigated help to the
> deck.
That's without doubt.
[snip]
> The complaint is that Static Virtue will only be useful in a deck based
> around Aye *and* Orun. It won't be useful in a deck that only splashes
> a few Aye and/or Orun, and it won't be useful in a deck based around
> Aye or a deck based around Orun. Then, since we would be basing a deck
> around Aye, Orun, High Aye, and High Orun, it drastically cuts down on
> the different types of decks you can play with SV. There's a pretty
> specfic deck skeleton that is sketched out for you (Laibon, large
> vampires, vote deck, medium-to-high stealth, some untap, likely some
> intercept, unlikely to be clan-based, plus 2 cards are "must use", and
> 2-3 cards are strongly indicated), and that skeleton is the only deck
> that can make much use out of SV. There are very few cards in the game
> that are *that* narrow.
Yep. The thing is - if you want to rely on Aye or Orun, you will probably
try to elude their burning conditions. That is somewhat limiting. However,
if you want to use *both*, you:
1. need to elude a bunch of burning conditions that cover a vast majority
of winning strategies.
2. be able to fully harvest the abilities of both the Virtue cards
themselves, and most likely of the High cards as well.
Even if you comply with these, you are still facing the issue that your
deck choice is fairly limited - far more that the cards would suggest
at first glance.
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <1133186348.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Proxy Kissed and Legendary Vampire both suffer from the fact that you
>> have to play them at exactly the right time (though have potentially
>> strong effects when played). Static Virtue has the significant
>> advantage that it can still be played to potentially useful - though
>> obviously not as useful - effect when you miss the timing slot.
>
>Static Virtue, OTOH, suffers from trying to combine two difficult
>strategies (Aye and Orun) into one even more difficult strategy.
Yes and no. I agree that Aye and Orun are quite different, but Aye in
itself is quite good - the potential for a cardless Wake is good,
allowing you to go forward and act and still come out defensively okay.
Orun is probably the weaker of the two directly, but you can combine
High Aye and High Orun quite interestingly. Useful for any clans which
don't have access to a lot of stealth, and versatile. And High Orun
isn't bad either.
This looks, to me, like a potential win for any Laibon who have a
reasonable offence and defence angle, but don't have much of a
stealth/unblockable background. High Orun wouldn't be necessary - but
it could be scattered into the right deck.
Assuming that you could construct a deck at around 75 cards (which many
players can), you could potentially use the "spare" slots to run some
Orun and Aye. As trifles, they're fairly easy to cycle, and with Static
Virtue you can yoink them out of the deck very sharply - an 8 cap gets 8
cards out of your deck! That seems to be a potentially reasonable
option.
>> Depending on the deck you're playing, too, there look to be some strong
>> strategies for bringing out quite a lot of vampires. For example,
>> Founders of the Ebony Kingdom has strong potential, IMO, to drive a deck
>> that wants to bring out lots of vampires - with more chances to play
>> Static Virtue with each one.
>
>Not significantly different from Governing to bring out weenies to
>Proxy Kiss, which is a tough deck to build.
To some extent, it is. See, the thing is, if you're playing Proxy
Kissed, it seems likely that you want the Pot and the For. If you just
wanted DOM/FOR, you could go for the Ventrue or !Ventrue. If you wanted
DOM/POT, the EuroBrujah might be a better option. Pot/For could be got
from the Blood Brothers, but that's a very different deck in all sorts
of ways due to the use of Bloodlines.
So, even if you're not going for the Pot/For, it seems likely that
you're going after something unique to the Giovanni. Perhaps the
Necromancy. Or maybe some clan cards. But if it is a discipline,
you're bringing out Nec/Pot/For (or Nec/For etc.) and still needing DOM
to drive the whole thing. That's quite a few disciplines going on here.
A Laibon "Govern" requires Laibon and brings out more Laibon in the
process which seems, to my mind, a little easier.
>> Between that, Mbara Market and Belonging
>> Grants Protection, there are some solid options here for bringing out
>> lots of vampires such that you have a better chance of hitting Static
>> Virtue when you bring one out.
>
>Again, not very different from any crypt machine strategy.
But the crypt machine for a Legendary Vampire has a strong downside.
Legendary Vampire is unique. You can't base much of the deck around
getting out Legendary Vampire without screwing yourself over when it
does come out, in many instances. (Sybil's Tongue is one counter-
example, which could be used to fetch the LV and then used for other
things when that's done.)
So the crypt machine can - of course! - function extremely well, but it
won't leverage Legendary Vampire that well, because Legendary Vampire is
strictly limited.
>So you build an elaborate Rube Goldberg deck out of Static Virtue,
>tinfoil and chewing gum, and once in a blue moon it sputters its way to
>a table win. Fabulous. I still think the Aye and Orun strategies are
>questionable enough that a less restrictive Static Virtue would have
>been a good idea, enabling a wider variety of competitive decks.
No, you see, you build a good deck that also uses the cards. You don't
have to build the whole deck around using them, just the same as you
don't design a deck using Wakes and bounces around that - it's one
element of a stronger deck.
Any resemblance to tinfoil and chewing gum, or one trick pony decks, is
in your imagination only, I'm afraid.
James Coupe
writes:
>> that not "overpowering" cards is not the only design criteria applied?
>
>Since much lenience has already been demonstrated with regard to adapting
> the concepts of the source material, I very much feel that questions
> pertaining to game balance and card power levels are very valid.
Now *that's* a non-sequitur.
Asking questions is fine. The response was a clear example that the
question wasn't paying attention to the whole design process. Singling
out one element of the design process[0] - when cards are designed in
their entirety and not to a "paint by numbers" approach, as LSJ has
explained on a number of occasions - above all others misses the point
somewhat.
My response is in no-way stopping people questioning game balance. You
did, and got an answer. You don't like the answer, but that's okay.
Nothing means you have to like the answers to the questions you ask.
[0] For example:
- wanting to keep a strategy that offers versatility (non-disciplined
cards etc.) relatively weak, even if it could be more powerful,
to make disciplines more attractive
- wanting to not over-power a new idea so that you can explore it
further in the future once it's settled down a little (a
hypothetical "only usable if this vampire has two Aye and two
Orun" card, say)
- wanting to be relatively cautious with a new mechanic, because you can
upgrade it later but issuing errata to fix things which are over
the top is awkward
- wanting to create challenges for players to explore which can be
rewarding in and of itself - a clear goal of the Bloodlines set,
for example, where it was obviously understood that while the
cards may best mix with other clans, players would probably try
to use them on their own which has made Bloodlines one of the
most popular sets printed, IME
- wanting to avoid the impression that there obvious "strong" cards in a
set, which players then have to chase for to compete
- wanting to establish a different theme for a set. Perhaps the Laibon
are in someway intended to have a feel of cross-overs,
compromises and hybrid strategies
- being instinctively wary of permanent cards. Permanent Wakes are
potentially very powerful indeed, and forcing players to carry a
little chaff to make up for it is a potential balancing
mechanism to guard against possible future "abuses" of the card.
and so on.
John Flournoy
James Coupe wrote:
> >So you build an elaborate Rube Goldberg deck out of Static Virtue,
> >tinfoil and chewing gum, and once in a blue moon it sputters its way to
> >a table win. Fabulous. I still think the Aye and Orun strategies are
> >questionable enough that a less restrictive Static Virtue would have
> >been a good idea, enabling a wider variety of competitive decks.
>
> No, you see, you build a good deck that also uses the cards. You don't
> have to build the whole deck around using them, just the same as you
> don't design a deck using Wakes and bounces around that - it's one
> element of a stronger deck.
>
> Any resemblance to tinfoil and chewing gum, or one trick pony decks, is
> in your imagination only, I'm afraid.
Not just his.
Let's say you're planning to make 'a good deck that also uses the
cards'.
How many of which cards are you envisioning in such a deck, out of
curiousity? (And no, this isn't rhetorical - I'm honestly curious as to
what you're thinking here.)
In order to use High Aye/Orun, you need 3 each of Orun or Aye in play -
so if you want them to be anything other than 'burn option with a power
I might get to use later in a game', you need to play considerably more
than 3 of the trifle or you won't likely see enough in time.
8 Oruns or Ayes maybe? That should be enough to get a singular vamp set
with Oruns or Ayes enough to play the HighX version consistently over
the course of several games. Maybe 2 vamps occasionally - of course,
you'll need the HighX cards in your deck as well - since you went to
all the trouble of getting the trifle in play, let's say 6-8 HighX
cards.
So, 14-16 cards to reliably get to use either Aye or Orun with the
corresponding HighX card for one or two of your vamps. That's a good
chunk of most decks.
Static Virtue helps you get the trifle out faster - but really only
efficiently if you're using BOTH Orun and Aye - so again, any
card-slots saved by SV get lost by having to include both strategies.
Maybe you're skipping the HighX part, and just using Orun or Aye -
okay, that's still likely 7-8 cards in your deck to get to use either
to full effect on one vamp with consistency.
I'm sorry, maybe it's just me - but I don't think we're likely to ever
see someone add only 3 or 4 Ayes to a 'good deck' planning it to be
anything more than a corner-case 'element' of their deck - using Aye or
Orun as a component of your deck requires a not-insignificant
investment of master card slots, at least, and a definitely significant
chunk of your deck if you're planning to use the High version of
either. Static Virtue - while it does help you use Orun and Aye
together - doesn't particularly make it less costly to include either
element in a competitive deck, as far as I can see.
Note that I'm not saying that as an element these cards aren't useful -
I'm just saying that using them is not something players are likely to
be able to do as a casual inclusion in their decks but rather as a
significant focus.
Maybe that commitment of cards is worth their effect; that's not
something that's going to be apparent until people start actively using
the cards in decks and learning the potentially-hard way.
-John Flournoy
Chris Berger
John Flournoy wrote:
>
> Maybe that commitment of cards is worth their effect; that's not
> something that's going to be apparent until people start actively using
> the cards in decks and learning the potentially-hard way.
>
and Orun would take potentially 3 boxes of cards (which should also get
you as many High Aye and High Orun as you could possibly want).
Getting enough Static Virtue will be done only though trading and/or
singles buying, most likely (granted, the same could be done for Aye
and Orun, but there's probably enough cool cards in the set to warrant
buying the boxes). In either case, it could take some time and/or
money, at the end of which you may find that the deck sucks. Granted,
I'm planning to do it. But I have doubts about how much it will be
worth the effort.
Anybody got any Static Virtues for trade? ;)
Rehlow
Sure High Aye and High Orun uses up a good portion of your deck, but
they replace other card slots. 3 Aye can be tapped for a Wake-like
effect, right? (I don't have access to the card right now). You can use
that "Wake" every turn, so if you can get 3 Aye out quick enough, you
could conceivably cut all wakes from your deck. Every 3 Orun are
another vote, right? That can replace some vote push cards. High Aye
replaces some traditional stealth cards (especially useful for a deck
wthout access to traditional stealth). High Orun reduces blood costs,
allowing you to use either high blood cost cards or lets you replace
other blood management cards in your deck. Its tricky, but it could pay
off. The deck would definately have a unique feel to that, and based on
some of the decks I see, that is more important to some people than
tier 1 competitive.
Right now there are other new cards catching my eye that I want to play
with first, but I think eventually I will try a Static Virtue deck. It
might be easier to wait for someone to come up with the first draft and
then build on that. :)
Later,
~Rehlow
John Flournoy
Rehlow wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
> Sure High Aye and High Orun uses up a good portion of your deck, but
> they replace other card slots. 3 Aye can be tapped for a Wake-like
> effect, right? (I don't have access to the card right now). You can use
> that "Wake" every turn, so if you can get 3 Aye out quick enough, you
> could conceivably cut all wakes from your deck.
You can't use that Wake every turn, as it's 'tap three Aye to...' -
it's once every cycle of turns, and it costs a blood. Not that getting
one extra wake per turn-cycle is bad, far from it, but many people
wouldn't want that to be their only form of wake in their deck (since
it also effectively makes you wait several turns after you get a
vampire out before you can use it, while you stack the Ayes up once
each of your master phases.)
> Every 3 Orun are
> another vote, right? That can replace some vote push cards.
Sure. Although again, replacing the vote push card means that early on
in the game, you have neither vote push nor 3 Orun, so you're lacking
there. Having 3 Oruns on a vamp giving you an effective extra permanent
vote certainly has value, though.
> High Aye
> replaces some traditional stealth cards (especially useful for a deck
> wthout access to traditional stealth). High Orun reduces blood costs,
> allowing you to use either high blood cost cards or lets you replace
> other blood management cards in your deck. Its tricky, but it could pay
> off. The deck would definately have a unique feel to that, and based on
> some of the decks I see, that is more important to some people than
> tier 1 competitive.
The High cards are definitely useful. And yes, it _certainly_ provides
a different feel to a deck, and lots of people (like me) think that's
often better than being uber-competitive.
However, my comments were really about rebutting the assertion that
people will just choose to include some Aye/Orun/High Aye/High Orun as
an add-on to an already strong deck without needing to make it a focus
of the deck; I still feel that as a small add-on the benefit is very
small and/or won't come up often enough, and that the amount of cards
needed to get a notable benefit - including 'I can expect to
consistently put these cards to use in a way that isn't burn optioning
them' - is not insignificant in a 90-card deck.
That doesn't mean that investment of cards isn't worth it and/or a neat
and different strategy - I just don't see it as being particularly
valuable if you're only including 4-6 of these cards in your existing
'good' deck (as opposed to 12-16 in a deck using it as one of the
primary features, where it does have value).
> Later,
> ~Rehlow
-John Flournoy
Loadquo
John Flournoy wrote:
> That doesn't mean that investment of cards isn't worth it and/or a neat
> and different strategy - I just don't see it as being particularly
> valuable if you're only including 4-6 of these cards in your existing
> 'good' deck (as opposed to 12-16 in a deck using it as one of the
> primary features, where it does have value).
>
I'm planning to add 5 aye to an ishtarri gun deck. For DotB and
rotshreck defense. If there aren't any Animalism/Agg walls I'll stick
them all on one vampire for the wake ability.
I would also think about chucking some orun into a small wall deck for
protection against crocodiles tongue/abombwe block fails/ abombwe
unblockable/psychomachia/inferior seduction etc
I predict they will be mainly used for their single card uses. I agree
that getting use out of three of them and the 'High' cards will be
difficult and not something I would count on in a non-dedicated deck.
Will
James Coupe
Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>John Flournoy wrote:
>>
>> Maybe that commitment of cards is worth their effect; that's not
>> something that's going to be apparent until people start actively using
>> the cards in decks and learning the potentially-hard way.
>>
>Not to mention collecting that many of the cards. Getting enough Aye
>and Orun would take potentially 3 boxes of cards (which should also get
>you as many High Aye and High Orun as you could possibly want).
I don't think that the number of cards required has that much bearing on
things.
Aye is common, Orun is common. The canonical example of a card that
needs a metric buttload to get going is Choir. Strangely, this hasn't
stopped at least some people building Choir decks.
Some cards will often work better in larger quantities than small -
that's one facet of a no-limits game. That doesn't mean that they're
necessarily better than other decks using small quantities of cards, but
they may be better than decks using small numbers of those specific
cards. Again, Choir is a good example - it's not a broken deck, but a
deck using a lot of Choir will do better than a deck using three of
them.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>As trifles, they're fairly easy to cycle, and with Static
>Virtue you can yoink them out of the deck very sharply - an 8 cap gets 8
>cards out of your deck!
A brain fart on my part. I, of course, meant 4, plus the Static Virtue.
Emmit Svenson
Rehlow wrote:
> Sure High Aye and High Orun uses up a good portion of your deck, but
> they replace other card slots. 3 Aye can be tapped for a Wake-like
> effect, right? (I don't have access to the card right now). You can use
> that "Wake" every turn, so if you can get 3 Aye out quick enough, you
> could conceivably cut all wakes from your deck.
Tap three Ayes and burn a blood, yeah. I tend to think that including
as many WWEF or Forced Awakening as you would include Ayes would be
smarter. They're much easier to use, and you can use them to wake any
vampire.
> High Aye
> replaces some traditional stealth cards (especially useful for a deck
> wthout access to traditional stealth). High Orun reduces blood costs,
> allowing you to use either high blood cost cards or lets you replace
> other blood management cards in your deck. Its tricky, but it could pay
> off. The deck would definately have a unique feel to that, and based on
> some of the decks I see, that is more important to some people than
> tier 1 competitive.
The best thing about the High Aye/Orun cards is that they have a burn
option that allows you to cycle them quickly until you have a vampire
that can use them. That's a definite plus for the systems.
I'm not saying that the Aye strategy is hopeless, or that the Orun
strategy is hopeless. I'm saying that having to staple them together in
a single deck in order to use Static Virtue makes SV pretty awful.
Imagine a card:
Corrupting Chorus
+1 stealth action.
[ser] Tap a minion you control with [mel] to put this Chorus card in
play and put a corruption counter on a minion controlled by your prey.
If the number of corruption counters on that minion equals that
vampire's capacity or that ally's starting life, burn them all to take
control of that minion.
[mel] As above, but tap a minion you control with [ser].
Two strategies, both workable on their own, stapled together into one
godawful strategy. And the saddest thing is, people would want to try
it out. Heck, *I* want to try it out. I'd trade for dozens of this
card. And I'd lose, and lose, and lose.
> Right now there are other new cards catching my eye that I want to play
> with first, but I think eventually I will try a Static Virtue deck. It
> might be easier to wait for someone to come up with the first draft and
> then build on that. :)
Maybe if I trade all my SV away I won't be tempted...