a Touch of Broken
stuj...@hotmail.com
I'm assuming the beta-testing players as well as the designer of this
card must be enjoying copious amounts of high grade coke or MDMA, etc.
ToC is a ridiculously powerful card to cancel Dominate bounces, among
other uses:
Touch of Clarity [KoT:R]
Cardtype: Action Modifier / Reaction
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dementation
Usable by an acting minion or any untapped ready minion.
[dem] Cancel a non-combat card that requires Dementation, Dominate
[dom] or Presence [pre] as it is played (no cost is paid). Tap this
vampire.
[DEM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
*No capacity restrictions & even effective at inferior*
If it was quickly errata'ed to be, say, a Potence card or be given
other requirements, it might be more appropriate; however to be within
the Dementation discipline is crazy. Malk Anti's are the achetypical
power-Bleed+Stealth clan. To give them a bounce-nerfing card seems
terribly unbalancing. Stealth-bleed decks hardly need a helping hand.
I appreciate that some regions have evolved heavy bounce environments,
however ToC only further empowers particular stealth-bleed decks,
rather than boosting other non-S&B styles of deck. If these other
styles were boosted to more sufficiently compete in tournaments, maybe
the power bleeders - that result in the need for lots of bounce -
would be less secure and be less prevelant.
I'm not sure if there's a theory that the card is (i think) super-rare
and therefore unlikely to be played much; but that simply means it
could risk the problem of "the guy who spend the most wins."
The only other theory i can guess at is that it's mainly bleed decks
that would play Deflection, and so non-Malk! S&B decks would be
reliably hosed by the Malk! Dem deck. Hence, players would have the
option of either playing Malk! or a non-S&B deck. Hence maybe
producing more combat and political variants. Not sure... seems
dubious to me.
I do appreciate this obviously touches on the debate that combat (etc)
should be bolstered to be more competitive against S&B and Political
decks; but aside from the usual opinions, surely this card is
obviously in need of alteration.
This is also not an attempt to shit-can the designer(s) - LSJ et al (?
not sure exactly who designs etc) does an extremely impressive effort
of designing new expansions for a complex strategy game that already
contains thousands of cards.
However i do feel this should quickly be realized to be broken, and
maybe some thought should be put in to determine what to do with it -
total nerfing or alterations - so that decision can be implemented
asap.
Having seen it played, it definitely seems broken.
Anyone else seen it go down???
henrik
TLDR, but dominate is broken.
Granted, Dementation is on the edge of Broken country so it could've
been another discipline that got the card.
Vincent Crisafulli
one copy.
Like Villen, I don't think it will see much play until more are printed.
<stuj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b58331a0-68e1-4a20...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
headle...@gmail.com
So Auspex bounce/reduce just got a bit more relatively powerful. and
Lost in Translation, if anyone still uses that.
maybe that's the reason they "forgot" to reprint Deflection in KoT? :)
It does have a lot of good defensive options though. Cancels
Entrancement, an ousting Conditioning, stopping the Awe or Voter Cap,
and many more. I can easily see one or two becoming staples in every
deck with Dem. If someone spends the money to put 8 of them in a S&B
deck, it will win the first time, and then the metagame will be
shifted around to not rely 100% on dominate.
The sky is probably not falling.
Peter D Bakija
> Has anyone else actually seen "Touch of Clarity" played in a game?
Nope. And people around here own them.
> I'm assuming the beta-testing players as well as the designer of this
> card must be enjoying copious amounts of high grade coke or MDMA,
Unlikely.
> ToC is a ridiculously powerful card to cancel Dominate bounces, among
> other uses:
'Cause Dominate can't use a nerfing at all?
> Touch of Clarity [KoT:R]
> Cardtype: Action Modifier / Reaction
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Dementation
> Usable by an acting minion or any untapped ready minion.
> [dem] Cancel a non-combat card that requires Dementation, Dominate
> [dom] or Presence [pre] as it is played (no cost is paid). Tap this
> vampire.
> [DEM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
>
> *No capacity restrictions & even effective at inferior*
Sure. It is a pretty good card. But they also already had Hide the
Mind, which nerfs Auspex bounce. And that hasn't been tearing up the
pea patch either.
> If it was quickly errata'ed to be, say, a Potence card or be given
> other requirements, it might be more appropriate; however to be within
> the Dementation discipline is crazy.
Badum-bum. Ka'tching! You're welcome. I'll try the veal.
> Malk Anti's are the achetypical
> power-Bleed+Stealth clan. To give them a bounce-nerfing card seems
> terribly unbalancing.
They already had a bounce nerfing card. And it hasn't destroyed the
world.
> Stealth-bleed decks hardly need a helping hand.
Sure. But Dominate can cartainly use a kick in the teeth now and
again. And if Touch of clarity is really something you are super
worried about, use some diversity in your dominate bounce--you have 3
cards to choose from, and Touch of Clarity can only cancel one of
them.
> I appreciate that some regions have evolved heavy bounce environments,
> however ToC only further empowers particular stealth-bleed decks,
> rather than boosting other non-S&B styles of deck.
Not really so much. Don't get me wrong here--S+B is still, and always
has been, one of the most powerful deck archetypes. Touch of Clarity,
however, isn't really having that big of an impact on this.
> I'm not sure if there's a theory that the card is (i think) super-rare
> and therefore unlikely to be played much; but that simply means it
> could risk the problem of "the guy who spend the most wins."
That is *never* a theory in the design of this game or in the
playtesting of this game.
> The only other theory i can guess at is that it's mainly bleed decks
> that would play Deflection, and so non-Malk! S&B decks would be
> reliably hosed by the Malk! Dem deck. Hence, players would have the
> option of either playing Malk! or a non-S&B deck. Hence maybe
> producing more combat and political variants. Not sure... seems
> dubious to me.
Nah. Yeah, it gives Dem S+B a bit of a boost if it wants to add that
extra element into the mix. And it kicks Dominate in the teeth a tiny
bit (which is always a plus). It isn't, however, really helping S+B
all that much. Yeah, once and a while, you'll cancel a deflection and
catch them with their pants down, and you'll score a bleed you
wouldn't have otherwise. Other times, your prey will have Auspex
bounce, and all the Touch of Clarities in your deck will be mostly
dead cards gumming up your hand.
> I do appreciate this obviously touches on the debate that combat (etc)
> should be bolstered to be more competitive against S&B and Political
> decks; but aside from the usual opinions, surely this card is
> obviously in need of alteration.
That is really not at all obvious.
> This is also not an attempt to shit-can the designer(s) - LSJ et al (?
> not sure exactly who designs etc)
Ah, yes. 'Cause that is what happens when people complain on the
internet :-)
> However i do feel this should quickly be realized to be broken, and
> maybe some thought should be put in to determine what to do with it -
> total nerfing or alterations - so that decision can be implemented
> asap.
It is highly unlikely that this card will be quickly realized to be
broken. And that anything at all needs to be done with it. It isn't
that big of a deal. If you are super concerned about it, mix up your
Dominate bounce some. Or play Auspex bounce. Or beat up the soft
Malkavians before they bleed you too much.
-Peter
stuj...@hotmail.com
V true. Totally agree. But by boosting Dementation, the discipline
that replicates part of Dominate?
> Sure. It is a pretty good card. But they also already had Hide the
> Mind, which nerfs Auspex bounce. And that hasn't been tearing up the
> pea patch either.
So by nerfing the other bounce mainstay that helps balance things for
every other deck?
> They already had a bounce nerfing card. And it hasn't destroyed the
> world.
Yes, but Telepathic Misdirection is crap compared to Deflection. Hence
most bounce is deflection. So this card should end up having a
magnified effect, shouldn't it?
> And if Touch of clarity is really something you are super
> worried about, use some diversity in your dominate bounce--you have 3
> cards to choose from, and Touch of Clarity can only cancel one of
> them.
So we should play more bounce?
> Yeah, once and a while, you'll cancel a deflection and
> catch them with their pants down, and you'll score a bleed you
> wouldn't have otherwise.
**That's the whole point** That's how the S&B's win - sudden lunge,
bleed for 5+ using one of the 4-6 ToC's in the deck
> Or beat up the soft Malkavians before they bleed you too much.
That's the problem. Not easy to stop even before bounce denial.
The feedback is greatly appreciated, but the comment was not to
organise a lynch mob demanding justification as to why a card nerfing
Dominate was created - i'm always keen to nerf Dominate ;-)
It was to suggest that out of several thousand cards in VTES, i'm
pretty sure ToC will prove to be more powerful than anticipated -
partly because it helps an archetype that might not have needed it,
and partly because it's *not* accessible to every other discipline
that could use help.
Maybe less defensiveness was being sought, and perhaps more suggestion
as to how/why/when other archetypes would be aided.
To be honest, the fundamental debate on boosting combat to compete
against S&B and Political decks may have been subconsciously enhancing
my surprise at seeing Dementation play a card like this.
BTW, i should probably point out that the rest of KoT seems to be an
awesome great expansion. I guess after the initial discussion on ToC,
it would be reviewed in a year or so to see if ToC is either winning
lots of tournaments or at least unbalancing games. We shall see... i'd
be keen to be proven wrong.
Just out of interest, would it not have been more interesting to see
Potence get ToC?
pallando
>
> deck with Dem. If someone spends the money to put 8 of them in a S&B
> deck, it will win the first time, and then the metagame will be
> shifted around to not rely 100% on dominate.
Here I disagree strongly. If someone spends the money to put 8 Tpuch
of Clarity in his S&B deck he will find out that the deck won't work
anymore. A good S&B is very tight, and putting in 8 bounce nerf cards
will dillute it hopelessly. Make some proxy cards and try it.
Specially if your prey has no dom bounce (yes there are decks like
that) you are in trouble.
Funnily, a friend of mine spent a lot of money on exactly 8 Touch of
Clarity. I believe he will be quite disappointed when he plays the
deck again.
Kind regards,
pallando
Peter D Bakija
> V true. Totally agree. But by boosting Dementation, the discipline
> that replicates part of Dominate?
Sure, I mean, yeah, ok, it could have gone to a completely different
discipline too, and that probably would have been fine. But I'm not
really convinced that it is actually helping Dementation all that much
in the grand scheme. Yes. It hoses Dominate bounce. But:
A) You can only play one at a time. If they have diverse dominate
bounce, or another minion to bounce with, it doesn't help all that
much.
B) It is fairly corner case against anything other than dominate
bounce; yeah, ok, it can save you from a Legal Manipulations (unless
they have another one) or a Aire (or more Dementation bleed), but for
the most part, it is a magic bullet for a single card--Deflection. And
if your prey isn't playing Deflection (et. al.), it is mostly a dead
draw. If they are playing Auspex bleed bounce, it is mostly a dead
draw. If they are playing intercept defense, it is mostly a dead draw.
If they are playing Rush combat, it is mostly a dead draw.
How many Touch of Clarities are you envisioning a solid S+B deck
packing? If it is just a couple, it is a total prayer card, and won't
come up much. If it is a reliable handful, it is just going to gum up
the gears in the (many, likely) situations where your prey isn't
playing Deflection. Yeah, ok, if you have 10 Touch of Clarities, and
your prey's sole bleed defense is 15 Deflections, you probably win.
And get to tell Dominate to suck it. And save your grand prey from
reckless irresponsible bleeding. Which, once and a while, isn't bad
for anything. If you are in a play group where everyone plays 12
Deflections in all their decks? Well, then they are just asking for
it. But in the grand scheme? Probably not going to be that big of a
deal.
> So by nerfing the other bounce mainstay that helps balance things for
> every other deck?
It helps encourage people to do things to other than rely on just 10
Deflections as bleed defense. Mix up the bounce. Block. Rush. Don't
get completely predictable and totally hosed by a single magic bullet.
> Yes, but Telepathic Misdirection is crap compared to Deflection.
Uh, what? This statement makes me think (and this is in no way meant
as a dig) that you are coming to this discussion from a fairly narrow
view of the game--a small group of regular players without a huge
amount of deck variation. I could be wrong. But saying that Telepathic
Misdirection is crap compared to Deflection makes me think that.
Telepathic Misdirection is one of the best cards in the game. And
really, probably shows up more often than Deflection (I might be
wrong, but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility). If
your play experience is that everyone plays Deflection all the time,
and not other bounce or bleed defense shows up that much, then yeah,
ok, Touch of Clarity is going to seem *really* good. But this is
probably an indication that people need to branch out a bit, rather
than that Touch of Clarity is too strong.
> So we should play more bounce?
No, you should mix it up. Dominate has 3 bounce cards. Auspex has 2.
And there is a disciplineless one if you are feeling extra clever.
> **That's the whole point** That's how the S&B's win - sudden lunge,
> bleed for 5+ using one of the 4-6 ToC's in the deck
That's not how all S+B decks win. Nor is it a forgone conclusion that
this is going to work for you. And if you are waiting for a sudden
lunge, that means your prey gets to save up their bounce. You suddenly
lunge for a 5+ bleed at stealth, they play a Deflection, you cancel
it, they play another Deflection with another guy. You are now
recklessly bleeding their prey for them for 5+ at stealth. That is
making you win how?
> The feedback is greatly appreciated, but the comment was not to
> organise a lynch mob demanding justification as to why a card nerfing
> Dominate was created - i'm always keen to nerf Dominate ;-)
> It was to suggest that out of several thousand cards in VTES, i'm
> pretty sure ToC will prove to be more powerful than anticipated -
> partly because it helps an archetype that might not have needed it,
> and partly because it's *not* accessible to every other discipline
> that could use help.
Maybe, maybe not--again, it is striking me as a reaction based on a
relatively narrow view of the game environment (which, again, I could
be wrong, and if so, I apologize for the assumptions). Yeah, it helps
an already strong archetype. But, for my money, not as much as you
seem to think
> Maybe less defensiveness was being sought, and perhaps more suggestion
> as to how/why/when other archetypes would be aided.
Other Archetypes have been being aided in much greater leaps and
bounds over S+B for years now. Combat has had *huge* boosts; big
vampires have had *huge* boosts. Dominate hasn't had a really solid,
strong new card printed since 1994. And has been kicked in the teeth
here and there along the way.
> Just out of interest, would it not have been more interesting to see
> Potence get ToC?
Sure. But then, Potence also could have got a card that gives you +2
bleed as well. That would have been cool too.
-Peter
henrik
> On Apr 25, 10:50 am, stujaq...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > V true. Totally agree. But by boosting Dementation, the discipline
> > that replicates part of Dominate?
>
> Sure, I mean, yeah, ok, it could have gone to a completely different
> discipline too, and that probably would have been fine. But I'm not
> really convinced that it is actually helping Dementation all that much
> in the grand scheme. Yes. It hoses Dominate bounce. But:
>
> A) You can only play one at a time. If they have diverse dominate
> bounce, or another minion to bounce with, it doesn't help all that
> much.
If you have more than one vampire you could play more than one,
though.
Touch of Clarity
Type: Action Modifier / Reaction
Requires: Dementation
Cost: 1 blood
Peter D Bakija
<f6b455b8-70e6-4dfd...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have more than one vampire you could play more than one,
> though.
Not when you are bleeding. When it saves you from being Deflected to
(i.e. when you Touch of Clarity your predator's Deflections), sure. But
that doesn't seem to be the issue that is being objected to. It is when
you are power bleeding someone and you cancel their bounce. You can only
play the one Touch of Clarity the one time each bleed.
> Touch of Clarity
> Type: Action Modifier / Reaction
> Requires: Dementation
> Cost: 1 blood
> Usable by an acting minion or any untapped ready minion.
> [dem] Cancel a non-combat card that requires Dementation, Dominate
> [dom] or Presence [pre] as it is played (no cost is paid). Tap this
> vampire.
> [DEM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
henrik
> > If you have more than one vampire you could play more than one,
> > though.
>
> Not when you are bleeding. When it saves you from being Deflected to
> (i.e. when you Touch of Clarity your predator's Deflections), sure. But
> that doesn't seem to be the issue that is being objected to. It is when
> you are power bleeding someone and you cancel their bounce. You can only
> play the one Touch of Clarity the one time each bleed.
Hm.. I've always read the "Usable by an acting minion or any untapped
ready minion"-part as _any_ untapped minion, but that might be wrong.
It does lack the "non-acting" wording that CtG and other cards uses.
Just makes the card less (and dominate more) broken, though.
Peter D Bakija
<96db28da-6800-4dc1...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm.. I've always read the "Usable by an acting minion or any untapped
> ready minion"-part as _any_ untapped minion, but that might be wrong.
> It does lack the "non-acting" wording that CtG and other cards uses.
Yeah, I have always read it that it can be used by an acting minion (as
an action modifier) or any untapped ready minion (as a reaction card);
all the cards that let you play as an action modifier when you aren't
the acting minion say "useable by a ready minion other than the acting
minion" (which this card does not), so without the enabling text, I'd
assume it is only playable by the acting minion as an action modifier
(as unless a card specifically says otherwise, only the acting minion
can play an action modifier). But I could be wrong.
LSJ
> In article
> <96db28da-6800-4dc1...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hm.. I've always read the "Usable by an acting minion or any untapped
>> ready minion"-part as _any_ untapped minion, but that might be wrong.
>> It does lack the "non-acting" wording that CtG and other cards uses.
>
> Yeah, I have always read it that it can be used by an acting minion (as
> an action modifier) or any untapped ready minion (as a reaction card);
> all the cards that let you play as an action modifier when you aren't
> the acting minion say "useable by a ready minion other than the acting
> minion" (which this card does not), so without the enabling text, I'd
> assume it is only playable by the acting minion as an action modifier
> (as unless a card specifically says otherwise, only the acting minion
> can play an action modifier). But I could be wrong.
"Usable by" *is* enabling text.
It is usable by an acting minion (ready or not, untapped or not) or any untapped
ready minion (acting or not).
Peter D Bakija
> "Usable by" *is* enabling text.
>
> It is usable by an acting minion (ready or not, untapped or not) or any untapped
> ready minion (acting or not).
Huh. I stand corrected. It is even better than I thought. But still,
not wildly over the top.
-Peter
henrik
Heh, I actually thought you'd win that one :p
But yeah, as noted elsewhere in the thread it's still rather
situational. I play in a dominate-heavy meta, but still don't think
I'd put more than 4 (max) in a deck. 2-3 is a great number though, and
keeping one in your hand until the right moment is just aces.
My favourite so far was when I cancelled an Obedience played by my
prey, forcing him to get into combat with my predators vampire which I
had bounced. A tapped Justicar with 0 blood is way easier to sneak
past than an untapped Justicar with 1 blood.
stuj...@hotmail.com
Yeah, somewhat cornercase for hosing your bleed being bounced by a
deflection, but that multiple Dem minions can play it while one is
acting is pretty strong, i'd say. Peter is correct in that deflections
are the main bounce in our metagames, esp tournaments. However, Tele
Misd. does come up quite frequently. And it seems the decks using
Deflection are inherently the harder ones to kill. In some ways i
think that backs up Peter's point, but it also mean the deck that has
the boosted chance to hose them will be another S&B.
While my main focus was hosing the deflection of your own bleed, it
was also that fact that the card has *many* other uses. The next best
one is hosing your nasty predators bounce. Also the card can be played
across the table.
Just picture 3-4 minions with Dem - Already not a good predator to
have. Now bleeds could be harder to bounce (if you've resorted to
include Dom for deflections). Governing down could be halted. Enchant
Kindred similar. I'm extremely keen to see that Voter Cap also can be
hosed - disappointing for most of the vote decks, though. Obedience
(re: hendrik) could be hosed at a critical time.
Also being the predator of this deck - as above.
All these uses means that a deck could (and probably would) just play
3-4 for special tricks to save the day, but a deck could also be able
to play 7-8 without fear of clogging because there's so many other
times to use ToC.
While i agree that Dom needs hosing, there's many non-bleed actions
(namely GtU down) that non-S&B decks use to survive via Dominate or
Presence.
Maybe the card should say "only one per action/turn" or "only when the
target of a bleed is changed" etc
Pullen
> Anyone else seen it go down???
No, I think it's kind of a crappy card for Stealth Bleed, power bleed
would like it but Malks prefer Stealth Bleed because they don't mind
being bounced around for it ether allows them to bleed some poor sap
for 2 or 3 and gain a pool or lets them move a Spying Mission, which
is by far a better solution to bounce then holding on to a corner case
card.
The true power of the Malkavians isn't the ability of one vampire to
bleed for allot, it's the fact that they can get out 4-6 vampires to
bleed for 2-3 and gain a pool EVERY TURN! Card flow is extremely
important for them to succeed at the highest level of play and
conditional cards need to have very powerful efficient for
justification to be held on to at end of turn (DI, Sudden, Major
Boon,Delaying Tactics).
The cards neat and probably is nice for bigger DEM users, but I just
don't see how this will ever be "overpowered".
henrik
If you could run 7-8 in a deck without fear of clogging, I'd say your
meta is very dominate/presence heavy and for those cases I just think
it's good that a hoser exists.
Dominate is just too good, tbh. Not just deflection, but GtU as well.
Or Conditioning, seduction, bonding. I don't really have a problem
with those cards getting some nerfs, since they're so very strong.
I'm not saying that any of the separate cards should be reworded or
anything, just that dominate as a discipline won't cease to exist just
because of Touch of Clarity.
And Majesty, Voter Capitivation and Scalpel Tounge (this one should be
reworded and banned imo) fits in the above category as well.
ToC is, more or less, the first viable defense against bleed bounce
I've seen. Spying mission can work, but it's more about not ousting
the wrong person than not getting bounced. If you look at it that way,
I think it's a very needed card.
_angst_
I must say that I agree. Strong cards for strong disciplines aren't
broken, they are just strong. Especially a card like ToC that is a
really nice addition to V:tES IMO. You should never feel safe with
your defence, be it block or bounce or whatever. There should always
be something that can screw you up, forcing you to take calculated
risks when playing. ToC is such a card. It gives the dom player
something to think about when he's being bled by a dementation deck.
Regarding if it's the only viable bleed bounce defence I'm not sure. I
think approximation of loyalty is a decent card. But I mostly guess
that's because it can kill off a DT too. ToC is definently better when
it comes to killing bounce.
To sum up; I like the card :)
It's a pity I don't own any.
Regards
Alex
Peter D Bakija
> Heh, I actually thought you'd win that one :p
Well, ya know, it isn't like it is the only card in the set with
wording that is easy to misconstrue :-)
> But yeah, as noted elsewhere in the thread it's still rather
> situational. I play in a dominate-heavy meta, but still don't think
> I'd put more than 4 (max) in a deck. 2-3 is a great number though, and
> keeping one in your hand until the right moment is just aces.
Yeah, having a couple in a deck is probably reasonable, but it is just
going to be a lucky break at that point. Which in the exact right
circumstances is going to make the card huge. But in all the rest of
the circumstances, probably something that you are going to look at
and say "Huh. If this was an Obfuscate card, I'd probably be doing
better right now."
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Yeah, somewhat cornercase for hosing your bleed being bounced by a
> deflection, but that multiple Dem minions can play it while one is
> acting is pretty strong, i'd say.
Oh, sure. That we now all understand the wording on the card better
makes it seem stronger. But still, how many are going to be in a deck?
Again, if you have 8-10, then you be generally completely immune to
Deflection, and your S+B deck is likely going to win like crazy if it
sits down behind decks that rely completely on Deflection (much like a
Rush deck is going to be total aces if it is using lots og IG and it's
prey's only combat defense is Majesty. Except that IG is going to be a
strong play in *all* circumstances, not only if it can cancel
Majesty). But if you have 8-10 of them in your deck, and you *don't*
sit behind decks with Deflection? They'll probably still cycle now and
then, but they will otherwise mostly just clog up your deck.
> Peter is correct in that deflections
> are the main bounce in our metagames, esp tournaments.
Which is reasonable, as Deflection is a preposterously powerful card
(and generally on the list of "cards we'd like to see not exist if we
could reboot the game"). And if you know you are going into an
environment where Deflection is the prominent bleed defense, and you
can ride that to victory with a dozen Touch of Clarity, you are going
to be awesome. But if you guess wrong? Not as much.
> However, Tele
> Misd. does come up quite frequently. And it seems the decks using
> Deflection are inherently the harder ones to kill.
Heh. 'Cause Dominate is broken :-)
Which is why I'm not horribly concerned about Deflection getting a
kick in the teeth with Touch of Clarity. I mean, yes, I completely see
your point about how it might not have been the optimal plan to give
the powerful Deflection hoser to the discipline that is already
incredibly powerful, and one of the only things that makes it not
completely game dominant is, well, Deflection. But for my money, the
opportunity cost of the card is high enough to make it reasonable.
> Just picture 3-4 minions with Dem - Already not a good predator to
> have. Now bleeds could be harder to bounce (if you've resorted to
> include Dom for deflections). Governing down could be halted. Enchant
> Kindred similar. I'm extremely keen to see that Voter Cap also can be
> hosed - disappointing for most of the vote decks, though. Obedience
> (re: hendrik) could be hosed at a critical time.
Yep. It is going to be brutal for the Dominate deck. But it also means
that the S+B deck has a big handful of cards that are not Stealth and
Bleed. Which slows them down. Especially if they are standing around
with a handful of Touch of Clarity, waiting to foil all your Dominate
actions.
> Also being the predator of this deck - as above.
> All these uses means that a deck could (and probably would) just play
> 3-4 for special tricks to save the day, but a deck could also be able
> to play 7-8 without fear of clogging because there's so many other
> times to use ToC.
Maybe, maybe not. Much like the Villeins (also a card that the use of
which is compromised by it being hard to get), I haven't seen, well,
any Touch of Clarities in games in JOL yet (where card scarcity is
irrelevant). I'll keep an eye out for them in the tournament that is
going on (heck, in one game, my prey is a !Malk S+B deck) and see what
happens.
> While i agree that Dom needs hosing, there's many non-bleed actions
> (namely GtU down) that non-S&B decks use to survive via Dominate or
> Presence.
Sure. And maybe the full intention of Touch of Clarity is just to kick
some of the strongest disciplines in the game (Dom, Pre, Dem) a bit of
a downpowering. And yeah, maybe it would have been better to have
given the card to not Dementation (although then, it would be even
less likely to show up).
> Maybe the card should say "only one per action/turn" or "only when the
> target of a bleed is changed" etc.
Maybe? I suspect we should just ride it out for a while and see what
happens. I mean, it is certainly possible that you are completely
right, and that Touch of Clarity is wildly, wildly overpowered, and is
going to completely dominate (ahem...) play. But it strikes me as more
likely that the overwhelming effect is that it will just make people
who are building decks with 8-10 Deflections as a no brainer defense
think twice about their plan. And once and a while, will lead to a
spectacular game win, while most of the time, will result in people
using them say "Huh. This should probably just be another Eyes of
Chaos" or something.
-Peter
jason...@iinet.net.au
>But if you have 8-10 of them in your deck, and you *don't*
> sit behind decks with Deflection? They'll probably still cycle now and
> then, but they will otherwise mostly just clog up your deck.
Realisitcally I don't think folks would run 8-10. I think a more
reasonable amount would be around 6. As to cycling trouble, I don't
believe folks will have as many problems getting them out of their
hands as you might imagine.
They're going to cycle with ease if your prey or predator is playing
either Dominate (GtU, Conditioning, Deflection, Obedience et al)
Presence (Voter Caps, Legal Manip. Aire, Majesty, et al) or
Dementation (KS, ToC, et al). If you play in a meta game where your
prey or predator isn't often packing one of those disciplines, then
yes, your meta is *very* different to ours, and I would suspect, most
of the world.
I think most people would agree Dominate needs a thump in the goolies.
But giving the means to thump Dominate to an archetype (S/B) that
already has no trouble winning tournaments? Questionable imo.
I also find it odd that this card was a rare. I suspect the reason we
don't see more decks running it is that people simply don't own them
and aren't willing to pay US$35 a pop to buy them on Ebay. (not sure
JOL is an accurate testing ground, it always struck me as more of a
"trick deck" test bed than serious tourney level decks, but I could
totally be wrong on that impression). As you say, only time is going
to tell.
jase
Peter D Bakija
> Realisitcally I don't think folks would run 8-10. I think a more
> reasonable amount would be around 6. As to cycling trouble, I don't
> believe folks will have as many problems getting them out of their
> hands as you might imagine.
The problem is not getting them out of your hand. You can play them
all the time on some pretty common cards. The issue is whether it is
really worth the deck space. Again, yes, if you are fairly confident
that you are going to run into a lot of Deflection, it will probably
be worth its weight in gold. If not, yeah, you can still cancel some
Governs (until they play another one) or Legal Manipulations (see:
Govern) or Kindred Spirits. So you have 6 of these in your deck as a
magic bullet against Deflections, and if there are no Deflections,
they aren't impossible to cycle. But still, a great deal of the time,
it is likely people will look at these in their hand and say "Hmm. If
this were another Eyes of Chaos, I'd be doing better right now."
> They're going to cycle with ease if your prey or predator is playing
> either Dominate (GtU, Conditioning, Deflection, Obedience et al)
> Presence (Voter Caps, Legal Manip. Aire, Majesty, et al) or
> Dementation (KS, ToC, et al). If you play in a meta game where your
> prey or predator isn't often packing one of those disciplines, then
> yes, your meta is *very* different to ours, and I would suspect, most
> of the world.
No, it isn't. These are cards that see play all the time. I'm just not
seeing that having the potential to cancel them as necessarily all
that useful in the grand scheme. Yeah, once and a while, you'll cancel
a Govern or an Obedience and it will win you the game. But most of the
time, probably not.
> I think most people would agree Dominate needs a thump in the goolies.
> But giving the means to thump Dominate to an archetype (S/B) that
> already has no trouble winning tournaments? Questionable imo.
Sure. But not breaking the game or anything. Again, the Malks already
got Hide the Mind, which, while less flexible, still foils incredibly
common cards, and cards that make being an S+B deck difficult (i.e.
common bounce and intercept). And no one blinked twice at that one.
Yeah, it isn't as good. But I'm unconvinced that Touch of Clarity is
really that much better.
> I also find it odd that this card was a rare. I suspect the reason we
> don't see more decks running it is that people simply don't own them
> and aren't willing to pay US$35 a pop to buy them on Ebay. (not sure
> JOL is an accurate testing ground, it always struck me as more of a
> "trick deck" test bed than serious tourney level decks, but I could
> totally be wrong on that impression).
Nah, not really. People play just as many Tier 1 decks on JOL as not.
Especially ones that require lots of cards that are hard to get. In
one of my current game, my prey bled his prey for 4 with Midget as his
first action. I'll keep an eye out for Touch of Clarities.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
You're probably more likely to see Touch of Clarity used for
"Powerbleed Kills". A player would be likely to stock 2 or 3 in their
hand ready for the "killing blow" and then wipe someone out. Bleed for
5+ at 2+ stealth by a "big powerful" minion (e.g. Old-School Malk w/
DOM GtU + Command the Beast + Conditioning + Foreshadowing all @ [DOM]
with maybe a Lost in Crowds)
I doubt you'll see it in a "swarm bleed" situation. Many of the S&B
decks I see are the "Bleed for 2/3 at 2+ stealth" 3+ times every
turn. Touch of Clarity does nothing for those decks as they always
relied upon sheer number of actions to negate Flick.
And while Touch of Clarity appears to be gold, it will do nothing to a
wide variety of other disciplines that reduce/flick that aren't
Dominate... particularly bloodline disciplines.
Valeren has Aversion
Aus/Obeah has Glare of Lies
Tem has Quicksilver Contemplation
Chi has Ignis Fatuus
For has Steadfastness (this has to make !Salubri the rolled-gold Bleed
Reducers... all clan disciplines can reduce bleed!!!)
Myt has Folderol
Obf has Confusion in the Eye
Then CLAN cards... Covincraft (for Kiasyd), Nest of Eagles
(Assamites)...
Or DISCIPLINELESS... Keep it Simple, Terra Incognita, Banner of
Neutrality, Truth in Ink
Kiyasid have Covincraft
jason...@iinet.net.au
> But still, a great deal of the time,
> it is likely people will look at these in their hand and say "Hmm. If
> this were another Eyes of Chaos, I'd be doing better right now."
Yeah I'm not convinced that you'd be saying that a lot of the time.
Most recent example of a final I played in, if you were playing ToC
you'd be firing silver bullets at 3 out of the 4 other decks at table
- Deck #1: Big DOM bleed with block denial via Seduction and
Deflection bleed defense, Deck #2:GtU bloatage and Deflection bleed
defense, or Deck #3: TGB Voter Cap bloat monstrosity. ToC seems to
deal with more thana few winnign archetypes quite handily.
If I owned more I'd play them in a tourney to find out, but bringing
a !Malk S/B powerhouse with ToC proxies to a social game might be
viewed as a touch anti-social :)
> Sure. But not breaking the game or anything. Again, the Malks already
> got Hide the Mind, which, while less flexible, still foils incredibly
> common cards, and cards that make being an S+B deck difficult (i.e.
> common bounce and intercept). And no one blinked twice at that one.
> Yeah, it isn't as good. But I'm unconvinced that Touch of Clarity is
> really that much better.
Hide the Mind bones one discipline. ToC bones three. Ergo, it's three
times as good! :)
But yeah, i get what you're saying, I don't think it breaks the game.
I just think that while the intent (bone DOM and PRE) was good, the
effect (buff S/B) is questionable.
> Nah, not really. People play just as many Tier 1 decks on JOL as not.
> Especially ones that require lots of cards that are hard to get. In
> one of my current game, my prey bled his prey for 4 with Midget as his
> first action. I'll keep an eye out for Touch of Clarities.
Ah ok. My JOL experience is quite limited, I saw more tricks than T1
in my short time playing. But yeah, let us know how many ToC's Midget
and Co bust out.
jase
Johannes Walch
> All these uses means that a deck could (and probably would) just play
> 3-4 for special tricks to save the day, but a deck could also be able
> to play 7-8 without fear of clogging because there's so many other
> times to use ToC.
>
> While i agree that Dom needs hosing, there's many non-bleed actions
> (namely GtU down) that non-S&B decks use to survive via Dominate or
> Presence.
>
> Maybe the card should say "only one per action/turn" or "only when the
> target of a bleed is changed" etc
Please keep in mind that the card has a drawback, it says "Cost: 1
blood" where the backbone of the !Malk S&B Deck has mostly cards that
dont cost anything.
Probably those are the most used cards:
Kindred Spirits
Confusion
Eyes of Chaos
Lost in Crowds
Spying Mission
Faceless Night
So you have to cope with another 7-8 blood loss in a deck where you dont
want to water down your S&B approach by including non-forward stuff like
blood gain.
Also the defensive (reactional) part of the card requires being untapped
or having a wake-style reaction card in hand. In a massive forward deck
like this thats not going to happen very often or you need to increase
the number of wakes (you�ll have some for playing bounce usually) which
brings down your offense again.
I guess the card *is* interesting, but it will make the deck a bit more
toolboxy and less extreme forward pressure. When I want maximum pressure
I�d rather use Spying Mission as "anti-bounce-tech" since it takes the
pressure away from grand-prey but brings it back at a later time (thus
saving card resources) and still doubles as stealth when your prey�s
defense is intercept.
--
If playing against Cock all you need to
remember is: Don�t get caught by Cock.
oriang...@aliceadsl.fr
>
> I guess the card *is* interesting, but it will make the deck a bit more
> toolboxy and less extreme forward pressure. When I want maximum pressure
> I´d rather use Spying Mission as "anti-bounce-tech" since it takes the
> pressure away from grand-prey but brings it back at a later time (thus
> saving card resources) and still doubles as stealth when your prey´s
> defense is intercept.
>
> --
> If playing against Cock all you need to
> remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock.
Agreed
eventually you don't even care your bleed being bounced. As long as it
does not kill your grand-prey, all the best, it will be easier to kill
her afterwards
Touch of clarity is a good card, but I don't think it will be played
in S/B. We will see it in Una, Louhi or Hannibal decks
Peter D Bakija
Peter D Bakija
sensitive touch pad on not my computer.)
> You're probably more likely to see Touch of Clarity used for
> "Powerbleed Kills". A player would be likely to stock 2 or 3 in their
> hand ready for the "killing blow" and then wipe someone out.
Oh, sure. It certainly has uses. And good ones. I'm not saying it is a
bad card. It is a good card. With good use and good cycleability. I'm
just completely unconvinced that it is either wildly overpowered or
likely to make Dementation S+B vastly more successful than it already
is.
> Bleed for
> 5+ at 2+ stealth by a "big powerful" minion (e.g. Old-School Malk w/
> DOM GtU + Command the Beast + Conditioning + Foreshadowing all @ [DOM]
> with maybe a Lost in Crowds)
Oh! The humanity! The Archons have Investigated that guy! Fwoosh!
> I doubt you'll see it in a "swarm bleed" situation. Many of the S&B
> decks I see are the "Bleed for 2/3 at 2+ stealth" 3+ times every
> turn. Touch of Clarity does nothing for those decks as they always
> relied upon sheer number of actions to negate Flick.
Yep. And they are the already good decks. And I don't think Touch of
Clarity is really going to make them much better.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Yeah I'm not convinced that you'd be saying that a lot of the time.
Maybe you are right. Maybe you aren't. Some people really like
reactive tech. Some people don't (i.e. personally, I'd much rather
have a Master card in my hand that I know is going to do something
good and proactive for my deck than a Sudden Reversal that might foil
someone else). In terms of Touch of Clarity, again, sure, if you know
you are gonna see a lot of Dominate, it is probably going to be
strong. But if not, much less so. Where another Eyes of Chaos is
always going to be strong. A trade off. Which strikes me as
reasonable.
> Most recent example of a final I played in, if you were playing ToC
> you'd be firing silver bullets at 3 out of the 4 other decks at table
> - Deck #1: Big DOM bleed with block denial via Seduction and
> Deflection bleed defense, Deck #2:GtU bloatage and Deflection bleed
> defense, or Deck #3: TGB Voter Cap bloat monstrosity. ToC seems to
> deal with more thana few winnign archetypes quite handily.
Sure. But unless you have a lot of them, they are a random shot in the
dark--if you have 2 or 3 in the deck? Maybe you'll have one when you
need to foil the Voter Cap, maybe not. If you have a lot of them, your
deck is likely much less good at actually ousting people. Especially
if they aren't playing Dominate.
> If I owned more I'd play them in a tourney to find out, but bringing
> a !Malk S/B powerhouse with ToC proxies to a social game might be
> viewed as a touch anti-social :)
Eh, ya know, try it out anyway. Warn folks up front. See how it
goes :-)
> Hide the Mind bones one discipline. ToC bones three. Ergo, it's three
> times as good! :)
>
> But yeah, i get what you're saying, I don't think it breaks the game.
> I just think that while the intent (bone DOM and PRE) was good, the
> effect (buff S/B) is questionable.
Yeah, I mean, sure, maybe it wasn't the best plan ever to give to
Dementation. But a serious Dominate hoser (which it is) isn't
necessarily a bad thing overall, and again, I'm not seeing that it is
going to make Dementation S+B all that much better than it already is.
To be clear here--I'm not saying Touch of Clarity is bad. It is a very
good card. It just isn't going to destroy the game or anything.
> Ah ok. My JOL experience is quite limited, I saw more tricks than T1
> in my short time playing. But yeah, let us know how many ToC's Midget
> and Co bust out.
We'll see how it goes.
-Peter
Xexyz
than Touch of Clarity, and PC certainly didn't break the game.
henrik
> For what it's worth, Perfect Clarity hoses Dominate bounce even worse
> than Touch of Clarity, and PC certainly didn't break the game.
Not sure if it hoses dominate bounce worse. If someone bleeds me with
Perfect Clarity I'll still have my Deflection ready for their next
bleed, which isn't the case with Touch of Clarity.
Cancelling a card is almost always better than preemptively denying
the card to be played.
Peter D Bakija
> For what it's worth, Perfect Clarity hoses Dominate bounce even worse
> than Touch of Clarity, and PC certainly didn't break the game.
Well, so be fair to the point at hand, Perfect Clarity (THA, IIRC)
doesn't already come with the arguably most effective deck strategy
their is (Stealth and Bleed). Touch of Clarity comes with Dementation,
which is a strong bleed payload discipline, and generally comes with
Obfusctae, which is a strong delivery system for said payload.
If Touch of Clarity was given to, say, Animalism of Potence? I don't
think anyone would question it for a second. That it is in the hands
of Dementation is, more than anything else, the issue people seem to
have with the card. Which is understandable.
-Peter
Johann von Doom
> Having seen it played, it definitely seems broken.
What were the circumstances of your actual play experience with the
card?
John Eno
echia...@yahoo.com
> For what it's worth, Perfect Clarity hoses Dominate bounce even worse
> than Touch of Clarity, and PC certainly didn't break the game.
No, Perfect Clarity is worse.
PC costs 2 blood and needs to be played as the action is announced.
The other player gets to keep his Deflection for next time.
Touch of Clarity is cheaper, can be played by the acting minion or
another minion, and can also be used as a reaction (allowing it to be
used against Action and Action Modifiers).
More importantly to the case of bounce, PC allows a block while ToC
does not (due to the change a few years back). Once you get to the
spot where you can play Deflection, you've already passed on blocking,
so ToC means you cannot block (unless you bounce it and it gets
bounced back to you). With PC, the card is played even before your
prey has the chance to block. So Touch of Clarity is much nastier!
acheronni...@gmail.com
>
> Cancelling a card is almost always better than preemptively denying
> the card to be played.
IG and Psyche proven this.
Frederick Scott
news:afe74eb2-0552-4997...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I also find it odd that this card was a rare. I suspect the reason we
> don't see more decks running it is that people simply don't own them
> and aren't willing to pay US$35 a pop to buy them on Ebay.
It is not a $35 card. It was in the $10-$15 range last I looked. It
had been $15-20 earlier.
But, yea, that does put a bit of a stopper on playing 6 of them in a
deck.
Fred
Frederick Scott
<acheronni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8472255-19e2-4d8f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Was this intended to be sarcastic? Neither IG and Psyche nor Perfect
Clarity and Touch of Clarity proves either is better. And I don't
think either is provably better than the other; it depends on the
circumstance. In the case of IG and Psyche, I've always liked IG
better because when someone Psyches your S:CE, you might hold another
S:CE, whereas if they can prevent you from using S:CE even one round,
that might prove to make a drastic difference. Further copies of S:CE
may not make a difference after that one round.
And these two sets of cards are far from analogous, anyway. ToC has
more uses than just stopping bounce. One round of nothing-but-hand-
strike combat is not the equivalent of one bleed that must get through.
More significantly, identical copies of combat cards may be replayed
in the same combat (albeit not IG in a single round due to its card
text) whereas reactions and action modifiers cannot.
Fred
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Please keep in mind that the card has a drawback, it says "Cost: 1
> blood" where the backbone of the !Malk S&B Deck has mostly cards that
> dont cost anything.
Ergo, a Malk SB deck can easily afford to play it, because as you've
pointed out, all the key cards in a Malk SB deck don't cost any
blood.
> So you have to cope with another 7-8 blood loss in a deck where you dont
> want to water down your S&B approach by including non-forward stuff like
> blood gain.
You don't need blood gain. You run 6 ToC, you pay 6 blood at maximum
over the course of the game, and none of your other cards cost
blood....
> I guess the card *is* interesting, but it will make the deck a bit more
> toolboxy and less extreme forward pressure. When I want maximum pressure
> I´d rather use Spying Mission as "anti-bounce-tech" since it takes the
> pressure away from grand-prey but brings it back at a later time (thus
> saving card resources) and still doubles as stealth when your prey´s
> defense is intercept.
The flipside to that is: If your prey is on 4 pool with a Deflection
in hand, sure, a Spying Mission prevents you killing your grand prey
inadvertantly (and makes you wait another turn to get your VP). But
ToC just flat out kills your prey.
I think the card's real strength is that it gives Malk SB options to
deal. The bane of Malk SB that i see time and time again is that when
the deck gets into trouble, it has nothing to offer the table except
cross table or upsteam ousts. Whereas ToC opens lines of discussion
like "I'll ToC that Voter Cap/GtU/Deflection/Far Mastery/whatever in
exchange for [insert goodies here]. It makes the Malk SB archetype
less monosyllabic, which (imo) overcomes one of it's major
weaknesses.
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Sure. But unless you have a lot of them, they are a random shot in the
> dark--if you have 2 or 3 in the deck? Maybe you'll have one when you
> need to foil the Voter Cap, maybe not. If you have a lot of them, your
> deck is likely much less good at actually ousting people. Especially
> if they aren't playing Dominate.
Yeah but SB is probably the best strat in the game with which to oust
people. So if by including ToC, your deck ceases to be "Godfather 1
good at ousting people" and simply becomes "Godfather 2 good at
ousting people" the fact remains that it's still pretty damn good at
ousting people. Unless they play Dominate, in which case it becomes
"Apocalypse Now good at ousting people" and has the added bonus of
being able to table talk and deal to greater effect.
Sure occasionally you're gonna be sitting at a table full of potence
and celerity and your ToCs will be dead cards. But that's true of
every deck.
> Eh, ya know, try it out anyway. Warn folks up front. See how it
> goes :-)
Lol, I can feel the hate already
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> It is not a $35 card. It was in the $10-$15 range last I looked. It
> had been $15-20 earlier.
When last I looked (and granted this was months ago) it was sitting at
3rd Ed heart of Nizchetus levels. It was almost on par with the Enkil
Cog madness. It's sitting at US$20 atm.
> But, yea, that does put a bit of a stopper on playing 6 of them in a
> deck.
Indubitably.
Juggernaut1981
But bona-fide S&B Malk Cheese is one dimensional... its dimension is
"Bleed for 3 at [insert stealth here] and I gain 1 pool"
There are rarely any other dimensions to Malk Cheese-Bleed.
I'd say S&B, Powerbleed and Weenie Super Vote are the most aggressive
strategies out there. Each have their weaknesses, but they are often
totally single-minded about ousting their prey.
Honestly, this card seems to be more about screwing someone flicking
to you, popping that Conditioning/Foreshadowing Destruction or Voter
Cap/Awe. Powerbleed might want to use it as an anti-flick tech
(cancelling a Deflection played by Prey) but mostly its value seems to
be in its Reaction aspect. To me it seems suited to the Crazy Wall
deck format (Malks/!Malks + Guns/Ivory Bow/Flamethrower + LOTS OF
INTERCEPT)... bye bye Seduction, bye bye Deflection to me, bye bye
Voter Cap, bye bye Approximation of Loyalty...
Frederick Scott
> > It is not a $35 card. It was in the $10-$15 range last I looked. It
> > had been $15-20 earlier.
>
> When last I looked (and granted this was months ago) it was sitting at
> 3rd Ed heart of Nizchetus levels. It was almost on par with the Enkil
> Cog madness. It's sitting at US$20 atm.
I'm talking about auction prices. Not the prices sellers offer as they
sit on copies of a card for weeks waiting for someone to come along who
doesn't want to do the auction thing. After the first couple weeks -
when people always get kind of crazy - no one ever bid up a ToC anywhere
near an Enkil Cog. Taking a quick look at the two auctions which come up
when one searches completed items shows $8.56 and $8.37 as final prices -
so apparently they've continued to go down since I stopped paying attention
to them.
Fred
Johannes Walch
> I think the card's real strength is that it gives Malk SB options to
> deal. The bane of Malk SB that i see time and time again is that when
> the deck gets into trouble, it has nothing to offer the table except
> cross table or upsteam ousts. Whereas ToC opens lines of discussion
> like "I'll ToC that Voter Cap/GtU/Deflection/Far Mastery/whatever in
> exchange for [insert goodies here]. It makes the Malk SB archetype
> less monosyllabic, which (imo) overcomes one of it's major
> weaknesses.
Right, like I said it makes them more toolboxy.
For brute bleed it is certainly a difficult card.
Johann von Doom
> On Apr 27, 5:34 pm, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, Perfect Clarity hoses Dominate bounce even worse
> > than Touch of Clarity, and PC certainly didn't break the game.
>
> No, Perfect Clarity is worse.
Not at hosing Dominate bounce, it's not. I agree that Touch is
generally better, by a wide margin, but Perfect Clarity prevents all
Dominate bounce from being played, so it doesn't matter if your prey
has a different bounce card in hand or another minion who can bounce.
Touch doesn't handle those situations as comprehensively as Perfect
does, so it's not as good at hosing Dominate bounce. Xexyz wasn't
making any claims about the general utility of Touch over Perfect,
just about how good it is at hosing Deflection et al.
> PC costs 2 blood
Touch is obviously better in this regard, yeah.
> and needs to be played as the action is announced.
> The other player gets to keep his Deflection for next time.
Well, if you're playing one of the Clarities as a prayer card, you're
going to save it for an ousting action, so it doesn't matter if your
prey gets to keep his bounce for your next bleed, since he won't be in
the game at that point anyway.
If you're playing a deck that plans to use Clarity on every bleed,
it's not going to matter either, since he's never going to be able to
bounce you, regardless of whether or not he's got bounce in his hand.
And in this case, Perfect is again better than Touch, since you don't
need to worry about not being able to play Clarity if you do have a
prey who's not playing Deflection et al.
> Touch of Clarity is cheaper, can be played by the acting minion or
> another minion, and can also be used as a reaction (allowing it to be
> used against Action and Action Modifiers).
Aside from cost, none of that has anything to do with how good it is
at hosing bounce, which was what Xexyz claimed.
> More importantly to the case of bounce, PC allows a block while ToC
> does not (due to the change a few years back).
Blocking doesn't enter into the discussion. Unless your prey isn't
attempting to block in order to try to choke your hand with stealth
cards (in which case, again, blocking doesn't matter), you're going to
be adding stealth regardless of which Clarity you're playing. People
almost always make stealth/bleed decks play their stealth before
bouncing their bleeds.
John Eno
acheronni...@gmail.com
> <acheronnightstal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b8472255-19e2-4d8f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 27 Kwi, 18:42, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Cancelling a card is almost always better than preemptively denying
> >> the card to be played.
>
> > IG and Psyche proven this.
>
> Was this intended to be sarcastic?
Sure.
> Neither IG and Psyche nor Perfect
> Clarity and Touch of Clarity proves either is better. And I don't
> think either is provably better than the other; it depends on the
> circumstance. In the case of IG and Psyche, I've always liked IG
> better because when someone Psyches your S:CE, you might hold another
> S:CE, whereas if they can prevent you from using S:CE even one round,
> that might prove to make a drastic difference. Further copies of S:CE
> may not make a difference after that one round.
>
> And these two sets of cards are far from analogous, anyway. ToC has
> more uses than just stopping bounce. One round of nothing-but-hand-
> strike combat is not the equivalent of one bleed that must get through.
> More significantly, identical copies of combat cards may be replayed
> in the same combat (albeit not IG in a single round due to its card
> text) whereas reactions and action modifiers cannot.
>
> Fred
ToC and PC are different case. It's just henrik's words thats are not
true.
Further copies of bounce may not make a difference after that one
bleed either.
librarian
>> Sure. But unless you have a lot of them, they are a random shot in the
>> dark--if you have 2 or 3 in the deck? Maybe you'll have one when you
>> need to foil the Voter Cap, maybe not. If you have a lot of them, your
>> deck is likely much less good at actually ousting people. Especially
>> if they aren't playing Dominate.
>
> Yeah but SB is probably the best strat in the game with which to oust
> people. So if by including ToC, your deck ceases to be "Godfather 1
> good at ousting people" and simply becomes "Godfather 2 good at
> ousting people" the fact remains that it's still pretty damn good at
> ousting people. Unless they play Dominate, in which case it becomes
> "Apocalypse Now good at ousting people" and has the added bonus of
> being able to table talk and deal to greater effect.
>
> Sure occasionally you're gonna be sitting at a table full of
Secondhand Lions
potence
> and celerity and your ToCs will be dead cards. But that's true of
> every
Invasion of Body Snatchers...
best -
Robert "chris" Duvall
henrik
> ToC and PC are different case. It's just henrik's words thats are not
> true.
>
> Further copies of bounce may not make a difference after that one
> bleed either.
They may not, but usually you make more than 1 bleed action vs each
person you oust. And when you do, further copies will make a
difference if in the case of PC vs ToC.
I agree that there are situations when PC is better, but I do believe
that those cases are a minority. Cancelling a Deflection with ToC is
very different than "cancelling" a S:CE with Psyche!, so I think that
comparison you made kinda falls flat. The biggest difference is that
after ToC, your opponent won't be able to play another Deflection
(with the same minion, at least).
PC is better when you're making the final bleed, and ToC is better
when you're making non-ousting bleeds (I think most will agree with
that). And one of those action types are more common than the other,
even if the final bleed might be seen as more important.
Nick M
wrote:
One example from Saturday:
I was playing a Ravnos dementation bleed deck. With a few proxys of
Touch of Clarity (3 in a 70 card deck)
I bled Stu's Kiasyd for a large amount (Kiradin w/ Dive into Madness,
Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos) which was promptly Deflected. Enter
Touch of Clarity...
Nick
Peter D Bakija
> I was playing a Ravnos dementation bleed deck. With a few proxys of
> Touch of Clarity (3 in a 70 card deck)
> I bled Stu's Kiasyd for a large amount (Kiradin w/ Dive into Madness,
> Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos) which was promptly Deflected. Enter
> Touch of Clarity...
Sure. So he cancels a Deflection and bleeds a lot and maybe wins the
game. That does not broken indicate. Again, no one is saying that
Touch of Clarity is bad. It is a good, strong card. But the initial
claim in this thread was that it is wildly overpowered and needs to be
changed or something.
Yeah, it'll kill a Deflection now and then and might win you games.
That is what it is supposed to do. But lots of cards can do that--the
Deflection could have been DI'ed by your grand prey or Two Wrongsed or
Perfect Claritied or you could be Archon Investigated or whatever.
This is what the card does. This does not indicate that it is wildly
overpowered, however.
-Peter
Johann von Doom
>
> I was playing a Ravnos dementation bleed deck. With a few proxys of
> Touch of Clarity (3 in a 70 card deck)
> I bled Stu's Kiasyd for a large amount (Kiradin w/ Dive into Madness,
> Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos) which was promptly Deflected. Enter
> Touch of Clarity...
Okay, thanks for the actual play data.
I agree with Peter, in that I don't see how that crosses the line from
"powerful" to "broken," but obviously Stu's mileage varied in that
regard.
(And really, the nasty part of Touch cancelling bounce is the ruling
disallowing further block attempts, which ruling I *still* don't
understand. I'd much rather see that ruling changed that card errata,
if it's someone shown to be needed.)
John Eno
Johann von Doom
wrote:
> I'd much rather see that ruling changed that card errata,
> if it's someone shown to be needed.
This should read, "I'd much rather see that ruling changed than card
errata..."
John Eno
Kevin M.
> (And really, the nasty part of Touch cancelling bounce is the ruling
> disallowing further block attempts, which ruling I *still* don't
> understand. I'd much rather see that ruling changed that card errata,
> if it's someone shown to be needed.)
In what way don't you understsand it?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Peter D Bakija
> In what way don't you understsand it?
I'm pretty sure he means "I don't understand it" in the sense of "I
think it is a bad rule/ruling" rather than "I don't know what it
means".
That a new window for blocking doesn't open up when a Deflection is
cancelled, while generally consistent, could have just as easily been
"when a Deflection is cancelled, a new window for blocking opens up".
Whether or not this was necessary is debatable, but I can easily see
why someone would argue for this.
-Peter
Chris Berger
> Johann von Doom wrote:
> > (And really, the nasty part of Touch cancelling bounce is the ruling
> > disallowing further block attempts, which ruling I *still* don't
> > understand. I'd much rather see that ruling changed that card errata,
> > if it's someone shown to be needed.)
>
> In what way don't you understsand it?
>
The part where I try to play deflection before declining to block,
specifically for the reason that my bounce might get cancelled.
There's no part of the card that says it has to be played after block
attempts (it changes the target of the bleed - there's already a
target before blocks are declined, changing the target needn't imply
that I declined to block), it's just the ruling that says that playing
it constitutes declining to block.
LSJ
Well, if that's the only objection, fear not. Online card text covers that, as
do/will any printings sent to press after the discovery that the ruling was not
widely-known.
Johann von Doom
> In what way don't you understsand it?
Peter's taking all my words today. :)
I understand how the ruling works the way that it does. Well, now that
it's been made into card text, it's not a ruling any more, obviously.
I don't understand why the ruling/cardtext works the way that it does,
or did with the old card text. LSJ explained it to me directly, in the
megathread that happened when somebody brought the old ruling to the
newsgroup's attention, and I still couldn't grasp the logic there, let
alone why it was so inconsistent w/r/t other reaction cards being
played before blocks are declined.
Now that there's new cardtext there's no reason for my confusion,
other than some weird flavor of...nostalgia?
I'd totally forgotten when I made my earlier post here that the new
cards have text that makes my confusion moot. My fault.
John Eno
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> In what way don't you understsand it?
>
> Peter's taking all my words today. :)
>
> I understand how the ruling works the way that it does. Well, now that
> it's been made into card text, it's not a ruling any more, obviously.
>
> I don't understand why the ruling/cardtext works the way that it does,
> or did with the old card text. LSJ explained it to me directly, in the
> megathread that happened when somebody brought the old ruling to the
> newsgroup's attention, and I still couldn't grasp the logic there, let
> alone why it was so inconsistent w/r/t other reaction cards being
> played before blocks are declined.
>
> Now that there's new cardtext there's no reason for my confusion,
> other than some weird flavor of...nostalgia?
Apologies, but to what cardtext do you refer?
LSJ
> Johann von Doom wrote:
>> other than some weird flavor of...nostalgia?
>
> Apologies, but to what cardtext do you refer?
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Cardlist_D#Deflection for example.
Kevin M.
Sure, but since Deflection hasn't yet been printed with that text, I was
confused at the use of the term 'cardtext', when I would've thought
that 'errata' was the proper term.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> Johann von Doom wrote:
>>>> Now that there's new cardtext there's no reason for my confusion,
>>>> other than some weird flavor of...nostalgia?
>>> Apologies, but to what cardtext do you refer?
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Cardlist_D#Deflection
>> for example.
>
> Sure, but since Deflection hasn't yet been printed with that text, I was
> confused at the use of the term 'cardtext', when I would've thought
> that 'errata' was the proper term.
Official card text can be referred to as "card text".
Likely he was following the thread, alluding to my post in which I cited the
official card text having been updated to incorporate the ruling and which
included an assertions that any such cards printed after the confusion came to
light would have the extra verbiage on them.
Or perhaps he was referring to the ones printed in the time after the confusion
came to light (Telepathic Misdirection, Lost in Translation, and Murmur of the
False Will).