fastest cycling deck ever!!!
jeroen rombouts
the world's fastst cycling deck ever.
Crypt: doesn't matter
Library: 60-90 * the Coven
Commentary: This deck doesn't do shit but it's got "-est" in its name ;-)
How to play: turn 1: play all your Covens. Turn 2: concede, result: 1VP
Christoph Scherer
"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5VUb6.270073$MA1.8...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
LSJ
Conceding won't get you a VP - you'd have to withdraw.
Turn 1: play all Covens (assumes no one will Sudden Reversal)
Turn 2: announce intention to withdraw
Turn 3: Withdraw, assuming you haven't lost any pool, etc. since
the start of your Turn 2.
Result (if all assumptions hold): 1 VP.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
hamd...@my-deja.com
"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote:
> May I present to you:
> the world's fastst cycling deck ever.
>
> Crypt: doesn't matter
>
> Library: 60-90 * the Coven
Surely you could do this with 40.
DH
Tom Kassel
"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote:
fails even when you are second. I wouldn't expect more than 0.6 VP.
probably deserves some kind of "-est" though.
Tom
Tom Kassel
atomw...@my-deja.com
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Turn 1: play all Covens (assumes no one will Sudden Reversal)
> Turn 2: announce intention to withdraw
> Turn 3: Withdraw, assuming you haven't lost any pool, etc. since
> the start of your Turn 2.
>
to withdraw on turn 1?
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver
Tom Kassel
atomw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94p8e2$9af$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Turn 1: play all Covens (assumes no one will Sudden Reversal)
> > Turn 2: announce intention to withdraw
> > Turn 3: Withdraw, assuming you haven't lost any pool, etc. since
> > the start of your Turn 2.
> >
> To pursue this to its frivolous end , couldn't you announce your
intent
> to withdraw on turn 1?
>
declare withdrawal. So, no.
Tom
Tom Kassel
Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <94pa73$ar1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> to withdraw and don't want to go losing pool. Plus you don't
> have any actual use for the Coven anyway.
>
Can you actually yield the last one? I haven't self contested too
often so I'm a little foggy on the timing.
Joshua Duffin
You'll probably want to yield all of them, since you're trying
to withdraw and don't want to go losing pool. Plus you don't
have any actual use for the Coven anyway.
World's Second-Fastest Withdrawing Deck:
Crypt: 12x Isabel de Leon
Library:
5x Telepathic Counter
53x Aura Reading
2x Read Intentions
Bring out Isabel. Get in a fight by blocking. If you can't,
you're screwed. Play your 53 Aura Readings. (Play at least
one at inferior so you can see what's coming your way...) Strike:
Dodge with Read Intentions. You can press to end with the other
Read Intentions if you need to. Next turn, declare your intent
to withdraw and leave Isabel untapped. If you don't get Rushed
or vote-damaged, you'll probably succeed.
(If you draw 5x Counter and 2x Read Intentions on your opening
hand, discard a Counter. You won't need to fight with Isabel
till after your first discard phase.)
Josh
foolish mortal
Joshua Duffin
Sure. During untap, for each contested card you have, you pay
1 pool to contest, or yield and burn the card. The last one
is treated no differently from the rest. [4.1, Contested Cards.]
Josh
self-contests all the time
(ok, not really)
Tom Kassel
for the final copy are to yield or to pay to contest, then on your next
untap it becomes controlled. Clearly the expectation was that your
card became the final one on someone else's turn not your own. In any
case, you're correct, one must yield them all.
atomw...@my-deja.com
Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
snip
> > You'll probably want to yield all of them, since you're trying
> > to withdraw and don't want to go losing pool. Plus you don't
> > have any actual use for the Coven anyway.
> >
> Can you actually yield the last one? I haven't self contested too
> often so I'm a little foggy on the timing.
>
Yes, you can.
Atom Weaver
Tom Kassel
atomw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94ph26$h5v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > You'll probably want to yield all of them, since you're trying
> > > to withdraw and don't want to go losing pool. Plus you don't
> > > have any actual use for the Coven anyway.
> > >
> > Can you actually yield the last one? I haven't self contested too
> > often so I'm a little foggy on the timing.
> >
>
> Yes, you can.
>
explore more fully.
Tom
inr...@my-deja.com
Crypt: all Isabel
library:5x Telepathic counter
1x info highway
34x the coven...
play covens until they are all gone, then play the info highway,
you can pull out isabel then even if you went first, with 5 counters
you should be able to make it until turn three...
Cameron
Tom Kassel
inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Wait, combine the two for extra fun:
>
> Crypt: all Isabel
>
> library:5x Telepathic counter
> 1x info highway
> 34x the coven...
>
> play covens until they are all gone, then play the info highway,
>
> you can pull out isabel then even if you went first, with 5 counters
> you should be able to make it until turn three...
>
the actual withdrawal turn?
Tom
Joshua Duffin
This is a good thought, actually, although it is still foiled
by a Sudden Reversal.
Your turn 1, you play Covens, Info Highway, and influence out
Isabel de Leon.
Your turn 2, you declare your intent to withdraw from the Jyhad.
Your turn 3, you have withdrawn, if you haven't violated the
terms.
Your opponents are unlikely to have out more than four vampires
on their turn 2 to bleed you with; you shouldn't even have to
use all five Counters. (You don't care if people damage you
before your turn 2; you're not trying to withdraw yet.)
It occurs to me that you can put in a little vote defense here,
too: make it 2x Delaying Tactics (in case they have two different
damaging votes for you ;-) and 4x Telepathic Counter, and the
only thing you have to worry about is rushes.
You do need a 60-card deck for tournament legality, though, so
it would have to be 1x Info Highway, 53x The Coven, if you wanted
to play it in a VEKN tournament.
Josh
of course, then you'd need fifty-three Covens...
James Coupe
> This self-contesting is clearly a popular strategy I shall have to
> explore more fully.
It can be quite useful if you have multiple copies of a vampire in
your uncontrolled region (cheap, too) and want to get a perfectly
working copy out once one gets screwed (by Sensory Deprivation, or
whatever).
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"A bit of urine here and there, perhaps. It adds charm and character."
- Mark Carroll, ucam.chat
"Did you have weasel lock?" - Derek Ray, rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
LSJ
> inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Crypt: all Isabel
> >
> > library:5x Telepathic counter
> > 1x info highway
> > 34x the coven...
> >
> > play covens until they are all gone, then play the info highway,
> >
> > you can pull out isabel then even if you went first, with 5 counters
> > you should be able to make it until turn three...
> >
> So what's the plan for avoiding pool loss once they're gone - during
> the actual withdrawal turn?
Telepathic Counter, I imagine.
The deck can reduce up to five bleeds of two each to zero,
which should be plenty at that early stage in the game.
Will fail vs:
Weenie bleed with GtU/LegalManip or Conditioning.
Weenie rush
Weenie vote
Sudden Reversal
Direct Intervention (of the Telepathic Counter)
Contesting Isabel
Anarch Revolt (or Antediluvian Awakening)
etc.
But it has a good chance of succeeding in general.
Of course, withdrawing that early in the game won't
upset the table - the remaining players can continue as
if the withdrawn player was never there, since no one
has expended any effort to oust her or to defend against
her.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Joshua Duffin
Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <94phjd$hoi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> atomw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <94ph26$h5v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Can you actually yield the last one? I haven't self contested too
> > > often so I'm a little foggy on the timing.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you can.
> >
> This self-contesting is clearly a popular strategy I shall have to
> explore more fully.
Heh. By Andrew's definition it is clearly not a strategy, but
a tactic - you can't plan your game around winning by self-
contesting. Unless you know something I don't. ;-) But it can
be tactically useful, if for example you happen to have a second
copy of a vampire in your uncontrolled region when your first
copy is rendered useless. (eg by becoming Famous and taking a
trip to torpor, or simply by being sent to torpor w/no blood and
Pulled Fangs or the like.)
Josh
or if you need to cycle a master card and don't really need that
Info Highway anymore...
Derek Ray
wrote:
And we're not TOTALLY certain why, since contesting with yourself gets
you the card two turns later. Usually it's a vampire.
turn 1, influence phase: I bring out Igo, contesting my slightly used
Igo in torpor.
turn 2, untap phase: I yield my Igo in torpor and pay 1 pool to keep
my other Igo.
turn 3, untap phase: I gain control of my new Igo.
It's reasonably effective, especially for vampires you don't intend to
waste an action rescuing anyway (maybe they're Disarmed or have a
Contract on them or something)... but there aren't all THAT many
reasons to do it. =)
-- Derek
"Oh, cool... TABLE ACTIONS!" -- M. Perlman
Tom Kassel
Crypt:12 x 1 caps
Library:
Parthenon
Guardian Angel
2xPentex Subversion
36xCoven
Turn 1:
Play all Covens, Parthenon. If predator has a minion out, pley Pentex
on it, otherwise discard
influence a vampire
Turn 2:
Play Guardian Angel on vamp
If predator has a minion, play Pentex on it, otherwise discard
Turn 3:
Declare withdrawal and hopefully face only a single minion with no more
than +1 stealth and no damage boost (and no votes, and no spoilsports
removing the Pentex, etc, etc)
Tom
Tom Kassel
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Crypt: all Isabel
> > >
> > > library:5x Telepathic counter
> > > 1x info highway
> > > 34x the coven...
> > >
> > > play covens until they are all gone, then play the info highway,
> > >
> > > you can pull out isabel then even if you went first, with 5
counters
> > > you should be able to make it until turn three...
> > >
> > So what's the plan for avoiding pool loss once they're gone - during
> > the actual withdrawal turn?
>
> Telepathic Counter, I imagine.
>
AND hand. Makes it just a little harder, but still possible with a
little (lot) of luck as I outlined in another post.
Tom
Atom Weaver
Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> How about this one:
>
> Crypt:12 x 1 caps
>
> Library:
> Parthenon
> Guardian Angel
> 2xPentex Subversion
> 36xCoven
>
> Turn 1:
> Play all Covens, Parthenon. If predator has a minion out, pley Pentex
> on it, otherwise discard
> influence a vampire
> Turn 2:
> Play Guardian Angel on vamp
> If predator has a minion, play Pentex on it, otherwise discard
Not certain that this works... If you announce your intent to
withdraw, you cannot lose pool, even to the cost of master cards like
PS and GA. That would extend it out to four turns to withdraw
(announcing at start of turn three)
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver
Tom Kassel
Atom Weaver <atomw...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <94pkvb$l9j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > How about this one:
> >
> > Crypt:12 x 1 caps
> >
> > Library:
> > Parthenon
> > Guardian Angel
> > 2xPentex Subversion
> > 36xCoven
> >
> > Turn 1:
> > Play all Covens, Parthenon. If predator has a minion out, pley
Pentex
> > on it, otherwise discard
> > influence a vampire
> > Turn 2:
> > Play Guardian Angel on vamp
> > If predator has a minion, play Pentex on it, otherwise discard
>
> Not certain that this works... If you announce your intent to
> withdraw, you cannot lose pool, even to the cost of master cards like
> PS and GA. That would extend it out to four turns to withdraw
> (announcing at start of turn three)
>
(hopefully) only have to face a single minion my predator influenced
after my turn 2 and (hopefully again) the Guardian Angel is good
enough. Note that I completely confused the withdrawal requirements so
I'm doing this with no cards in hand. A few Wakes and manuevers make
it more effective. Maybe a Delaying Tactics too.
Tom
Tom Kassel
you use The Coven to quickly reduce your deck to a small and killer
size for some advantage? Wasn't Wake errataed because of some quick
cycling trick which basically discarded great piles of them? In so,
has The Coven reintroduced the same concept?
Tom
Tom Kassel
the same trick anyway.
Joshua Duffin
Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I didn't announce withdrawal until turn 3 when I spent no pool. I
> (hopefully) only have to face a single minion my predator influenced
> after my turn 2 and (hopefully again) the Guardian Angel is good
> enough. Note that I completely confused the withdrawal requirements
so
> I'm doing this with no cards in hand. A few Wakes and manuevers make
> it more effective. Maybe a Delaying Tactics too.
Ye're actually not allowed to enter combat while trying to
withdraw, so I'm not sure how much use the Guardian Angel will
be. Unless it was on, say, a 5-cap with DOM who could Obedience
anybody of size 4 or less. Which might be an alternative route,
but it'd require the first-turn Info Highway to get Didi Meyers
out on turn 1. And going third or later.
Incidentally, what did you mean when you said the Barrens could
substitute for the Coven if the "deck-cycling to small killer
size" concept was an issue? As far as I can tell, you can only
get 1 Barrens discard for each untap phase you get, regardless
of contesting.
(and as an aside, the Wake issue was never, as far as I know, a
problem with people making tiny vicious decks by cycling them,
but that the Wakes were freely cyclable with no drawbacks at
all.)
Josh
eyes... cooked... too... much... staring... at... screen...
Noal McDonald
> Turn 1: play all Covens (assumes no one will Sudden Reversal)
Actually, I'm not entirely sure this technically legal.
Wouldn't the card be immediately contested as soon as it's played? Since
the card is contested, you never gain an additional master phase action.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
James Coupe
> Wouldn't the card be immediately contested as soon as it's played? Since
> the card is contested, you never gain an additional master phase action.
Since you "gain a master phase and put this card into play", were none
of the effects to go off when it was contested, it would never go into
play - and hence wouldn't be contested.
Similarly, you pay the cost of a card when you contest it. That it
becomes contested doesn't stop that happening.
(Though I'd happily go with your interpretation if I could find a
"legal" back-up for it. It'd make things a helluva lot easier.)
LSJ
> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > Wouldn't the card be immediately contested as soon as it's played?
> > Since the card is contested, you never gain an additional master
> > phase action.
>
> Since you "gain a master phase and put this card into play", were none
> of the effects to go off when it was contested, it would never go into
> play - and hence wouldn't be contested.
>
> Similarly, you pay the cost of a card when you contest it. That it
> becomes contested doesn't stop that happening.
Correct. Similarly, you'd put Secure Haven on a vampire even if it was
about to be contested (you can't wait until you win the contest to
decide the target, and you certainly aren't forced to just leave it
in play without a target in that instance).
> (Though I'd happily go with your interpretation if I could find a
> "legal" back-up for it. It'd make things a helluva lot easier.)
Agreed.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Xian
"Joshua Duffin" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:94q4qr$5i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Ye're actually not allowed to enter combat while trying to
> withdraw, so I'm not sure how much use the Guardian Angel will
Incorrect, oh Josh-y one. You're not allowed to lose blood from any of your
vampires (or pool), which generally, but not always (fortitude, dodge) happens
when you're in combat.
Xian
inr...@my-deja.com
> Nevermind. That's obvious nonsense as The Barrens would have allowed
> the same trick anyway.
>
> Tom
not really, the barrens is free, but it doesn't let you drop effectivly
an infinite amount of cards.
Cameron
LSJ
> > withdraw, so I'm not sure how much use the Guardian Angel will
>
> Incorrect, oh Josh-y one. You're not allowed to lose blood from any
> of your vampires (or pool), which generally, but not always
> (fortitude, dodge) happens when you're in combat.
And you're not allowed to enter combat. That's the first condition
listed in the rules. [9.2]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Noal McDonald
>> Since you "gain a master phase and put this card into play",
>> were none of the effects to go off when it was contested, it
>> would never go into play - and hence wouldn't be contested.
>>
>> Similarly, you pay the cost of a card when you contest it. That it
>> becomes contested doesn't stop that happening.
Well, sure you pay the cost. That's part of playing the card.
The problem is that while "gain a master phase action and put this card
into play," can be interpreted to happen simultaneously, the wording
implies that the gaining of the master phase action happens first. If
one were to reverse the wording, they could be interpreted to be
equivalent, but the implication would be that the effect of gaining a
master phase action follows putting the card into play.
> Correct. Similarly, you'd put Secure Haven on a vampire even if it was
> about to be contested (you can't wait until you win the contest to
> decide the target, and you certainly aren't forced to just leave it
> in play without a target in that instance).
That's certainly not in doubt. The target is chosen as part of playing
the card. Unlike a vote wherein one gets to choose the terms after
blocks have been declined, it is generally accepted that one declares
the terms of a master card before an opponent plays a Sudden Reversal.
But in your example, the effect of a Secure Haven never actually takes
place and no benefit is gained until the card returns to play. I make
the contention that one should not gain any benefit from a card that
gets contested as it is put in play.
>> (Though I'd happily go with your interpretation if I could find a
>> "legal" back-up for it. It'd make things a helluva lot easier.)
>
> Agreed.
Well, if we had managed to catch it a month or two ago, the wording
could have been updated like that 7 cap !Toreador. As it stands, we'll
have to live with it unless you decide to issue errata for it.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Tom Kassel
inr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > Nevermind. That's obvious nonsense as The Barrens would have
allowed
> > the same trick anyway.
> >
> > Tom
>
> not really, the barrens is free, but it doesn't let you drop
effectivly
> an infinite amount of cards.
>
so ignore my previous post saying to ignore the previous post. :-(
Tom
Tom Kassel
Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <94po3t$of7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't announce withdrawal until turn 3 when I spent no pool. I
> > (hopefully) only have to face a single minion my predator influenced
> > after my turn 2 and (hopefully again) the Guardian Angel is good
> > enough. Note that I completely confused the withdrawal requirements
> so
> > I'm doing this with no cards in hand. A few Wakes and manuevers
make
> > it more effective. Maybe a Delaying Tactics too.
>
> Ye're actually not allowed to enter combat while trying to
> withdraw, so I'm not sure how much use the Guardian Angel will
> be. Unless it was on, say, a 5-cap with DOM who could Obedience
> anybody of size 4 or less. Which might be an alternative route,
> but it'd require the first-turn Info Highway to get Didi Meyers
> out on turn 1. And going third or later.
>
combat prohibition, thinking you just needed to prevent blood loss.
> Incidentally, what did you mean when you said the Barrens could
> substitute for the Coven if the "deck-cycling to small killer
> size" concept was an issue? As far as I can tell, you can only
> get 1 Barrens discard for each untap phase you get, regardless
> of contesting.
>
That was just nonsense. A hasty second thought as I was leaving for
the evening.
> (and as an aside, the Wake issue was never, as far as I know, a
> problem with people making tiny vicious decks by cycling them,
> but that the Wakes were freely cyclable with no drawbacks at
> all.)
>
I thought I remembered seeing some reference to such a reducing deck in
the long Wake threads last summer - perhaps I misinterpreted some
remark.
In any case, The Coven subverts the minimum deck size rule by allowing
anyone who bothers to collect 30 copies or so to effectively play with
as small a deck as he chooses. A question about these quick withdrawal
schemes is whether one could use this approach for a lightning oust
followed by withdrawal. If possible that would be worth doing, while
the plain withdrawal is merely silly.
Tom
Tom Kassel
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote:
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > > Ye're actually not allowed to enter combat while trying to
> > > withdraw, so I'm not sure how much use the Guardian Angel will
> >
> > Incorrect, oh Josh-y one. You're not allowed to lose blood from any
> > of your vampires (or pool), which generally, but not always
> > (fortitude, dodge) happens when you're in combat.
>
> And you're not allowed to enter combat. That's the first condition
> listed in the rules. [9.2]
>
When a minon performs a successful Bum's Rush, have both minions
entered combat or just the acting minion?
Tom
LSJ
> Is "enter combat" the act of combat or the act of initiating combat?
> When a minon performs a successful Bum's Rush, have both minions
> entered combat or just the acting minion?
Both minions "enter combat" when they enter combat with each
other. It doesn't matter who started it.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Joshua Duffin
Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <94q4qr$5i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > (and as an aside, the Wake issue was never, as far as I know, a
> > problem with people making tiny vicious decks by cycling them,
> > but that the Wakes were freely cyclable with no drawbacks at
> > all.)
> >
> I thought I remembered seeing some reference to such a reducing deck
in
> the long Wake threads last summer - perhaps I misinterpreted some
> remark.
Hmm. Dunno, don't remember that.
> In any case, The Coven subverts the minimum deck size rule by allowing
> anyone who bothers to collect 30 copies or so to effectively play with
> as small a deck as he chooses. A question about these quick
withdrawal
> schemes is whether one could use this approach for a lightning oust
> followed by withdrawal. If possible that would be worth doing, while
> the plain withdrawal is merely silly.
I don't think there is any way to get a super-quick oust,
regardless of how few cards you get your deck down to. There
used to be some ways that might work (revolving around Return
to Innocence and Soul Gem of Etrius), but since RtI is no longer
tournament legal, it's probably not possible.
The reason for the tourney-minimum deck size isn't entirely
clear at this point; presumably it was originally instated to
minimize the chances of such a small-vicious-deck thing coming
to dominate tournaments, but with the actual cardset, it doesn't
seem strictly necessary. (Even the non-tourney-limit 40-card
minimum is pretty irrelevant, I think. Maybe it was intended
more to give people a guideline for how many cards they should
want to put in a deck rather than to prevent abuse?)
Josh
it's only a model...
Joshua Duffin
Och, Xian, ye've not been reading the new rulebook. ;-)
That may have been true in the Jyhad rulebook (don't have one on
hand, so I don't know), but it is not under Sabbat War rules
(and hadn't been for a while before that).
Obedience, I'm tellin' ye, Obedience.
Josh
probably one of the few players to have successfully withdrawn
from the Jyhad in a tournament game (and a final, no less)
LSJ
> [Re: the idea that combat avoidance is required for withdrawal]
> That may have been true in the Jyhad rulebook (don't have one on
> hand, so I don't know), but it is not under Sabbat War rules
> (and hadn't been for a while before that).
"For the withdrawal to be a success, your minions cannot enter
combat, and no blood can be lost (or spent) from your blood pool
or any of your minions until your next untap phase, when the
withdrawal becomes effective." [Jyhad Rulebook, sec. 18.2]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Xian
> Och, Xian, ye've not been reading the new rulebook. ;-)
Dammit. :)
> That may have been true in the Jyhad rulebook (don't have one on
> hand, so I don't know), but it is not under Sabbat War rules
> (and hadn't been for a while before that).
Ah well, just goes to show you how often I try to withdraw, huh?
> Obedience, I'm tellin' ye, Obedience.
Yes. This is good, good stuff.
Xian
The Lasombra
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote:
> > May I present to you:
> > the world's fastst cycling deck ever.
> >
> > Crypt: doesn't matter
> >
> > Library: 60-90 * the Coven
> >
> > Commentary: This deck doesn't do shit but it's got
> > "-est" in its name
> > 1VP
>
>
> Turn 1: play all Covens (assumes no one will Sudden Reversal)
How do you play more than 2 of the Coven?
You cannot gain any benefit from a card that is contested.
You should not get any other master phases.
Where do you decide that you can get the effects of the card again?
> Result (if all assumptions hold): 1 VP.
And they don't.
LSJ
> How do you play more than 2 of the Coven?
>
> You cannot gain any benefit from a card that is contested.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, cards that have
something done as part of their play (Secure Haven,
which is played "on" a vampire, the "Rack" which
chooses a vampire, etc.) do that something when
they are played, regardless of whether they are
about to be contested or not.
Likewise, a player who plays a second High Museum
of Art would gain 4 pool (and then quickly lose 4
pool as she contests the location).
> You should not get any other master phases.
Card text indicates otherwise: "Gain a MPA *and* put
this card into play".)
> Where do you decide that you can get the effects of the card again?
What?
> > Result (if all assumptions hold): 1 VP.
>
> And they don't.
Function of card text was not one of the assumptions as given,
it is merely a result of card text.
Gomi no Sensei
>Likewise, a player who plays a second High Museum
>of Art would gain 4 pool (and then quickly lose 4
>pool as she contests the location).
But a predator's Realm of the Black Sun would still trigger, yes?
gomi
--
PART II: WHAT DOSE DIRECT X 8.00 HAEV THAT TEH OTHARS DIDANT NOT INCLUDE?
many things, stuped!!! but they dont work
-Jeff K.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >Likewise, a player who plays a second High Museum
> >of Art would gain 4 pool (and then quickly lose 4
> >pool as she contests the location).
>
> But a predator's Realm of the Black Sun would still trigger, yes?
Correct. (card text)