why 7/7=chaos.

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Fantasy15

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
I've left messages expressing my concerns about the new errata. How I feel it
is bad because it rewrites cards so that they no longer do what they were
originally intended to do and how If you begin the precident of rewritting
cards, it will never end. This is because once a card is no longer the most
successful card to place in one's deck, different cards will then become the
most successful, and then wil be rewritten. This will not end until all the
excitement has been taken out of the game. I also am unsure ifthe cards
actually are broken which is defined as 1. having a higher effect that it's
cost as compared to other cards and 2. prevents other players from playing the
game. There are responses that can be done to every card in the game except Day
Opperation so I beleieve the second part of that definition will not apply to
determine wether cards are actually broken. Furthermore I contest that some of
the 7/7 rulings will still be abused and actually make cards more powerful.
This message is apoint by point examination of the new rulings and why most of
them should not be allowed to go into effect, with ideas for better rulings
that do not change a card's intent and that create balance.

1. no vote pushing. Actually this rule I'm pretty happy with. I fail to see
how action cards may be played as modifiers or reasction cards and makes the
presence discipline more valuable. The only problem I have with this rule is
that the way it is worded it allows for reacting meths to throw 1 vote push
each and will make vote decks very hard to run, even if you use presence.

2. Card ownership. This rule doesn't bother me except that if one is ousted
they still have to watch a game which they wouldn' have to, which might take
hours. this might be avoided with proxys, so again good rule.

3. Directed actions. I believe this rule allows for you to take actions
directed at yourself, but does not state what happens then, wether the action
becomes non directed or becomes unblockable. I really wish the rules "team"
would be more specific in their see saw ravings.

4. equipment is not optional. This rule was an attempt by the rules people to
make their own lives easier, but takes alot of strategy away from the game.
Now one would have to use a flak jacket for the first point they took in a
combat, and you couldn't save it for second round or additional strikes.
Similarly, one would have to burn a leather jacket the first time they took a
handstrike. Concoction of vitality would only work on the vamp's ver next
action, and so forth. As far as I can tell this rule only helps a little
confusion on writ of acceptance and ruins so much more. If writ needs to be
clarified, so be it, but don't screw up everything else just for the sake of
one card.

5. New Aggravated damage rules. This ruling creates so much confusion during
play that I feel damage resolution should now be followed by an aspirin. It
also makes it very difficult to burn an oposing vampire, killing your opponents
minions is a very important strategy and shouldnot be hindered so. Also I want
to say that fire and other forms of Ag damage are harsh to vampires, and yes
it kills them

Finally I get to card specific rulings, which are the greater problem.

6. Darius Styx. Fine, just reworded for the new (D) rules, no cahnge.

7. Fame. Oh boy here we go. Yes, I feel fame was being abused and I feel it
will still be abused, now by different decks. Note that you mayrescue your
prey's vamps from torpor. Now you attack it, send it to torpor, rescue it,
attack it, rescue it, attack it. After the first rescue it will have no blood
on it and can be sent down againwith a simple handstrike. The only cards one
needs for this combo is haven uncovered and catacombs. I propose that the 3
pool should be lost by the meth responsible for sending the vamp to torpor.
this would avoid abuse, uphold world of darkness realism, and make fame a
protective card which I believe was its original intent.

8. fire dance. This card has been changed to fit the new (D) rules. No real
change, but I beleive that it would be more simply fixd by adding the words,
sabat vampire you control.

9. Goth band. Changed to fit the new (D) rule and clarify that you may not
move counters from your own master card. Good rule.

10. Heildleburg castle. pretty good rule, except that I think it should still
be useable immediately after the action is announced for reaction purposes.

11. Major boon. LSJ doesn't menton in his notes that the new ruling also keeps
one from using it in the madness network, This rule is more of a clarification
and is a good rule.

12. mind rape. people say this card is broken because it is an easy way to
gain control of a vamp so that you can burn with Golconda. that implies a
broken combo, not a broken card. And still, Golconda is only playable on
really big vamps and Mind rape is only playable on younger vamps. To play this
combo, one would have to use a really big vamp, and their prey would have to
have a vamp in a very tight capactity range. this is a big risk and must be
figured into the card's cost. The new rulings are confusing and only prvent
abuse that relys on your prey having large vampires that aren't prepared to
block. Still I can see why people do not like having this card played on them
and if we need a new ruling on this card, This rule is good.

13. of noble blood. is fixed for the new (D) rule, but would be better
written, vampire you control. making a Justicar a primogen is a little harsh
anyways. And I believe that a vamp can chose which title it keeps.

14. Powerbase mexico city. Changed to fit the (d) rule. Fine.

15. Pulled fangs. Once again I beleive that circumstances for playing the card
have to be considered as partof the cost. PF has two requirements. I also
believe that the card is still too powerful even under the new rules because it
is stackable. Here is my example: Nigel and Rickiki are in combat at close
range and declare hand strikes. Rickiki prevents nigel's damage and plays 6
pulled fangs. Nigel now goes to torpor with no blood and cannot hunt until
twelve actions have been taken. This stacking rule is what needs to be
changed, not the card text.

16. Return to innocence. This ruling makes RTI more powerful than before,
creates confusion, and fixes a card that wasn't broken in the first place. the
card is not broken because burning a perfectly good, large, vampire is a very
high cost. Unless the vamp was originally someone else's, which would be a
combo, not a broken card. The card is now more powerful becaus the new ruling
takes risk of your prey defecting it to his advantage and now can only be
stopped by rush decks. I believe that we can balance this card by increasing
the cost so that the vamps burns regardless if the action is successful or not.

17. Sleeping mind. LSJ says that cards played after sleeping mind are allowed
to beak it's rules. Or at least wakes are alowed to break it's rules, but it
implies that the second tradition would not be able to break the rules if it
wasplayed after the card. If you cannot play 2nd trad then why wakes? If you
can play 2nd trad, what is the point of playing sleeping mind? Does this new
break the rules if you play your card after let you play majesty drunig an
immortal grapple? Come on Scott, think about things before you say them.

18. thoughts betrayed. This makes the card like a weak fast reaction. I think
it would be better written, neither minion may play cards until after combat,
keeping it's original intent and increasing he cost.

19. Tomb of Ramses 111. This new ruling stinks like last weeks garbage! I
feel the card is not broken because it is only useful in the beginning of the
game. If you have only one in your deck, the odds of that are not very likely,
if you have many, they will slow down you hand later. The new ruling takes
away the card's original purpose and make it more powerful, because you can
actually gain pool from it faster now because it takes less transfers. I
believe that if the words "you may not take transfers from this vampire to your
pool," and "may be played once in a game" would be sufficient changes as to
balance the tomb and not take away the card's original intent.

20. The treatment. Fine, uphold the (d)

21. Wake. Wake is not a broken card, it does not need to be changed.

22. Zip Gun. Changing the text of zip gun is confusing to new players, why not
instead cahnge the errata to say that the self inflicted damage is also added
to and modified by ammo cards.

Thank you for listening to what I have to say. I do beleive in errata, but it
should be for clarifications and minor changes to create balance only, not
rewrite cards.

Sam Alschuler

James Hamblin

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Fantasy15 wrote:
>
> I've left messages expressing my concerns about the new errata. How I feel it
> is bad because it rewrites cards so that they no longer do what they were
> originally intended to do and how If you begin the precident of rewritting
> cards, it will never end.

Except that if the original intent for the card was too good, it makes
sense to change it so that it's balanced with respect to the other
cards.

> This is because once a card is no longer the most
> successful card to place in one's deck, different cards will then become the
> most successful, and then wil be rewritten.

No, because most of the cards are balanced with respect to each other.
In general, all cards are equally powered. This isn't perfect (it can't
be), but overall it works out. If there are "power" cards such that the
only reason you don't put them in your deck is that you don't own them,
then those cards should probably be changed.

> There are responses that can be done to every card in the game except Day
> Opperation so I beleieve the second part of that definition will not apply to
> determine wether cards are actually broken.

What!? Day Operation? I don't really understand why you picked out
that one card. The most obvious poster child for a card that makes you
unable to play the game is Thoughts Betrayed. It takes a vital resource
(your hand) and prevents you from using it. A card like Mind Rape takes
another vital resource (your vampire) and not only prevents _you_ from
using it, but takes it from you.

[no vote push]


> The only problem I have with this rule is
> that the way it is worded it allows for reacting meths to throw 1 vote push
> each and will make vote decks very hard to run, even if you use presence.

How many other players are you expecting to be playing with vote cards?
If there's another vote deck at the table, sure you'll have trouble
passing votes, but that's just natural.

> 3. Directed actions. I believe this rule allows for you to take actions
> directed at yourself, but does not state what happens then, wether the action
> becomes non directed or becomes unblockable. I really wish the rules "team"
> would be more specific in their see saw ravings.

It has always been established what happens when you direct an action at
yourself: it becomes undirected.

> 4. equipment is not optional. This rule was an attempt by the rules people to
> make their own lives easier, but takes alot of strategy away from the game.
> Now one would have to use a flak jacket for the first point they took in a
> combat, and you couldn't save it for second round or additional strikes.

[snip: etc.]

That's not what the rule is saying. Put another way, the rule says that
equipment is always "on". So that a vampire with a laptop _always_ has
+1 bleed, and can't decide not to use it while bleeding. But that
doesn't _force_ you to use equipment. Just owning a .44 Magnum doesn't
_force_ you to use that as your strike forever.

> 7. Fame. Oh boy here we go. Yes, I feel fame was being abused and I feel it
> will still be abused, now by different decks. Note that you mayrescue your
> prey's vamps from torpor. Now you attack it, send it to torpor, rescue it,
> attack it, rescue it, attack it.

...which (modulo Freak Drives) requires 2N+1 minions in order to cause
3N pool damage. For example: to cause 3 damage, you just need to put
the Famous vampire in torpor. This requires one minion. To do it
again, you have to rescue him and rush him again. This requires two
_more_ minions. So far you've used 3 minions to cause 6 pool loss.
It's a valid strategy, but it's hardly better than a good bleed deck.
And the rush deck could do just as well with Laptops and Computer
Hackings.

> 12. mind rape. people say this card is broken because it is an easy way to
> gain control of a vamp so that you can burn with Golconda. that implies a
> broken combo, not a broken card.

Golconda is not the only thing that can be used in conjunction with Mind
Rape. You can simply burn the vampire to kill an Antediluvian
Awakening. You can use RtI. You can use it to diablerize people. And,
if it has the right disciplines, you can simply use the stolen vampire
to do whatever else your deck does. Mind Rape is broken because it
steals a vampire for almost zero cost, not because of some combo.

> 16. Return to innocence. This ruling makes RTI more powerful than before,
> creates confusion, and fixes a card that wasn't broken in the first place. the
> card is not broken because burning a perfectly good, large, vampire is a very
> high cost.

Not an especially high cost if it manages to oust your prey and help you
win the game. And an even lower cost if you used the Tomb to get the
vampire out for very cheap. Besides which, any single card which allows
you to bleed for that much is very broken.

> Unless the vamp was originally someone else's, which would be a
> combo, not a broken card.

You've said this same thing a lot now. What would you propose to do
about a broken combo, then?

[sleeping mind]


> If you cannot play 2nd trad then why wakes?

Because a Wake does not actually untap you. It just lets you block and
react _as if_ you were untapped.

> 19. Tomb of Ramses 111. This new ruling stinks like last weeks garbage! I
> feel the card is not broken because it is only useful in the beginning of the
> game.

How does this make the card less broken? If I had a card which said
"(D) oust your prey. Can only be used in the first three turns", the
second clause doesn't make the card any less broken.

> If you have only one in your deck, the odds of that are not very likely,
> if you have many, they will slow down you hand later.

No, you just discard them. Of the people on this group who play with
decks with multiple Tombs, I'm sure that for all of them the immense
benefit of drawing it early outweighs the possibility of drawing it
again later.

> The new ruling takes
> away the card's original purpose and make it more powerful, because you can
> actually gain pool from it faster now because it takes less transfers.

It's perfectly in line with the Art Museum-type cards.

> 21. Wake. Wake is not a broken card, it does not need to be changed.

Others would (and have done) disagree.

> 22. Zip Gun. Changing the text of zip gun is confusing to new players, whynot
> instead cahnge the errata to say that the self inflicted damage is also added
> to and modified by ammo cards.

I don't see why this is less confusing that "can't use ammo".

James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu

...I always thought 7/7 = 1 ...

Petri Wessman

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) writes:

> I've left messages expressing my concerns about the new errata.

> 1. no vote pushing. Actually this rule I'm pretty happy with. I fail to see


> how action cards may be played as modifiers or reasction cards and makes the
> presence discipline more valuable. The only problem I have with this rule is
> that the way it is worded it allows for reacting meths to throw 1 vote push
> each and will make vote decks very hard to run, even if you use presence.

I also like this, and by what I've seen so far (playing with the new
rules), vote decks are quite workable thank you ;). Presence in more
important now, of course.

> 2. Card ownership. This rule doesn't bother me except that if one is ousted
> they still have to watch a game which they wouldn' have to, which might take
> hours. this might be avoided with proxys, so again good rule.

Yeah, and if they want to leave the game can always use proxies. There
are usually *that* many stolen cards and/or "place this card on
minion" thingies floating around.

> 3. Directed actions. I believe this rule allows for you to take actions
> directed at yourself, but does not state what happens then, wether the action
> becomes non directed or becomes unblockable. I really wish the rules "team"
> would be more specific in their see saw ravings.

Yeah, I'd like some clarification about this as well. If I do a (D)
action against myself, who can block it? Is it only Eagle's Sight /
Anneke?


> 4. equipment is not optional. This rule was an attempt by the rules people to
> make their own lives easier, but takes alot of strategy away from the game.
> Now one would have to use a flak jacket for the first point they took in a
> combat, and you couldn't save it for second round or additional strikes.
> Similarly, one would have to burn a leather jacket the first time they took a
> handstrike. Concoction of vitality would only work on the vamp's ver next
> action, and so forth.

Hmmmm.... I don't think it works like this, but I could be wrong...

LSJ, how about it? Do I *have* to use the Flak Jacket on the first
round, etc?


> 5. New Aggravated damage rules. This ruling creates so much confusion during
> play that I feel damage resolution should now be followed by an aspirin. It
> also makes it very difficult to burn an oposing vampire, killing your opponents
> minions is a very important strategy and shouldnot be hindered so. Also I want
> to say that fire and other forms of Ag damage are harsh to vampires, and yes
> it kills them

Yeah, I dislike the new aggra rulings as well,for the simple reason
that the Jyhad way of calculating aggra damage is more complicated
than the Vampire way. Complicated -> more difficult to explain to
newbies. Me no like (but I can live with it).


> 7. Fame. Oh boy here we go. Yes, I feel fame was being abused and I feel it
> will still be abused, now by different decks. Note that you mayrescue your
> prey's vamps from torpor. Now you attack it, send it to torpor, rescue it,
> attack it, rescue it, attack it.

Yes, but that's a whole different ball game from the original
Fame-myself-to-death scenario. It requires that you have the ability
to reliably rush the target vampire, put it in torpor, and rescue it,
time and again. A *lot* harder to pull of than the earlier abuse... so
much harder, in fact, that I would now call is "abuse" in any sense.


> 14. Powerbase mexico city. Changed to fit the (d) rule. Fine.
>
> 15. Pulled fangs. Once again I beleive that circumstances for playing the card
> have to be considered as partof the cost. PF has two requirements. I also
> believe that the card is still too powerful even under the new rules because it
> is stackable. Here is my example: Nigel and Rickiki are in combat at close
> range and declare hand strikes. Rickiki prevents nigel's damage and plays 6
> pulled fangs. Nigel now goes to torpor with no blood and cannot hunt until
> twelve actions have been taken. This stacking rule is what needs to be
> changed, not the card text.

Hmmm... still, the old version of PF was way too powerful for a
no-discipline combat card.

> 16. Return to innocence. This ruling makes RTI more powerful than before,
> creates confusion, and fixes a card that wasn't broken in the first
> place.

What?

You're arguing that RtI wasn't broken? It was basically an "oust
anyone" trump card, that spells "broken" to me.

But yes, the new errata creates confusion.


> 19. Tomb of Ramses 111. This new ruling stinks like last weeks garbage! I
> feel the card is not broken because it is only useful in the beginning of the
> game.

"Oh ha ha", to quote Rimmer from Red Dwarf.

ToR was useful at any point, as a way of generating huge amounts of
pool for free. *Much* too powerful.

//Petri

LSJ

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote:
> 3. Directed actions. I believe this rule allows for you to take actions
> directed at yourself, but does not state what happens then, wether the action

It is undirected.

> becomes non directed or becomes unblockable. I really wish the rules "team"
> would be more specific in their see saw ravings.

Those "ravings" were a quote from the VTES rulebook, as noted.

> 4. equipment is not optional. This rule was an attempt by the rules people to
> make their own lives easier, but takes alot of strategy away from the game.
> Now one would have to use a flak jacket for the first point they took in a
> combat, and you couldn't save it for second round or additional strikes.

Flak Jacket can prevent any one point of damage you choose, like
Resplendent Protector.

> Similarly, one would have to burn a leather jacket the first time they took a
> handstrike.

It could be burned to prevent the damage.

> Concoction of vitality would only work on the vamp's ver next
> action, and so forth.

It may be burned on the next action.

> As far as I can tell this rule only helps a little
> confusion on writ of acceptance and ruins so much more. If writ needs to be
> clarified, so be it, but don't screw up everything else just for the sake of
> one card.

You may be right - the "general rule" seemed easier than the handful of
errata, but that may not be the case. It will be put back on the list
for RT review.

> 5. New Aggravated damage rules. This ruling creates so much confusion during
> play that I feel damage resolution should now be followed by an aspirin. It
> also makes it very difficult to burn an oposing vampire, killing your
opponents
> minions is a very important strategy and shouldnot be hindered so. Also I
want
> to say that fire and other forms of Ag damage are harsh to vampires, and yes
> it kills them

It is unpreventable, so will be unprevented.
And, if done to a wounded vampire, could burn the vampire.

> 7. Fame. Oh boy here we go. Yes, I feel fame was being abused and I feel it
> will still be abused, now by different decks. Note that you mayrescue your
> prey's vamps from torpor. Now you attack it, send it to torpor, rescue it,
> attack it, rescue it, attack it. After the first rescue it will have no blood
> on it and can be sent down againwith a simple handstrike. The only cards one
> needs for this combo is haven uncovered and catacombs.

Plus the combat cards needed to send it to torpor in the first place.
And three Master Phase Actions.
And two actions + 1 vampire blood per rescue/torporize pair.

All for a loss of three pool per pair, which could be easier done
with other combos.

> I propose that the 3
> pool should be lost by the meth responsible for sending the vamp to torpor.
> this would avoid abuse, uphold world of darkness realism, and make fame a
> protective card which I believe was its original intent.

And hard to rule on when Mariel/DawnOp/LegacyPower/BloodAcid are factored in.

> 13. of noble blood. is fixed for the new (D) rule, but would be better
> written, vampire you control. making a Justicar a primogen is a little harsh
> anyways. And I believe that a vamp can chose which title it keeps.

Of Noble Blood cannot target a titled vampire. [RTR 970630]

> 17. Sleeping mind. LSJ says that cards played after sleeping mind are
allowed
> to beak it's rules. Or at least wakes are alowed to break it's rules, but it
> implies that the second tradition would not be able to break the rules if it
> wasplayed after the card. If you cannot play 2nd trad then why wakes? If you
> can play 2nd trad, what is the point of playing sleeping mind? Does this new
> break the rules if you play your card after let you play majesty drunig an
> immortal grapple? Come on Scott, think about things before you say them.

You forgot the ":-)".

The original wording did include 2nd Tradition, Rat's Warning, etc.
It was noted during review that that wasn't strictly correct, and would
require errata.

So it was restated (correctly) that it only the untaps were prohibited,
since Sleeping Mind add the prohibition against untapping. Second
Tradition fails to circumvent that prohibition.

Wake allows the vampire to attempt to block "as if untapped", which is
not prohibited by Sleeping Mind.

> 22. Zip Gun. Changing the text of zip gun is confusing to new players, why
not
> instead cahnge the errata to say that the self inflicted damage is also added
> to and modified by ammo cards.

That would be harder, not easier, to explain to new players.

>
> Thank you for listening to what I have to say. I do beleive in errata, but it
> should be for clarifications and minor changes to create balance only, not
> rewrite cards.

If a rewrite is needed to produce balance...?

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

LSJ

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Petri Wessman wrote:

> fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) writes:
> > 3. Directed actions. I believe this rule allows for you to take actions
> Yeah, I'd like some clarification about this as well. If I do a (D)
> action against myself, who can block it? Is it only Eagle's Sight /
> Anneke?

An action taken against yourself (or a card or cards you control) is
undirected, and can be blocked by a ready, untapped minion of either
your Prey or Predator.

In sum:

If an action is directed at another (single) Methuselah and/or
card(s) and/or counter(s) she controls, it is directed.

If it is not directed (above), it is undirected.

Mark Langsdorf

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Petri Wessman wrote in message <7xaf64y...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>...

>fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) writes:
>
>> I've left messages expressing my concerns about the new errata.
>
>> 1. no vote pushing. Actually this rule I'm pretty happy with. I fail to
see
>> how action cards may be played as modifiers or reasction cards and makes
the
>> presence discipline more valuable. The only problem I have with this
rule is
>> that the way it is worded it allows for reacting meths to throw 1 vote
push
>> each and will make vote decks very hard to run, even if you use presence.
>
>I also like this, and by what I've seen so far (playing with the new
>rules), vote decks are quite workable thank you ;). Presence in more
>important now, of course.

I think Sorrow was right that vote decks are now much more limited - the
freaky votes just don't work as well, because hand jam is too easy.

>Yeah, I'd like some clarification about this as well. If I do a (D)
>action against myself, who can block it? Is it only Eagle's Sight /
>Anneke?


It becomes undirected.

>> 7. Fame. Oh boy here we go. Yes, I feel fame was being abused and I
feel it
>> will still be abused, now by different decks. Note that you mayrescue
your
>> prey's vamps from torpor. Now you attack it, send it to torpor, rescue
it,
>> attack it, rescue it, attack it.
>

>Yes, but that's a whole different ball game from the original
>Fame-myself-to-death scenario. It requires that you have the ability
>to reliably rush the target vampire, put it in torpor, and rescue it,
>time and again. A *lot* harder to pull of than the earlier abuse... so
>much harder, in fact, that I would now call is "abuse" in any sense.


Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend. It was broken
as
all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue, torporize. It wasn't pretty.
The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn card out." No fix
that is
vaguely based on card wording is going to be acceptable.

>> 15. Pulled fangs. Once again I beleive that circumstances for playing
the card
>> have to be considered as partof the cost. PF has two requirements. I
also
>> believe that the card is still too powerful even under the new rules
because it
>> is stackable. Here is my example: Nigel and Rickiki are in combat at
close
>> range and declare hand strikes. Rickiki prevents nigel's damage and
plays 6
>> pulled fangs. Nigel now goes to torpor with no blood and cannot hunt
until
>> twelve actions have been taken. This stacking rule is what needs to be
>> changed, not the card text.

>Hmmm... still, the old version of PF was way too powerful for a
>no-discipline combat card.


Pulled Fangs shouldn't be stackable. Pulled Fangs shouldn't be
aggravated.
With those two fixes, it's a nice, gimicky rare. Combat decks will
include a couple
to encourage people to stay in torpor. But it won't be a must have.

-Mark Langsdorf
Jyhad Archivist
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/


Gomi no Sensei

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In article <6p04ma$j45$1...@amdint.amd.com>,
Mark Langsdorf <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote:

> Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend. It was broken
>as
>all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue, torporize. It wasn't pretty.
> The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn card out." No fix
>that is
>vaguely based on card wording is going to be acceptable.

A torporize/rescue combo produces 3n pool loss for every 2 *successful*
minion actions -- i.e., you'd need to torpor/rescue (-3) and torpor/rescue
again (-3) for a total of 6 pool loss (leaving it in torpor at the end of the
turn is just going to get the famous vampire diablerized). 4, or at a
minimum 3 (if you're unconcerned about diablerie) minion actions for 6 pool
loss -- something easily within reach of a bleed deck with only one
successful action, or a vote deck with 2 (sometimes only 1, depending on
table size). And at least, and probably more, card-intensive to boot.

I'm also surprised the Assamites (with their vulnerability to SCE) could
pull this off with any regularity -- there are only so many Psyche!s one
can put in the deck without affecting its combat efficiency.

Was the victim deck particularly lacking in combat defence?

gomi

Gomi no Sensei

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In article <6p11pe$ns9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<mboh...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <6p0ge0$rog$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,

> go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:

>> I'm also surprised the Assamites (with their vulnerability to SCE) could
>> pull this off with any regularity -- there are only so many Psyche!s one
>> can put in the deck without affecting its combat efficiency.

>Careful what you say, or they won't be around to burn your favorite Prince.
>The Assamites are the hardest Rushing clan to make a deck for. If it
>weren't for Pursuit from Sabbat, it'd be a LOT harder. With Rotschreck,
>there's finally some extra help.

Alas, Rotschreck's no help to a Rush deck, not being playable on your turn.
I guess you could put it in your Assamite/Clan Impersonation/Madness Network
deck <grin>. The new Rotschreck is a boon to intercept combat decks -- an
archetype that needs all the help it can get, believe me.

gomi

mboh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p0ge0$rog$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:

> I'm also surprised the Assamites (with their vulnerability to SCE) could
> pull this off with any regularity -- there are only so many Psyche!s one
> can put in the deck without affecting its combat efficiency.

Careful what you say, or they won't be around to burn your favorite Prince.
The Assamites are the hardest Rushing clan to make a deck for. If it
weren't for Pursuit from Sabbat, it'd be a LOT harder. With Rotschreck,

there's finally some extra help. At least there's no built in burn ability
in Contract. :) I think I've actually managed to get more than one VP
once. And that was with zero cards in my hand.

Mike

TheLa...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p0ge0$rog$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:
> In article <6p04ma$j45$1...@amdint.amd.com>,
> Mark Langsdorf <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote:
>
> > Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend.
> > It was broken as all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue,
> > torporize. It wasn't pretty.

and didn't require 4 actions. (3 actions and 1 free reaction card
with Path of Blood in play)

> > The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn
> > card out." No fix that is vaguely based on card wording
> > is going to be acceptable.

<snip gomi's elegant argument
about torpor/rescue misthought by newsgroup see below>

> I'm also surprised the Assamites (with their vulnerability to SCE) could
> pull this off with any regularity -- there are only so many Psyche!s one
> can put in the deck without affecting its combat efficiency.
>

> Was the victim deck particularly lacking in combat defence?

No, the victim deck thought it was a Brujah/Immortal Grapple/Combat
deck that got consistently outmaneuvered.

The interesting twist with the Assamites, is that if you rescue the
Famous Vampire, forcing it to hunt the next turn and then you play
the wonderful little quietus reaction card Foul Blood and the
Famous Vampire immediately returns to torpor.
(causing 3 more pool loss)

Better yet, I liked that the Fame now does 4 points of damage to the
prey the first time. (3 upon torpor, end your turn, 1 from famous
vampire in torpor at start of turn.) Why bother to rescue when the
Rush deck can now bleed for 4?

Sure, it is only once, but it also effectively results in the loss
of that vampire. So, not only are you removing 4 pool through the
new wording of Fame, you are removing their ability to play the game.
(effectively taking away one of their vampires)

I only saw Greg's deck play one Psyche (and it was as a press).
When most people play some form of combat (not combat defense),
restarting combat is not as necessary as when S:CE is prevalent.
(the natural result of too many IG's over too long a period
of time / S:CE is not an effective defense so the opposing decks
have learned to fight back.)

Carpe Noctem.

Lasombra

http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote:

> fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) writes:
> > 19. Tomb of Ramses 111. This new ruling stinks like last weeks garbage! I
> > feel the card is not broken because it is only useful in the beginning of the
> > game.
>
> "Oh ha ha", to quote Rimmer from Red Dwarf.
>
> ToR was useful at any point, as a way of generating huge amounts of
> pool for free. *Much* too powerful.

ToR was over-powered and needed a fix (whether or not the 7/7 RTR was the
best choice of fix), but the old ToR was not very useful once one's pool
was down to about 7 or less. With that kind of pool level, ToR can't
really be used for bringing out a vamp without extreme risk of immediate
ousting, and as a pool gainer it will take 5 turns to make a pool profit:

Turn 1: pay 3, transfer 2 on a vamp and pull 1 (leaving 3) -- pool level: -4
Turn 2: pull 2 (leaving 1) -- pool level: -2
Turn 3: transfer 2 and pull 1 (leaving 4) -- pool level: -3
Turn 4: pull 2 (leaving 2) -- pool level: -1
Turn 5: pull 2 (leaving 0) -- pool level: +1

I'm not saying that the unfixed ToR wasn't too powerful -- it was. I
disagree that it could be used to "generate huge amounts of pool" "at any
point" though. The "new" ToR is actually a faster pool gainer.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Petri Wessman

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) writes:

> Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> wrote:
> > fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) writes:

> > > 19. Tomb of Ramses 111. This new ruling stinks like last weeks garbage! I
> > > feel the card is not broken because it is only useful in the beginning of the
> > > game.
> >

> > "Oh ha ha", to quote Rimmer from Red Dwarf.
> >
> > ToR was useful at any point, as a way of generating huge amounts of
> > pool for free. *Much* too powerful.
>
> ToR was over-powered and needed a fix (whether or not the 7/7 RTR was the
> best choice of fix), but the old ToR was not very useful once one's pool
> was down to about 7 or less.

Ok, you're right on that point. With that amount of pool investing in
anything expensive is risky (but can still be done is you have
adaquate bleed defense).

//Petri

LSJ

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:

> fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote:
> > 5. New Aggravated damage rules. This ruling creates so much confusion
during
> > play that I feel damage resolution should now be followed by an aspirin. It
> > also makes it very difficult to burn an oposing vampire, killing your
> opponents
> > minions is a very important strategy and shouldnot be hindered so. Also I
> want
> > to say that fire and other forms of Ag damage are harsh to vampires, and
yes
> > it kills them
>
> It is unpreventable, so will be unprevented.

Sorry - that should've said "It cannot be healed, so will not be healed".

> And, if done to a wounded vampire, could burn the vampire.

--

Petri Wessman

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
"Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> writes:

> Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend. It was
> broken as all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue, torporize. It

> wasn't pretty. The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn


> card out." No fix that is vaguely based on card wording is going to
> be acceptable.

Hmmm. I still find it hard to believe that this is a problem
scenario. It costs 2 blood to rescue, you have to be able to do the
rescue without being blocked and Assamites aren't noted for their
stealth. It's dangerous, certainly, especially with the Assamites and
Contract -- but Assamites have always been a difficult combat clan to
pul off (no intercept, very little defence against combat ends, no
damage prevent, etc etc). Anything that gives them any sort of edge is
ok in my book.

Remember that Fame is still unique, and this little scheme gets hosed
if there already is a Fame on the table. Also, this only works against
a non-combat clan, other clans will be able to stop the rescue
attempts and either strike-combat-ends them to death, prevent the
damage, or hit back. So Rush decks are dangerous against non-combat
decks? What else is new?

//Petri

Petri Wessman

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> writes:

> Hmmm. I still find it hard to believe that this is a problem
> scenario. It costs 2 blood to rescue, you have to be able to do the
> rescue without being blocked and Assamites aren't noted for their
> stealth.

Correcting myself: "Assamite COMBAT decks aren't noted for their
stealth". ;)

//Petri

mboh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <6p14q2$jgg$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:

> Alas, Rotschreck's no help to a Rush deck, not being playable on your turn.

I definitely would not call it it "no help," especially for the Assamites
who had nothing apart from Psyche to combat S:CE. I specifically added
2 Market Squares, 2 Rumor Mills, and 2 Atonements to my Assamite deck for
this purpose. I don't plan on blocking any S&B deck but I will at least
be able to block one low stealth action each turn.

I'll be the first to admit that playing the Assamites effectively is very
difficult since they require soooo many cards. Quietus is really only
effective at long range, so you are required to pack in maneuvers that a
Potence based combat deck doesn't have to (after all, they can either punch
really hard or toss a sewer lid at you).

I'll take whatever help, Rotschreck included, I can get.

> I guess you could put it in your Assamite/Clan Impersonation/Madness Network
> deck <grin>. The new Rotschreck is a boon to intercept combat decks -- an
> archetype that needs all the help it can get, believe me.

See above about what I said of Assamites. They're a fun clan, but their
combat ability has lots of wholes in it. Plus, only being able to use
Rotschreck once per turn will be of no help to an intercept combat deck. ;)

Mike

Mark Langsdorf

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Gomi no Sensei wrote in message <6p0ge0$rog$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...

>In article <6p04ma$j45$1...@amdint.amd.com>,
>Mark Langsdorf <mark.la...@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend. It was
broken
>>as all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue, torporize. It wasn't pretty.
>> The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn card out." No
fix
>>that is vaguely based on card wording is going to be acceptable.
>
>A torporize/rescue combo produces 3n pool loss for every 2 *successful*
>minion actions -- i.e., you'd need to torpor/rescue (-3) and torpor/rescue
>again (-3) for a total of 6 pool loss (leaving it in torpor at the end of
the
>turn is just going to get the famous vampire diablerized). 4, or at a
>minimum 3 (if you're unconcerned about diablerie) minion actions for 6 pool


Actually, that's 3 actions for 7 loss, plus the player loses a vampire
and
possibly two: Greg puts Bianca into torpor for a 3 pool loss. Rescues her,
making her pay the cost. Greg puts Bianca back into torpor for 3 pool loss.
Greg ends his turn, and his prey loses another pool because a Famous
vampire is in torpor. Now Greg's prey can either rescue Bianca (not a good
plan) or get her dialberized - which may cause him to lose an additional
vampire.
Maybe if there was a burning clause on Fame, it wouldn't be too bad.

>loss -- something easily within reach of a bleed deck with only one
>successful action, or a vote deck with 2 (sometimes only 1, depending on
>table size). And at least, and probably more, card-intensive to boot.


True.
I don't know, maybe the card isn't unreasonably broken. But I don't
think
the new wording is a good fix.

>I'm also surprised the Assamites (with their vulnerability to SCE) could
>pull this off with any regularity -- there are only so many Psyche!s one
>can put in the deck without affecting its combat efficiency.
>
>Was the victim deck particularly lacking in combat defence?


It was not the world's most successful Brujah deck, okay? (Wasn't mine,
either).

ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

>
> Actually, that's 3 actions for 7 loss, plus the player loses a vampire
> and
> possibly two: Greg puts Bianca into torpor for a 3 pool loss. Rescues her,
> making her pay the cost. Greg puts Bianca back into torpor for 3 pool loss.
> Greg ends his turn, and his prey loses another pool because a Famous
> vampire is in torpor. Now Greg's prey can either rescue Bianca (not a good
> plan) or get her dialberized - which may cause him to lose an additional
> vampire.
> Maybe if there was a burning clause on Fame, it wouldn't be too bad.
>

The thing is... the first vamp causes a 3 point loss. Kinda painful, but not
that bad. Bleeding or voting you to death is much stronger. Then... each
additional vamp basically causes 1.5 points of pool loss. And this is with a
0 stealth action. Instead, why don't you simply Computer Hack them? That
would cause 2 pool loss per action after the first (to torporize your
blocker). If your prey has more than one untapped vamp, but you can stealth
past them (as you would have to if you were rescuing their vamp), then you
just bleed and *all* of your vamps cause 2 pool loss. This is more card
efficient than combat, which, in order to torporize reliably, will need more
cards, especially if you don't want to lose blood off of your vamps.

-Chris

James Hamblin

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Quietus is really only
> effective at long range, so you are required to pack in maneuvers that a
> Potence based combat deck doesn't have to (after all, they can either punch
> really hard or toss a sewer lid at you).

Actually, the Potence combat will have to put in maneuvers to guarantee
that they get to close range. And no Potence combat deck worth its salt
would mix long-range combat with close-range combat. You'd always get
stuck at the wrong range with the wrong card in your hand.

ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <35B4C850...@math.wisc.edu>,

Well, Potence only needs to cancel maneuvers. Just a few in hand, or a
couple of Drawing Out the Beasts (the reason Nos are the best combat clan)
will solve your problems. Assamites need to consistently get to long range.
Thus, they not only need the maneuvers to cancel their opponents', but they
need the first maneuver just to get to long range. IR Goggles are almost a
must in most Quietus decks.

If you don't care about playtest cards, don't read any further... (And for
those of you who don't know what I'm talking about... it's a set of cards
developed by a group of players that is meant to be used in Jyhad On-line.
It's not at all official, and not at all likely to make it to an actual
printing. They're fun to use on JOL, though... You can look at them
yourself at http://ugcs.caltech.edu/~justinf/jyhad/)

In the pt set, Quietus has a first round, close range agg damage card. With
this, they can be effective at either range, but you still have to plan for
it (because it requires a melee weapon). I tell you, when I played against
an Assamite deck, I wasn't sure which range I wanted to be at. I could just
see myself going "no maneuver" and then getting whacked with a Disguised Bang
Nahk with Coating the Blade(the pt card). As it turned out, I saved my
maneuver for cancelling and he still got to long range and hit me with a
nasty Blood Sweat (after using several Black Blood, another playtest card
that is sort of a tone-down Quietus version of Increased Strength). IMO, the
Assamites really need this flexibility and a non-playtest Assamite combat
deck really does suffer from the need for maneuvers as described.

Greg Faulkner

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In article <7x7m173...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>,
or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi says...

>
>"Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> writes:
>
>> Greg built an Assamite/Rush deck with fame this weekend. It was
>> broken as all hell. He'd rush, torporize, rescue, torporize. It
>> wasn't pretty. The conclusion of the table was "just throw the damn
>> card out." No fix that is vaguely based on card wording is going to
>> be acceptable.
>
>Hmmm. I still find it hard to believe that this is a problem
>scenario. It costs 2 blood to rescue, you have to be able to do the
>rescue without being blocked and Assamites aren't noted for their
>stealth.

Uh...... Obfuscate? And even if the rescue attempt doesn't work, then I get a
chance to send the next vampire to torpor.

>It's dangerous, certainly, especially with the Assamites and
>Contract -- but Assamites have always been a difficult combat clan to
>pul off (no intercept, very little defence against combat ends, no
>damage prevent, etc etc). Anything that gives them any sort of edge is
>ok in my book.

No intercept.... what about the Marketplace? Psyche is used against combat
ends (Akram comes in handy). And they can always prevent damage with leather
jackets or the Celerity card (Sideslip?).

Anyway, I'll agree on one point: Assamites are always difficult to pull off.
I have never won a game with an Assamite deck, and I've only gotten 3 VPs in
only about 12 games or so. It's the fault of the vampire selection that
Assamites have more than anything else. And the lack of diablerie is an
unbalanced disadvantage for each vampire.

>Remember that Fame is still unique, and this little scheme gets hosed
>if there already is a Fame on the table.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: If the only defense for Fame is to
put it in every deck until it gets contested, then that defines "broken" to me.

Greg


Fantasy15

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Okay, The pool loss is in addition to getting the crap beat out of your vamps.
I think losing a vampire is hars enough without the pool loss.

James Coupe

unread,
Jul 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/22/98
to
In article <6p23ql$9kt$1...@amdint.amd.com>, Mark Langsdorf
<mark.la...@amd.com> writes

> Actually, that's 3 actions for 7 loss, plus the player loses a vampire
>and
>possibly two: Greg puts Bianca into torpor for a 3 pool loss. Rescues her,
>making her pay the cost. Greg puts Bianca back into torpor for 3 pool loss.
>Greg ends his turn, and his prey loses another pool because a Famous
>vampire is in torpor. Now Greg's prey can either rescue Bianca (not a good
>plan) or get her dialberized - which may cause him to lose an additional
>vampire.
> Maybe if there was a burning clause on Fame, it wouldn't be too bad.

There's still my, hitherto ignored, suggestion that the Burn pool clause
on Fame could be restricted to once per turn, or once between that
vampire's controller's untap phases or whatever.

--

James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

LSJ

unread,
Jul 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/22/98
to vte...@oracle.wizards.com
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote:
> > [Re: Equipment is not optional]

> > As far as I can tell this rule only helps a little
> > confusion on writ of acceptance and ruins so much more. If writ needs to be
> > clarified, so be it, but don't screw up everything else just for the sake of
> > one card.
>
> You may be right - the "general rule" seemed easier than the handful of
> errata, but that may not be the case. It will be put back on the list
> for RT review.

To clear up (hopefully) the confusion caused by the new ruling:

Equipment either gives the bearer (the minion with the equipment) a
bonus or an ability (these terms are not well-defined, I apologize
for that), or has some other effect explicitly defined on
card text - Incriminating Videotape, for example.

If the card specifies that the bearer (minion with this equipment)
has / can use the bonus or ability, then it is optional or mandatory
as indicated by card text (e.g. Aaron's Feeding Razor, Ancestor's Talisman,
Changeling Skin Mask's superior Obfuscate, Enchanted Marionette are
all mandatory. Blood Tears of Kephran, Bomb, Changeling Skin Mask's
intercept are all optional). Note that the mandatory ones are bonuses,
while the optional ones are abilities. Changeling Skin Mask's Obfuscate
is a bonus, and the bearer has the ability to burn the Mask for intercept.

Before the 7/7 RTR, all the above bonuses/abilities from equipment were
optional, regardless of card text.


The cards that don't specify, or are worded as "this equipment does
something" rather than "Bearer has / can do something", are:

Flak Jacket
Flak Jacket prevents 1 damage each combat to the minion with this equipment.

Leather Jacket
Burn Leather Jacket to prevent the damage from any strike.

Leather Jacket is clearly an ability, and performs as if it reads:
"The bearer can burn Leather jacket to..."

Flak Jacket is also an ability, as in:
"The bearer can prevent 1 damage..."

All weapons give the bearer the ability to strike with the weapon - and
striking with the weapon is optional. Other (non-strike) bonuses or
abilities described on weapons are optional or mandatory as described
by card text.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages