Strike with Conviction

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 17, 2006, 9:58:32 AM5/17/06
to
Name: Strike with Conviction
[NoR:C]
Cardtype: Conviction
Burn to make a hand or weapon strike against a monster at +1 damage.
Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action.

If Strike with Conviction is used to attempt a hand or weapon strike in
combat, is it burned on declaration, or on resolution? I figure probably
declaration.

Last night, my group had another 'unintuitive experience' with the "bleed at
+1 bleed" part of SwC - I think this is because the effect sounds just like
an action card, and action cards are normally always burned when announced.
The interpretation that it is merely a card in play that *allows* an action,
with a cost of burning itself, and therefore isn't burned unless the action
succeeds, seems unnatural in comparison to "regular" actions - it reads as
if it allowed the *declaration* of an action by burning itself, just as
actions played from hand do (and strike cards from hand, for that matter).

It has also seemed overpowered to us, incidentally, that the card doesn't
burn if the action is blocked, since that lets you effectively use the same
copy of the card a second time in the same action, for an additional damage
in the resulting combat. The efficiency advantage over a weenie-vampire
deck with Computer Hackings and Lucky Blows is impressive.


Josh

the empire strikes back


LSJ

unread,
May 17, 2006, 10:30:01 AM5/17/06
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Name: Strike with Conviction
> [NoR:C]
> Cardtype: Conviction
> Burn to make a hand or weapon strike against a monster at +1 damage.
> Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action.
>
> If Strike with Conviction is used to attempt a hand or weapon strike in
> combat, is it burned on declaration, or on resolution? I figure probably
> declaration.

Resolution. Like a Grenade.

> Last night, my group had another 'unintuitive experience' with the "bleed at
> +1 bleed" part of SwC - I think this is because the effect sounds just like
> an action card, and action cards are normally always burned when announced.

Action cards are "normally always" played from hand when announced.

Army of Rats in play is not burned when someone announces the action to
burn it, for example.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 17, 2006, 10:45:08 AM5/17/06
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1147876201.4...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> Name: Strike with Conviction
>> [NoR:C]
>> Cardtype: Conviction
>> Burn to make a hand or weapon strike against a monster at +1 damage.
>> Burn to bleed at +1 bleed as a (D) action.
>>
>> If Strike with Conviction is used to attempt a hand or weapon strike in
>> combat, is it burned on declaration, or on resolution? I figure probably
>> declaration.
>
> Resolution. Like a Grenade.

You're the boss, of course, but it would make more sense to me the other
way. Grenade is written "burn after use" rather than "burn to strike" for
this very reason (clarity), isn't it?

>> Last night, my group had another 'unintuitive experience' with the "bleed
>> at
>> +1 bleed" part of SwC - I think this is because the effect sounds just
>> like
>> an action card, and action cards are normally always burned when
>> announced.
>
> Action cards are "normally always" played from hand when announced.

Well yeah.

> Army of Rats in play is not burned when someone announces the action to
> burn it, for example.

Sure, but Army of Rats doesn't say "burn this card to take an action to burn
this card", either.

Yes, it is typical for actions provided by cards in play to not have their
cost paid until resolution. But those cards don't normally allow themselves
to be used twice, whereas Strike with Conviction can be used both to attempt
a bleed at +1 and to strike for +1 with the same card in the same action.
And computer hackings don't reappear out of the ash heap during the untap
phase either.


Josh

clear like a scientologist


LSJ

unread,
May 17, 2006, 10:49:22 AM5/17/06
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Grenade is written "burn after use" rather than "burn to strike" for
> this very reason (clarity), isn't it?

I couldn't say. I didn't write it. It seems clearer, yes.

> Yes, it is typical for actions provided by cards in play to not have their
> cost paid until resolution. But those cards don't normally allow themselves
> to be used twice, whereas Strike with Conviction can be used both to attempt
> a bleed at +1 and to strike for +1 with the same card in the same action.

You mean like Bomb?

> And computer hackings don't reappear out of the ash heap during the untap
> phase either.

Not seeing the connection to the current point, sorry.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 17, 2006, 10:56:57 AM5/17/06
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1147877362....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> Grenade is written "burn after use" rather than "burn to strike" for
>> this very reason (clarity), isn't it?
>
> I couldn't say. I didn't write it. It seems clearer, yes.
>
>> Yes, it is typical for actions provided by cards in play to not have
>> their
>> cost paid until resolution. But those cards don't normally allow
>> themselves
>> to be used twice, whereas Strike with Conviction can be used both to
>> attempt
>> a bleed at +1 and to strike for +1 with the same card in the same action.
>
> You mean like Bomb?

Exactly. Bomb costs a pool and takes an action to put in play, and doesn't
come back after you use it, whereas Strike with Conviction takes no action
to put in play and comes back once per turn per Imbued.

>> And computer hackings don't reappear out of the ash heap during the untap
>> phase either.
>
> Not seeing the connection to the current point, sorry.

That's on the 'balance' point. Comparing Strike with Conviction to Computer
Hacking and Lucky Blow, it is something like twice as good as they are
card-for-card. And Computer Hacking is a benchmark strong card. In other
words, balance is another reason (IMO) that Strike with Conviction ought to
burn on declaration rather than resolution.


Josh

tried, sentenced, and hanged


LSJ

unread,
May 17, 2006, 11:01:12 AM5/17/06
to
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> >> But those cards don't normally allow
> >> themselves
> >> to be used twice, whereas Strike with Conviction can be used both to
> >> attempt
> >> a bleed at +1 and to strike for +1 with the same card in the same action.
> >
> > You mean like Bomb?
>
> Exactly. Bomb costs a pool and takes an action to put in play, and doesn't
> come back after you use it, whereas Strike with Conviction takes no action
> to put in play and comes back once per turn per Imbued.

How does that make it impossible to conceive a card that allows itself
to be "used" twice, both to attempt an action and to strike with the
same card in the same action?

> >> And computer hackings don't reappear out of the ash heap during the untap
> >> phase either.
> >
> > Not seeing the connection to the current point, sorry.
>
> That's on the 'balance' point. Comparing Strike with Conviction to Computer
> Hacking and Lucky Blow, it is something like twice as good as they are
> card-for-card. And Computer Hacking is a benchmark strong card. In other
> words, balance is another reason (IMO) that Strike with Conviction ought to
> burn on declaration rather than resolution.

Oh. OK. I was just addressing the mechanics issue. I'm not arguing
balance in general, and especially this early in the exposure to the
set.

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 17, 2006, 11:12:34 AM5/17/06
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1147878072.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Bomb costs a pool and takes an action to put in play, and
>> doesn't
>> come back after you use it, whereas Strike with Conviction takes no
>> action
>> to put in play and comes back once per turn per Imbued.
>
> How does that make it impossible to conceive a card that allows itself
> to be "used" twice, both to attempt an action and to strike with the
> same card in the same action?

It's not impossible, obviously. Just unintuitive that it works this way,
given the wording.

>> That's on the 'balance' point. Comparing Strike with Conviction to
>> Computer
>> Hacking and Lucky Blow, it is something like twice as good as they are
>> card-for-card. And Computer Hacking is a benchmark strong card. In
>> other
>> words, balance is another reason (IMO) that Strike with Conviction ought
>> to
>> burn on declaration rather than resolution.
>
> Oh. OK. I was just addressing the mechanics issue. I'm not arguing
> balance in general, and especially this early in the exposure to the
> set.

Fair enough. Submitted for your future consideration, then. :-)


Josh

it might be early, but for my taste, it already seems too long by half


pd...@lightlink.com

unread,
May 17, 2006, 11:53:02 AM5/17/06
to

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Fair enough. Submitted for your future consideration, then. :-)

So as I'm too lazy to actually find the answer by reading the whole
thread, have we determined that you do not burn Strike with Conviction
for the +1 bleed until the action resolves, so if the bleed is blocked,
you don't burn the Strike with Conviction?

Thanks,
-Peter

Joshua Duffin

unread,
May 17, 2006, 11:55:57 AM5/17/06
to

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:1147881182.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

That is correct. In addition, if you use Strike with Conviction for the +1
damage with a hand or weapon strike, you don't burn SwC until resolution in
that case either (like Grenade). Which matters if your opponent uses
Strike: Combat Ends or something.


Josh

drive down the cost


pd...@lightlink.com

unread,
May 17, 2006, 12:03:05 PM5/17/06
to

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> That is correct. In addition, if you use Strike with Conviction for the +1
> damage with a hand or weapon strike, you don't burn SwC until resolution in
> that case either (like Grenade). Which matters if your opponent uses
> Strike: Combat Ends or something.

I would now like to be on record as saying "Holy crap. That is really
powerful. And more so than I originally thought..."

Ok then.

-Peter

Brett

unread,
May 17, 2006, 4:11:21 PM5/17/06
to

Sweet. This exact situation occured in casual play last weekend, and we
thought about both points of view. We decided (for that game) that
conviction acts like a cost.

- Brett

tzimisce_dragon

unread,
May 18, 2006, 3:45:37 AM5/18/06
to

well, it is and IT SHOULD BE.... as Imbued base their game development
on
convictions. They burn a lot of them for taking actions, playing cards,
e.t.c. So, it is nice that SwC is handled as cost for the action, its
text is quite clear and i see no problems with it. And if you think SwC
is powerful take a closer look to Champion and Determine.


Imbued with Edge Explosion in play, can bleed at +1 bleed and give
monsters -1 intercept every single turn if they are successful, as they
gain 1 of the convictions they used from Edge Explosion and 1 during
the untap phase of the next round.

This is their big advantage, along with the fact that if you do not or
can't burn them they keep coming out of incap region like crazy :) If
it wasn't for these strengths, then they would be unplayable, given the
big variety of good cards that vamps have access to.

So, you need some time to set up, get project, Signet of King Saul,
Tasha, J.S., maybe a laptop, a vigilance and then, when the time is
right, you can start bleeding with 4-5 minions for 2+, while giving
monsters -1 intercept. If everything turned up well, then it is likely
that you'll have 5 imbued out, so Last Stand works very well, i am
using it and it has proved to be very helpful :)

The catch is, that your prey is not stupid, he knows what to expect of
an imbued deck, so no surprises, if he has a good deck he can prepare
himself adequately, so you may have to forget about "setting up" and
begin franticaly to bleed him since turn 2. Some other times you may
want to leave him a few turns and "hit" when the time is right, it
depends on the kind of deck your prey is playing and on the kind of
player he/she is.

Imbued look powerful to the common eye, because you need to put
permanent things on them, so people may become to be afraid of them and
try to kill you... it has happened to me in a 4-players game, when all
decided to turn against me, lucky for me they were quite weak at that
time and i managed to sweep. You can't surprise your opponents and this
is a weakness.

Anyway, what i am trying to say is that imbued are not all-mighty, you
just have to block them, kick the hell out of them and leave their
predator to do the burning. I swept the table the 2 times i have played
my imbued deck, but this only happened because i managed to influence 5
minions, while my predator (Assamite combat) influenced 3. he had to
keep 1 untapped to block his predator, so he managed to send me to
incap region a lot of times, but he never managed to burn one of my
imbued. So, i was keep going into incap region, leaving it, getting
powers and other nice permanent cards and this lasted for 10-11 turns,
then he had 1 of his minions diablerized, the other ones were left with
just a few blood on them, so he gave me some "space" and i swept the
table...

Sending Imbued to incap and not being able to burn them is the worst
thing you can do, you slow them down, but practicaly you don't do them
any real harm and youi waste your cards. They are not all mighty, but
they are good when opposing decks which have only a few actions/turn
using big fat minions and when they hunt decks without a lot of
poolgaining.

I would like to see some more cards for the imbued in the future, that
are going to give them access to different strategies and kinds of
play...

Shade

unread,
May 18, 2006, 5:37:01 AM5/18/06
to

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> That is correct. In addition, if you use Strike with Conviction for the +1
> damage with a hand or weapon strike, you don't burn SwC until resolution in
> that case either (like Grenade). Which matters if your opponent uses
> Strike: Combat Ends or something.

That's similar to wolf claws etc... as well though. In saying that,
would have to agree with you that a card that is a lucky blow and a
computer hacking in one is very good by itself, not having to use them
until successful is pretty strong.

I haven't seen enough imbued decks to say whether it's balanced or
otherwise though.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages