New card ideas for gun decks?
Talo...@hotmail.com
frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these
days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this
kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very
cool card to help
Bullet-Time
celerity
combat
1 blood
inf: strike dodge and inflict damage from the lowest pool cost gun on
this minion. This counts as an additional strike.
sup: as above, but this does not count against the additional strike
limit.
OR
(same basic stats)
inf: prevent 2 damage
sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
each strike.
Obviouslly, some kind of Woo action films picture of a sunglassed male
slipping out of the way of some bulletfire while returning fire with 2
of his own guns would suffice. =]
T
The Lasombra
news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news...
> Bullet-Time
> celerity
> combat
> 1 blood
> inf: prevent 2 damage
> sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
> each strike.
If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
than the superior on Sideslip?
I do like the other version though.
> Bullet-Time
> celerity
> combat
> 1 blood
> inf: strike dodge and inflict damage from the lowest pool cost gun on
> this minion. This counts as an additional strike.
> sup: as above, but this does not count against the additional strike
> limit.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
LSJ
> > celerity
> > combat
> > 1 blood
> > inf: prevent 2 damage
> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
> > each strike.
>
> If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
> with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
> than the superior on Sideslip?
It costs 1 blood, as opposed to Sideslip.
Superior Sideslip is better when faced with only one damage, or when
empty and faced with 2 aggravated damage.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
>I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was
>frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these
>days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this
>kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very
>cool card to help
<idea snipped>
The problem with Celerity gun decks isn't the combat, which is generally
far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the
minions, which can be hard as hell.
--
Derek
Orpheus
> > inf: additional strike
> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
> > each strike.
OR :
> > inf: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
> > each strike.
> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with any two
weapons each strike.
??
--
Orpheus
http://cypheranima.free.fr
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
audio...@yahoogroups.com
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
bc88c61a8512cfa8886...@mygate.mailgate.org...
hamdamcwa
> far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the
> minions, which can be hard as hell.
Nah, s'peice of piss!
Pier 13, Disguised Weapon, (Concealed Weapon), Fatima, Vast Wealth,
Heidelburg, etc
Any !Gangrel, Assamite, and even some Malkavians are up for the task
using obf / OBF, CEL, and aus /AUS. At least one Giovanni has obf /
cel too, and can Whispers to get the kit back after a Dragons Breath
Round. There are a lot of vampires ready for action in this respect
(Ellen Fence the tracker being the motherload, since she has all 3
plus a useful special). Leather Jackets help a lot.
Already in the UK, we are seeing a dearth of guns decks using mostly
Sniper Rifles (VERY popular) or Starshell Grenade Launchers (growing
in popularity). Guns combat decks are always popular since they are
even more of a no brainer than Pot / Cel decks. Nobody mention DotB /
Terror Frenzy, though...
DH
GreySeer
> frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these
> days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this
> kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very
> cool card to help
>
In my playgroup I've been finding that we've been having to tweak our decks
slightly to deal with gun decks. Celerity gun decks are very nasty. They're
quite effective and pack quite a punch whilst using a lot fewer cards than
say, a CEL/POT deck. As mentioned earlier though, getting the guns on the
minions can be quite a trick as many gun decks do not have stealth. Which
makes it damn annoying when the gun deck is across the table from you and
you have the intercept to block the action but the gun deck's predator and
prey do not.
Talo...@hotmail.com
<thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Talonz51" <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news...
>
>> Bullet-Time
>> celerity
>> combat
>> 1 blood
>> inf: prevent 2 damage
>> sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
>> each strike.
>
>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
>than the superior on Sideslip?
>
Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card
would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common. In
essence, it is partially designed to be a superior sideslip, but not
without its cost.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Why not :
>
>> > inf: additional strike
>> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
>> > each strike.
>
>OR :
>
>> > inf: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
>> > each strike.
>> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with any two
>weapons each strike.
>
>??
Because there are two elements I was trying to represent with the
card.
1)A superior or unique dodge of some kind
2)An ability to return fire with more than 1 gun, or with 1 gun in a
unique sistuation.
Its based on Matrix/Woo film like moves.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Well that is *A* problem. What I was trying to address is that there
were specefic additions to the cardlists recently which addressed
certain strategies, making holding the edge more powerful for
setities, making elder vampires easier to get, etc etc.
But nothing added to help gun decks, which sorely need it. You are
right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know
if it is *the* problem.
T
James Coupe
>>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
>>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
>
>would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common.
Why would the commonality of the card affect anything?
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3bbe438f.184071558@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
>>>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
>>>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
>>
>>Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card
>>would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common.
>
>Why would the commonality of the card affect anything?
>
The same reason commonality effects any usage of a card....making one
rarer or harder to obtain than another.
T
James Coupe
>>>>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play
>>>>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better
>>>
>>>Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card
>>>would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common.
>>
>>Why would the commonality of the card affect anything?
>
>The same reason commonality effects any usage of a card....making one
>rarer or harder to obtain than another.
Yet you are offering the commonality of the card in response to a
question about relative power levels of two cards.
Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than
commons?
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than
>commons?
>
I suggest looking at some rare vs common cards in your collection.
T
Derek Ray
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:59:51 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com>
>wrote:
>>The problem with Celerity gun decks isn't the combat, which is generally
>>far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the
>>minions, which can be hard as hell.
>
>Well that is *A* problem. What I was trying to address is that there
No, that is *THE* problem. If you permit me to start the game with a
.44 on Sarah Brando, I can guarantee that she will be the Most Hated
Vampire on the table very rapidly.
>But nothing added to help gun decks, which sorely need it. You are
Take a GOOD look. They don't need help kicking ass, they need help
getting the guns.
>right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know
>if it is *the* problem.
Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a
Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range. They can Dodge the
first strike, and Blur for additional strikes -- change cards as
appropriate, Celerity is one of the -best- disciplines for multi-use
cards.
They will NOT be damaged except by a deck that can also generate
additional strikes; nothing can stop a Dodge at long range except
Thoughts Betrayed or Drawing out the Beast. (Or Cailean, etc.) This
means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks,
and their response to S:CE is simply "Psyche! Maneuver with the gun."
The problem is that nobody with any intercept available will let you get
a gun on someone with Celerity, OR a Pier 13. Vamps with Obfuscate use
Disguised Weapon and just make it "appear".
--
Derek
PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between
two periods of fighting.
James Coupe
>>Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than
>>commons?
>I suggest looking at some rare vs common cards in your collection.
Lots of nice corner case applications, powerful in the right
circumstances, limited by opportunity rare cards e.g. Immortal Grapple.
Lots of nice common cards that are also powerful, covering many generic
functions e.g. Govern the Unaligned, Majesty.
Those which were too powerful, either common, uncommon or rare, have
been fixed in a number of ways.
Your point?
Free clue: Jyhad was designed on the principle that everyone could have
infinite numbers of any card. They didn't always succeed, sure, but
this was a basic design principle. Magic had shown them that limitation
through rarity *doesn't work*. It just gifts the game to the people who
buy the most cards. Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to
their power; commonality isn't a function of either.
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>>right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know
>>if it is *the* problem.
>
>Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a
>Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range.
Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont
use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike.
> They can Dodge the first strike,
Only if they didnt use the guns maneuver, not to mention certain other
effects like immortal grapple, drawing out the beast, frenzy, etc.
Add to that things like canine horde and the like, and there are
numerous ways to foil gun decks in mid combat.
>means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks,
Not true. They have the potential to be powerful, but a good combat
deck will be just as powerful ime.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to
>their power; commonality isn't a function of either.
>
Commonality alone might not be. Thus the 1 blood cost of Bullet-Time
as well.
T
James Coupe
>On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:29:24 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>> Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to
>>their power; commonality isn't a function of either.
>>
>
>Commonality alone might not be.
Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card.
Derek Ray
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 03:44:13 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com>
>wrote:
>>Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a
>>Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range.
>
>Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont
>use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike.
So they remain at close range? That seems foolish in the extreme; no
wonder your gun decks are having troubles. I would build a gun deck
using multiples of the following cards:
Flash, Pursuit, Side Strike, Blur, and Sideslip - mostly in that order.
Some Psyche! as well.
Two of those cards are maneuvers, and they're the ones I'll have the
most of in my deck. My Bum's Rush gives me a maneuver as well, although
it may be blocked so it's not good to count on that.
In any case, I want to have a Flash in hand for my first combat, and
I'll use it for the first maneuver to long. Now what do you do?
If you don't maneuver back, then I'm at long range, where I want to be
anyway. I can look at your disciplines and assess whether or not I'm
going to get hit by anything; if I think you're likely to have a ranged
strike, I play Dodge. So much for your ranged strike. Now I can Blur
and hit you twice, or use either of my other additional-strike cards and
then press. Sure, you can chuck around a Canine Horde, but I won't
expect to see more than one of those in any deck; if you happen to draw
it, well, lucky for you. You get to break one gun, once. Big deal. If
I happen to be blocking you, I'll just Dodge the Canine Horde, since you
have to announce your strike first.
If you DO maneuver back, obviously you want to be at short range...
you've telegraphed your intentions, and I can use the gun's maneuver
safely; odds are I won't need to Dodge anything at long range. Barring
a bad run on draw, I'll win the maneuver battle, since I can also burn
through my Pursuits -- if you maneuver back TWICE, then it's in my best
interest to remain at long by whatever means necessary. This leaves me
pretty much scot-free to Shoot You for Lots(tm). Better have superior
Fortitude on that Skin of Steel; and if you have Flesh of Marble, I'll
just Psyche! after the first round to get rid of it.
>> They can Dodge the first strike,
>
>Only if they didnt use the guns maneuver, not to mention certain other
>effects like immortal grapple, drawing out the beast, frenzy, etc.
I already mentioned DotB, and while it clearly screws gun decks (or any
equipment deck), it's a little hazardous to give a Celerity deck +1
strength. It's also rare to see these days; i'm not sure why, as it's
still a pretty damn effective card for a lot of things.
Immortal Grapple? Doesn't worry me... that's why I'm at long range, so
I don't have to put up with THE most common combat type seen these days;
Potence/IG combat. And I can assure you I have more maneuvers in my
deck than the POT deck has.
Frenzy? Uh, yeah. I'm not going to be scared of cards I've never
actually seen played. Here again, the argument against Canine Horde
applies; you've most likely only got one in your deck (and I'm going to
feel safe assuming you won't have ANY in your deck).
>Add to that things like canine horde and the like, and there are
>numerous ways to foil gun decks in mid combat.
I'm not going to be scared of Canine Horde, as I mentioned above. So
you break one gun, once. That won't be anywhere near enough to "foil" a
deck based around guns.
I'm still waiting for the "numerous" ways to foil a gun deck without
using your OWN additional strikes, *IF* it gets the guns on its vamps.
You've mentioned one: DotB. I'll mention one: Carrion Crows, 2 points
of damage that can't be dodged. Of course, it's only 2 points, and a
gun deck can probably Taste that back, but it's a start. I'll be
expecting to see EFFECTIVE ways, by the way; ways that will help your
deck win. Putting one Canine Horde in a deck can help your deck win,
since you can always chuck it out for a free 1R damage, OR you can break
something like a Leather Jacket or a Laptop. Putting one Frenzy in your
deck is most likely a wasted card slot and a card you'll have to
discard.
>>means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks,
>
>Not true. They have the potential to be powerful, but a good combat
>deck will be just as powerful ime.
The most common and most successful combat deck around right now,
Potence/IG, will get its ass *smoked* by a CEL deck that actually has
the guns on the vamps.
The reason we don't see lots of CEL gun decks is because of the trouble
getting the guns on the vampires, and how screwed your deck is if you
DON'T have guns on them. You can't get the guns on the vampires because
if you're going pure CEL, you only have +1 stealth on the actions, and
people will block. If you're going OBF/CEL, you can Disguised Weapon it
out, but this means using a lot bigger vampires, and now you have to
have both DW/gun in hand. You can add stealth cards, but taking that
equip action with a big vampire will seem real slow when Didi Meyers is
bleeding the piss out of you and you need to Rush backwards.
Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun,
celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see
those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak
point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action
intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later.
James Coupe
<lor...@yah00.com> writes
>Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun,
>celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see
>those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak
>point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action
>intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later.
Now, Toreador Grand Ball and Heidelberg Castle seems a good way around
this. Use Wake on the dancing vampire, move the equipment to them. And
you should have the intercept to defend the Ball for as long as you need
to, in order to get a few weapons out.
Unfortunately, it's not the cheapest of options. And the fact that
you're using Presence bleed hampers the card anyway.
Potentially, the dancing minion receives a weapon or two via Heidelberg.
He wakes/intercepts, strikes a fair bit. Maybe uses superior Majesty on
a later strike to untap, thus letting him/her bleed, because of the
Toreador Grand Ball "do not untap" clause.
The "free" minion equips a few extra pieces of equipment (Magnums, Bows,
Sport Bikes etc.), dropping them round both the dancing minion and any
others you care to get out via Heidelberg.
Hmm... Sounds like it could be fun, but also sounds like it has a
replacement extremely fragile point - that of the master cards.
spinney99
> > I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was
> > frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these
> > days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this
> > kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very
> > cool card to help
> >
> [snip]
have similar:
==
Marksmanship
master cost: 1 pool
text: place Marksmanship on a minion you control. Pay an extra pool
for every Marksmanship already on this minion. a minion with
marksmanship does +1 damage with any weapon that does ranged damage.
burn all Marksmanships on this minion if this it receives damage from
a Poke In the Eye.
==
Trigger-happy
combat cost: 1 blood
text: use Trigger-happy only after a strike resolves, and this minion
used a gun for its strike. this minion gains an additional strike for
which the same gun must be used. {in no way does this empower the gun
with anything extra, such as a second shotgun blast, e.g.} this
doesn't count against this minion's additional strikes, if any. Only
1 Trigger-happy may be used each combat.
==
-spintoy
Sten During
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 03:44:13 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know
> >>if it is *the* problem.
> >
> >Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a
> >Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range.
>
> Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont
> use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike.
>
>
I usually move out to long range with a gun unless I have a
maneouvercard.
Of course, when chatting with a Tzi or Ass -vampire I rather often
maneouver after my opponent if they declare interest in going to long ;)
Cel/Obf seems to be a good gun-combo. Thank god the city-gangrels and
Assamites don't bleed or vote too well.
Toreador will usually have trouble getting the guns. Sure, there is
Alacrity
and Creepshow Casino. One is horribly expensive and the other a unique
location.
Sten During
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
Sten During
> In message <6n2vrtgem5ipfoso0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
> <lor...@yah00.com> writes
> >Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun,
> >celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see
> >those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak
> >point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action
> >intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later.
>
> Now, Toreador Grand Ball and Heidelberg Castle seems a good way around
> this. Use Wake on the dancing vampire, move the equipment to them. And
> you should have the intercept to defend the Ball for as long as you need
> to, in order to get a few weapons out.
>
> --
> James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
> And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
> 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
> So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D
After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks.
Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even
pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted.
Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why?
Because if I'm allowed to get two guns and Heidelberg or three guns out
there's pretty much no more vamps around me. 2nd trad, 5th trad, taste
Blood Doll and then Psyche to boot. People have stopped to consider
Assault Rifle to be too expensive any longer. Taste is suddenly transformed
into a 5th trad even if I dodge the first strike.
People have even started to stack anti-equip-cards now, which pretty much
makes it impossible to find out if gun-decks are viable any longer :)
James Coupe
<spore...@hotmail.com> writes
>i've had these on paper for a while, and there are probably others who
>have similar:
>==
<snip - Marksmanship - master card costing pool>
I'd be unhappy with master cards costing pool since it requires yet more
preparation for an intensely fragile situation.
The minion/combat card option strikes me as very good indeed.
Disciplineless cards, akin to Lucky Blow/Channeling the Beast, are
handled quite neatly by the much underused Manstopper Rounds. (Probably
partly because guns are so fragile.)
Hmm... maybe something like:
Sniper Sight
Auspex
Combat
(aus) Strike: use a gun possessed by this minion at +1R damage.
[Something innocuous, making the inferior usable but not great.
Remember, it stacks with ammo so it could get quite nasty, but
it's not designed to be killer.]
(AUS) Strike: use a gun possessed by this minion. If the opposing
minion strikes to end combat, that effect occurs after damage
resolution, before additional strikes would be declared. (All other
effects of their strike occur normally.)
It can still be dodged, it can still prevented, they can still get to
close and pound you, they can still Strike: Destroy Equipment etc.
Putting it on AUS gives the intercept gun decks something interesting to
do with AUS, but also means that Celerity weenie decks can't go wild
with it - bigger vampires, combining AUS/cel or something similar can
get more use of it, where you've got a 3 and a 4, then mostly 5s and 6s.
James Coupe
writes
>After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks.
>Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even
>pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted.
>Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why?
Go with Anson and a weenie (say, Colin Flynn or Isobel.)
If they reverse the Heidelberg, play another or bring out a Toreador
Grand Ball... if you're managing to get a fair amount of pool back with
Minion Tap/Taste combos, the small cost of Grand Ball should be fine if
you're in an environment whereby equipment can be used usefully when
it's out.
And Toreador Grand Ball is not unique, so you can play it on more than
one vampire. *And* the tapped, dancing minion can be the same one.
Say, get out Anson, Felicia Mostrom (5 AUS CEL) and Colin Flynn. Use
Anson to 5th, if you can, with Minion Tap (or use Tastes later to save
pool).
TGB on Anson->Colin, TGB on Felicia->Colin with the second master phase.
Get out guns. If you're going for rush actions, they're unblockable.
If you're going for Fifth Tradition, that's now unblockable (blimey).
If you're going for a hunt (pfeh), that's now unblockable. If you want,
they can come and burn them and let you block their vampires with
intercept combat (depending on how active/reactive you design the deck).
1 pool for at least one "guaranteed" Fifth Tradition (unblockable, at
least) is a bloomin' scary thought.
Sten During
> In message <3BC1C54F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se>
> writes
> >After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks.
> >Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even
> >pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted.
> >Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why?
>
> Go with Anson and a weenie (say, Colin Flynn or Isobel.)
>
> If they reverse the Heidelberg, play another or bring out a Toreador
> Grand Ball... if you're managing to get a fair amount of pool back with
> Minion Tap/Taste combos, the small cost of Grand Ball should be fine if
> you're in an environment whereby equipment can be used usefully when
> it's out.
>
Honestly thinking about it now. My last stunt involving double Aching
Beauties on a big rusher to be crumbled as my Predator blocked three times
in a row, paid six pool and was ousted shortly afterwards. Sometimes
I think people get TOO upset about guns...
Only having one TGB will set me back though. I'm looking greedily at the
three Toreadors with Protean now.
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3bc040fb.248956846@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
>>On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:29:24 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to
>>>their power; commonality isn't a function of either.
>>>
>>
>>Commonality alone might not be.
>
>Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card.
>
It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. If you
have a problem with the blood 'cost' of the card, I think you need to
tackle that from that angle
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun,
>celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see
>those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak
>point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action
>intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later.
Im not really arguing those points. But there are lots of decks that
more or less avoid intercept, so you can get the guns out. And the
existing methods are pretty good.
I dont see any way to increase abilities to put guns out without it
becoming rather dangerous. Thus a few inplay booster cards would be
easier to implement and less of a balance problem I thought.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
James Coupe
>>Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card.
>
>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
If you do this, all it does is gift the game to the people who spend 500
quid on assembling 90 rare cards.
>If you
>have a problem with the blood 'cost' of the card, I think you need to
>tackle that from that angle
I have no problems with proper costings of cards; commonality does not
affect the power/cost ratio of a card. Many other things do. For
instance:
- clan requirements
- discipline requirements
- circumstance requirements (e.g. play when something odd happens)
- pool cost
- blood cost
- card type (because of the slots available for any given card e.g. one
master card per turn, usually)
- limiting disadvantages e.g. burn clauses (Toreador Grand Ball), cancel
clauses (Chas Giovanni Tello), theft clauses (High Museum of
Art)
- once per game clauses (Ancient Influence, Giant's Blood)
- uniqueness (The Barrens)/one per Methuselah (Communal Haven)
- requirements for other cards to be around (Disguised Weapon)
- limited in manners 'controlled' by your opponents e.g. disciplines
(Speed of Thought, Kiss of Ra), sects (Imperial Decree), clans
(Judgement: Death to the Brujah!, Letter from Vienna)
- ability becomes applicable to all (The Path of Paradox, Tremere
Convocation, Festive dello Estinto)
These can all contribute in some manner towards a power/cost ratio. The
power comes from the card's ability, the cost from all the inherent
restrictions which all cards have[0]. Commonality doesn't affect cost,
so it can't affect power - within the tolerance levels of a variable set
of power levels. That is, we'd love it if *every* card had exactly the
same power:cost ratio, but that's just not possible in Real Life (tm).
Look at Immortal Grapple. A good card, sure. But it's got a number of
problems. First of all, it requires Potence. Second of all, you have
to be in combat (which can be dangerous). Then you need to have managed
close range (either through luck or support cards). Then it also
restricts you, so if you find out that Mr. Opponent is playing Claws
from the Dead which you weren't expect, you can't play Dodge. And so
on.
Then there's Leather Jacket. Also a good card, certainly quite popular
among many players. It's disciplineless. It requires an action to be
taken, but you end up untapped for blocking duty - "negating", or at
least compensating, for part of the cost. Then it has a powerful effect
- preventing all damage from a specific strike - but is tempered by the
fact that it's continually in view, unlike a copy of Skin of Steel which
you might or might not have. It doesn't cost a blood unlike a copy of
Skin of Steel, however. Another good card, this time common.
Once a card is in a deck, all that can affect it are these sorts of
considerations (though doubtless, the list of such is far longer than I
can ever write). Jyhad was *designed* to be playable with 90 copies of
any given card - hence all the in built limitations to the game. Jyhad
was designed in the full knowledge of Magic - rarity *can't* work as a
limiting factor for power because people will just buy hundreds of
cards. Then you just create a game where newbies don't want to start at
the bottom because they know they've got to spend 500 dollars before
they can even compete - Jyhad has always been remarkably good at the
newbie curve.
Some of the rare cards are more specialised in their approach, sure -
but that in itself is a limiting factor. If something goes wrong, you
don't have a generically useful card any longer.
[0] Tangentially, this is why WWeF was so hated by some people in its
original incarnation. A generally good article, covering some similar
points to this post, is available at:
<http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html>
and has a good set of reasoning for a number of points.
GreySeer
Wealth, if you get blocked the card doesn't get burned. Or you make decoy
actions. Bleed, when they block, majesty and untap. If they don't play an
Aire. When they're tapped and/or WWeF'd out get your gun. Very few decks can
block all your actions all the time.
<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bc393da.466813371@news...
Derek Ray
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 19:35:05 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun,
>>celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see
>>those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak
>>point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action
>>intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later.
>
>Im not really arguing those points. But there are lots of decks that
>more or less avoid intercept, so you can get the guns out. And the
>existing methods are pretty good.
Not around here. If you want a gun, you better use Disguised Weapon or
at LEAST +2 stealth in some form; and if you want to GUARANTEE your gun,
you better use a minimum of +3 stealth. Why? Because we've ALL learned
that light intercept is almost mandatory; those pesky +1 stealth actions
(inferior Revelations) can be hell on you.
Put another way, if a deck can guarantee all its +1 stealth or better
actions going off without objection, then it knows to save whatever
stealth, bruise, or block-deterrent cards it has for its zero-stealth
actions... and it has a LOT easier time with those zero-stealth actions,
as a result. So we see a WHOLE lot of light intercept, media outlets,
etc.
>I dont see any way to increase abilities to put guns out without it
>becoming rather dangerous. Thus a few inplay booster cards would be
>easier to implement and less of a balance problem I thought.
It's a pointless direction, though. Obfuscate clans already have a nice
advantage, especially with regard to non-bleeding actions. By making
something that can only effectively be used with stealth even more
powerful, you aren't improving that something; you're improving the
Obfuscate clans (and others with heavy stealth, like Protean/OBT). By
printing a CEL card to make a gun more powerful, you pretty much just
improve the Assamites (and a few Malkavians).
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
>
>No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
>
It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
guy....etc etc.
The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as
well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is
a function of the cost.
In any case, I do agree that cards need to be costed appropriately for
their power. I felt 1 blood was appropriate for bullet-time.
T
LSJ
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:48:02 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
> >
> >No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
> >
>
> It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
> bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
> guy....etc etc.
Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru.
The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard
Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more).
It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so
it is rarer than the more general use card.
Likewise the non-unique Outcast Mage and the Mage Ally Guy (who costs
an additional pool and is unique).
etc. etc.
Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
> The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as
> well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is
> a function of the cost.
Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall
powerlevel increases.
Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its
powerlevel is unchanged.
If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs
twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/
title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
James Coupe
>It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
>bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
>guy....etc etc.
It seems that you are unable to understand the difference between a card
being powerful, with one set of costs, and another card having
potentially greater power with a larger set of costs to compensate -
e.g. clan requirements, burn clauses, pool costs, uniqueness etc.
A number of the cards with a greater potential utility, with a
significantly increased set of costings to compensate, may be rare.
This does not make them inherently more powerful, this makes them more
specialised and harder to use.
Halcyan 2
>clan/discipline/
>title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
Yep. Some other good examples are:
Laptop Computer vs. J.S. Simmons or Tasha Morgan (the retainers cost no pool
but are unique)
Sport Bike vs. Mr. Winthrop vs. Raven Spy vs. Revenant vs. Masquer. The first
two have no requirements. Sport Bike costs a pool. Mr. Winthrop is free but
unique. Raven Spy costs no pool and is not unique but costs blood and require
Animalism instead. Similarly, Revenant costs blood and requires Tzimisce
instead. And Masquer gets some extra features (immune to non-agg damage, can
give other minions the intercept) but requires Necromancy and an additional
blood compares to Raven/Revenant. Mr. Winthrop is rare, Masquer is common, and
the others are all uncommon. But does that make any one more "powerful" than
the others?
Halcyan 2
....salem christ....
> In message <3bc29111.466099606@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
> >>Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card.
> >
> >It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
>
> No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
i suspect, or at least hope, that he meant that the rarer the card, the
more powerful it is. But by "powerful", he means the power of it's
effect, irrespective of it's cost.
That is, the rarer a card is the more it can do, but because Jyhad/Vtes
was designed with a little foresight gained from some M*gic hindsight,
the cost[0] of that more powerful effect is correspondingly higher.
eg: Lost in Crowds is less powerful than Forgotten Labyrinth, as it has
one less stealth. Forgotten labyrinth is also "rarer".
Therefore, rarer=more powerful.
BUT, the cost of Forgotten Labyrinth is higher, so the card is still
"balanced".
[0]"Cost" being discipline requirement, blood cost, pool cost,
opportunity cost, or whatever....
salem.
....salem christ....
> Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall
> powerlevel increases.
>
> Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its
> powerlevel is unchanged.
>
> If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs
> twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
>
> Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/
> title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
Ok, so this definition of power seems to differ somewhat from what i am
perceiving Talonz's to be.
I beleive Talonz's definition of "power" equates to your definition of
"effect".
It's all semantics, i guess. assuming what i perceive the definition of
semantics to be is correct.
But, i think everyone agress that if a card Does More Stuff than some
similar card, then it should cost more than that similar card.
right?
salem.
Frederick Scott
> Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
>
> > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as
> > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is
> > a function of the cost.
>
> Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall
> powerlevel increases.
>
> Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its
> powerlevel is unchanged.
>
> If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs
> twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
>
> Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/
> title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function
of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However,
your last point needs elucidation. I believe it is always _possible_ to separate power
from cost. It just doesn't make a good game when you do. The Alpha version of Magic
proved that.
Fred
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
> >
> > > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as
> > > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is
> > > a function of the cost.
> >
> > Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall
> > powerlevel increases.
> >
> > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its
> > powerlevel is unchanged.
> >
> > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs
> > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
> >
> > Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/
> > title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
>
> I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function
> of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However,
If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated).
This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's Blood common.
The power is unchanged.
Designer intent won't change this.
> your last point needs elucidation. I believe it is always _possible_ to separate power
> from cost. It just doesn't make a good game when you do. The Alpha version of Magic
> proved that.
Power is a function of cost => Cannot separate power from cost.
restated:
The one depends on the other => the two are not independent.
You can make a strong card stronger by reducing the cost, sure.
Or you can make a card stronger by increasing the strength of its effect without increasing its cost (which is the line I believe you're on).
In either case, if the card was perfectly balanced beforehand, it will not be so afterward (again, the line you're on, AIUI).
Andrew S. Davidson
>inf: prevent 2 damage
>sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns
>each strike.
>
>Obviouslly, some kind of Woo action films picture of a sunglassed male
>slipping out of the way of some bulletfire while returning fire with 2
>of his own guns would suffice. =]
You're treading on Shadowfist's turf now. This has a card called Both
Guns Blazing but it has a different effect because characters in that
game can pack as many guns as they like.
I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the
current state of gun play is like. What we find is:
24 Ivory Bow
14 Zip Gun
5 Deer Rifle
4 Saturday Night Special
4 Combat Shotgun
3 .44 Magnum
3 White Phosphorus Grenade
2 Bomb
1 Assault Rifle
1 Flamethrower
The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's
Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best
ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put
together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes.
Talking of which, pool cues are now forbidden by the FAA. Be fun to
have one in the game though, just as the Buffy board game does. Just
the thing for Derek Ray ...
Andrew
Curevei
What makes it hard to discuss is that some people don't mean how useful a card
is, it's overall quality, when they refer to its power. They are referring to
the magnitude of effects the card could produce under optimal conditions.
I tend to use power to mean the two different things and hope that it's clear
from context which I'm referring to. If someone could come up with good words
to differentiate the two meanings, that would be helpful.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the
>current state of gun play is like. What we find is:
>
(list slightly trimmed)
>24 Ivory Bow
>14 Zip Gun
> 5 Deer Rifle
> 4 Saturday Night Special
> 4 Combat Shotgun
> 3 .44 Magnum
>
>The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's
>Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
>Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best
>ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put
>together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes.
And it also figures as far as gameplay is concerned; by equipping with
the Ivory Bow, you are paying one pool for a permanent ranged
torporizing effect, something nothing else in that list provides except
the Flamethrower... which costs a wopping 4 pool. Not surprising, also,
that the Deer Rifle (only permanent source of two maneuvers in the game)
is next, followed by another one-pool item.
>Talking of which, pool cues are now forbidden by the FAA. Be fun to
>have one in the game though, just as the Buffy board game does. Just
>the thing for Derek Ray ...
And you have no IDEA how much it ticks me off, although it likely won't
come into play until next May. I'll be damned if I permit my cue to be
checked as "baggage" though; I'll FedEx it to where I'm going to be, if
necessary. But there is no way I'll turn it over to the tender mercies
of baggage claim.
Interestingly, the first time I played the Buffy board game, the Pool
Cue was in my opening hand. :)
Frederick Scott
> LSJ wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function
> > > of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However,
> >
> > If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated).
> >
> > This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's Blood common.
> > The power is unchanged.
I was referring to the general trend of power in the various categories of cards which I believe
was also what Talo...@hotmail.com meant as well. It's trivial to prove that if you change the
rarity of a given single card its power does not change. The issue under debate (I believe)
that you interceded in was whether there was a design intent to move cards that are more
powerful into higher rarity levels. I therefore interpreted your statement with that definition
of "power" in mind.
Exactly. I don't think it's all that crucial to find "good words" as much as it for
people to be conscious of how others are using particular words and to either try
to duplicate the same semantics or else draw attention to how they prefer to define
their words.
Actually, looking back, I think I may have shifted my definition back and forth in the
same post, which is even worse. Sorry for any confusion caused. Thanks for keeping us
on track, Ian.
Fred
Andrew S. Davidson
>I was referring to the general trend of power in the
>various categories of cards which I believe
>was also what Talo...@hotmail.com meant as well.
>It's trivial to prove that if you change the
>rarity of a given single card its power does not change.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Just to correct you folk, note that
it's possible to severely restrict the power of a card by limiting
production to a tiny number of copies. There are CCG which have this
kind of thing - I believe that Galactic Empires used to produce custom
cards, of which there might only be a single copy.
And you don't have to go those extremes. As a practical matter, I find
that VTES rares are quite rare enough to stop me using many of them. I
don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10
starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it.
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>I
>don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10
>starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it.
Don't, then. Do what many other people do and trade, borrow or buy
singles.
GreySeer
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:23DD9EFC8FBE58EC.A8A9ED75...@lp.airnews.net...
Making cards rare doesn't make them any less powerful. Sure, it means you
might see them less often but there are ppl who will buy 10 !Brujah starters
to get 10 BBA. Then the game becomes a contest as to who can spend the most
money on the game, which is not what anyone wants.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>Up to a point, Lord Copper. Just to correct you folk, note that
>it's possible to severely restrict the power of a card by limiting
>production to a tiny number of copies. There are CCG which have this
>kind of thing - I believe that Galactic Empires used to produce custom
>cards, of which there might only be a single copy.
Unfortunately, this produces the Magic extreme, where those copies of
the card now go for several thousand dollars each. Someone with Too
Much Money and Not Enough Life can now abuse the card, and will.
If only twenty Return to Innocence had been printed, I guarantee eight
of them would have found their way to a single person's hands.
>And you don't have to go those extremes. As a practical matter, I find
>that VTES rares are quite rare enough to stop me using many of them. I
>don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10
>starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it.
Oddly enough, I have quite a few of them just from two !Brujah starters,
two boxes of Sabbat War (and prize support), and two boxes of Sabbat
(..bought back when Sabbat was $60, and prize support -- no way am I
paying any stupid $300 for Sabbat these days). None of these purchases
are EXTENSIVELY impractical.
Jason Bell
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and
its
> > > powerlevel is unchanged.
> > >
> > > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and
costs
> > > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
...
> > I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the
power-not-being-a-function
> > of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer
intent. However,
>
> If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated).
>
> This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's
Blood common.
> The power is unchanged.
I disagree with this, not on its face as you are discussing, but
in the sense that some cards' game effects are limited because
their availability is limited, while others' effects are pervasive
because they are easily available. I believe that these properties
associated with rarity affect the power of cards by how they
force the game to be played.
Consider:
If Deflection were a rare, only available in Sabbat, the power would
be dramatically changed. The change in power would massively alter
the nature of bleed strategies and defense in the game.
Because almost any player can easily obtain his fill of
Deflection (at least for one deck at a time), bleed strategies
are more easily countered.
The inverse is true for Disarm. Make it a common, or even a rare in
the more readily available Jyhad/Vampire main set, and a combat
strategy becomes far more effective (if only by giving Potence
access to what is functionally free aggrivated damage), and combat
defenses become more important. Thus Disarm would be made more
powerful.
How about Freak Drive? If it were common, repeat actions could
become almost as widespread as Majesty.
Speaking of Majesty, if it were really hard to come by, would
Immortal Grapple be as important as it is in Potence combat?
My point is that the availability of certain powerful cards inhibits or
expands their effects on the game and metagame, making those
cards more or less powerful. The calculus might be something like:
Total Game Power = X * X * Y * Z
where
X = Objective Game Effect (as LSJ is talking about),
on a continuous bell-shaped scale from 0 to 2, where
1=mildly useful and 2=really really powerful
Y = Rarity (Y=1 for Uncommon, Y=2 for Common, Y=0.5 for Rare)
Z = Set availability (Z=2 for base set, Z=1 for recent expansion,
Z=0.5 for out of print expansion, Z=0.25 for Sabbat Only)
So, for this model, cards like Majesty, Deflection,
and Blood Doll sit on top of the hill of powerful cards,
requiring consideration by anyone considering a
strategy that could be affected by them.
Meanwhile, equally powerful, but less available cards
like Freak and Disarm lie somewhat farther down the hill.
Of course, if you are Mr. Suitcase, you can turn this
model on its head to some extent. If you can afford to
acquire and build a deck with the less available powerful
cards, you are liable to face a field that is relatively
unprepared for, say, the 12 Disarms that you have put in
your Potence/Fortitude Rush-Freak-Rush deck.
Mr. Suitcase gets to use the inverse of the values
of Y and Z in the model above for his own personal
game power curve (thus increasing the number of
Total Game Power of cards that his opponents must
consider, while keeping the Total Game Power of cards
that he must reasonably expect to face relatively
lower).
This is probably part of the reason everyone hates
Mr. Suitcase.
- Jason Bell
James Coupe
<Jason...@mail.com> writes
>The inverse is true for Disarm. Make it a common, or even a rare in
>the more readily available Jyhad/Vampire main set, and a combat
>strategy becomes far more effective
It may become easier to assemble the necessary cards; this is a
different thing.
Curevei
Actually, I don't disagree with the thrust of these comments. If the metagame
is largely determined by players without all the cards, then making something
rare versus common (for instance) effects the metagame.
To put what I think you are trying to say a bit differently, how about: rarity
doesn't effect the card's power but the power of strategies that employ the
card?
>Of course, if you are Mr. Suitcase, you can turn this
>model on its head to some extent. If you can afford to
>acquire and build a deck with the less available powerful
>cards, you are liable to face a field that is relatively
>unprepared for, say, the 12 Disarms that you have put in
>your Potence/Fortitude Rush-Freak-Rush deck.
>Mr. Suitcase gets to use the inverse of the values
>of Y and Z in the model above for his own personal
>game power curve (thus increasing the number of
>Total Game Power of cards that his opponents must
>consider, while keeping the Total Game Power of cards
>that he must reasonably expect to face relatively
>lower).
>This is probably part of the reason everyone hates
>Mr. Suitcase.
For two currently played games, I qualify as a Mr. Suitcase. For one of those
games, for which I also happen to be a playtester, I've learned to ignore
comments about the balance of the game from players who clearly don't have all
the cards. While ideally a CCG should be balanced at every level of play, if
it's a choice between balancing the tournament level versus the constructed
level, the tournament level wins out. For that game, not having all of the
cards is not playing top level. (To give an idea of how rare intensive the
game is, I built an all rare deck for amusement. It wasn't hard. Wouldn't
beat a tournament deck but was about constructed level.)
But, there are several features specific to V:TES which alter the math. First,
and easily most important, it's multiplayer. Multiplayer games are inherently
better balanced than two player games due to the ability to gang up. Second,
whereas I can acquire enough cards for some games to have 3-4 copies of every
card, I can't acquire 90 copies of every card. While there are players with
enormous collections in this game, I doubt anyone has *all* the cards.
I'm not sure if there was a complaint in your post, a suggestion, or simply an
observation. But, it seems to me that it's especially important with this
game, due to the NCL, not to make rares more powerful to avoid strategies based
around rares becoming overly powerful. Fortunately, IMO, this game hasn't seen
that occur on a significant level.
Talo...@hotmail.com
<s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>i suspect, or at least hope, that he meant that the rarer the card, the
>more powerful it is. But by "powerful", he means the power of it's
>effect, irrespective of it's cost.
>
>That is, the rarer a card is the more it can do, but because Jyhad/Vtes
>was designed with a little foresight gained from some M*gic hindsight,
>the cost[0] of that more powerful effect is correspondingly higher.
Finally.
Thank you.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the
>current state of gun play is like. What we find is:
>
>24 Ivory Bow
>14 Zip Gun
> 5 Deer Rifle
> 4 Saturday Night Special
> 4 Combat Shotgun
> 3 .44 Magnum
> 3 White Phosphorus Grenade
> 2 Bomb
> 1 Assault Rifle
> 1 Flamethrower
>
>The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's
>Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
>Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best
>ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put
>together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes.
That's interesting, but what does it really say?
Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful.
T
Andrew S. Davidson
>That's interesting, but what does it really say?
>
>Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful.
Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that
the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as
expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious
pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have
been free - only requiring an action to equip with them. Big weapons
like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty. It's only
military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have required
pool. And not nearly so much.
Andrew
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>That's interesting, but what does it really say?
>>
>>Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful.
>
>Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that
Until one gets to the Assault Rifle. However, using an Assault Rifle
almost guarantees a "trick deck", where you're forced to build your deck
around supporting the five-pool cost of each Rifle; and when it's all
said and done, suddenly you find that all you have is a gun.
>the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as
>expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious
>pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have
>been free - only requiring an action to equip with them. Big weapons
>like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty. It's only
>military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have required
>pool. And not nearly so much.
notably, the RPG launcher costs 2, and a bomb costs 1. Their problems
come in the conditions of their use.
However, several groups HAVE tried to make guns more effective by
reducing their pool cost by 1 each. This was some time ago, before the
influx of new Sabbat War/Final Nights vampires and cards, so it's
possibly worth a re-look.
It did produce a number of issues, as I recall. First was that decks
that didn't care about guns (heavy S:CE, DotB, etc) STILL didn't care
about guns, they just spent less pool not to care. Decks that didn't
come with additional stealth on the equip action somehow still sucked,
because nobody was letting you get a 1-pool .44 on Felicia Mostrom
without a fight. Obfuscate gun decks got a bit better, but they didn't
have any good way to make use of the guns once they got them, so they
wandered around with their 3-pool Flamethrowers looking for something to
shoot.
Perhaps with Creepshow Casino, Pier 13, the new Ravnos Cache/Carnival,
and some of the newer OBF/CEL vampires, it would be worth trying again
locally to see if the pool cost reduction made a significant difference.
Emmit Svenson
> >My point is that the availability of certain powerful cards inhibits or
> >expands their effects on the game and metagame, making those
> >cards more or less powerful.
"High game impact" might be a more useful term than "powerful" for
those common, powerful cards that you can expect to see in every game,
as compared to "low game impact" cards that are either not powerful or
are seldom seen.
Pat Ricochet
>
> Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful.
And? "Retainer decks" aren't very successful, either.
I recognize, of course, there are several types of guns, tied together
with the ammo cards that inspires one to make a "gun deck," but that doesn't
mean the game should bend over to make those cards more viable as a direct
strategy to winning. They are an adjunct, primarily, not a focus.
Depending on the metagame, a few .44s in the end game may win you another
VP. Some games, having one guy with a Deer Rifle may shut down someone
else's trick.
Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now.
They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. Combat doesn't oust people.
Killing vampires doesn't earn you VPs. The only way it does is Rush so
brutal that is kills EVERY vampire, forcing your prey to bring out more to
function (well, that's the IDEA, but cross-table rescues and having a
predator make it tricky, in practice), spending pool. That's why (as I said
above), I see guns as an adjunct to a deck that primarily does something
else. Done right, it can be damn effective, too! But I don't usually think
of a "gun deck" as being tournament worthy[0].
Now, it's obvious from your statements that you disagree, fine. I'm not
disputing your opinion, just don't see a lot of need in the game for it.
Card for card, I can see a lot more that I'd want printed for the game than
"cards to help gun decks win tournaments."
[0] Exception: Norm had a Princely Gun Deck make the finals twice and win
once (IIRC), but I'd call it a Bloodhunt deck; Guns were just his choice of
combat. Actually, the latest incarnation I saw was Gangrel, with no guns,
further proving the point that it's a Bloodhunt deck, (with nasties like
Fame and Anathema) not a "gun deck."
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote:
I agree, but there has to be some cost for the card itself to balance
it. But still, I wondered why the weapons were THAT costly to
play....and it does put a strain on any gun deck.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now.
>They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. Combat doesn't oust people.
>Killing vampires doesn't earn you VPs.
See now that's another issue. If the only viable tourney decks are
vote and bleed decks its kind of boring imo when combat decks are so
marginalized.
I dont really disagree with you on your other points.
I just thought bullet-time would be a cool card for gun decks, who
could certainly use any help they can get, tourney or otherwise.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>> It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
>> bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
>> guy....etc etc.
>
>Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru.
>The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard
>Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more).
>It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so
>it is rarer than the more general use card.
>
>Likewise the non-unique Outcast Mage and the Mage Ally Guy (who costs
>an additional pool and is unique).
>
>etc. etc.
>
>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is
linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it
is to be higher on the rarity scale.
That does not in anyway void the fact that it still must have an
appropriate cost, a cost based on the power of the card and not the
rarity.
And thats all I was saying.
T
Frederick Scott
>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >That's interesting, but what does it really say?
> >
> >Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful.
>
> Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that
> the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as
> expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious
> pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have
> been free - only requiring an action to equip with them.
Remember play balance? Backstory is secondary. If play balance sucks,
no one plays the game nor gives any fecal material about how realistic
the cards seem.
I suppose one solution would be to have changed the names and artwork on
the cards to make the Saturday Night Special some oversized monster of a
handgun (thus better justifying the damage it does to vampires as wells as
its pool cost) and maybe making the .44 Magnum into some experimental laser
or something.
> Big weapons like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty.
That's all real cute and all but it would hardly make any difference. The
Deer Rifle would become an even bigger steal than the SNS and the .44.
Generally speaking, guys with guns don't use stealth for much. Sometimes
it sucks a little when you can't Bum's Rush the right guy (though outside
of Haven Uncovered, few rush cards grant stealth anyway and few gun decks
I've ever seen bother to add it), but often it doesn't. And your stealth
doesn't matter a whit when you're blocking.
Now, add a -2 intercept along with a -2 stealth to the long guns on the
rationale that it's hard to be out in public watching someone else when
you've got a long gun slung over your shoulder and you might begin to have
the workings of a little real balance. I still thing you need to charge
pool for the guns, but this way you might decrease the cost of the long
guns.
> It's only military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have
> required pool. And not nearly so much.
I do agree that Assault Rifles, Bombs (which actually should be free), Flame
Throwers, Submachine Guns, and the RPG launcher are all overcosted by one
pool. (Possibly two if you added the stealth/intercept penalty I talked
about above.)
Fred
James Coupe
>>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
>
>Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is
>linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it
>is to be higher on the rarity scale.
Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue
of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form).
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now.
>They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat.
All combat is hard, true.
However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with
than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired
replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something
along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally
wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term.
Derek Ray
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:41:33 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
>
>Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is
>linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it
>is to be higher on the rarity scale.
Horseshit.
Look at the current crop of FN rares. They are hardly "more powerful".
They are different, or corner-case... but hardly more powerful. Mythic
Form, for example? Sure, it's got a huge effect, but a huge cost as
well... this doesn't make me shake in my boots that someone's going to
make the unbeatable Mythic Form deck. Mythic Form has a significant
effect, but it is not a powerful card.
Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only
if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise,
you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free
common (BO). Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with
nothing but Awe? Of course not, because you'd be wasting blood off your
vamps. You build it with plenty of BO, and include some Awe to save up
and "push" a vote through; or to stack on top of your BO as necessary.
Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to
power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm).
However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the
Unaligned).
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote
> Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only
> if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise,
> you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free
> common (BO).
Yes, Awe is more powerful.
Because it is more versatile and can affect a referendum
in more situations. It can have a much greater game effect
at a cost which is variable depending on how much effect
is needed.
> Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with
> nothing but Awe?
If I were to answer it that way, I would fail to answer your
question. But I take your point (that some powerful cards
are not well served by just stacking a big pile of them in
the deck). So answer it this way: If you were to include
only 3-5 vote-pushing action modifiers in your vote deck,
how many would be Awe?
I think the point the previous poster was making was that
cards with larger game effects (and often with larger
costs in blood/pool/restrictions) more often are
rare or uncommon than common. Maybe we would do
well to separate and resolve that point from the larger
discussion of rarity's relationship to "power" (or
even the broad discussion of which cards are powerful).
So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any
discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards,
I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any
rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true,
tough):
- Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer
than Anarch Revolt.
- Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength.
- Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost.
- Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer
than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably
should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are
Common).
And then there are the cards that stand alone with
very great game effects combined with either big
restrictions, high costs, or both:
Week of Nightmares is probably rare.
Gangrel Revel is probably rare.
Hostile Takeover is probably rare
Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare
Form of Corruption is probably rare
- Jason Bell
BernieTime
rather than blood.
Why shouldn't Emerson Bridges be able to go shopping for his own FlameThrower,
rather than needing my outside influence?
If White Wolf were to reprint guns at the same cost in blood instead of pool,
it would really give em' a leg up.
Though my poor Caitiff would never be able to recruit their own FlameThrowers
*sniff*..
Bernie Bresnahan
Bern...@yahoo.com
Derek Ray
wrote:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote
>> Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only
>> if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise,
>> you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free
>> common (BO).
>
>Yes, Awe is more powerful.
>Because it is more versatile and can affect a referendum
>in more situations. It can have a much greater game effect
>at a cost which is variable depending on how much effect
>is needed.
More versatile doesn't necessarily equal more powerful, though. More
powerful, to me, means "just plain better".
Theft of Vitae is more powerful than Tongue of the Serpent.
Lost in Crowds is more powerful than Shadow Play.
Disguised Weapon is more powerful than Concealed Weapon. (well, duh)
Most of these cards are balanced against each other by being available
in different disciplines; Theft is in a combat discipline, while Tongue
is not. Lost in Crowds is in the PREMIER stealth discipline, while
Shadow Play is in a multi-use discipline. But this is what I define a
card being "more powerful".
>> Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with
>> nothing but Awe?
>
>If I were to answer it that way, I would fail to answer your
>question. But I take your point (that some powerful cards
>are not well served by just stacking a big pile of them in
>the deck). So answer it this way: If you were to include
>only 3-5 vote-pushing action modifiers in your vote deck,
>how many would be Awe?
With 5, I'd include 1 Awe and 4 BO. With 3, it would COMPLETELY depend
on the situation. I'd probably not include ANY and just include 3
Bribes, and try for the "blizzard-style"[0] vote-pass.
>I think the point the previous poster was making was that
>cards with larger game effects (and often with larger
>costs in blood/pool/restrictions) more often are
>rare or uncommon than common. Maybe we would do
Which, as a statement, is generally true. Big effects are rare; the
game was designed to let players produce what they can from combinations
of multiple small effects. This is part of the appeal of the game.
>well to separate and resolve that point from the larger
>discussion of rarity's relationship to "power" (or
>even the broad discussion of which cards are powerful).
That would be the big objection we all have to his statement. The cards
aren't more powerful, they just provide a different, often more
versatile, effect... "more powerful", to me, means that given the
option, you will always choose "A" over "B". It's like having to bet on
Florida State or Dekalb Community College if the two were going to play
football. FSU is simply a more powerful team. But compare to having to
bet on Babe Ruth or Ted Williams; Babe is more likely to hit a home run,
but also more likely to strike out (bigger effect, bigger cost). Hard
to say which of those players was more "powerful".
>So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any
>discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards,
>I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any
>rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true,
>tough):
>
>- Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer
>than Anarch Revolt.
Difficult to quantify; SJ and AR were both rare in the original set,
AFAIK. AA wasn't printed in the same set, but was also rare.
>- Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength.
>- Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost.
An excellent example for both of these of "rare != more powerful"; you
get a slightly better effect, but pay a blood for it. There are many
decks where one is more appropriate than the other.
PtL is uncommon, US is common, I think. FoD was rare, TS was uncommon.
>- Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer
>than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably
>should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are
>Common).
PS was rare, CA and KRC were both uncommon. KRC hasn't been reprinted
yet, AFAIK. Note that CA is only better than KRC in a 5-player game.
>And then there are the cards that stand alone with
>very great game effects combined with either big
>restrictions, high costs, or both:
>
>Week of Nightmares is probably rare.
>Gangrel Revel is probably rare.
>Hostile Takeover is probably rare
>Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare
>Form of Corruption is probably rare
Yep. Again, not necessarily "more powerful"; just a HUGE game effect.
Temptation of Greater Power is the best "oust yourself" card I've ever
seen, if played improperly or carelessly; and it really does take a
whole deck's worth of support to use more than 1 per game. Hostile
Takeover tends to hand vampires cross-table; a disturbing surprise for
local Ventrue decks who planned on getting something out of it. :)
Talo...@hotmail.com
From a 'real world' perspective you are mostly right. I imagine that
for certain items like flamethrowers though, it may require a bit more
'backroom' influence than just a vampires resources.
For game balance purposes, I don't know if that pool->blood cost could
be pulled off.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3bc6962b.193969643@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
>>>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
>>
>>Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is
>>linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it
>>is to be higher on the rarity scale.
>
>Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue
>of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form).
>
No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a
direct power/rarity comparison. They are not one and the same.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>Horseshit.
Agree or disagree, but keep your farm euphamisms to yourself please.
=]
>
>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to
>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm).
>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the
>Unaligned).
>
Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card.
T
The Lasombra
news:oPKx7.4334$7W.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> - Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer
> than Anarch Revolt.
Smiling Jack - Rare in two sets (Jyhad / VTES).
Anarch Revolt - Uncommon in two sets (Jyhad / VTES).
Antediluvian Awakening - Uncommon in Dark Sovereigns, fixed card in Sabbat War.
> - Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength.
Pushing the Limit - Common in two sets, also appears in two starters.
Undead Strenght - Common in four sets, also appears in four starters.
> - Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost.
Fists of Death - Rare in two sets.
Torn Signpost - Uncommon in two sets, appears in one starter.
> - Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer
> than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably
> should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are
> Common).
Parity Shift - Uncommon in two sets.
Conservative Agitation - Common in three sets, appears in three starters.
Kine Resources Contested - Common in two sets.
> And then there are the cards that stand alone with
> very great game effects combined with either big
> restrictions, high costs, or both:
>
> Week of Nightmares is probably rare.
One of 8 R1 cards in a set of with 44 R2s.
> Gangrel Revel is probably rare.
Uncommon in Dark Sovereigns.
> Hostile Takeover is probably rare
Rare in two sets.
> Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare
Rare in two sets.
> Form of Corruption is probably rare
Rare in one set, also appears in a starter.
Its not like these are hard to check guys.
If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions,
at least have the facts straight to begin with.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.thelasombra.com/lists/checklist_australia.htm
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
The Lasombra
news:3bc88b8f.322345218@news...
> On 13 Oct 2001 17:17:46 GMT, berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote:
>
> >As far as gun costs go, I'd always thought it a bit odd that weapons cost pool
> >rather than blood.
> >
> >Why shouldn't Emerson Bridges be able to go shopping for his own FlameThrower,
> >rather than needing my outside influence?
Because the clans with Princes then become even more powerful.
Gilbert Duane gets a four blood cost Flamethrower.
Gregor Anderssen fills him back up with a Fifth Tradition.
Compare to:
Abd Al-Rashid gets a five blood cost Assault Rifle.
Only way to fill him back up is Taste of Vitae.
> >If White Wolf were to reprint guns at the same cost in blood instead of pool,
> >it would really give em' a leg up.
> >
> >Though my poor Caitiff would never be able to recruit their own FlameThrowers
> >*sniff*..
And none of your allies would be able to get weapons either.
> >Bernie Bresnahan
> >Bern...@yahoo.com
>
> From a 'real world' perspective you are mostly right. I imagine that
> for certain items like flamethrowers though, it may require a bit more
> 'backroom' influence than just a vampires resources.
>
> For game balance purposes, I don't know if that pool->blood cost could
> be pulled off.
We tried that in the Austin Expansion, with cards like Momentum and a
few others that didn't stay up on the web. It made the Camarilla clans
significantly more powerful while not helping the independents or
Sabbat enough. This was back before Sabbat War or Final Nights though
so I can't say for sure that this would still be the case.
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/expansion/
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
James Coupe
>>Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue
>>of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form).
>>
>
>No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a
>direct power/rarity comparison.
You cannot directly compare power without involving cost; attempts to do
so are utterly meaningless.
James Coupe
>>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to
>>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm).
>>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the
>>Unaligned).
>>
>
>Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card.
In Sabbat, the end result was significantly above the standard power
curve. Following re-writes, it's far less problematic. Good, but not
excessively good.
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote:
> More versatile doesn't necessarily equal more powerful, though. More
> powerful, to me, means "just plain better".
One way to judge powerful, versatility is correlated with power.
> The cards
> aren't more powerful, they just provide a different, often more
> versatile, effect... "more powerful", to me, means that given the
> option, you will always choose "A" over "B".
You are entitled to your definitions of powerful, but I believe
that limiting the definition in this way greatly curtails the
opportunity for interesting discussion.
Another working definition of "powerful" would be a card
that is undercosted in pool or blood for the game effect
that it produces. The greater the extent of undercost,
the more powerful. This definition allows me to compare
cards with radically different effects (I am not limited
to comparing Awe with Bewitching Oration, I can compare
Bewitching Oration to Giant's Blood if I want to).
Several cards leap to mind when using this definiton,
led by Disarm, Freak Drive, Govern the Unaligned, and
Direct Intervention.
> >So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any
> >discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards,
> >I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any
> >rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true,
> >tough):
> >
> >- Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer
> >than Anarch Revolt.
...snip...
> >- Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength.
> >- Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost.
...snip...
> > Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare
>
> Yep. Again, not necessarily "more powerful"; just a HUGE game effect.
> Temptation of Greater Power is the best "oust yourself" card I've ever
> seen, if played improperly or carelessly; and it really does take a
> whole deck's worth of support to use more than 1 per game. Hostile
> Takeover tends to hand vampires cross-table; a disturbing surprise for
> local Ventrue decks who planned on getting something out of it. :)
Again, I was not trying to lobby for these cards as being "powerful"
(see the disclaimer), I was just trying to range cards from rare to
common using criteria of game effects, play restrictions, and
situation restriction. For the list I made, my expectation was that
larger game effects, larger costs, more play restrictions, and
more situation restrictions were all indicators of greater rarity.
If I can get a general agreement on those indicators, I believe
there is a really interesting discussion to be had about the cards
that violate those trends.
I suppose that discussion would not be about "power" per se,
but I'm not convinced that a useful discussion about the power
of cards can be had, due to the difficulty in establishing an
agreement on what the term means.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
*One enormous, frustrated snip*
> Its not like these are hard to check guys.
> If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions,
> at least have the facts straight to begin with.
Sigh. You have missed my point.
It doesn't really matter to me whether all the cards
actually map to the rarity expectations I put forth,
in fact it would have been dishonest of me to look
them up. This is because I was using the properties of
the cards as surrogates for the rarity chart.
I look at two cards with the same type of game
effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction),
I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than
the other. If I look at two cards with the same game
effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater
cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare
than the other.
If it turns out that I am right most of the
time, then those indicators might be valuable
in getting progress in the long and ongoing
debate about power, rarity, and the meaning
of life.
- Jason Bell
X_Zealot
>
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> *One enormous, frustrated snip*
>
> > Its not like these are hard to check guys.
> > If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions,
> > at least have the facts straight to begin with.
>
> Sigh. You have missed my point.
Actually, I think he countered it.
> It doesn't really matter to me whether all the cards
> actually map to the rarity expectations I put forth,
> in fact it would have been dishonest of me to look
> them up. This is because I was using the properties of
the cards as surrogates for the rarity chart.
> I look at two cards with the same type of game
> effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction),
> I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than
> the other. If I look at two cards with the same game
> effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater
> cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare
> than the other.
Some of your examples have been proven false and therefore do not support
your concusion.
> If it turns out that I am right most of the
> time, then those indicators might be valuable
> in getting progress in the long and ongoing
> debate about power, rarity, and the meaning
> of life.
>
If it turns out that you are right I would like to be the first to agree
with you. I disagree with you that power = rarity in VTES (See Govern the
Unaligned, Deflection, Undead Strength, Lost in Crowds, Claws of the Dead,
Bum's Rush, etc...). The higher utility cards are normally your most common
cards. The game is printed that way, and God bless 'em for it.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
X_Zealot
Let's compare the two cards
Govern the Unaligned ! Mind Rape
Cost 1 ! 2
!
Basic +2 Bleed ! +2 Bleed
Effect !
!
Superior Tranfer 3 Pool to ! (D) Put this card on a younger
Effect a younger uncontrolled ! vampire and tap that
vampire in your !vampire. The vampire with
uncontrolled region !this card does not untap as
from the Blood Bank !normal during his controller's
!untap phase. During
the acting
!vampire's
controller's next minion
!phase, he or she
must burn this
!card to untap the
vampire and
! take control of the
vampire until
! the end of his or
her turn.
!
Rarity Common ! Rare
Now let us compare the comparitive cost vs. effect of the two cards.
The basic effect of both cards is +2 Bleed, yet Mind Rape has a blood
cost of 1 higher. So obviously, if you are only using inferior Dominate
then you would choose to use Govern the Unaligned because it has
half (50%) of the cost of Mind Rape.
Since Mind Rape has no more
powerful effect at the inferior than Govern the Unaligned, The Superior
is where you believe that Mind Rape is more powerful. Let's look.
Govern the Unaligned gives you 3 free pool and 3 free transfers to move
that pool onto one of your uncontrolled vampires for a cost of one blood
and a +1 stealth action. Wow! that is alot! That beats the crap out of
every master card which is used to speed up your transfer rate. You can
either use your remainin 4 transfers to influence out a 7cap or lower or
you can use your four transfers to gain 2 pool and still have one left for
next turn. It is both a permanent source of pool gain and a acceleration
device.
Now let us look at Mind Rape. "(D) Put this card on a younger vampire
and tap that vampire. The vampire with this card does not untap as
normal during his controller's untap phase. During the acting vampire's
controller's next minion phase, he or she must burn this card to untap
the vampire and take control of the vampire until the end of his or her
turn." This card allows you to both tap a vampire and take control of him
during your next minion phase. Obviously the best target for this card is
your prey (that is if your prey has a younger vampire.). Unfortunantly
he/she is going to block it since it is at zero stealth,
but let's say that you have additional stealth and succeed with the action.
You
now have tapped out a potential blocker, which is great for two blood.
So now you can bleed away with one less blocker being avalible to your
prey, but Mind Numb does this cheaper (1 blood cost) and without requiring
a superior discipline.
So now let's go to your next minion phase where you have deprived your prey
of a potential blocker and gained a minion yourself. Now of course you are
going to apply all the pressure you can with your vampires now, but what
about this vampire you have just Mind Raped? Is it going to be able to
do anything for you other than just bleed for one? Not if your prey isn't
playing
with Dominate. So if your prey is playing anything other than Tremere,
!Tremere,
Malkavians, Ventrue, !Ventrue, Lasombra, or Giovanni (ie. the 13 other
clans
not including Caitiff), then all you can do is bleed for one as more than
likely the
vampire you have just mind raped will not have Dominate. Most players will
ignore it. If you prey is playing with dominate you are guaranteed that
they are going to wall up and attempt to bounce everything you are throwing
at them to their own prey. If you mind rape a vampire other than your
prey's
you have just made a really big enemy and that is just not smart.
So what are the real effects at superior. Mind Rape gives you temporary
control
a vampire which may or may not be useful to you while removing a potential
blocker for two turns for two blood. Govern the Unaligned allows to
accellerate your control over your own minions permanently or gain pool
to use as a defense for one blood. While I will agree that Mind Rape is
a more powerful card at superior, it has a transient effect vs. Govern the
Unaligned's permanent effect. I do not think that Mind Rape is twice as
powerful as Govern the Unaligned and Mind Rape is twice as expensive.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe
X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes
>So now let's go to your next minion phase where you have deprived your prey
>of a potential blocker and gained a minion yourself. Now of course you are
>going to apply all the pressure you can with your vampires now, but what
>about this vampire you have just Mind Raped? Is it going to be able to
>do anything for you other than just bleed for one?
Actually, Lasombra's Clan Impersonation/Judgement: Camarilla Segregation
suggestion is pretty brutal. OBF/DOM princes would work well.... Cloak
to make sure the CI gets through (already at +1 stealth anwyay), and
Obfuscate to make sure you have a fair amount of stealth anyway for the
important actions.
X_Zealot
Deck. Very Nasty. I have seen it do nasty things. Is it as scary as all
that? Nope, just a good deck like any other. I still don't think it makes
it better than GTU.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9i0f1aN4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
Derek Ray
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:22:50 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to
>>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm).
>>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the
>>Unaligned).
>>
>
>Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card.
No, it's not. It has a greater effect in a much more limited number of
situations, but Mind Rape is a weak card compared to Govern.
Norm has explained it well, but I can do the same more quickly:
Mind Rape, cost 2 blood:
- requires you to play extremely large vampires in order to guarantee
that your prey will have younger vampires than you
- requires you to deal with all the weaknesses of playing a big-vampire
deck (Arika comes out, ready to Mind Rape, and gets Pentex Subverted)
- requires that you carry stealth to guarantee the action being
successful, as it will never go unblocked if possible
- requires that you have something useful to do if successful; you
cannot rely on the disciplines of the stolen vamp, as you cannot control
your prey's deck
With these four HUGE restrictions, it then provides a large effect for
double the cost of Govern the Unaligned.
Govern the Unaligned, cost 1 blood:
- requires you only to construct your OWN crypt so that you have a
varied age of vamps, and the older ones have DOM: note that this can be
done by using several 4-caps and many weenies
- does not require you to play a big-vampire deck with its inherent
weaknesses
- comes with an inherent +1 stealth, which is frequently sufficient
- does not depend on your predator's or prey's deck at all
Govern has, effectively, one restriction; you have to construct your own
crypt properly, and even this is easier than Mind Rape's age
restrictions. For half the cost, you get 3 pool and 3 transfers; this
is a VERY large effect that many people underestimate. Not as large as
borrowing a vampire for a turn, but certainly more than "half" as
powerful.
So, I repeat my conclusion: Mind Rape is actually *weaker* than Govern
the Unaligned. WEAKER, yes. You could look in the Tourney Archive and
see how many winning decks contain Govern, and how many contain Mind
Rape, although it's really a foregone conclusion.
Jason Bell
"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > I look at two cards with the same type of game
> > effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction),
> > I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than
> > the other. If I look at two cards with the same game
> > effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater
> > cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare
> > than the other.
>
> Some of your examples have been proven false and therefore do not support
> your concusion.
I'm assuming that's a joke.
Remember, I'm not looking for universal truth here.
Look at it this way, if I had a premise that people
with higher incomes tend to spend more money,
your rich but tightwad uncle doesn't disprove my
position.
> > If it turns out that I am right most of the
> > time, then those indicators might be valuable
> > in getting progress in the long and ongoing
> > debate about power, rarity, and the meaning
> > of life.
> >
>
> If it turns out that you are right I would like to be the first to agree
> with you. I disagree with you that power = rarity in VTES (See Govern the
> Unaligned, Deflection, Undead Strength, Lost in Crowds, Claws of the Dead,
> Bum's Rush, etc...). The higher utility cards are normally your most
common
> cards. The game is printed that way, and God bless 'em for it.
Sigh once again.
You also have missed my point. I have made no claim that
power = rarity (and hey, define power as long as you're
going there, I'm guessing your definition is something
like power = utility, since you've offered no further
indication). I have posed that large game effects
(like, say, "All Ravnos get +1 Strength and +1 Bleeed)
are one factor I believe to be associated with rarity
(in a way that is closely tied together with costs and
restrictions).
By the way, the only cards that you listed
above that I believe could possibly qualify under my
definition of large game effects would be Deflection,
and maybe Govern (maybe).
And none of the cards you mentioned have any of
the other factors I posed were related to rarity
(maybe Bum's Rush do not replace qualifies, but
I'll consider that a cost associated with its
no-discipline bonus, instead of a rarity operator),
so I'm definitely not shocked that none are rare
or even uncommon.
Speaking of Govern, if I saw another card that had
more play restrictions (a Prince/Justicar restriction)
and more situation restrictions (no bleed option), I
would suspect that card to be more rare than Govern.
Hey, look, the uncommon Fourth Tradition.
- Jason Bell
Pat Ricochet
> (see the disclaimer), I was just trying to range cards from rare to
> common using criteria of game effects, play restrictions, and
> situation restriction. For the list I made, my expectation was that
> larger game effects, larger costs, more play restrictions, and
> more situation restrictions were all indicators of greater rarity.
I think the word "indicators" is bit sticky. It sounds like "symptoms,"
and so it's Rarity, the sickness, that -causes- large game effects, large
costs, etc; the symptoms.
That doesn't really sound right to me; it's like you've got the cause
and effect backwards. I would think instead that a card with large game
effects, but appropriately costed and limited, ends up being printed as a
rare.
I see that there's a kind of 1-to-1 correspondence, so you CAN look at
it that way, but it makes it sound like the game designers start with a
template, Rare, and then must add on large game effects, costs,
restrictions, etc, to fit the "Rare" requirements. I just don't see it that
way.
I know that's a lot of a verbal nitpick, but if we're trying to agree on
the terminology of Power and Rarity, it seems an important distinction.
> If I can get a general agreement on those indicators, I believe
> there is a really interesting discussion to be had about the cards
> that violate those trends.
I think there's an equally interesting (different) discussion to be had
on cards that DO follow the trend, but where you can have card that
simultaneously "cost too much" and "are too powerful." Certainly, if you
can find a way to reliably offset the cost, you can "abuse" the power of the
card (see: Return to Innocence. Actually, don't. That's cold ground, and
we all got the point).
Some cards are so powerful AND so costly that they're like playing with
matches and dynamite. Kiss of Ra, say. Sure, you can torporize a guy just
for TRYING to block, but you're STILL blocked. If you fail to follow it up,
you spent a lot of blood giving, say, your predator, an easy 2 VP sweep,
since you "hurt" 2 players, one of them being you.
But, anyway, that's a *different* discussion. =)
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
X_Zealot
I have posed that large game effects
> (like, say, "All Ravnos get +1 Strength and +1 Bleeed)
> are one factor I believe to be associated with rarity
> (in a way that is closely tied together with costs and
> restrictions).
>
Requires Ravnos
Put this card in play and place 10 nightmare counters on it. During each
Methuselah's untap phase, he or she may move a nightmare counter from this
card to a Ravnos. When the last counter is moved, each Ravnos must burn a
blood for each nightmare counter or be burned, and this card and all
nightmare counters are then burned. While this card is in play, all Ravnos
get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. Any ready Ravnos may
hunt by stealing a blood from any other Ravnos as a +1 stealth (D) action.
Only one Week of Nightmares may be played during a game.
Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare
because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it
rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what defines
rarity in VTES.
> By the way, the only cards that you listed
> above that I believe could possibly qualify under my
> definition of large game effects would be Deflection,
> and maybe Govern (maybe).
>
Govern the Unaligned is desputedly the most powerful card in the game. Here
are some more powerful Commons.
Clandestine Contract- let's you put a permanent rush action into play.
Disguised Weapon- allows you to equip without taking an action
Heart of Darkness- allows to ignore any and all aggrivated damage.
Atonement-you do not have to block when blocking a younger vamp
Magesty- the premier anti-combat card.
Shambling Hordes- a bad ass ally that only costs blood
> And none of the cards you mentioned have any of
> the other factors I posed were related to rarity
> (maybe Bum's Rush do not replace qualifies, but
> I'll consider that a cost associated with its
> no-discipline bonus, instead of a rarity operator),
> so I'm definitely not shocked that none are rare
> or even uncommon.
>
> Speaking of Govern, if I saw another card that had
> more play restrictions (a Prince/Justicar restriction)
> and more situation restrictions (no bleed option), I
> would suspect that card to be more rare than Govern.
Now you are catching on. The more restictions a card has on it; the rarer
it is going to be. Why? Because you are going to use them more rarely.
>
> Hey, look, the uncommon Fourth Tradition.
>
Hey look, only useable by 33 vampires in the entire game out of 423
vampires. How rare should it be?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
Jason Bell
>
> Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare
> because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it
> rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what defines
> rarity in VTES.
This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare
cards Freak Drive and Disarm.
Also, your explanation above fails to account for the similar,
but non one per game restricted rare, Gangrel Revel.
> > By the way, the only cards that you listed
> > above that I believe could possibly qualify under my
> > definition of large game effects would be Deflection,
> > and maybe Govern (maybe).
> >
> Govern the Unaligned is desputedly the most powerful card in the game.
Here
> are some more powerful Commons.
I have already held on this thread (or the one it was culled from)
that Govern is among the most powerful cards in the game,
just before trying to set aside all the varying definitions of
"power" and discuss what factors seem to affect rarity.
I think I will decline to respond to any more of your posts on
this subject, since we do not appear to be using the same language.
Please define your terms clearly and read my definitions of the
terms I am using before making assumptions about what I have
written.
Your desire to keep "power" wrapped up in the rarity discussion
prevents progress in this vein, so it seems I will have to set your
comments aside.
- Jason Bell
X_Zealot
> "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >
> > Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare
> > because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it
> > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what
defines
> > rarity in VTES.
>
> This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare
> cards Freak Drive and Disarm.
Okay you have found two really good cards out of 298 rares.
I admit, I wish I had more. I probably have 5 or 6 of each.
> Also, your explanation above fails to account for the similar,
> but non one per game restricted rare, Gangrel Revel.
Gangrel Revel is Uncommon.
Jason, do yourself a favor. Look at
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/
It lists all the cards with there rarities. Just so you can get your
facts straight, and allow you to fully expound on your theories
without having "hacks" like me shoot holes in them.:)
BernieTime
However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool?
No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should
cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd.
Maybe something to shoot for in the future Camarilla set.
As for filling up with 5th Traditions after losing "x" blood,
so what? I'd expect nearly all the traditions may receive a
tweak or two so that this shouldn't be as much an issue
next year.
Besides, blood is more important nowadays with the Serpents
running rampant. They let you arm with a gun, steal the vampire,
move the gun, burn the vampire for pool gain..
Assamites start smacking around Vampires that try to hunt.
Toreador AntiTribue now have a reason to play shock troops (maybe)
And so on..
As for allies/mortals, they would be restriced to pool based
weapons or those they take from another Vampire.
I dunno, just another thing to mull over..
Bernie Bresnahan
NJL Webmaster
http://wakeup.to/vampire
LSJ
>
> Fair enough Jeff.
>
> However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool?
> No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should
> cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd.
Not all (although none of them cost blood, which is probably
what you meant):
Brass Knuckles
Wooden Stake
Grenade
Meat Hook
(Smoke Grenade)
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3bc98c2f.322505006@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
>>>Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue
>>>of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form).
>>>
>>
>>No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a
>>direct power/rarity comparison.
>
>You cannot directly compare power without involving cost; attempts to do
>so are utterly meaningless.
>
You are merely splitting fine hairs with me. You certainly can
compare power alone. But sure, for playability of the card, it is
wise to look at the cost as well.
T
Talo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In message <3bca8c7a.322579676@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes
>>>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to
>>>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm).
>>>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the
>>>Unaligned).
>>>
>>
>>Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card.
>
>In Sabbat, the end result was significantly above the standard power
>curve. Following re-writes, it's far less problematic. Good, but not
>excessively good.
>
Taking control of a ready and active vampire is more powerful, even
temporarily, then adding 3 blood to an inactive vampire in my books.
There are situations where this may differ ingame, but im assuming
neutral situations.
T
LSJ
Fool's Gold
Master. 2X+5 pool.
Oust all other Methuselahs. You win all VPs, even those won by other
players (even if they had already been ousted). X is the amount of
pool you currently have.
The card is complete wallpaper - it is unplayable in every instance
(although it can be burned to cause Chas's action to fail :-)
Even though the *effect* is powerful, the card is not powerful at all.
The power of a card cannot be considered without considering the cost
(just as it cannot be considered without considering the effect).
Derek Ray
>Taking control of a ready and active vampire is more powerful, even
>temporarily, then adding 3 blood to an inactive vampire in my books.
I want you as my prey too sometime, then. While you get out Lucian so
you can go Mind Rape Salinger, who has NO disciplines you can use, I'll
Govern out three other vampires with Dominate and bleed you 4 times each
turn.
How many Deflections do you have? How many did you draw early?
>There are situations where this may differ ingame, but im assuming
>neutral situations.
There are no neutral situations.
The complexity of the situation you must create in order to play Mind
Rape effectively is such that, while still a good card with a strong
effect, it is actually inferior to Govern superior.
--
Derek
DOUGDWISE
>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired
>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something
>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally
>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term.
James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on
this group about "Concealed Weapon".
Many of us thought it was obviously a misprinted card that was supposed to be
disciplineless but had inadvertantly been given an obf symbol. Our reasoning
was that obfuscate had 12 discipline cards while all other disciplines had 11;
Concealed Weapon has no Superior text (neither does Army of Rats of course);
and Concealed Weapon is obviously so inferior to Disguised Weapon that it would
not be an obfuscate card.
I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules
Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card.
I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even
possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be
disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just
errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't
think it would need that.
Doug
Keeper of the curse and Master of the Knife.
Clear all chaff to write to me.
Derek Ray
>>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with
>>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired
>>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something
>>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally
>>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term.
>
>James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on
>this group about "Concealed Weapon".
>...
>I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules
>Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card.
It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS,
and it's not going to get fixed now.
>I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even
>possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be
>disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just
>errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't
>think it would need that.
Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow.
War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger.
Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel.
CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the
original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days?
Nope.
--
Derek
Kevin M.
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message
news:9fisstk1sci6pmt19...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Oct 2001 02:41:06 GMT, doug...@aol.comchaff (DOUGDWISE) wrote:
>
> >>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with
> >>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired
> >>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something
> >>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally
> >>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term.
> >
> >James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on
> >this group about "Concealed Weapon".
> >...
> >I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules
> >Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card.
>
> It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS,
> and it's not going to get fixed now.
<sigh> Yes, that's true.
"No new errata will be issued to empower wallpaper - there's enough errata
already. The existence of OOP wallpaper isn't enough of a problem to warrant
more errata. *If* the card ever gets reprinted, then perhaps it would be
changed so as not to be wallpaper (probably so, or there'd be no point in
reprinting it). But note: that doesn't mean it will get reprinted." -- LSJ
The 2nd wish from the VTES genie's bottle, for me at least, would be to make
this card as it should have been made in Jyhad. Oh well! :)
> >I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even
> >possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be
> >disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just
> >errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I
don't
> >think it would need that.
>
> Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow.
> War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger.
> Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel.
>
> CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time.
I'm not sure that is true, since Muddles, et.al., are (somewhat) easily
thwarted, i.e. Muddles has only 1 life, a single manuever or prevention renders
the War Ghoul inoperative, etc. Feel free to post a deck, assuming that CW is
disciplineless, that necessitates errata or banning to said new card, and I'll
believe this argument. (i.e. prove anti-X must be played against X.)
> In the original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days?
>
> Nope.
It would be nice to see cards "corrected", though. Legacy of Pander was
"corrected", which MADE it wallpaper. Complete BS, IMHO, since unless part of
purchasing the license back from WOTC demanded correction of LoP, this was the
CHOICE of someone at WW, which means they could have chosen to leave LoP as-was.
(And this was because the records at WOTC indicated that this is how it should
have been all along, true?) The question with LoP -- why did the card have to
be DESTROYED? -- is the converse of the question some of us are and have been
asking about CW -- why can't the card be made PLAYABLE?
(LSJ, I apologize for once again asking these questions. Thanks in advance for
taking up the topic. :)
> --
> Derek
Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI
(remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Halcyan 2
>disciplineless but had inadvertantly been given an obf symbol. Our reasoning
>was that obfuscate had 12 discipline cards while all other disciplines had
>11;
>Concealed Weapon has no Superior text (neither does Army of Rats of course);
I just wanted to point out that there are actually a handful of cards without
superior text:
You've already mentioned Army of Rats and Concealed Weapon.
Also, there's:
Infernal Familiar
Rampage
Thanks for the Donation
I'm sure there are more but can't think of any more right now...
Halcyan 2
....salem christ....
> I just wanted to point out that there are actually a handful of cards without
> superior text:
>
> You've already mentioned Army of Rats and Concealed Weapon.
>
> Also, there's:
>
> Infernal Familiar
> Rampage
> Thanks for the Donation
Horrific Countenance
Trick of the Danya (used to not have "the" in title, i think...or something)
umm....i can't think of any others right now either.
salem.
spinney99
> In message <B7EC84BD.7EBA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet
> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> > Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now.
> >They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat.
>
> All combat is hard, true.
>
> However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with
> than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired
> replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something
> along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally
> wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term.
equalizer you're talking about. not really tourney level, but this
did ok lately in our play group...
hidden wienerville
yes, even the name is obfuscation...
(toolbox?)
VAMPS
1x Cicatriz 5
2x Shannon Price 3
2x Panagos Levidis 3
2x Watenda 3
1x Normal 2
1x Dimple 2
2x Basil 1
1x Navar McClaren 1
MASTERS (20)
4x blood doll
3x sudden reversal
2x dreams of the sphinx
2x slave auction
2x heidelberg castle
2x rotschreck
1x fame
1x humanitas
1x fragment of the book of nod
1x the barrens
1x asylum hunting ground
MINION CARDS (70)
7x dragon breath rounds
6x disguised weapon
5x saturday night special
2x sawed-off shotgun
2x assault rifle
2x leather jacket
5x lucky blow
4x fake out
2x amaranth
3x bum's rush
2x hidden lurker
5x wake with evening's freshness
2x delaying tactics
6x raven spy
1x mr. winthrop
1x j.s. simmons
1x tasha morgan
4x laptop computer
1x pier 13
3x army of rats
2x cloak the gathering
2x spying mission
1x faceless night
1x lost in crowds
play advice: you are going to discard a lot, and might get hand-jam,
or the contesting vamps, and not get your combos, and it won't usually
stop you. don't be afraid to toss DBR or masters or weapons or
whatever you have too much of away left and right, usually using the
dreamsOTS for hand size. get to what you need, but take what you get
too. as always, with a highly varied deck. don't worry about
what-ifs, just dance with it in the moment. (^: (f'r instance, i
didn't buy an assault rifle, nor even the heidelberg castle, when
there was an anarch revolt deck at the table. used an amaranth,
though mine was a good minion which i knew i'd lose in the bloodhunt.
etc.)
sporemage37
Jason Bell
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> BernieTime wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough Jeff.
> >
> > However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool?
> > No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should
> > cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd.
>
> Not all (although none of them cost blood, which is probably
> what you meant):
>
> Brass Knuckles
> Wooden Stake
> Grenade
> Meat Hook
> (Smoke Grenade)
I suspect he meant "pool but never blood."
- Jason Bell