Rötschreck + Elemental Stoicism
Orpheus
Röt...ed ?
--
Orpheus
-----------------------
"...Hardestadt continued to drink, until he held nothing but dust in his
arms and the burgeoning love of the slaughter in his heart"
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
A slight clarification: Rotschreck is played before damage is dealt. By
the time he gets the agg, it's too late to play it.
But anyway, if you are trying to deal aggravated damage to a minion that
treats aggravated damage as normal, you can still play Rotschreck.
Sebastien Varrette
Course he can! It is resolved before the strike resolution. The only
important thing is to have tried an aggropok at the right range.
After, even you who hate this card goes to torpor :-)
David Cherryholmes
> Course he can! It is resolved before the strike resolution. The only
> important thing is to have tried an aggropok at the right range.
> After, even you who hate this card goes to torpor :-)
It is counter-intuitive. If the range clause weren't on the card it'd
be easier to swallow, but there are already provisions on the card that
check to see whether the opposing minion would really take aggrivated
damage or not. And yes, I get the semantics and I get that if we
reduced it to a logic statement that it is internally consistent. It is
still counter-intuitive.
There are about five cards I'd ban for various reasons. Rotshit makes
the list (mainly because it creates its very own phase, giving rise to
all sorts of trumpy and inelegant effects, IMO).
__
David Cherryholmes
Wes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote
>
> There are about five cards I'd ban for various reasons. Rotshit makes
> the list (mainly because it creates its very own phase, giving rise to
> all sorts of trumpy and inelegant effects, IMO).
What are the other four, out of curiosity?
(Your list includes PTO, I would assume...)
Cheers,
WES
David Cherryholmes
> What are the other four, out of curiosity?
PTO
Rotschreck
Anarch Revolt
Kindred Restructure
Dramatic Upheaval
DI
In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from
dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed
defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a
good idea, so I'm probably nuts.
__
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
> Wes wrote:
>
>> What are the other four, out of curiosity?
>
>
> PTO
> Rotschreck
> Anarch Revolt
> Kindred Restructure
> Dramatic Upheaval
> DI
thats 6 cards :-)
>
> In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from
> dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed
> defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a
> good idea, so I'm probably nuts.
>
> __
>
> David Cherryholmes
i agree
bleedability and bounceability should have been seperated.
stefan
Curevei
lists, but that would get ugly, so I'll comment on yours.
>PTO
Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of
it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on
your list.
>Rotschreck
I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a
lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the
time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird
timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar
issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me.
>Anarch Revolt
AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES
game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card,
just annoying to add more errata to the game.
>Kindred Restructure
>Dramatic Upheaval
I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the
game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a
"hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a
moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only
reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think
you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help
yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For
competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
>DI
I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm
easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I probably
wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards.
I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays
(than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it.
Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak).
>In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from
>dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed
>defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a
>good idea, so I'm probably nuts.
Suppose you give bounce to another discipline. Which? It would be pretty
funny to see Animalism be the primary bounce discipline, say. But, it might
cause Gangrel, who win *a lot* to be too powerful (admittedly, a lot of Gangrel
wins involve playing Dominate).
Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to
begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more
common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines
heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often.
At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan,
Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity.
>__
>
>David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
>>Rotschreck
> I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a
> lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the
> time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird
> timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar
> issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me.
Yeah, I don't think Rotshreck is even remotely a play balance problem.
It's just clunky and inelegant to me, and does not satisfy my personal
minima of card interaction (something else that might be said of PTO).
>>Anarch Revolt
>
>
> AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES
> game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card,
> just annoying to add more errata to the game.
Yeah, easily fixed by errata, but errata is intrinsically worse than
banning, so I tend not to waste time thinking up errata solutions.
> I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the
> game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a
> "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a
> moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only
> reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think
> you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help
> yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For
> competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
> totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
> about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
They make enforcing playing to win impossible. And they are a pain in
the ass. And they are the greatest temptation to the overly-psychic.
Once again, not a card I'd ban from a play balance perspective.
>>DI
>
>
> I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm
> easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I probably
> wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards.
> I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays
> (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it.
> Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak).
Another card I approach from the perspective of re-enforcing the
predator-prey relationship. It's too easy for some guy across the table
to lob one of these out there, removing some linchpin card from a chain,
and oust another player. As the game stands, DI may be necessary, but
if it were more balanced as a whole we wouldn't need to suffer with DI.
I also dislike the way including four of these cards props up the
"moronic" bleed decks even further.
> Suppose you give bounce to another discipline. Which?
Auspex, and Auspex-like disciplines. It satisfies me that decks which
tend to lack means of going forward can utilize the forward motion
behind them. And yes, it means there would still be some bleeders that
can bounce, but if they deform their crypt such that the AUS is there,
and they tap and/or wake with every bounce, it would be sufficient to my
mind (note the heavy use of "IMO" throughout... I don't normally qualify
my opinions, but we are talking about sweeping changes I've yet to test).
> Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to
> begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more
> common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines
> heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often.
Everyone playing bounce seems worse to me than most everyone playing
bounce. I'd rather see it be an isolated strategy than a ubiquitous
one. Still, I think Xzealot captured it best when he said the answer
lies not in knocking down strategy X, but in making strategies Y and Z
more appealing; if stealth bleed were less clearly the most competitive
strategy, then the opportunity cost of bounce would rise, and things
might balance out without the need to change any staples.
Unfortunately, the (IMO) overly-conservative design strategy the game
currently operates under makes this approach either impossible, or
resolved in some distant future.
> At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan,
> Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity.
Maybe, but it seems more and more plausible to me that the various clans
were never intended to be equal, and Assamites are placed rather low on
the food chain. The latest news of four !Gangrel, some of which are
group three, in the face of the Group 4 indy situation seems to suggest
this. Guess we'll see.
__
David Cherryholmes
Mike Courtois
> Wes wrote:
>
> > What are the other four, out of curiosity?
>
> PTO
> Rotschreck
> Anarch Revolt
> Kindred Restructure
> Dramatic Upheaval
> DI
I'm going home tonight, I think I can put a decent deck together
abusing......Ya, ALL of these cards! :)
With enough playtesting I think I can have it ready by a Week of
Nightmares!
> so I'm probably nuts.
Com'on David, PROBABLY??? ;)
***JediMike***
Anarch of L.A.
Patrick van der Reest
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
> > In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from
> > dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed
> > defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a
> > good idea, so I'm probably nuts.
> >
> > __
> >
> > David Cherryholmes
> i agree
> bleedability and bounceability should have been seperated.
>
> stefan
Several clans would require gross redesign (some already do of course,
but that's beside the point). The Samedi would be joined in the 'no
bounce, no intercept, no decent rush' corner by so many others...
I think the main effect would be to make both flavours of Malkavian
even cheesier. I'd rather keep the game as-is.
Regards,
Patrick
PS. Saving grace of the idea would be to make the obfuscate-Ventrue
freakdrive deck slightly less powerful. Although they'd still have
Second Tradition (+Obedience and/or Majesty), of course.
Peter D Bakija
>> PTO
>
> Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of
> it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on
> your list.
Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly
overpowered. It just should not be.
>
>> Rotschreck
>
> I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a
> lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the
> time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird
> timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar
> issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me.
Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if
you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage
out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant.
>
>> Anarch Revolt
>
> AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a
> V:TES
> game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card,
> just annoying to add more errata to the game.
Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing
games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs
in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in
relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and
planning.
>
>> Kindred Restructure
>> Dramatic Upheaval
>
> I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the
> game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a
> "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a
> moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the
> only
> reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think
> you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help
> yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For
> competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
> totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
> about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than
overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross
table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing
position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't
actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to
re-arrange the table.
>
>> DI
>
> I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm
> easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I
> probably
> wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards.
> I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays
> (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it.
> Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak).
I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them
overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use
them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but
usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your rest home."
-Elvis
Pat Lusk
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BCB5B686.162FA%pd...@lightlink.com...
<snip>
> >> DI
> >
> > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden,
but I'm
> > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I
> > probably
> > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of
cards.
> > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious
plays
> > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for
it.
> > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to
speak).
>
> I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find
them
> overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use
> them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but
> usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one.
>
That's I try to reserve my DI use for an important reaction (like 2nd Trad
in a Prince/Justicar deck) or action modifer (like Call of the Hungry Dead
in a Gio power bleed deck) for which there is no other card that provides
exactly the same effect... nothing worse than the Govern-DI-Govern spin
cycle. :)
- Pat
Snapcase
Cherryholmes says...
> Another card I approach from the perspective of re-enforcing the
> predator-prey relationship. It's too easy for some guy across the table
> to lob one of these out there, removing some linchpin card from a chain,
> and oust another player. As the game stands, DI may be necessary, but
> if it were more balanced as a whole we wouldn't need to suffer with DI.
> I also dislike the way including four of these cards props up the
> "moronic" bleed decks even further.
It's a crutch, plain and simple. It's not necessary and just gives a
wonderful "haha your plan fails" flavor to the game.
> Auspex, and Auspex-like disciplines. It satisfies me that decks which
> tend to lack means of going forward can utilize the forward motion
> behind them.
Define "auspex like disciplines". There are plenty of clans that have
access to auspex and plenty of forward motion (any of the clans that are
AUS and dom/dem/pre).
> And yes, it means there would still be some bleeders that
> can bounce, but if they deform their crypt such that the AUS is there,
> and they tap and/or wake with every bounce, it would be sufficient to my
> mind
Many (not necessarily bleed) decks rely on using dominate at inferior
just as a splash for bleed defense. This would have to be replaced with
at least something useable.
> Everyone playing bounce seems worse to me than most everyone playing
> bounce. I'd rather see it be an isolated strategy than a ubiquitous
> one.
Bounce is clearly the best bleed defense "type". I'd prefer it be
available to "most everyone" instead of "very few". Or make better
"reduce" cards. Bounce doesn't have to be the only answer, but there
have to be somewhat equally good answers.
--
-Snapcase
Snapcase
says...
> >Rotschreck
>
> I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a
> lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the
> time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird
> timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar
> issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me.
Dunno what the big hubbub is about this card. You have to be able to
block, and it's only a trump card for decks that can't handle S:CE in
the first place. And it only works 1x per turn.
> >Anarch Revolt
>
> AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES
> game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card,
> just annoying to add more errata to the game.
Best to wait for a "reprint change", but yeah, it needs change.
> >Kindred Restructure
> >Dramatic Upheaval
> For competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
> totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
> about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
Indeed. A large amount of the time these cards really read "steal
target player's vp, and make lots of people lose a turn".
That and I hate having to get up and move my cards around. If nothing
else, these cards waste a whole lot of game time that we don't have.
> >DI
>
> It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards.
It's the ultimate trump of trump cards. It says "haha your plan fails
at a crucial moment and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about
it." Annoying to the extreme.
> Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to
> begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more
> common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines
> heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often.
Amen, brother.
--
-Snapcase
Patrick van der Reest
> I considered creating a thread where everyone comes up with their own ban
> lists, but that would get ugly, so I'll comment on yours.
>
> >Dramatic Upheaval
>
> I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the
> game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a
> "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a
> moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think
> you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help
> yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For
> competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
> totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
> about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
>
'Hard' PPD... is that like overloaded? Six pulses of that goodness, oh
yeah :). You'll have to mke sure they don't dive within the minimum
range. Cost me my CA, last time. Of course, it's kind of my fault to
forget the wild weasels...
Regards,
Patrick
PS. This message was brought to you by the ISC - saving the galaxy in
a star system near you. Spread the word (and play more SFB) :)
Magnus
> Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity.
Celerity and Obfuscate come to mind. Maybe Animalism rather than
Obfuscate, but definitely for Celerity.
Magnus
Jeroen
>
> >> PTO
> >
> > Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of
> > it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on
> > your list.
>
> Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly
> overpowered. It just should not be.
I wouldn't say "wildly overpowered", but still, it's overpowered
>
> >
> >> Rotschreck
> >
> > I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a
> > lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the
> > time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird
> > timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar
> > issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me.
>
> Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if
> you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage
> out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant.
Indeed. Rotschreck is no problem. Except for the loads or errata and
rulings that were made on it.
>
> >
> >> Anarch Revolt
> >
> > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a
> > V:TES
> > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card,
> > just annoying to add more errata to the game.
>
> Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing
> games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs
> in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in
> relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and
> planning.
Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint
a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
"where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone,
but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b)
play on their own against the whole table.
>
> >
> >> Kindred Restructure
> >> Dramatic Upheaval
> >
> > I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the
> > game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a
> > "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a
> > moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the
> > only
> > reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think
> > you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help
> > yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For
> > competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that
> > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been
> > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.
>
> Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than
> overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross
> table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing
> position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't
> actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to
> re-arrange the table.
IMO, they're annoying, because they take too long to resolve and to
actually change seats. But I'm not against the effect as such.
>
> >
> >> DI
> >
> > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm
> > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I
> > probably
> > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards.
> > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays
> > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it.
> > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak).
>
> I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them
> overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use
> them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but
> usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one.
>
>
what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you
seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can
really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who
cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you
can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only
have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp.
OTOH, The thing I HATE about DI, it that it kind of negates the
biggest weakness of s&b decks. Usually S&B decks don't really have a
great deal of table influence, except from bouncing.
My ban list:
- succubus Club (still)
My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course:
- PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game)
- Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of
original master gets a new MPA)
- DI (only once per player per game)
- Skill cards: should be trifles, imo
My wish list:
- my pet peeve: a disciplineless bounce card, see older threads :-)
grtz,
Jeroen
Wes
"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > >> Anarch Revolt
> > >
> > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I
picture a
> > > V:TES
> > > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to
errata the card,
> > > just annoying to add more errata to the game.
> >
> > Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of
demolishing
> > games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is
thenumber of ARs
> > in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at
all in
> > relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort
and
> > planning.
>
> Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint
> a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
> "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> has 4 ARs in play... :-)
Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try
"riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder.
In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than
changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing,
as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I
am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third,
fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :)
Cheers,
WES
Wouter Kuyper
> "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> has 4 ARs in play... :-)
Who? me?
W
Orpheus
> PTO
Obviously? Obvious errata : "Once Per Game". Nuff said.
> Rotschreck
Hate it !! I have been hindered too many times by this card, in cases where
no other combo could have sent me to torpor (because I had waited for just
the right hand to act, and because my decks were thought for resistance
against many forms of combat). And you can't even Sudden the thing yourself
!! True, you can play only one per turn. Well, let me tell you that losing
one important vamp per turn is quite enough (if he could send you to torpor
once, your opponent can also stop your rescues, or come to get you if he's
your prey...). Ban altogether, or change the wording so that damage
prevention cuts it, or at least that the effects that turn the damage to
normal stop it.
> Anarch Revolt
Make it Unique, like Antediluvian Awakening, and it will make the first one
reasonable, the second back from wallpaper to playable.
> Kindred Restructure
> Dramatic Upheaval
Effects we are now used to. But yes, certainly some of the more powerful in
the game. Well, I wouldn't ban them or otherwise alter them, but they
certainly are very, very powerful effects.
> DI
200% agreed. SR I can do with (it "only" counters Masters), the second just
shouldn't be, as it can counter ANY type of well-thought strategy if used
correctly and with a little luck. You think of everything during your turn,
and there you are : it fails with just ONE card. Bleuah !! :-(
I'd also, of course, include all the other "play this" cards : Kiss of Rā
("you don't play For ? Too bad...") and Judgement : Camarilla Segregation
("Play Cammies !!") ; the second could be just plain bad depending on table
seating, but as the "place-change" votes do exist... ;-) These two cards
should burn to the hell of card games.
And of course, Dreams of the Sphynx annoys me because it is a
"must-include", overpowered card, and that as such everyone puts it in most
tournament decks. But well, I have trouble seeing how it could be errated.
As for separating deflecting and bleed abilities : quite agreed, but way too
late for that...
Orpheus
> > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
> > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> > has 4 ARs in play... :-)
>
> Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try
> "riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder.
Not in an Anarch Revolt deck (although sunday I won a table because of such
a deck ; but then, I was lucky and the player / deck not quite good enough).
> In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than
> changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing,
> as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I
> am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third,
> fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :)
Then : LET'S MAKE IT UNIQUE !!!
Daneel
>
> Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly
> overpowered. It just should not be.
Agree.
> >> Rotschreck
>
> Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if
> you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage
> out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant.
Agree.
> >> Anarch Revolt
>
> Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing
> games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs
> in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in
> relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and
> planning.
Disagree.
There are many effects that change the dynamics of the game. Repeated
use of many votes like Autarkis Persecution or Honor the Elders simply
give more blood/pool to players, but they nevertheless widen a gap
that eventually unbalances the game completely. In fact, IMHO AR in
itself is less detrimental to the game than such selective poolgaining
votes, if used with impunity. Gehenna is supposed to come, after all.
;) The suggested cost increasing errata would make sense, but I'm
against it for simplicity's sake.
> >> Kindred Restructure
> >> Dramatic Upheaval
>
> Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than
> overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross
> table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing
> position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't
> actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to
> re-arrange the table.
Agree.
> >> DI
>
> I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them
> overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use
> them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but
> usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one.
Disagree. You can choose not to play the card. I sometimes wait turns
to play it. Having one in my hand means at least that the next PTO
will be cancelled (unless I'm also having Vox Domini, which is far
superior to DI, as it keeps the IC tapped).
Sure, the 1 pool cost may mean that "yeah, I DIed that would-be
ousting Conditioning, but now they need only a Threats because of the
pool cost", but it may also mean that you just survive that final
bleed (giving you another round to oust).
Alas, there were many years during which I never played SR or DI,
because I'm generally more into a "let's each of us play their decks
and see what that adds up to" gaming style. However, with certain
power cards that is IMHO no longer a healthy approach.
Bye,
Daneel
Jeroen Rombouts
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> schreef in bericht
news:c6qoj...@enews1.newsguy.com...<snip>
> > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint
> > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
> > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> > has 4 ARs in play... :-)
>
> Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try
> "riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder.
That's exactly what the AR player wants. He will probably also have a life
boon in his hand when you kill you're prey.
>
> In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than
> changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing,
> as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I
> am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third,
> fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :)
>
true: 1 AR is actually good most of the time
Peter D Bakija
> I wouldn't say "wildly overpowered", but still, it's overpowered
Well, ya know, that's me. I still fall on the "wildly overpowered" side, in
the sense that playing that single card usually, when successful, completely
end someone's game, even if they are in a solid position when played. Too
much swing for one card that is easy to call, easy to pass (as it is being
called by Arika), and can be completely unblockable.
> Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint
> a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
> "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone,
> but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b)
> play on their own against the whole table.
Have you played with crazy ass AR decks? Ya know, the ones that put one or
two ARs into play each turn, every turn? Yeah, they aren't that likely to
win (although occasonally they do), but they certainly do ruin a game like
nobody's buisness.
I just really think there should be more cost to playing them. Costing X
(X=number of ARs already in play) would be good. Something as subtle of
changing the timing to burning the pool during your discard phase (so the
guy playing them takes the damage first and people can react to new ARs
before they hit them) would be very significant. But as it is, they are just
too easy to build a deck around that has a moderate (not good, but not
impossible, such that they are just encouraging enough to play) chance of
winning but if they don't win, they tend to make the game a random, crappy
waste of time for everyone else.
> what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you
> seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can
> really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who
> cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you
> can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only
> have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp.
I'm not saying DI *can't* be very strong. I've just never seen it happen,
personally. And I play a lot of VTES. They are versitile and handy, but I
can't think of a single instance where an actual DI being played has made
that much of a difference. I mean, yeah, I have been in a lot of instances
where a DI being played would have saved the day, but they never seem to be
in hand at that particular point. Like, 90% of the DI plays I see are
usually not that big of a deal--they get an Action that just gets replaced;
they get a combat card that just gets replaced; they get an action modifier,
and a different one just gets played.
> My ban list:
> - succubus Club (still)
Oh, yeah. Succubus Club. Still. That card is still just soooooo wrong for
competetive play. But I apparently can't convince anyone of this enough.
>
> My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course:
> - PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game)
I like the "once per game", mostly due to simplicity and precident.
> - Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of
> original master gets a new MPA)
Meh. Just like DI. I see them played all the time. Rarely are they *that*
significant.
> - DI (only once per player per game)
I can't really argue with this, if only on principal.
> - Skill cards: should be trifles, imo
Oooh! That would be really cool. Maybe too cool. But cool!
Peter D Bakija
> In fact, I
> am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third,
> fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :)
Oh, sure--Ihave no problem at all with AR as an individual card. Many decks
can benefit from throwing one on the table. But when someone plays 2 a turn,
every turn, it just demolishes the game. AR decks like this *can* win--the
chances aren't great, but large enough to encourage people to keep
trying--but if they don't, they just make the game a crappy, random,
nightmare.
Which is why I like either increasing the cost to X (X=number of ARs
currently in play) or moving the "take the AR damage" phase to your discard
phase rather than start of turn (so the guy playing them takes the damage
first, and everyone else can react to the new ARs before they are killed by
them). Either of these would have very little, if any impact at all on
playing one AR at a time, but would have a significant impact on playing 5
of them at a time.
Orpheus
> currently in play) or moving the "take the AR damage" phase to your
discard
> phase rather than start of turn (so the guy playing them takes the damage
> first, and everyone else can react to the new ARs before they are killed
by
> them). Either of these would have very little, if any impact at all on
> playing one AR at a time, but would have a significant impact on playing 5
> of them at a time.
Why not just plain make them Unique ? Easiest solution I could see, still
makes it a viable card, and de-wallpapers Antediluvian Awakening...
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
> Disagree.
>
> There are many effects that change the dynamics of the game. Repeated
> use of many votes like Autarkis Persecution or Honor the Elders simply
> give more blood/pool to players, but they nevertheless widen a gap
> that eventually unbalances the game completely. In fact, IMHO AR in
> itself is less detrimental to the game than such selective poolgaining
> votes, if used with impunity. Gehenna is supposed to come, after all.
> ;) The suggested cost increasing errata would make sense, but I'm
> against it for simplicity's sake.
Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The
problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it
very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can*
win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR
isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of
the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and
arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table,
regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck.
Making them less attractinve to play in groups strikes me as only a good
thing.
Making them cost X (as above) has zero effect on playing 1 AR (well, unless
someone else already played one...), but makes playing lots of them very
unattractive.
Making them do damage during the discard phase punishes the guy who plays
them *first* and lets people react to them before they die from the new ones
played.
Either of these would make AR *much* less disruptive to play, but still
useful in moderation.
Peter D Bakija
> Why not just plain make them Unique ? Easiest solution I could see, still
> makes it a viable card, and de-wallpapers Antediluvian Awakening...
Very easy fix, yeah, but makes playing multiples *impossible* as opposed to
just difficult--would probably have too much impact on the card.
I mean, yeah, I agree that it is easy, and would make me perfectly happy,
but it is far more severe than either of the fixes I suggest.
Jeroen
> Jeroen wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint
> > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of
> > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone
> > has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone,
> > but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b)
> > play on their own against the whole table.
>
> Have you played with crazy ass AR decks? Ya know, the ones that put one or
> two ARs into play each turn, every turn? Yeah, they aren't that likely to
> win (although occasonally they do), but they certainly do ruin a game like
> nobody's buisness.
yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson,
Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the
table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away.
Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust
someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for
the life boon.
>
> I just really think there should be more cost to playing them. Costing X
> (X=number of ARs already in play) would be good. Something as subtle of
> changing the timing to burning the pool during your discard phase (so the
> guy playing them takes the damage first and people can react to new ARs
> before they hit them) would be very significant. But as it is, they are just
> too easy to build a deck around that has a moderate (not good, but not
> impossible, such that they are just encouraging enough to play) chance of
> winning but if they don't win, they tend to make the game a random, crappy
> waste of time for everyone else.
>
> > what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you
> > seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can
> > really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who
> > cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you
> > can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only
> > have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp.
>
> I'm not saying DI *can't* be very strong. I've just never seen it happen,
> personally. And I play a lot of VTES. They are versitile and handy, but I
> can't think of a single instance where an actual DI being played has made
> that much of a difference. I mean, yeah, I have been in a lot of instances
> where a DI being played would have saved the day, but they never seem to be
> in hand at that particular point. Like, 90% of the DI plays I see are
> usually not that big of a deal--they get an Action that just gets replaced;
> they get a combat card that just gets replaced; they get an action modifier,
> and a different one just gets played.
Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That
way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it.
And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn:
just play it on their first Freak Drive.
>
> > My ban list:
> > - succubus Club (still)
>
> Oh, yeah. Succubus Club. Still. That card is still just soooooo wrong for
> competetive play. But I apparently can't convince anyone of this enough.
I've seen enough tables get screwed over by SC, you don't need to
convince me. :-)
>
> >
> > My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course:
> > - PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game)
>
> I like the "once per game", mostly due to simplicity and precident.
>
> > - Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of
> > original master gets a new MPA)
>
> Meh. Just like DI. I see them played all the time. Rarely are they *that*
> significant.
a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying.
SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ...
>
> > - DI (only once per player per game)
>
> I can't really argue with this, if only on principal.
>
> > - Skill cards: should be trifles, imo
>
> Oooh! That would be really cool. Maybe too cool. But cool!
>
:-)
David Cherryholmes
> Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That
> way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it.
Also true of my (former) playgroup. It makes for crap games, or very,
*very* boring decks that are resistant to that sort of thing.
> And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn:
> just play it on their first Freak Drive.
Something else I know very well from personal experience. Fucko with
the stealth bleed deck held me off for three turns with three DI's in a row.
--
David Cherryholmes
Daneel
> problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it
> very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often.
I agree with you. The reason I mentioned other cards with global
effects is because AR is not alone in basically turning the game into
another one. The key point, as you mentioned, is the repeated use. One
Ancilla + Bribes won't disrupt the table, but 10 will. Like with AR.
That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can
only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose,
otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes
a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and
friends).
> Making them cost X (as above) has zero effect on playing 1 AR (well, unless
> someone else already played one...), but makes playing lots of them very
> unattractive.
>
> Making them do damage during the discard phase punishes the guy who plays
> them *first* and lets people react to them before they die from the new ones
> played.
>
> Either of these would make AR *much* less disruptive to play, but still
> useful in moderation.
Your suggested modifications make sense, even though I don't like the
second option. Making them cost pool is okay, but again, from my
personal experience, the inconvenience of an errata still slightly
outweighs the disruptiveness of the card.
Maybe 'cause I see about five IC voting decks for every deck that uses
AR. ;) Also, AR hurts everyone, including the guy who played it, and
oftimes it contributes much to his or her demise in one way or
another.
Bye,
Daneel
Legendre
> Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The
> problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it
> very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can*
> win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR
> isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of
> the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and
> arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table,
> regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck.
Winning twenty percent of the time on a five-player table....
Robert Scythe
A wild weasel should not have affected this situation that you have
described thus far. And if they got that close and you needed one I
imagine a tractor beam (which they should have energy in) would have
stifled that idea.
Robert Scythe ( what is SFB??? ) ;)
Peter D Bakija
> yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson,
> Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the
> table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away.
> Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust
> someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for
> the life boon.
Which is just a very well illustrated, very concrete example of how an AR
deck completey derails the regular play of the game. When a given deck
strategy virtually requires the entire rest of the table to ignore the
regular victory conditions of the game and the regular predator/prey
mechanic and all conspire to work together to deal with it, that is an
illustration of something seriously wrong.
> Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That
> way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it.
Seems likely. I've just never played in such an environment, locally or in
large regional/national tournaments. I see the occasional DI, which, at
best, is irritating.
>
> And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn:
> just play it on their first Freak Drive.
Reasonable plan.
> a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying.
> SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ...
I mean, yeah, in theory, that happens. But most of the time, it just, like,
Suddens a skill card or hunting ground which doesn't really make that much
of a difference--for every time I have been like "If I had a Sudden for that
Minion Tap, I'd soooo win the game!", I have been in, like, 15 situations
where Iwas like "Boy. Am I holding this Sudden. I really hope someone plays,
like, a Skill card soon just so I can cycle it..."
Peter D Bakija
> That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can
> only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose,
> otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes
> a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and
> friends).
Yeah, an AR deck can *really* savage a game. I was playing one for a while
(after the last great Anarch Revolt thread...) which did really well in
three player games; did moderately well in 4-5 player games; got into the
finals of a tournament but did even come close to winning the final.
Whenever I played it in 4-5 player games, everyone was like "I hate you".
Especially Sackett, who, like clockwork, was ousted uniformly by my deck,
regardless of his relative table position.
In general, they either win (rarely) or just randomly make someone else win
(usually). In either case, the game usually sucks for everyone else. More so
when the deck loses, 'casue the owner can't even justify their strategy by
saying "yeah, it sucked, but I won!"
> Your suggested modifications make sense, even though I don't like the
> second option. Making them cost pool is okay, but again, from my
> personal experience, the inconvenience of an errata still slightly
> outweighs the disruptiveness of the card.
The second option (pool loss during the discard phase) strikes me as both
perfectly viable and the least damaging to the current card design.
Peter D Bakija
> Winning twenty percent of the time on a five-player table....
Is not an acceptible ratio when the other 80% of the time, the strategy is
disruptive to the point of making the game suck for everyone else.
Wouter Kuyper
> problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it
> very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can*
> win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR
> isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of
> the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and
> arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table,
> regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck.
>
I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir)
On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won
games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the
game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right.
It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain
pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is
more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for
"banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted
direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad.
W
Wouter Kuyper
I hate it when someone just takes the VP for someone elses hard work,
not really fun.
I play DI's because of these (not because of PTO)
W
Curevei
Maybe it's ironic.
DI to me is a card that is exceedingly useful to stopping a small number of
annoying and powerful plays that don't occur particularly often during games
and sufficiently flexible otherwise to warrant playing with even if those plays
don't happen.
Which plays? Seat switching is the main one, various other unusual plays next.
If there weren't seat switching votes, I'd probably rarely play it. Oh, I
might play it in ally decks to cut down on ally steal or decks easily hosed by
something, like single vampire decks that die to Sens. Dep. or whatever.
Peter D Bakija
> I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir)
> On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won
> games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the
> game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right.
Umm, yeah. See, the "played right" aspect of what you mention here is the
sticking point. Most decks strategies, when not "played right" just make you
lose. Heck, they might even be a pain in someone elses ass (like poorly
concieved cross table Rushes). But when AR decks are not"played right", they
pretty much ruin the game for everyone, in the sense that any concept of
normal game play is thrown out the window.
>
> It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain
> pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is
> more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for
> "banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted
> direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad.
I don't think anyone is claiming that AR is too powerful. Any argument I
have ever heard for changing AR is that it is simply too disruptive to play
when used in numbers, and tends to make games suck when not played right. A
lot. So anything that makes the card less attractive to play foolishly
strikes me as a good plan.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:BCB82D52.1642E%pd...@lightlink.com...
> Jeroen wrote:
>
> > yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson,
> > Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the
> > table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away.
> > Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust
> > someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for
> > the life boon.
>
> Which is just a very well illustrated, very concrete example of how an AR
> deck completey derails the regular play of the game. When a given deck
> strategy virtually requires the entire rest of the table to ignore the
> regular victory conditions of the game and the regular predator/prey
> mechanic and all conspire to work together to deal with it, that is an
> illustration of something seriously wrong.
If this is the only reason, then Baltimore Purge and Smiling Jack should get
the same treatment, for exactly the same reason.
>
<snip>
>
> > a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying.
> > SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ...
>
> I mean, yeah, in theory, that happens. But most of the time, it just,
like,
> Suddens a skill card or hunting ground which doesn't really make that much
> of a difference--for every time I have been like "If I had a Sudden for
that
> Minion Tap, I'd soooo win the game!", I have been in, like, 15 situations
> where Iwas like "Boy. Am I holding this Sudden. I really hope someone
plays,
> like, a Skill card soon just so I can cycle it..."
>
yeah, that happens too :-)
Peter D Bakija
> If this is the only reason, then Baltimore Purge and Smiling Jack should get
> the same treatment, for exactly the same reason.
Smiling Jack is unique, doesn't necessarily directly hit your pool, and
*much* easier to get rid of--it hits the table, does nothing for a full turn
around the table, then does 1 damage around the table, then does 2 damage
around the table. That is, what, 12 (not counting the guy who played it)
player turns of completely acceptible losses to get rid of it easily (i.e.
take an action that isn't blocked). If it lasts past that, everyone gets
what they ask for.
The damage is easier to absorb (you can lose blood off minions--when you are
in the 1-3 range of Jack, this is easy). The guy playing them *must* take
pool loss as opposed to blood loss. You can't play 2 of them a turn, every
turn. And taking an action to burn the single Jack on the table is *much*
easier than calling votes that might burn one of the 4 or 5 ARs on the table
at any given moment, especially when your game is completely compromised by
the large pool loss already caused by the ARs. And you get to see Jack
coming an react *before* it even does anything to anyone.
I have seen innumerable games savaged by AR decks. I have seen most Smiling
Jack decks either lose Jack before it hits 3 counters, or win the game, in
which case, the Jack deck isn't disruptive--it is successful.
Baltimore Purge, much like Jack, you can see coming. It is much easier to
stop (i.e. it isn't even at inherrent stealth, unless you are using a
Ravanos, in which case you don't get to choose the vampire, unless you are
playing a historically very effective Lasombra/Ravanos deck (???). And it
doesn't directly cause pool loss. And if someone plays lots and lots of
Baltimore Purges, everyone ends up in torpor, and the game simply stops.
Both of these cards certainly have a random element to them. But the amount
of effect on the game that their random elemet has is significantly less
that that of multiple Anarch Revolts. Very significantly.
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir)
> > On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won
> > games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the
> > game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right.
>
> Umm, yeah. See, the "played right" aspect of what you mention here is the
> sticking point. Most decks strategies, when not "played right" just make you
> lose. Heck, they might even be a pain in someone elses ass (like poorly
> concieved cross table Rushes). But when AR decks are not"played right", they
> pretty much ruin the game for everyone, in the sense that any concept of
> normal game play is thrown out the window.
I think it doesn't really matter what the methuselah plays who doesn't
"play right" I have lost many tournamnet table because my
grandpredator/prey was a newby. He doesn't need to be playing AR's for
that.
I can't recall one game where i lost because a bad player was playing
AR's.
>
> >
> > It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain
> > pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is
> > more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for
> > "banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted
> > direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad.
>
> I don't think anyone is claiming that AR is too powerful. Any argument I
> have ever heard for changing AR is that it is simply too disruptive to play
> when used in numbers, and tends to make games suck when not played right. A
> lot.
Do you feel the same about Baltimore Purge? I have seen this card ruin
more games to be honoust and those games were usually not won by the
user of them.
W
So anything that makes the card less attractive to play foolishly
> strikes me as a good plan.
I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit.
W
Wouter Kuyper
I don't agree, i think 3 BP played in one turn has a lot more effect
than 3 AR's played. AR's can very often be rmoved as well (depends on
the deck)
W
Orpheus
> than 3 AR's played. AR's can very often be rmoved as well (depends on
> the deck)
>
> W
Playing 3 BPs would mean having 3 minions of important enough size that they
affect everyone you want ; it also means having 3 BPs, plus the stealth,
plus combat resistance to avoid being destroyed before your next untap
phase, plus bleed resistance for the same reason poolwise ; and that the 3
minions will be able to get out of torpor AND do something useful. That's a
lot of things...
Orpheus
Morgan Vening
A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained
in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked
upside the head, as opposed to burned).
If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'?
Morgan Vening
Raille
"Robert Scythe" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:66e41881.04043...@posting.google.com...
That would be Star Fleet Battles, with a miss placed smilie in the end,
should have been wrapped to the next line for easy of reading.
Raille
Failed proof reader
Wouter Kuyper
Sure, but being able to play 3 AR's succesfully also means about the
same things...
Having huge amounts of pool, having combat defense, having block
capability (or have them removed). Having Lifeboons.
W
Peter D Bakija
> I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit.
What cost? You just errata them to whatever change is necessary. And then
reprint them in whatever the next set is that can do that. No cost at all.
The Lasombra
<mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained
>in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked
>upside the head, as opposed to burned).
>If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'?
Yes.
You must burn the vampire to avoid the effects of Baltimore Purge.
LSJ 2002-10-22
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DB53907.FCDDA8A6%40white-wolf.com
LSJ 2002-09-26
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D9325E1.44D95A24%40white-wolf.com
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Robert Scythe
> > > a star system near you. Spread the word (and play more SFB) :)
> >
> >
> > A wild weasel should not have affected this situation that you have
> > described thus far. And if they got that close and you needed one I
> > imagine a tractor beam (which they should have energy in) would have
> > stifled that idea.
> >
> > Robert Scythe ( what is SFB??? ) ;)
>
> That would be Star Fleet Battles, with a miss placed smilie in the end,
> should have been wrapped to the next line for easy of reading.
>
> Raille
> Failed proof reader
Actually, if it wasn't obvious enough from my answer, I was being
facetious. My smilie is a wink, knowing full well what SFB, ISC, and
PPD all stand for.
Robert Scythe
Failed sarcasm writer
salem
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
>On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:17:27 +1000, Morgan Vening
><mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained
>>in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked
>>upside the head, as opposed to burned).
>
>>If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'?
>
>Yes.
>
>You must burn the vampire to avoid the effects of Baltimore Purge.
surely 'removed from the game', returned to uncontrolled region,
returned to crypt (if that's possible....hmm...Gaspare does something
like that, doesn't he?) would also be acceptable.
basically, no longer controlled.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Raille
And ut effects the player playing the card the same turn the card is played.
No free ride any longer.
Raille
Wouter Kuyper
Do you think it would be played at all? It damages yourself for sure,
and you are not even sure that it damages your prey...
Sounds to me like i would never play it, besides maybe in
smilingjack-kinda-deck...and we already have smilingjack....
W
Peter D Bakija
> Do you think it would be played at all?
Sure. All the time. In decks that want to play 1 or 2 occasionally just to
speed things up. Lots of decks use 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts just to speed
things up, and I don't think the incentive to use them for that would be
reduced at all. I think the incentive to play 6 of them would be reduced
immesurably.
> It damages yourself for sure,
> and you are not even sure that it damages your prey...
> Sounds to me like i would never play it, besides maybe in
> smilingjack-kinda-deck...and we already have smilingjack....
That's you.
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > Do you think it would be played at all?
>
> Sure. All the time. In decks that want to play 1 or 2 occasionally just to
> speed things up.
It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
W
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit.
>
> What cost? You just errata them to whatever change is necessary. And then
> reprint them in whatever the next set is that can do that. No cost at all.
>
Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they
do? and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to
everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to
believe you?
W
Peter D Bakija
> It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
> damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt,
especially if it is possible I'll be:
-Blocked
-Voted down
-Delaying Tacticed
The 1 pool I'll be losing a turn isn't that big of a deal, especially as I
can probably be doing something much more useful with my action. And there
is always the possibility that someone else will be willing to kill it.
So unless that 1 pool a turn is really going to kill me (more than the extra
forward momentum is going to help me) or Ihave a lot of extra actions to
waste and the ability to get votes passed (which might be the result of
table coalition), I'll just leave 1 Anarch be.
Peter D Bakija
> Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they
> do?
Nope. Given the choice between:
A) A game that works better with more errata
and
B) A game that works worse and has less errata
I'll always go with (A). Errata is a necessary evil. But when necessary and
used, always improves things far more than it hurts them.
> and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to
> everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to
> believe you?
What are they gonna do? Get in a fight with me? If necessary, I'll just
explain. If I sit down to a game with a deck based on errataed cards, I'll
likely make sure my opponent's know the errata before we start playing.
I have never, ever, actually had any trouble in casual play with people not
knowing errata--I'll just explain the errata, and they'll be like "Yeah,
ok". In competetive play, I'll have a judge to back me up. And they should
probably know the errata anyway.
I'm not seeing who this is a problem.
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
> > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
>
> Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt,
> especially if it is possible I'll be:
>
> -Blocked
> -Voted down
> -Delaying Tacticed
>
> The 1 pool I'll be losing a turn isn't that big of a deal, especially as I
> can probably be doing something much more useful with my action. And there
> is always the possibility that someone else will be willing to kill it.
>
> So unless that 1 pool a turn is really going to kill me (more than the extra
> forward momentum is going to help me) or Ihave a lot of extra actions to
> waste and the ability to get votes passed (which might be the result of
> table coalition), I'll just leave 1 Anarch be.
>
I usually play cards that play to my strategy, if they get removed my
strategy is hampered. My enemies know that. They will try to remove
that AR.
Net Result: they took one action (or more if blocked/voteddown/DTed)
that was not taken against their prey: slows play down instead of
speeding it up.
W
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they
> > do?
>
> Nope. Given the choice between:
>
> A) A game that works better with more errata
>
> and
>
> B) A game that works worse and has less errata
>
> I'll always go with (A). Errata is a necessary evil. But when necessary and
> used, always improves things far more than it hurts them.
I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be
changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is
not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them
is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card.
>
> > and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to
> > everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to
> > believe you?
>
> What are they gonna do? Get in a fight with me? If necessary, I'll just
> explain. If I sit down to a game with a deck based on errataed cards, I'll
> likely make sure my opponent's know the errata before we start playing.
>
> I have never, ever, actually had any trouble in casual play with people not
> knowing errata--I'll just explain the errata, and they'll be like "Yeah,
> ok". In competetive play, I'll have a judge to back me up. And they should
> probably know the errata anyway.
>
> I'm not seeing who this is a problem.
It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to
explain their own cards to them. (Old-fame-based-deck anyone?
5th-tradition-tap?). Sure they will believe me but it wonı be a lot of
fun...
I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought
it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing.
W
Peter D Bakija
> I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be
> changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is
> not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them
> is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card.
I don't think every card that isn't perfect needs to be changed. For
instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be
made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only
need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need
to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams
needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too
good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to
overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that
have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card
isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal.
So I agree that you don't need to fix *every* card in the game. But
some cards are too good or too disruptive and do need to be fixed.
Anarch Revolt is still one of those cards (along with PTO). Given that
fixing AR would improve the game as a whole significantly, I'm
perfectly happy to have to deal with the errata.
> It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to
> explain their own cards to them.
Yup. That is one of the hazards with any game. Anywhere. There are
always rules changes or tweaks that someone doesn't know.
> I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought
> it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing.
Makes sense to me. But then next time, they know what the card
actually does.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
>
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
> > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
>
> Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt,
> especially if it is possible I'll be:
>
> -Blocked
> -Voted down
> -Delaying Tacticed
So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt
would incredibly lame because:
1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything
useful; and
2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there
aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on
the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In
fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often
simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off.
But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame...
....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the
attempt to remove it."
Can you say, "self-contradiction"?
How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic"
is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly.
Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card. It's only use was in
massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in
mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card. By comparison,
Antediluvian Awakening, which is unique, has a rather stiff cost to
remove - precisely because it *IS* unique. You want to make Anarch
Revolt unique, you're going to have to give something back to the card
in order to prevent them from become coasters. One obvious thing would
be to change its removal cost to something real. Otherwise, it's clearly
and obviously obsolesced by Antediluvian Awakening. If you accept no
other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe
paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
> > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
>
> Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt,
> especially if it is possible I'll be:
>
> -Blocked
> -Voted down
> -Delaying Tacticed
So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt
Fred
>
Peter D Bakija
> So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt
> would incredibly lame because:
> 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything
> useful; and
> 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there
> aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on
> the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In
> fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often
> simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off.
What the hell are you talking about?
I wasn't discussing Unique Anarch Revolts. I was discussing Anarch Revolt as
a card that did its damage during the discard phase. Which would still be
perfectly playable in numbers.
The post you were replying to was in regards to using a single Anarch Revolt
that did its damage during the discard phase. Wouter was saying that it
would be voted out before it did damage to its prey. Certainly a
possibility, but also certainly possible it wouldn't be.
Again. What the hell are yot talking about?
>
> But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame...
> ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the
> attempt to remove it."
No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't
attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good
idea to play one Anarch Revolt.
>
> Can you say, "self-contradiction"?
Can you say "drop the crack pipe and just walk away from the shfit key"?
>
> How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic"
> is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly.
The discussion you are reacting to was simply in regards to changing the
damage taking phase to the discard phase. If the damage was applied during
the discard phase, the guy playing the card would take the damage first. And
it is possible that other folks would not take any damage. But only if they
can get rid of them.
I still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play 1 Anarch Revolt. I
still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play multiples of them. It
would just require a lot more thought.
>
> Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card.
If you say so.
> It's only use was in
> massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in
> mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card.
I was not discussing taking away its ability to be thrown on the table in
mass numbers. I was simpy discussing changing when the damage was applied.
> You want to make Anarch Revolt unique,
Umm, no, no I don't.
Dude. Before you, like, freak out, you really should have some sense of what
it is that you are freaking out about.
>If you accept no
> other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe
> paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*.
Maybe unique Anarch Revolt is total garbage. But then, I wasn't talking
about making Anarch Revolt unique.
Peter D Bakija
> How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic"
> is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly.
So you were so het up about this argument, the one where you are arguing
about something that I wasn't even trying to assert, that you decided to
post it twice? Awsome!
Again. Put. Down. The. Crack.
Peter D Bakija
> No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't
> attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good
> idea to play one Anarch Revolt.
Yeah, that first "would" should clearly be "wouldn't".
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> > So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt
> > would incredibly lame because:
> > 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything
> > useful; and
> > 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there
> > aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on
> > the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In
> > fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often
> > simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
>
> I wasn't discussing Unique Anarch Revolts. I was discussing Anarch Revolt as
> a card that did its damage during the discard phase. Which would still be
> perfectly playable in numbers.
>
> The post you were replying to was in regards to using a single Anarch Revolt
> that did its damage during the discard phase. Wouter was saying that it
> would be voted out before it did damage to its prey. Certainly a
> possibility, but also certainly possible it wouldn't be.
>
> Again. What the hell are yot talking about?
All right, sorry for the misunderstanding. I can't find it now but
somewhere in this thread a while ago, the concept of Anarch Revolt as a
unique card got talked about and you guys were now discussing the merits
of playing just one. I now see how you got to that point but it seemed
like such a logical assumption that I didn't go back and check the
discussion history like I should have. Again, my apologies for not
doing something I should have.
That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory
as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes
no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based
on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove
them. The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because
you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself
for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or
two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself
completely off the hook and not play them at all.
Masochism: right for fetishes. Wrong for winning at Jyhad.
> > But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame...
> > ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the
> > attempt to remove it."
>
> No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't
> attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good
> idea to play one Anarch Revolt.
Watch him try and drive that logic one way then the other attempting to
find a rationale which explains why anyone would ever bother with the
card.
> The discussion you are reacting to was simply in regards to changing the
> damage taking phase to the discard phase. If the damage was applied during
> the discard phase, the guy playing the card would take the damage first. And
> it is possible that other folks would not take any damage. But only if they
> can get rid of them.
Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there
aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against
removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards.
> I still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play 1 Anarch Revolt. I
> still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play multiples of them. It
> would just require a lot more thought.
Dude, put down the crack pipe.
> So you were so het up about this argument, the one where you are arguing
> about something that I wasn't even trying to assert, that you decided to
> post it twice? Awsome!
Have you never had problems with your newsposting software? Don't be so
quick to make assumptions like that.
Fred
scrote
> > Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The
> > problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it
> > very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often.
>
> I agree with you. The reason I mentioned other cards with global
> effects is because AR is not alone in basically turning the game into
> another one. The key point, as you mentioned, is the repeated use. One
> Ancilla + Bribes won't disrupt the table, but 10 will. Like with AR.
Not really a fair comparison IMHO. AR requires nothing to set up other
than a parthenon (or early rumours).
Ancilla requires a minion, an unblocked action and a successful
referendum.
Multiple Ancillas are obviuosly that much more difficult to achieve.
>
> That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can
> only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose,
> otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes
> a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and
> friends).
Yeah, don't see it a lot, but hate it when I do. One of the players
here has a weenie obf/computer hack/anarch deck that annoys the piss
out of everyone, thankfully he whips it out infrequently.
<snip>
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
scrote
> > Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity.
>
> Celerity and Obfuscate come to mind. Maybe Animalism rather than
> Obfuscate, but definitely for Celerity.
>
> Magnus
Who, in their right mind, would give flick/bounce to obfuscate??
-scrote
Peter D Bakija
>
> All right, sorry for the misunderstanding. I can't find it now but
> somewhere in this thread a while ago, the concept of Anarch Revolt as a
> unique card got talked about and you guys were now discussing the merits
> of playing just one.
Oh--sure. The "unique AR" idea was tossed around at some point. I'm sure I
even discussed it somewhere. I'm just not a big fan.
> I now see how you got to that point but it seemed
> like such a logical assumption that I didn't go back and check the
> discussion history like I should have. Again, my apologies for not
> doing something I should have.
Quite allright. I just took advantage of the opportunity to be a dick :-)
>
> That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory
> as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes
> no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based
> on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove
> them.
They aren't so useless that my opponents won't bother to remove them. If my
predator plays a single AR, and I think my actiona are better spent going
forward, as opposed to spending them getting rid of the AR (which might
fail), and if I think the AR might not hurt my particular position so much
and might even help out my position? I'll leave it be, and let someone else
worry about it. If I think that the single AR is going to hurt me more than
not, and I think I can get rid of it, and I think that I have actions to
waste, I'll kill it.
I see single AR's in play all the time. In decks that just, like, wanna
speed things up some. They don't intend on playig more than 1 or 2 at a
time, if even 2. And sometimes they get voted off. Sometimes not.
> The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because
> you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself
> for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or
> two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself
> completely off the hook and not play them at all.
Well, that strikes me as a perfectly logical plan in my book. I don't like
Anarch Revolts. If it turned out that one of my suggestions "accidentally"
made them night unplayable, I could live with that. This being said, I don't
think changing the timing of the damage would make them completely
unplayable.
> Watch him try and drive that logic one way then the other attempting to
> find a rationale which explains why anyone would ever bother with the
> card.
Who? Watch *me*? Yeah, whatever.
> Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there
> aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against
> removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards.
If you are playing a deck that can't defend the ARs, you don't play them.
Putting 1 or 2 in, like, a Gangrel intercept wall, to go along with the
Smiling Jacks and Army of Rats and whatever? Makes perfect sense to me. Even
if it did damage during discard.
> Dude, put down the crack pipe.
See, but crack is wack.
> Have you never had problems with your newsposting software? Don't be so
> quick to make assumptions like that.
Of course I have. And of course I know that it was a glitch, rather than you
doing it intentionally. I was, ya know, being a dick.
Snapcase
> That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory
> as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes
> no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based
> on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove
> them.
There are 14 decks in the TWD archive that include 4 or less Anarch
Revolts (so you're probably likely to only get 1-2 into play over the
course of a game). A lot of decks are benefited by having their prey
hit for 1-2 extra damage per turn over the course of the game, without
the need to hit everyone for 6+ damage every turn.
Personally, I think a change similar to that of Army of Rats would be
more fair than making it unique. I think that making it activate in the
discard phase /would/ stop people from using it in small quantities.
And probably large quantities as well.
> Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there
> aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against
> removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards.
Explain why people are using them in small quantities then.
--
-Snapcase
Frederick Scott
> I see single AR's in play all the time. In decks that just, like, wanna
> speed things up some. They don't intend on playig more than 1 or 2 at a
> time, if even 2. And sometimes they get voted off. Sometimes not.
OK, here's where observations differ. I barely ever see that. Where I
have, I've gotten the sense that either the person didn't know what they
were doing or was playing the card to deliberately misdirect people into
thinking they were facing an AR deck when they weren't. In any event,
I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever
card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of
that card. When those groups failed to vote an AR off the table, it was
probably because they perceived the AR wasn't doing anything worthwhile
for whoever played it. If that was the perception, then it probably
wasn't - making it a bad play for that reason.
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because
> > you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself
> > for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or
> > two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself
> > completely off the hook and not play them at all.
>
> Well, that strikes me as a perfectly logical plan in my book. I don't like
> Anarch Revolts. If it turned out that one of my suggestions "accidentally"
> made them night unplayable, I could live with that. This being said, I don't
> think changing the timing of the damage would make them completely
> unplayable.
Ah, and here I was all set to have a big flamewar over whether the card
would be playable or not. Instead, you went and admitted what I suspected:
that your first priority was to get rid of the card in the context of
massed usage (people using Parthenons and Ansons and such to dump two
and three of them on the table per turn) and that you really don't care
much if it goes away entirely. As you've also admitted that
your problem with the card is disruptiveness and not power, then it
follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness
will tend to make the card useless.
You may also be correct in saying that the card might not become entirely
useless if it's just tweaked a bit. But it's just the wrong solution for
the particular type of problem. To the extent you don't castrate it, it
will continue to be used to your irritation. And to the extent you do, you
turn it into wallpaper. Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all
three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status. We already
have far too many of those cards and not nearly enough beers to put on all
of them.
If you're going to solve a disruptiveness problem, you need to change the
card so it's not disruptive any more, not castrate it. I don't have a
problem with it myself, but I think I can sympathize with the people who
do: you start a game, you've got a well-planned deck in a good position,
you've invested maybe a little more pool in your minions than usual but
you've got great minions on the board that you feel put you in a good
position to defend against anything bad your predator and prey might want
to try to do against you. Then, BAM! Some joker across the board starts
dumping two ARs a turn on the table and there's not shit you can do about
it. Even if you shut him down and oust him, by the time you do your
position will be trashed and the result of the game will be basically
random. That's frustrating. It's also hard to plan strategy against,
which is a bad thing in a strategy game.
So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card
to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't
give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want
to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it
wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a
bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to
make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5
votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far
more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the
referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The
removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's
removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much
more intriquing to use and far less of a pain.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there
> > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against
> > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards.
>
> Explain why people are using them in small quantities then.
I can't. It just doesn't seem very smart to me. On the other hand,
I've seen lots of tourney-winning decks that contained confusing, non-
productive-looking elements which didn't seem like they belonged in the
deck. As one of the other posters on this board is fond of pointing out:
Jyhad is a multiplayer game which often means that the most effective
cards don't always win. It's the most effective play of those cards
including the diplomatic elements (e.g. turning your opponents against
one another and distracting them from harming you) that frequently has
the most impact. Not to mention luck and bad play by one's opponents.
The bottom line is that I don't always think a card being in a winning
deck necessarily means it's a winning card, unless the winner gives me
a reason why the card was crucial. Why many Anarch Revolts can help
a person win a game is obvious to me. How a small number of them can
contribute much of anything is a lot harder to comprehend.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> OK, here's where observations differ. I barely ever see that.
Ok. I see it all the time. Wall decks play 1 or 2 ARs. Bloat decks play 1 or
2 ARs. Not, like, 5 of them. Just one or two. To speed things up and give
the game a clock. They usually come with a lot of votes or a lot of
intercept--things that plenty of decks have already (i.e. they aren't just
in there to defend the AR's). Because they have a lot of votes or a lot of
intercept, it is often not worth the effort to try and get rid of the 1 or 2
ARs on the table. But it does speed things up.
> In any event,
> I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever
> card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of
> that card.
Ok. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts? Certainly an issue. They have an effect on the
game. People care that they are there. But given that often the effort spent
to try and get rid of them (facing, say, an AUS/DOM intercept Obedicance
bloat deck or a Prince 2nd Tradition deck) is not insignificant, it is often
in one's best interest to simply not waste the actions trying to get rid of
them and instead plow forward, hoping that the 1 or 2 pool loss per turn is
going to not kill you and the actions spent trying to oust your prey instead
are probably more in your interest.
5 or 6 Anarch Revolts on the table are a problem that everyone needs to deal
with. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts on the table is a problem that might or might
not be something anyone needs to deal with. This does not mean that it was
useless to play them.
> When those groups failed to vote an AR off the table, it was
> probably because they perceived the AR wasn't doing anything worthwhile
> for whoever played it. If that was the perception, then it probably
> wasn't - making it a bad play for that reason.
Um, ok. When your predator plays Army of Rats, do you immediately spend
every action you have trying to destroy it until it is gone? Or do you look
at the table situation, see if the 1 pool a turn is going to destroy your
game and decide if you are better off just going forward, considering what
stands in the way of you getting the Army of Rats? If you don't destroy it,
does that mean it was a bad play for your predator?
> Ah, and here I was all set to have a big flamewar
Clearly, you were. It was fairly dick-tacular.
> over whether the card
> would be playable or not. Instead, you went and admitted what I suspected:
What you suspected? I am on record from day 1 as being in favor of Anarch
revolt being completely neutered, if not removed from the game completely.
This being said, that is kind of unreasonable, so I am more realistically in
favor of some sort of tweak--either moving the damage to the discard phase
or making it cost X, where X is the number of ARs already in play. Either of
these strike me as reasonable fixes that keep the card playable in small
numbers or larger numbers given the appropriate deck design. You seem to
disagree. Go nuts.
> that your first priority was to get rid of the card in the context of
> massed usage (people using Parthenons and Ansons and such to dump two
> and three of them on the table per turn) and that you really don't care
> much if it goes away entirely.
I never claimed otherwise. You are hardly catching me up in an impenetrible
web of logic here, counselor.
Again. I don't like AR in its current form. I think it is too disruptive to
play when used in multiples. I'd be perfectly happy if it vanished. But that
is kind of unreasonable, so I'd also be perfectly happy if it were tweaked
in such a way as to make it still a viable card yet less attractive to be
used in large numbers.
The "take damage during the discard phase" idea is simple and discourages
using too many of them. But it also makes it much less likely to be useful
(as it is certainly possible that a given AR will be killed before it hurts
someone). Which is certainly a strike against the idea.
The "AR costs X, where X is the number of ARs in play" plan has zero effect
on playing 1 AR (and I always like adjusting cards in such a way that you
can keep the card as close to the original function as possible while still
reigning it in). It makes playing multiples expensive and questionable.
Which strikes me as a fine idea. But playing 1 or 2, which contrary to your
particular belief, is something that people do, is still viable.
> As you've also admitted that
> your problem with the card is disruptiveness and not power,
And once again, I have never claimed otherwise. Please go find a place in
the countless discussions I have had on this particular subject where I say
"Anarch Revolt is too powerful". Really. Go. In many places I say "AR is too
disruptive to play" and "AR leads to stupid games". But I don't claim it is
too powerful.
>then it
> follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness
> will tend to make the card useless.
Only if you think that playing 1 or 2 of them is useless. You seem to think
it is. Which is fine. I think you are incorrect. As do the various people
who have won tournaments with decks that contain a few Anarch Revolts and
tend to play only 1 or 2 at a time.
> Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all
> three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status.
Just 'cause it was reprinted? If you say so. I'd be perfectly happy if all
those reprinted PTO's were made into coasters too. I hold no belief that
just 'cause a card is printed it needs to be playable to the detriment of
the game. I'm perfectly happy that all my RTI's and Madness of the Bards are
all coasters too.
> So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card
> to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't
> give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want
> to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it
> wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a
> bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to
> make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5
> votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far
> more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the
> referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The
> removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's
> removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much
> more intriquing to use and far less of a pain.
Sure. All of these are perfectly viable ideas. And see--you can get them
across without raving against points that I didn't make and shouting in all
caps.
Dude. I think you need some of those beers you don't have enough of.
Albert Chang
news:409D2E9E...@nospam.com...
> The bottom line is that I don't always think a card being in a winning
> deck necessarily means it's a winning card, unless the winner gives me
> a reason why the card was crucial. Why many Anarch Revolts can help
> a person win a game is obvious to me. How a small number of them can
> contribute much of anything is a lot harder to comprehend.
>
Well, from what I've seen, if you're confident that your deck will most
likely be the one that moves forward the fastest and/or requires the least
setup time to get rolling, then including a few could make it so that more
vp's are easier to take for this deck instead of running out of steam and
stalling too quickly.
> Fred
Daneel
> instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be
> made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only
> need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need
> to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams
> needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too
> good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to
> overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that
> have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card
> isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal.
Interesting. IMHO there are three instances when cards need to be
fixed.
1. Unbalanced. The card makes you win if you have it. IMHO currently
none of the cards fall into this category. Dreams may be a "must-have"
for most people, but the main reason I seldom play it is its
uniqueness. Many times were I gazing intently on my Dreams that
occupied my 7th slot and were unable to play it for countless turns,
as when one expired another one was played before my turn came.
2. Disruptive. The card makes other people lose (or be vastly
disappointed) by the card. Basically counter-cards are the ones that
could fall into this category. In VTES pulling a 6-card combo that
cannot be defended against is far less aggravating than playing a
single card. IMHO currently PTO is on the wrong side of the verge of
falling into this category. On the good side there is Judgement:
Camarilla Segregation and Goratrix, Advanced. They are far rarer
and/or less powerful.
3. Utterly Lame. Only thing that qualifies here is when two cards are
exactly the same in all but one effect parameter. The only current
example is Chainsaw vs. Gas Powered Chainsaw. Mario and Cristophero,
or Bastard Sword and Meat Cleaver do not count, as their effect
parameters match.
So in the current (IMHO rather fairly balanced) game I would change
exactly two cards. PTO (slightly balancing the effect to either allow
more dedicated defence or a decreased effect), and Chainsaw (by adding
a Maneuver and/or Press to the stike, for example, or decreasing the
cost / increasing the damage).
On a sidenote, after decent amounts of pondering, I exluded AR and
similar cards. AR is the typical example of something that I think
needs to be addressed by altering the in-game balance with newly
introduced cards. Even if it is a specific action, like one that
allows a titled (?) vampire to burn all Anarch Revolts with a +2
stealth action (giving you the option to include specific defence).
The card could be burn option, regarding the target (discard if no AR
is in play). This is an extreme example, but it shows my way of
thinking.
Bye,
Daneel
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever
> > card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of
> > that card.
>
> Ok. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts? Certainly an issue. They have an effect on the
> game. People care that they are there.
Not usually. Two of them starts to make people uncomfortable, but saying
people "care" about one AR is usually an exaggeration.
> But given that often the effort spent
> to try and get rid of them (facing, say, an AUS/DOM intercept Obedicance
> bloat deck or a Prince 2nd Tradition deck) is not insignificant,
I will NOT give you that. It costs an action at stealth with a pre-check
to make sure people will vote with you. It's one of the easiest sweeps
in the game. If you can't get the votes, it's usually because the thing is
*SO* insignificant, it's off peoples' radar screens. In which case it was
a waste of master phase.
> 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts on the table is a problem that might or might
> not be something anyone needs to deal with. This does not mean that it was
> useless to play them.
OK. So you insist on asserting this inherently self-contradictory position.
You can make whatever argument you like but it's still wrong. If no
opponent cares about it, it's useless. I'm not playing a card just to
entertain myself. If my opponents don't care about my cards, they're
trying to tell me something.
> Um, ok. When your predator plays Army of Rats, do you immediately spend
> every action you have trying to destroy it until it is gone? Or do you look
> at the table situation, see if the 1 pool a turn is going to destroy your
> game and decide if you are better off just going forward, considering what
> stands in the way of you getting the Army of Rats?
The latter - which implies the former, more times than not. (You DID
say "decide IF", didn't you? Usually the answer is no.) Which is
the reason Army of Rats actually doesn't get played all that much. A
guy puts it on the table - his prey then takes it off the table. Whoop,
whoop. (Twirls finger unenthusiastically.) And it's a card that's at
least unfair in its effect. It's also harder to sweep, because it's not
at stealth like removing the AR.
> If you don't destroy it,
> does that mean it was a bad play for your predator?
If they could have done something more effective than something I'd
ignore, sure. And certainly if they did something I instantly undid.
> I am on record from day 1 as being in favor of Anarch
> revolt being completely neutered, if not removed from the game completely.
> This being said, that is kind of unreasonable, so I am more realistically in
> favor of some sort of tweak--either moving the damage to the discard phase
> or making it cost X, where X is the number of ARs already in play. Either of
> these strike me as reasonable fixes that keep the card playable in small
> numbers or larger numbers given the appropriate deck design. You seem to
> disagree. Go nuts.
Just that your proposed solution basically does the first thing you said:
removes it from the game completely. A coaster is a dead card in a CCG.
> The "take damage during the discard phase" idea is simple and discourages
> using too many of them.
It discourages them PERIOD. That much is simple enough. This is a case
of, "If some is good, more is better." If many suck, one or two still
suck - just not as much. Zero would therefore suck less.
> The "AR costs X, where X is the number of ARs in play" plan has zero effect
> on playing 1 AR (and I always like adjusting cards in such a way that you
> can keep the card as close to the original function as possible while still
> reigning it in). It makes playing multiples expensive and questionable.
> Which strikes me as a fine idea. But playing 1 or 2, which contrary to your
> particular belief, is something that people do, is still viable.
You may have observed people doing it. But it's a stupid play. Presumedly,
one would expect such people to prefer Anteduluvian Awakening to AR. You've
said nothing about people using AA first and then using AR as a fallback
because they can't use more than one AA. But then, that would contradict
your suggestion that anyone want more than one or two in play. The first
one, by all accounts, should Anteduluvian Awakening.
> >then it
> > follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness
> > will tend to make the card useless.
>
> Only if you think that playing 1 or 2 of them is useless.
I think it defies logic to hold otherwise.
> > Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all
> > three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status.
>
> Just 'cause it was reprinted? If you say so.
Just because it's in print and people own them. I don't claim that to
be a reason you should never modify an overpowered card or even a
disruptive one, if it's causing enough pain. But it's sure a decent reason
to make sure you don't wallpaper it in the process.
> > So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card
> > to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't
> > give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want
> > to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it
> > wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a
> > bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to
> > make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5
> > votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far
> > more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the
> > referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The
> > removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's
> > removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much
> > more intriquing to use and far less of a pain.
>
> Sure. All of these are perfectly viable ideas. And see--you can get them
> across without raving against points that I didn't make and shouting in all
> caps.
>
> Dude. I think you need some of those beers you don't have enough of.
You're welcome. May your keg never run dry, either.
Fred
The Fanboy
harder >to comprehend.
It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a
little damage before going away. That's why.
I put it down. At the very least, it'll hit my prey for one before
being removed. If you play it in the late game, people will realize
you're not playing a Revolt deck and not come after you directly for
it, even if they do remove the card. In the early game, it'll likely
make you enemies.
Just another way to oust a prey that you've been putting on the ropes.
One that can't be deflected or reduced. How many times have you had
just enough firepower to get your prey down to 1 pool, only to have
them Tap back up to 10 plus on their turn? A well timed revolt is a
solution to that.
For toolbox decks, it's a solid strategy. For focused decks, it
dilutes the focus somewhat, so may not be a good idea.
Kelly
Frederick Scott
The Fanboy wrote:
>
> >How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot
> >harderto comprehend.
>
> It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a
> little damage before going away. That's why.
No, it is NOT a free effect! It cost a master phase action, something
far more valuable than the simple stealth minion action to get rid
of it. I can much better uses for my master card slots.
> Just another way to oust a prey that you've been putting on the ropes.
> One that can't be deflected or reduced. How many times have you had
> just enough firepower to get your prey down to 1 pool, only to have
> them Tap back up to 10 plus on their turn?
Um, not really very often. I'll grant you, it is a good finisher play
if you're one pool away from the oust...assuming you didn't have to use
your master phase for a better card to bring yourself within one pool
of the oust. But it's not that common of a scenario, as long as you're
taking into account that you're not allowed to dictate when the card
comes up in your deck. That is, being within one pool of an oust isn't
all that rare but being within one and drawing or being able to maintain
in your hand one of a very few copies of a given card sure is.
People tend to forget that when they get involved in these arguments.
It's all well and good to conceive of a given scenario when a card
would be useful in a real game. It's quite another thing to have that
scenario actually come up.
> For toolbox decks, it's a solid strategy.
Sorry, I find there's much better cards to use your master slots on.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> Not usually. Two of them starts to make people uncomfortable, but saying
> people "care" about one AR is usually an exaggeration.
Ok. 1 AR costs you a pool a turn. Losing a pool a turn is rarely a good
thing when not prepared for it. It isn't likely going to kill you
immediately, but it'll certainly make a dent. The issue is whether the
effort spent to kill it is a valid trade off for the damage you can cause to
your prey insetad.
> I will NOT give you that.
Umm, Ok. You should still probably settle down some.
> It costs an action at stealth with a pre-check
> to make sure people will vote with you. It's one of the easiest sweeps
> in the game.
Well, ya know, unless the AR is played by an AUS/Obedience deck. Or a deck
that controls the vote situation. Or is using Delaying Tactics anyway.
> If you can't get the votes, it's usually because the thing is
> *SO* insignificant, it's off peoples' radar screens. In which case it was
> a waste of master phase.
To make your prey lose pool. Hardly a waste for my money. But, ya know, me.
> OK. So you insist on asserting this inherently self-contradictory position.
> You can make whatever argument you like but it's still wrong. If no
> opponent cares about it, it's useless. I'm not playing a card just to
> entertain myself. If my opponents don't care about my cards, they're
> trying to tell me something.
Umm, yeah. Whatever, man. As mentioned, 1 pool a turn from an Anarch Revolt
speeds things up (as opposed to not losing a pool a turn). It will increase
the overall speed with which people are ousted. By a pool per turn.
Sometimes, someone will consider it worth the effort to get rid of.
Sometimes not. Sometimes the actions spent going forward are worth more than
the saving of the pool from the AR. If this isn't the case, then the AR gets
killed. If not, it stays around and speeds up the game.
There are certainly worse expenditures of master phase actions.
> If they could have done something more effective than something I'd
> ignore, sure. And certainly if they did something I instantly undid.
And if they block you and send to to torpor, then it was certainly effective
for something. If you don't take an action to kill the AoR, and it costs a
pool a turn, it is also effective.
> Just that your proposed solution basically does the first thing you said:
> removes it from the game completely. A coaster is a dead card in a CCG.
Ok. Then it possibly isn't the best solution to the problem. I never said it
was the best possible option. Just an option.
> You may have observed people doing it. But it's a stupid play. Presumedly,
> one would expect such people to prefer Anteduluvian Awakening to AR. You've
> said nothing about people using AA first and then using AR as a fallback
> because they can't use more than one AA. But then, that would contradict
> your suggestion that anyone want more than one or two in play. The first
> one, by all accounts, should Anteduluvian Awakening.
Maybe. But Antedulivan is Unique. So playing more than 1 is counter
productive, if you might want to play 2 of them. So you put in an
Antedeluvian and a few ARs. 1 AA is interchangable with 1 AR for most
purposes.
> I think it defies logic to hold otherwise.
Go crazy, man.
Daneel
> The Fanboy wrote:
> >
> > >How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot
> > >harderto comprehend.
> >
> > It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a
> > little damage before going away. That's why.
>
> No, it is NOT a free effect! It cost a master phase action, something
> far more valuable than the simple stealth minion action to get rid
> of it. I can much better uses for my master card slots.
What other free Master Cards do *sure* damage to your prey? Except for
the Unique Antideluvian Awakening, which isn't sure? And the Unique
Curse of Nitocris that gets passed around if you also bleed during
your turn?
Bye,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter wrote:
> > I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be
> > changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is
> > not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them
> > is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card.
>
> I don't think every card that isn't perfect needs to be changed. For
> instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be
> made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only
> need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need
> to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams
> needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too
> good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to
> overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that
> have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card
> isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal.
>
> So I agree that you don't need to fix *every* card in the game.
Ok, good. So what you are saying is just that AR is too disruptive to
play (since you already said that you haven't seen it win a lot of
games)
But
> some cards are too good or too disruptive and do need to be fixed.
> Anarch Revolt is still one of those cards (along with PTO). Given that
> fixing AR would improve the game as a whole significantly, I'm
> perfectly happy to have to deal with the errata.
So you take it as a given that AR is too disruptive?
I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and
expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your
i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept
deck.
Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck.
And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper
deck.
And on top of that, bad decks/ bad players (especially when playing
for instance AR or Wall) are always disruptive)
>
> > It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to
> > explain their own cards to them.
>
> Yup. That is one of the hazards with any game. Anywhere. There are
> always rules changes or tweaks that someone doesn't know.
Sure, but our game has a lot of those...and errata stink.
heard on tournaments:
Rule #1 : read the (f*cking) card.
But it is bad when rule #2 becomes
Rule #2: Don't trust what is written on the card.....
and it is going that way....
>
> > I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought
> > it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing.
>
> Makes sense to me. But then next time, they know what the card
> actually does.
True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling
people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or
encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has
another niche...
(and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they
come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that
doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after
seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with
an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....)
Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening...
W
FC
> people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or
> encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has
> another niche...
>
> (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they
> come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that
> doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after
> seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with
> an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....)
> Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening...
>
It is a risk that errata will cause people to become unhappy with the
official rules and by extension tournaments, but get absolutely trashed
by obscene decks are not a good thing either.
I know that there are worse types than anarch revolt/weenie bleed or
anarch/pool machine/major boon decks or what have you.
But even if you disagree on our reasons you should realize that
stacking ARs cause some of us to see absolutely red. I'll try to win
that particular game but maybe my judgement will be clouded by
a sincere wish to see the AR deck go down (preferably from its own
revolts).
You can't really justify playing an irritating deck by winning games
in my opinion. I'm sure you would think ganging up on a AR deck
just because it annoys you is bad play but it doesn't really matter.
People will be tempted to do so when their deck collapses and
their chance of a VP seem remote.
Most players have broken or disruptive decks that they really feel
are quite clever deckbuilding. Maybe you prefer AR types while
other like weenie presence bleed or whatever. I like walls.
And everytime you pick a disruptive deck you increase the odds
of people going with their own favorite abomination of a deck for
the next game. Which is a bad thing for both casual and tournament
play - and at least as damaging to the game as errata can ever be
imo.
FC
David Cherryholmes
> I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and
> expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your
> i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept
> deck.
These are not accurate comparisons. "Slow and expensive" are relative
terms, whereas floating a deck on +1 stealth (and I'm assuming you don't
mean a 'bruise and x' deck, for which the lack of stealth is not a bug,
but a feature) is an objective fact. Secondly, I'd suspect the number
of decks that would qualify for your former category is much larger than
the latter, making the number of targets to be hosed by AR much larger
than those hosed by light intercept.
__
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck.
This is crazy talk! Wall decks hose a single person, their predator,
and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla"
game dynamics. Further, they only really hose the goobers who think
bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute
is clever and fun. Bruise decks and combat decks are left relatively
unharmed by the wall.
> And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper
> deck.
No argument, though, that those table dancers are every bit as annoying
and disruptive as AR decks. Those people *must* be blown off the table
the moment their archetype becomes known.
__
David Cherryholmes
XZealot
> and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla"
> game dynamics. Further, they only really hose the goobers who think
> bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute
> is clever and fun.
Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh, laugh...
Good stuff, keep it coming.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
David Cherryholmes
> Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh, laugh...
>
> Good stuff, keep it coming.
[Buzz Lightyear]
You're mocking me, aren't you?
[/Buzz Lightyear]
__
David Cherryholmes
XZealot
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2g9kvr...@uni-berlin.de...
> XZealot wrote:
>
> > Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh,
laugh...
> >
> > Good stuff, keep it coming.
>
> [Buzz Lightyear]
>
> You're mocking me, aren't you?
>
> [/Buzz Lightyear]
Stop it! You are going to send me to the hospital, and I am at work to
boot! I can barely contain myself.... In fact, I couldn't contain myself,
and now people are sticking there heads into my office to find out what was
so funny. The sad thing is that they wouldn't get it.
Thanks for the Funny Monday.
Peter D Bakija
>
> Ok, good. So what you are saying is just that AR is too disruptive to
> play (since you already said that you haven't seen it win a lot of
> games)
That is all I have ever been saying. Decks that play lots and lots of
ARs just make the game suck. Not for someone's prey. Not for their
predator. For everyone. The game just sucks.
> So you take it as a given that AR is too disruptive?
I do. Yes.
>
> I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and
> expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your
> i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept
> deck.
Yes. At which point *one* person's deck sucks. And if your deck runs
into a trump, it is supposed to suck. AR decks don't make one person's
deck suck. They make everyone's deck suck.
There is a vast difference between making my prey's game suck (which
is my job, being his predator and all) and making *everyone's* game
suck (which just makes the game a waste of time).
>
> Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck.
> And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper
> deck.
A wall deck is disruptive to its predator. An AR deck is disruptive to
everyone.
>
> And on top of that, bad decks/ bad players (especially when playing
> for instance AR or Wall) are always disruptive)
A bad player with a deck has an effect on the people sitting next to
them, and possibly not for a very long time. An AR deck tends to have
a significant, concrete negative effect on every deck at the table.
>
> True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling
> people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or
> encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has
> another niche...
I am unconcerned with the ability of people to understand/know errata.
Games have errata. Pretty much all games have errata. It is something
that people deal with all the time. Not an issue.
AR is a bad card for the game. I would much rather it get errataed so
it is less bad for the game than leave it alone out of fear of more
errata.
> (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they
> come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that
> doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after
> seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with
> an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....)
> Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening...
If people are playing in a tournament, it isn't unreasonable to expect
that they know all the rules. The rules aren't that difficult to find.
-Peter
Colin Riggs
> Snapcase wrote:
> > > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if
there
> > > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense
against
> > > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards.
> >
> > Explain why people are using them in small quantities then.
>
> I can't. It just doesn't seem very smart to me.
I play 1 in my Baali stealth bleed deck (Bouncin' Baali, I think there are
posts). Just 2 reasons. One is if I get it first or second turn, people
usually keep it around for 2-3 turns. Making everyone more vulnerable to
stealth bleed. Two, the extra pool damage really can make a difference in
how long your prey *thinks* they will be able to survive. In the end game,
where I have blood dolls and social charm and coven (plus the pool from
ousting people) its good free damage.
I wouldn't play it in most other kinds of stealth bleed (or I would play
more), but between the bounce and intercept, and more importantly Greta, its
a good bet.
Colin Riggs
plus people always laugh "Baali and Anarchs, you dead"
Raille
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> >
> > Wouter Kuyper wrote:
> >
> > > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the
> > > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker)
> >
> > Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch
Revolt,
> > especially if it is possible I'll be:
> >
> > -Blocked
> > -Voted down
> > -Delaying Tacticed
>
> So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt
> would incredibly lame because:
> 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything
> useful; and
> 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there
> aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on
> the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In
> fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often
> simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off.
>
> ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the
> attempt to remove it."
>
>
> How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic"
> is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly.
>
> Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card. It's only use was in
> massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in
> mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card. By comparison,
> Antediluvian Awakening, which is unique, has a rather stiff cost to
> remove - precisely because it *IS* unique. You want to make Anarch
> Revolt unique, you're going to have to give something back to the card
> in order to prevent them from become coasters. One obvious thing would
> be to change its removal cost to something real. Otherwise, it's clearly
> and obviously obsolesced by Antediluvian Awakening. If you accept no
> other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe
> paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*.
>
> Fred
Well we could make the removal of AR only done by a vote called by a titled
baron. Fit thematically at least. ;)
Raille
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
>
> > Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck.
>
> This is crazy talk! Wall decks hose a single person, their predator,
> and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla"
> game dynamics.
Bad walldecks make their prey win the game, even good walldecks have
problems ousting their preys. And even when they are about to win...it
is not at all unheard that tables with 1 or more walldecks go through
time...I would call that more disruptive than an AR-deck.
Further, they only really hose the goobers who think
> bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute
> is clever and fun. Bruise decks and combat decks are left relatively
> unharmed by the wall.
IMO good walldecks should have some sort of combat package that
hurts...(sniperrifles...burst-rotschreck, or something like that) But
yes, bruise and combatdecks should have less problems with it...but
even then, i walldeck is only a wall, when it is not ousted. a GOOD
waldeck gets his 3rd VP somewhere and within timelimit.
I've seen a lot more walldecks that got 3 games timeout than i saw
AR-decks make other people randomly lose.
>
> > And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper
> > deck.
>
> No argument, though, that those table dancers are every bit as annoying
> and disruptive as AR decks. Those people *must* be blown off the table
> the moment their archetype becomes known.
Hi Tobias
:-)
Don't get this wrong, i love to see those decks work, just because
they are cool. But seatswitchers interfere much more in the
predator-prey relationship than AR does (and thus disrupt the game
more). Decks based on seatswitchers ...well you can add it up...
W
Wouter Kuyper
> > True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling
> > people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or
> > encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has
> > another niche...
> >
> > (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they
> > come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that
> > doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after
> > seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with
> > an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....)
> > Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening...
> >
>
> It is a risk that errata will cause people to become unhappy with the
> official rules and by extension tournaments, but get absolutely trashed
> by obscene decks are not a good thing either.
Absolutely true...but i have not seen that happen a lot either...and
then they know they could have done the same thing, and perhaps will
the next tournament...( i know i personally don't mind losing if
someone saw a great combo that i dind't see, even though i know all
the cards)
>
> I know that there are worse types than anarch revolt/weenie bleed or
> anarch/pool machine/major boon decks or what have you.
>
> But even if you disagree on our reasons you should realize that
> stacking ARs cause some of us to see absolutely red. I'll try to win
> that particular game but maybe my judgement will be clouded by
> a sincere wish to see the AR deck go down (preferably from its own
> revolts).
Oh, you can have all the favorites/antifavorites you want, and so will
i. But there is not a hair on my head (is that an English expression)
that thinks about removing intercept from the game (or weakening it)
just because i don't like playing or encountering it...And if i know i
am playing an not-too-liked-deckstyle i KNOW i need to prepare for
beatings (Purge anyone?) I don't have a problem with that either (as
long as everyone is playing to win)
W
Magnus
Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all
could need bounce.
Magnus
Colin McGuigan
> Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all
> could need bounce.
Yeah, 'cause weenie OBF needs the help, right?
--Colin McGuigan
Magnus
> Magnus wrote:
> > Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all
> > could need bounce.
>
> Yeah, 'cause weenie OBF needs the help, right?
No, because these clans are incapable of deflecting by themselves. Of
course WW could respectively give bounce to Serpentis, Quietus,
Protean and Potence, if that more suits your style.
<sigh> I never said that it´d be perfect, but Obfuscate, Celerity and
Animalism are disciplines which encompass about everyone of the clans
that doesn´t has bounce ( Bloodlines excepted ).
Magnus
Colin McGuigan
> No, because these clans are incapable of deflecting by themselves. Of
> course WW could respectively give bounce to Serpentis, Quietus,
> Protean and Potence, if that more suits your style.
True, but if you give obf bounce, then you give weenie obf bounce. As
good as your intentions are, you'd also create the ultimate in weenie decks.
--Colin McGuigan
John Flournoy
>
> Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all
> could need bounce.
>
> Magnus
Speaking for the !Nosferatu, that simply isn't true - they do not
'need' bounce, as I think I've amply demonstrated in recent
tournaments.
-John Flournoy, !Nosferatu newsletter-writer