Praxis Seizure: Kansas City Results
The Lasombra
Event: Praxis Seizure: Kansas City
Date: June 10th 2000
Organizer: Shawn Harrison
City: Kansas City
Format: Constructed
# of players: 8
# of rounds: 4
# First Last City VEKN-# old rounds new
1 Steve Wyatt Kansas City 2190002 2912 4 3086
2 Jeff Thompson Austin,Texas 2030005 3053 4 3095
3 Pamela Freese Kansas City 2190005 3000 4 3034
4 Austin Souder Omaha, Nebraska 2190004 3000 4 2995
5 Drew Freese Kansas City 2190006 3000 4 2941
6 Kevin Heflin Kansas City 2190010 3000 3 2939
6 Russ Merchant Kansas City 2190007 3000 3 2937
6 Jessica Reppert Kansas City 2190008 3000 3 2938
I just got back from Praxis Seizure: Kansas City which took place
at ThunderCon in Overland Park, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City.
The convention was held primarily by ThunderCastle Games, the
makers of Highlander, and by the local role-playing groups.
For most of Friday and Saturday, there were as many VTES players
as there were Highlander players.
We had eight players with Shawn Harrison acting as judge/coordinator.
We had some confusion from players Russ & Jessica as they had only
played it 1-on-1, and did not really have effective decks for
multi-player games. At the last minute, they had to add cards to
get up to the tourney minimum of 60 cards, and they had much
confusion about card limits and/or the lack thereof.
We played 3 rounds of 2 tables with 4 players per table.
In the first round, Drew swept his table with a traditional
Malkavian stealth bleed deck, but he failed to gain another
victory point during the tournament.
I (Jeff) swept my first table as well, with a Legacy of Pander
deck that was able to take 1 victory point in every game in
spite of deflected bleeds being pumped against me in every
game after the first.
There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
still do that as a house rule.
In the second round, Steve managed to sweep his table once
I was on a different table, with Toreador bleed / light
intercept deck.
On the other table, I took one victory point, and Austin
took the other three with a Weenie Obfuscate Night Moves
Spying Mission deck.
In the third round, I took one victory point against
a table with 3 decks with light intercept, and Pamela
took the other 3 by using her Sudden Reversals against
my Information Highway the first turn, and my Protected
Resources about halfway through.
Austin took one victory point, and Steve took the
other three at the second table in the third round.
Going into the finals, we had the following victory
point distribution:
Pamela 3
Drew 4
Austin 4
Jeff 6
Steve 7
Austin bled Pamela, who bled Drew, who bled Steve,
who bled me, and I bled Austin.
There was quite a bit of bleed bounce in the final
round, and I took 3/4 point bleeds from Pamela, Drew,
and my predator Steve before all was said and done.
I had ousted Austin, and Pamela had ousted Drew.
Steve managed to play a Misdirection on my three
untapped Pander, and bled me for 6 (total) with all
of his minions, to oust me. Steve was then able to
wear Pamela down enough to finish her and take first
place.
Final victory points:
Steve 3
Jeff 1
Pamela 1
Austin 0
Drew 0
The first three rounds were lightning quick with
only 4 players per table, and we had finished them
and taken an hour lunch break when we started the
finals at 2 p.m. We started the first round about
9:30 - 9:45 after everyone finished cataloging their
decks. Hopefully, Shawn will post the winning deck,
and possibly the rest, soon.
After the finals, we played 3-4 games so that Shawn
could play, and then headed over to Pamela and Drew's
place for a little barbeque and 3-4 more games.
A good time was had by most, with the possible exception
of Russ and Jessica, as they disappeared after the first
three rounds, and were not heard from again. Hopefully,
they will get in touch with Shawn and play with the
others again.
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn
I'm sorry if this doesn't really have anything to do with the tournament,
but I'm a bit confusd by one particular remark in the report.
**********
>There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
>target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
>way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
>in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
>the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
>did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
>still do that as a house rule.
**********
In the VTES online rulebook I found this.
**********
6.1.1. Bleed
Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic
means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions
can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force
you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed
yourself, however.
**********
So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with
a "computer hacking" ??
I realise this question must have been asked a thousand times before, but I
just can't find a definite answer anywhere.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out !!
Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn.
prea...@utanet.at
"Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn" <Jan-Christoph...@supelec.fr>
wrote:
With Computer Hacking you can *bleed at +1*, and by default, you can
only bleed your prey, so this makes you bleeding your prey for +1.
If a card says "bleed your prey *or predator*" or "bleed any
Methuselah" than you can do just that, otherwise, always bleed your
prey.
Carl
legb...@my-deja.com
>
You can't bleed anyone except your prey unless a card text allows it -
Night Moves, Kindred Spirits, Cat burglary, Donatien and Raphael Giovanni
are examples of exceptions to the rule.
The confusion arises because at one time you COULD use a D-action bleed
to bleed ANYONE. This was a pre-LSJ RT ruling and i don't think i'm
giving away any secrets when i say that LSJ himself argued long and hard
against the ruling, and then reluctantly but loyally enforced it, until
he got control of the RT when it was one of the first things he changed.
The Lasombra
"Jan-Christophe Hoogendoorn" <Jan-Christoph...@supelec.fr>
wrote:
> tournament, but I'm a bit confusd by one particular remark in
> the report.
>
> **********
> >There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
> >target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
> >way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
> >in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
> >the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
> >did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
> >still do that as a house rule.
> **********
>
> In the VTES online rulebook I found this.
>
> **********
> 6.1.1. Bleed
> Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is
> the basic means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your
> minion's bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards
> or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than
> your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however.
> **********
>
> So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any
> player with a "computer hacking" ??
No, you may only bleed your prey unless the card specifies another
Methuselah. A (D) in the card text is always, and only, reminder
text. The (D) reminds the player of the card and the blocker that only
the Methuselah at whom the card is directed may block. It does not
change who the card may be directed towards. Specific card text is
required to do anything other than the default, "Bleed your prey".
From the 7-7-98 Rules Team Rulings:
Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that
involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected
actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one
of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and
employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions.
#
# Yeah, I know - this is a direct quote from the VTES rulebook. But it
# does change the way the (D) symbol currently works [back to the
# correct way] by removing the long-standing errata. Specifically, the
# "(D)" symbol merely identifies (redundantly) a directed action. The
# symbol does *not* address who the action can be directed at - the
# rest of the text on the card should make that clear. Some errata
# is introduced for expansion cards that are dependent on the errata
# - but these cards have caused confusion anyway. The card-specific
# errata for (D) actions is limited to the expansion cards, and then
# only when necessary. See: Darius Styx, Goth Band, and PB: Mexico
# City.
Another important place to look, is 6.2.2 as it is the only place in
the online rulebook that discusses the (D) symbol:
6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts
1. Who May Attempt to Block: The Methuselah who is the target (or
controls the target) of an action may use her ready untapped minions to
attempt to block the action. If the action is not directed at another
Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the
action is called undirected* and can be blocked by the acting
Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first
opportunity to block. If one attempt to block fails, another can be
made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes. Once a Methuselah
decides not to make any further attempts to block, that decision is
final. As a convenience, when a card describes an action that is
typically directed at another Methuselah, the card's text will usually
include an encircled D as a reminder that the action is typically
directed.
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
James Coupe
> **********
> 6.1.1. Bleed
> Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic
> means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions
> can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force
> you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed
> yourself, however.
> **********
>
> So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with
> a "computer hacking" ??
Since computer hacking does not "allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah
other than your prey" (card text), you bleed your prey.
Night Moves is a good example of a card which allows you to bleed somone
else.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his
permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."
LSJ
> In the VTES online rulebook I found this.
>
> 6.1.1. Bleed
> Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic
> means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions
> can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force
> you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed
> yourself, however.
> **********
>
> So what I don't understand is : can you or can you not bleed any player with
> a "computer hacking" ??
> just can't find a definite answer anywhere.
6.1.6. Action Card
Unless otherwise noted on the card, these actions are at zero stealth (see
Stealth and Intercept, sec. 6.2.2) and can be attempted by both vampires
and allies. If the action card describes a special version of a basic
action, then all the rules that apply to the basic action apply to the
action card, except as otherwise noted on the action card.
Example: If Lupo plays Computer Hacking (text: "Action. Bleed at
+1"), then all the normal rules of bleed actions (only being able
to target your prey, for example) apply, except that the bleed
amount is increased by one.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
take...@my-deja.com
1. If I'm bleeding with Constaza Vinti (+2 in bleeding when your prey
controls a Ventrue)a Methusalen who controls a Ventrue,and then I'm
deflected to a Methusalen who doesn't, Do I bleed +2 or 1 to the second
player?
2. Can anyone post the winner deck of that Praxis?
Dr.José María Segura Izquierdo
Primogen of Mexico City
Line of Arikel
Noal McDonald
> There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
> target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
> way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
> in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
> the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
> did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
> still do that as a house rule.
This is something we're still wresting with in the NJL Rules Team. The
problem was that the crap that Tom Wylie churned out was issued so long
ago that it became part of the collective subconscious of the community.
People continue to grab for any rationalization to continue to implement
it...in spite of the fact that it was never supported by the rulebook,
it's abusable as all hell and it encourages poor sportsmanship. ("He's
got a good deck! Let's all gang up on him!" *shakes head*) I can never,
in good conscience, support a game mechanism that allows an entire table
of players to punish someone because they built an effective deck.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates
mfgr...@my-deja.com
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Well, not in any way meant personally, but i'm happy that this time a
legacy of pander deck proved not to be supreme
i was under the impression that this deck was dominating many
tournaments lately, but tell me if i'm wrong
> There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
> target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
> way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
> in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
> the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
> did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
> still do that as a house rule.
>
> Carpe Noctem.
>
> Lasombra
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
>
cyru...@my-deja.com
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > There was also some confusion about (D) bleeds being able to
> > target anyone on the table, and I did let them have their
> > way and let my grand-prey bleed me with Govern the Unaligned
> > in the third round. I did later show them in the rules and
> > the Rules Team Rulings where this is not possible, and it
> > did not happen again at the tournament, but I think they will
> > still do that as a house rule.
>
The
> problem was that the crap that Tom Wylie churned out was issued so
long
> ago that it became part of the collective subconscious of the
community.
> People continue to grab for any rationalization to continue to
implement
> it...in spite of the fact that it was never supported by the rulebook,
> it's abusable as all hell and it encourages poor sportsmanship. ("He's
> got a good deck! Let's all gang up on him!" *shakes head*) I can
never,
> in good conscience, support a game mechanism that allows an entire
table
> of players to punish someone because they built an effective deck.
>
> Regards,
> Noal McDonald
> --
> "What you cannot enforce, do not command."
> -- Socrates
bounced bleeds. The reason that it was attempted in the tournament was
that,Jeff had just called a vote and gained 10-15 pool. Good for Jeff
great idea,move on his part. Pam was one prey away and had no way to
get to Jeff and she was a few rounds from taking out her prey. The
reason why she did it was to slow his pool gain down. She also had seen
his deck gain pool in double digits. Jeff's deck was very dominating
the whole tournament, but to us this is part of the multi-player aspect
of the game. We would never use a D bleed to oust someone but only add
that threat to the table. I know that everyone will post something
about how this is wrong, but this is something that we don't abuse so
it works for us.
LSJ
>
> I have two comments. Well actually one comment and one doubt.
> 1. If I'm bleeding with Constaza Vinti (+2 in bleeding when your prey
> controls a Ventrue)a Methusalen who controls a Ventrue,and then I'm
> deflected to a Methusalen who doesn't, Do I bleed +2 or 1 to the second
> player?
No.
Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome:
Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready
Ventrue]."
The general ruling/errata is:
Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region
* A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire of a
certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the Methuselah he
bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY-1996]
Derek Ray
> I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can
>bounced bleeds. The reason that it was attempted in the tournament was
Except that if your predator doesn't bleed you for more than 1, you
can't bounce a bleed (well, you can bounce bleeds for 1, but you feel
very silly doing it usually). Bleed bounce is a totally reactive
strategy, and if your predator objects to you bouncing his bleeds to
someone else, he can either not bleed you, or quit playing modifiers
on his bleeds, ie. instead of bleeding with Govern + Condition for 6,
bleed with Govern for 3, and then have another vampire bleed with
Condition for 4. The Deflections run out pretty quickly that way.
Bleed bounce isn't abusable in the sense that (D) bleeds were - you
need someone else's cooperation to oust someone with bleed bounce.
>that,Jeff had just called a vote and gained 10-15 pool. Good for Jeff
>great idea,move on his part. Pam was one prey away and had no way to
>get to Jeff and she was a few rounds from taking out her prey. The
>reason why she did it was to slow his pool gain down. She also had seen
>his deck gain pool in double digits. Jeff's deck was very dominating
>the whole tournament, but to us this is part of the multi-player aspect
>of the game. We would never use a D bleed to oust someone but only add
>that threat to the table. I know that everyone will post something
>about how this is wrong, but this is something that we don't abuse so
>it works for us.
That's great that you don't abuse it, but the rules must allow for the
possibility that someone will, so bleeds may only be directed at your
prey by default. We, and many other playgroups, have found that (D)
bleeding of anyone by default, even when not abused, make it too
difficult to defend against your predator - the game mechanics were
set up for only ONE person to easily attack you, not two or three.
When you have to stop your grandpredator or grandprey as well just
because you "look dangerous", it becomes unbalanced.
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
James Coupe
> I agree that D bleeds all over the table can be abused but so can
> bounced bleeds.
This is the very old pro-active vs reactive debate.
If my predator is playing a stealth bleed deck, sure, I can bounce to
wherever. However, if my predator is playing a KRC vote deck, I'm
screwed. More screwed than a very well screwed screw.
Bleeding doesn't depend so heavily on what other people are playing, it
being a strategy I can actively develop myself.
take...@my-deja.com
> No.
>
> Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome:
> Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a
ready
> Ventrue]."
>
> The general ruling/errata is:
>
> Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region
> * A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire
of a
> certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the
Methuselah he
> bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY-
1996]
>
But my question is, what happens if she's deflected?
James Coupe
> > Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome:
> > Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a
> ready
> > Ventrue]."
>
> But my question is, what happens if she's deflected?
Okay, I'm bleeding you with Constanza. You control Rufina Soledad and
Gloria Giovanni. So, I'm bleeding you with +2 bleed. (3 in total.)
Gloria bounces it to Random Bob sitting over there. Bob is controlling
Gitane St. Clair. Since Gitane is not Ventrue, the modifier of +2 bleed
cannot be applied. So, I am bleeding Random Bob for 1.
If Random Bob were controlling, instead, Sir Walter Nash, I would be
bleeding him for 3.
LSJ
>
> > No.
> >
> > Constanza's corrected card text (see web site) is: "Prince of Rome:
> > Constanza gets +2 bleed [when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a
> ready
> > Ventrue]."
> >
> >
> > Vampires/Crypt/Uncontrolled Region
> > * A vampire who gets a bleed bonus if your prey controls a vampire
> of a
> > certain clan (or other sect) gets his bleed bonus if the
> Methuselah he
> > bleeds controls a vampire of that clan (or sect). [RTR 30-MAY-
> 1996]
> >
>
That was the question being answered.
If you are deflected, then you are bleeding a Methuselah chosen
by the person playing Deflection (see Deflection card text).
Constanza gets +2 bleed when she bleeds a Methuselah who controls
a ready Ventrue (see cited text above). So if the Methuselah you
are currently bleeding doesn't have a ready Ventrue, she doesn't
get +2 bleed.
gnag...@my-deja.com
As the winner of the tournament, I will post my
deck.
Vampires-Toreador
3-Colin Flynn
Isabel de Leon
4-Demeterious Slater
Dorian Strack
Mariana Gilbert
5-Ramiel Dupre
Felicia Mostrom
6-Kallista, Master Sculptor
Adrianne
Sigrid Bekker
7-Elliott Sinclair
Tatiana Romanov
8-Anson
Master Cards
Auspex Discipline-2
Presence Discipline-4
Blood Doll-2
Ascendance-2
Misdirection-2
Sudden Reversal-2
Short Term Investment
Minion Tap
Major Boon
Aching Beauty
Society Hunting Ground
Art Museum
Forced Awakening-2
Marijava Ghoul-2
Palatial Estate
Auspex Cards
Telepathic Counter-9
Telepahtic Misdirection-11
Read Intelligence-2
Spirits Touch-2
Precognition-2
Eagles Sight
Enhanced Senses
Pulse of the Canille
Presence Cards
Majesty-12
Enchant Kindred-8
Legal Manipulations-4
Entrancement
Aire of Elation-2
Propaganda
Media Influence-2
Staredown-2
Catatonic Fear
Social Charm-3
As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion,
bleeding across the table should be allowed. If
someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me
with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed
them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not
abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it
has to be done.
In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006140332420.889-
100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 cyru...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I agree that D bleeds all over the table
can be abused but so can
> > bounced bleeds.
>
> This is the very old pro-active vs reactive
debate.
>
> If my predator is playing a stealth bleed deck,
sure, I can bounce to
> wherever. However, if my predator is playing a
KRC vote deck, I'm
> screwed. More screwed than a very well screwed
screw.
>
> Bleeding doesn't depend so heavily on what
other people are playing, it
> being a strategy I can actively develop
myself.
>
> --
> James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
>
> "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it
every time. It's just his
> permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop
dead gorgeous."
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gnag...@my-deja.com
R. David Zopf
>As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion,
>bleeding across the table should be allowed. If
>someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me
>with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed
>them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not
>abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it
>has to be done.
>
Your example, while compelling on the surface, suffers from a problem...
Why is it that you should have two opportunities to axe the vote deck?
(especially when the vote deck has _one_ opportunity against you, and a
frail one at that...) You get one opportunity in the referendum, where the
votes on your own vampires allow you to participate and react. You also
feel the need for a way of going across and bleeding him afterwards???
Sounds like overkill to me. If someone is playing a vote deck, eliminate or
alter his votes, or just play DT. They'll wither away with a little time.
Cross table bleed as retribution is really analogous to fixing a cavity with
a sledgehammer, in this instance...
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver
V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC
Noal McDonald
>> As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion,
>> bleeding across the table should be allowed. If
>> someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me
>> with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed
>> them.
>
> axe the vote deck? (especially when the vote deck has
> _one_ opportunity against you, and a frail one at
> that...)
Consider this.
A vote deck can at most, on a 5 player table, do 5 pool worth of direct
pool loss (with Ancient Influence and you having no ready vampires) and
that card can be played only once per game. Usually the most they can
hope for is a 3-4 pool loss with KRC/CA. Keep in mind that both predator
and prey can block _and_ they have often have to deal with the
possibility that the rest of the table has more collective votes than
they can muster.
On the other hand, a bleed using a generic vampire with superior
Dominate can generate a 7 pool loss (GtU/Command the Beast/Conditioning)
and can only be blocked by _one_ player...the target.
There is a huge balance difference between attacking someone's pool
across the table with a vote deck and a bleed deck.
Regards,
Noal
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates
Jeffrey Moore
save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched
against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're
vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair.
This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun.
Jeff
Prince of Cleveland
prea...@utanet.at
Why would your grandpredator want to hurt you? In most cases that's not
a sensible thing, he would strengthen his prey with such a move. So, I
guess you get only targetted by a vote, if you appear as a threat.
Perhaps you'd be able to oust your prey in the next turn, so he tries to
weaken your position. But, hey, you'd be able to oust your prey, *then*
harrass the vote deck with your bleeds. It's practically the same, and
even better, cause you'd get the benefit of your efforts to bleed the
voter, and not your prey!
If a grandpredator ousts you with a vote, he is just plain stupid. You
cannot defend against "stupidity", but the player will learn perhaps
from his mistake.
If you are targetted, because you are a weenie deck wasting away tons of
pool from your prey, threatening the vote deck in the next turn, it's a
perfectly viable move of the vote deck to play either Domain Challange
or Autarkis Persecution, breaking the neck of most weenie decks. Weenies
deserve it! :)
If you want to go cross table, do it via combat: Bums Rush, Haven
Uncovered. Potence guys can do the job quite good.
You have to anticipate the dangers for your deck when you construct it.
If you don't put a single vote-defence card in, you're the one to blame
for being unable to do anything against the voter. I myself put always
at least 2 Delaying Tactics in a weenie bleed or rush deck, and let one
minion always be untapped. That way, I can delay the critical vote which
would kill me, and give me the time to oust my prey. :)
Cross table bleeds allow for collusion, and if it *was* possible,
someone *would* exploit that in a tournament, that's for sure. And IMO
that's a Bad Thing(tm).
Carl
legb...@my-deja.com
? Do you mean Aura reading?
> Spirits Touch-2
> Precognition-2
> Eagles Sight
> Enhanced Senses
> Pulse of the Canille
>
> Presence Cards
> Majesty-12
> Enchant Kindred-8
> Legal Manipulations-4
> Entrancement
> Aire of Elation-2
> Propaganda
> Media Influence-2
> Staredown-2
> Catatonic Fear
> Social Charm-3
Congratulations!
>
> As for the D action bleeds, in my humble opinion,
> bleeding across the table should be allowed. If
> someone is playing a vote deck, and bleeding me
> with thier votes, I should have to right to bleed
> them. Like Shawn stated before me, we do not
> abuse it, but in a 5 player game, sometimes it
> has to be done.
>
In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and
regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't
agree that we should go back to that.
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
Trut...@webtv.net (Jeffrey Moore) wrote:
> Oh no!! This across the table bleeding is sometimes the only way to
> save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched
> against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining.
They're
> vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair.
> This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun.
Personally, I think you would have to be insane to say that cross-table
bleeds are a good thing.
Rationally, I would have to say the same thing, only I would back it up
with the reality that base manipulation is part of Jyhad. If I can
convince a newbie who is playing in the tournament for the first time to
bleed upstream against my prey and create a spite-driven adversarial
relationship (you bleed me so I will bleed you back), then I can
guarantee (99%) that I will walk out of that round of the tournament
with 2 victory points with no problems.
Is this in the spirit of Jyhad? No. Does it lead to collusion? Yes. Is
it fun? No. Does it make people whom have been gangged up upon want to
continue to play? No.
Therefore, it is not in the best interest of all the players involved.
Comments Welcome
Norman S. Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
Derek Ray
>Cross table bleeds allow for collusion, and if it *was* possible,
>someone *would* exploit that in a tournament, that's for sure. And IMO
>that's a Bad Thing(tm).
And more importantly, cross-table bleeds allow some child who doesn't
like things not going his way to be an immature little idiot and oust
someone cross-table while he himself gets ousted, thus ruining the
table balance and effectively skewing the results.
Vote decks can -try- to do this cross-table, but it's a LOT harder to
get a cross-eyed vote off since you have two people who can intercept
it and four others who can just plain vote it down once it gets to the
table. Cross-table bleed can only be stopped by one person: the
target. The target already has two other people to worry about, his
predator and prey. Making him have to worry about a third is stupid.
R. David Zopf
Jeffrey Moore wrote in message
<2954-395...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Oh no!! This across the table bleeding is sometimes the only way to
>save yourself. I'm all for the old D action which could be launched
>against anyone.
(sp. against vote interaction from across the table...)
>This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're
>vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair.
>This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun.
And less tournament viable as a game. For the continued support of the game
(ie new cards and more players) this has to be taken into account. A
majority of the people I know wouldn't be (and weren't) happy playing in a
tournament with cross table bleed, as it's too easy to axe _anyone_ at the
table... Multiplayer games need to be limited in their level of interaction
in order to reduce collusion and kingmaking strategies. I'd have no problem
playing "D bleeds go anywhere" as a house rule in your hometown. In casual
play, ganging up like that is seen (oddly enough) as a sort of compliment
to the players deckbuilding skill. In a tournament environment, I'd rather
you beat me with a good deck of your own, rather than just gang up with
multiple mediocre players... See my meaning?
James Coupe
> against anyone. This game is getting too wussy. Quit whining. They're
> vampires, helloooooo, they don't care about....fair.
However, the players are human.
> This aspect makes the game more dangerous and thus fun.
May I suggest that you make a drink for each Methuselah at the start of
the game, with one over, and randomly put hemlock into one of them. Then
deal out the drinks to everyone, with one left over.
More dangerous, so it *must* be more fun.
Sorrow
> bleeds are a good thing.
> Is this in the spirit of Jyhad? No. Does it lead to collusion? Yes. Is
> it fun? No. Does it make people whom have been gangged up upon want
> to continue to play? No.
> Therefore, it is not in the best interest of all the players involved.
You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live,
understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing
someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote
deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made
practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good
strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to.
So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote
deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence
bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO.
Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday
James Coupe
> You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live,
> understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing
> someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't.
Because
> [..] a vote
> deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority,
And if you find
> it is made
> practically non-existant with presence.
Then your environment should shift to more voting. Portsmouth tourneys
(which are, in essence, a once a month play group with prizes, a lot of
the time) have had a *lot* of voting vampires around. Being able to
control voting has been like trying to convince the Pope that
contraception is actually a good idea, after all.
> Whether or not it is good
> strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to.
> So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote
> deck,
Who can interact with it, cancel the vote outright (Delaying Tactics), and
have lots of other people involved in the situation (i.e. the entire
table) above and beyond the restrictions placed on bleeding.
Derek Ray
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:55:29 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live,
>understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing
>someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote
>deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made
And a vote deck has to get around two different people possibly
attempting to intercept the vote, which if you're using Presence makes
it a little difficult to find stealth.
>practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good
Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I
had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and
attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played
superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted
me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One
Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the
time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee
a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance.
>strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed to.
OK, so if I get a vote to the table and manage to accumulate enough
votes to let it pass, I can do 3 damage to someone across the table
and one to my prey. Kinda complicated for 3 pool.
>So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote
>deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence
>bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO.
Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may
attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any
sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's
very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually
sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for
5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it.
*THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but
cross-table voting is ignored.
cyru...@my-deja.com
<F55DA61B48D5EFCD.BB10652E...@lp.airnews.net>,
lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote:
> Cool! Look at all the inaccurate presumptions! Field day time!
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:55:29 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>
> >You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live,
> >understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing
> >someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote
> >deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made
>
> And a vote deck has to get around two different people possibly
> attempting to intercept the vote, which if you're using Presence makes
> it a little difficult to find stealth.
>
> >practically non-existant with presence. Whether or not it is good
>
> Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I
> had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and
> attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played
> superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted
> me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One
> Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the
> time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee
> a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance.
>
vote in a Cam. Vote.
> >strategy is irregardless, it is just the fact that you are allowed
to.
>
> OK, so if I get a vote to the table and manage to accumulate enough
> votes to let it pass, I can do 3 damage to someone across the table
> and one to my prey. Kinda complicated for 3 pool.
>
> >So sure, you can screw someone cross table with a presence vote
> >deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence
> >bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO.
>
> Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may
> attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any
> sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's
> very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually
> sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for
> 5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it.
>
> *THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but
> cross-table voting is ignored.
>
> -- Derek
>
One thing everyone is pro's and con's on how it can be wrong or
right. Me personally I hate vote decks so why should I be forced to
play a deck that can get votes or be forced to D attacks against a vote
deck. In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole
table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew out
of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit back and
take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at the vote deck.
By deflecting is that collusion or ok? Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey.
Also what if the vote deck pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to
block?
I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always
come at the right time.
Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and C.B.
Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the final round.
And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. How else do you keep
the deck in check? If you can't block or cancel votes? This happens a
lot with our group.
> Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
> It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
>
cyru...@my-deja.com
> In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and
> regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't
> agree that we should go back to that.
bleeding. You are ruining the game.
I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if
a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC
that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that
wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to
a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that
just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several
times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away
some of that pool? The only way I would go cross table was if the decks
around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so
everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to
go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be
ok cuz the card says so?
All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was
judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person.
The Lasombra
cyru...@my-deja.com wrote:
> If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't
> vote in a Cam. Vote.
No, actually, you are not right.
Any vampire who has votes may vote in any referendum called by any
vampire unless specifically prohibited by card text.
ie Closed Session, Cardinal Benediction
See [6.3] Politics in the online rulebook
http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html
> In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole
> table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew
> out of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit
> back and take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at
> the vote deck.
My prey was the first person ousted at every table I played at.
How was I not focussing on my prey?
> By deflecting is that collusion or ok?
Deflecting is fine. Collusion is deliberately losing so that
someone else can win, and it is also collusion when you do not
act towards your prey, but only against your friends prey.
Drew wasn't colluding, all of his actions went towards his
prey, he simply wasn't fast enough that particular round.
> Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Also what if the vote deck
> pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to block?
>
> I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always
> come at the right time.
>
> Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and
> C.B. Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the
> final round. And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB.
> How else do you keep the deck in check? If you can't block or
> cancel votes? This happens a lot with our group.
Speed. If Drew's deck had worked in the final the way it
had worked in the first round, he could have swept in the
final as well. Seating is key, if he had been my predator,
he would have wiped me off the table pretty quickly.
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
andrew...@my-deja.com
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>
> You know, I'll *never* for the life of me, for as long as I live,
> understand why it is that bleednig cross table is bad, but nailing
> someone with a KRC or ConAg cross table isn't. While a vote
> deck has to get over the hurdle of vote superiority, it is made
> deck, but I'm sorry, you cannot do the same thing with a presence
> bleed deck. That's just plain stupid, IMO.
>
Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the
obvious.
Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they
help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn-
unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow)
replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to
play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>.
What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck
with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to
face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not
want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be
petty and vengeful.
Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round
with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM to
stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What
silliness to cast morality's dark shadow on the argument.
That I didn't win after the first round only proves that Malkavian-
Stealth-Bleed decks are trite and cheesy despite their occassianal
lucky streaks.
This game is impossible to play without a thick skin. That's part of
it's warm tasty goodness.
Andrew Freese
LordStrange
Derek Ray
>In article
><F55DA61B48D5EFCD.BB10652E...@lp.airnews.net>,
> lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote:
>> Just because you have Presence doesn't mean that your votes pass. I
>> had an Archbishop out recently, brought out another vampire, and
>> attempted to call a Crusade to make THAT vamp an Archbishop. I played
>> superior Bewitching Oration on it - 7 votes in favor. The table voted
>> me down without playing a single reaction card - 9 votes against. One
>> Priscus, two Princes, and another Archbishop were on the table at the
>> time. None of the decks were vote decks. Presence does not guarantee
>> a damn thing, it just gives you a better chance.
>>
> If I'm right A PRINCE can't vote in a SABBOT Vote. and sabbot CAn't
>vote in a Cam. Vote.
Not so... Closed Session will let you keep all non-Camarilla vampires
out of a vote, but unless card text (Cardinal Benediction has text for
it) specifies otherwise, any voter can vote in any vote.
>> Now compare it to Zebulon bleeding cross-table. Only one person may
>> attempt to block - my intended victim. I do not have to maintain any
>> sort of vote lock, I just need a Govern + Condition in my hand. It's
>> very easy to get the action through - Lost in Crowds is usually
>> sufficient to get by. With 3 cards, I bleed someone cross-table for
>> 5, and the rest of the table can't do SHIT about it.
>>
>> *THIS* is why cross-table bleeding is banned and staying that way, but
>> cross-table voting is ignored.
>>
> One thing everyone is pro's and con's on how it can be wrong or
>right. Me personally I hate vote decks so why should I be forced to
>play a deck that can get votes or be forced to D attacks against a vote
>deck. In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole
There are three main ways your predator can oust you. He can call
votes to make you lose pool. He can bleed you to make you lose pool.
And he can beat the hell out of all your vampires, forcing you to
spend more pool to transfer out minions.
You should be defending against all 3 of these to some degree with
your deck anyway, or at least be aware that your deck has no defense
and be hoping to not sit next to one of those types. If you choose
not to defend against votes, that's fine, but if the Ventrue sit down
as your predator, you may as well bend over and get ready to take it
and smile.
Some defenses work better than others. Sometimes, all that's
necessary to defend yourself from votes is to use a few titled
vampires yourself, or just include six Delaying Tactics in your deck.
>table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew out
>of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit back and
>take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at the vote deck.
How was it doing so much to the table as opposed to its prey? And
why? It doesn't make sense to me - a good Legacy of Pander deck
should just drop KRC after KRC after KRC to kill its prey, once it
gets enough votes on the table. It doesn't make sense to do it any
other way, UNLESS there are some factors that you haven't mentioned.
> By deflecting is that collusion or ok? Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey.
Deflection requires someone else to bleed you first. It's nowhere
near as abusable as (D) cross table bleeds are.
> Also what if the vote deck pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to
>block?
Then the vote deck gets away with a lot of its votes. Its predator
should be putting a lot of pressure on it anyway, but sometimes the
seating position just comes good for a deck. It still has to get its
votes passed, which is no picnic these days.
> I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always
>come at the right time.
Luck of the draw happens.
> Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and C.B.
>Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the final round.
>And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB. How else do you keep
>the deck in check? If you can't block or cancel votes? This happens a
>lot with our group.
I recommend using a lot more light intercept in your decks, then. We
don't see many vote decks around here at ALL because of that - we
carry a lot of light intercept, and a good chunk of combat. This is
the metagame of V:TES. Vote decks will win for awhile, so people will
start using more intercept and more titled vamps, then combat decks
will do well, so people will start using more fortitude, then bleed
decks will do well, so people will put the Deflections back in and
take out the intercept... Things will change back and forth a lot.
The trick is to adapt, and of course a certain amount of luck in
predicting what a tournament will play like. =)
-- Derek
Derek Ray
>
>> In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and
>> regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't
>> agree that we should go back to that.
>
> I think that deck is the reason for people not wanting cross table
>bleeding. You are ruining the game.
Actually, the reason is that the Malkavians and other big-bleed clans
can easily spare a minion to go and bleed for 6 at heavy stealth
without hurting their own chances at all. A vote deck that starts
doing damage cross-table is using up its valuable votes for no reason
and hurting its position - KRC's do a maximum of 3 points of damage to
someone, so you need a lot more actions to oust your prey. Combat
decks have a HELL of a time ousting their prey to begin with - it
normally benefits them not at all to come cross-table and start
casually mugging people, so you usually don't have to worry about a
combat deck doing this. But big-bleed decks can hand the stuff out
much too easily, and with fewer counters. It unbalances the game in
favor of the bleed deck - why would anyone play anything else? And
why bother to include intercept or combat in your bleed deck? Anyone
threatens you, bleed them heavily and let their predator oust them.
That's just too strong.
> I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if
>a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC
But childish people will, and losing 6 pool or being ousted to a
temper tantrum is crap. Someone said once, in this argument (a long
time ago) "Why shouldn't I bleed him for 6 for his insolence?" This
is exactly the mentality we are trying to get rid of here, and bleed
decks are generally so powerful that they can TAKE the action to bleed
crosstable for 6 without hurting their own position any.
>that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that
>wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to
>a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that
>just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several
>times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away
>some of that pool? The only way I would go cross table was if the decks
Because bleed decks already have too many advantages - they win more
tournaments than vote decks do, hands down. Why should they get
another advantage by being able to control the WHOLE table?
>around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so
>everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to
>go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be
>ok cuz the card says so?
If there was a benefit to you from doing it, sure. Combat decks are
even more fragile - they NEED that freedom of action to even have a
hope of survival and/or winning. If the LOP deck is a combat deck's
grand-predator, it's not difficult to look at your predator and say
"You'll be ousted soon and that deck will be on MY ass", and then make
a deal with your predator to go kill some of the voting vampires so
that you have a few extra turns to oust your own prey.
> All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was
>judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person.
And you would probably be wrong. Cross-table bleeding isn't gone
because of collusion, it's gone because it's just too damn powerful.
Derek Ray
>Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the
>obvious.
Except that it's obviously inaccurate. The contrary is also obvious.
>Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they
>help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn-
>unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow)
Legacy of Pander being broken is entirely possible. But you deal with
broken cards by fixing the broken card, not making an entire class of
broken deck.
>replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to
>play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>.
Of course, you could always pack +1 intercept in your deck (KRCG,
Rumor Mill), and stop the first few Legacy of Pander votes. Or play a
combat deck and beat the hell out of his vampires. Or play your own
vote deck and vote him down. Or play Delaying Tactics on the first
LoP. Notice how all of these options bring an important balance to
the game that does NOT involve making bleed decks overpowered!
>What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck
Sounds like he guessed the metagame right, and nobody brought any sort
of vote defence or vote deck themselves.
>with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to
>face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not
>want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be
>petty and vengeful.
Balls to that. It may be frustrating, but if a deck is well-built, it
doesn't deserve to be just hosed by weak cross-table bleed crud.
>Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round
>with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM to
>stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What
Which you ought to have bloody well done, once you realized it was an
LoP deck. If you didn't have the resources to affect an LoP deck,
then you probably just didn't have the resources to affect ANY vote
deck, and the LoP deck was the one that happened to show up.
Again, +1 intercept. A little combat. Some titled vamps of your own.
We've beaten up Todd's Legacy of Pander deck several times here in
Atlanta,... it's powerful, but it's NOT foolproof. =) Much like
weenie dominate bleeders.
legb...@my-deja.com
cyru...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In the nights when this WAS allowed i built a Spiridonas deck and
> > regularly used to oust people cross-table as part of bargains. i don't
> > agree that we should go back to that.
Cyrus replies:
> > I think that deck is the reason for people not wanting cross table
> bleeding. You are ruining the game.
Yes, exactly my point. To my shame, this deck was too much for an
EXCELLENT bash/burn combat deck designed by Sorrow who was my predator in
an on-line game.
>
> I think we are forgeting they way it is being used. We don't use it if
> a vote deck hits me for a couple of KRC or ConAG. or a DC. For DC
> that's what I get for tapping out. I can handle a couple of vote s that
> wack me for a few. We are talking about a deck that does more damage to
> a table that can't defend against it. If someone is playing a deck that
> just gained 10-20 pool in one turn. I have seen it happen several
> times consistantly. Why couldn't I go bleed that person to take away
> some of that pool?
Well, if you've got the cards for it, no problem. Kindred Spirits is good
for this.
The only way I would go cross table was if the decks
> around that deck aren't able to touch the pool or minions. Also so
> everyone is saying that if I was playing a rush deck it would be ok to
> go and kill or put all the minions in topor cross table that would be
> ok cuz the card says so?
Yes, and strategically the reason combat works cross-table is because the
initial effect of a good combat deck is to screw up its predator and
prey. Unless it has the ability to go cross-table all this will mean is
that its grand-predator or grand-prey will sweep.
>
> All I know is that people would abuse it in a tourney. If I was
> judging I would have NO PROBLEM calling COLLUSION on that person.
>
Sorry, i'm not following your argument here. Are you saying you're in
favour of cross-table bleeds but only under some circumstances? Or has
some horrible hybridisation of your thoughts and somebody else's
occurred?
James Coupe
> What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck
> face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not
> want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be
> petty and vengeful.
If you play a hard and fast mono stealth/bleed deck, you realise this and
know that you will not be able to do this, should circumstances require it
(in many games, it may not).
If you play a vote deck, say, you know that you do have cross-table
recourse, but a slightly more tricky route to victory.
Similarly, if I play a bleed deck, I know that I will never be able to
cross-table rush a vampire or Banish them or whatever.
You know what you have when you build a deck. If you prevent yourself
taking advantage of all resources, then you create your own problems. It
is another of the old arguments about focus over flexibility. The 90 card
deck limit in tournaments forces this constraint on you heavily, and does
it very nicely, IME.
James Coupe
> Legacy of Pander being broken is entirely possible. But you deal with
> broken cards by fixing the broken card, not making an entire class of
> broken deck.
Indeed. I don't think it is broken, though I do feel that it is
powerful. The deck is clearly beatable, but a skilled player can work
wonders with it.
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> Eloquently said! Sad that such eloquence is required to state the
> obvious.
>
> Cross table bleeds bring an important balance to the game in that they
> help control decks based on nearly broken cards. The non-damn-
> unique "legacy of pander" for example ;). The post you (Sorrow)
> replied to whined about ganging up on someone, making them not want to
> play. <sarcasm>How kind hearted</sarcasm>.
Whined about?!! I merely stated that which you cannot comprehend, the
fact that collusion is a real danger in Jyhad especially at tournaments.
I myself witnessed the dissolution of a 12 person playgroup that had
formed here in Lafayette becuase of three of the members constantly
colluding together.
> What about a kick-ass table dominating deck (such as the Pander deck
> with as many as EIGHTY FRIGGIN VOTES used by Lasombra that I had to
> face in KC) draining EVERYONE'S blood and making the rest of us not
> want to play? Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be
> petty and vengeful.
Now who sounds like they are whining?
> Lasombra was hitting all of us for several (up to 8) blood per round
> with votes and gaining plenty for himself. For ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM
to
> stand a chance EVERYONE had to make hurting him their priority. What
> silliness to cast morality's dark shadow on the argument.
I would think that one would cast a little intercent on the arguement,
or is that out of fashion?
> That I didn't win after the first round only proves that Malkavian-
> Stealth-Bleed decks are trite and cheesy despite their occassianal
> lucky streaks.
Sometimes no trite comment seems appropriate
> This game is impossible to play without a thick skin. That's part of
> it's warm tasty goodness.
YUM, YUM. oh I thought you were describing a cheese (mmm, warm brie,
smoked gouda...)
Comments Welcome
Norman S, Brown Jr.
X_Zealot
Archon of the Swamp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cyru...@my-deja.com
If used in the right time or situation it doesn't create a problem. We
play 1-3 times a week since the game has come out barring any breaks
from the game and I bet that it's only been done 20-30 times. At no
time has anyone been ousted because of it.
Here are the way that I use cross table bleeding:
1) If someone has just gained 10 or more pool through master phases.
2) If it is gained through 10 or more through minion stage.
3) If my pred. is tapping out every turn and not concerned with his
pred. (Say his pred. is only bleeding for 1-2 around.)and the pool lose
isn't affecting his game play.
I WILL NOT DO IT IF THE TABLE IS BALANCED. By that I mean if everyone
is hurting everyone. If Pred. and Prey are doing there job there os NO
REASON TO GO CROSS TABLE OR OUT OF CYCLE.
All the examples people have mentioned I all ready new about and have
tried. My point has been if at the table you don't have intercept
around a vote deck and one person controls the votes *and can pass them
majority of the time*.(D) bleeds are a way to slow down or affect the
person.
cyru...@my-deja.com
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8irldi$14r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cyru...@my-deja.com wrote:
CAn't
> > vote in a Cam. Vote.
>
>
> Any vampire who has votes may vote in any referendum called by any
> vampire unless specifically prohibited by card text.
>
> ie Closed Session, Cardinal Benediction
>
> See [6.3] Politics in the online rulebook
> http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html
>
Good to hear that all can vote.
> > In the tournament L.O.P. deck was doing more damage to the whole
> > table than to it's prey. In the final round it practiacly took Drew
> > out of the game. He was playing a bleed deck so he just had to sit
> > back and take it. His only def. was he deflected several bleeds at
> > the vote deck.
>
> My prey was the first person ousted at every table I played at.
> How was I not focussing on my prey?
>
I never said that your deck wasn't focused. I was just stating from
what I saw. I was moving from table to table and back so I don't think
I was watching when you ousted your prey.
> > By deflecting is that collusion or ok?
>
> Deflecting is fine. Collusion is deliberately losing so that
> someone else can win, and it is also collusion when you do not
> act towards your prey, but only against your friends prey.
>
You also made the joke or statement about collusion. When both Drew
and Steve were sending their bounced bleeds on you.
> Drew wasn't colluding, all of his actions went towards his
> prey, he simply wasn't fast enough that particular round.
>
> > Cause LOP deck wasn't his prey. Also what if the vote deck
> > pred. and prey don't carry the intercept to block?
> >
> > I put DT, Pulled Strings in some of my decks but they don't always
> > come at the right time.
> >
> > Also in the tourney LOP deck was using KRC, Domain Challenge, and
> > C.B. Most of the time his pred. only bleed for 1-2 ecept for the
> > final round. And if he is gaining 10-15 blood when calling CB.
> > How else do you keep the deck in check? If you can't block or
> > cancel votes? This happens a lot with our group.
>
> Speed. If Drew's deck had worked in the final the way it
> had worked in the first round, he could have swept in the
> final as well. Seating is key, if he had been my predator,
> he would have wiped me off the table pretty quickly.
>
> Carpe Noctem.
>
> Lasombra
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
>
inr...@my-deja.com
> Yes, in certain circumstances.But I understand how it can be abused.
cool, because it really, really can. we only tried it once, but yuck..
how the malk went to town
> If used in the right time or situation it doesn't create a problem. We
> play 1-3 times a week since the game has come out barring any breaks
> from the game and I bet that it's only been done 20-30 times. At no
> time has anyone been ousted because of it.
> Here are the way that I use cross table bleeding:
> 1) If someone has just gained 10 or more pool through master phases.
> 2) If it is gained through 10 or more through minion stage.
> 3) If my pred. is tapping out every turn and not concerned with his
> pred. (Say his pred. is only bleeding for 1-2 around.)and the pool
lose
> isn't affecting his game play.
>
> I WILL NOT DO IT IF THE TABLE IS BALANCED. By that I mean if
everyone
> is hurting everyone. If Pred. and Prey are doing there job there os NO
> REASON TO GO CROSS TABLE OR OUT OF CYCLE.
>
> All the examples people have mentioned I all ready new about and
have
> tried. My point has been if at the table you don't have intercept
> around a vote deck and one person controls the votes *and can pass
them
> majority of the time*.(D) bleeds are a way to slow down or affect the
> person.
I'm glad you wont, but the rest of the world may not be as rational and
level headed as yourself, so instead of powering up bleed decks how
about these other (IMHO) valid options:
1)use the bleed anyone cards to slow them down,
2)play an intercept deck and use the ocasional eagles sight,
3a)if you really want to play a bleed deck, may i suggest Brujah
Presence Bleed, , Stick a few strikes into the Brujah deck (makes sense
anyway) and a few bums rushes and if they gain 10 life, kill one of
their vampires (not to mention, all those tiny tiny Brujah Princes [why
cant the Ventrue get a Prince at cap 5!!!???] and the tons of primogen
in the clan}
3b)or Ventrue Presenc.Dominate, the Ventrue for the votes, plus you get
Elder Kindred Network, for added fun and wicked fortitude unblockable
bleed.
These are all valid ways to stop a vote deck, i know, mine has been
stopped by some, i have used others. My deck is no longer just a vote
deck as a direct consiquence. If you really want something to complain
about though, how about a restructurance and bleed to really piss off
those Malk types. <Huge Grin> that worked a few times in my meta-game
</Huge Grin>
Cameron
When we crucify a man, he should confounded stay crucified..."
David Edelstein
> Damnit, we (the rest of us) should have the right to be
> petty and vengeful.
Wow. I think you just convinced me right there why cross-table bleeds
should be disallowed.
If I ever find myself in a group where the players express sentiments
like yours, it will probably be the last time I play in that group.
-David