why Return to Innocence isn't broken
badger
vampires. As many of you well know, weenie decks had become all the
rage (and still are in some quarters) - weenie bleeding, weenie
politics, weenie combat. Large numbers of low capacity vampires were
more effective than only a couple of high cap vamps - plus you were able
to maintain a large pool while having 6-8 active vamps. RTI has made
large vamps the new vogue. It has helped play more than hurt.
Aside from that, RTI can still be blocked, reduced, misdirected, etc.
The larger cap vamp can be Bum Rushed, Ambushed, Sensory Deprivated,
etc. Master cards like Golconda, Brainwash, Major Boon, etc also are
helpful. An aggressive stealth/bleed deck from RTI's predator is also
useful. One other option (not possible if you follow the erroneous RTR
from 7/7 - which is quite unfortunate LSJ), is direct bleeding the
pretentious SOB. If some or all other Methuselah's team up on the RTI
user, he/she won't last long. I'm sure there are multiple other cards
and disciplines which are also useful to defeat/deter the misunderstood
card.
Another deterent for RTI is the price for playing it. It requires a
higher capacity vamp (my personal opinion is 6 or greater for true
effectiveness). For that price, I can have 2-3 low cap blockers. Also,
the actor needs three blood to play it - hard to maintain in a
heavy-combat environment. It requires stealth/unblockable action
modifiers to get through. Not to mention the perpetrator burns himself
in the process (a potential anti-RTI strategy develops there with
politics such as Mark of the Damned).
A powerful card? Of course. Too powerful? Only if you let it be.
If some dumb ass loves playing multiples of that card, have a pre-game
discussion with your fellow methuselahs and team up on the fool. A few
games of being the first guy eliminated will quickly cure his habit.
Badger
James Hamblin
>
> Aside from that, RTI can still be blocked, reduced, misdirected, etc.
...just like any other bleed action. This doesn't justify it being
overpowered.
> The larger cap vamp can be Bum Rushed, Ambushed, Sensory Deprivated,
> etc.
...just like any other vampire.
> Master cards like Golconda, Brainwash, Major Boon, etc also are
> helpful.
Golconda can be stopped by spending a couple pool. Brainwash is
extremely sketchy, as is Major Boon.
> An aggressive stealth/bleed deck from RTI's predator is also
> useful. One other option (not possible if you follow the erroneous RTR
> from 7/7 - which is quite unfortunate LSJ), is direct bleeding the
> pretentious SOB.
You can't (D) bleed him after you're dead. And RtI will kill you. I'm
also _really_ not sure about your use of the word "erroneous".
> If some or all other Methuselah's team up on the RTI
> user, he/she won't last long.
But this won't happen. The only person that will care about the RtI is
that deck's prey. In practice, people don't hop across the table just
because they don't like the tactics a deck is using. People that do
tend to lose, since they're not concentrating their efforts on winning.
> I'm sure there are multiple other cards
> and disciplines which are also useful to defeat/deter the misunderstood
> card.
It's not my job to think up other combos to support a position I don't
agree with. If you think there are "multiple" other strategies, what
are they? If you can't think of them, they're most likely not very
"useful".
> If some dumb ass loves playing multiples of that card, have a pre-game
> discussion with your fellow methuselahs and team up on the fool. A few
> games of being the first guy eliminated will quickly cure his habit.
A card should not be powerful enough to require pre-game collusion to
defeat. Besides which, such collusion is impossible in a tournament
environment.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
The Corrupter
> I believe RTI was created to encourage the playing of larger capacity
> vampires. As many of you well know, weenie decks had become all the
> rage (and still are in some quarters) - weenie bleeding, weenie
> politics, weenie combat. Large numbers of low capacity vampires were
> more effective than only a couple of high cap vamps - plus you were able
> to maintain a large pool while having 6-8 active vamps. RTI has made
> large vamps the new vogue. It has helped play more than hurt.
So, your basic point is that RTI makes large(r) vampires viable.
Hmm.
I'm not sure where you've been playing, but larger vampires have been
fine for some time. Even Decks that use GIGANTIC vampires have been
doing well. And they don't NEED to have RTI to be good. The inclusion
of the card, can, however, make certain things (which we'll go into),
less than acceptable.
> Aside from that, RTI can still be blocked, reduced, misdirected, etc.
An RTI is rarely, if ever, blocked. It usually can't be (the victim
isn't using intercept, doesn't have enough intercept, got misdirected, is
dealing with Horrific Countenance, etc). Barring this, you ask the
vampire to play bounce.
> The larger cap vamp can be Bum Rushed, Ambushed, Sensory Deprivated,
> etc.
You ask the combat deck to be 100% effective here. Unlike typical
bleed, a single RTI is usually game. A typical bleed predator managing
to avoid a combat once (Obedience, etc), will not oust you like a RTI
predator can.
> Master cards like Golconda, Brainwash, Major Boon, etc also are
> helpful.
Pool Gain is helpful but generally limited compared to an RTI, Brainwash
is NOT an answer, Major Boon dubiously useful (an RTI is likely to
oust someone other than your prey, and you may have used a card to provide
yourself with a stronger predator, in general, more reliant on the table
at large than under your own control).
> An aggressive stealth/bleed deck from RTI's predator is also
> useful.
Outside your control. Expecting someone else to defend you is not a defense.
> One other option (not possible if you follow the erroneous RTR
> from 7/7 - which is quite unfortunate LSJ), is direct bleeding the
> pretentious SOB.
Will you do this after you are ousted, I take it? The RTI will kill you.
> If some or all other Methuselah's team up on the RTI
> user, he/she won't last long.
So, here, you call for the entire table to try and stop 1 deck.
> I'm sure there are multiple other cards
> and disciplines which are also useful to defeat/deter the misunderstood
> card.
There are.
One caveat: they are all considered of questionably balance.
Direct Intervention (Created to deal with RTI)
Archon Investigation and Protected Resources (Created by a design team
who was NOT playing Jyhad with the then-current rules, and made to deal
with a bleed-heavy, answer-light environment.)
> Another deterent for RTI is the price for playing it. It requires a
> higher capacity vamp (my personal opinion is 6 or greater for true
> effectiveness). For that price, I can have 2-3 low cap blockers.
This price is pretty low compared to the effect. One vampire should not
be worth one methuselah.
> A powerful card? Of course. Too powerful? Only if you let it be.
Here you bring up a point that many of the opponents of this card have:
you shouldn't have to consider any SINGLE card like this. You should
have to consider strategies. What do I do about bleeding? What do I do
about voting? What do I do about combat? What do I do about common
counters to my strategy? Not, what do I do about Card X.
> If some dumb ass loves playing multiples of that card, have a pre-game
> discussion with your fellow methuselahs and team up on the fool. A few
> games of being the first guy eliminated will quickly cure his habit.
So, your solution to a problem card is not to fix it, but to shame a
player out of using it, or to table attack the player.
This shows that you recognize the card is a problem.
Does this about sum it up?
@#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist
@#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek
@#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that?
@#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**?
Lupus Australis
> I believe RTI was created to encourage the playing of larger capacity
> vampires. As many of you well know, weenie decks had become all the
> rage (and still are in some quarters) - weenie bleeding, weenie
> politics, weenie combat. Large numbers of low capacity vampires were
> more effective than only a couple of high cap vamps - plus you were able
> to maintain a large pool while having 6-8 active vamps. RTI has made
> large vamps the new vogue. It has helped play more than hurt.
Well, I too would like to see big vampires get more respect. RTI,
however, is just a reason to toss them like hand grenades. It's a good
reason to beat to a pulp any big vampire that comes on the table as soon
as he/she comes out. Meanwhile, the big vampires cannot defend themselves
any better than they could before. I would prefer big vampires to have
more respect as characters in the game rather than as kamikazi crazies.
Meanwhile, RTI is useful with vampires of 6 capacity or higher (or about
50% of all vampires, I think). If the best defence against (old) RTi is to
eliminate all such vampires from the players ready region, then I would
say that RTI has had a deadly effect on the game environment. With RTI,
big vampires become targets more than they ever were before, and one's
best option is to kill them yourself before someone else does it for you.
> Aside from that, RTI can still be blocked, reduced, misdirected, etc.
Only the latter, bleed bounce, is going to be effective, and then only if
you have dominate or superior auspex.
> The larger cap vamp can be Bum Rushed, Ambushed, Sensory Deprivated,
> etc.
All of these things only work before he plays (old) RTI, not after.
Until then, all large vampires are considered equally guilty, and are
equally likely to suffer the wrath that this card provokes.
Thus, unless you are planning to play RTI yourself, (old) RTI makes big
vampires less viable than ever.
> Master cards like Golconda, Brainwash, Major Boon, etc also are
> helpful.
Not very.
A ravnos shut-down deck will work against many an RTI deck, but
only the big vampire has no means of untapping. Besides...a ravnos
shut-down deck will work as well against ANY big vampire deck. Against
RTI, it is rather less effective. You have to sensory deprive him when he
is tapped...otherwise he still gets one action, and in an RTI
deck...that's all he needs. If you wait til he is tapped to sensory
deprive him, then he has already had a chance to take one action...which
is all he really needs.
> An aggressive stealth/bleed deck from RTI's predator is also
> useful.
So? The pros and cons of stealth bleed are somewhat beside the point, and
have nothing to do with how one defends from RTI by one's predator. My
predator may well be using both RTI AND aggressive stealth bleed. He may
well be deflecting all those aggressive stealth bleeds to me...or even his
predators RTIs.
> One other option (not possible if you follow the erroneous RTR
> from 7/7 - which is quite unfortunate LSJ), is direct bleeding the
> pretentious SOB.
By the time you get around to this tactic, your target will already
have won one victory point by playing his first RTI. That is... unless
you all play weenie decks and propose to instantly target anyone who does
not.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
James Coupe
writes
>If some dumb ass loves playing multiples of that card, have a pre-game
>discussion with your fellow methuselahs and team up on the fool. A few
>games of being the first guy eliminated will quickly cure his habit.
Playing like this does several things. First of all, it makes the game
more boring for other people. Why should I have to help someone oust
their predator (to stop them being RtoI-ed) when I should be ousting my
prey, in order to keep the game balanced? I get absolutely no benefit
from it, besides stopping me getting an unbalanced predator later in the
game. I get no victory points or blood for it (NOTE: I am not
advocating changing the "Who gets the VP" rule). I actively help
someone else.... maybe my prey, or grand prey by giving them more pool.
Secondly, it can cause animosity in a group. If you just sit there
ganging up on someone, it can cause hurt feelings and a general bad
mood. Not a good thing.
If you simply present them with the fact that "the cards have been
changed by WotC's official representative" then it's nothing personal.
They can still play their deck, it just changes or has it's offensive
capacity reduced.
That's not to say that I necessarily think that the current ruling on it
is very good. I think the proposal of "half capacity, no action
modifiers (maybe even something as serious as "The acting Methuselah may
not announce any cards/effects/whatever until this action has been
declared blocked or unblocked by the Methuselah being bled" to stop
things like Concoction too)" would have been better but that's my
personal view.
Return to Innocence NEEDED to be toned down. Whether I agree with how
it's been toned down isn't the point at the moment. It needed to be
toned down and, to an extent, it has been. As LSJ said himself, we'll
see if it's been toned down enough, especially with the possibilities
with Madness Network.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
James Coupe
<ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes
>> Master cards like Golconda, Brainwash, Major Boon, etc also are
>> helpful.
>
>extremely sketchy, as is Major Boon.
Not even mentioning that Brainwash would require you stopping your prey
from doing the RtoI thang. It wouldn't help you if he was your
predator. And if everyone is putting Brainwashes in there deck in
droves, then I think the game becomes a little boring.
badger
> So, your solution to a problem card is not to fix it, but to shame a
> player out of using it, or to table attack the player.
>
> This shows that you recognize the card is a problem.
>
> Does this about sum it up?
Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
A methuselah using Obfuscate and Presence brings out a few low capacity
Toreadors and Settites. He equips with Laptops and retains Marijava
ghouls w/ stealthed actions. He then comes over with Legal Manipulation
to bleed you, again stealthing his action.
Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
There's a player in my group that has such a deck. What would you do to
defend against it? Complain he's not playing fair? Or find a way to
beat him? I don't know about you, but I chose the latter.
Badger
Gomi no Sensei
>Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
>to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
If you have no defence vs. a common strategy, your deck needs work.
>So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
>successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
>A methuselah using Obfuscate and Presence brings out a few low capacity
>Toreadors and Settites. He equips with Laptops and retains Marijava
>ghouls w/ stealthed actions. He then comes over with Legal Manipulation
>to bleed you, again stealthing his action.
>Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
>bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
>pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
>stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
>result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
>requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
Except, of course, that Marijava Ghoul is +1 stealth on Presence actions,
not +1 bleed. But still, we can replace that with inferior, non-toreador
Aires, say, and still come out at 5 bleed each action.
The difference is that each vampire had to equip a laptop -- say they're
the cheapest pre/obf vamps, 3 or 4 cap, that's still, at a bare minimum,
8 pool (3 for each pre/obf, 1 for each laptop), and 3 turns (bring out one
3 cap, equip a laptop and bring out the other one, equip the other laptop),
4 if you count the turn they actually bleed you.
>What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
>after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
>defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
If he's playing strong stealth, rush. If he's playing light stealth,
intercept (and not even a lot of it, if he's playing toreador) should
suffice.
>There's a player in my group that has such a deck. What would you do to
>defend against it? Complain he's not playing fair? Or find a way to
>beat him? I don't know about you, but I chose the latter.
Thugging his vamps ought to suffice. The difference is, say, with 2 or
3 bleed-capable minions, my rush deck can choke once. Say, during my
turn I'm stuck for an Immortal Grapple after putting away one of his 3
vamps. He majesties out of my other rushes. Darn -- next turn, he
bleeds me for 5 and rescues the other guy. I may be at 5, or even 2 pool
after a 5-bleed, but now I've got another turn to regroup and smack him
some more.
If my combat deck chokes once vs. an RtI deck, I'm dead. No missteps
are allowed.
And if there were a 100% effective Rush deck, we'd be seeing it at a lot more
tournaments.
gomi
Lupus Australis
> Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
> to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
>
> So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
> successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
You're not doing the math yourself if you think that RTI bleeds for "about
10". Usually it's closer to 17 for a IC member with superior dominate or
superior presence.
> A methuselah using Obfuscate and Presence brings out a few low capacity
> Toreadors and Settites. He equips with Laptops and retains Marijava
> ghouls w/ stealthed actions. He then comes over with Legal Manipulation
> to bleed you, again stealthing his action.
>
> Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
> bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
> pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
> stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
> result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
> requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
Boy, you do have trouble counting. I count 6 actions. 1 for the laptop,
1 for the ghoul, and one for the legal manipulation...for each of the two
minions. I suppose you mean Tasha Morgan rather than Marijava Ghoul,
since the ghoul gives you +1 stealth, not +1 bleed. Sounds like a rush
deck might have plenty of warning as to which minions it ought to go
after.
> What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
> after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
> defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
Lets come up with a scenario similar in complexity to the one you describe
above, but using RTI.
I bring out an IC member. Next round, I play a skill card on him (say,
fortitude or auspex or dominate). I then equip with Soul Gem. Then Freak
Drive. Then play Pulse of the Canaille. Freak Drive. Then RTI with Day
Operation....add command of the beast and conditioning for +4 bleed.
Lets see, that's a bleed of 21. Only 3 actions. All done in one turn.
And I get my IC member back for free.
Robert Franklin Grau
but in the meantime, I'll add my 2 cents worth, but first the card text
of the Marijava Ghoul, since it was interpreted poorly below.
Marijava Ghoul
Retainer
Cost: 2 blood
Retainer with 2 life. The minion with this retainer gets +1 stealth when
attempting an action that requires Presence.
badger wrote:
>
> The Corrupter wrote:
>
<--Snip Corrupter discussing shame tactics-->
>
> Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
> to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
Stealth/Bleed is not just one card like RTI, it's a strategy. If you're
playing pure stealth bleed chances are the deck will be weak in other
areas, (e.g. voting or combat)
>
> So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
> successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
Well, it is one card that bleeds for ten when successful.
> A methuselah using Obfuscate and Presence brings out a few low capacity
> Toreadors and Settites. He equips with Laptops and retains Marijava
> ghouls w/ stealthed actions. He then comes over with Legal Manipulation
> to bleed you, again stealthing his action.
A quick run of throught the Crypt Monger Website reveals that there are
only three vampires that
fit your profile of presence, obfuscate, and a capacity six or smaller.
They would be:
Lena Rowe (Pander) Cap 3, Nepata (Followers of Set) Cap 4, Hadrian
Garrick (Followers of Set) Cap 4.
I'll concede that there are plenty of small vamps with other disciplines
that work in weanie sneak & bleed, but I'm trying to keep this relevant
to the below example.
>
> Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
> bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
> pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
> stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
> result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
> requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
First, my deal about the ghoul. It gives you +1 stealth on presence
actions, not +1 bleed.
Still, I'll be happy to toss a Tasha Morgan or J.S. Simmons into the
mix.
> What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
> after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
> defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
I'll come back to this.
> There's a player in my group that has such a deck. What would you do to
> defend against it? Complain he's not playing fair? Or find a way to
> beat him? I don't know about you, but I chose the latter.
Here's my analysis on how RTI is different from the above Sneak and
bleed combo.
I'm not going to go to great lengths about RtI. Everyone knows it's a
card that is clanless, has no discipline requirements, costs four pool
and the only disadvantage is that you lose the acting vampire.
To get the above bleed for five, you'll need a vampire, a Legal Manip, a
Laptop, and some +1 bleed retainer.
That's three cards. If you want the ghoul's stealth, that's a fourth
card, otherwise stealth comes in the form of an action modifier which
is, yet another card. To do it again for the other 5 bleed, you'll need
another set of the above cards. So we're looking at a total of eight
cards. (A note: your normal hand size is seven)
Now, about actions. You have to take actions to get the equipment and
retainers, while your prey is doing something else unhindered by this
supposed 'unfair deck'. Between the two vamps, that's four non-bleeding
actions, and if you want the ghouls, that's six non-bleeding actions,
plus the two bleeding actions, bring the grand total to eight (or six)
actions required to bleed your prey for ten pool.
There's also the issue of card cost. The ghoul will cost a vamp two
blood, the Legal Manip one blood, and the laptop will cost a pool. RtI
has a four blood cost. Looks pretty even to me. We can debate the merits
of one pool vs. one blood but I don't think that's the issue here.
Don't forget the stealth cards that you would also need to keep the
first six non-bleeding actions from being blocked. I can't think of an
easy way to factor that into this comparison.
Anyway... Here it is Head to Head, RTI vs. Sneak and Presence bleed for
ten points of bleed
Vamp Size and Number.
RtI: One Vamp, Capacity 8 or 9. (two 8 cap. vamps have inherent +1
bleed)
S&B: Two Vamps, Total Capacity no less than 7. (one 3 cap and one 4
cap)
Library Cards Required
RtI: One
S&B: Eight
Successful Actions Required
RtI: One
S&B: Eight
Cost
RtI: Four Blood
S&B: Three Blood, One Pool.
Other Drawbacks
RtI: No more minion.
S&B: Two tapped minions (I'd call this minor, but to be fair it's
included)
Now is Return to Innocence broken? This particular comparison is
somewhat limited because I'm using the example you provided. Different
disciplines, Conditioning and Foreshadowing Destruction(superior) make
the true S&B vs. RTI comparison a little different, but the point is the
same. RtI is one card that replaces a slew of other cards to do the same
thing for roughly the same cost. (I'm not forgetting the loss of minion,
but most decks do not function properly with only one controlled minion,
so the Methuselah probably has another minion to block with)
What haven't I mentioned? Oh, yeah the "what's your defense?" question.
How about this: What's the S&B defense? To see the above combo pop up
often, I'm guessing that a real S&B deck would dedicate most of its card
slots to stealth, laptops, retainers, and presence bleed. This could
easily take up 60-90 card slots, or what ever deck size you are playing.
I mean the combo alone times ten equals eighty cards. The RtI "combo"
times ten equals ten cards! That leaves 50-80 cards to deal with the
"What's your defense?" question. I don't think that's too restrictive on
deck styles. Do you?
Enough for now,
Rob Grau
Alan Flesch
repetition. I'll presume you read the other postings.
Corrupter:
> > So, your solution to a problem card is not to fix it, but to shame a
> > player out of using it, or to table attack the player.
> >
> > This shows that you recognize the card is a problem.
> >
> > Does this about sum it up?
This hasn't been answered. Do you agree or disagree with the
analysis he gave? (Don't read this as hostile, but as a real
request for information.)
> Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
> to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
S+B isn't a problem. It's a legitimate deck style. S+B relies on
stealth (obviously) and so is countered by Intercept. RtI is usually
paired with Day Op, and so there are fewer counter-tactics
available. In the absence of Counter-strategies, players have had
to rely on other broken cards to deal with the problem (ie. DI,
Archon Investigation, etc.)
S+B _is_ a legitimate deck architype; it is powerful because
of its speed, but very vulnerable to combat and voting (it's pretty
card-intensive) and had a hand-jam problem.
> So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
> successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
>
> A methuselah using Obfuscate and Presence brings out a few low capacity
> Toreadors and Settites. He equips with Laptops and retains Marijava
> ghouls w/ stealthed actions. He then comes over with Legal Manipulation
> to bleed you, again stealthing his action.
>
> Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
> bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
> pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
> stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
> result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
> requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
The two are not equivalent situations. Your scenario relies on :
Laptop + Ghouls + Stealth cards + Legal Manipulations : a minimum
of four cards and 3 actions. I'll grant you that most of these are common
cards, and so easily duplicated in the deck; however, the combination
of cards will take some time to set-up and prepare for use. This is the
strategic element : it relies on the skill of the player to prepare this
combination for use and an opporunity to use it (manufactured by
the deck's designer through superior play). This can be seen as a good
example of deck design with a thoughtful end-goal (big bleeds
through a working combination of cards).
The standard RtI strategy relies on :
RtI + Day Op : a minimum of two cards and one action.. This is an
opportunity tactic that can be used easily in most decks. It relies
on the presence of a large capacity vampire who has fortitude to
work best. The primary play-strategy in this deck type is to minimize
the possibility of bouncing the bleed. At a higher level of sophistication
is to use Mind Rape to take a vamp away from someone else and attempt
to rid them of a card while benefitting without price. Additionally,
there is only two effective counter-strategies : DI (and hope they don't
have another RtI) or Bleed-bounce.
The end effect is the same (being ousted) but the first requires a highly
tuned deck which is played effectively while the second only relies on
an opportunity to present itself, and good play to ensure that the
opportunity isn't wasted.
> What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
> after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
> defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
This is a bit hostile. I ask you to point out anywhere where the Corrupter
advocated using no defenses. Defenses are necessary to the deck; all
we're claiming is that they shouldn't be the PRIMARY concern because
of the existence of two or three cards with huge opportunity tactic
potentials (aka. 'Swing Events'). The determination whether they
are 'broken' or not is fairly academic. Their existence creates a game
environment which is decreasingly diverse. The game becomes a lot
less like fencing and a lot more like full-armor fighting; the trick of the
game shifts from parry and thrust to whacking on each other until
someone's armor cracks.
> There's a player in my group that has such a deck. What would you do to
> defend against it? Complain he's not playing fair? Or find a way to
> beat him? I don't know about you, but I chose the latter.
I bet that it would be possible to beat him without the use of RtI and
Day Op. You're combatting an argument with a red herring.
Alan (aj)
badger
mistake for now presenting counters to all possible counters. Plus,
there was an error in my original presentation. It should read as
follows:
Legal Manipulation (bleed +2), ghoul + stealth to make action
successful, then modify w/ Aire of Elation (+2 or +3) with a Toreador +
1 more with Laptop = potential of 7 bleed.
You don't really need the ghoul, but it's there for stealth if
necessary. OK so I influence a couple low capacity vamps with a single
influence phase who have presence and obfuscate. I'll have a few of
those Master Disciplines to beef them up to superior if I can. I can
equip with laptop, but again that's not necessary for a big bleed. I
then Legal Manip and modify with a Aire of Elate. Even without the
equipment and retainer, I'm sending a potential 6 bleed at your ass.
Now if you're not playing Auspex or Dominate to defend (because that's
what many of you anti-RtIs are saying you don't want to do), then you're
gonna bleed. For 5-7 with a single action. It's taken me one round to
influence the vamps I need (2x2 capacity). A round or two to add the
disciplines for superior (not even necessary). I can equip or retain
the cards I need in those same couple rounds. I have those 2 vamps to
block if they can and then S:CE to avoid damage. Then on round 3, I
bleed you twice for 10+. Costs me 1 for LM and another for AE. Maybe a
third if I wanted the ghoul. Game over right? You insist on not
playing a bleed defense right? OK, so if I didn't get you this round, I
will next.
Now, with RtI:
I need to influence a 8 capacity + vampire. Minimum of 2 rounds.
Meanwhile, I have no other vampires and everyone's watching me pile
blood on a single vampire. Then, on round three I play the RtI.
Stealth if necessary add bleed modifiers if necessary. You're bled for
10+. I burn 3 blood and the vamp is burned. Same amount of time
needed, but more influence necessary and I have no other defense.
Hopefully, I knocked you out of the game cuz I'm gonna need my 6 blood
when my predator realizes I have 0-2 blockers.
But that's just splitting hairs. My point was this. A common bleed
strategy is just as dangerous as a single card and it's not impossible
to produce that combo. I've named half a dozen cards only and I could
have 6-10 each to do what I need to do to knock you out of the game by
the 4th turn. However, it's only dangerous IF YOU LET IT. If you don't
have a bleed defense that can protect you in such an environment, then
shame on you.
Badger
Alan Flesch
>
> I figured somebody would overanalyze the situation I presented.
What level of analysis would be proper?
The problem in the argument is that the situations are
asymmetrical. In the stealth/bleed example, you have an
entire deck working towards its goal - ousting the prey
through big bleeds and high stealth. You have intelligently
put defenses against combat, vote, etc. into your deck and
maximised the effectiveness of the whole through the inclusion
of specific cards.
In the RtI example, however, you are only posting one particular
combination in the whole deck. The RtI deck archetype exceeds
the performance of the standard S&B deck so that the defenses
which might work against a S&B are no longer effective.
To say that one combination is as effective as an entire deck
archetype itself shows the power of that single combination.
Put simply, I don't think your examples show that the problems
of facing an S&B _deck_ are the same problems when facing an RtI _deck_.
The defenses against one are not the defenses against another.
> My
> mistake for not presenting counters to all possible counters.
It is not expected for you to present counters to all possible counters.
However, it is necessary to anticipate some of the counters which
will come. After all, this is a discussion group.
<snip>
> You don't really need the ghoul, but it's there for stealth if
> necessary. OK so I influence a couple low capacity vamps with a single
> influence phase who have presence and obfuscate. I'll have a few of
> those Master Disciplines to beef them up to superior if I can. I can
> equip with laptop, but again that's not necessary for a big bleed. I
> then Legal Manip and modify with a Aire of Elate. Even without the
> equipment and retainer, I'm sending a potential 6 bleed at your ass.
> Now if you're not playing Auspex or Dominate to defend (because that's
> what many of you anti-RtIs are saying you don't want to do), then you're
> gonna bleed. For 5-7 with a single action. It's taken me one round to
> influence the vamps I need (2x2 capacity). A round or two to add the
> disciplines for superior (not even necessary). I can equip or retain
> the cards I need in those same couple rounds. I have those 2 vamps to
> block if they can and then S:CE to avoid damage. Then on round 3, I
> bleed you twice for 10+. Costs me 1 for LM and another for AE. Maybe a
> third if I wanted the ghoul. Game over right? You insist on not
> playing a bleed defense right? OK, so if I didn't get you this round, I
> will next.
Okay.
You've posted above an entire deck which, people will readily agree,
works. S&B is a good, viable strategy.
> Now, with RtI:
> I need to influence a 8 capacity + vampire. Minimum of 2 rounds.
You can steal one of your prey's untapped vampires with Mind
Rape (1 action). You can equip your large capacity vamp with
a Soul Gem (1 action), freak drive (you have fortitude), then RtI
with Day Operation. Increase the bleed with Conditioning.
When the vamp is burned, bring out a new one. Play Redeem
the Lost Soul to gain half the capacity of the burned vamp back.
Net benefit : 1 victory point, 1 free vamp to replace the burned
one, half my pool back, 6 pool.
Not bad.
> Meanwhile, I have no other vampires and everyone's watching me pile
> blood on a single vampire. Then, on round three I play the RtI.
> Stealth if necessary add bleed modifiers if necessary. You're bled for
> 10+. I burn 3 blood and the vamp is burned. Same amount of time
> needed, but more influence necessary and I have no other defense.
> Hopefully, I knocked you out of the game cuz I'm gonna need my 6 blood
> when my predator realizes I have 0-2 blockers.
This presumes that speed-play is the proper way to play the RtI
deck. It isn't. It takes time to find the proper moment, and to
minimize the chances of anything going wrong.
Keep in mind that your one posted combination here has the same net
effect as the entire deck sequences posted above.
> But that's just splitting hairs. My point was this. A common bleed
> strategy is just as dangerous as a single card and it's not impossible
> to produce that combo.
But the bleed strategy plus the RtI works even better than the
common strategy.
> I've named half a dozen cards only and I could
> have 6-10 each to do what I need to do to knock you out of the game by
> the 4th turn. However, it's only dangerous IF YOU LET IT. If you don't
> have a bleed defense that can protect you in such an environment, then
> shame on you.
You haven't begun to address what the cumulative effect of ToRIII,
Mind Rape, RtI, etc. A Golconda/MindRape/RtI deck can cycle
blood, gain pool from burned vamps, gain pool from ousted vamps,
and cycle new vamps into play.
> Badger
Alan (aj)
James Hamblin
>
> Game over right? You insist on not
> playing a bleed defense right?
Excuse me. You seem to be missing a point here. I refuse to be forced
to play with bleed bounce, which is not the only possible bleed defense.
If everyone has to play with Dominate or Auspex, the game is rather
boring. At least if my bleed defense fails once or twice without the
existence of RtI, I don't automatically die.
James Coupe
writes
>Now if you're not playing Auspex or Dominate to defend (because that's
>what many of you anti-RtIs are saying you don't want to do)
Please give me details of how I can put reliable amounts of Auspex and
Dominate (one or the other, not necessarily both) in my Assamite deck.
Or my Gangrel deck. Or my Gangrel Antitribu deck. Or my weenie Brujah
deck. Or my Brujah Antitribu deck. Or my Follower of Set deck. Or my
Nosferatu deck. Or my Nosferatu Antitribu deck. Or my Ravnos deck.
By reliable, I mean:
1) I have sufficient availability of the discipline on my vampires - I
should always have at least one vampire out with Auspex or Dominate,
once I have, say, two vampires out (generally, if playing a deck, I
would require that I have all my disciplines out on the table by the
time I have two vampires out)
2) I do not hand jam with Skill Cards, or other cards necessary to
guarantee the presence of the discipline, rather than utilise it
3) I do not "crypt jam" ie I do not find that I have an uncontrolled
region with multiple copies of one vampire
badger
None of those decks (or any others) you mentioned have a "reliable"
defense against ANY serious bleed deck without Auspex or Dominate. And
don't say Rush either. Someone's already said that wasn't a 100%
"reliable" defense (not that such a thing exists) against RtI so
following their logic, it isn't against serious bleeding either.
Point is - I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a
couple common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card. And if
I'm doing that, whatever the means, you HAVE to be able to defend it or
you're dead. You can have whatever beautifully constructed deck you
want, but it can't survive in such an environment. You're only hope is
to discourage such behavior through a thorough ASS-Whooping! As I said,
if you smack such a greedy predator (in whatever way you find) often and
hard enough, then he'll stop playing a card/strategy such as RtI.
Just ask the guy in my playgroup who loved that card.
Badger
The Corrupter
> James,
> None of those decks (or any others) you mentioned have a "reliable"
> defense against ANY serious bleed deck without Auspex or Dominate. And
> don't say Rush either. Someone's already said that wasn't a 100%
> "reliable" defense (not that such a thing exists) against RtI so
> following their logic, it isn't against serious bleeding either.
Not at all true.
Versus Bleed, Rush is an excellent defense. If Rush fails to nab every
single vampire, this is fine. A typical bleed deck will not be able to
oust you should you fail to eliminate a threat.
Examples of Bleeders:
Malkavian Simple S&Bleed:
They bring out multiple small to mid-sized vamps. They use bleed
actions and action modifiers, and include typical Vote and Combat
defense. They bleed ASAP, but even before they do bleed, they get
identified as a S&B deck ("Oh look, Malks with Dominate and
Obfuscate!"). Their initial, smaller vamps get eaten, and their midsized
vamps survive a combat or to. An initial bleed gets thru, and does some
amount of damage (typically 3-8), but hardly enough to kill. Endgame
results in a larger vampire using Obedience to stave away Rushes on
smaller vampires, with other combat defense, as needed.
Winner determined here by the interaction of combat defense versus the
speed of the bleeds, but the bleeds themselves come over multiple turns
and leave multiple turns for a Rush player to eliminate the threats.
Toreador/Setire Enhanced S&Bleed:
More Large vampires, and Presence based combat defense. Bleeds start
a little slower (excepting "opportunity" bleeds) as a Toreador/Setite
builds up enhancements (Laptops etc). Individual bleeds are generally
much larger (5-10), but less frequent in the early game, and incessant in
late game.
Winner again determined by the interaction of combat defense and the
Rushers efficiency in combat, combined with the speed of the bleeds. The
target here is obvious, and much of the work of the bleeder gets
nullified if the target is eliminated. However, the bleeder here has
better combat defense than the above Malk deck.
The Simple RTI IC deck:
Many Large Vampires and Blood gain. Bleeds start late, and oust the
opponent when used. Blood gain and fast actions accomplished with Tomb
of Ramses (pre-7-7), Info Highway, Minion Tap, etc.
Against this deck, the Rush deck has ONE TURN to eliminate the IC
member. Unlike the other decks, whose bleeds are spread about multiple
actions and minions, this deck gives EXTREME minimal opportunity to the
Rush defender. A failed combat is an ousted Rush Methuselah.
> Point is - I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a
> couple common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card.
The difference is, it takes many more actions to accomplish, and affords
the Rusher more time to defend.
> And if
> I'm doing that, whatever the means, you HAVE to be able to defend it or
> you're dead.
And the rush deck CAN defend against Typical bleeders.
> You can have whatever beautifully constructed deck you
> want, but it can't survive in such an environment. You're only hope is
> to discourage such behavior through a thorough ASS-Whooping! As I said,
> if you smack such a greedy predator (in whatever way you find) often and
> hard enough, then he'll stop playing a card/strategy such as RtI.
When you say discourage, what do you mean?
Do you shame them out of playing it? Do you ALL pack bleed-bounce so
that the RTI falls out of favor? What do you do?
Isn't it simply better to make the card balanced or ban it, so that then
everyone can play any legal deck and you don't have to worry about a
single particular deck or worry about people being mad at you for playing
a deck?
> Just ask the guy in my playgroup who loved that card.
I don't see your logic in this post at all. Have you played a NL game
with Rush combat? If so, you would certainly see that rush is a
legitimate defense. If you have played NL Rush, where can you fail to
see the typical Rush dilemna regarding RTI: they must be 100% (a tall
order) effective or they are immediately ousted.
Help me understand, because nothing you've said thus far lets me see the
point you've been trying to make.
PDB6
"None of those decks (or any others) you mentioned have a "reliable"
defense against ANY serious bleed deck without Auspex or Dominate. And don't
say Rush either. Someone's already said that wasn't a 100% "reliable" defense
(not that such a thing exists) against RtI so following their logic, it isn't
against serious bleeding either."
Rush defense is not 100% effective. No defense is 100% effective. Rush
defense, however, is a viable defense against bleed decks, just like bleed
bounce is a viable defense. Where RTI comes in is where if you are a plain
brown Malk deck (for instance) and I am a Rush deck, if you get one or two
bleeds through my defenses, I will lose at most 12 pool over two actions. With
RTI (in a deck that makes the most use out of RTI), if you bleed me once, one
single time, I will lose upwards of 16-18 pool (IC+RTI+Conditioning, say). In
one action. With one minion. With one bleed.
Against a standard S+B deck, the Malk will bring out a vamp. The Rush deck will
kill it. The Malk will bring out another vamp. The Rush deck might or might
not kill it. The Malk will get off a bleed or two for about 3-5 points each.
The Rush deck will then either continue to kill and survive or fail to kill and
die.
Against an RTI deck, the RTI guy will bring out one vampire. The Rush deck
will get one turn to attempt to kill it. One turn. Not a few turns, or the
entire early game, but one turn. If, for whatever reason, the Rush deck fails
to kill this single vampire, the Rush deck will be ousted in one action, from
one vampire.
"Point is - I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a couple
common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card."
This is only partially correct. It is much easier to kill smaller vampires.
It is much easier to see the 4-6 point bleeds coming from a Dom/Obf deck than
it is to see the single RTI coming from the single large vampire ("Oh. Ozmo.
I'm going to be bled for a while." as opposed to "Oh. Harrod. Wha?"). It is
much easier to take out a few vampires over a few turns than it is to take out
one huge vampire in one turn.
"You're only hope is to discourage such behavior through a thorough
ASS-Whooping! As I said, if you smack such a greedy predator (in whatever way
you find) often and hard enough, then he'll stop playing a card/strategy such
as RtI."
The tactic of beating down your friends for playing strategies/decks/cards that
you don't like over a long period of time does not work in a tournament
setting. The tactic of using peer-pressure ("Yeah, your cool. RTI me to
death, again.") to balance out a play environment is both highly sketchy and in
no way a certian balancing factor. Yeah, you may beat up your pal every time
he plays an RTI deck, so he doesn't play it anymore, but what is to stop him
from playing it again? You guys getting mad at him? That in no way helps a
play group.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Oskar Schindler es bueno.
Senor Burns es el Diablo!"
-Senor Spielbergo
James Coupe
it is probably just everything that's been said before, but please read
all of it as you go along because I've tried to explain things which you
might otherwise jump on, I'm just not the most organised of people.
In article <35C8E34F...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net>
writes
>You can have whatever beautifully constructed deck you
>want, but it can't survive in such an environment.
So, rather than toning down a couple of cards like Return to Innocence,
you advocate that we shouldn't be able to play Assamites, Brujah, Brujah
Antitribu, Followers of Set, Gangrel, Gangrel Antitribu, Nosferatu,
Nosferatu Antitribu or Ravnos in a tournament setting.
Let's see, that stops me using all the cards for each of those
respective clans (masters, allies etc.), all the Quietus cards, all the
Serpentis cards, all the Protean cards and all the Chimerstry cards as
well. Well, that's quite a lot of the card set we've just culled.
The point is, though, that the ONLY way to defend against an
unblockable, transient Return to Innocence in many cases is through the
use of bleed bounce. One HUGE bleed is made unblockable. No bleed
bounce, I die. You never actually answered my question, though. Is
there any way of my putting Auspex or Dominate into those decks
*reliably*? If your answer is no, I'd like to see why you would justify
forcing me to leave out 9 different clans when choosing a deck to
create.
The problem with an RtoI is that, because it's disciplineless, it will
fit in ANY deck. And there are enough BIG vampires out there with
Fortitude and Protean as a secondary discipline (or, if playing one of
their clans, as a primary discipline) that you may well have one out to
make the action unblockable.
129 Big vampires (greater than 6 capacity)
58 big vampires with fortitude or protean:
0 Assamites, 3 Brujah and Antitribu, 2 Setites (from 10 vampires, this
is huge), 14 Gangrel and Antitribu, 1 Giovanni, 4 Malkavian and
Antitribu, 7 Nosferatu (and no Antitribu), 5 Ravnos, 2 Toreador (and no
Antitribu), 4 Tremere (and no Antitribu), 14 Ventrue and Antitribu.
So, only someone playing a dedicated Assamite deck has no real access to
an unblockable Return to Innocence at high levels, although they could
borrow Elisabetta Romano for a little go at it. She fits quite well
into an Assamite deck anyway (I've seen her in quite a few) and with a
couple of discipline cards which may well be in the deck, she'd be in a
moderately good position to pull of an RtoI. Antitribu without any
vampires in their clan (well, they only have 11 vampires) could always
steal a couple from their respective Camarilla clans without sacrificing
much in the deck in terms of disciplines.
So, I'm playing against a Gangrel deck, it whacks away at my vampires,
killing my vampires, maybe dropping a few Fames on my vampires to have a
go at me - something like that. So, I'm using all my cards to defend
against their attacks. So I probably have to ditch a few of the cards
I'm not using - my bleed defence. Bang. I'm dead. A single
unblockable bleed for 14 from Stansylvania. From nowhere, too. Should
I have been forced to hold an Archon Investigation in my hands at all
times, buggering up my strategies by denying me access to a full view of
cards at once? Should I have been forced to hold onto a Direct
Intervention, simply so that I could have cancelled the Return to
Innocence?
If I was facing a standard bleed deck, I would have been able to guess
and attack. Okay, let's see, my predator is bringing out his first
vampire - I note the presence of lots of bleed oriented disciplines on
that vampire, maybe a bleed bonus. So, I get my first vampire out. It
comes round to my predator's turn. He bleeds me with his vampire for a
small-ish amount. With transients, it's not that huge really, and he
would have had to had a fairly lucky draw to draw a perfect hand of
stealth and bleed, and not get clogged with a little bit of one and not
the other, and masters etc. get in the way. So let's say he gets a
bleed for 6 past. 1 bleed for six won't kill me. It shouldn't, anyway.
So, I get to my turn - my first chance to do something about that
vampire actively. But last turn, I could have discarded my combat
defence cards, because I could see I wouldn't need them, say. And if
I'm sensible and have a couple of copies of things like The Barrens and
Fragment of the Book of Nod in my deck, I might have been able to cycle
a bit quicker to *some* way of defending against that bleeder.
So, my turn:
- I'm playing a vote deck. If it's an Inner Circle vampire (unlikely if
I've only just brought out my first vampire, I might already have a
couple out), I could call a Justicar Retribution and burn the vampire.
If not, I could call a Banishment to get rid of it. That bleed may not
have been cheap so it'll be at least another turn before he can get it
out. I could call an Anathema and coax my friend the combat deck on the
table to have a go at the vampire. After all, Anathema benefits it
tremendously. I could call a Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure
and make sure that he has a go at someone else. All of these are viable
defences against bleed. If he'd been working on one BIG vampire, I
might have even been able to call this with a smaller vampire I already
had out on the turn after he brought out his bleeder and so might not
even have got caught.
- I'm playing a combat deck. Same thing goes about the fact that he
might not have had a chance to act yet, if he's got a big vampire out
and I'm using low to mid range vampires as is de rigour for combat decks
at the moment. Again, though, a bleed of about 6 shouldn't have ousted
me this early in the game. If it did, I should get up and go home. I
rush the vampire and have a good go against it. A heavy stealth bleed
deck probably doesn't have enough combat defence to stand up to a
properly constructed combat deck. It might be able to stop a few hits,
but it might not. Disciplineless dodges etc. can be got round by all
but the most basic of combat decks. Keep pressing until they run out.
Immortal Grapple them. Scorpion Sting them. Hit them on Additional
Strikes. Use Hidden Lurker, Fast Reactions and Thoughts Betrayed to
stop them playing them. So, I can come in and tromple that vampire into
the ground if I'm lucky. How about a Ventrue deck? Well, it could have
a Majesty lying around, maybe a Catatonic Fear. So, in my powerful
combat deck, I throw down my Immortal Grapple or maybe I've managed to
sneak out a Dog Pack and Freak Drive before I've rushed. Or maybe I've
thrown down a Thoughts Betrayed with my Euro-Brujah, Lasombra, Giovanni
or Tremere deck to make sure that they can't Majesty. Okay, what can
they do back then? Well, they could have also played a Thoughts
Betrayed to make sure I couldn't strike (because, of course, you don't
have the problems of TB preventing another TB now, because it only
prevents strikes). Okay, Potence doesn't really give a monkey's about
it. IG isn't a strike. Torn Signpost isn't a strike. Fists of Death
isn't a strike. I'm doing more damage to you than you can cope with, so
a Pulled Fangs is also playable - not a strike and now you can't hunt.
Gangrel doesn't really give a monkeys either. I can maneuver back and
forth to my heart's content with Protean - Claws of the Dead, Gleam of
Red Eyes, Form of the Ghost etc. I can hit you with my claws - the
aggro damage for which *isn't* a strike card. If I'm playing Animalism
in the deck, I've got things like Carrion Crows and Song of Serenity for
you to go away. Thaumaturgy sits around and has a think. Okay, it
says, we'll go to range this round, wave at you from afar with hands and
then press to the second round. Oops, Blood to Water. Ain't a lot you
can do about that. Then the Tremere probably feel safe enough to slap
you for hands to make sure you go to torpor.
Okay, so that's the opposing minion's supplies of Majesty and Thoughts
Betrayed rendered useless. I can counter with my own TB, Dog Pack, IG
whatever. How about prevent damage? Well, if they've only got prevent
damage to play then a Potence deck can just keep pressing, say with a
Trap, and just popping at it for enough damage each round for them to
play that Prevent Damage. A trap, a Torn Signpost (effective for all of
combat from V:TES text, I believe) and the ability to just have a pop at
them every now and then with a card played every round or so will get
through their Damage Prevention pretty quickly. Since Fortitude has a
little ability to press itself, you've got Potence for supplemental
presses from Immortal Grapple, Mighty Grapple or even (coughs) Twisting
the Knife. Or even the disciplineless presses. A Gangrel deck? Well,
it's got the environmental damage from Carrion Crows, or any retainers
it's had the good fortune to bring into play. Drawing Out the Beast
gets round the prevent damage nicely. Again, the Gangrel have PLENTY of
ability to press to the second round to make that damage useful and DotB
means that the Ventrue vampire can't press to end. And a few birds
pecking all around. That Prevent Damage can soon go out of the window.
The Tremere have enough strikes that don't give a shit about damage
because they AREN'T damage.
So, the combat deck starts dropping that bleed predator into torpor.
It's predator (ie my grand predator) can help keep up the pressure so
that the vampire doesn't get out of torpor. And what helps here? Well,
the errata on Thoughts Betrayed actually because it stops the deck being
far too powerful - only requiring and utilising one card as effective
combat defence against all tacks. So, it would need Thoughts Betrayed,
S:CE, Damage Prevention and so forth to prevent a combat deck onslaught
against it. And if it's got those in such large numbers that it can
defend itself against all combat, it's pretty much not going to be
bleeding me that effectively because it boots out space for bleeds,
action modifiers, Seduction etc.
Political decks and combat decks can both defend themselves against the
onslaught of a heavy bleeding predator. But they work by stopping it
bleeding again. How about just not being bothered by it's bleeds?
Well, I can do things to react against it's bleeds if I'm playing other
types of decks. An intercept deck, for instance, does wonderfully
against it. It'll hopefully have enough blockers, a few wakes or
similar, a few bits of combat etc. Hopefully, with a bit of luck,
you'll drop it into torpor. If you don't, it doesn't really matter
because you can block again. Okay, so they drop down a way of making it
unpreventable. This isn't a blockable action. Damn. If my intercept
is from Auspex, I can bleed bounce. If my intercept isn't from Auspex,
I'm a little more screwed but, as said, a bleed for 6 isn't going to
oust me if I've been sensible. If I haven't, well, that's my fault. If
they want to get a bleed up to higher heights, that's more actions for
me to block. They can't make them all unblockable because they can't
afford to send all their vampires to torpor or make them all lose 4
blood each time. You'll run out pretty quickly. So I *will* be able to
block actions. It *will* happen.
Another stealth bleed deck? Well, I've got problems with (D) bleeds
now, but if I've been sensible, a few Night Moves etc. have been placed
lying around the place so I can have a little pop at him if needs be.
If I'm using Dominate in the deck (a distinct possibility) I can bleed
bounce.
If I'm screwed because I'm playing, say, a Setite deck and can't Corrupt
them fast enough, say, then I do have the other defences which people
always mention and (some) condemn. Things like Archon Investigation,
Protected Racehorses and so forth are there if you want them.
All of the above, though, assumes I can see the bleed deck coming. Why
do I have to assume that? Well, there are two things which constrain me
in Jyhad/V:TES. 1) My pool and 2) My library
I can only put so much into play before my pool it starts going away
rapidly. If I'm having to pay for combat defence, bleed defence, vote
defence AND weird defence, then I run out of pool. So I have to be able
to see what my predator/prey/whoever is doing to make an informed
decision about what I can afford.
This is the point the rest of us are trying to make. Because Return to
Cheese is disciplineless, it can pop up from nowhere. I hope I've been
able to prove why that's a bad thing, especially since you could
conceivably make RtoI unblockable in virtually any deck, without *that*
much difficulty. Vampires allow you to spot strategies. Return to
Innocence can happen whenever. Anything can happen in the next half
hour ;)
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Christopher Chew
cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card.
Perfect interpretation. 100% correct whats the difference.
badger wrote:
> James,
>
> None of those decks (or any others) you mentioned have a "reliable"
> defense against ANY serious bleed deck without Auspex or Dominate. And
> don't say Rush either. Someone's already said that wasn't a 100%
> "reliable" defense (not that such a thing exists) against RtI so
> following their logic, it isn't against serious bleeding either.
>
> Point is - I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a
> couple common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card. And if
> I'm doing that, whatever the means, you HAVE to be able to defend it or
> you're dead. You can have whatever beautifully constructed deck you
> want, but it can't survive in such an environment. You're only hope is
> to discourage such behavior through a thorough ASS-Whooping! As I said,
> if you smack such a greedy predator (in whatever way you find) often and
> hard enough, then he'll stop playing a card/strategy such as RtI.
>
> Just ask the guy in my playgroup who loved that card.
>
> Badger
James Hamblin
>
> I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a couple
> common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card.
>
> Perfect interpretation. 100% correct whats the difference.
Did you even read the other posts in this thread? Do you have any
responses to the points raised there, or are you going to continue to
stick your virtual fingers in your virtual ears and sing "LA LA LA LA
I'm right you're wrong LA LA LA LA"?
To sum up: bleeding for 10 without RtI requires more time and more
cards, during which time a proactive bleed defense has time to act.
With RtI that time is reduced to one turn; if your defense fails in that
time, you will die.
badger
takes for me to get out 3-4 small vamps with the disciplines I need to
do the same thing.
James Hamblin
>
> The time it takes to get the IC member out is the same amount of time it
> takes for me to get out 3-4 small vamps with the disciplines I need to
> do the same thing.
But during the time those vampires are out, the total bleed is spread
out over time and/or vampires. This allows the proactive defenses to
spend time working, without being killed all in one action.
kub...@imsa.edu
badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> The time it takes to get the IC member out is the same amount of time it
> takes for me to get out 3-4 small vamps with the disciplines I need to
> do the same thing.
>
It's worth noting that during the time it takes you to
bring out an IC member, it resides in your uncontrolled
region. This will keep it from being a target for the
Rush Combat Defense System. The turns that it takes
to outfit the weenies provides ample time for _multiple_
rushes if necessary. (As this has been pointed out by
Mr. Hamblin _repeatedly_)
Scott Harris
kub...@imsa.edu
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
The Corrupter
> The Corrupter wrote:
> > So, your solution to a problem card is not to fix it, but to shame a
> > player out of using it, or to table attack the player.
> > This shows that you recognize the card is a problem.
> > Does this about sum it up?
> Tell me this Corrupter? Is stealth/bleed a problem? If you have no way
> to block, deflect, reduce, etc it is...right?
<sigh>
A Primer:
Defenses against the Major Strategies:
Combat:
RunAway (typically S:CE, Fortitude, etc...), Fight Back, Evade (Typically
Obedience, Stealth)
Vote:
Intercept, Debate (i.e., outvote), Rush, Diplomacy (social attempts here)
Bleed:
Bounce, Intercept, Rush, Life Gain
Numerous other substrategies exist, Badger. In the past, NL has shown
that Bleed was never a problem (pre VTES printing, pre RTI).
> So your major argument against RtI is that it bleeds for about 10 when
> successful. OK, how is that any different compared to this scenario?
[Snip scenario where multiple actions and turns are required for big bleed]
> Let's do the math: Bleed +2 for Leg Manip, +1 w/ laptop, +1 w/ghoul = 5
> bleed. 5 bleed for the price of 1 blood from his vampire AND he gains a
> pool to boot (if superior)! He then follows that up with a second
> stealthed LM for a total of 10 pool lost. You're out of the game. Same
> result as RtI, but requires 2 actions instead of one. However, it
> requires less influence than the 6+ capacity vampire using the RtI.
Not only is this illegal, but it takes multiple turns to set off. (Bring
out vamp/Get Ghoul+LapTop (assumes Freakdrive)/Bleed for 5). That gives
the rush combat deck Twice as much opportunity at 1/2 the risk.
Things adding up yet..?
> What's your defense? None? Do you just sit there and take it? Game
> after game? He's not using "broken" cards so you can't use RTRs to
> defend you. What do you do? I ask you hot shot, what do you do?
Well, lets see. I could attempt to intercept. If he makes the action
unblockable, he torps his vampire for a 5 pool loss to me. I could
bounce. I have twice the amount of time to rush him. I have twice the
amount of time for pool gain.
Have a problem with any of those answers, "hot shot". Maybe you haven't
been playing competitively enough or long enough. Or maybe (shock!), you
are playing in a skewed environment and don't recognize these defenses
because they won't work in a RTI inspired environment. Then again, maybe
you don't recognize the problems that could be there when a single card
nullifies
3 of those strategies entirely and lets you use one of 2 cards instead
(AI or PR).
> There's a player in my group that has such a deck. What would you do to
> defend against it? Complain he's not playing fair? Or find a way to
> beat him? I don't know about you, but I chose the latter.
Finding a way to beat someone is not the issue. Creating a good game is.
I'll play my game with multiple viable strategies any day over a game
with multiple viable _cards_.
Christopher Chew
> Do you have any responses to the points raised there
I responded to that which I felt was worthwhile.
>To sum up: bleeding for 10 without RtI requires more time and more
> cards, during which time a proactive bleed defense has time to act.
> With RtI that time is reduced to one turn; if your defense fails in that
> time, you will die.
Mr. Obvious strikes again.
BTW thanks for the "recap" I'll be sure to let you know the next time I need
an information summary.
badger wrote:
> The time it takes to get the IC member out is the same amount of time it
> takes for me to get out 3-4 small vamps with the disciplines I need to
> do the same thing.
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Chew wrote:
> > >
> > > I can bleed you for 10 as easily with two small vamps and a couple
> > > common cards as I could with 1 big vamp and 1 rare card.
> > >
> > > Perfect interpretation. 100% correct whats the difference.
> >
> > Did you even read the other posts in this thread? Do you have any
> > responses to the points raised there, or are you going to continue to
> > stick your virtual fingers in your virtual ears and sing "LA LA LA LA
> > I'm right you're wrong LA LA LA LA"?
> >
> > To sum up: bleeding for 10 without RtI requires more time and more
> > cards, during which time a proactive bleed defense has time to act.
> > With RtI that time is reduced to one turn; if your defense fails in that
> > time, you will die.
> >