Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards".>
Gee, Orpheus. That would wallpaper the new Anarch Revolt, don't> you think? Without PTO, how are we suppose to slam our opponents> who go anarch in response to Anarch Revolt?>
Shame on you! (OK: )
LOL.
The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;))>
Eh, you don't fool me. I seem to recall your list was longer> than that.
Fred, you're insightful.
Yes, I hate all the "shut up" cards : Kiss of "shut up and go into torpor, you didn't have For anyway" Ra, Rцt "shut up and go into torpor, period" beurk, Direct "shut up you card doesn't exist" Intervention, mainly. But none is as bad as Protect "shut up and burn" your fucking Own.
There is, though, a difference between cards I hate because I don't see what they're doing in the game except ruin some of them, and cards that are so badly thought they throw the whole balance or concept of the game head over heels. Succubus, Anarch Revolt, and, yes, the chage of places, all fall under that last category, with PTO. The others annoy me, and sure, I would welcome an errata to Rцtshit, but I can imagine none to Kiss of Rв, and the rest is here to say I guess.
So getting rid of PTO is good enough... for now !! ;)
(like we'd hear nothing about getting rid of the withdrawal rule...)
GET RID OF THE... wait, maybe in the new rules booklet ? And that's not a card so it doesn't count. ;) ---------- Orpheus
Daneel wrote:> On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, Joscha <joscha.duell@gmx.de> wrote:>
There are no shut-up cards> > in VtES. You always have an option against every card.>
Having a counter to an overpowered card does not in itself make that> card any less overpowered. It may cure the symptoms, but it falls> short of being a remedy.>
And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla> > clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful.>
Going into extreme lengths to combat a card does not in itself make> that card any less overpowered. It may cure the symptoms, but it> falls short of being a remedy.>
Don't just ban, be clever and play smart.>
A pretty universal piece of advice. Fails to address to root of the> problem, though.>
And by the way: against PTO just play Confusion of the Eye ;o).>
Indeed may help the [pre-KMW] 80 Non-Camarilla vampires with OBF.>
Falls short of addressing the remaining [pre-KMW] 352 Non-Camarilla> vampires who do not have OBF.>
Also, forcing players to pack a module to cancel a single card or> else risk being deprived of playing their game may not be the> best solution. So while Confusion helps, it isn't a real remedy.>
All I'm saying is stop complaining and start to play against those cards. Is it a remedy, if all decks have at least one Fear of Mekhet? I bet you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament.
Is it a remedy if everybody rushes you at a tournament because of fear of being the target of your PTO? I bet you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament.
The same goes for strategies. If you fear to encounter many combatdecks at a tournament you won't play a pure S&B-deck because you don't stand a chance.
DU and AR were hard to play against out of different reasons, so okay, change them. But if you are too lazy to come up with a solution don't just ask for banishment. Nobody complains about Warghoul even though it is unargueable the best ally in the game. But people learnt to pack some allyhosing cards in their decks. Just come up with a solution against other strong cards. And yes, just kill Arika when she shows her pretty face. And if your deck can't do it try to win before she PTO somebody of your vamps.
And please don't tell me, only x can play Confusion of the eye. There are enough other antivotecards (in a recent posting Jeroen is sick about the many Delaying Tactics played in his playgroup. This card seems to help). The problem is nobody wants to use them because they might be unusable if there are no votedecks present at the table and then they fill up valuable place. But the same goes with other anticards like deflection. If there is no bleed deck at the table bad luck. Just because until now there are many bleeding decks present at tourneys nobody complains about the need of packing antibleed.
David Cherryholmes 23 February 2005 19:09:09 [ permanent link ]
Joscha wrote:
Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness> and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do> to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and> annoying, but not that decisive.
Your credibility just vaporized.
--
David Cherryholmes david.cherryholmes@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "
Frederick Scott 23 February 2005 19:18:38 [ permanent link ]
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombouts@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:_dZSd.18872$Zt1.2278499@phobos.telenet-ops.be...> Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me ATM. And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent.
You consider Delaying Tactics to be a problem card?!?
*BOGGLE*
(As they used to say in that old TV show, "Patience, Grasshopper...")
On 23 Feb 2005 05:39:50 -0800, Joscha <joscha.duell@gmx.de> wrote:
Daneel wrote:>> On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, Joscha <joscha.duell@gmx.de> wrote:>>
Hey Daneel, I think we were fooled by a KMW-joke of Orpheus. Maybe we> should stop at once filling up the zillionth thread over PTO. I just> wanted to tell my opinion about charging a ban instead of coming up> with a solution in the game. You think there is no solution in the game> against certain strong cards. I disagree but I don't think I can> convince you.
Okay... I'll almost let it drop. Just a clarification: There are defences against even the strongest of cards. What I'm saying is that you should not need to include defences against specific cards, only specific strategies.
Frederick Scott 24 February 2005 01:08:30 [ permanent link ]
"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:7sJQtWE1qOHCFwv7@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...> In message <383mbvF5jmfooU1@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes> <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> writes:>>Well actually, Fred, you seem like a great guy. Who's usually out to>>lunch. But that's just my opinion.>
Ooh, can we all go?>
Fred, can you get lunch on expenses? I want a BIG sandwich.
LALALALALALALALALA!!!!! I'M NOT HEARRRRRING YOoooooouuu!!!!
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:05:43 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote:
Regardless, I think it's been too short a time since this major> change to assess how it will affect Delaying Tactics' goodness.> It's still a powerful card that I'm sure will see play, but I> also think Poison Pill becomes a much better choice now that the> seat-switchers are gone.
As much as I liked Poison Pill at first glance, the card failed to cost zero or negative card slots. That being the case, I'm going 70% Delaying Tactics, 10% Vox Domini and about 20% Loyalist. Thing is, I'm mostly packing against PTO - against which Poison Pill is rather useless.
David Cherryholmes 25 February 2005 16:56:18 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote:
As much as I liked Poison Pill at first glance, the card failed to> cost zero or negative card slots. That being the case, I'm going> 70% Delaying Tactics, 10% Vox Domini and about 20% Loyalist. Thing> is, I'm mostly packing against PTO - against which Poison Pill is> rather useless.
Certainly there are still votes out there that are to be feared, yet don't generate pool loss. I'm not suggesting Poison Pill is a universal panacea (and I, of course, feel your PTO hate.... still get fried by that sucker left and right, but that's my playgroup). But it is getting played in our group, and I am seeing it make votes fail. Making it one element in a diverse vote defense package sounds like an indication that it's a good card, i.e. playable, but not exclusively so.
David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.cherryholmes@duke.edu
Johannes Walch 28 February 2005 04:02:31 [ permanent link ]
Jeroen Rombouts wrote:> "Joscha" <joscha.duell@gmx.de> schreef in bericht > news:1109149303.039517.25890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
There are no shut-up cards in VtES.>
Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me ATM. > And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent. And don't say: play with > approximation of loyalty, because that would mean you can only play vote > decks with presence.
Well, DI is one of the really interesting cards left in the game. I think it adds a lot to the game, because it makes things less sure and calculatable, which is a good thing IMHO.
Frederick Scott 4 March 2005 04:05:26 [ permanent link ]
"David Cherryholmes" <dmc@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu> wrote in message newsine.LNX.4.58.0503031818210.30968@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu...> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Frederick Scott wrote:>> Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, of>> course you can make a card look powerful.>
I don't think having one copy of a particular action card in hand is that> out there. I guess for Ye Olde Bleed Deck it might be.
Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better than anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common.
This is where I just go blank at your (and a few other folks') worship of this card. I tend to judge cards based on what I can do with them and how they get used against me. Of course, I don't use DI that much but when I do, it often doesn't turn out to be that critical. But never mind that - maybe I screw up trying to use it. On the other hand when people use it against me, it also doesn't make that much of a dent in my irritation level - which I think it would if it were as good as all that. I keep wondering what kind of a metagame you guys must be in where this imresses you so much.
You've also conveniently ignored the>> cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, waiting around an>> unspecified amount of time trying to decide when to pull the>> trigger.>
I think people make way too big a deal out of this. It is not the end of> the world to hold a card in your hand for a few turns.
I depends on what kind of a deck you're playing, I suppose. For me, no, it's not that hard. It's just that even in "a few turns" I often don't feel like I often don't see any plays that are the big slam-dunk-oh-YEAH- I've-GOT-to-DI-*THIS* made. So I wind up scratching my head wondering whether I should just play it or if the big one's about to come on the _next_ card.
It's a cost, sure, but DI'ing something worth DI'ing is a hell of a payoff.
I suppose. But I don't count the kind of cards talonz was talking about as being all the impressive. Not unless we're talking about a bounced bleed for 8 (Spying Mission), a Political Stranglehold that's going to net my prey 6 or more blood (once per game action), and you almost never know a Freak Drive is going to be critical at the moment it's played AFAICS.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:05:26 -0700, Frederick Scott <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better than> anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common.
There are a number of high opportunity-cost, high-swing cards your deck may not be perfectly made for, like an IC PTO deck that circumvents the opportunity cost of PTO, but rather a Graverobbing in a BB deck, a Dominate Kine in a bleed deck, etc.
DIing these cards when they would come up and possibly ruin your game due to their huge possible swing, is a pretty darn good ide worth 1 Pool and an MPA.
The way I assess the "base" value of DI is what happens if you DI a Conditioning.
You pay 1 Pool and 1 MPA, and you don't lose 4 pool (on that particular action).
Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy Corporation.
Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game, but it does have other uses.
Daneel wrote:> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:05:26 -0700, Frederick Scott> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>
Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better
than> > anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common.>
There are a number of high opportunity-cost, high-swing cards your
deck> may not be perfectly made for, like an IC PTO deck that circumvents
opportunity cost of PTO, but rather a Graverobbing in a BB deck, a> Dominate Kine in a bleed deck, etc.>
DIing these cards when they would come up and possibly ruin your game> due to their huge possible swing, is a pretty darn good ide worth 1> Pool and an MPA.>
The way I assess the "base" value of DI is what happens if you DI a> Conditioning.>
You pay 1 Pool and 1 MPA, and you don't lose 4 pool (on that
particular> action).>
Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy> Corporation.
Saves you 2 pool right? Cause you still take the base 1 for the bleed, plus paying 1 for DI makes 2, instead of 4 for a conditioned bleed? Which makes it like a Dummy Corporation that you have to keep in your hand and only works on modified bleeds.
Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game,> but it does have other uses.
Sure, the Conditioning effect (and other good, commonly played cards) are the best ways to measure DI (in general).
On 4 Mar 2005 05:18:16 -0800, <jnewquist@difsol.com> wrote:
Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy>> Corporation.>
Saves you 2 pool right? Cause you still take the base 1 for the bleed,> plus paying 1 for DI makes 2, instead of 4 for a conditioned bleed?> Which makes it like a Dummy Corporation that you have to keep in your> hand and only works on modified bleeds.
Yeah, right, sorry. It saves 2 Pool. Dunno what I was smoking. ;)
So, the choice is a surprise reduction from X+3 to (basically) X+1 that clogs your hand, or a foreseen reduction from any X to X-2 that doesn't clog your hand (and is a Unique Location).
Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game,>> but it does have other uses.>
Sure, the Conditioning effect (and other good, commonly played cards)> are the best ways to measure DI (in general).
Frederick Scott wrote:> "talonz" <talonz51@yahoo.ca> wrote in message> news:1109882876.554284.288220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> >
It pretty much is when its not your turn. All those 'once per
game'> > cards? Poof.>
That's something DI is good for, granted.>
That single copy of action X in your hand? Poof.>
Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO,
course you can make a card look powerful.>
We both know this happens. How many copies of sens dep or any other high cost high effect but low occurence cards will a given deck have? And what are the chances of that card coming up more than once in a given hand? DI kills those.
That critical freak drive or spying mission or etc.? Poof.> >
Its cost is nearly trivial considering its effect.>
One pool and and a critical master slot? Disagree. You've just> listed times when DI has its greatest effect
Correct.
- and even then, it may not mean all that much.
Make up your mind, greatest effect != 'may not mean all that much'.
You've also conveniently ignored the> cost of holding a reactive card in your hand,
I havn't ignored it, I havn't mentioned it because its fairly obvious. By definition, a card that can only be played in reaction to another card and only when it is not your turn must sit in your hand for some period of time.
I can make Skin of Rock look like a god card
I seriouslly doubt that.
I purposefully described some of the most powerful effects. Even in less desireable play opportunites, DI remains blanket dummy denial. On principle, I don't think such a card belongs in the game.
This is where I just go blank at your (and a few other folks')
worship> of this card. I keep wondering what kind of a metagame you guys must be in where this imresses you so much.>
I keep wondering what meta you are in that hasn't seen the full effect of DI yet.
Its a meta-card. And by that I mean that it completely ignores standard rules for defeating most strategies (intercept, block, vote, defence yadda yadda) and simply bypasses all that by burning the offending action/action modifier/combat card(in most cases) before even getting to that step. And its no more specefic than non-master/event cards.
Thus, its cost is trivial when it has such a broad range of targets and powerful meta-effect.
David Cherryholmes 6 March 2005 07:59:05 [ permanent link ]
talonz wrote:
An example that takes it more or less out of the above theorization.> But even so, the odds of having 2 in hand are not high. The odds of> you having a second minion with CHI and the blood to play the other> sens dep? Not all that high in the mid to late game either. Need I> point out that even if you do satisfy those requirements, then a player> is looking at only 1 minion sens depped instead of 2 that turn, and> that may be all he needs to oust his prey/burn the sens depper?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the first SD get's DI'd, and there's another one in hand, the original acting minion doesn't pay any blood cost, untaps, and is free to play another SD. NRA has not been breached. Maybe you knew that, but the example made me wonder.
--
David Cherryholmes david.cherryholmes@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "
Jeroen Rombouts 7 March 2005 01:37:31 [ permanent link ]
"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> schreef in bericht news:38vdc5F5ndcdcU1@individual.net...> talonz wrote:>
An example that takes it more or less out of the above theorization.>> But even so, the odds of having 2 in hand are not high. The odds of>> you having a second minion with CHI and the blood to play the other>> sens dep? Not all that high in the mid to late game either. Need I>> point out that even if you do satisfy those requirements, then a player>> is looking at only 1 minion sens depped instead of 2 that turn, and>> that may be all he needs to oust his prey/burn the sens depper?>
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the first SD get's DI'd, and > there's another one in hand, the original acting minion doesn't pay any > blood cost, untaps, and is free to play another SD. NRA has not been > breached. Maybe you knew that, but the example made me wonder.>
I think he is saying: if you don't DI the first SD, both SD will probably end up on 2 of your minions. So even DI-ing the first one while there is a second one in hand might be worth it.
David Cherryholmes 7 March 2005 04:52:09 [ permanent link ]
Frederick Scott wrote:
If true, then wrong. The deck was built to have enough Sensory Deprivations> even if some get intercepted - or DIed, although that was not what I was> concerned with when I overstocked the Sens Deps. As I mentioned elsewhere,> the usual bottle neck is the amount of blood on a vampire possessing> superior Chimerstry. If the first one gets off, then I'm not likely to> be able to get a second one off the following turn because that minion> won't have enough blood.
You know, just as an aside, I'd say the Ravnos run a close second to the Assamites as my favorite clan (actually they are about even, but it's so easy to rant about Assamite stuff ;) ). I used to say that blood management was *the* design obstacle for a Chimestry deck, but I don't think it's much of a problem anymore. I found a mix of Gabrin, Paths, Perfectionist, and Blood Dolls pretty much covered it. Now there's that nutty new card, making it even less of an issue.
--
David Cherryholmes david.cherryholmes@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
