orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards".

The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;))

------------
Orpheus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:421647eb$0$7823$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> 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: :) )

> 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

(like we'd hear nothing about getting rid of the withdrawal rule...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:
> Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards".
>
> The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;))
>
> ------------
> Orpheus
>
>

Just wait for the next set.
Probably you cannot burn anarchs in the new errata, uhm sorry reprint of
PTO.
LOL.
--
johannes walch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:
> Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for
the right
> time / combo to move.

Absolutely wrong. You wait for an action, you can block. Very simple.
No Rotshreck. Kill him.
 

orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5mofr@gmx.de a écrit :
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>>Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for
>
> the right
>
>>time / combo to move.
>
>
> Absolutely wrong. You wait for an action, you can block. Very simple.
> No Rotshreck. Kill him.

Sure. If you play block.

When you pack For, and / or S:CE, and wait to have them in hand before
moving, you reduce the chances of dying by combat damage. With Rotshit,
you die anyway. That's what I hate about it.
--------
Orpheus
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

PTO
political action
1 blood
Name a non-camarilla vampire. If this vote is successful, that vampire
is Red List and you may search your library, hand or ash heap for a
Trophy and put it into play.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:<421647eb$0$7823$636a15ce@news.free.fr>...
> Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards".
>
> The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;))
>
> ------------
> Orpheus

Hi Orpheus , please can you stop crying againts card you say that are
broken because you play only Giovanni ...


Your last cry is Succubus club ---> ban
KR et DU -----> ban
Anarch revolt ----> fuc***g erratta that will make fu***g combo worsth
than you havent never can immagine ....


Now is PTO but pto is very good now with the errata on Anarch revolt.

I have a new deck idéa with a lot of anarch and 25 PTO


-----------

Lameth from The Eternal citée of Carcassonne ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in
news:7TuRd.9212$ds.574@okepread07...
> I wouldn't have designed PTO (with the advantage of hindsight) had I been
> the
> designers at that time. I don't hate it enough to think it bears removing
> at
> this point but I definitately understand your point of view.
>
I'll pick up here to comment on one thought that has recently crossed my
mind regarding PTO, so as to avoid starting an entirely new "ban PTO"
thread.

The thought went something like:
"PTO wallpapers almost every capacity 9/10/11 non-Camarilla vampire with
less than 5 votes."

There's a reasoning behind this thought, which goes something like this:
"Okay, so it's possible to construct inner circle vote decks, which won't
generally have a vampire in play before their 3rd turn, and which can use
PTO.
Now, here's this cool non-Camarilla cap 9/10/11 vampire which I'd like to
build a deck around. He won't come into play until my third turn, either.
How can I defend against an early PTO?
1. Rush the Inner Circle as soon as it shows? This option only even becomes
available if my vampire gets to act before the IC member, and even then, I
have to get past their combat defense (which might be tricky if I'm not cap
11 and they (5 out of 7 IC members, anyway) just Obedience me) an torporize
them (11 cap, but fortunately, only 3 of 7 have for) in a single turn.
Odds: Marginal.
2. Block their action? Unlike PTO (which can target me regardless of seating
because it's not a (D) action), unless I'm in a predator/prey relationship,
this might require a special card (most likely Eagle's Sight) to even be
possible. Even then, must manage a successful block. 5 of 7 IC members have
access to at least one card that will give them 2 extra stealth, so if I
don't have Auspex, my chances of asuccessful block are slim at best. Even if
I do have Aus, 4 of 7 IC members can Elder Impersonate to simply have my
block attempt fail.
Odds: Poor.
3. Delaying Tactics? Sure, and on the next turn? Am I supposed to play an
all DT-deck? Of course maybe I can kill the IC member between turns, but
that would require my deck to be rush combat and even then, there's the
problems as discussed in #1.
Odds: Insignificant.
4. Vote them down? That's 4+1 votes in favor, so unless I have 5 votes (no
vampire so far released does), I can't put the vote down with just my
vampire's voting power. Sure I could toss extra votes, and 4 of 7 IC members
have superior Presence. I'll always need the rest of the table on my side to
even have a chance.
Odds: Insiginificant.
5. Play Camarilla. Sorry, I said non-Camarilla vampire.
Odds: Nil.
....
Oh great, I can't."

Granted, there are other cards (like Kiss of Ra or Rötschreck) that can be
best defended against by playing a particular type/style of deck (e.g. using
for or intercept wall, respectively), but none of them are anywhere near as
effective as PTO (e.g. Kiss of Ra is more expensive and less devastating;
Rötschreck is harder to play and less devastating).

Obvioulsy, one could argue that PTO has a fairly high opportunity cost, but
honestly, "have a non-camarilla vampire worth targetting" doesn't sound that
bad to me, with two or more non-Camarilla decks at a five player table being
an odds-on bet by number of vampires ever printed.

Then again, one could argue that
EQ 1. Arika + Protect Thine Own = Freakin' totally Broken!
After all, Arika has all four disciplines useful in obliterating defense
strategies (see discussion above) at superior. The odds of a 10 cap
non-Camarilla vampire stopping Arika from PTOing him are, first
aprroximation, nil.

That as and of itself seems like conclusive proof that, at the very least,
one of the two cards named in EQ. 1 must be modified, because this is VTES
and not the M-game, and we don't want "unstoppable" combos. Or so I hope.

Thomas Pichler
 

orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Thomas Pichler a écrit :
> "Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in
> news:7TuRd.9212$ds.574@okepread07...
>
>>I wouldn't have designed PTO (with the advantage of hindsight) had I been
>>the
>>designers at that time. I don't hate it enough to think it bears removing
>>at
>>this point but I definitately understand your point of view.
>>
>
> I'll pick up here to comment on one thought that has recently crossed my
> mind regarding PTO, so as to avoid starting an entirely new "ban PTO"
> thread.

Yes, there have been enough of these, and my "little joke reminder"
isn't supposed to start it all over. OTOH, I think that you summed up
the things very, very well.

> The thought went something like:
> "PTO wallpapers almost every capacity 9/10/11 non-Camarilla vampire with
> less than 5 votes."

Agreed. I just hope there's an "anti PTO" card for indies in K:MW ? I
heard of a "titled votes fail" which sure is nice. But it doesn't
invalidate what you say the least.

> There's a reasoning behind this thought, which goes something like this:
> "Okay, so it's possible to construct inner circle vote decks, which won't
> generally have a vampire in play before their 3rd turn, and which can use
> PTO.
> Now, here's this cool non-Camarilla cap 9/10/11 vampire which I'd like to
> build a deck around. He won't come into play until my third turn, either.
> How can I defend against an early PTO?
> 1. Rush the Inner Circle as soon as it shows? This option only even becomes
> available if my vampire gets to act before the IC member, and even then, I
> have to get past their combat defense (which might be tricky if I'm not cap
> 11 and they (5 out of 7 IC members, anyway) just Obedience me) an torporize
> them (11 cap, but fortunately, only 3 of 7 have for) in a single turn.
> Odds: Marginal.
> 2. Block their action? Unlike PTO (which can target me regardless of seating
> because it's not a (D) action), unless I'm in a predator/prey relationship,
> this might require a special card (most likely Eagle's Sight) to even be
> possible. Even then, must manage a successful block. 5 of 7 IC members have
> access to at least one card that will give them 2 extra stealth, so if I
> don't have Auspex, my chances of asuccessful block are slim at best. Even if
> I do have Aus, 4 of 7 IC members can Elder Impersonate to simply have my
> block attempt fail.
> Odds: Poor.
> 3. Delaying Tactics? Sure, and on the next turn? Am I supposed to play an
> all DT-deck? Of course maybe I can kill the IC member between turns, but
> that would require my deck to be rush combat and even then, there's the
> problems as discussed in #1.
> Odds: Insignificant.
> 4. Vote them down? That's 4+1 votes in favor, so unless I have 5 votes (no
> vampire so far released does), I can't put the vote down with just my
> vampire's voting power. Sure I could toss extra votes, and 4 of 7 IC members
> have superior Presence. I'll always need the rest of the table on my side to
> even have a chance.
> Odds: Insiginificant.
> 5. Play Camarilla. Sorry, I said non-Camarilla vampire.
> Odds: Nil.
> ...
> Oh great, I can't."

My thoughts exactly.

> Granted, there are other cards (like Kiss of Ra or Rötschreck) that can be
> best defended against by playing a particular type/style of deck (e.g. using
> for or intercept wall, respectively),

Which is exactly the reason why I hate the very existence of these cards.

> but none of them are anywhere near as
> effective as PTO

Agreed of course.

>(e.g. Kiss of Ra is more expensive and less devastating;

Yes, although it's always a bitch to lose a minion because of it.

> Rötschreck is harder to play and less devastating).

Let me tell you I've seen if being very, very devastating.

> Obvioulsy, one could argue that PTO has a fairly high opportunity cost, but
> honestly, "have a non-camarilla vampire worth targetting" doesn't sound that
> bad to me, with two or more non-Camarilla decks at a five player table being
> an odds-on bet by number of vampires ever printed.

It does diminish without KR/DU : it was even worse when you could
destroy a player's minions and put the guy where you wanted !!

> Then again, one could argue that
> EQ 1. Arika + Protect Thine Own = Freakin' totally Broken!
> After all, Arika has all four disciplines useful in obliterating defense
> strategies (see discussion above) at superior. The odds of a 10 cap
> non-Camarilla vampire stopping Arika from PTOing him are, first
> aprroximation, nil.
>
> That as and of itself seems like conclusive proof that, at the very least,
> one of the two cards named in EQ. 1 must be modified, because this is VTES
> and not the M-game, and we don't want "unstoppable" combos. Or so I hope.

Yes, let's eliminate all 9-11 (no pun intended) non-Camarilla vampires
!! Errr... Where did I go wrong ?

> Thomas Pichler

Nice job Tom.
 

orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Lameth the dark messiah a écrit :
> "Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:<421647eb$0$7823$636a15ce@news.free.fr>...
>
>>Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards".
>>
>>The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;))
>>
>>------------
>>Orpheus
>
>
> Hi Orpheus , please can you stop crying againts card you say that are
> broken because you play only Giovanni ...

LOL. You should know better : I also play Lasombra ! ;)

No, really, the GIos are my faves as everyone knows by now, but you know
me well enough to know I despise playing the same things for too long.

> Your last cry is Succubus club ---> ban

Not just mine !!

> KR et DU -----> ban

I didn't complain about these, past the first surprise that every player
had when discovering them. But I'm glad it went that way : they were way
too powerful, and, tired of being abused by them, I abused them quite a
few times too... ;)

> Anarch revolt ----> fuc***g erratta that will make fu***g combo worsth
> than you havent never can immagine ....

LOL. Quite intersting I think.

> Now is PTO but pto is very good now with the errata on Anarch revolt.
>
> I have a new deck idéa with a lot of anarch and 25 PTO

I'll make an anti-deck just to burn you, you dirty Champion !:D

> Lameth from The Eternal citée of Carcassonne ;)

Orpheus, looking at your (beautiful but) young city from the ancient
Port of Massilia.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus a écrit :
you pack For, and / or S:CE, and wait to have them in hand before
> moving, you reduce the chances of dying by combat damage. With Rotshit,
> you die anyway. That's what I hate about it.


make an alliance with the rotschrecker's predator or prey to make sure
you'll be rescued.
 

orpheus

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2005
171
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

reyda a écrit :
> Orpheus a écrit :
> you pack For, and / or S:CE, and wait to have them in hand before
>
>> moving, you reduce the chances of dying by combat damage. With
>> Rotshit, you die anyway. That's what I hate about it.
>
>
>
> make an alliance with the rotschrecker's predator or prey to make sure
> you'll be rescued.

Sure, when possible. But anyway, now I live in TRANQUILITY !!! :)

Errating a "bad" card is one way to do it. Making new counter cards is
another. With Tranquility my favourite decks don't fear Rötshit anymore
; with the new Obf reaction (sorry, I don't have it so no name...),
Protect and Parity go to hell. Way to go !!
---------
Orpheus, Necromonger
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

>---card text
Mata Hari
Ravnos
7 cap
group 4
OBF CHI Qui For Aus
Independent, Red List: Mata Hari has 2 votes (titled). You and she may play
cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect
and/or clan.
>---end card text

Can she (and I) play cards that require Anarchs? I say yes because Anarchs
are a subset of Independents (a recognized sect), which would make all
Anarchs independents (but not vice versa, of course), but others in my
playgrop disagree. Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or
otherwise unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect
restrictions?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Can she (and I) play cards that require Anarchs?

No, Anarch is not a Sect.

> Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or otherwise
> unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect
> restrictions?
>

Yes, but since cards you play usually require *ready* minions, it's pretty
useless while she's in Torpor. But she can Recure of the Homeland.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>>Can [Mata Hari] (and I) play cards that require Anarchs?
> No, Anarch is not a Sect.

Correct.

>>Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or otherwise
>>unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect
>>restrictions?
>
> Yes, but since cards you play usually require *ready* minions, it's pretty
> useless while she's in Torpor. But she can Recure of the Homeland.

Correct.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>>> Can [Mata Hari] (and I) play cards that require Anarchs?
>> No, Anarch is not a Sect.
>
> Correct.

So. . . I know that this is right, but I'm then curious why under the
"Sects" section in the rulebook, we have 4 major subsections. . .
Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, and Anarch. Without careful reading (say,
in the Anarch section), just this outline would suggest that Anarch is a
sect. Could we perhaps move this (and Black Hand and Red List and other
"similar" terms) to a new and/or separate section of the rulebook?

Where would we suggest such changes anyway?

Ankur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Ankur Gupta" <agupta@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:pine.GSO.4.62.0502210904430.6083@peso.cs.duke.edu...
> So. . . I know that this is right, but I'm then curious why under the
> "Sects" section in the rulebook, we have 4 major subsections. . .
> Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, and Anarch. Without careful reading (say,
> in the Anarch section), just this outline would suggest that Anarch is a
> sect. Could we perhaps move this (and Black Hand and Red List and other
> "similar" terms) to a new and/or separate section of the rulebook?

The Anarch term has rules support that suggest the rules section
should be where it is. Black Hand has no rules support. Red List has
rules support, but it completely dissimilar to a sect (no titles, no
sect ties, etc.)

> Where would we suggest such changes anyway?

Probably to the rulebook writer. Just a guess.
Check the credits page of the rulebook to find the current
rulebook writer. :)

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

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.
 

DEMON

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
56
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fredrick Scott wrote:
> Then what do you do for your second VP?

some ideas:
- eagles sight and block your new preys anarch
- include few rushes to rush them
- banish / PTO them

another angle would be to use it in a rush deck and rush your preys
anarchs.
if you do so, he won't have the opportunity to get a new one before he
has to pay for the AR.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"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...")
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Joscha wrote:

>>> And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla
>>> clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful.

> 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.

Your remedies seem to rely on everyone else at the table feeling the
same way you do, something which you have no control over. Anarch
Revolt was never too much of a problem if everyone else at the table
agreed to just put the game on hold and ban together to neutralize the
AR player. However, all it takes is for one player to perceive a
benefit to himself from the current situation, step out of line, and the
entire edifice crumbles.

If your strategy requires all or several players to ban together, forego
the default flow of the game entirely, and put that deck down, your
strategy is broken.

> 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.

I can't believe that kept slipping my mind. I'll remember it in the future.

> 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.

This ignores the relative opportunity costs of the defenses (not that
I'm saying anyone is entitled to ignore what they'd prefer not to deal
with and then complain about getting creamed after the fact).

--

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. :)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

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. :)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message news:383l0gF5i618pU2@individual.net...
> 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.

Ooh, ooh, OOOOOoooohhhh!! MINE, TOO!!! Can MY credability be vamporized
too?!? ...'cause I'm with him.

I think the issue here is likely to be what you define as "decisive".
If your prey has 2 pool left and you have Smudge the Ignored untapped,
a Computer Hack in your hand might be 'decisive'. And a DI in anyone
else's hand at that moment might also be. If you're going to make a
big issue about a guy's credability over such a statement, I really
think you're going to get yourself in a lot of unnecessary flame wars
misinterpreting his point. The issue is how powerful and useful a
card is DI in the long run. And I really think your evaluation of it
is at the high end of the scale for most people.

Fred
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, "Joscha" <joscha.duell@gmx.de> wrote:

>I'm in favour of banning DU/KR as I now understood, what the reasons
>were. I like the change of Anarch Revolt, as I was annoyed by decks
>which were relying heavy on it. These three cards were spoiling
>regularly whole rounds.

Yesterday we played two games using the new wording of Anarch Revolt.

It was included in a vote deck with some Banishment to boost. At the
first table it was generally useless until the endgame since everyone
were able to quickly turn someone into anarchy. But it had a great
deal of effectiveness when both the vote deck and a cross-table player
got 1 VP each, one immediatelly after another.
I was the unlucky one to be the vote deck's predator, got a clogged
hand full of combat I couldn't use (bruise n' bleed, eh?) and my War
Ghoul predator was ousted after torporizing half of my minions and
reduce me to 3 pool.
Facing two opponents with few pool, at least one less vampire lost on
combat, with 3 Anarch Revolts on the table and saving the Banishments
for the right moment, the vote deck's player had no trouble banishing
the anarchs me and his prey controlled. He almost ousted the two in
the same turn.

At the second table, it had a very similar effect, but with the caveat
that both me and my new prey (this time I got 1 VP) completely forgot
to become anarch and we payed a very high price for it: the vote
deck's player had 2 master phase actions and played two more AR's. I
had 6 pool at the time, was about to Corrupt another minion (just 1
more counter needed), but a KRC punished me for being too harsh on
stealing minions and not protecting my pool :-/ The vote player faced
a new prey with around 15 pool and could not prevent him from becoming
anarch, but his early 3 damage certainly helped along that path.

General conclusion I've personally taken: careful planning and play
still renders Anarch Revolt very useful and even powerful on a vote
deck without harming everyone around, exactly like it was predicted.
In fact, it seems less sketchy to pull out the AR/Banishment combo
than I initially thought. Almost everyone used a low- or midcap
vampire that could become anarch, and almost no one took some
preventive measure like turning *two* vampires anarch since they
needed the available actions to do something (perceived) better, even
after seeing Banishment.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:

> Almost everyone used a low- or midcap
> vampire that could become anarch, and almost no one took some
> preventive measure like turning *two* vampires anarch since they
> needed the available actions to do something (perceived) better, even
> after seeing Banishment.

AR is going to be most effective in an intercept wall deck--block all of
your prey's attempts to go Anarch. Unless he is playing, like, Galaricks
Legacy, he is hosed. And no one else gets damage by the AR, in theory.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh