[LSJ] Michael Luther fixing suggestion

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

Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call
him broken:

Capacity: 4
Discipline: aus pre
Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
of a Camarilla vampire to votes of your choice. When Michael enters
combat, you may draw 1 card. Discard down to your hand size afterward.

A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
untapped. Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can use
his ability even in torpor!
If this isn't enough to call him broken, let's check his point cost.
Normal 4-cap vampire should have 3 points... so, BOTH his abilities
cost just ONE point? It's too generous for a small vampire.

I suggest changing his first ability to "change the votes of any Prince
or Primogen to votes of your choice". Michael will still remain very
powerful, but not as broken as he is now. At least, voting decks with
Justicars and Inner Circle members would have some chances against this
terrifying weenie.

Yours,
Ector
100 answers Last reply
More about michael luther fixing suggestion
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call
    him broken

    i heard vote is dead anyway, since DU is banned and the Bowl of
    Convergence is here, so why bother?
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ingrid Russo & Kindred Coersion are worse. And she doesn't even have to tap.

    Ingrid Russo, !Ventrue, 4-cap, for DOM

    Kindred Coercion
    Reaction
    Dominate
    X blood
    Only usable during a referendum. [dom] Cancel the votes of X vampires. The
    affected vampires cannot be older than this reacting vampire. [DOM] As
    above, but change the votes of the affected vampires to votes of your
    choice.

    "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote in message
    news:1108336106.913489.315360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call
    > him broken:
    >
    > Capacity: 4
    > Discipline: aus pre
    > Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
    > of a Camarilla vampire to votes of your choice. When Michael enters
    > combat, you may draw 1 card. Discard down to your hand size afterward.
    >
    > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
    > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > untapped. Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
    > I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can use
    > his ability even in torpor!
    > If this isn't enough to call him broken, let's check his point cost.
    > Normal 4-cap vampire should have 3 points... so, BOTH his abilities
    > cost just ONE point? It's too generous for a small vampire.
    >
    > I suggest changing his first ability to "change the votes of any Prince
    > or Primogen to votes of your choice". Michael will still remain very
    > powerful, but not as broken as he is now. At least, voting decks with
    > Justicars and Inner Circle members would have some chances against this
    > terrifying weenie.
    >
    > Yours,
    > Ector
    >
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    lehrbuch wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    > > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call
    > > him broken:
    >
    > I can't quite tell if you're taking the piss, or not. Assuming
    you're
    > serious:
    I'm quite serious. I have to be really serious in this situation.

    > > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle
    with
    > > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > > untapped.
    >
    > He can only _change_ the votes. Call the vote, have both princes
    vote
    > "for", reserve the Inner Circle vote. Michael can then change one of
    > the princes to vote "against". If he does so, the Inner Circle can
    then
    > vote "for" (Vote passes 6-2 plus whatever other votes are at the
    table).
    > If he doesn't change a prince vote, then the Inner Circle doesn't
    vote
    > (Vote passes 4-0 plus whatever other votes are at the table).
    Thanks for your advice... I just lack the experience needed to play
    voting decks. But I still have just +4 votes, so Michael "steals" 4
    votes from me - isn't it too good for a 4-cap vampire?

    > Alternatively, finesse the order that you call referendum in, so that
    he
    > taps on the "wrong" referendum.
    Great! So, I should waste an action and a card JUST to make a 4-cap
    weenie tapped? Why don't you suggest Mind Numb or similar cards?
    If I need to waste an action of 8-cap Prince and a card just to tap a
    4-cap vampire, it should be obvious that the weenie is broken.

    > You could also appeal to, or bribe, the rest of the table to vote for
    you.
    What if I cannot? After all, I'm playing a deck that should have a lot
    of votes, and I pay a good price for them. If anyone can pay just 4
    pool to ruin my game, it's very bad for the game.

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

    denis wrote:
    > > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    > call
    > him broken
    >
    > i heard vote is dead anyway, since DU is banned and the Bowl of
    > Convergence is here, so why bother?

    I don't know where you could hear it... personally I NEVER said
    anything like that. At least if you play voting deck with Obfuscate,
    Forgotten Labyrinth allows you to easily get past the Bowl, and even
    Lost in Crowds would be enough.

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

    Derek Rawlings wrote:
    > > Ingrid Russo & Kindred Coersion are worse. And she
    > doesn't even have to tap.
    Even if Kindred Coercion WOULD allow changing the votes of older
    vampires, this "combo" would still be worse than Michael Luther's
    ability. Firstly, this requires a card... how many Coercions you are
    going to put? Secondly, this requires some blood. But it doesn't work
    anyway, so let's forget about it :)

    > As for the ability being too potent, I'm not sure, as was mentioned
    it can only
    > change a vote, not make a vampire vote. It is quite strong, though.

    You're not sure? Shall I make a few examples to make you sure? Here you
    are:

    1). Michael Luther + Presence skill card in an intercept/voting deck.
    He can use his Auspex to block the first political action (in case
    someone tried to "force him to tap", for instance), play Majesty and
    UNTAP.
    2). Michael Luther + Alexandra. You play a political action, tap your
    Luther to push it, then untap him with Alexandra, and push the second
    political action!

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

    Ector wrote:
    > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call
    > him broken:
    >

    You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.


    > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
    > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > untapped.

    Not true. You had 8, reduceable to 0 if his ability were used on your
    IC. Which is once per turn. After which, you would again have 8 for
    subsequent votes.

    You don't mention the rest of the table, nor any card play. If this is
    the sum total of anti-vote tech at the table (and you can nearly
    counter every other cardplay with your own, you are a vote deck
    remember), then you can still pass every vote you call. That PA card
    is worth 1 vote remember?

    > Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him,

    Banishment should be fairly effective. Coupled with might of the
    camarilla even. Heck, play him in your own deck and contest him
    already!


    > I suggest changing his first ability to

    I suggest adapting your play. He's not broken, but he is powerful...if
    you vote, and if only once per turn.

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

    > Ingrid Russo & Kindred Coersion are worse. And she doesn't even have to tap.
    >
    > Ingrid Russo, !Ventrue, 4-cap, for DOM
    >
    > Kindred Coercion
    > Reaction
    > Dominate
    > X blood
    > Only usable during a referendum. [dom] Cancel the votes of X vampires. The
    > affected vampires cannot be older than this reacting vampire. [DOM] As
    > above, but change the votes of the affected vampires to votes of your
    > choice.

    Except for that entire "cannot be older" clause, of course... It's an evil card,
    particularly when Arika chats with her Elder Kindred Network.

    As for the ability being too potent, I'm not sure, as was mentioned it can only
    change a vote, not make a vampire vote. It is quite strong, though.

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

    > > As for the ability being too potent, I'm not sure, as was mentioned it
    > can only
    > > change a vote, not make a vampire vote. It is quite strong, though.
    >
    > You're not sure? Shall I make a few examples to make you sure? Here you
    > are:
    >
    > 1). Michael Luther + Presence skill card in an intercept/voting deck.
    > He can use his Auspex to block the first political action (in case
    > someone tried to "force him to tap", for instance), play Majesty and
    > UNTAP.

    "Firstly, this requires a card..."

    Three, actually, (Presence, Auspex Intercept, Majesty) and a MPA... and
    intercepting vote actions is a generally effective way of stopping vote
    decks, and doesn't make Michael any stronger than say... Brazil, or if you
    want the Majesty effect then Barth.

    > 2). Michael Luther + Alexandra. You play a political action, tap your
    > Luther to push it, then untap him with Alexandra, and push the second
    > political action!

    Which can never be better than a Bewitching Oration, though his ongoing
    ability to do it is rather effective. Keep in mind though that unlike a
    comperable Ventrue Headquarters, Michael is far more difficult to protect,
    being easily rushable, and with the caveat that you haven't had to use him
    to block something.

    Yes, he makes a great addition to a vote deck, and can seriously cripple a
    vote deck's ability to do what it wants, but broken? I don't think so.
    Had I been playtesting him I would have said that both his abilities
    together were too strong, and his ability is exceptional when compared to
    say Katherine Stoddard (though she is also Black Hand).

    Besides, if he's really causing you too much trouble, make a deal with a
    cross table combat deck and have him dumped.

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

    talonz wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    > > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    > call
    > > him broken:
    > >
    >
    > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.
    >
    >
    > > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle
    with
    > > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > > untapped.
    >
    > Not true. You had 8, reduceable to 0 if his ability were used on
    your
    > IC. Which is once per turn. After which, you would again have 8 for
    > subsequent votes.
    >
    > You don't mention the rest of the table, nor any card play. If this
    is
    > the sum total of anti-vote tech at the table (and you can nearly
    > counter every other cardplay with your own, you are a vote deck
    > remember), then you can still pass every vote you call. That PA card
    > is worth 1 vote remember?

    Or use Telepathic Vote Counting to cancel your own votes after Michael
    Luther changes them.

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

    talonz wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >>Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call
    >>him broken:
    >>
    > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.

    Correct.

    Before searching for fixes, first show that it is broken.

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

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    > >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call him
    > >broken:
    >
    > Uhh, no. Really.

    Agreed. Except:

    > In the situation you mentioned (you have 2 Princes and an IC Member,
    you
    > predator has Michael Luther), barring any other input from the table,
    you
    > pass any vote you want:
    >
    > -Call a vote. Have all of your vampires vote for it. ML changes your
    IC vote
    > to "No". You win 'cause you have the +1 vote from the PA card. Or you
    play a
    > Bewitching from your hand on one of the vampires that didn't have
    their vote
    > changed.

    Except that ONLY the acting minion can play the Bewitching, so 'one of
    the vampires that didn't have their vote changed' is not always legal.

    > Or whatever. ML is handy anti-vote tech, sure. But he only works on
    one vote
    > per turn, has to not be taking actions to do so, is easy to get
    around with
    > action mods or careful distributing of votes, and can be worked
    around
    > simply by getting help (which is both one of the strengths and
    weaknesses ot
    > political decks).

    Again, agreed.

    Ector's suggested that you could do the following with Michael:

    > 1). Michael Luther + Presence skill card in an intercept/voting deck.

    > He can use his Auspex to block the first political action (in case
    > someone tried to "force him to tap", for instance), play Majesty and
    > UNTAP.

    Assuming he has the blood to play Majesty and is actually facing a
    voting deck; if your opponent has a combat deck, especially one that
    gets around S:CE with something commonly played like IG or Psyche,
    Michael is usually NEVER going to block anything for fear of being
    smeared along the ground like floor wax.

    And also:

    > 2). Michael Luther + Alexandra. You play a political action, tap your

    > Luther to push it, then untap him with Alexandra, and push the second

    > political action!

    Which fails should people at your table have non-Camarilla votes. Not
    that anybody plays with big Sabbat or Independent vampires, eh? And
    it's not like Toreador have had problems pushing votes without Michael
    either. Admittedly the Alexandra trick is a pretty good one, and is a
    pretty nice example of optimizing a limited-use power.

    > Peter D Bakija

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

    Ector wrote:
    > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call
    > him broken:

    I can't quite tell if you're taking the piss, or not. Assuming you're
    serious:

    > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
    > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > untapped.

    He can only _change_ the votes. Call the vote, have both princes vote
    "for", reserve the Inner Circle vote. Michael can then change one of
    the princes to vote "against". If he does so, the Inner Circle can then
    vote "for" (Vote passes 6-2 plus whatever other votes are at the table).
    If he doesn't change a prince vote, then the Inner Circle doesn't vote
    (Vote passes 4-0 plus whatever other votes are at the table).

    Alternatively, finesse the order that you call referendum in, so that he
    taps on the "wrong" referendum.

    You could also appeal to, or bribe, the rest of the table to vote for you.

    --
    * lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > I have some tools against Tzimisce... PTO is very good against them,
    > especially with Elder Impersonations. Kindred Coercion is harsh, but
    it
    > requires a large vampire, not just a 4-cap! When I lose a political
    > action to Kindred Coercion, we just "exchange" one card to another.
    But
    > I really can't do anything with Michael Luther without adding a lot
    of
    > cards ESPECIALLY against him (Mind Numbs and so on). And these cards
    > would definitely spoil my deck.
    >
    > Ector

    Except that you CAN do A LOT of things against Michael Luther, MANY of
    which have been expanded on in this thread.

    1) Order the casting of your votes carefully.
    2) Banishment.
    3) Anathema to convince combat players to burn him for 4 pool.
    4) Hostile Takeover (if Ventrue)
    5) Wait for him to change your votes, then use Telepathic vote counting
    to cancel the votes of the changed vampire.
    6) Play with him yourself (Democritus' special is nice if you end up
    contesting)
    7) Use Telepathic vote counting to retrieve the vote after Michael
    Luther taps.

    All of these are useful cards in many vote decks in their own right -
    they shouldn't be "spoiling your deck".
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    lehrbuch wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    > [lehrbuch]
    > > > He can only _change_ the votes...
    >
    > > Thanks for your advice... I just lack the experience needed to
    > > play voting decks. But I still have just +4 votes, so Michael
    > > "steals" 4 votes from me - isn't it too good for a 4-cap
    > > vampire?
    >
    > Not especially. Of course, he's quite good, but only in the case
    when
    > someone else happens to be playing Camarilla voting vampires.
    Looks like NOBODY is playing Camarilla now? There are multitude of good
    titled vampires, so the chances of meeting they are rather high.

    > It's just
    > one of the (many) risks of concentrating large numbers of votes (or
    > anything else) on a single vampire - the votes are vulnerable to
    being
    > screwed with by a single effect. At least Michael Luther's not
    likely
    > to send your Inner Circle member to torpor.
    Imagine I had only two Princes... the same effect, -4 votes for me. The
    same for three Princes, so the votes don't have to be on a single
    vampire.

    > Anyway, passing by 4 votes is still a referendum that passes.
    Slightly
    > less exciting from a Voter Captivation point of view, maybe, but you
    can
    > still get your 2 pool.
    But the other players may also have votes! I have to pay at least 11
    pool to get these 4 votes, and a tiny 4-cap weenie can steal them each
    turn... and you still consider it fair?

    > > > ...finesse the order that you call referendum in...
    > > Great! So, I should waste an action and a card JUST to make a 4-cap
    > > weenie tapped?
    >
    > No. You should spend an action to increase the chances that another
    > action is successful, that's not a waste if the second action is
    > worthwhile. Calling the "wasted" referendum might also draw out
    > intercept and other vote interference effects.
    >
    > Also, Michael Luther's controller has to make a decision about
    whether
    > to tap on the first referendum, or not. If he saves Michael
    > anticipating a second referendum, then don't call it - bleed or do
    > something instead. No actions wasted.
    What if he ALWAYS uses Michael? Should I play two actions each turn
    just to get the second one passed? What if he would use Michael to make
    the first referendum fail, then another player will just block the
    second one?

    > > What if I cannot [bribe the table]?
    >
    > You have the wrong cards in your deck, then. Put in some "Bribes",
    > "Consanguineous Boon", "Disputed Territory", "Parity Shift",
    "Anathema"
    > etc. Players can usually be convinced to vote for something else, in
    > return for such benefits.
    If you are going to oust your prey, at least two players (your prey and
    your predator) would be against you. They may allow Consangineous Boon
    or even Disputed Territory if you give them the location, but not Kine
    Resources Contested or Reins of Power. You and your allies may have
    more votes, but Michael Luther is very likely to shift the balance to
    their side. So, you will be unable to win.

    > > After all, I'm playing a deck that should have a lot
    > > of votes, and I pay a good price for them. If anyone can pay just 4
    > > pool to ruin my game, it's very bad for the game.
    >
    > Clearly, your deck can't actually pass referendum when there is a
    > trivial amount of opposition. This could well be a issue of deck
    design
    > rather than game design.
    What do you call "trivial amount of opposition"? Michael Luther plus
    combined 5 votes of my predator and prey against my 8 votes? The
    opposition would be really trivial if Michael wouldn't be so broken.

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

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    > >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call him
    > >broken:
    >
    > Uhh, no. Really.
    >
    > He is a handy vampire. But for him to work:
    >
    > -He needs to be untapped (i.e. not doing anything).
    Not a big deal for a weenie.

    > -He needs to be sitting next to you, otherwise, why does he care?
    Your grandprey may wish to deny your KRC or Reins of Power if you are
    ousting your prey. But nevertheless, most cards are working against you
    only in hands of your predator or your prey.

    > -You need to not have a vote action modifier in your hand
    As John Flournoy said, Michael is likely to change votes of the acting
    vampire, if there are no better targets. But playing Daughters of
    Cacophony is an interesting idea... thanks a lot for it. Doesn't make
    Luther less broken, though.

    > -You need to not be able to garner any political help from someone
    across
    > the table.
    Or the help may be insufficient. Your predator and prey may also have
    their votes.

    > In the situation you mentioned (you have 2 Princes and an IC Member,
    you
    > predator has Michael Luther), barring any other input from the table,
    you
    > pass any vote you want:
    >
    > -Call a vote. Have one Prince vote for it. If Michael changes the
    vote, have
    > the IC member vote for it. Boom. You win.
    Only if having 4 votes would be enough. Don't you agree that "Tap: you
    have -4 votes for this referendum" ability is too strong for a 4-cap
    vampire with two disciplines?

    > Or
    >
    > -Call a vote. Have all of your vampires vote for it. ML changes your
    IC vote
    > to "No". You win 'cause you have the +1 vote from the PA card. Or you
    play a
    > Bewitching from your hand on one of the vampires that didn't have
    their vote
    > changed.
    >
    > Or whatever. ML is handy anti-vote tech, sure. But he only works on
    one vote
    > per turn, has to not be taking actions to do so, is easy to get
    around with
    > action mods or careful distributing of votes, and can be worked
    around
    > simply by getting help (which is both one of the strengths and
    weaknesses ot
    > political decks).

    I guess I should admit that my current deck isn't a "true voting deck".
    It's a DOM/OBF stealth-bleed deck with some political actions (usually
    not more than 10). Generally I have Arika and Gilbert Duane, sometimes
    accompanied with Greger Anderssen.
    Now imagine that I have all three mentioned vampires, my prey has 3
    votes (one Priscus), and my predator has one Prince and the dreaded
    Michael Luther. Now what? I simply cannot push Parity Shift, Reins of
    Power, Banishment or PTO... anything! I simply have no "extra"
    political actions to tap Luther, and I have no Bewitching Orations, as
    most vampires have no Presence.
    So, I'm forced to discard my political actions... and then my predator
    can use Luther to push HIS political actions. You may call my deck
    stupid (I admit that it's too aggressive), but I managed to win a lot
    of games with it. Unfortunately, Michael Luther actually makes me lose
    4 votes, which is definitely too good for a weenie.

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

    Ector wrote:

    >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call him
    >broken:

    Uhh, no. Really.

    He is a handy vampire. But for him to work:

    -He needs to be untapped (i.e. not doing anything).
    -He needs to be sitting next to you, otherwise, why does he care?
    -You need to not have a vote action modifier in your hand
    -You need to not be able to garner any political help from someone across
    the table.

    In the situation you mentioned (you have 2 Princes and an IC Member, you
    predator has Michael Luther), barring any other input from the table, you
    pass any vote you want:

    -Call a vote. Have one Prince vote for it. If Michael changes the vote, have
    the IC member vote for it. Boom. You win.

    Or

    -Call a vote. Have all of your vampires vote for it. ML changes your IC vote
    to "No". You win 'cause you have the +1 vote from the PA card. Or you play a
    Bewitching from your hand on one of the vampires that didn't have their vote
    changed.

    Or whatever. ML is handy anti-vote tech, sure. But he only works on one vote
    per turn, has to not be taking actions to do so, is easy to get around with
    action mods or careful distributing of votes, and can be worked around
    simply by getting help (which is both one of the strengths and weaknesses ot
    political decks).


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Derek Rawlings wrote:
    > > > As for the ability being too potent, I'm not sure, as was
    mentioned it
    > > can only
    > > > change a vote, not make a vampire vote. It is quite strong,
    though.
    > >
    > > You're not sure? Shall I make a few examples to make you sure? Here
    you
    > > are:
    > >
    > > 1). Michael Luther + Presence skill card in an intercept/voting
    deck.
    > > He can use his Auspex to block the first political action (in case
    > > someone tried to "force him to tap", for instance), play Majesty
    and
    > > UNTAP.
    >
    > "Firstly, this requires a card..."
    >
    > Three, actually, (Presence, Auspex Intercept, Majesty) and a MPA...
    and
    > intercepting vote actions is a generally effective way of stopping
    vote
    > decks, and doesn't make Michael any stronger than say... Brazil, or
    if you
    > want the Majesty effect then Barth.

    OK, this really requires three cards. But if you're playing an
    intercept deck (Toreadors can built rather good intercept decks, you
    know), you have a lot of Auspex intercept cards. And you may have a
    bunch of Majesties (10 or even more) just to tap blockers and untap or
    handle the cases your Magnums cannot handle. Thus, the only "rare" card
    here is a Presence skill card. And Michael isn't the only good vampire
    that could benefit from it, so you can have several copies...
    Remilliard, Mercy, Ira Rivers and Yitzak are the best examples.
    Now have a look at Kindred Coercion. How many of them can you put in a
    deck? Not more than 3, I guess, unless you are playing in a metagame
    filled with voting decks.
    Intercepting is generally an effective way of stopping political
    actions UNLESS the voting deck has Obfuscate. Forgotten Labyrinths,
    Elder Impersonations and Lost in Crowds generally allow to pass the
    action. But even a voting deck with Obfuscate cannot do anything with
    Michael Luther without spending a lot of card slots.

    > > 2). Michael Luther + Alexandra. You play a political action, tap
    your
    > > Luther to push it, then untap him with Alexandra, and push the
    second
    > > political action!
    >
    > Which can never be better than a Bewitching Oration, though his
    ongoing
    > ability to do it is rather effective. Keep in mind though that
    unlike a
    > comperable Ventrue Headquarters, Michael is far more difficult to
    protect,
    > being easily rushable, and with the caveat that you haven't had to
    use him
    > to block something.
    This is MUCH better than Bewitching Oration, as Orations usually tend
    to run out or clog in your hand. After all, nothing prevents you from
    playing both Luther and Bewitching Oration to ensure you good Voter
    Captivations.
    Ventrue HQ is good, but it's a location, so it can be stolen or
    destroyed in various ways. But Luther can only be Rushed, and Rush
    decks usually don't play a lot of politics, so they don't feel his
    threat and prefer to Rush larger vampires.

    > Yes, he makes a great addition to a vote deck, and can seriously
    cripple a
    > vote deck's ability to do what it wants, but broken? I don't think
    so.
    > Had I been playtesting him I would have said that both his abilities
    > together were too strong, and his ability is exceptional when
    compared to
    > say Katherine Stoddard (though she is also Black Hand).
    Katherine Stoddard is nothing compared to Michael. Her Black Hand
    status is useless, as most Black Hand decks play Obfuscate or Auspex,
    and she has only dom and for. Her ability requires a deck with a lot of
    Auspex cards, but she has no Auspex herself! I'd say that Katherine is
    well-balanced.
    Speaking about Luther... I've seen him in action, and he's obviously
    overpowered. Most 4-cap weenies perform only "maintenance service" -
    they can bleed, hunt, resque, sometimes even block or Rush, but not
    Luther.

    > Besides, if he's really causing you too much trouble, make a deal
    with a
    > cross table combat deck and have him dumped.
    What if there are no cross table combat decks? Moreover, the Toreador
    players usually block Rushes on Michael Luther, as he is low on blood,
    but still performs a task suitable for a 6-7 capacity vampire.

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

    talonz wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    > > Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    > call
    > > him broken:
    > >
    >
    > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.
    Surely. But I'm doing my best to defend my point of view.
    >
    > > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle
    with
    > > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > > untapped.
    >
    > Not true. You had 8, reduceable to 0 if his ability were used on
    your
    > IC. Which is once per turn. After which, you would again have 8 for
    > subsequent votes.
    >
    > You don't mention the rest of the table, nor any card play. If this
    is
    > the sum total of anti-vote tech at the table (and you can nearly
    > counter every other cardplay with your own, you are a vote deck
    > remember), then you can still pass every vote you call. That PA card
    > is worth 1 vote remember?
    Yes, yes, I just made a mistake, but Michael STILL makes me to lose 4
    votes, which is far too good for a 4-cap vamp. You may notice that I
    lose at least 4 votes in these configurations: two Princes, one IC, or
    IC + one Prince. Yes, I remember that PA card is worth 1 vote. Still,
    having -4 votes can make the referendum fail.
    And sometimes Michael's ability is worth much more than 4 votes.
    Imagine you and your cross-table ally both have IC members - would they
    vote when the little devil is untapped? Thus, your faction has -8
    votes. Still not enough to call Michael broken?

    > > Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him,
    >
    > Banishment should be fairly effective. Coupled with might of the
    > camarilla even. Heck, play him in your own deck and contest him
    > already!
    Banishment would never be effective against a 4-cap vampire that is
    full most of the time. Might of the Camarilla? What if his controller
    has another vampire in his uncontrolled region?
    Finally, you suggest to contest him. If I'd be forced to do this, would
    you agree that he is broken?

    >
    > > I suggest changing his first ability to
    >
    > I suggest adapting your play. He's not broken, but he is
    powerful...if
    > you vote, and if only once per turn.
    OK, I really vote once per turn. Do you think that "casual voting"
    decks should die? Why? I have a lot of good permament votes, I pay a
    good price for them, then someone pays just 4 pool to cancel at least 4
    of my votes. That looks like a definition of "brokenness" :)

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

    FC wrote:

    > If the guy is giving you problems consistently the obvious answer is
    to
    > include a few copies of him in your own deck. Contesting him would
    > certainly stop him and he could be very useful even if your
    opponents
    > doesn't play him - now YOU steal the votes of Leandro (or whomever).
    >
    > Alternatively, there is a nifty 6 cap primogen with superior
    presence....
    >
    > Victoria Ash (Toreador Primogen, Capacity 6, Group. 2)
    > Disciplines: aus cel dom PRE
    > Ability: Victoria can tap a younger ready vampire as a +1 stealth (D)
    action
    >
    > She isn't Arika, but she could go into a Ventrue deck fairly easily.
    Paid
    > for
    > by just one Voter Captivation and a Minion Tap. Just a thought.
    >
    > Heck Alexandra can be used to tap any toreador. But she might be a
    bit
    > on the expensive side - especially as a potential contested vampire
    :)
    >
    > IMO Michael Luther is below Voter Captivation on the political power
    curve
    > (I am not saying that VC is too powerful - but actually ML is one of
    the
    > things
    > keeping VC in check).
    >
    > Frede

    Look, if I'm forced to contest a 4-cap vampire or include a 6-cap
    Victoria Ash to tap him, doesn't this itself mean that the vampire is
    overpowered?
    To my mind, fledglings like Michael Luther should stay away from
    politics... don't even mentioning changing the votes of Inner Circle
    members :)

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

    LSJ wrote:
    > talonz wrote:
    > > Ector wrote:
    > >>Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call
    > >>him broken:
    > >>
    > > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > Before searching for fixes, first show that it is broken.
    Well, I'll try:

    Please look at the situation: in a four-player game I and my
    cross-table ally both have an IC member. My predator has a Prince and
    untapped Michael Luther. Both me and my ally cannot push any political
    actions while Luther is untapped, though we have 8 votes against two.
    If at least one IC member votes, Luther would change his votes, so he
    effectively "steals" our 8 votes.
    If you don't agree that this is too good for a 4-capacity vampire,
    please tell me what do you call "broken".

    Yours,
    Ector
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    John Flournoy wrote:

    > Except that ONLY the acting minion can play the Bewitching, so 'one of
    > the vampires that didn't have their vote changed' is not always legal.

    Well, yeah, that. Unless you are, umm, playing a Daughters vote deck! Who
    have that "gain votes if you aren't the acting minion" modifier! Take *that*
    Michael Luther!


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Well, yeah, that. Unless you are, umm, playing a Daughters vote deck!
    > Who have that "gain votes if you aren't the acting minion" modifier!
    > Take *that* Michael Luther!

    In which case Michael Luther probably can't use his special anyway, since
    they aren't generally going to get Camarilla titles.

    Take *THAT* Michael Luther!

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

    James Coupe wrote:
    > In message <1108336106.913489.315360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    > >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    call
    > >him broken:
    >
    > A word of advice. Given how people have reacted to your other
    > protestations of doom, gloom and how things are, when you are tempted
    to
    > post "<X> is broken", I would suggest writing a post which is,
    instead,
    > called "I'm having trouble with <X>. Any help?" And then write an
    > appropriate post for that title.
    >
    > Asking for, and critically engaging with, assistance is likely to get
    > you far more respect and useful responses. Then, if you find that
    there
    > is no useful advice, move on to issues of overpowered or broken.

    I really appreciate your attitude. And I really know that I shouldn't
    even try to do LSJ's job :) But I really don't see anything especially
    bad right now; moreover, I win in any case - if people convince me that
    I'm wrong, I'll get precious knowledge, if not, the game may become
    better.
    And I really don't see any point of "I'm having trouble with Michael
    Luther" topic. Yes, I know that I can tap him, and I can convince a
    Rush deck to kill him, etc. etc.
    But I really wonder, why the 4-cap is so overpowered that I should use
    special card module against him? And I really can't find any answer.

    > Why weren't you including other sources of vote in your deck? Vote
    > cancellation isn't unheard of. Other people also voting isn't
    unheard
    > of. With a Vox Senis on a table, say, that and the odd political
    card
    > is enough to cramp your style early on. Having other methods of vote
    > push is useful++.
    Well, I lied (just tried to make things clear but shame on my head
    nevertheless...) My deck wasn't a "regular" voting deck, it was a
    DOM/OBF S&B deck with a voting module. So, I almost never have a second
    voting card in my hand, and I have no Bewitching Orations. But I
    usually have at least 6 permanent votes (or even 8), plus one from the
    PA card and plus one for the Edge, if necessary, so I generally can
    push my referendums... but Michael Luther really destroys my voting.

    > >Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
    > >I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can
    use
    > >his ability even in torpor!
    >
    > Erm, with 8 votes, you're probably going to survive a Blood Hunt. So
    > you get him into torpor and then diablerise him.
    If I only could torporize him... Yes, I know that I should convince a
    Rush deck to do this for me, but this isn't always possible.

    > Additionally, playing a voting deck doesn't mean you *only* have to
    > include votes! It's perfectly acceptable, indeed sensible, to
    include
    > (say) pool gain which you use for a Sub Machine Gun, or capitalise on
    > your buffer of pool with a tasty ally, or whatever. If there's one
    > thing a Camarilla vote deck should be able to do well, it's gain
    pool.
    > Not only have you got good Presence, you've got good mono-clan
    options
    > (should you choose) for Consanguineous Boon and, with two Princes,
    you
    > have one of the best cards in the game - Parity Shift.
    As I said, my deck was primary S&B, with Arika, Gilbert Duane and
    Greger Anderssen. It has Parity Shifts, as well as few PTOs, some
    Banishments, Disputed Territory and Reins of Power. Consangineous boons
    aren't especially good for me, as my vampires belong to different
    clans, and Presence is a problem. Nevertheless, without Luther I
    usually can play most of my political actions.

    > If the options above don't appeal for spending your pool, what clan
    are
    > you playing? Ventrue? Well then, let's drag out a Hostile Takeover.
    > You can afford the pool - you're *planning* for it. How much pool
    are
    > they willing to spend to keep him? You should be either able to
    extort
    > pool or steal him. A good result both ways.
    What a GREAT advice!!! I will look for this card.

    > Not playing Ventrue? What are your Justicar options like?
    Temptation
    > of Greater Power. This is not the game destroying card it once was,
    > culling soul of vampires everywhere. But if you have the opportunity
    to
    > include it in a deck with pool gain, it's a significantly strong
    card.
    Again, I'll try to find it, though it would be very painful to play it
    for a 4-cap vampire.

    >
    > Don't like the above? 5 of the Inner Circle have Presence. Leandro,
    > Alexandra, Gwendolyn and Arika have PRE, Harrod has pre. The others
    are
    > Nosferatu (Harrod) and Tremere (Etrius). Yes, you could be including
    > either of them in an unconventional vote-y deck. But you have 5
    options
    > with PRE/pre. And your other vampires may well have Presence too.
    Want
    > a good card? Mind Numb. Tap them now AND next turn.
    Unfortunately, only Arika can play it in my deck, and wasting her
    action for it isn't good enough.

    > Want another option? Even if you don't have Presence? That old
    Jyhad
    > stalwart, Misdirection. Tap 1 vampire, 1 pool. And you can generate
    > the pool. Hell, just play Bribes. You don't even have to win the
    vote,
    > you get a pool!
    Tap him for a one turn for a pool and master phase action? Seems not
    very good to me. Unfortunately, Bribes aren't suitable to my deck, as I
    don't have a lot of politics.

    > Are these specific defences against a single vampire? No. Vote
    push,
    > pool gain and/or secondary threads to your deck (allies, equipment,
    > theft of vampires, whatever) are generally useful. Methods of
    tapping
    > vampires are generally useful. Want to get a bleed through? Tap the
    > vampire first. Worried about Delaying Tactics? Tap the vampire
    first.
    > At least that way they waste a Wake too (if they have one)
    Well, I can bleed at stealth even without tapping them :) Anyway, I
    cannot play Mind Numb, and Misdirection is too expensive for a one-turn
    solution.

    > The vote deck, of course, has the option of Banishment. Not so great
    on
    > a small vampire, but if you could (as you suggested) get him in
    torpor,
    > he was losing blood. You call a vote and send him to torpor. Do I
    > bring him back out? That's another pool, or two, or three. Sure,
    you
    > probably wouldn't include it just for him - which is good - but if
    the
    > opportunity comes up, it's worth considering. And if you're playing
    an
    > Inner Circle vote deck, Banishment is always on your "consider" list.
    > You're playing big vampires and have lots of votes. These things
    work
    > *well*.
    Oh, I really like Banishment, and I have them. But Michael is almost
    always full, so even if I manage to Banish him, he will return on the
    next turn.
    >
    >
    > >If this isn't enough to call him broken, let's check his point cost.
    > >Normal 4-cap vampire should have 3 points... so, BOTH his abilities
    > >cost just ONE point? It's too generous for a small vampire.
    >
    > "Tap to" for any ability is a big cost. He can't act. If his
    > Methuselah is calling votes, he's paying four pool to cancel your
    votes,
    > and not acting with it. A good use of pool? Well, maybe.
    > Questionable. Why not just include some free vote push instead?
    Sure,
    > it might work out well this way, but...
    Well, what would be the fair price for a LOCATION that could tap to
    change votes of a Camarilla vampire? At least 2 pool, IMHO. Now add two
    disciplines, ability to hunt, bleed, resque, block, etc. etc. and "draw
    card in combat" ability.. I simply can't understand how all this
    combined can cost 4 pool.
    And Michael Luther CAN act, if you don't need his ability. This may
    easily happen if you with your allies have more votes or if nobody
    plays Camarilla. "Free vote push" can appear in your hand when you
    don't need it and disappear when needed, and your Luther is always with
    you. Moreover, what prevents you from using BOTH Luther and vote
    pushing? At least this allows to play a lot of Voter Captivations.

    > Is he using him to cancel your votes? Well, for a start, he doesn't
    > know if you're going to be playing a vote deck, or with Camarilla
    > vampires. That's a risk. Sure, he gets an okay vampire at the end
    of
    > it, but for 4 pool (if no-one else is playing a vote deck), he's
    > probably underpowered.
    The maximum risk is 1 pool for him, as Michael's disciplines alone are
    worth 3 pool. He also has 4 blood (not 3) and an interesting combat
    ability, so I'd say that you lose almost nothing even if nobody plays
    Camarilla.

    > Look at Mariel, for instance. In Jyhad, 7s got 7 points (pretty
    much)
    > and Mariel's ability is "tap to". It's a good ability, but it's
    > expensive.
    The difference is clear: an action of 7-cap vampire (that you lose to
    tap Mariel) is much more expensive than an action of 4-cap weenie.
    After all, Mariel's ability is defensive, and it alone won't allow you
    to win. Michael's ability can be used to push your politics, so it's
    much more powerful.

    >
    > Draw a card on entering combat isn't that great. It's good, but he's
    > not that great a vampire to use it effectively - if it was on a
    combat
    > monster, say, it would be huge. With aus/pre, you don't generally
    want
    > combat. You probably want cel to make offensive combat a realistic
    > possibility. So you're either bleeding (and defending) or blocking
    (and
    > defending). Oh look. Blocking taps you. Bleeding taps you.
    Surely, THIS ability isn't great... but it still worth something. If
    Luther's primary ability is useless, you may gain an advantage from the
    second one. Play Presence skill card on him and play Majesty. Oh
    look... combat ends AND UNTAP! Yes, I know this isn't very realistic,
    but it can work.

    > The two abilities aren't mutually exclusive - you could be rushed,
    say -
    > but it's hard to use both effectively. Even if you go for PRE, anti-
    > S:CE tech is hardly unheard of (especially in your combat heavy
    > playgroup, perhaps).
    God thanks that it's hard to use both of the abilities! Luther is
    broken enough even now.

    > And if he *is* seriously good, anyone with resource manipulation
    tactics
    > could try and take him out. Banish him, rush him, whatever.
    Vampires
    > with good abilities have a "KILL ME NOW" sign lit above their head.
    > Your deck doesn't have any way to manipulate vampires and only plays
    > straightforward votes damage votes with a little pool gain and
    nothing
    > else? Too bad. Thankfully, there are other decks that can be done
    > better.
    Michael Luther is dangerous only for the voting decks (or in the voting
    deck). He's not Jost Werner or Arika. Thus, a voting deck needs a
    really good reason to make a Rush deck to rush him.

    All that said: don't you think that my suggestion would make the game
    better? After all, it's simply unrealistic to have a 4-cap vamp that is
    able to regularly change the votes of IC members. How could he do that?

    Yours,
    Ector
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector, I know that it really must irk you to have to tweak your
    strategy, but it is all what V:TES is about. There are lots of solid
    deck ideas around, but none win every time. Other than luck, Jyhad is a
    game where small changes (in strategy, card ratios, etc.) can make a
    big difference.

    Check out the tournament reports - it is not unfrequent that decks such
    as yours (I'm currently using a vote/Obf deck myself, with limited
    success due to the abundance of combat decks in my metagame) have to
    change gears - "wow, my votes are not working because of Demonstration,
    Telepathic Vote Counting, lots of delaying tactics, lots of poison
    pill, Michael Luther or plainly lots of votes in the table. Big vamps
    should be versatile or you lose your investment: Arika can easily
    stealth bleed for three every turn! Add freak drives, blood gain,
    minion taps, etc. Use her to steal allies. Use her to steal locations.
    She can do lots of things! Not being able to push votes rampantly
    should NOT render a big cap vampire useless.

    Metagame is very important. You might have had the "top" deck in your
    group, but it is hard to stay that way. Even moreso without constant
    adjusting. One of my friends used to terrorize the table with a
    Tzimisce deck (it is really hard to PTO something with +7 intercept).
    He wasn't happy when another guy got sick of having his princes
    torporized and played a weenie potence deck. How fair is it to have
    Lambach torporized by Hector Sosa using Burning Wrath?

    I believe this is why this game has lived for so long - it is hard to
    design a deck that wins every time, since just clumping together a
    bunch of rares won't get you very far.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1108336106.913489.315360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily call
    >him broken:

    A word of advice. Given how people have reacted to your other
    protestations of doom, gloom and how things are, when you are tempted to
    post "<X> is broken", I would suggest writing a post which is, instead,
    called "I'm having trouble with <X>. Any help?" And then write an
    appropriate post for that title.

    Asking for, and critically engaging with, assistance is likely to get
    you far more respect and useful responses. Then, if you find that there
    is no useful advice, move on to issues of overpowered or broken.


    >Capacity: 4
    >Discipline: aus pre
    >Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
    >of a Camarilla vampire to votes of your choice. When Michael enters
    >combat, you may draw 1 card. Discard down to your hand size afterward.
    >
    >A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
    >two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    >Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    >untapped.

    Why weren't you including other sources of vote in your deck? Vote
    cancellation isn't unheard of. Other people also voting isn't unheard
    of. With a Vox Senis on a table, say, that and the odd political card
    is enough to cramp your style early on. Having other methods of vote
    push is useful++.

    Even then, if you have two vote cards in your hand, which is he going to
    act on? Call a Consanguineous Boon. Is he going to stop that, or wait
    for the damage vote he thinks you're holding? But wait, with that Con
    Boon and a Voter Captivation, you could get 5 pool (say). Does he want
    to stop that? Then on the damage vote you play the Voter Captivation
    and get a couple of pool or two and do him three damage.


    >Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
    >I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can use
    >his ability even in torpor!

    Erm, with 8 votes, you're probably going to survive a Blood Hunt. So
    you get him into torpor and then diablerise him.

    Additionally, playing a voting deck doesn't mean you *only* have to
    include votes! It's perfectly acceptable, indeed sensible, to include
    (say) pool gain which you use for a Sub Machine Gun, or capitalise on
    your buffer of pool with a tasty ally, or whatever. If there's one
    thing a Camarilla vote deck should be able to do well, it's gain pool.
    Not only have you got good Presence, you've got good mono-clan options
    (should you choose) for Consanguineous Boon and, with two Princes, you
    have one of the best cards in the game - Parity Shift.

    If the options above don't appeal for spending your pool, what clan are
    you playing? Ventrue? Well then, let's drag out a Hostile Takeover.
    You can afford the pool - you're *planning* for it. How much pool are
    they willing to spend to keep him? You should be either able to extort
    pool or steal him. A good result both ways.

    Not playing Ventrue? What are your Justicar options like? Temptation
    of Greater Power. This is not the game destroying card it once was,
    culling soul of vampires everywhere. But if you have the opportunity to
    include it in a deck with pool gain, it's a significantly strong card.


    Don't like the above? 5 of the Inner Circle have Presence. Leandro,
    Alexandra, Gwendolyn and Arika have PRE, Harrod has pre. The others are
    Nosferatu (Harrod) and Tremere (Etrius). Yes, you could be including
    either of them in an unconventional vote-y deck. But you have 5 options
    with PRE/pre. And your other vampires may well have Presence too. Want
    a good card? Mind Numb. Tap them now AND next turn.

    Want another option? Even if you don't have Presence? That old Jyhad
    stalwart, Misdirection. Tap 1 vampire, 1 pool. And you can generate
    the pool. Hell, just play Bribes. You don't even have to win the vote,
    you get a pool!


    Are these specific defences against a single vampire? No. Vote push,
    pool gain and/or secondary threads to your deck (allies, equipment,
    theft of vampires, whatever) are generally useful. Methods of tapping
    vampires are generally useful. Want to get a bleed through? Tap the
    vampire first. Worried about Delaying Tactics? Tap the vampire first.
    At least that way they waste a Wake too (if they have one).


    A vote deck has the potential for *huge* amounts of pool, if it's
    trying. You should be strong at manipulating other people's resources,
    and your own.

    The vote deck, of course, has the option of Banishment. Not so great on
    a small vampire, but if you could (as you suggested) get him in torpor,
    he was losing blood. You call a vote and send him to torpor. Do I
    bring him back out? That's another pool, or two, or three. Sure, you
    probably wouldn't include it just for him - which is good - but if the
    opportunity comes up, it's worth considering. And if you're playing an
    Inner Circle vote deck, Banishment is always on your "consider" list.
    You're playing big vampires and have lots of votes. These things work
    *well*.


    >If this isn't enough to call him broken, let's check his point cost.
    >Normal 4-cap vampire should have 3 points... so, BOTH his abilities
    >cost just ONE point? It's too generous for a small vampire.

    "Tap to" for any ability is a big cost. He can't act. If his
    Methuselah is calling votes, he's paying four pool to cancel your votes,
    and not acting with it. A good use of pool? Well, maybe.
    Questionable. Why not just include some free vote push instead? Sure,
    it might work out well this way, but...

    Is he using him to cancel your votes? Well, for a start, he doesn't
    know if you're going to be playing a vote deck, or with Camarilla
    vampires. That's a risk. Sure, he gets an okay vampire at the end of
    it, but for 4 pool (if no-one else is playing a vote deck), he's
    probably underpowered.

    Look at Mariel, for instance. In Jyhad, 7s got 7 points (pretty much)
    and Mariel's ability is "tap to". It's a good ability, but it's
    expensive.


    Draw a card on entering combat isn't that great. It's good, but he's
    not that great a vampire to use it effectively - if it was on a combat
    monster, say, it would be huge. With aus/pre, you don't generally want
    combat. You probably want cel to make offensive combat a realistic
    possibility. So you're either bleeding (and defending) or blocking (and
    defending). Oh look. Blocking taps you. Bleeding taps you.

    The two abilities aren't mutually exclusive - you could be rushed, say -
    but it's hard to use both effectively. Even if you go for PRE, anti-
    S:CE tech is hardly unheard of (especially in your combat heavy
    playgroup, perhaps).

    And if he *is* seriously good, anyone with resource manipulation tactics
    could try and take him out. Banish him, rush him, whatever. Vampires
    with good abilities have a "KILL ME NOW" sign lit above their head.
    Your deck doesn't have any way to manipulate vampires and only plays
    straightforward votes damage votes with a little pool gain and nothing
    else? Too bad. Thankfully, there are other decks that can be done
    better.


    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 14 Feb 2005 14:33:45 -0800, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:

    >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    >> On 13 Feb 2005 22:52:30 -0800, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:
    >> >Thanks for your advice... I just lack the experience needed to play
    >> >voting decks. But I still have just +4 votes, so Michael "steals" 4
    >> >votes from me - isn't it too good for a 4-cap vampire?
    >>
    >> That's why you have to tap him. Don't underestimate that cost - it's
    >4
    >> pool one has to invest in a way to "steal" votes. Sure, its cost can
    >> be retrieved back... But Michael Luther's controller has to prepare
    >to
    >> defend him also.

    >First: not only his cost can be retrieved back, but he also can bleed,
    >hunt, resque from torpor, etc. etc. Even without ANY other Camarilla
    >vampires on the table he's worth at least 3 pool, but he still has 4
    >blood, not 3, and his second ability also worth something.

    As cleverly pointed out before, his second ability is not that useful.
    It would be if he was suited for combat, and he isn't. If you're
    thinking of "but I can always be lucky to get him im combat with no
    S:CE in hand and draw one due to his ability"... I guess we have a
    problem. I do not usually count on luck unless I have no better
    choice, like being not able toi ntercept a rush against him.

    And you
    >should bother of defending him only if a Camarilla voting deck would
    >make a deal with a Rush deck, as voting decks generally cannot rush,
    >and Rush decks generally don't play politics, so they would prefer to
    >Rush older vampires.

    Well, that's not my experience. In 90% of the time I've seen Michael
    Luther rushed as soon as his ability is used, if not just after he's
    influenced out. The reasons are simple.
    - He's a perfect target for Fame/Dump/Rescue/Dump again combat decks.
    - His ability is usable during any referendum, so a lot of combat
    decks that use Camarilla vampires with a few votes can be seriously
    harmed by not being able to diablerize because of him. There are a
    multitude of Tremere, Nosferatu, Brujah and even group 1 Gangrel decks
    that can be able to diablerize with impunity given the right
    circumstances, and Michael is far threatening to them - since they
    can't use vote-enhancing modifiers - than he is for vote decks.
    - If he's being used to actively gain votes for his controller, who
    happens to be playing damaging votes, he's way more of a target for a
    rush predator or prey.

    To add to that, evey vampire you really intend to use fully and can
    not actively deal with combat must be defended. Otherwise you're just
    wasting pool with him, or you influence him out just to take a few
    actions, get most or all of his blood back and forget him. I don't
    think Michael applies. There are cheaper, better cannon fodders than
    him if you're not using his special, and if you're using, that's silly
    to not defend him.

    > A Ventrue Headquarters (which costs only 1 pool
    >and
    >> requires specific location-affecting cards to deal with) would be a
    >> better investment if you want votes.
    >Ventrue are considered to be masters of the politics. Ventrue HQ is
    >good, but another voting deck has a chance of stealing it with Disputed
    >Territory. Almost all kind of decks can handle locations, but only Rush
    >decks can "handle" vampires.

    I guess that's why V HQ costs 1 and Michael used as a Master Card
    costs 4. The point is not that if he is easier or worse to get rid of.
    The point is that his cost is a little high if you don't take actions
    with him. Sure, no big deal if one plays him and is capable of good
    poolgain, but still, he's not a powerhouse on his own right, he needs
    a setup to be put to good use. As any other handy tool a vote (or
    anti-vote) deck could use.


    >Needless to say, Camarilla vampires with votes are very popular. If you
    >play Camarilla, you will generally have at least one Prince on the
    >table, and that's enough to use Luther.

    But not enough to actually prevent a god vote deck to pass the votes
    it needs. For him to make that difference, one needs to pack more
    anti-vote tech, or votes of his own.
    Setup is the key.


    >> I don't get it. You would need to do the same if, say, your predator
    >> controls an intercept location (assuming you don't have stealth
    >> available) and a mere 1-cap Caitiff. So what's the difference?
    >OK, I really HAVE stealth. And I can steal the intercept location, but
    >I cannot do anything with Michael Luther except for contesting him.

    I suspected that you should have stealth.
    About dealing with locations, you just can't deal with *all* of them,
    as much as Michael cannot deal with *all* the votes on the table.
    Seems fair to me.
    About dealing with Luther, I don't need to repeat the numerous
    possibilities already listed on this thread, for various types of vote
    decks.


    >> Most decks have to deal with it all the time. "Bait" actions are a
    >> given - for a multitude of reasons. Why vote decks shouldn't need to
    >> prepare for that?
    >Again, it would be fair if I was forced to waste an action of 7-8 cap
    >Prince to tap a vampire of equal capacity (say, Carna). But if I'm
    >forced to "exchange" a large vampire for Michael, this isn't fair.

    On that route, it isn't "fair" if Devin Beasly (5-cap) is able to
    torporize Arika. Devin sure have ways to do that. If you're struck
    that she would need too many cards, consider the poor, "weak" Dre
    against Alexandra. If Alexandra's player is out of maneuvers, Dre can
    torporize her with a IG, a Brass Knuckles on him and a Disarm. Is it
    "fair"?

    Everything needs setup and have its costs. Vicissitude cards costs
    blood. Defending Alexandra should cost more slots than just a few
    Majesties. Dre in the aforementioned scenario needs to waste an action
    to get the Knuckles (note how innefective this strategy is, but can
    handle a bg cap out of luck) and use two cards. Michael has to tap and
    be defended. Seems reasonable to me.


    >> It's just a situation where you should look again at your deck and
    >see
    >> how to adapt it to the Michael Luther possibility - the same a player
    >> would do when upgrading his vote deck to cope with, say, a Tzimisce
    >> wall player regularly showing up, or a sudden increase of rush decks
    >> in a playgroup, or even a Lasombra vote deck using lots of Kindred
    >> Coercions. Michael Luther is not broken, he's just one more factor to
    >> deal with.

    >I have some tools against Tzimisce... PTO is very good against them,
    >especially with Elder Impersonations.

    Don't doubt it, but that means you had to change your deck to cope
    with wall decks, including FL and EI, not to mention some PTOs to get
    rid of these bad, bad Sabbat guys. Again, setup. If you can setup for
    this, you can setup for that; just make a choice. It isn't a "fair"
    game in the sense your good, well-built and usually competitive deck
    won't get crippled whatever you must face. It is a game of strategy
    and cunning, not of "this-can-handle-everything" deckbuilding.
    Michael Luther strikes me as one more vampire that can cripple another
    one's strategy, like Arika can if her prey needs some random location
    to be effective. Even if she's a 11-cap and he's not, it wouldn't do
    any good to design a solid anti-vote tech around a vampire if he
    wasn't small. Who would use if if he was a 10-cap? Or even a 7-cap?

    What I think you're failing to see is that vote decks are not supposed
    to win automatically just because the player amassed 8 votes. I've
    lost many games with more than 12 votes at hand, distributed between
    Barons, Ventrue and Daughters locations, and I bet I've invested less
    pool to get this votes than most Princes/Justicar/ICs decks. Sometimes
    you're prepared, sometimes you're not.


    >Kindred Coercion is harsh, but it
    >requires a large vampire, not just a 4-cap! When I lose a political
    >action to Kindred Coercion, we just "exchange" one card to another. But
    >I really can't do anything with Michael Luther without adding a lot of
    >cards ESPECIALLY against him (Mind Numbs and so on). And these cards
    >would definitely spoil my deck.
    >Ector

    There are plenty of things to do if Michael is out. Bleed, for one.
    Save the votes and wait for the right time to call them. There are a
    lot of decks played who can't deal with a Tzimisce wall predator and
    require immediate discarding of undirected actions and switch to bleed
    mode. I often do this. You'd need to do it often whenever you don't
    get a FL and/or an EI in hand. Why not when Michael is out? I still
    just don't get it.

    It still seems that you built a very dedicated vote deck, kept
    improving it to deal with the opposition it usually faced, and are
    just surprised and annoying to discover there's something new to cope
    with. Welcome to the revolving possibilities of the Jyhad... It always
    happens. Especially to decks highly dependent on one single strategy
    to grab the win.

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

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:00:35 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
    <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:

    >If Alexandra's player is out of maneuvers, Dre can
    >torporize her with a IG, a Brass Knuckles on him and a Disarm. Is it
    >"fair"?

    No, it isn't fair.

    It is clearly cheating.

    When an Immortal Grapple has been played, neither play may use
    equipment for their strike.

    Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm is quite fair.


    Carpe noctem.

    Lasombra

    http://www.TheLasombra.com
    Your best online source for information about V:TES.
    Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
    of booster and starter box displays.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    > > LSJ wrote:
    > >>Before searching for fixes, first show that it is broken.
    > >
    > > Well, I'll try:
    > >
    > > Please look at the situation: in a four-player game I and my
    > > cross-table ally both have an IC member. My predator has a Prince
    and
    > > untapped Michael Luther. Both me and my ally cannot push any
    political
    > > actions while Luther is untapped, though we have 8 votes against
    two.
    > > If at least one IC member votes, Luther would change his votes, so
    he
    > > effectively "steals" our 8 votes.
    >
    > Igo is just as broken, then. In his "dream" set-up scenario, he can
    also
    > have an effect on the outcome of the game. Claws vs. Arika, for
    example.
    > OR simply diablerize Arika as a (D) action after someone else sent
    > her to torpor.
    To make this happen, Igo needs at least two cards: Rush action to
    attack Arika and the Claws. Michael Luther needs no cards at all. And
    someone can block Igo... nobody can "block" Michael Luther. And the
    most important thing: Igo can do this only once, with a good luck,
    while Luther can use his ability each turn. The difference is clear,
    IMHO.

    > In your set-up, though, you still have options:
    >
    > 1) You and your cross-table ally call a referendum each. One passes
    > 5-4 and the other passes 9-0. How is that "cannot push any PAs"?
    Please read my post prior to answering. It wasn't too long... I'm
    really trying not to waste your time. First, in my scenario Toreador
    player had a Prince, so the first action DON'T pass (5-6) unless your
    ally also discard a PA card and you burn an edge. And I wrote "cannot
    push any political
    actions while Luther is untapped". Surely, he works only once per turn,
    but don't you think that "-8 votes" is too good for him?
    And why do you call this a "dream scenario", as though it isn't
    realistic? People still play IC, aren't they? Even if you think about
    Justicars, "-6 votes" is still too good for a 4-cap vampire.

    > 2) You and your ally's IC guys bleed for 3 each. Then Freak. Then
    call
    > referendums as above.
    I really can't understand why are you talking about bleed and Freaks.
    Surely, Muchael doesn't make IC completely useless. But would you pay
    11 pool for a vampire with just +2 bleed and without votes?

    > 3) You burn PA from hand to support your ally as he does for you
    > (6-4 and 10-0, resp.)
    6-6 and 10-2, in my scenario, so you can push your first PA only if you
    have an Edge as well.

    > 4) Banish Michael when he taps. If he never taps, then go on about
    > your usual business of the game as if he weren't there.
    Banish a 4-cap? He would return on the next turn.

    Well, I can understand that issuing an errata is always painful. But
    please, just imagine that you're about to create a NEW vampire and tell
    me, honestly, which one is more balanced and less likely to spoil the
    game?

    Michael No1
    Capacity: 4
    Discipline: aus pre
    Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
    of a Camarilla vampire to votes of your choice.

    or

    Michael No2
    Capacity: 4
    Discipline: aus pre
    Camarilla: You may tap Michael during a referendum to change the votes
    of any Prince or Primogen to votes of your choice.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <BE36919A.1D58A%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
    >John Flournoy wrote:
    >
    >> Except that ONLY the acting minion can play the Bewitching, so 'one of
    >> the vampires that didn't have their vote changed' is not always legal.
    >
    >Well, yeah, that. Unless you are, umm, playing a Daughters vote deck! Who
    >have that "gain votes if you aren't the acting minion" modifier! Take *that*
    >Michael Luther!

    Though your suggestion, given the deck, is perfectly reasonable if you
    just call the crucial votes with your Princes early on in the turn.

    Change the Prince's votes? Screwed, it passes 6-2. 7-2, with the
    political action card. Change the IC? Then Bewitching the Prince.

    And if he's still not tapped ML by the time you run out of princes, do
    something else with the IC if you're still worried.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1108423630.552067.322900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    >Only if having 4 votes would be enough. Don't you agree that "Tap: you
    >have -4 votes for this referendum" ability is too strong for a 4-cap
    >vampire with two disciplines?

    He doesn't say that, though. There's an inherent risk factor in his
    design. He doesn't give -4 votes, he picks a vampire. He doesn't pick
    any vampire, he picks a Camarilla vampire. He doesn't get to pick where
    he sits, or if his ability will be useful.

    Taking the effect he has in your specific situation and generalising
    that to all situations to prove that something is broken is indicative
    of faulty logic. You made bad choices and someone else screwed you
    over. That doesn't mean a card is broken.


    In the right situation, vast swathes of abilities are "broken" in that
    they can give you a huge, huge boost. The key point here is "in the
    right situation". Would a vampire that said "Torporize a vampire every
    turn" be broken? Well, that's what a lot of inherent rush vampires
    really say, in the right situation.


    >I guess I should admit that my current deck isn't a "true voting deck".
    >It's a DOM/OBF stealth-bleed deck with some political actions (usually
    >not more than 10). Generally I have Arika and Gilbert Duane, sometimes
    >accompanied with Greger Anderssen.

    From your earlier post:

    >Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
    >I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can use
    >his ability even in torpor!

    In a DOM/OBF deck, you play Graverobbing. No need to diablerize.

    Oh, or Sacrifical Lamb if you don't think you'll survive the Blood Hunt.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > > A few days ago I was playing my voting deck and had Inner Circle with
    > > two Princes in play (8 votes total). But my predator has Michael
    > > Luther, so I effectively had NO votes while this little bugger was
    > > untapped.
    >
    > Not true. You had 8, reduceable to 0 if his ability were used on your
    > IC. Which is once per turn. After which, you would again have 8 for
    > subsequent votes.
    >
    > You don't mention the rest of the table, nor any card play. If this is
    > the sum total of anti-vote tech at the table (and you can nearly
    > counter every other cardplay with your own, you are a vote deck
    > remember), then you can still pass every vote you call. That PA card
    > is worth 1 vote remember?
    >
    > > Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him,
    >
    > Banishment should be fairly effective. Coupled with might of the
    > camarilla even. Heck, play him in your own deck and contest him
    > already!

    If the guy is giving you problems consistently the obvious answer is to
    include a few copies of him in your own deck. Contesting him would
    certainly stop him and he could be very useful even if your opponents
    doesn't play him - now YOU steal the votes of Leandro (or whomever).

    Alternatively, there is a nifty 6 cap primogen with superior presence....

    Victoria Ash (Toreador Primogen, Capacity 6, Group. 2)
    Disciplines: aus cel dom PRE
    Ability: Victoria can tap a younger ready vampire as a +1 stealth (D) action

    She isn't Arika, but she could go into a Ventrue deck fairly easily. Paid
    for
    by just one Voter Captivation and a Minion Tap. Just a thought.

    Heck Alexandra can be used to tap any toreador. But she might be a bit
    on the expensive side - especially as a potential contested vampire :)

    IMO Michael Luther is below Voter Captivation on the political power curve
    (I am not saying that VC is too powerful - but actually ML is one of the
    things
    keeping VC in check).

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

    In message <1108427042.155952.259700@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
    Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    >Imagine you and your cross-table ally both have IC members - would they
    >vote when the little devil is untapped? Thus, your faction has -8
    >votes. Still not enough to call Michael broken?

    Still not enough.

    Two people playing poorly and not exploiting the numerous ways around
    his ability does not make him broken.

    You appear to think that "broken" means "good" and "I'd have to put in
    effort to do something about this." Aw, shucks. You mean other people
    have the opportunity to cause you trouble and your deck won't work
    exactly as intended? Well! That's just not cricket.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:

    > > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.
    > Surely. But I'm doing my best to defend my point of view.
    > >

    Your 'best' consists largely of "I'm perfectly setup to vote unless
    card X interferes with me, boohoo".

    That does not serve to demonstrate that a card is broken, just that you
    were not prepared to deal with such a situation.


    > Yes, yes, I just made a mistake, but Michael STILL makes me to lose 4
    > votes, which is far too good for a 4-cap vamp.

    IC members still get 4 votes, +2 bleed, access to 'burn any non-cam
    vamp' cards AND quite often decent or incredibly powerful specials on
    top of that for 11 pool, and the fact this one vamp puts a crimp in
    that makes him broken? Give your head a shake!

    Next you'll be saying Fear of Mekhet is broken too.

    > You may notice that I
    > lose at least 4 votes in these configurations: two Princes, one IC,
    or
    > IC + one Prince.

    Intersting that IC vamps keep coming up in your arguments.

    I put to you that you are relying too much on their built in IC titles.
    These guys are prone to Luther's messing about (by design I would say)
    and therefore you are playing right into his hand. With no counter
    prepared, you deserve what you get.

    For petes sake if you can't design around him, go play a Lasombra vote
    deck. He'll never bother you then unless you play Vitel v1 or
    Gingleazwhatzizname.


    > Imagine you and your cross-table ally both have IC members - would
    they
    > vote when the little devil is untapped? Thus, your faction has -8
    > votes. Still not enough to call Michael broken?
    >

    Nope. You'd have as a 'faction' 5-4. Sounds like a passed vote to me.
    Tabletalk, a wonderful thing. Assuming the vote count was closer,
    pass some relatively harmless vote and watch luther squirm. Does he
    mess with this vote and have no response when the other IC votes before
    his untap? C'mon man, think.


    > Banishment would never be effective against a 4-cap vampire that is
    > full most of the time.

    You'er playing IC or at least princes. Banishment will be effective
    everytime versus a 4cap. Might not last long of course, but push
    throught that banishment and who knows what happens in the meantime?

    > Might of the Camarilla? What if his controller
    > has another vampire in his uncontrolled region?

    What if he doesn't? Learn to time your cardplay appropriately.

    > Finally, you suggest to contest him. If I'd be forced to do this,
    would
    > you agree that he is broken?
    >

    No. I'd agree that it is one way of many to deal with such an issue.


    > OK, I really vote once per turn. Do you think that "casual voting"
    > decks should die?

    Casual camarilla IC vote decks forced to adapt and work at getting a
    vote through you mean? lol! Man this just stinks of "I love Arika and
    can't let go of my crutch" Ector.

    Try making an Indy 11cap vote deck work and THEN see how much work it
    is. I've done it.

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

    Ector wrote and wrote and wrote:
    > > Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    > > >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can easily
    > call
    > > >him broken:

    honestly, with all netiquette available to me:

    you are an idiot. only idiot can play with Arika and dare to complain
    about brokenness of other vampires :) but go on, it´s amusing. If you
    plan to stay with the 4-caps, I suggest Jimmy Dunn, Ingrid Russo,
    Gloria Giovanni, Bobby Lemon or Marianna Gilbert :) if you plan to stay
    with the Toreador, babble about Anson, Anneke or Ira Rivers..

    btw, in my opinion the broken king is Piotr Andreikov. fix him,
    pleaaaase!
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:

    > Forgotten Labyrinths,Elder Impersonations and Lost in Crowds generally allow to pass the
    > action.

    To quote you, not if the intercept deck has Bowl of Convergence, which
    absolutely totally screws every deck using stealth. ;)

    Speaking of which, this discussion is Bowl of Convergence all over
    again. As has been pointed out, there are a gazillion ways to get around
    Michael's special or even to get rid of him completely (some, if not
    most of which are also viable for a votey deck). If he's such an
    impossible pain in the ass for you, then your metagame must be even more
    twisted than previously thought possible.

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

    Ector wrote:
    > LSJ wrote:
    >>Before searching for fixes, first show that it is broken.
    >
    > Well, I'll try:
    >
    > Please look at the situation: in a four-player game I and my
    > cross-table ally both have an IC member. My predator has a Prince and
    > untapped Michael Luther. Both me and my ally cannot push any political
    > actions while Luther is untapped, though we have 8 votes against two.
    > If at least one IC member votes, Luther would change his votes, so he
    > effectively "steals" our 8 votes.

    Igo is just as broken, then. In his "dream" set-up scenario, he can also
    have an effect on the outcome of the game. Claws vs. Arika, for example.
    OR simply diablerize Arika as a (D) action after someone else sent
    her to torpor.

    In your set-up, though, you still have options:

    1) You and your cross-table ally call a referendum each. One passes
    5-4 and the other passes 9-0. How is that "cannot push any PAs"?

    2) You and your ally's IC guys bleed for 3 each. Then Freak. Then call
    referendums as above.

    3) You burn PA from hand to support your ally as he does for you
    (6-4 and 10-0, resp.)

    4) Banish Michael when he taps. If he never taps, then go on about
    your usual business of the game as if he weren't there.

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

    Alias wrote:
    > Ector wrote and wrote and wrote:
    > > > Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    > > > >Michael Luther is currently so overpowered that anyone can
    easily
    > > call
    > > > >him broken:
    >
    > honestly, with all netiquette available to me:
    >
    > you are an idiot. only idiot can play with Arika and dare to complain
    > about brokenness of other vampires :) but go on, it´s amusing. If
    you
    > plan to stay with the 4-caps, I suggest Jimmy Dunn, Ingrid Russo,
    > Gloria Giovanni, Bobby Lemon or Marianna Gilbert :) if you plan to
    stay
    > with the Toreador, babble about Anson, Anneke or Ira Rivers..
    >
    > btw, in my opinion the broken king is Piotr Andreikov. fix him,
    > pleaaaase!

    Honestly, with my usual manners:

    I don't know you, but your message clearly shows that you just avoid
    thinking. If you really wish to argue that any vampire is broken, you
    are welcome. Usually, I just ignore messages like yours since they are
    useless.

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

    James Coupe wrote:
    > In message <1108423630.552067.322900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    > >Only if having 4 votes would be enough. Don't you agree that "Tap:
    you
    > >have -4 votes for this referendum" ability is too strong for a 4-cap
    > >vampire with two disciplines?
    >
    > He doesn't say that, though. There's an inherent risk factor in his
    > design. He doesn't give -4 votes, he picks a vampire. He doesn't
    pick
    > any vampire, he picks a Camarilla vampire. He doesn't get to pick
    where
    > he sits, or if his ability will be useful.
    >
    > Taking the effect he has in your specific situation and generalising
    > that to all situations to prove that something is broken is
    indicative
    > of faulty logic. You made bad choices and someone else screwed you
    > over. That doesn't mean a card is broken.
    Michael Luther "steals" at least 4 votes if your predator or prey has
    at least a Prince. Even if your grandpredator has them, the game flow
    may make him your predator, so you'll get a chance to use Martin. Is it
    a "specific situation"? AFAIK, Princes are quite popular.
    And again, even if you won't have a chance to use his ability he's
    still almost worth his 4 pool.

    > In the right situation, vast swathes of abilities are "broken" in
    that
    > they can give you a huge, huge boost. The key point here is "in the
    > right situation". Would a vampire that said "Torporize a vampire
    every
    > turn" be broken? Well, that's what a lot of inherent rush vampires
    > really say, in the right situation.
    Vampires with inherent rush still need some cards to torporize. There
    are no vampires that could Rush and torporize without cards. Michael
    doesn't need anything.
    In any case, most decks need some combat protection anyway, as Rush and
    Intercept-combat are popular for a certain degree. But being forced to
    include cards against Michael Luther?

    > >I guess I should admit that my current deck isn't a "true voting
    deck".
    > >It's a DOM/OBF stealth-bleed deck with some political actions
    (usually
    > >not more than 10). Generally I have Arika and Gilbert Duane,
    sometimes
    > >accompanied with Greger Anderssen.
    >
    > From your earlier post:
    >
    > >Playing a voting deck, I couldn't get rid of him, and even if
    > >I'd manage to torporize him, this wouldn't change much, as he can
    use
    > >his ability even in torpor!
    >
    > In a DOM/OBF deck, you play Graverobbing. No need to diablerize.
    >
    > Oh, or Sacrifical Lamb if you don't think you'll survive the Blood
    Hunt.
    Yes, I have one Graverobbing... can't put more, as my deck rarely
    torporizes. It's much better than Sacrificial Lamb. Unfortunately,
    first I need a Rush deck willing to torporize Michael, and most Rush
    decks here prefer to torporize my vampires instead.

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

    Ector wrote:
    > I guess I should admit that my current deck isn't a "true voting
    deck".
    > It's a DOM/OBF stealth-bleed deck with some political actions
    (usually
    > not more than 10). Generally I have Arika and Gilbert Duane,
    sometimes
    > accompanied with Greger Anderssen.
    > Now imagine that I have all three mentioned vampires, my prey has 3
    > votes (one Priscus), and my predator has one Prince and the dreaded
    > Michael Luther. Now what? I simply cannot push Parity Shift, Reins of
    > Power, Banishment or PTO... anything! I simply have no "extra"
    > political actions to tap Luther, and I have no Bewitching Orations,
    as
    > most vampires have no Presence.

    * Bleed with your DOM/OBF
    * Call a vote (PTO or Banish Priscus)
    * Cast 5 votes in favor (Prince, Prince, Card)
    * Opponents cast 5 votes against (Priscus, Prince)
    * Toss the edge for
    * Michael Luther taps to change a Princes' votes - vote is 4 to 7
    * Cast 4 more in favor - vote is now 8 to 7
    * Chuckle as vote passes, or sigh as vote is tossed against
    * Bleed again.

    > So, I'm forced to discard my political actions... and then my
    predator
    > can use Luther to push HIS political actions.

    "Why can't my non-vote deck pass votes when there's a vote deck at the
    table?"
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The Cadaverous Verger wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    > > Forgotten Labyrinths,Elder Impersonations and Lost in Crowds
    generally allow to pass the
    > > action.
    >
    > To quote you, not if the intercept deck has Bowl of Convergence,
    which
    > absolutely totally screws every deck using stealth. ;)
    Well... it was just an exaggeration :) Later, I said that DOM/OBF decks
    can survive since they have both Elder Impersonation and Seduction.
    Voting decks with Obfuscate can have inherent +1 stealth on their PA
    and can use Forgotten Labyrinths, so they can get past the Bowl.

    > Speaking of which, this discussion is Bowl of Convergence all over
    > again. As has been pointed out, there are a gazillion ways to get
    around
    > Michael's special or even to get rid of him completely (some, if not
    > most of which are also viable for a votey deck). If he's such an
    > impossible pain in the ass for you, then your metagame must be even
    more
    > twisted than previously thought possible.
    A gazillion ways? I must be blind...what ways? Banish him? Helps just
    for one turn... if you MANAGE to Banish him. Tap him? Helps for two
    turns max. The only ways of destroying Michael are convincing a Rush
    deck to kill him or contest him. Both aren't very easy.

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

    tycho_mx@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Ector, I know that it really must irk you to have to tweak your
    > strategy, but it is all what V:TES is about. There are lots of solid
    > deck ideas around, but none win every time. Other than luck, Jyhad is
    a
    > game where small changes (in strategy, card ratios, etc.) can make a
    > big difference.
    I'm constantly tweaking my strategy and sometimes I change it
    completely.

    > Check out the tournament reports - it is not unfrequent that decks
    such
    > as yours (I'm currently using a vote/Obf deck myself, with limited
    > success due to the abundance of combat decks in my metagame) have to
    > change gears - "wow, my votes are not working because of
    Demonstration,
    > Telepathic Vote Counting, lots of delaying tactics, lots of poison
    > pill, Michael Luther or plainly lots of votes in the table. Big vamps
    > should be versatile or you lose your investment: Arika can easily
    > stealth bleed for three every turn! Add freak drives, blood gain,
    > minion taps, etc. Use her to steal allies. Use her to steal
    locations.
    > She can do lots of things! Not being able to push votes rampantly
    > should NOT render a big cap vampire useless.
    Who says it does? Look, I'm not a child. Actually, I'm 33, and I play
    card games for seven years. When a Rush deck torporizes my Arika, I
    don't complain, since I know that this require a whole lot of
    resources, cards and special deck. When someone plays Telepathic Vote
    Counting, this is "fair", since he has to have an untapped vampire with
    superior Auspex (or play Wake), and he loses his card to cancel my PA.
    But when a 4-cap Michael Luther, that requires NO support cards can
    CONSTANTLY spoil my votes, this is too good and unbalanced. I'm not
    complaining about my losses - just want to make the game better.

    > Metagame is very important. You might have had the "top" deck in your
    > group, but it is hard to stay that way. Even moreso without constant
    > adjusting. One of my friends used to terrorize the table with a
    > Tzimisce deck (it is really hard to PTO something with +7 intercept).
    > He wasn't happy when another guy got sick of having his princes
    > torporized and played a weenie potence deck. How fair is it to have
    > Lambach torporized by Hector Sosa using Burning Wrath?
    It's pretty fair. Burning Wrath is a "fear card" that works SOMETIMES.
    If Hector Sosa could, say, remove Lambach's votes for a tap each turn,
    he would be overpowered.

    > I believe this is why this game has lived for so long - it is hard to
    > design a deck that wins every time, since just clumping together a
    > bunch of rares won't get you very far.
    This is really good... and I don't play "a bunch of rares".
    And Michael Luther isn't rare, so I don't understand why you wrote
    this.

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

    > About the vote-changing ability, I guess that has something to do
    with
    > his background (if we're taking that route). I recall Michael
    appeared
    > in some novel. Someone who read it would care to explain? Now I'm
    > curious, myself.

    Predator and Prey: Vampire. His Prince (and no one else in the city)
    knew that he had the power of Aura Sight, so he would give the Prince
    subtle signals when people were lying in testimony. At the end of the
    book he abuses his power to get another vampire destroyed.

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

    Ector wrote:
    When someone plays Telepathic Vote
    > Counting, this is "fair", since he has to have an untapped vampire
    with
    > superior Auspex (or play Wake), and he loses his card to cancel my
    PA.

    Actually, since Telepathic Vote Counting is an action modifier, this is
    "cheating".

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

    Ector wrote:
    >My predator has a Prince and untapped Michael Luther.

    Ok.

    >Both me and my ally cannot push any political actions while Luther is
    untapped, though >we have 8 votes against two.

    Ok. In the worst situation, Luther makes one vote fail one time around
    the table. How is this any different than being in a situation where
    your opponents have almost enough votes to stop you and, like, Ventrue
    HQ in play? One time around the table, one vote fails ('cause then the
    VHQ becomes tapped, just like Luther). In the situation you propose:

    -Your predator has Luther and a Prince.
    -You have an IC member.
    -You cross table pal has an IC member.

    Your predator takes a turn. Leaves Luther untapped. Good.
    You take a turn. Your predator can foil your first vote. At which point
    any other vote you call passes. Then any vote your cross table pal
    calls passes. Or your predator doesn't foil your first vote ('cause he
    wants to defend against his predators KRC's, or whatever), and you call
    whatever you want.

    Look. Sometimes, vote decks can't just pass every vote they call. This
    is called "risk". Voting is a very powerful strategy--it is inherrently
    stealthy, if you do have vote lock, you can do incredibly damaging
    things with impunity. Sometimes, however, you don't have vote lock.
    This could be 'cause your predator has more vvotes than you. Or 'cause
    he has Ventrue HQ in play. Or 'cause he is randomly playing Dread Gaze
    in his deck. Sometimes, this is the case. That is one of the risks of
    playing a vote strategy.

    Luther is good anti-vote tech, but:

    -He only works on Camarilla vamires.
    -He only works one time around the table.
    -He needs to be untapped.
    -He needs to be in play.

    His ability is *highly* conditional. And easily foiled by just killing
    him. Or stealing him (you are a Camarilla vote deck. Play Temptation of
    Greater Power.) Or contesting him (you are a Camarilla vote deck. Why
    aren't you using him too?).

    And in the absolute *worst* situation, he makes one vote fail a turn.
    Which can happen in any number of other ways (already described above).

    >If you don't agree that this is too good for a 4-capacity vampire,
    >please tell me what do you call "broken".

    Not that. The ability is highly conditional (in many games, it will
    have zero effect at all. In many games, it will have a negligible
    effect. Occasionally, it will really pay off). It isn't any more
    powerful than, say, again, Ventrue HQ (which only costs 1 pool). Or, ya
    know, a Delaying Tactics (which often stops *every* vote you call that
    turn, 'cause someone only has KRCs in their hand and the first one id
    DTed).

    Really. It isn't a big deal.

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

    talonz wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    > > > You can easily call any card broken..it doesn't make it so.
    > > Surely. But I'm doing my best to defend my point of view.
    > > >
    >
    > Your 'best' consists largely of "I'm perfectly setup to vote unless
    > card X interferes with me, boohoo".
    >
    > That does not serve to demonstrate that a card is broken, just that
    you
    > were not prepared to deal with such a situation.
    Nobody can prepare to any situation. Anyway, I simply cannot "prepare
    my deck to" Michael Luther except for contesting him.

    > > Yes, yes, I just made a mistake, but Michael STILL makes me to lose
    4
    > > votes, which is far too good for a 4-cap vamp.
    >
    > IC members still get 4 votes, +2 bleed, access to 'burn any non-cam
    > vamp' cards AND quite often decent or incredibly powerful specials on
    > top of that for 11 pool, and the fact this one vamp puts a crimp in
    > that makes him broken? Give your head a shake!
    In other words, you are saying that IC members are overpowered, and
    they really DESERVE to be hosed by Michael? Am I right?

    > Next you'll be saying Fear of Mekhet is broken too.
    Never going to say that. It's an extremely cornercase card that can be
    played against IC and Justicars if they become too powerful.

    > > You may notice that I
    > > lose at least 4 votes in these configurations: two Princes, one IC,
    > or
    > > IC + one Prince.
    >
    > Intersting that IC vamps keep coming up in your arguments.
    > I put to you that you are relying too much on their built in IC
    titles.
    > These guys are prone to Luther's messing about (by design I would
    say)
    > and therefore you are playing right into his hand. With no counter
    > prepared, you deserve what you get.
    You might notice that I suggested to limit Michael with Princes and
    Primogens. I use IC in my examples just to illustrate his brokenness.

    > For petes sake if you can't design around him, go play a Lasombra
    vote
    > deck. He'll never bother you then unless you play Vitel v1 or
    > Gingleazwhatzizname.
    I'm already working in this way. By the way, don't you think that being
    a puppets of 4-cap weenie is a shame for IC and Justicars? I guess that
    if some Sabbat weenie even THOUGHT about manipulating Lasombra or
    Tzimisce elders, they'd destroyed the very memory of him :) Thus,
    Michael Luther spoils the role-playing part of the game as well.

    >
    > > Imagine you and your cross-table ally both have IC members - would
    > they
    > > vote when the little devil is untapped? Thus, your faction has -8
    > > votes. Still not enough to call Michael broken?
    > >
    >
    > Nope. You'd have as a 'faction' 5-4. Sounds like a passed vote to
    me.
    UNLESS they have some votes, too.

    > Tabletalk, a wonderful thing. Assuming the vote count was closer,
    > pass some relatively harmless vote and watch luther squirm. Does he
    > mess with this vote and have no response when the other IC votes
    before
    > his untap? C'mon man, think.
    I always think a lot, thanks. And Martin's controller is also
    thinking... so he can just allow you to play your harmless vote.

    >
    > > Banishment would never be effective against a 4-cap vampire that is
    > > full most of the time.
    >
    > You'er playing IC or at least princes. Banishment will be effective
    > everytime versus a 4cap. Might not last long of course, but push
    > throught that banishment and who knows what happens in the meantime?
    This would be just a desperate action. You will win just one turn (part
    of the turn, as you'll spend one action to play Banishment), so it
    isn't especially effective.

    > > Might of the Camarilla? What if his controller
    > > has another vampire in his uncontrolled region?
    >
    > What if he doesn't? Learn to time your cardplay appropriately.
    Even if he doesn't, you'll have to play both Banishment and Might of
    the Camarilla on the same turn. You may spend a whole game collecting
    them.

    > > Finally, you suggest to contest him. If I'd be forced to do this,
    > would
    > > you agree that he is broken?
    > >
    > No. I'd agree that it is one way of many to deal with such an issue.

    For now, it's the only reliable way. IMHO, if players need to contest a
    unique card, this means that the card is broken.

    >
    > > OK, I really vote once per turn. Do you think that "casual voting"
    > > decks should die?
    >
    > Casual camarilla IC vote decks forced to adapt and work at getting a
    > vote through you mean? lol! Man this just stinks of "I love Arika
    and
    > can't let go of my crutch" Ector.
    Forced to adapt? If you mean "forced to include some Michael Luthers of
    their own", I'd agree, though it would definitely spoil the game.
    And you may safely leave Arika (and myself) alone, as the same problem
    would arise for any player and any Inner Circle member. Just try to
    play any deck with IC against Michael and you will share my feelings.

    > Try making an Indy 11cap vote deck work and THEN see how much work it
    > is. I've done it.
    I'd like to have a look at it, if you don't mind. Making a Sabbat
    voting deck would be much easier... did you built the Indy deck just as
    an exercise?

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

    Ector wrote:
    [lehrbuch]
    > > He can only _change_ the votes...

    > Thanks for your advice... I just lack the experience needed to
    > play voting decks. But I still have just +4 votes, so Michael
    > "steals" 4 votes from me - isn't it too good for a 4-cap
    > vampire?

    Not especially. Of course, he's quite good, but only in the case when
    someone else happens to be playing Camarilla voting vampires. It's just
    one of the (many) risks of concentrating large numbers of votes (or
    anything else) on a single vampire - the votes are vulnerable to being
    screwed with by a single effect. At least Michael Luther's not likely
    to send your Inner Circle member to torpor.

    Anyway, passing by 4 votes is still a referendum that passes. Slightly
    less exciting from a Voter Captivation point of view, maybe, but you can
    still get your 2 pool.

    > > ...finesse the order that you call referendum in...

    > Great! So, I should waste an action and a card JUST to make a 4-cap
    > weenie tapped?

    No. You should spend an action to increase the chances that another
    action is successful, that's not a waste if the second action is
    worthwhile. Calling the "wasted" referendum might also draw out
    intercept and other vote interference effects.

    Also, Michael Luther's controller has to make a decision about whether
    to tap on the first referendum, or not. If he saves Michael
    anticipating a second referendum, then don't call it - bleed or do
    something instead. No actions wasted.

    > What if I cannot [bribe the table]?

    You have the wrong cards in your deck, then. Put in some "Bribes",
    "Consanguineous Boon", "Disputed Territory", "Parity Shift", "Anathema"
    etc. Players can usually be convinced to vote for something else, in
    return for such benefits.

    > After all, I'm playing a deck that should have a lot
    > of votes, and I pay a good price for them. If anyone can pay just 4
    > pool to ruin my game, it's very bad for the game.

    Clearly, your deck can't actually pass referendum when there is a
    trivial amount of opposition. This could well be a issue of deck design
    rather than game design.

    --
    * lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:45:13 -0500, The Lasombra
    <TheLasombra@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:00:35 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
    ><fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
    >
    >>If Alexandra's player is out of maneuvers, Dre can
    >>torporize her with a IG, a Brass Knuckles on him and a Disarm. Is it
    >>"fair"?
    >
    >No, it isn't fair.
    >It is clearly cheating.
    >When an Immortal Grapple has been played, neither play may use
    >equipment for their strike.
    >Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Disarm is quite fair.

    Of course. Please forget about the obvious distraction. I just wanted
    to get a variaton of the old, proven combo that seemed pretty silly to
    illustrate the point that many unusual things can happen.


    >Carpe noctem.
    >Lasombra
    >http://www.TheLasombra.com
    >Your best online source for information about V:TES.
    >Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
    >of booster and starter box displays.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 14 Feb 2005 16:40:52 -0800, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:

    >Look, if I'm forced to contest a 4-cap vampire or include a 6-cap
    >Victoria Ash to tap him, doesn't this itself mean that the vampire is
    >overpowered?
    >To my mind, fledglings like Michael Luther should stay away from
    >politics... don't even mentioning changing the votes of Inner Circle
    >members :)
    >Ector

    There are 5-cap Princes in the game, so 4-caps dealing with politics
    is not quite that strange.

    About the vote-changing ability, I guess that has something to do with
    his background (if we're taking that route). I recall Michael appeared
    in some novel. Someone who read it would care to explain? Now I'm
    curious, myself.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 14 Feb 2005 16:24:02 -0800, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:


    >OK, I really vote once per turn. Do you think that "casual voting"
    >decks should die?

    Not exactly, I guess.

    Just keep in mind that decks that are not focused run that risk. You
    bleed and vote, and sometimes the table is not favorable for you to
    vote, so you start bleeding all along. Or you run into a wall deck,
    you cycle to get PTO and Elder Impersionation to cause trouble and
    start bleeding again. Or your prey has bounce, so you cycle the bleed
    cards to draw votes... and so on. That's why most people play
    "toolboxy" decks, I'm sure.

    Excuse me, but you already said that the deck has an amount of bleed,
    has stealth, block failing ability, PTO... So it has many ways to get
    ousts. Michael Luther shouldn't be a concern.


    Why? I have a lot of good permament votes, I pay a
    >good price for them, then someone pays just 4 pool to cancel at least 4
    >of my votes. That looks like a definition of "brokenness" :)
    >Ector

    No. The definition of brokenness isn't "I payed for X and someone
    payed for X-5 for the same effect". This happens a lot in the game;
    otherwise no one would play Free States Rant Setites, since the
    overall crypt size is way bigger than the old Ventrue Law Firm and
    they don't have a vote location. Or nobody would use Kali's Fang
    because the Tzimisce get the same effect with Femur of Toomler for 1
    less pool. Or nobody would play Lasombra since Power Structure because
    Bastille Opera House has a better variation of the same effect (it
    gives the votes to YOU, not to the vampires) and can still grant you 1
    vote if all your Daughters were torporized. And so on.

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games