Please errate Perfectionnist !

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

It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the
active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a
"succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition,
when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get
you one blood ?

I'd like to see it either Unique, "only one per methuselah" condition,
or maybe "independant vampire" or something such. This way, Capitalist,
Bravo and co will (still marginally) see the light of day.

Well, nothing better than a Blood Doll anyway, but they do combine
nicely with some archetypes... ;)

Orpheus
60 answers Last reply
More about please errate perfectionnist
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > Orpheus wrote:
    >
    > > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is
    worse
    > > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the

    > > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want
    a
    > > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor"
    condition,
    > > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will
    get
    > > you one blood ?
    >
    > Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action
    > still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone?
    >

    That's a good example. I do believe that in order for the other
    Archetypes to be good when compared to Perfectionist would be to play
    them all as trifles. I would make Capitalist an obvious exception -
    it's still worth a full master phase action.

    Is it worth your time actually changing the old archetypes? Probably
    not.

    Dorrinal Blackmantle
    Chronicler of Clan Tremere
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus wrote:
    > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
    > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes...

    FWIW, Perfectionist (3x), Capitalist (4x), Curmudgeon (3x) and Bravo
    (1x)have all made the Tournament Winning Decklist. There may be others,
    but I'm not gonna check 'em all. :) Sociopath was zero though.

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

    jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote:
    > Orpheus wrote:
    > > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is
    worse
    > > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes...
    >
    > FWIW, Perfectionist (3x), Capitalist (4x), Curmudgeon (3x) and Bravo
    > (1x)have all made the Tournament Winning Decklist. There may be
    others,
    > but I'm not gonna check 'em all. :) Sociopath was zero though.
    >
    > Jeff

    I'm not surprised at those numbers a all. Bravo can easily be replaced
    with Perfectionist, and Capitalist and Curmudgeon are still playable
    when compared with Perfectionist.

    Dorrinal Blackmantle
    Curmudgeon of Clan Tremere
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus wrote:

    > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
    > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the
    > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a
    > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition,
    > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get
    > you one blood ?

    Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action
    still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone?

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Dorrinal Blackmantle a écrit :
    > LSJ wrote:
    >
    >>Orpheus wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is
    >
    > worse
    >
    >>>than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the
    >
    >
    >>>active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want
    >
    > a
    >
    >>>"succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor"
    >
    > condition,
    >
    >>>when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will
    >
    > get
    >
    >>>you one blood ?
    >>
    >>Um, because sometimes people play reaction cards and the action
    >>still succeeds? Stealth bleed, anyone?
    >>
    >
    > That's a good example.

    Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still
    it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with
    Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote /
    bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've
    progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found
    that it was better most of the time.

    Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other
    archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all.

    I do believe that in order for the other
    > Archetypes to be good when compared to Perfectionist would be to play
    > them all as trifles.

    Yes, but some already are I think. Maybe making them trifle by default ?
    Mmmm, might be too big.

    I would make Capitalist an obvious exception -
    > it's still worth a full master phase action.

    Yes.

    > Is it worth your time actually changing the old archetypes? Probably
    > not.

    Agreed. So the easiest way is to change just one card.

    Once more, it's not a card you'll see abused in the PTO or Succubus
    sense of the term. But it IS a shame that such a nice concept -
    archetypes - would be sent to oblivion (at least all the old ones) by
    just one card. Like if you had Gird Minions and suddenly came up with
    Blood Dolls...

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

    jeffkuta@pacbell.net a écrit :
    > Orpheus wrote:
    >
    >>It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
    >>than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes...
    >
    >
    > FWIW, Perfectionist (3x), Capitalist (4x), Curmudgeon (3x) and Bravo
    > (1x)have all made the Tournament Winning Decklist. There may be others,
    > but I'm not gonna check 'em all. :) Sociopath was zero though.
    >
    > Jeff

    Thank you for the information.

    As already said : Capitalist is the only active archetype able to
    survive Perfectionnist ; and Curmudgeon is a reacting archetype, so
    concerns a totally different type of decks, and isn't replaceable by Perf.

    As for Bravo, I'd say 2 things : 1) it isn't because a deck with 1 in it
    won anything that it makes the card worth anything and 2) some card may
    be relatively good but still be wallpeperized by just plain goodness.

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

    In message <424db2f5$0$21466$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda
    <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also
    >intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn
    >and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap
    >to the other is something good in my book.

    It also benefits from the fact that rush decks don't typically care
    about whether their action succeeds or not, so people can (and do) block
    them to deny them the maneuver from a Bum's Rush or to block with a
    weenie instead of the big target.

    What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master
    card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for
    combat, so it could get in the way. I don't think that's too big a
    problem. But, might a combat deck think that Taste of Vitae is a better
    card to play a lot of the time? Of course, if you're using agg damage
    or other torporization strikes, that's different.


    What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters
    claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc.
    It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :(


    That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple
    Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the
    use of more than one archetype. Or a flexible card which allowed
    something at inferior, and the fetching/playing of an archetype at
    superior. Dementation strikes me as the obvious place for such a card,
    though a slightly... unusual psychiatrist ally might be fun.

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

    Orpheus wrote:
    > Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still
    > it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with
    > Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote /
    > bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've
    > progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found
    > that it was better most of the time.
    >
    > Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other
    > archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all.

    If no one plays wakes or intercept in your environment, it could well be
    your environment, yes.

    A Wake will thwart Perfectionist.

    Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when
    your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    jeffkuta@pacbell.net a écrit :
    > Orpheus wrote:
    >
    >>It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
    >>than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes...
    >
    >
    > FWIW, Perfectionist (3x), Capitalist (4x), Curmudgeon (3x) and Bravo
    > (1x)have all made the Tournament Winning Decklist. There may be others,
    > but I'm not gonna check 'em all. :) Sociopath was zero though.


    but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also
    intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn
    and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap to
    the other is something good in my book.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:25:50 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > Orpheus wrote:
    >> Capitalist looks like the only serious concurrent, granted. But still
    >> it's not worth it : even a hunt action will give you one+ blood with
    >> Perfectionnist. Enormous with Rutor's Hand !! A Lasombra toolbox vote /
    >> bleed will gain every time. And even in my Kiasyd bleed-only, I've
    >> progressively replaced the Capitalists by Perfectionnists, and found
    >> that it was better most of the time.
    >>
    >> Now, it can be mainly me or my environment ; but as for the other
    >> archetypes, there is no possible comparison at all.
    >
    > If no one plays wakes or intercept in your environment, it could well be
    > your environment, yes.
    >
    > A Wake will thwart Perfectionist.
    >
    > Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when
    > your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon.

    People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    purpose it was included in the deck for.

    --
    Bye,

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

    In message <opsoli8rgco6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
    writes:
    >On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:25:50 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    >wrote:
    >> A Wake will thwart Perfectionist.
    >>
    >> Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when
    >> your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon.
    >
    >People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    > that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    > purpose it was included in the deck for.

    Well, that assumes that you view a denied blood as wasted - thought it
    might typically be super-expensive, yes.

    Also, on bleeds in particular, you may well be bouncing and waking
    anyway. On votes, you may be playing Delaying Tactics or Confusion of
    the Eye. Combat less so, but combat is often played without stealth (or
    much stealth) and so may not be successful. Blocking is far from
    uncommon, and if a player is having to spend resources on making sure
    that that Perfect minion isn't blocked, it may well be a bigger downside
    for them.

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

    Daneel wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:25:50 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > wrote:
    >> If no one plays wakes or intercept in your environment, it could well be
    >> your environment, yes.
    >>
    >> A Wake will thwart Perfectionist.
    >>
    >> Even on tossed by your predator when you're bleeding your prey or when
    >> your Lasombra toolbox calls a Con Boon.
    >
    > People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    > that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    > purpose it was included in the deck for.

    Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's
    actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that
    action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their Perfectionist).

    If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed
    instead, that's certainly your option.

    But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to
    your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away)
    your Wake to stop it, just like anything else.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe a écrit :
    > In message <424db2f5$0$21466$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda
    > <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >
    >>but sociopath is a great card in a fighting deck that can also
    >>intercept. you can gain blood during your turn, during your prey's turn
    >>and during your predator's turn : a free 3 blood swing from one untap
    >>to the other is something good in my book.
    >
    >
    > It also benefits from the fact that rush decks don't typically care
    > about whether their action succeeds or not, so people can (and do) block
    > them to deny them the maneuver from a Bum's Rush or to block with a
    > weenie instead of the big target.

    the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter
    combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way,
    you gain one blood if you bruise him.


    > What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master
    > card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for
    > combat, so it could get in the way.

    Typically, in a Blood brother deck (where i think this card is a marvel)
    gaining blood is very important.

    > I don't think that's too big a
    > problem. But, might a combat deck think that Taste of Vitae is a better
    > card to play a lot of the time? Of course, if you're using agg damage
    > or other torporization strikes, that's different.

    in the endgame, you have a lot of opposing vampire with one or zero
    blood on them: First, they get exhausted from playing card. Second,
    opposing methuselah see you are playing a combat deck, so they minion
    tap their minion very low just so you cannot gain blood via Tastes (this
    happen very often) and they have plenty of pool available. The standard
    strategy is leaving just one or two blood on a fattie, so he can play
    majesty twice if you're lucky enough to not face the dreaded grapples.


    > What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters
    > claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc.
    > It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :(

    In a deck that can also intercept, even a simple hunt action from your
    pred, it's still a free blood. Even if the hunting vamp was empty. It's
    in any case better than a hunting ground. Plus it encourages "proactive
    play" ;)


    >
    > That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple
    > Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the
    > use of more than one archetype. Or a flexible card which allowed
    > something at inferior, and the fetching/playing of an archetype at
    > superior. Dementation strikes me as the obvious place for such a card,
    > though a slightly... unusual psychiatrist ally might be fun.

    the "fetch an archetype from your library and place it on a vampire"
    card would be a neat idea indeed :)
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus <orpheus.13@deadfree.fr> wrote:
    > It is not a power card, granted. But its impact on the game is worse
    > than that : it wallpaperises all the other archetypes (at least the
    > active ones, I've never seen the others played) : why will you want a
    > "succesful bleed for a Sabbat vamp", or a "send to torpor" condition,
    > when every action you succeed without a reaction card played will get
    > you one blood ?

    I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated.
    The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some
    wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which
    strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot"
    has an heavy cost.

    Cards that go against deck diversity should be as few as possible.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Herve wrote:

    > I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated.
    > The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some
    > wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which
    > strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot"
    > has an heavy cost.

    As mentioned elsewhere, yeah, it *can* go in most decks, but it tends not
    to. As it takes up a master slot, and while it is certainly handy, so are a
    lot of other master cards. And yeah, it is likely that Perfectionist is far
    and away the best Archetype, and arguably it makes most of the other
    Archetypes kind of wallpapery (although Capitalist and Sociopath are
    reasonably useful), I don't think this is 'cause Perfectionist is too good,
    but that the other ones are all kinda weak. Which is reasonable, as they
    were a new idea when printed, and the designers seemed to err on the side of
    caution. So this leaves us with Perfectionist, which is pretty good, and a
    bunch of other Archetypes, which are kind of weak.

    As there seems to be a concerted effort to avoid upgrading weak cards
    historically (other than by printing new versions that are just better--see
    Chainsaw/Gas Powered Chainsaw; the only card I can think of that was
    upgraded significantly is Concealed Weapon, which was a reasonable move),
    sadly, the best option is simply to leave the less useful Archetypes alone,
    leave Perfectionist alone, and then print a few more new Archetypes that are
    as useful as Perfectionist.


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

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

    > I quite agree that Perfectionnist should be errated.
    > The main reason is that it fits in most decks, but maybe some
    > wall decks that react more than they act, and some decks which
    > strategy relies on a lot of masters and in which the "master slot"
    > has an heavy cost.
    >
    > Cards that go against deck diversity should be as few as possible.

    While I agree that it could go in most decks, I notice that it ends up not
    going into most decks. Master slots are of prime importance in a deck, and
    for almost every deck archetype there is a requisite number of masters,
    with very little room for diversity in the first place. More often than no
    my perfectionist gets cut.

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

    On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    >> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    >> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    >> purpose it was included in the deck for.
    >
    > Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's
    > actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that
    > action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their
    > Perfectionist).

    Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck
    ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;)

    > If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed
    > instead, that's certainly your option.
    >
    > But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to
    > your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away)
    > your Wake to stop it, just like anything else.

    Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal
    deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday.
    Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds
    or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for
    impact. X-)

    --
    Bye,

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

    Daneel wrote:
    > On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    >>> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    >>> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    >>> purpose it was included in the deck for.
    >>
    >> Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's
    >> actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that
    >> action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their
    >> Perfectionist).
    >
    > Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck
    > ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;)

    Please show me where that was suggested.

    Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
    Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.

    It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
    it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
    them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
    (that is, do nothing).


    >> If you want to throw away the defensive resource to block a bleed
    >> instead, that's certainly your option.
    >>
    >> But if you feel that the Perfectionist blood gain is an obstacle to
    >> your deck's strategy, you might be advised to use (not throw away)
    >> your Wake to stop it, just like anything else.
    >
    >
    > Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal
    > deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday.
    > Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds
    > or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for
    > impact. X-)

    Try reading what it written instead of inventing straw men to
    knock down.

    Build the deck. Then, in play, when faced with actual decks,
    use what is in your deck to your advantage.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:
    > That makes me wonder, though. I wonder what a Malkavian Multiple
    > Personality Disorder/Dementation card would be like which allowed the
    > use of more than one archetype.

    Dissociative Personality
    Master: archetype. Put this card on a Malkavian you control. If this
    Malkavian successfully takes an action that does not change the pool
    total of any Methuselah or the blood total of any vampire, this
    Malkavian gains one blood. This card does not count against this
    Malkavian's limit of 1 archetype.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:

    > Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck
    > ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;)

    It doesn't need to be included as, like, specific anti-Perfectionist tech.
    'Cause that is kind of silly. But you likely have Wakes anyway. Your
    predator, with a Perfectionist, is taking an action. You could Wake and try
    and block--maybe you block, maybe you just foil the Perfectionist. Either
    case is reasonable. Yes, Perfectionist tends to be much better in decks with
    lots and lots of little minions that take lots of actions, so you are
    unlikely to try and Wake and block to stop that Perfectionist hunt, 'cause
    you don't want to be overwhelmed by bleeds later in the turn. But that means
    that Perfectionist is really good in a much smaller number of decks than
    "every deck in the game".

    > Crack pipe. Disengage use. Defences not being included in normal
    > deck to prevent 1 blood being gained from Perfectionist. Mayday.
    > Solid argument error. Repeat. Wakes included to Deflect bleeds
    > or to Delay the votes. Not to thwart Perfectionist. Brace for
    > impact. X-)

    The weakness of Perfectionist is that it doesn't work if someone plays a
    reaction card. Lots of decks use reaction cards (Wake being the the most
    common and most obvious). It really isn't that unlikely that Perfectionist
    will be foiled on a given action.


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

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

    In message <424ed7f3$0$22839$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda
    <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >James Coupe a écrit :

    >the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter
    >combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way,
    >you gain one blood if you bruise him.

    I think what Bravo is intended for is decks which rush with inherent
    stealth that want to play other Masters too. That brings it down to
    four major options:

    - Haven Uncovered
    - Contracts
    - Archon/Templar vote-and-rushes
    - Nose of the Hound

    Now, Haven Uncovered is not usually the focus of a deck. It's good, but
    the uber-weenie rush decks of old typically only included 4. The number
    is usually low, anyway. This has the knock on effect that Bravo would
    be harder to use.

    Nose of the Hound is good, but at aus and spi you need a tapped minion.
    Only when you get to SPI can it be used against any minion, which is
    certainly costly as there are only three minions in the game with SPI.
    So Nose of the Hound is one of those cards I tend to think of as being a
    good and strong backup rush, but you want some other cards too.

    Vote-and-rush is an extremely good and strong archetype, but very
    difficult to play. It already has careful card flow issues, so
    *another* card is awkward. Still, I'd consider tossing a couple in for
    kicks.


    Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You
    have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if
    you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like.
    Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue. A
    Contract-Rush-Fame(-rescue-Rush-repeat) deck could be interesting with
    it. And then you're not competing for master slots with the Fame, due
    to it being Triflicious, but still getting some blood back for the
    rescues, if you need it (i.e. they don't have the blood to use).


    Now, the problem with all of this is that the decks using them are
    harder to do well with to start with. :(


    >> What's difficult is that I don't know if the fact that it's a Master
    >> card works so well. Typically, you want a reasonable cycle of cards for
    >> combat, so it could get in the way.
    >
    >Typically, in a Blood brother deck (where i think this card is a
    >marvel) gaining blood is very important.

    Oh, I think that Sociopath can be potentially very good. But it's a
    more corner-case good. Meaning that it's probably much better than
    Perfectionist when in the right deck, but it's just that those decks are
    fewer.


    >> What I think is a bigger problem is that you often have other masters
    >> claiming space - intercept locations, Haven Uncovered, pool gain etc.
    >> It'd generally be better as a trifle, which Sociopath isn't. :(
    >
    >In a deck that can also intercept, even a simple hunt action from your
    >pred, it's still a free blood. Even if the hunting vamp was empty. It's
    >in any case better than a hunting ground. Plus it encourages "proactive
    >play" ;)

    Oh, obviously, it can combo in fun ways like that. It's just that, say,
    an Intercept deck will often have other masters it needs to play. As
    will a lot of other decks. So if you have an intercept location in hand
    and a Sociopath in hand, which do you want to play first? And there'll
    be quite a few similar issues too, depending on what other masters you
    have.

    It's far from a bad card. It's just that, as a master, it's competing
    with quite a few really strong cards.

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

    > The weakness of Perfectionist is that it doesn't work if someone plays a
    > reaction card. Lots of decks use reaction cards (Wake being the the most
    > common and most obvious). It really isn't that unlikely that Perfectionist
    > will be foiled on a given action.

    The problem is that all of the other "active" archetypes have almost the
    same foils. Bravo requires the rush action to be successful (and let's
    face it, a wake will often foil that too) and the combat to be
    successful. Capitalist requires the bleed be successful AND that it be
    successful against the original target (and if any reaction cards get
    played they're either going to be intercept or bounce or reduction,
    which may cause the capitalist effect to fail with a pretty high
    frequency). Loner requires that the action be successful. Guru
    requires the action be succesful and then the referendum be successful
    (reaction cards being intercept or vote screw, both of which may cause
    either to fail).

    While Perfectionist does open itself up to the "random wake" failure,
    that's generally not a sustainable thing for the table to keep up. And
    it works on /every/ action AND it doesn't have a sect requirement. I
    think those factors put it over every other action-based archetype by a
    huge margin (possible exception being capitalist in an all-sabbat
    sneak/bleed deck in a low-ish rush metagame where you won't need to be
    hunting or rescuing as much).

    All that said, I think it's more a testament to the fact that
    Perfectionist is a phenomenal card and it's the other archetypes that
    are just underpowered. I think it's the closest we're going to come to
    Blood Doll in terms of universally useable common master cards for a
    long time.

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

    Snapcase wrote:

    > The problem is that all of the other "active" archetypes have almost the
    > same foils. Bravo requires the rush action to be successful (and let's
    > face it, a wake will often foil that too) and the combat to be
    > successful. Capitalist requires the bleed be successful AND that it be
    > successful against the original target (and if any reaction cards get
    > played they're either going to be intercept or bounce or reduction,
    > which may cause the capitalist effect to fail with a pretty high
    > frequency). Loner requires that the action be successful. Guru
    > requires the action be succesful and then the referendum be successful
    > (reaction cards being intercept or vote screw, both of which may cause
    > either to fail).

    Yes. I think it is clear that Perfectionist is the best Archtype out there.
    This doesn't mean that Perfectionist is overpowered, 'cause it isn't. It
    means that the other Archetypes are kinda weak, which they are. But as there
    is a long standing strive to not errata cards that are too weak to make them
    more powerful, it is likely that the rest of the less useful Archetypes will
    remain less useful.

    > All that said, I think it's more a testament to the fact that
    > Perfectionist is a phenomenal card and it's the other archetypes that
    > are just underpowered. I think it's the closest we're going to come to
    > Blood Doll in terms of universally useable common master cards for a
    > long time.

    Sure. But I don't think it is actually that universally useful. I mean,
    like, it is handy and all, but so are lots of other master cards.


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

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

    In message <1112538552.245227.195410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Emmit Svenson <emmitsvenson@hotmail.com> writes:
    >Dissociative Personality
    >Master: archetype. Put this card on a Malkavian you control. If this
    >Malkavian successfully takes an action that does not change the pool
    >total of any Methuselah or the blood total of any vampire, this
    >Malkavian gains one blood. This card does not count against this
    >Malkavian's limit of 1 archetype.

    I'd prefer something along the lines of "Put this card on a vampire with
    Dementation you control..." Or "Put this card on a ready Malkavian or
    Malkavian Antitribu you control." Possibly either. Also, unless there
    are cards to manipulate archetypes in some fashion, this one doesn't
    actually *need* to be an archetype.


    What I was thinking of was along the lines of below. This has three
    different ideas - any two would possibly be cool. :)

    <Some cool name about psychic surgery, introspection, personalities or
    something>
    +1 stealth action
    1 blood
    [dem] Search your library for a master: archetype card; reveal it to all
    players and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library and discard
    down to your hand size.
    [aus dem] As [dem], but put the archetype you draw onto this acting
    vampire instead. Pay the cost, if any. Skip your next master phase.
    [AUS DEM] Put this card on the acting vampire. The vampire with this
    card may have and benefit from two archetype cards, ignoring
    restrictions on any archetype cards to the contrary.


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

    You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
    can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

    Name: Perfectionist
    [Gehenna:C]
    Cardtype: Master
    Master: archetype.
    Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this
    vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are
    played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire
    can have only one archetype.
    Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.

    Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn. So a multiple action
    deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help.
    (I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many
    have)

    It's common, not unique and can be used in any deck (that has the
    space). As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood
    Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least
    you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood
    of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a
    trifle MPA.

    The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one
    where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not
    many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably
    more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions
    people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction
    card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be
    played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will
    not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood.

    I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle,
    as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and
    immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata
    just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is
    common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type
    particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a
    little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in.
    Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the
    opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card
    (which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you
    see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when
    that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator
    does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because
    when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need
    all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for
    this card.

    Useful, definitely.
    Ability to go in any deck, absolutely.
    Overpowered, I don't think so.
    Will see play, yes.
    Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no.
    Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so.
    Needs errataring - not in my opinion.

    p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet
    seen this in.

    Andy
    VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

    The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and
    the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other
    cards less weak).
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel wrote:
    >But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many
    times it was >useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that
    significant.

    I think LSJ's point is, mostly, that much like being used for bouncing
    or intercepting or reacting, if Wake is useful at the time to simply
    foil a Perfectionist, it'll get used for that.

    But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is
    Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is?

    I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes
    most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper.
    But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful.
    The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and
    Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad,
    but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit.

    In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no
    brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates
    blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll
    work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single
    vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions,
    and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions
    a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have,
    like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early,
    it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck,
    where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any
    blood at all off it.

    Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker
    Archetypes, really need to be weakened?

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

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:44:38 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
    scrawled:

    >In message <424ed7f3$0$22839$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda
    ><true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >>James Coupe a écrit :
    >
    >>the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter
    >>combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way,
    >>you gain one blood if you bruise him.
    >
    >I think what Bravo is intended for is decks which rush with inherent
    >stealth that want to play other Masters too. That brings it down to
    >four major options:

    [snip]

    >Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You
    >have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if
    >you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like.
    >Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue.

    erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell....


    salem
    http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 4 Apr 2005 01:01:15 -0700, Slytherin <andyb@operamail.com> wrote:

    > You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
    > can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

    Because it wallpapers almost every other Archetype? Not that it would
    really matter, but that's the point people were trying to make.

    > Name: Perfectionist
    > [Gehenna:C]
    > Cardtype: Master
    > Master: archetype.
    > Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this
    > vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are
    > played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire
    > can have only one archetype.
    > Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.
    >
    > Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn.

    Indeed, quite like the other Archetypes.

    Bravo, Capitalist, Creep Show, Guru, Perfectionist, Rebel, Sociopath,
    Traditionalist: Once per turn. Of course, archetypes not linked to
    acting may theoretically be used in other Methuselahs' turns, but in
    general are that harder to pull off to begin with.

    Conniver, Curmudgeon: You tap the card.

    Loner: During this do that phrasing limits to one use per (your) turn.

    > So a multiple action
    > deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help.
    > (I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many
    > have)

    A multiple action minion will almost certainly gain blood from
    Perfectionist - and he won't really gain more blood from other
    Archetypes. He may actually gain less, as the other active archetypes
    usually require a given action to succeed - like, bleeding your prey
    for 1+. You can only bleed once a turn, so if you take multiple actions,
    you still have just a single chance to get the blood - unlike with
    Perfectionist.

    > It's common,

    That makes it even better, as far as availability is concerned.

    > not unique

    Even more better.

    > and can be used in any deck (that has the space).

    Wow, this seems like a great card... ;)

    > As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood
    > Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least
    > you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood
    > of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a
    > trifle MPA.

    Apples and Oranges, we are comparing, sort of.

    Depending on what actions you take (and how your pool/blood management
    works) I see the following differences (I'm assuming the cards are used
    in decks they really belong to):

    Blood Doll allows you to move 1 blood. Very useful for prudently recaliming
    the blood invested in the vampire, resupplying some blood to a weakened
    (or empty) vampire, or easily managing the size of your pool for effects
    that require you to have a cartain amount of pool.

    Perfectionist is nothing like that. It allows your vampire to have a steady
    flow of blood from the blood bank. Blood Doll only mover blood, but
    Perfectionist can gain you blood. There is even a synergy between Blood
    Doll and Perfectionist, on a certain level, by one generating blood and
    the other allowing you to convert blood to pool.

    The effect of Blood Doll is more remarkable than the effect of
    Perfectionist,
    by the way. But compared to Perfectionist, the other Archetypes look even
    less remarkable for the average deck.

    > The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one
    > where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not
    > many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably
    > more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions
    > people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction
    > card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be
    > played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will
    > not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood.

    Unless he or she is taking another action that turn, and gains the blood
    from that action.

    > I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle,
    > as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and
    > immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata
    > just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is
    > common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type
    > particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a
    > little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in.

    That is all right. People say Perfectionist is overpowered because they
    compare it to the other archetypes. It isn't remotely overpowered in
    itself.

    > Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the
    > opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card
    > (which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you
    > see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when
    > that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator
    > does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because
    > when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need
    > all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for
    > this card.

    I don't agree with the cycling a Wake part. There is a tendency to need
    to cycle spare Wakes late midgame and especially endgame, but the blood
    gained from an early Perfectionist will more than pay for that
    inconvenience. Not to mention that your allies probably won't throw
    Wakes at your actions, your predator will probably have a better use for
    it, given how your grandpredator hasn't acted yet, so it's probably your
    prey who will throw in the Wake - who will, most likely, try to use the
    Wake to defend his pool or minions. Theoretically anything you do will
    in the long run be harmful to your prey, but he will try to play a
    defence portfolio that minimizes the harm you can do to him. Meaning, in
    most cases you do end up with Perfectionist gaining you the blood.

    > Useful, definitely.
    > Ability to go in any deck, absolutely.
    > Overpowered, I don't think so.
    > Will see play, yes.
    > Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no.
    > Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so.
    > Needs errataring - not in my opinion.

    Agreed.

    > p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet
    > seen this in.
    >
    > Andy
    > VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
    >
    > The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and
    > the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other
    > cards less weak).

    Yes, agreed. This debate is more hypothetical. I'm not sure anyone would
    really like to see errata for such a low-impact card as Perfectionist
    when there are other, more powerful cards out there that wallpaper a
    bunch of other cards or break the game. The point is the way I see it
    more about why it is so much better in practice than the other Archetypes,
    and whether this is poor for the diversity of the game.

    --
    Bye,

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

    In message <mlq051tmi1agsogpbjudv0s96gmrtiobpa@4ax.com>, salem
    <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> writes:
    >>Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You
    >>have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if
    >>you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like.
    >>Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue.
    >
    >erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell....

    Hmm. How odd. I'd swear when I was looking at the text for Bravo that
    it said it was a Trifle.

    Gah.

    --
    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?)

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > Daneel wrote:
    >> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    >>>> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
    >>>> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
    >>>> purpose it was included in the deck for.
    >>>
    >>> Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's
    >>> actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that
    >>> action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their
    >>> Perfectionist).
    >>
    >> Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck
    >> ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. ;)
    >
    > Please show me where that was suggested.

    Well, nowhere, really. But it sounded cool, didn't it?

    But if you have, say, 6 Wakes and 6 Telepathic Misdirections in a deck
    as casual bleed defence, you won't, under normal circumstances, throw
    in a Wake just to prevent someone from gaining 1 blood. You'll most
    likely wait for one of the Misdirections and use them in a pair to
    bounce a bleed.

    > Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
    > Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.

    Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
    thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
    that as a purpose. I see blocking, deflecting, reducing, delaying,
    countervoting and making obey as the main purposes of the card. In
    particular decks you may have other purposes - but purposes are
    always related to a general attack form and/or a specific card
    you use in your deck. It is, IMHO, never related to a specific card
    in another player's deck unless 1) that card can really ruin your
    day (PTO), or 2) you know which deck you'll be facing and prepare
    for it.

    > It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
    > it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
    > them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
    > (that is, do nothing).

    My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
    5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
    my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is
    in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
    acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
    doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
    prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
    blood totals.

    I've played both with and against Perfectionist a number of times,
    and I see the cycling of the occasional reaction card as something
    quite uncommon. It does reduce Perfectionist's usefulness from being
    equal to "This vampire gains a blood each turn", but then the other
    Archetypes usually have restrictions that are far more significant
    hindrances than Perfectionist's weakness.

    > Try reading what it written instead of inventing straw men to
    > knock down.

    Was that a ruling or a clarification? ;)

    > Build the deck. Then, in play, when faced with actual decks,
    > use what is in your deck to your advantage.

    I guess I could only suggest the same thing to you. I'm not sure
    Perfectionist looks strong on paper. I did not really think it was
    significantly stronger than the other archetypes until I tried
    playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
    built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card
    should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
    Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
    Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes
    clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
    the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
    if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie
    of sorts... ;)

    --
    Bye,

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

    Daneel wrote:
    >No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for
    raising
    > the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of
    these,
    > like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but
    you
    > can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
    > discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during
    your
    > turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related

    > bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo
    doing
    > it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).

    Sure. It also seems likely that, if the designers are interested in the
    idea overall, more Archetypes will be printed that are more up to par
    with Perfectionist, and the other ones will simply stay as marginal to
    weak.

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

    In message <1112601597.962346.122150@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
    Slytherin <andyb@operamail.com> writes:
    >You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
    >can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

    You're missing the point.

    It's not that Perfectionist is broken. It's that (for some people) it
    significantly overshadows any of the other archetypes, meaning they
    don't get played much. Hence "fixing" Perfectionist would make the
    others more playable, in some eyes.


    To my mind, if the others aren't worth playing at the moment, it would
    just make all archetypes get played less.

    --
    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?)

    Daneel wrote:
    > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    >> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
    >> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
    >
    > Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
    > thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see

    No.

    No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
    is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.

    Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
    It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
    Flexibility.

    >> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
    >> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
    >> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
    >> (that is, do nothing).
    >
    > My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a

    My experience shows otherwise.

    > 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
    > my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is

    I didn't say allies.

    > in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
    > acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
    > doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
    > prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
    > blood totals.

    "Probably", perhaps.
    But, as I said, the option is there. If Perfectionists blood gain is
    never worth thwarting, then perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness
    are exaggerated.

    > playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
    > built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card

    Sigh.

    Not "just because". But "because it is useful".

    See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
    plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.

    Geez.

    > should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
    > Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
    > Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes
    > clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
    > the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
    > if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie
    > of sorts... ;)
    >


    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
    >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
    >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.

    Don't know. I'll give you an example.

    Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck
    that's already full of Majesties?

    I've made that mistake - they are bad at blocking anyway, why include
    wakes? - more than once. Until I realized that no matter how bad I am
    at blocking, I've been ousted many times one or two turns before I had
    the right setup in hand to place that 8-pool-loss Choir on my prey.

    So I included 4 Wakes. Angela and Gael *can* block bleeds, after all.

    Now I make VPs regularly with the deck. In every single game. Last
    time, I've been able to block Alexandra's bleed for 3 that would oust
    me. Next turn, Tribute to the Master, going to 8 pool. 8-pool Choir on
    my prey, who is ousted. Total 14 pool. Alexandra's bleeds won't be a
    big of a problem for the next turn.

    No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every
    game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But
    sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical.


    If Wakes
    >> clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
    >> the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
    >> if your hand is clogged on your turn

    Wakes only clog your hand if you have too much of them (duh). That's
    why I don't use more than 6 to 8 Wakes (or Forced Awakenings) in any
    deck, even wall ones. I've been playing with a Giovanni deck that has
    three different block-fails cards specially to twart wall decks;
    that's the only situation where I could imagine myself getting a hand
    full of Wakes.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
    > >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
    > >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.
    >
    > Don't know. I'll give you an example.

    That is Daneel you're quoting, not me.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > Daneel wrote:
    >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    >>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
    >>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
    >>
    >> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
    >> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
    >
    > No.
    >
    > No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
    > is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.
    >
    > Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
    > It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
    > Flexibility.

    I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
    role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
    Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
    even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
    of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).

    >>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
    >>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
    >>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
    >>> (that is, do nothing).
    >>
    >> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
    >
    > My experience shows otherwise.

    I guess our experiences differ, then.

    >> 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
    >> my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is
    >
    > I didn't say allies.

    So? I did. For the purpose of a practical example I depicted a general
    5-player table. You have four adversaries, two of whom are, thanks to
    the dynamics of the game, more interested in you getting weaker (and
    there are two other adversaries, who are conversely less interested
    in you getting weaker, even to the point of generally foregoing an
    opportunity to deny you a blood you'd gain from Perfectionist, for
    example). I was referring to them as "allies", a commonly used but
    admittedly somewhat misleading word.

    >> in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
    >> acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
    >> doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
    >> prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
    >> blood totals.
    >
    > "Probably", perhaps.
    > But, as I said, the option is there.

    Indeed. I wasn't debating the theory, mind you.

    > If Perfectionists blood gain is never worth thwarting, then
    > perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness are exaggerated.

    I would call this an oversimplification. Assuming you observe the
    opportunity cost of playing a Wake just so that someone (likely
    your predator or prey) is denied one blood, of course. If you get
    rid of your Wake to deny that blood, you may be putting yourself
    in a worse position by not allowing you to use that Wake for
    something more crucial, like waking to bounce a bleed.

    I'm not saying blood gain is insignificant and so people will never
    mind throwing a reaction card. I'm saying that in practice
    thwarting the blood gain is often a less effective way to use
    your Wake.

    >> playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
    >> built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card
    >
    > Sigh.
    >
    > Not "just because". But "because it is useful".
    >
    > See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
    > plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.
    >
    > Geez.

    Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
    (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included
    it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That,
    of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
    sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
    (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
    it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.

    Example: I often include Vox Domini in Non-Camarilla decks to thwart a
    PTO. I recall at least once being hit by a Parity Shift while holding
    Vox and not playing it because my predator had an IC member (who, after
    seeing how the Parity got through, called the PTO which I Voxed). Had
    I played Vox on the Parity Shift, I would have been screwed by losing
    my main vampire. This way I could reclaim 3 blood off Blood Dolls, and
    keep playing.

    --
    Bye,

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

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > wrote:
    > > Daneel wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > >>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
    > >>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
    > >>
    > >> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
    > >> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
    > >
    > > No.
    > >
    > > No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
    > > is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.
    > >
    > > Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
    > > It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
    > > Flexibility.
    >
    > I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
    > role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
    > Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
    > even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
    > of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).

    Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card".
    Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention,
    which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up.

    > >>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
    > >>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
    > >>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
    > >>> (that is, do nothing).
    > >>
    > >> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
    > >
    > > My experience shows otherwise.
    >
    > I guess our experiences differ, then.

    Yes.
    And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something
    doesn't exist.

    > > See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
    > > plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.
    > >
    > > Geez.
    >
    > Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
    > (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included
    > it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That,
    > of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
    > sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
    > (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
    > it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.

    Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the Perfectionist
    blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it
    was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the
    Wake in his deck.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:08:44 -0300, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:

    > Don't know. I'll give you an example.
    >
    > Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck
    > that's already full of Majesties?

    Depends. I think the last Daughters deck I was running was somewhat
    toolboxish, and had about 5 Wakes for various reasons.

    But I can imagine a Daughters deck I wouldn't put any Wakes (or
    pure reaction cards) in.

    > No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every
    > game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But
    > sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical.

    I often completely neglect to include whole groups of cards in certain
    decks, which decks, despite the apparent shortcoming, seem to work
    just fine and score a fair share of VPs. A deck might not have any
    Reaction cards, or Combat cards, or Actions, and still be fairly
    competent on the long run. The only thing I never leave out is
    Master cards.

    --
    Bye,

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

    On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:04:03 -0400, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    >> I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
    >> role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
    >> Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
    >> even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
    >> of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).
    >
    > Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card".
    > Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention,
    > which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up.

    Well, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was stuck with the idea that
    we were still talking about the purpose for including a card (and
    not the purpose of the card itself)...

    >> I guess our experiences differ, then.
    >
    > Yes.
    > And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something
    > doesn't exist.

    Yes. I have seen Perfectionist get foiled by a thrown Wake. I did
    that myself (with Wakes, or +1 Intercept cards even when I knew the
    vampire could stealth past me). I had my Perfectionists foiled by
    Wakes being thrown in (even cross-table).

    But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many
    times it was useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that
    significant.

    >> Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
    >> (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've
    >> included
    >> it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards.
    >> That,
    >> of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
    >> sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
    >> (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
    >> it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.
    >
    > Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the
    > Perfectionist
    > blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it
    > was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the
    > Wake in his deck.

    Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
    quite high IMHO.

    --
    Bye,

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

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    > Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
    > quite high IMHO.


    I do not say that it cannot be quite high.

    I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out
    of your hand anyhow).

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
    V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
    Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Daneel wrote:
    >
    > > I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
    > > as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n
    bleed,
    > > etc.) deck types.
    >
    > Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into
    Archetypes
    > didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they
    should
    > be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave
    them
    > behind and move on.

    Bravo: Trifle
    Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction
    Conniver: Trifle
    Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction
    Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction
    Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction
    Loner: Trifle
    Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype"
    Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria
    Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction
    Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction.

    Voila! Fixed Archetypes. ;)

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

    On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:48:19 -0400, "LSJ"
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:

    >"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
    >> >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
    >> >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.
    >>
    >> Don't know. I'll give you an example.
    >
    >That is Daneel you're quoting, not me.

    Oops. Sorry, didn't check.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:32:52 -0400, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    wrote:

    > "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    >> Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
    >> quite high IMHO.
    >
    > I do not say that it cannot be quite high.
    >
    > I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out
    > of your hand anyhow).

    Yes, it can be.

    --
    Bye,

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

    On 4 Apr 2005 07:38:03 -0700, <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

    > But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is
    > Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is?

    No. Perfectionist is at best an "average" card. Maybe a good
    "average", but certainly not a "good". Okay, well, maybe a
    poor "good". ;)

    > I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes
    > most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper.

    Yeah, well, that was my point, basically. Perfectionist is THE archetype,
    with the others being marginalized and are only useful in specific decks.
    There are some decks one other Archetype is about as good as
    Perfectionist,
    but in the majority it's Perfectionist all the way (if you do plan to use
    any of the Archetypes at all).

    > But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful.
    > The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and
    > Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad,
    > but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit.

    Agreed.

    > In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no
    > brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates
    > blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll
    > work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single
    > vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions,
    > and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions
    > a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have,
    > like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early,
    > it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck,
    > where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any
    > blood at all off it.

    Also, Archetypes are unstealable and unburnable through the means a
    Hunring Ground can be stolen or burned. You can Conquest of Humanity
    and still gain blood from your archetypes. Of course, the stuff you
    wrote is still true.

    > Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker
    > Archetypes, really need to be weakened?

    No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for raising
    the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of these,
    like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but you
    can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
    discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during your
    turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related
    bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo doing
    it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).

    --
    Bye,

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

    On 4 Apr 2005 09:23:31 -0700, <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

    > Daneel wrote:
    >> No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for
    > raising
    >> the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of
    > these,
    >> like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but
    > you
    >> can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
    >> discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during
    > your
    >> turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related
    >
    >> bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo
    > doing
    >> it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).
    >
    > Sure. It also seems likely that, if the designers are interested in the
    > idea overall, more Archetypes will be printed that are more up to par
    > with Perfectionist, and the other ones will simply stay as marginal to
    > weak.

    True, that's another option. I'm all for diversity, myself, though -
    having a card around that is quite good from certain perspectives but
    weak from many others is an example of a card that adds to variety.
    I'd rather see the old archetypes get some beefing up through non-
    errata means, if possible, than have a set of new, more powerful
    archetypes.

    I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
    as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed,
    etc.) deck types.

    --
    Bye,

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

    Daneel wrote:

    > I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
    > as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed,
    > etc.) deck types.

    Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into Archetypes
    didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they should
    be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them
    behind and move on.


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

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    |
    | Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into
    Archetypes
    | didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they
    should
    | be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them
    | behind and move on.

    OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
    first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
    stuff in later if it IS underpowered.

    Hey, I got a great idea; instead of pouring a cupful of salt on my
    dinner before tasting it, how about I make this thing called a "shaker",
    where I try a little bit first and then add more later if I need?

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCUbz7tQZlu3o7QpERAh1mAKCHr1IZGI9ucKade5U3RRkQ11YNEgCgh5NS
    2mcj3kxh8rjRmPmAJHNt6Ig=
    =qv3u
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

    > Bravo: Trifle

    Still not that good.

    > Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction

    Capialist is already perfectly solid--it is like, more likely to pay off
    than Perfectionist is in a Kindred Spirits deck.

    > Conniver: Trifle
    > Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction
    > Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction
    > Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction
    > Loner: Trifle

    All still not that good.

    > Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype"
    > Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria
    > Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction

    Much like capitalist, still pretty good in a lot of decks.

    > Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction.

    Again, not that good still.

    > Voila! Fixed Archetypes. ;)

    I mean, like, all of these certainly help the cards, but as mentioned
    before, it is pretty much policy to not upgrade weak cards via errata (with
    a few exceptions), as it isn't really worth the effort. They'd have to
    reprint them eventually anyway, and rather than reprinting a bunch of
    upgraded yet still lame Archetypes, they could just make some new ones that
    are up to par with Perfectionist, and issue a few each in the next bunch of
    sets.


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

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

    Derek Ray wrote:

    > OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
    > first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
    > stuff in later if it IS underpowered.

    Hey, it works for me. I don't so much have a problem with the weak Archtypes
    (well, except that i have so darn many of them...)


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games