PTO errata suggestion

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

Unfortunately, I'm a new player, so I didn't have a chance to
participate in the Great PTO Battles :)
But I did studied the arguments of both sides, and I have played decks
with PTO and against such decks. The accumulated
experience convinced me that the card realy needs to be changed, so I'd
like to suggest a new wording of PTO.

Note that this is just a theoretical suggestion, and personally I don't
need any "help" or "advices" against PTO. Please post ONLY arguments
"pro" and "contra" the suggestion here, or the alternative erratae.
Here is the suggested text, and my arguments for it follow it.

Name: Protect Thine Own
Cardtype: Political Action
Cost: 1 blood
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any justicar or Inner Circle
member at +1 stealth.
Choose a non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting
vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose a non-Camarilla
vampire {WITH A CAPACITY BELOW 9} instead. If this referendum is
successful, burn that vampire.

As you see, the suggested errata just makes non-Camarilla vamps with a
capacity above 8 immune to PTO. The most devastating
effect of PTO is achieved when someone burns a non-Camarilla fatty.
This essentially ousts the controller of the burned
vampire - such vampires are typically played in the "one-man show"
decks, and without the "man" the show cannot go on...
IMHO, the non-Camarilla fatties deserve their place in the VtES world,
but the existence of PTO (in its current form)
virtually prevents them from being popular in tournaments.

Here's the most sound argument: pure statistics. I processed all
tournament-winning decks from The Lasombra's TWD archive with at least
20 participants from 2002 till nowadays and counted number of used
PTOs, Inner Circles and non-Camarilla fatties with capacity 9-11. Here
are the results:

Decks: 129 (I could miscalculate, but roughly so)
PTOs: 18
Inner Circles: 51 (16 Stanislava, 8 Leandro, 18 Arika, 1 Etrius, 4
Alexandra, 4 Harrod)
Non-Cam 9-11s: 88 (3 Genevieve in Stanislava decks, 7 Quentin, 1 Marthe
Dizier, 9 Huitzilopochtli, 4 Khay'tall, 11 Lazverinus, 2 Kyle
Strathcona, 3 Antonio Delgado, 2 Francisco Domingo de Polonia, 3
Spider-Killer, 6 Cailean, 3 Julio Martinez, 2 Nefertiti, 2 Vasantasena,
4 Baron, 2 Zayyat in Stanislava decks, 6 Marconius, 5 Silvia Giovanni,
5 Ambrosio Luis Moncada,
3 Lambach, 1 Stravinsky, 1 Alvaro, 2 Hannibal, 1 Hannibal (adv))

Note that there are 7 Inner Circles and 88 (!) non-Camarilla vampires
with capacity 9-11 in the game. Clearly, most non-Camarilla fatties are
worse than Inner Circles, as 4 votes and +2 bleed are very good, but
there ARE good fatties, too.
Even if we assume that only half of the fatties (44 vampires) are good
enough to win a tournament, the combined number of them in the 129 TWD
decks would be much more than 88. This clearly demonstrates the PTO
influence - many deck ideas just died when their creators realized its
threat. Yes, one can try to defend against PTO, but this usually
requires a special card module, and this weakens the main theme of the
deck.
Note also that just a few of the listed non-Camarilla fatties were used
more than in one TWD. Notable exceptions are Lazverinus (which can
block PTO most of the time), Quentin (which can cancel votes of the
Inner Circle member calling PTO) and Huitzilopochtli (for some reason I
can't understand)

Since the PTO represents an enormous threat to non-Camarilla fatties,
the following situations are quite common:

Enkidu player (EP): My Enkidu rushes Arika (cross-table) to get rid of
the possible PTO.
Arika player (AP): But I'm not going to play PTO on your Enkidu! Why
are you rushing me?
EP: Maybe, you aren't going to play it NOW, but the situation will
change. I cannot risk with PTO! (Torporizes Arika)

Next time:

AP: My Arika plays PTO. No blockers? I want to burn cross-table Enkidu.
EP: WHY Enkidu??? I've got my predator and my prey!
AP: Because Enkidu is a major threat for my Arika, and I need to remove
it.
EP: But I didn't rush Arika in this game! And I'm not going to!
AP: Since you know that I have PTO in my deck, which can burn your
Enkidu, it would be logical to rush Arika... (burns Enkidu)

Note that in both situations nobody can accuse players in violation of
PTW rule - they are really playing to win. The
effect of PTO is simply too powerful in these situations, as burning
Enkidu with all his master cards and retainers will
almost immediately force his controller to lose the game. Limiting the
power of PTO to 8-caps (or less) would minimize
chances of such disasters. Losing a 8-capacity vamp is very painful,
but this doesn't always mean a loss. And non-Camarilla
fatties would finally have a chance to play without wasting slots to
"anti-PTO tech" like Writ of Acceptance, Confusion of the Eye or
Delaying Tactics.

Now I'm going to deal with the old "pro-PTO" arguments, just to avoid
hearing them again:

1). PTO can be blocked; The referendum can be failed; Somebody can play
Direct Intervention; You can play Confusion of the
Eye/Delaying Tactics/Scalpel Tongue, etc. etc.

These arguments add nothing to the theme of the discussion (should PTO
be fixed or not), so they aren't valid at all.

Suppose that we have an obviously broken card:

Name: The Broken Vote
Cardtype: Political Action
Cost: 5 blood
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Inner Circle member at +1
stealth.
If this referendum is successful, your prey is ousted.

The Broken Vote could also be blocked, the referendum could also be
failed, and all anti-PTO cards would work against it. This, however,
doesn't make The Broken Vote "balanced" - it still remains broken.
Burning a 9+ cap vampire with a single political action (PTO) is also
too powerful for a single card, even for a card that require an Inner
Circle member.
Note that most "anti-PTO cards" aren't very flexible, and, in fact,
most of the TWD decks with non-Camarilla fatties had no
such cards at all. To get a reliable defense against a deck with 3 PTO,
you should have at least 10 "anti-PTO cards", which
would generally make your deck much weaker. Thus, the deckbuilders are
trying to block/outvote PTO, or (mostly) just hope not to encounter it.

2). Banning and changing cards should be avoided - if the card exists
now, it should remain unchanged. The card was created
by professional designers, so it's balanced well.

Very weak argument. A lot of bad and ugly things exist now - narcotics,
crime, etc. etc. Does this mean that nobody should
try to fix these things? Surely, having the changed card text,
different from the printed one, may confuse players, especially
novices, but the current text angers much more players, including
seasoned ones :)
Talking about the designers... as you know, everyone makes mistakes,
even the most brilliant people. Many old cards were
already changed or banned, and this made the game better in most cases.

3). PTO makes Justicars and Inner Circle members better and justifies
playing them in tournament decks.

The accumulated statistics invalidates this argument. Most decks with
Inner Circles had only 1-2 PTO without any way to fetch them and it's
simply impossible to believe that these 90-card decks would become much
worse without them. IMHO, these decks use PTOs "just in case of worthy
targets", e.g. large enough non-Camarilla vamps.
Justicars almost never playing PTO anyway, as the effect is much less
versatile than Banishment for them. I've never encountered PTO in a
deck with Justicars and without Inner Circles.
Note that most Inner Circles are much better than most non-Camarilla
fatties even without PTO.

4). PTO isn't very popular, which alone proves that the card isn't
unbalanced.

PTO is better than Banishment only if somebody plays large enough
non-Camarilla vamps (say, 7-cap or more), or plays a lot of
masters/equipment/retainers on a single non-Camarilla vampire. The
existence of PTO, even 1-2 copies in a deck, forces players to avoid
building decks that could become an easy prey of PTO.
That's why PTO isn't very popular, and most decks have no more than 3
copies of it. PTOs can be easily counted, but who can
count number of decks that were never built or never won a tournament
due to the PTO? THIS number would really demonstrate
the power of this card.

The suggested errata wouldn't change popularity of PTO, as there would
still remain enough "casual" targets for 1-2 PTOs in a deck, but it
would enable a lot of different decks based on non-Camarilla fatties.
It would, for instance, eliminate the
abovementioned ugly situations with Arika and Enkidu. And the errata
even looks "natural", as the text already has a capacity limitation for
Justicars - why shouldn't it have a similar limitation for Inner
Circles?

What do you think about it?

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

    Ector wrote:
    > What do you think about it?
    >

    Honest? I think yaaaawn.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

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

    Ector wrote:
    > Unfortunately, I'm a new player, so I didn't have a chance to
    > participate in the Great PTO Battles :)

    And now is not the time to restart them with some random card suggestion.

    > What do you think about it?

    I think your post has no place here.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFDEvhftQZlu3o7QpERAi4+AKDjUUiNNcZ97FOH+dPjATIkoS38FgCfZ9GK
    HdlpZD4ZGs70k6c0EB/AGiI=
    =D3HX
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:
    > What do you think about it?

    I think that after the totally useless rating system discussion (again)
    we don´t need another totally useless PTO discussion (again).

    Let´s move to the other topics.

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

    Ector wrote:

    > Note that this is just a theoretical suggestion, and personally I don't
    > need any "help" or "advices" against PTO. Please post ONLY arguments
    > "pro" and "contra" the suggestion here, or the alternative erratae.

    Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion on
    PTO.

    Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time per
    game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. The precident has already
    been set (with, like, Temptation), it doesn't change the cards use at all,
    but it makes packing your deck with them less attractive. Sure, the one time
    it goes off, it'll still totally hose whoever it hits, but I susepct it'll
    hit less often and it'll be suceptible to card/vote cancelers.

    Like, not the best fix or anything by any strectch of the imagination, but
    simple, follows precident, and will have some effect--I see *far* fewer
    Temptation of Greater Powers than I used to, for instance.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    > > Note that this is just a theoretical suggestion, and personally I don't
    > > need any "help" or "advices" against PTO. Please post ONLY arguments
    > > "pro" and "contra" the suggestion here, or the alternative erratae.
    >
    > Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion on
    > PTO.
    >
    > Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time per
    > game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. The precident has already
    > been set (with, like, Temptation), it doesn't change the cards use at all,
    > but it makes packing your deck with them less attractive. Sure, the one time
    > it goes off, it'll still totally hose whoever it hits, but I susepct it'll
    > hit less often and it'll be suceptible to card/vote cancelers.
    >
    > Like, not the best fix or anything by any strectch of the imagination, but
    > simple, follows precident, and will have some effect--I see *far* fewer
    > Temptation of Greater Powers than I used to, for instance.

    All these suggestions were made in the last long, long PTO discussions,
    if there is nothing new to be said.. why bother saying the same things
    over and over. All it will be is another list of people who want to
    change it, a list of people who dont care, and those who want it the
    same as it is now... with very few people having changed their minds
    and very few people new to the debate.

    I have nothing against a PTO discussion, as long as it has something
    new to add to the subject, not just a reguritation of the last one.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    >
    > Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion on
    > PTO.
    Personally I am happy with any CIVILIZED duscussion, where people are
    really trying to understand arguments of the other people instead of
    insulting them :)

    > Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time per
    > game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. The precident has already
    > been set (with, like, Temptation), it doesn't change the cards use at all,
    > but it makes packing your deck with them less attractive. >
    This would make DI/Louhi's ability an "absolute defense" against PTO,
    which would be good. Almost nobody would play more than one PTO, which
    would also be good.
    Currently I like my errata more, and not just because it's mine :)
    IMHO, "freeing" the non-Cam fatties would add more flavor to the game,
    and playing fatties right is difficult enough even without the need of
    including anti-PTO cards.
    But, obviuosly, your suggestion would make PTO much more balanced than
    the current version.

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

    Anthony Coleman wrote:

    > All these suggestions were made in the last long, long PTO discussions,
    > if there is nothing new to be said.. why bother saying the same things
    > over and over. All it will be is another list of people who want to
    > change it, a list of people who dont care, and those who want it the
    > same as it is now... with very few people having changed their minds
    > and very few people new to the debate.
    >
    > I have nothing against a PTO discussion, as long as it has something
    > new to add to the subject, not just a reguritation of the last one.

    Did anybody already suggested the SAME errata? In case someone did,
    please give me a link, since I was unable to found it myself, and
    you'll have my gratitude. If not, how can you say that there's nothing
    new?
    Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred Most
    Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation: Mute and
    Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to add to the
    subject".

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

    Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
    > > Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred Most
    > > Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation: Mute and
    > > Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to add to the
    > > subject".
    > >
    >
    > Three more reasons why PTO doesn't have to be altered.
    To me, these cards just demonstrate that even the game designers
    realize the need of more powerful defense against cards like PTO or
    Alastor that was available earlier.
    Looks like it's time to start a new thread "How good are new cards
    against PTO" :) I would have started it right now, but a lot of people
    were angry with THIS thread, and I don't wish to be considered a
    spammer.

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

    Daneel wrote:
    > On 28 Aug 2005 23:03:07 -0700, Ector <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:
    >

    > Ban PTO!!
    >
    IMHO, banning cards is much worse than changing them, especially in
    case of the rare cards like PTO.

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

    Ector wrote:
    > Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > >
    > > Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion on
    > > PTO.
    > Personally I am happy with any CIVILIZED duscussion, where people are
    > really trying to understand arguments of the other people instead of
    > insulting them :)
    >
    > > Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time per
    > > game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. The precident has already
    > > been set (with, like, Temptation), it doesn't change the cards use at all,
    > > but it makes packing your deck with them less attractive. >
    > This would make DI/Louhi's ability an "absolute defense" against PTO,
    > which would be good. Almost nobody would play more than one PTO, which
    > would also be good.
    > Currently I like my errata more, and not just because it's mine :)
    > IMHO, "freeing" the non-Cam fatties would add more flavor to the game,
    > and playing fatties right is difficult enough even without the need of
    > including anti-PTO cards.
    > But, obviuosly, your suggestion would make PTO much more balanced than
    > the current version.
    >
    > Yours,
    > Ector

    I think we should blame David Cherryholmes for our PTO woes.

    He had the chance to get it banned for us a couple years back and
    FAILED!!

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

    Anthony Coleman wrote:

    > All these suggestions were made in the last long, long PTO discussions,
    > if there is nothing new to be said.. why bother saying the same things
    > over and over.

    Yes. Yes they were.

    Why bother saying the same things over and over? 'Cause there are new people
    who are clearly interested in the discussion (like the guy who started the
    thread). If *you* aren't interested in the discussion, the thread is clearly
    marked "PTO errata suggestoin". It is easy to avoid. And civil and on topic.
    So where is the problem?


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred Most
    > Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation: Mute and
    > Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to add to the
    > subject".
    >

    Three more reasons why PTO doesn't have to be altered.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 28 Aug 2005 23:03:07 -0700, Ector <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:

    > Please post ONLY arguments
    > "pro" and "contra" the suggestion here, or the alternative erratae.
    > Here is the suggested text, and my arguments for it follow it.

    Ban PTO!!

    --
    Bye,

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

    Anthony Coleman wrote:


    > Yeah, confusion of the eye is a big card against PTO. The fact it
    > requires a disciplin though pretty much takes it out of the equation in
    > an assesment of PTO, IMO. you cant reply to people saying PTO is crazy
    > good with, but confusion of the eye exists so its all okay as its
    > disciplin dependant.. so.. i'd label all those new cards as moot when
    > discussing if PTO is above the power curve and warrenting errata or
    > not.

    Note: I don't care enough about the Sabbat to rattle off a similar
    analysis. And they look OK from where I'm sitting, anyway.

    I've said all I wanted to say about PTO in the past. But as far as not
    letting the thought of it steer you away from playing Indies, I think
    each of the clans has easily-adopted, probably-adopted-regardless
    strategies that make this card not as fearsome as it seems (and feels,
    when it goes off on your head).

    Ravnos: Sense Dep is almost as gross as PTO, and they have incentive to
    play more copies of it than an IC deck has PTO's. If it's a race to the
    *kaboom* effect, the Ravnos should win. And the Ravnos that can't sense
    dep, really couldn't care less if you pop a nerd.

    Setite: they have a long game answer to PTO with minion stealing, mainly
    from Temptation and Form of Corruption. I figure any deck that is
    Corruption based is probably also pretty weenified. Like the Ravnos,
    these guys are intrinsically immunized against the effect. But for the
    midcaps and higher, having an answer for late in the game isn't going to
    do it. Arika will hit her PTO(s) first. But, it's pretty easy to
    include some FSR in a setite deck, and combined with Society of Leopold
    (which you can easily play 4 of, and be serious about this trick), it
    makes kind of a poor man's PTO. And you're set up to run push/cap, and
    you can tap the hell out of them right off the bat, net a profit, and
    who cares if a PTO sneaks through? Oh, and they have access to
    Confusion of the Eye. It's playable vote defense. Decks with obfuscate
    don't have much reason to bitch anymore, even if the effect of PTO is
    still more than any one card should generate.

    Giovanni: nobody's playing big guys, because the dom/nec bleed deck is
    too sweet and their seven caps and lower crypt rocks on toast. You can
    win by speed, and if you lose a couple of guys along the way, oh well.
    If they are playing big Giovanni, it's probably some bruiser deck that
    has a fair shot at winning the race by getting to a rush before Arika
    gets to the PTO, and POT kills her nicely. Anyway, all hail DOM,
    ensuring these guys stay playable as hell.

    Assamites: well, they have Confusion. Group 2 Assamites actually don't
    have a lot of OBF, but by the time you get up into the monster vampires
    you want to protect, they mostly have it. Teg is one of the one's who
    doesn't, but he's PTO-proof. Also they have a fair shot at winning the
    race conditions and hitting enough rush to punch through her defenses
    before she can get off one of three PTO's. Of course if it's some nutty
    IC deck with 12 PTO's, any and all of these decks are toast, but I'm
    just assuming a "normal" PTO deck.

    These days I'm more back into "I hate weenies" mode than "I hate PTO"
    mode. For a while there it seemed like the little vermin were fading
    out, or at least down to acceptable levels in the tournament meta. Big
    guys were starting to come out, it looked like it might be thinkable to
    build with some of these new, big, sweet, non-Cam vampires that just
    came out. And then the little mushroom clouds started lighting up the
    landscape pretty regularly. But now? It's back to being swarm central
    out there, and I think that's going to have a much more deforming effect
    on what else gets played right now than PTO.

    It's also worth noting that those Mexican standoff kind of scenarios are
    also pretty fun, assuming you've actually got the stuff to give you a
    shot at Arika/whomever.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    >>> Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred Most
    >>> Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation: Mute and
    >>> Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to add to the
    >>> subject".
    >>>
    >>
    >> Three more reasons why PTO doesn't have to be altered.
    > To me, these cards just demonstrate that even the game designers
    > realize the need of more powerful defense against cards like PTO or
    > Alastor that was available earlier.

    Where by "PTO or Alastor", I think you mean "Parity Shift".
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <etherial@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote:
    >>>> Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred
    >>>> Most Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation:
    >>>> Mute and Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to
    >>>> add to the subject".
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Three more reasons why PTO doesn't have to be altered.
    >> To me, these cards just demonstrate that even the game designers
    >> realize the need of more powerful defense against cards like PTO or
    >> Alastor that was available earlier.
    >
    > Where by "PTO or Alastor", I think you mean "Parity Shift".

    Greg, do you have something against quoting who wrote what you are
    quoting? It makes your posts nearly useless and virtually impossible to
    read with any semblance of attachment to the discussion. Just a thought.
    :)


    Kevin M.
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion on
    > PTO.
    >
    > Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time per
    > game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. ...

    I dont think we need a change to PTO. It is still limited, because it
    can only be played by ICs.

    But if PTO should be changed (i know i have to live with changes and
    banning even if i dont like them), then i dont want a change that is
    still bad for big vampires, but will help small or midcap decks. A Wynn
    deck will still be killed by a 1 time per game PTO.

    So if there really has to be a change, i would prefer Ectors solution
    not the 1 per game limit.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1125348876.635003.102900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    Anthony Coleman <Buntinator@gmail.com> writes:
    >I completely fail to see the point of re-stating things that have
    >previously been said in a not so distant debate, thats all.. sure, if
    >it were likly to be only a 10 post thread then sure its no problem and
    >not worth commenting on, but if it gets to the 20 posts a day, 150+
    >post thread slagging fests that occured last time, they jam the group
    >up with what is IMO pretty close to spam.

    If the problem is people discussing that instead of something else,
    usually 'the group' is quite happy to discuss other things if they turn
    up, even when other contentious threads are going on.

    If it's "jamming it up" in the sense that you don't want to hack through
    the thread on Google, download a news-reader which allows you to kill
    threads, score them as read (but you can glance over it if you want), or
    otherwise ignore them. (There are many freely available options.)

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Greg, do you have something against quoting who wrote what you are
    > quoting?

    Indirectly. I have something against quoting useless text.

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

    "David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
    news:11h72p0gd86fkd5@corp.supernews.com...
    > Anthony Coleman wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Yeah, confusion of the eye is a big card against PTO. The fact it
    >> requires a disciplin though pretty much takes it out of the equation in
    >> an assesment of PTO, IMO. you cant reply to people saying PTO is crazy
    >> good with, but confusion of the eye exists so its all okay as its
    >> disciplin dependant.. so.. i'd label all those new cards as moot when
    >> discussing if PTO is above the power curve and warrenting errata or
    >> not.
    >
    > Note: I don't care enough about the Sabbat to rattle off a similar
    > analysis. And they look OK from where I'm sitting, anyway.
    >
    > I've said all I wanted to say about PTO in the past. But as far as not
    > letting the thought of it steer you away from playing Indies, I think each
    > of the clans has easily-adopted, probably-adopted-regardless strategies
    > that make this card not as fearsome as it seems (and feels, when it goes
    > off on your head).
    >
    > Ravnos: Sense Dep is almost as gross as PTO, and they have incentive to
    > play more copies of it than an IC deck has PTO's. If it's a race to the
    > *kaboom* effect, the Ravnos should win. And the Ravnos that can't sense
    > dep, really couldn't care less if you pop a nerd.
    >
    > Setite: they have a long game answer to PTO with minion stealing, mainly
    > from Temptation and Form of Corruption. I figure any deck that is
    > Corruption based is probably also pretty weenified. Like the Ravnos,
    > these guys are intrinsically immunized against the effect. But for the
    > midcaps and higher, having an answer for late in the game isn't going to
    > do it. Arika will hit her PTO(s) first. But, it's pretty easy to include
    > some FSR in a setite deck, and combined with Society of Leopold (which you
    > can easily play 4 of, and be serious about this trick), it makes kind of a
    > poor man's PTO. And you're set up to run push/cap, and you can tap the
    > hell out of them right off the bat, net a profit, and who cares if a PTO
    > sneaks through? Oh, and they have access to Confusion of the Eye. It's
    > playable vote defense. Decks with obfuscate don't have much reason to
    > bitch anymore, even if the effect of PTO is still more than any one card
    > should generate.
    >
    > Giovanni: nobody's playing big guys, because the dom/nec bleed deck is too
    > sweet and their seven caps and lower crypt rocks on toast. You can win by
    > speed, and if you lose a couple of guys along the way, oh well. If they
    > are playing big Giovanni, it's probably some bruiser deck that has a fair
    > shot at winning the race by getting to a rush before Arika gets to the
    > PTO, and POT kills her nicely. Anyway, all hail DOM, ensuring these guys
    > stay playable as hell.
    >
    > Assamites: well, they have Confusion. Group 2 Assamites actually don't
    > have a lot of OBF, but by the time you get up into the monster vampires
    > you want to protect, they mostly have it. Teg is one of the one's who
    > doesn't, but he's PTO-proof. Also they have a fair shot at winning the
    > race conditions and hitting enough rush to punch through her defenses
    > before she can get off one of three PTO's. Of course if it's some nutty
    > IC deck with 12 PTO's, any and all of these decks are toast, but I'm just
    > assuming a "normal" PTO deck.
    >
    > These days I'm more back into "I hate weenies" mode than "I hate PTO"
    > mode. For a while there it seemed like the little vermin were fading out,
    > or at least down to acceptable levels in the tournament meta. Big guys
    > were starting to come out, it looked like it might be thinkable to build
    > with some of these new, big, sweet, non-Cam vampires that just came out.
    > And then the little mushroom clouds started lighting up the landscape
    > pretty regularly. But now? It's back to being swarm central out there,
    > and I think that's going to have a much more deforming effect on what else
    > gets played right now than PTO.
    >
    you're forgetting 2 things:
    1.it's not because you can defend against something that it isn't broken.
    You could make a deck that could handle old school Return to Innocence
    without a problem, but RTI was still a broken card. Not that I think that
    PTO is the number one card I'd like to see changed.
    2. you forgot to add Fear of Mekhet in your examples :)
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    <x5mofr@gmx.de> wrote in message
    news:1125395556.405722.36930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Peter D Bakija wrote:
    >> Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion
    >> on
    >> PTO.
    >>
    >> Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time
    >> per
    >> game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. ...
    >
    > I dont think we need a change to PTO. It is still limited, because it
    > can only be played by ICs.
    >
    > But if PTO should be changed (i know i have to live with changes and
    > banning even if i dont like them), then i dont want a change that is
    > still bad for big vampires, but will help small or midcap decks. A Wynn
    > deck will still be killed by a 1 time per game PTO.
    >
    Bad example. Wynn is a Camarilla primogen... ;-)

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

    Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <etherial@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote:
    >> Greg, do you have something against quoting who wrote what you are
    >> quoting?
    >
    > Indirectly. I have something against quoting useless text.

    A shame that a good player such as yourself is such a clueless shmuck
    online.

    > -Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

    Kevin M.
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <etherial@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote in message
    news:20050830102855.U82910@sidehack.gweep.net...
    >> Greg, do you have something against quoting who wrote what you are
    >> quoting?
    >
    > Indirectly. I have something against quoting useless text.

    I hardly see how the author of the text you're quoting is useless
    information. Sometimes it may not make a difference but often it's
    important context.

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

    David Zopf wrote:
    > <x5mofr@gmx.de> wrote in message
    > news:1125395556.405722.36930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > >> Contrary to the other nay-sayers, I'm perfectly happy with a discussion
    > >> on
    > >> PTO.
    > >>
    > >> Personally, I'd be totally happy with PTO getting turned into a 1 time
    > >> per
    > >> game kinda card, like Temptation of Greater Power. ...
    > >
    > > I dont think we need a change to PTO. It is still limited, because it
    > > can only be played by ICs.
    > >
    > > But if PTO should be changed (i know i have to live with changes and
    > > banning even if i dont like them), then i dont want a change that is
    > > still bad for big vampires, but will help small or midcap decks. A Wynn
    > > deck will still be killed by a 1 time per game PTO.
    > >
    > Bad example. Wynn is a Camarilla primogen... ;-)
    >
    > DaveZ
    > Atom Weaver
    Just replace him with Xaviar, for instance :)

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

    Jeroen Rombouts wrote:

    > you're forgetting 2 things:
    > 1.it's not because you can defend against something that it isn't broken.

    I never said PTO wasn't broken.

    > 2. you forgot to add Fear of Mekhet in your examples :)

    I was trying to show that there are low opportunity cost options that
    still give you a decent chance against PTO. Fear of Mekhet is one of
    those high opportunity cost, magic bullet sort of solutions. I mean, I
    play Writ of Acceptance in some decks, so I'm not entirely against magic
    bullets. I just think broad strategies that cope well with a number of
    things are to be preferred to those which sometimes just become dead
    slots in your hand.

    --

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

    David Cherryholmes wrote:
    > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >
    > > you're forgetting 2 things:
    > > 1.it's not because you can defend against something that it isn't broken.
    >
    > I never said PTO wasn't broken.
    >

    But I do. If you have plenty of options to defend against a card it may
    be strong (and PTO IS strong, no doubt), but to be broken it has to be
    strong and hard to defend against (at least in my definition).

    Stop whining about strong cards and defend against! Use the
    possibilities(cards) the game gives to you. Use tablemanipulation to
    gang up against PTO-using decks, even if they just appear to use them
    (yeah, dust ICs before they get a chance to play one). There are plenty
    of cards against PTO. Put them in your deck and see what happens. I'm a
    bit surprised that people yell for banning instead think of
    countermeasures. Do they fear that their nice streamlined and focussed
    decks become slower and more difficult to play?

    Many of antiPTO cards are useful in other situations too. Delaying
    tactics, DI, Fear of M., Pentex Subversion, Confusion of the Eye,
    reactions to gain votes (mostly things David mentioned above). I say
    more or less every clan has a possibility to defend against PTO. Combat
    orientated disciplins to hit ICs into torpor, obf, dom + pre for votes
    against, chi for sewing :o) etc. If an IC hits the table all should go
    "uuuh" and discuss what they can do against the threat. I'm convinced
    you will see fewer IC decks on tournaments not long after. Problem
    solved. If this card is a pain in your whatever than it is IMHO better
    to PLAY against it than to beg for help from LSJalmighty.

    There were cards worth for changing or banning, cards that changed the
    gameenvironment greatly and were hard to defend against. I think
    changing 5th Tradition was such a case. And I can understand the
    reasons for banning the seatchanging votes (now). But against cards
    like Succubus Club or PTO you have plenty of options. Use them.

    And: what card is next on the black list after the
    arch-uber-power-sleaze PTO was banned or changed into nothing?

    These are just my views of course, you can have yours. But keep in mind
    that changing cards change the game for all players. People who don't
    have your problem with the card are annoyed of changing it (and in this
    way changing their loved game). I think that is the main reason for the
    emotional aspects in the whole banning discussions. Don't take it
    personally.

    Joscha, fan of Fear of Mekhet.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Jeroen Rombouts wrote:

    > Well, in the in the Setite deck you were talking about, the FoM (damn those
    > identical abreviations) isn't really a magic bullet, IMO. It has good
    > synergy with the rest of the deck. Even if you can't play it in a given
    > game, chances are in almost 1/3 of your games it's gonna be huge.

    I think I see Justicars and IC's in less than 1/3rd of my games, but
    it's still probably not far off as an estimate. Going with 3 SoL's and
    1 FoM wouldn't be bad, either.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joscha wrote:

    > And: what card is next on the black list after the
    > arch-uber-power-sleaze PTO was banned or changed into nothing?

    Nothing. This supposed hall of mirrors is just a fallacious argument
    put forth by huggers of the status quo. PTO is objected to on the
    merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    other card.

    --

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

    Joscha wrote:
    > Stop whining about strong cards and defend against! Use the
    > possibilities(cards) the game gives to you. Use tablemanipulation to
    > gang up against PTO-using decks, even if they just appear to use them
    > (yeah, dust ICs before they get a chance to play one).

    Man, I never took part on any PTO thread before, but this argument is
    one of those that makes me shiver and think that PTO really needs to be
    changed.

    If you do have to use table manipulation to gang up on a deck that
    *could* use card X, chances are something is wrong with card X. Not to
    mention that PTO is a card that can ruin other people's game most of
    the time.
    I understand that there are plenty of options to deal with PTO, but
    this argument alone sounds more pro-PTO-errata than anti-.

    But again, if I were to defend PTO to remain as it is, I'd say: to burn
    an opponent in combat, you'll have to build up to that end. Rush cards,
    combat cards, a good flow and right play. And to burn a vampiro with
    PTO? You'll still need to build up with a good measure of cards:
    poolgain module to compensate 11 pool used to bring out an Inner
    Circle, probably something to speed influence, some transient stealth
    most of the time, and probably vote modifiers to make it pass. And you
    don't even have the option to choose *any* vampire to be burned, only
    non-Cam ones.
    The advantages I see on PTO x burning in combat is: PTO is simplier to
    learn and play with, it already has inherent stealth while most rush
    cards haven't, and you can recoup blood/pool somewhat easier than after
    a burning in combat if you're using .
    On the other hand, you can rush with a bunch of smaller minions, use a
    lot of different disciplines to accomplish the burning result, you have
    a lot more options to burn others via combat and you can target anyone
    you feel like.

    Note that does not take into consideration how actually harder it is to
    burn someone via combat in practice, just what targets are available,
    what options exist, how many requirements are there, and how many cards
    one will use most of the time.

    Wouldn't it be better for PTO to turn into a card that any titled
    vampire above capacity X could use to burn a member of a rival sect
    given certain conditions? So Sabbat vampires could burn Cam ones,
    indies could burn both and so on? What bothers me the most is to have a
    given effect available to only one sect, specially when background-wise
    there's no restraint for any sect when it comes to "protect thine own".
    I can imagine clearly a circle of Setites within a hidden temple
    plotting to mark enemy X for destruction due to wrongs commited against
    a member of the clan. Why not?

    best,

    Fabio Sooner
    Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor in absentia
    One-time Devil's Advocate
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
    news:11hcl6jpvrlu845@corp.supernews.com...
    > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 2. you forgot to add Fear of Mekhet in your examples :)
    >
    > I was trying to show that there are low opportunity cost options that
    > still give you a decent chance against PTO. Fear of Mekhet is one of
    > those high opportunity cost, magic bullet sort of solutions. I mean, I
    > play Writ of Acceptance in some decks, so I'm not entirely against magic
    > bullets. I just think broad strategies that cope well with a number of
    > things are to be preferred to those which sometimes just become dead slots
    > in your hand.
    >
    Well, in the in the Setite deck you were talking about, the FoM (damn those
    identical abreviations) isn't really a magic bullet, IMO. It has good
    synergy with the rest of the deck. Even if you can't play it in a given
    game, chances are in almost 1/3 of your games it's gonna be huge.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Joscha" <joscha.duell@gmx.de> wrote in message
    news:1125588246.825317.73370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > David Cherryholmes wrote:
    >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >>
    >> > you're forgetting 2 things:
    >> > 1.it's not because you can defend against something that it isn't
    >> > broken.
    >>
    >> I never said PTO wasn't broken.
    >>
    >
    > But I do. If you have plenty of options to defend against a card it may
    > be strong (and PTO IS strong, no doubt), but to be broken it has to be
    > strong and hard to defend against (at least in my definition).
    >

    Your definition is somewhat flawed. Old-school Return to Innocence could in
    theory be blocked, deflected, etc. and yet it is still obviously broken.
    Your definition doesn't seem to account for that. The reason it was banned
    was because there are some effects which are simply too large in magnitude
    to be anything _but_ broken. I'm not totally convinced that PTO is such a
    card, but I think there is some good evidence which supports that position.

    Also, PTO (unlike RTI) has a variety of suggested possible errata, all of
    which are fairly simple to implement (minimal extra verbiage, etc), which
    can reign in its power to be more in line with similar cards, and without
    drastically altering the cards original intended effect. If a fix is
    warranted, less is more... Drop the line which says "If the acting vampire
    is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire
    instead.", and leave the rest of the card unchanged.

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

    Joscha wrote:

    > But I do. If you have plenty of options to defend against a card it may
    > be strong (and PTO IS strong, no doubt), but to be broken it has to be
    > strong and hard to defend against (at least in my definition).

    See, but just 'cause you can defend against a card sometimes doesn't mean it
    isn't overpowered.

    Return to Innocence, say, was clearly overpowered. Sure--sometimes you could
    block it. Or you could bounce it. Yet it was still too powerful a card (i.e.
    "broken"). So it was removed from play.

    Lots of cards that you could have defended against somehow were determined
    to be too powerful. So they were weakened (Thoughts Betrayed, Temptation of
    Greater Power, Tomb of Ramses, 5th Tradition, etc.) All of these were cards
    that you could somehow, somtimes defend against. But they were still
    overpowered, so they were fixed.

    Whether or not PTO is overpowered is certainly up for debate. But defending
    it by saying "But you can defend against it! Stop whining! Play vote
    defense!" or whatever, is a non argument.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "bluedevil" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
    news:1125593531.797538.325880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Joscha wrote:
    >
    >> And: what card is next on the black list after the
    >> arch-uber-power-sleaze PTO was banned or changed into nothing?
    >
    > Nothing. This supposed hall of mirrors is just a fallacious argument
    > put forth by huggers of the status quo. PTO is objected to on the
    > merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    > other card.
    >
    Oh I have 2 more on my list: DI and Delaying tactics (DI ranks above PTO),
    the cards that take a weenie deck and make it really competitive. But I
    think I posted about those two about a zillion times :-)
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joscha wrote:
    > David Cherryholmes wrote:
    > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    > >
    > > > you're forgetting 2 things:
    > > > 1.it's not because you can defend against something that it isn't broken.
    > >
    > > I never said PTO wasn't broken.
    > >
    >
    > But I do. If you have plenty of options to defend against a card it may
    > be strong (and PTO IS strong, no doubt), but to be broken it has to be
    > strong and hard to defend against (at least in my definition).
    >
    Did you read my initial post? What about The Broken Vote? :)
    The fact that there are some cards to defend against card X doesn't
    mean that the card cannot be overpowered.
    Actually, if we had a defense card of Archon Investigation power (you
    burn my vampire - I burn yours as a response) this may at least be
    "fair". But currently available defense cards are mostly passive.

    DI - great card, but you spend a master phase action and 1 pool just to
    defend against PTO. And you have to keep it in your hand, which
    actually reduces your hand size.
    Delaying Tactics - just provides one-turn break. Again, you have to
    keep it in your hand.
    Confusion of the Eye - best of all, if you have superior Obfuscate and
    you can untap/have a lot of Wakes.

    And, as Fabio Sooner just said, if you play "active defense" like Fear
    of Mekhet, this alone demonstrates that PTO is overpowered. Why should
    you burn that crosstable Inner Circle if there weren't any PTO in the
    game?

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

    "bluedevil" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> wrote
    >
    > Nothing. This supposed hall of mirrors is just a fallacious argument
    > put forth by huggers of the status quo. PTO is objected to on the
    > merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    > other card.

    I'm always surprised by the logical fallacies that pop up when people defend
    PTO. Did this also happen with defenders of RTI? I wasn't a newsgroup
    denizen back then.

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

    Jeroen Rombouts wrote:

    > Oh I have 2 more on my list: DI and Delaying tactics (DI ranks above PTO),
    > the cards that take a weenie deck and make it really competitive. But I
    > think I posted about those two about a zillion times :-)

    Sure, DI is a canker on the game IMO. But it can't go anywhere as long
    as PTO exists. One of the nice things about banning PTO is that you
    could then seriously consider banning DI.

    As far as DT goes, it amuses me to see how much effort goes into
    squishing this or that card, when clearly it's the whole mechanic of
    weenie decks that is itself the problem. And since we clearly aren't
    going to ban every vampire of capacity less than 4, that leaves one of
    two options:

    1) Fix the influence rules.

    2) Release enough Aranthebes-level weenie hosers that they are as risky
    to play as "normal" decks. How many Anson decks have you seen since
    Rastacourer (or however that's spelled) was printed? And how many
    times have you actually seen a Rasta played? Personally, the only one
    I've seen hit the table was played by me. And yet, I'm pretty sure
    just the knowledge that "my whole deck can get nuked by one card (oh,
    the irony!), so I better play something else if I don't feel like
    taking a big risk" has had an impact on the metagame wrt to the
    Anson/Mastercard decks.

    --

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

    bluedevil wrote:
    > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >
    > > Oh I have 2 more on my list: DI and Delaying tactics (DI ranks above PTO),
    > > the cards that take a weenie deck and make it really competitive. But I
    > > think I posted about those two about a zillion times :-)
    >
    > Sure, DI is a canker on the game IMO. But it can't go anywhere as long
    > as PTO exists. One of the nice things about banning PTO is that you
    > could then seriously consider banning DI.
    >
    > As far as DT goes, it amuses me to see how much effort goes into
    > squishing this or that card, when clearly it's the whole mechanic of
    > weenie decks that is itself the problem. And since we clearly aren't
    > going to ban every vampire of capacity less than 4, that leaves one of
    > two options:
    >
    > 1) Fix the influence rules.

    Speaking of this, how did the tournament/games played with the
    Influence+20 go at Gencon?

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

    bluedevil wrote:
    > Joscha wrote:
    >
    > > And: what card is next on the black list after the
    > > arch-uber-power-sleaze PTO was banned or changed into nothing?
    >
    > Nothing. This supposed hall of mirrors is just a fallacious argument
    > put forth by huggers of the status quo. PTO is objected to on the
    > merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    > other card.
    >

    If I'm a hugger then of the use of given resources (old OR new, I'm not
    that conservative) to get around my problems instead of searching
    out-of-game-solutions. If you don't use what you have got don't say
    something is too hard to get over.

    Compare RtI to PTO: You can play RtI with no restrictions. Of course
    the card is better to play with high caps. Options to cancel RtI are
    few, if it is played with OBF and against a deck without any chance to
    bounce. But if you look at PTO I think the differences are obvious and
    you know them: You have to act with an IC (or at least a justicar), the
    card is a pol. action you have to push through intercept AND other
    votes, it only works on non-camarilla (thank god).

    And that is what I meant with my initial "yawn", Ector. We all are
    constantly saying the same things over and over again. You tried to
    calm the discussion by calling for a discussion about changing PTO, not
    the pro and cons of the card itself. But that way you telling all
    players, who want to stop the orgies of banning and changing to hush,
    as it would be already common sense to change the card. And it is not.

    Don't get me wrong. There were cards in the past which had to be
    changed. I'm happy with the new 5th Tradition, 2nd Trad, Anarch Revolt,
    RtI, DU. I don't understand the banning of Succubus Club, the pleas for
    changing PTO, DT and Withdrawing, all of them also are "objected to on
    the merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    other card". And all of them you are able to counter.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:

    >
    > Whether or not PTO is overpowered is certainly up for debate. But defending
    > it by saying "But you can defend against it! Stop whining! Play vote
    > defense!" or whatever, is a non argument.
    >

    And that last sentence is clearly that what I don't get. I'm sorry. But
    I don't want to bore to death the whole world by repeating my arguments
    in eternal loops.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    bluedevil <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> wrote:
    > How many Anson decks have you seen since
    > Rastacourer (or however that's spelled) was printed? And how many
    > times have you actually seen a Rasta played? Personally, the only one
    > I've seen hit the table was played by me. And yet, I'm pretty sure
    > just the knowledge that "my whole deck can get nuked by one card (oh,
    > the irony!), so I better play something else if I don't feel like
    > taking a big risk" has had an impact on the metagame wrt to the
    > Anson/Mastercard decks.

    But since Rasta is essentially never played, then fearing it when
    considering playing your Anson deck is sheer nonsense, right? ;)

    > David Cherryholmes

    Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joscha wrote:

    > And that last sentence is clearly that what I don't get. I'm sorry. But
    > I don't want to bore to death the whole world by repeating my arguments
    > in eternal loops.

    The point is that just 'cause a card can be defended against, it doesn't
    necessarily mean it isn't broken.

    To bring up everyone's favorite old example--would it be ok to print the
    following card:

    Red Hot Iron Arms of Death
    Cost: 1 Blood
    pot: Make a hand strike that does 8 aggrivated damage.
    POT: Make a hand strike that does 12 aggrivated damage. This damage cannot
    be prevented.

    By your argument ("You can defend against it!") this card would be ok--at
    inferior, you can prevent it with fortitude. The superior level you can
    avoid by manuvering to long range. So you clearly can defend against this
    card. Does that make it an ok card to print?

    I'm going to cut to the chase and say "No, no it isn't ok to print that
    card". 'Cause it is clearly overpowered compared to all the other cards in
    the set. Just because you can come up with situations where you can defend
    against it, it doesn't mean the card isn't too powerful.

    Again, one could certainly try and argue that PTO isn't broken, and that it
    doesn't need to be fixed 'cause it isn't broken. But no part of that
    argument includes "but you can defend against it!", as that simply isn't how
    card design works.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "bluedevil" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
    news:1125675167.912110.79580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >
    >> Oh I have 2 more on my list: DI and Delaying tactics (DI ranks above
    >> PTO),
    >> the cards that take a weenie deck and make it really competitive. But I
    >> think I posted about those two about a zillion times :-)
    >
    > Sure, DI is a canker on the game IMO. But it can't go anywhere as long
    > as PTO exists. One of the nice things about banning PTO is that you
    > could then seriously consider banning DI.

    DI has only one reason to remain in the game at this moment: it allows ally
    decks to be played competitevely. DI makes sure that you can defend against
    the ally stealing cards without having to play heaps of intercept. All the
    other uses are either not needed for the game or too game destroying,
    especially playing DI on action mods or reactions. Why dedicate a lot of
    cards to defence if you can destroy a beautifull combo with a DI?

    >
    > As far as DT goes, it amuses me to see how much effort goes into
    > squishing this or that card, when clearly it's the whole mechanic of
    > weenie decks that is itself the problem. And since we clearly aren't
    > going to ban every vampire of capacity less than 4, that leaves one of
    > two options:

    The only fix it needed at the time was not a blood cost but a minimum
    capacity, IMO. just 6-8 copies of this card is too easy of a defence for
    weenie decks against a whole leg of of the voting tripod.

    >
    > 1) Fix the influence rules.

    that's a bit late, imo.

    >
    > 2) Release enough Aranthebes-level weenie hosers that they are as risky
    > to play as "normal" decks.

    same falacy as the one Josha used above, only a bit more subtle. It's not
    because you can defend against it (or rather MUST defend against it that its
    good for the game.

    >How many Anson decks have you seen since
    > Rastacourer (or however that's spelled) was printed? And how many
    > times have you actually seen a Rasta played? Personally, the only one
    > I've seen hit the table was played by me. And yet, I'm pretty sure
    > just the knowledge that "my whole deck can get nuked by one card (oh,
    > the irony!), so I better play something else if I don't feel like
    > taking a big risk" has had an impact on the metagame wrt to the
    > Anson/Mastercard decks.
    >
    what? do you really believe that Rastacourer is the reason Anson masterdecks
    aren't played anymore? I think that at least 2 more changes were more
    important:
    1. the big one: no more Anarch Revolt for the Anson deck (well he can do it
    again after Anarch Secession, but than Anson must take actions instead of
    getting minion tapped and golconda'd)
    2. for the Anson master and vote deck: no more seat changing
    3. the existence of Rastacourere, easily solved by adding dominate masters,
    which are good anyway for superior Obedience.
    4. the existence of Blood Trade.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Wes <ghost@nyetspammnsi.net> wrote:

    > "bluedevil" <david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> wrote
    > >
    > > Nothing. This supposed hall of mirrors is just a fallacious argument
    > > put forth by huggers of the status quo. PTO is objected to on the
    > > merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    > > other card.

    > I'm always surprised by the logical fallacies that pop up when people defend
    > PTO. Did this also happen with defenders of RTI? I wasn't a newsgroup
    > denizen back then.

    My primary "defense" of PTO is personal experience.
    My experience may be wacked, or somehow unusual, but I have seen PTO
    successfully played (not blocked, DI'd, delayed, or voted down) very few
    times. And when it was successfully played, most of the time it didn't
    have an earth-shattering effect on the rest of the game.

    If PTO was banned, errata'd, or fired out of a cannon, I wouldn't care,
    because it isn't a hugely visible card in my universe either way.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <df96gh01jrn@enews1.newsguy.com>, Wes
    <ghost@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes:
    >I'm always surprised by the logical fallacies that pop up when people defend
    >PTO. Did this also happen with defenders of RTI?

    On the banning/massive errata of every major card or significant rules
    alteration, the same sorts of untenable arguments come out, yes.

    Typically, this includes:

    - just cos you don't wanna defend it doesn't mean it's teh b0rked

    - but you could just include <specific counter card or cards which lack
    varied applicability>

    - which card are you going to ban next?

    - the game needs this card to stop it being boring

    - a long list of ridiculous changes to staple-but-simple cards (making
    IR Goggles cost 3 pool, making Dodge! burn the vampire etc.) as
    an example of what the evil LSJ is going to do next for
    "balance"

    - arguments that the game doesn't need to be balanced, or attempt to be

    - that it devalues the cards the poor collectors have spent SO LONG
    collecting

    - that this is based on the WoD, and it happens just like that in there
    so changing/banning this card is wrong

    - that another card game uses the same mechanic, rule or overall system
    and it works just fine for them (e.g. xCL)

    and so on.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Joscha" <joscha.duell@gmx.de> schreef in bericht
    news:1125688259.645941.234580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > bluedevil wrote:
    >> Joscha wrote:

    > Don't get me wrong. There were cards in the past which had to be
    > changed. I'm happy with the new 5th Tradition, 2nd Trad, Anarch Revolt,
    > RtI, DU. I don't understand the banning of Succubus Club, the pleas for
    > changing PTO, DT and Withdrawing, all of them also are "objected to on
    > the merits of its text, not its relative position with respect to some
    > other card". And all of them you are able to counter.
    >
    Joscha,
    I think you just lost all credibility by saying SC wasn't a problem. ;)

    'being able to counter' isn't enough. That turns the game into: in order to
    survive, I have to play 3 SR, 3DI, 4 DT and 8 bounce cards in every deck.
    That's a full 20% of a deck. That's not a good situation for a CCG.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joscha wrote:
    > bluedevil wrote:
    > > Joscha wrote:
    > >

    > Compare RtI to PTO: You can play RtI with no restrictions. Of course
    > the card is better to play with high caps. Options to cancel RtI are
    > few, if it is played with OBF and against a deck without any chance to
    > bounce. But if you look at PTO I think the differences are obvious and
    > you know them: You have to act with an IC (or at least a justicar), the
    > card is a pol. action you have to push through intercept AND other
    > votes, it only works on non-camarilla (thank god).

    Well, let's compare RtI to PTO in terms of defense against these cards
    (since YOU are trying to argue that the possibility to defend against
    PTO negates the necessity of any changes).

    * Intercept decks: Blocking RtI is much easier than PTO, as it's (D)
    action without inherent stealth. At least, you never need Eagle's Sight
    to be able to block it.
    * Voting decks: You can just try to get enough pool to survive RtI, and
    your allies can help you. Your predator will lose a large vampire and
    may be unable to oust you after that.
    * Rush decks: You can rush the vampire with RtI to make him lose some
    blood, and the other Rush players can help you. One Haven Uncovered
    would almost always be enough to achieve this, and many Rush decks play
    HU anyway.
    * ALL decks: You can DI, of course. But you also can bounce bleed, and
    bounce cards are very popular anyway.

    Obviously, defending yourself against RtI is much simpler than
    defending against PTO, but this doesn't matter. "Anti-X" cards add
    NOTHING to the decision whether card X is overpowered or not - only the
    MAXIMUM CARD EFFECT, its PRICE and REQUIREMENTS do.

    RtI analysis:
    MAXIMUM CARD EFFECT: Burns 11 pool of your prey (or even more). Ousts
    your prey pretty often!
    PRICE: 4 blood + the acting vampire
    REQUIREMENTS: Large enough vampire (the larger the better).

    Thus, RtI was banned, since its effect was considered overpowered,
    despite the relatively high price. Now look at PTO:

    MAXIMUM CARD EFFECT: Utterly devastating. For instance, burning 11-cap
    Enkidu with Guardian Angel and a lot of retainers will mean an
    inevitable loss for his player.
    PRICE: Just one blood!
    REQUIREMENTS: Inner Circle member and enough votes to push the
    referendum (and if your Inner Circle member plays PTO, you already have
    5 votes for it). Stealth should NOT be considered a "requirement" for
    PTO, as it can (and often does) work without it. Presence of
    non-Camarilla vampire isn't a "requirement" either - when a card is
    suspected to be overpowered, it should be a part of "maximum card
    effect".

    Isn't it obvious now that PTO is overpowered - at least "more
    overpowered" than RtI? To me, it's absolutely clear.

    > And that is what I meant with my initial "yawn", Ector. We all are
    > constantly saying the same things over and over again. You tried to
    > calm the discussion by calling for a discussion about changing PTO, not
    > the pro and cons of the card itself. But that way you telling all
    > players, who want to stop the orgies of banning and changing to hush,
    > as it would be already common sense to change the card. And it is not.
    >
    I really can't understand why YOU are "saying the same things over and
    over again", especially considering the fact that you didn't provide
    real ARGUMENTS against changing PTO (as many people already said,
    presence of "anti-PTO cards" isn't an argument at all).
    IMHO, it's already "common sense to change the card" just because of
    its negative influence on the metagame. My statistics clearly
    demonstrates that non-Camarilla fatties are seriously underplayed
    (especially compared to Camarilla fatties). This fact is VERY BAD for
    the game - don't you agree? Or would you argue that presence of PTO in
    its current form isn't the most obvious reason of this fact?
    Seems that you are missing the real motivation of most "anti-PTO"
    players. There are almost no "whiners" among them, especially among
    experienced players. But they really like the game and would appreciate
    a possibility to play
    large non-Camarilla vampires without a constant threat of being PTOed.
    This possibility would clearly add flavor to the game and make it
    better. And I really can't understand YOUR motivation against it.

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

    On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Daneel wrote:

    <snip list of vamires>
    >
    > ...65 new reasons why it should be changed.

    Good stuff! I can just see a PSA with all their sad little faces peeking
    out of their portraits. "We just want to bleed and hunt and diablerize
    like other vampires. Give us a chance! Ban PTO!"

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

    "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> schreef in bericht
    news:1125735031.270027.58740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Joscha wrote:
    >> bluedevil wrote:
    >> > Joscha wrote:
    >> >
    >
    >> Compare RtI to PTO: You can play RtI with no restrictions. Of course
    >> the card is better to play with high caps. Options to cancel RtI are
    >> few, if it is played with OBF and against a deck without any chance to
    >> bounce. But if you look at PTO I think the differences are obvious and
    >> you know them: You have to act with an IC (or at least a justicar), the
    >> card is a pol. action you have to push through intercept AND other
    >> votes, it only works on non-camarilla (thank god).
    >
    > Well, let's compare RtI to PTO in terms of defense against these cards
    > (since YOU are trying to argue that the possibility to defend against
    > PTO negates the necessity of any changes).
    >
    > * Intercept decks: Blocking RtI is much easier than PTO, as it's (D)
    > action without inherent stealth. At least, you never need Eagle's Sight
    > to be able to block it.
    > * Voting decks: You can just try to get enough pool to survive RtI, and
    > your allies can help you. Your predator will lose a large vampire and
    > may be unable to oust you after that.
    > * Rush decks: You can rush the vampire with RtI to make him lose some
    > blood, and the other Rush players can help you. One Haven Uncovered
    > would almost always be enough to achieve this, and many Rush decks play
    > HU anyway.
    > * ALL decks: You can DI, of course. But you also can bounce bleed, and
    > bounce cards are very popular anyway.

    don't forget Protected Rescources. A card I played multiples off in the
    times of the original RtI.

    >
    > Obviously, defending yourself against RtI is much simpler than
    > defending against PTO, but this doesn't matter. "Anti-X" cards add
    > NOTHING to the decision whether card X is overpowered or not - only the
    > MAXIMUM CARD EFFECT, its PRICE and REQUIREMENTS do.
    >
    > RtI analysis:
    > MAXIMUM CARD EFFECT: Burns 11 pool of your prey (or even more). Ousts
    > your prey pretty often!
    > PRICE: 4 blood + the acting vampire
    > REQUIREMENTS: Large enough vampire (the larger the better).
    >
    The acting vampire is not really a cost. I you play with Arika, give her a
    Skill card you can Mind Rape another vampire and let him play the Rti. And
    let Arika play RtI too after she has the Soul Gem.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:59:11 -0400, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
    <etherial@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote:

    >> Besides that, the environment was seriously changed with Kindred Most
    >> Wanted set - we've got Confusion of the Eye, Condemnation: Mute and
    >> Scalpel Tongue. IMHO, this alone is "something new to add to the
    >> subject".
    >
    > Three more reasons why PTO doesn't have to be altered.

    Basir
    Jayne Jonestown
    Denette Stensen
    Cristobal Ghiberti
    Reverend Djoser Jones
    Marion French
    Almodo Giovanni
    Sahira Siraj
    Lorrie Dunsirn
    L`Epuisette
    Jeffrey Mullins
    Jane Sims
    Gharston Roland
    Devyn
    Sonja Blue
    Skidmark
    Paul Forrest, False Prophet
    Michael diCarlo
    Janni
    Hector Trelane
    Donatello Giovanni
    Celeste Lamontagne
    Callirus
    Black Lotus
    Vardar Vardarian
    Spider
    Shawnda Dorrit
    Reza Fatir, The Dark Angel
    Raphaela Giovanni
    Maureen, Dark Priestess
    Janey Pickman
    Guillermo Arsuaga
    Elihu
    Black Wallace
    Benedict Giovanni, Agent
    Ankh-sen-Sutekh
    Valerius Maior, Hell`s Fool (ADV)
    Seren Sukardi
    Ryder
    Rabbat, The Sewer Goddess
    Phillipe Rigaud
    Matthew Romans
    Mata Hari
    Joe `Boot` Hill
    Doyle Fincher
    Don Michael Antonio Giovanni
    Azaneal
    Mitru the Hunter
    Count Germaine (ADV)
    Cagliostro, The Grand Copht
    Baldesar Rossellini
    Antara
    Amaravati
    Alexis Sorokin
    Petaniqua (ADV)
    Neferu
    Black Annis
    Alicia Barrows
    Louhi
    Cyscek
    Cybele
    Carmine Giovanni
    Bruce de Guy
    Hazimel
    Enkidu, The Noah

    ....65 new reasons why it should be changed.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games