Imbued vs Xeper

I'd put it that way. In general, whenever a deck is very OPed, whole table tries to bring it down., because very being of it alive, means not winning for any. Given that is how table balance works, is it really that much problem to convince that a particular vampire is a table threat? Enkidu, Arika, Saulot... perhaps yes, these few, who steal allies? Highly doubtful.

kombainas wrote:

I'd put it that way. In general, whenever a deck is very OPed, whole table tries to bring it down., because very being of it alive, means not winning for any. Given that is how table balance works, is it really that much problem to convince that a particular vampire is a table threat? Enkidu, Arika, Saulot... perhaps yes, these few, who steal allies? Highly doubtful.

Err, what are you responding to? No-one has so far suggested "Make the whole table see it's like Turbo-Arika and they all have to oust it now" as being a necessary (or even likely) counter-strategy, so you appear to be arguing against a strawman of your own invention.

You might be able to get some assistance from a cross-table Methuselah, in exchange for whatever - but that's just normal. "I'll rescue your vampire if you can throw some of that ConAg at my predator", "I'll Eagle Sight this Garou recruitment if you'll burn the Madness Network", all that sort of thing that happens - potentially - on any table.

It is not an argument, just an unexplored element of the original problem, which was a certain vampire making someone's play impossible. Perhaps it was not considered, that you can play on another level, to counter those annoying vampires.

But the question was how can you on the one hand demand immediate reversals for Xeper because the decks go bye-bye while simultaneously demanding exactly the same treatment (only potentially much worse, with significantly more collateral damage, such as screwing up anyone who has the temerity to want to play Coven + Blood Doll) for other decks. Put more simply: the requests are completely contradictory - why?

Is not an actual request, but if the rule has to stay that way, I'd be happy if some things which can potentially shake the meta in the same way are created (sorry for my bad english, is not my default language). A master-light deck which hoses common T1 powerhouses (Girls & Anson-Volker-Ashur come to my mind) in an effective way like through a passive vampire ability could not positively refresh the meta?

Please stop arguing about trifles, if you have a normal number of master cards in your deck (15~18), you are almost untouched by the limitations of playing max 1 per turn.

We can have Gran Madre di Dio for Tupdogs, this ruling for imbued and absolutely no check for Girls? Come on! If we have to employ silver bullets (or hard counters, or whatever they are called) to balance things, I think could be perfectly reasonable.

So, to hopefully better explain my point of view, I prefer not to have said "hard counters", but if they are employed, all "extreme decks" (imbued, tupdogs, master-heavy) should suffer.

Stealing allies does not "shake" meta. It is only a single concept! Ally-deck, and even then, all but imbued ally decks have vampires as well.

I'd add Smiling Jack to ban list as well, since allies cannot remove it and decks include it for other reasons, but it can completely kill off your imbued deck...

Also there are anti-clan cards for almost every clan with effects ranging from instant burning to doing other nasty things. They CAN break concepts, but do they really break the meta?

Drugo wrote:

A master-light deck which hoses common T1 powerhouses (Girls & Anson-Volker-Ashur come to my mind) in an effective way like through a passive vampire ability could not positively refresh the meta?

Given that your suggested special ability does way more than hose common powerhouses, no, it wouldn't be positive.

Drugo wrote:

Please stop arguing about trifles,

No.

Your suggested special ability causes significant collateral damage to trifles, so I'll continue to talk about them, thank you very much!

Drugo wrote:

if you have a normal number of master cards in your deck (15~18), you are almost untouched by the limitations of playing max 1 per turn.

The whole point of trifles is that you can play more than one master card per turn. You often build a deck with trifles expecting to play more than one master card per turn (a trifle plus a normal master, or two trifles). You build your deck to exploit that fact! Every turn, maybe not, but quite commonly, yes. Browse through the TWDA - there are lots of decks with significantly more than 15 masters, using Trifles, not using MMPA.

The rule of thumb of 15-18 cards was invented before trifles were created. When you can play more than one master card per phase - such as is often done with cards like Vessel, Villein, Coven, Life in the City - you put more of them in your deck. A deck playing Vessel + Ventrue HQ in the same turn isn't abusive by any normal standard of the game.

Then you come on to cards like Aye and Orun, which are already pretty hard to use, even though they're Trifles, and you want to make it harder by implementing a special ability that has significant collateral damage and then tell people to stop, you know, actually critically analysing the damage you want to do to the game?

Drugo wrote:

We can have Gran Madre di Dio for Tupdogs, this ruling for imbued

This is not a "ruling for Imbued". Cancelling actions outright works like that all over the place - see also, for example, Veil of Darkness cancelling an action card, or Direct Intervention cancelling an action card. This is not a "ruling for Imbued", it affects the entire game and has existed for far, far longer than the Imbued.

The NRA taint taking effect at resolution exists for everything. Mask of a Thousand Faces a bleed off Vampire A to Vampire B and Vampire A is not tainted - because it never reached resolution. And, in much the same way, with DI-ing a copy of Govern the Unaligned.

Drugo wrote:

So, to hopefully better explain my point of view, I prefer not to have said "hard counters", but if they are employed, all "extreme decks" (imbued, tupdogs, master-heavy) should suffer.

You explained that you wanted to shut down critical analysis of the enormous amount of collateral damage you're doing, because you think - entirely wrongly - that it's a silver bullet. Silver bullets hurt the thing they need to hurt and nothing else. Your proposed ability causes a mushroom cloud the size of Australia.