Fortitude reaction card

Not to shoot you down, but that card is fundamentally different from the proposal discussed. A one-shot, suicide defense card is not a card that will make fortitude non-AUS, non-DOM decks suddenly viable. In the same way that Touch of Pain is simply neat or funny, it won't change anything. You'd still need dom or aus to survive. Losing vampires (and/or actions) to survive a bleed is simply too great a cost.

I agree with the Swedish poster boy over here. (Adam: don't be upset with me, be with the mighty Lord of the Clog).
Between taking a 5 pool bleed or loosing a vampire... I'd rather call an Archon to Investigate.

Aaron wrote:

Dorrinal wrote:

Weirdest thing I've seen posted here yet. What's the justification?

The same reason that the OP gave. I was agreeing with him, after all.

Direwolf/Edward: In WoD, there are several described advanced Fortitude powers that give you protection from mental influences. I had suggested a card in another post called Sensory Shield for Fortitude that would do the same thing as Telepathic Counter except cost a blood. Here is a link to the described advanced powers for Fortitude in WoD: wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Fortitude.

Now, unlike bounce, I think that reduction represents a minion going around and reversing what a bleeding minion does. This goes back to our (in person) conversation several weeks ago when you said you thought that bounce affects resources not the bleeding minion, while I disagreed. I think that reduction does affect resources.

Now, how could Fortitude help protect resources? Your minion with Fortitude could use his invulnerabiltiy to retrieve valuable papers from a burning building, play bodyguard to an important mortal lackey, or otherwise perform clean-up to the damage to a Methusaleh's physical property. Maybe the minion sacrifices his blood to the Methuselah who is running low after being forced to use a lot of disciplines to fend off attacks. Who knows? The cards don't always make perfect sense. For instance, I don't understand from a thematic perspective how Auspex can bounce bleeds, since Auspex doesn't allow you to control minds, only read them.

Thanks for the explanation - I really like the way you've justified bleed reduction for . Also, I had no idea Steadfastness existed. That is a really strange card.

Here's a reminder for everyone else: reducing a bleed by 2 is all right, but isn't good enough. What's the ratio of bounce to reduce in an deck? You want the one card you can put 6-10 of in a deck and call it good on defense. Silver bullet for bleeds. So if you want "better bleed defense" you mean bounce - if the card doesn't say "oh and your prey might also take that bleed" it's not good enough.

Now stop designing cards under the power curve.

Honestly, I don't mind the "Burn blood on a FOR vampire to reduce bleed". I was thinking that it was actually one of the more functionally balanced cards I'd seen for a while. I honestly preferred it in the "take damage" form.

Take the Fall
Combat/Reaction
Prevent 1 damage.
Reduce a bleed against you by X. This vampire suffers X unpreventable damage. X cannot be greater than one more than the current amount of blood on this vampire.

Dorrinal wrote:

Here's a reminder for everyone else: reducing a bleed by 2 is all right, but isn't good enough. What's the ratio of bounce to reduce in an deck?

This might be rhetorical, but I'll bite: X:0. Reduce a bleed by 2 is not "all right". It's absolutely worthless. You're better off including a card of your primary strategy to increase your decks through-put and hope you survive the bleeds. Same logic as ascendance, too little effect to justify a card slot.

Dorrinal wrote:

So if you want "better bleed defense" you mean bounce - if the card doesn't say "oh and your prey might also take that bleed" it's not good enough.

Now stop designing cards under the power curve.

I don't understand where you stand. Which cards do you like and which do you not like? In what way would you like the proposals changed?

Honestly, I don't mind the "Burn blood on a FOR vampire to reduce bleed". I was thinking that it was actually one of the more functionally balanced cards I'd seen for a while. I honestly preferred it in the "take damage" form.

Take the Fall
Combat/Reaction
Prevent 1 damage.
Reduce a bleed against you by X. This vampire suffers X unpreventable damage. X cannot be greater than one more than the current amount of blood on this vampire.

How do you argue for this with the counter-arguments already provided (equivalence to villein, incredibly high cost)? Simply saying "I like this better" is a valid stance, but it's not too helpful in a constructive discussion. No offense intended, of course.

If the card deals damage or burns blood:
I would not use this with big caps, like Karsh or the Gwendolin, because of Lost in Translation or Villein.
I would not use it with mid-to-small caps because of Archon Investigation.

So, back to Örebro's idea, methinks.