Imbued vs Xeper

kombainas wrote:

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.

when you nerf a consolidated strong deck yes, you shake the meta (more or less is not the point here).

kombainas wrote:

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...

I have Smiling Jack in all my imbued decks, precisely to contest it (or exploit it, like in this deck www.veknfrance.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8goilucca ), but SJ is that sort of weakness i recognize as acceptable and workable around it.

kombainas wrote:

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?

you seriously think these cards are used in competitive play (bar Malkavian Dementia) or considered when building a deck as potential threats?

you seriously think these cards are used in competitive play (bar Malkavian Dementia) or considered when building a deck as potential threats?

No, because there is no need to. However, cards like Uncoiling for vampire-based decks, and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla do the exact same thing. They do not advance your strategy, they screw other's strategy. The very fact, that you do not even consider a silver bullet for !Brujah, but add at least few for imbued just emphasizes that the sole purpose of existence of those cards is to give options in case some archetype gets to become unplayable against. This whole game is based on a balance of strategies and counter-strategies. I do understand, why people would like to have tools to defend against certain archetypes, but I fail to see why would anyone want to take those tools away, but for the sake of power-gaming.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

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.

you have to play Vessel and Ventrue HQ in 2 different turns. I lose all my minions (maybe bar one if a 1/80 card comes up first and is not countered) in 3~4 turns. I feel sorry for you.

kombainas wrote:

No, because there is no need to. However, cards like Uncoiling for vampire-based decks, and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla do the exact same thing. They do not advance your strategy, they screw other's strategy. The very fact, that you do not even consider a silver bullet for !Brujah, but add at least few for imbued just emphasizes that the sole purpose of existence of those cards is to give options in case some archetype gets to become unplayable against. This whole game is based on a balance of strategies and counter-strategies. I do understand, why people would like to have tools to defend against certain archetypes, but I fail to see why would anyone want to take those tools away, but for the sake of power-gaming.

Is because I think these tools already exist (Smiling Jack, Break the Code, Fourth Cycle, plus the many cards which require a vampire to be used).

You really think depriving me of all my minions without me able to do nothing to stop it is fair? I'm obliged running only imbued with Innocence and hoping a Hide or Champion shows up first (and Champion is only postponing the problem since costs 2 convictions and I have 1 per turn)? I'm required to run combat to obliterate the offending vampire?

so, let's make three or four vampires of different groupings, at least two with superior OBF, and with the ability of stealing younger vampires with dementation... following your reasoning, they are perfectly acceptable, right?

I have run Imbued quite a lot, and a few times at tournaments. My experience is rather that other non-imbued decks are usually more screwed by an Imbued showing up at the table than the other way around (unmasking, Millicent Smith etc).

As stated before by others, there will always be decks and cards that mess up some decks, that is not something specific to imbued. The risks that can mess up your particular deck should always be considered when building it, and take appropriate actions according to this. If you are that afraid of xeper et al., the simplest is probably to have more block in the deck but there are more ways of course, maybe you should consider Lock

Drugo wrote:

kombainas wrote:

You really think depriving me of all my minions without me able to do nothing to stop it is fair?

World's Smallest Violin

Unique Equipment

When a metuselah has a minion stolen by another metuselah,
you may tap this equipment to burn 1 pool from the victim.

But it's not FAIR!