Protect Whine Own 40.000

Not that it would do any good, I thought I'd just turn the tides of flamewar back to more familiar waters with a little rantie. [rant] A few hours ago I had a remarkably memorable game session. I was playing weenie Sabbat Animalism, and ousted my prey, while my grand predator weakened my predator beyond redemption. My grand predator was playing a fattie OBF-pre voter deck, and used card retrieval effects like Pochtli and Reinforcements (as well as a couple of burn option cards to speed his deck up a bit). Since my predator was still technically in the game, I could not block my grand-predator's PTO. I had 5 permanent intercept and superior Animalism. Seeing the inevitable doom, I split the Raven Spies (and one Raptor) with Heidelberg, so it took him 3 turns to burn all my remaining intercepty minions (after repeatedly retrieving PTO). I was basically denied my chance to play my deck, because I did not have AUS/SPI and was playing non-Camarilla. After I was down to a mere shadow of my former self he ousted my predator, me and the remaining player. No single other card(s) could have achieved the same thing. If he had weakened me poolwise, there would have been a risk of losing my VP. With no minions to do my bidding, I was completely helpless. Had he Banished my vampires, I could have easily reclaimed them (as they were generally at capacity thanks to Hungry Coyote). Had he used combat and (D) rushed me, I could have easily thwarted him with the aid of my numerous retainers and some well-placed pieces of equipment (or better yet, kicked him real hard where it hurts with my abundant Animalism combat cards). Mind you, I'm not pissed or anything, because the game was fun (up till a point). I also don't mind losing, because despite the odds I almost managed to score a 2nd VP. I also generally lose more than I win. ;) Still, the fact that the player burned a total of about 7 non-camarilla vampires at the table with (the very same) PTO makes me think its a powerful card; but the fact that three of those were technically cross-table (with no chance for me to block) makes me think it is overpowered. The apparently obvious answer (to pack more non-intercept vote defence) seems a bit absurd, given how the only effect that can have the same crippling effect on my play is PTO; and I'm not sure that it is healthy for the game that I should build my decks with allocating half a dozen cards to a specific defence against a single (IMHO) overpowered card - just to be able to play my (non-Camarilla) deck. [/rant] Best Regards, Daneel

> Not that it would do any good, I thought I'd just turn the tides of > flamewar back to more familiar waters with a little rantie. Oh fer chrissakes, not again . . .

INCOMING, DUCK AND COVER!!!!!!! Helpful hints from someone who has no grasp on reality (me):- 1. You could always congratulate him on a constructing a powerful controlling deck. 2. You could be honoured that he saw you as such a threat that he slayed you cross table (I know, but it may work someday) 3. You could vent your spleen on a newsgroup to get the same old replies (always fun) 4. You could post his deck list up....please, no-one likes me anyway, so I may as well do a PTO deck :) Just a quick question more for my benefit, can you use Hiedelburg Castle if someone plays a action card that scr3ws you over AFTER he has put the card down, but before the action "kicks off". I thought announcing the action was therefore in the action, so you can't use the castle? Seems to me like a litte fast-effect-instant-Tragic-ness in it? (Thats how I read your mail, just got me thinking). Now watch as this post gets lost in 89 "We hate PTO but like stealth-bleed" replies. Brian "Beta-blockers make my work easier, not correct" White.

Brian White expounded: > INCOMING, DUCK AND COVER!!!!!!! > > Helpful hints from someone who has no grasp on reality (me):- > 1. You could always congratulate him on a constructing a powerful > controlling deck. > 2. You could be honoured that he saw you as such a threat that he > slayed you cross table (I know, but it may work someday) > 3. You could vent your spleen on a newsgroup to get the same old > replies (always fun) > 4. You could post his deck list up....please, no-one likes me anyway, > so I may as well do a PTO deck :) > > Just a quick question more for my benefit, can you use Hiedelburg > Castle if someone plays a action card that scr3ws you over AFTER he > has put the card down, but before the action "kicks off". I thought > announcing the action was therefore in the action, so you can't use > the castle? Seems to me like a litte fast-effect-instant-Tragic-ness > in it? (Thats how I read your mail, just got me thinking). I read it as him spreading his retainers around his ready minions with heidelberg so that his opponent couldn't PTO one vampire and take out all his defences at once. ("inevitable doom, I split the Raven Spies (and one Raptor) with Heidelberg")

Brian White wrote: > Just a quick question more for my benefit, can you use Hiedelburg > Castle if someone plays a action card that scr3ws you over AFTER he > has put the card down, but before the action "kicks off". I thought > announcing the action was therefore in the action, so you can't use > the castle? Seems to me like a litte fast-effect-instant-Tragic-ness > in it? (Thats how I read your mail, just got me thinking). You are correct. The Castle cannot be used once the action has commenced (which, in the case of an action-card action, is when the card is played). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Daneel wrote: > A few hours ago I had a remarkably memorable game session. I was > playing weenie Sabbat Animalism, and ousted my prey, while my grand > predator weakened my predator beyond redemption. > > My grand predator was playing a fattie OBF-pre voter deck, and used > card retrieval effects like Pochtli and Reinforcements (as well as a > couple of burn option cards to speed his deck up a bit). It seems that the particular deck had quite a many moving parts, and needed probably some time to get moving. So, a fast deck would probably run it over before setup was complete (like, rush/Pentex/whatever to Pochtli). Sometimes it just happens that when a certain deck's setup is complete, you just cannot do a thing. I remember a storyline where one player played a Pander PRE vote. It stormed to the fianl with 3 TW:s. In the final, its grandprey was Laz Rush. The Panders quickly took its prey, but meanwhile Laz had equipped with Sport Bike and got an Eternal Vigilance. The Pander player was screwed as Laz could block every single action he tried, and beat the acting vampire to pulp. And we have not gotten to Henry T/Protean/Sport Bike issue yet... Make no mistake, I do not like PTO for the reasons that have been chewed over and over in this newsgroup, and have been on the ass end of that card (Rest In Peace Cailean. You shall be remembered, as shall your 3 Raven Spies who died with their Master). -Antero

Daneel wrote: > I'm not sure that it is healthy for the game that I should build my > decks with allocating half a dozen cards to a specific defence against > a single (IMHO) overpowered card - just to be able to play my > (non-Camarilla) deck. Ban it. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

David Cherryholmes wrote: >> I'm not sure that it is healthy for the game that I should build my >> decks with allocating half a dozen cards to a specific defence against >> a single (IMHO) overpowered card - just to be able to play my >> (non-Camarilla) deck. > > > Ban it. Seems harsh to ban his deck. I say he should be able to play it. --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:tNKdnVPtSpm...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm led to belive that Dave meant Ban the PTO Card, not the deck. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] Ooooooooooohhhh. Would this be all PTO cards, or just the one used in that game? --Colin McGuigan

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:HJOdndXyYuT...@speakeasy.net... > Raille wrote: > > I'm led to belive that Dave meant Ban the PTO Card, not the deck. > > Ooooooooooohhhh. Would this be all PTO cards, or just the one used in > that game? > LOL!! Just that one, Colin... DZ AW

some jerk just posted a PTO deck that is intended to scare people... what a moron. David Wilson "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:sRhdc.9565$lj3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

> I was basically denied my chance to play my deck, because I did not > have AUS/SPI and was playing non-Camarilla. oh boo hoo the card exists, so deal with it you could and possibly would with the same resources pentex subversion, nighmare curse, and sensory dep. can bone you too, especially when it's a deck built all around that idea lots of stuff can bone you in this game, and you can bone lots of other people plenty of ways maybe instead of bitching you should try building a deck that can get to that deck much faster, thusly allowing you to stop the PTOs oh, gasp, and who would have guessed it, if you build a faster deck that can chew through your prey like that, you might have won and it would be the other person bitching about how [x card] is broken holy crap, the cacophany of whiners out there is deafening? instead of bitching [except when i forget my damned deck 90 miles away from a tournament, that is justified] i say 'wow that was a good game, lets play another because i think i can school that deck with this one' and you know what, stuff like that happens -KB, Prince of Harrisburg [who has a terrible tournament rating but walks away from each with a smile because the game was FUN]

isaphrael <id77...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5494c8c1.0404...@posting.google.com... > > I was basically denied my chance to play my deck, because I did not > > have AUS/SPI and was playing non-Camarilla. > > oh boo hoo > the card exists, so deal with it > you could and possibly would with the same resources > pentex subversion, nighmare curse, and sensory dep. can bone you too, > especially when it's a deck built all around that idea > lots of stuff can bone you in this game, and you can bone lots of > other people plenty of ways > maybe instead of bitching you should try building a deck that can get > to that deck much faster, thusly allowing you to stop the PTOs > oh, gasp, and who would have guessed it, if you build a faster deck > that can chew through your prey like that, you might have won and it > would be the other person bitching about how [x card] is broken > > holy crap, the cacophany of whiners out there is deafening Amen to that lot. Rob

"Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:c550bl$2op4qj$1...@ID-224824.news.uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Come now, Rob. Surely you can understand that their are valid arguments for and against the banning of PTO. And you wouldn't want to 'amen' whining about whining, would you? Oh wait, I just got it. ; ) -- Mike Ooi "You have left the world. Click to continue."

isaphrael wrote: gravity's.... pull..... inescapable! > the card exists, so deal with it As did other cards in the past that were banned or that received errata > you could and possibly would with the same resources I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that Daneel would play PTO if he owned them? > pentex subversion, nighmare curse, and sensory dep. can bone you too If I *have* to break down the numerous, egregious ways that PTO differs from "lock down your guy" effects I will, but goddamn it's been gone over exhaustively. > maybe instead of bitching you should try building a deck that can get > to that deck much faster, thusly allowing you to stop the PTOs By "stop" you mean "be in a position where you have the legal opportunity to block without Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye", right? It takes three turns, maybe four, to get out an IC. So you are just saying he should play decks that can kill two preys (5 way, PTO is grandpredator) in 4 turns, and his problems are solved? > oh, gasp, and who would have guessed it, if you build a faster deck > that can chew through your prey like that, you might have won and it > would be the other person bitching about how [x card] is broken I'd imagine you'd win lots of games with a deck that can blow two preys off the table before the PTO'er can get moving. And if you are that shit hot, and he's got PTO, and you are targetable, guess what? You will be the target. That's just to head off any specious arguments about you having more than four turns of time. > holy crap, the cacophany of whiners out there is deafening? Holy crap, the cacaphony of flat-headed numbnuts who couldn't analyze their way out of a box of crackerjacks is depressing. > instead of bitching [except when i forget my damned deck 90 miles away > from a tournament, that is justified] i say 'wow that was a good game, > lets play another because i think i can school that deck with this > one' and you know what, stuff like that happens Same thing could've been said of RtI or Misdirection Weenie Dominate. And yeah, chucklehead, if you know the deck you must face you can choose a counter to it. Opportunity costs factor into the discussion. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

id77...@yahoo.com (isaphrael) wrote in message news:<5494c8c1.0404...@posting.google.com>... > > I was basically denied my chance to play my deck, because I did not > > have AUS/SPI and was playing non-Camarilla. > > oh boo hoo > the card exists, so deal with it I that was the attitude we would still be playing with the original Return to Innocence, Mind Rape and ToRIII,... Or rather, we wouldn't be playing such a broken game any more. J

UniqueMaster <sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote in message news:dsadnUq_UMS...@texas.net... > > "Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> wrote in message [snip orig. post] > > Amen to that lot. > > > > Rob > > Come now, Rob. Surely you can understand that their are valid arguments for > and against the banning of PTO. And you wouldn't want to 'amen' whining > about whining, would you? > > Oh wait, I just got it. ; ) Post was half and half. I really don't agree with the banning or even changing of the card, I can see how arguments + and - are there, but for my money the 'costs' of playing it, the setup and more importantly risks (eggs in one basket etc.) involved justify the effect. <shrug> latest storm in a teacup if you ask me. I agree with other posters over the last few months that it has been re-hashed too many times and TBH I remain unconvinced of the need for errata?!? Sorry and all - I just can't see a compelling arguement or outrageous tourney win / dominance record. If it is so great go out and win with it and show how 'broken' it is. If you are reluctant to play such a deck in a tourney, ask yourself why and maybe look at it from a gameplay and accessibility angle rather than a single card. I find the fact that you need to invest over a third of your pool before you can even consider playing the card (other than Justicar level) and have to get the action through, and pass the vote to be more than enough myself. Consider Parity Shift which has the same swing effect of a potential pool difference of 10 and targets cross table requiring only a lowly P or J. Rob

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Rob Treasure wrote: > Post was half and half. I really don't agree with the banning or even > changing of the card, I can see how arguments + and - are there, but for my > money the 'costs' of playing it, the setup and more importantly risks (eggs > in one basket etc.) involved justify the effect. What are the costs associated with playing an IC not associated with playing a 9 cap? Can your IC be PTO'd? Can your nine cap do anything comperable? > outrageous tourney win / dominance record. If it is so great go out and win > with it and show how 'broken' it is. I can assert just this much about a formal definition of broken, since I'm paraphrasing god here: it is not limited to effects that win games. > If you are reluctant to play such a > deck in a tourney, ask yourself why and maybe look at it from a gameplay and > accessibility angle rather than a single card. I didn't get that. But I would be reluctant to play it in a tourney in the same way I'm reluctant to play Malk/neo-Malk stealth bleed, or a weenie deck. I also gain little pleasure from besting five year olds in boxing maches. > I find the fact that you need to invest over a third of your pool before you > can even consider playing the card (other than Justicar level) and have to How is that any different than playing any other 11, 10, or 9 cap? Why should the IC's and only the IC's get such a card? And no, I don't assert that everyone should be able to do everything equally well, but you seem to be building an argument that suggests PTO is balanced due to the size of an IC. > get the action through, and pass the vote to be more than enough myself. Covered. Like two equal terms on either side of an equation, the stealth and the votes drop out, leaving you up one stealth and five votes in favor. > Consider Parity Shift which has the same swing effect of a potential pool > difference of 10 and targets cross table requiring only a lowly P or J. Parity Shift has it's own weird opportunity cost. It's very difficult to oust someone with it, or play it when you are doing well. Yes, it hardcore rocks, but it's not a game ender like PTO is. I can quantify this better, if need be. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

> Parity Shift has it's own weird opportunity cost. It's very difficult to > oust someone with it, or play it when you are doing well. Yes, it > hardcore rocks, but it's not a game ender like PTO is. I can quantify > this better, if need be. The discussion about PTO set aside, I personally believe its effect is at least as strong as PTO's effect. The opportunity cost isn't that hard to create and it *certainly* can end games right when it's played. A potential 10 pool shift is certainly going to do more to table balance than the burning of a single non-cam vampire. Sure, you screw over one person, but Parity does the same damned thing (as in, also screws someone), but *ALSO* nets you 5 extra pool. Seriously, having lesser pool than ANYONE else at the table is *not* a "weird" opportunity cost. It's a given 80% of the time and if it's not, pool isn't really hard to get rid of. I agree that it's sucks to be on the receiving end of a PTO when you're playing a one-star deck, but how is it *really* different than looking at 5 of your pool taken away and be added to someone else's pool. I have been on the receiving end of that countless more times than I lost vampires to PTO and I can honestly say I hate the Parity Shift more.

> A potential 10 pool shift is certainly > going to do more to table balance than the burning of a single non-cam > vampire. Sure, you screw over one person, but Parity does the same > damned thing (as in, also screws someone), but *ALSO* nets you 5 extra > pool. Seriously, having lesser pool than ANYONE else at the table is > *not* a "weird" opportunity cost. It's a given 80% of the time and if > it's not, pool isn't really hard to get rid of. You can well invest over 5 pool into a minion. Also, getting a Parity Shift from your predator is natural, and understandable. But getting it from cross-table risks your oust (meaning the voter deck will not get your VP). That generally seems to defeat the point. > I agree that it's sucks to be on the receiving end of a PTO when you're > playing a one-star deck, but how is it *really* different than looking > at 5 of your pool taken away and be added to someone else's pool. I have > been on the receiving end of that countless more times than I lost > vampires to PTO and I can honestly say I hate the Parity Shift more. With Parity Shift you can manipulate your pool to be immune to the effects. I did that, counting how much the voter can presumably spend during his turn, and transferring down like 3 pool (to avoid losing 5). Playing PS is quite risky, by the way; if you waste your pool, and it gets DT-d without you having an Autarkis/Boon, you're pretty much cooked. I'd say... PTO is tougher. Parity Shift is a pain in the ass, but I swept tables while getting 2-3 PSs - same thing is nigh impossible with PTO. Of course, my playstyle is more minion-centered (I like to invest in minions and try to make sure they're worth the investment). Bye, Daneel

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Rob Treasure wrote: > >>I find the fact that you need to invest over a third of your pool before you >>can even consider playing the card (other than Justicar level) and have to > > > How is that any different than playing any other 11, 10, or 9 cap? Why > should the IC's and only the IC's get such a card? And no, I don't assert > that everyone should be able to do everything equally well, but you seem > to be building an argument that suggests PTO is balanced due to the size > of an IC. > Note that an IC is worth those 11 pool and transfers *even if you're not using PTO*. They're at the top of the power curve. You don't make an investment of 11 pool to play PTO, you invest 11 pool because it gets you 4 votes, 3 bleed, and a boatload of disciplines (and possibly a usefull special ability too). PTO is just icing on the cake. >>Consider Parity Shift which has the same swing effect of a potential pool >>difference of 10 and targets cross table requiring only a lowly P or J. > > > Parity Shift has it's own weird opportunity cost. It's very difficult to > oust someone with it, or play it when you are doing well. Yes, it > hardcore rocks, but it's not a game ender like PTO is. I can quantify > this better, if need be. Indeed. That 10-pool swing actually reads 'I hurt you some and help myself some', while PTO reads 'I hurt you, a lot'. Flux

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:a23a105e.04040...@posting.google.com... > > A potential 10 pool shift is certainly > > going to do more to table balance than the burning of a single non-cam > > vampire. Sure, you screw over one person, but Parity does the same > > damned thing (as in, also screws someone), but *ALSO* nets you 5 extra > > pool. Seriously, having lesser pool than ANYONE else at the table is > > *not* a "weird" opportunity cost. It's a given 80% of the time and if > > it's not, pool isn't really hard to get rid of. > You can well invest over 5 pool into a minion. Also, getting a Parity > Shift from your predator is natural, and understandable. But getting > it from cross-table risks your oust (meaning the voter deck will not > get your VP). That generally seems to defeat the point. I realize all this. Note that I was not defending PtO. I said before, I simply haven't seen it killing tables and totally shutting down a one-star deck. I *do* understand that this is very possible (Cailean and his Raven Spies cross my mind again), but, having played and seen played it on quite a few occasions I can't really say I hate it as much as other people do. Yeah, I burned a Beast with it once, just because he kept attacking me and yeah, I think I burned a decked out Lazverinus once as well. In both cases it was the only way for me to ensure a table win. Did that suck for those players, sure it did. On the other hand, that second turn Govern/Conditioning I ate in the game after sucked too. And the Govern/Threats and Bleed/Bonding in the next turn hurt just as much. Hell, that deck ousted me in turn 4 with me having a single 5 cap out. Was that fun? Not at all. Can I live with it. Sure. Do I go on a crusade to ban govern/conditioning and big bleed cards in general? Nah. That'd be a waste of my time. My opinion on PtO aside (which is fairly neutral), wimping away at Parity Shift as having a "weird" opportunity cost and its effect not even being a fraction of PtO, like David did, is silly IMO. Parity Shift is very close to PtO on the power curve. Also, playing PtO crosstable is pretty silly as well, unless you're *sure* you can oust your prey that same turn and move on. > > I agree that it's sucks to be on the receiving end of a PTO when you're > > playing a one-star deck, but how is it *really* different than looking > > at 5 of your pool taken away and be added to someone else's pool. I have > > been on the receiving end of that countless more times than I lost > > vampires to PTO and I can honestly say I hate the Parity Shift more. > > With Parity Shift you can manipulate your pool to be immune to the > effects. I did that, counting how much the voter can presumably spend > during his turn, and transferring down like 3 pool (to avoid losing > 5). Playing PS is quite risky, by the way; if you waste your pool, and > it gets DT-d without you having an Autarkis/Boon, you're pretty much > cooked. Much like your ousting bleed gets Di'd or Eagled, and you end up giving your prey a VP because you burned that Cailean of your grandprey. > I'd say... PTO is tougher. Parity Shift is a pain in the ass, but I > swept tables while getting 2-3 PSs - same thing is nigh impossible > with PTO. Of course, my playstyle is more minion-centered (I like to > invest in minions and try to make sure they're worth the investment). I my metagame, minions tend to be small to midcaps (4-5-6-7) and as such PtO has hardly the effect it has on bigger minions or minions with lots of permanents. That said, I think PS gets my vote for most annoying political card.

Izaak wrote: > win. Did that suck for those players, sure it did. On the other hand, > that second turn Govern/Conditioning I ate in the game after sucked too. > And the Govern/Threats and Bleed/Bonding in the next turn hurt just as > much. Hell, that deck ousted me in turn 4 with me having a single 5 cap > out. Was that fun? Not at all. Can I live with it. Sure. Do I go on a > crusade to ban govern/conditioning and big bleed cards in general? Nah. > That'd be a waste of my time. 1.) Bleed defense is a reliable inclusion in any deck. Vote defense is not. Therefore, the opportunity cost of PTO defense is greater than that for bleed defense. 2.) Recovering from the blow. Losing five pool requires you to gain 5 pool. Replacing a lost 5 cap requires five pool, plus recovering the lost time required to put him back into play. The upper ceiling on *your loss* is 5 for PS, 11 for PTO. > My opinion on PtO aside (which is fairly neutral), wimping away at > Parity Shift as having a "weird" opportunity cost and its effect not > even being a fraction of PtO, like David did, is silly IMO. I never said its effect was less than a fraction of PTO's. I said it was less than. Which it is. > Parity Shift > is very close to PtO on the power curve. Yes, very close, and less than. Luckily it's the same general gang that gets to play both cards, so where you eat one, you're likely eating the other. > Also, playing PtO crosstable is pretty silly as well, unless you're > *sure* you can oust your prey that same turn and move on. That's an opinion on playstyle. Me, I would let her rip if I thought it was *likely* I would oust. In this game, you aren't sure of shit. If you think you are, you're deluded. Regardless of one's opinion of that playstyle, cross table PTO happens. > I my metagame, minions tend to be small to midcaps (4-5-6-7) and as such > PtO has hardly the effect it has on bigger minions or minions with lots > of permanents. No part of my position is dependent on particular metagames. I'm looking at the card as it fits into the game as a whole. > That said, I think PS gets my vote for most annoying > political card. Given the above, I can see why. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

> > win. Did that suck for those players, sure it did. On the other hand, > > that second turn Govern/Conditioning I ate in the game after sucked too. > > And the Govern/Threats and Bleed/Bonding in the next turn hurt just as > > much. Hell, that deck ousted me in turn 4 with me having a single 5 cap > > out. Was that fun? Not at all. Can I live with it. Sure. Do I go on a > > crusade to ban govern/conditioning and big bleed cards in general? Nah. > > That'd be a waste of my time. > > 1.) Bleed defense is a reliable inclusion in any deck. Vote defense is not. > Therefore, the opportunity cost of PTO defense is greater than that for > bleed defense. Saying that any deck should be able to generate 2 intercept or bounce in the second turn, is simply silly. Yes, bleed defense has a lower opportunity cost and I *know* votes are tough to defend against. However, in that particular game, I'd rather seen my Banjoko burned than being bled for 6 at 2 stealth over and over again. > 2.) Recovering from the blow. Losing five pool requires you to gain 5 pool. > Replacing a lost 5 cap requires five pool, plus recovering the lost time > required to put him back into play. The upper ceiling on *your loss* is 5 > for PS, 11 for PTO. > > Parity Shift > > is very close to PtO on the power curve. > > Yes, very close, and less than. Luckily it's the same general gang that > gets to play both cards, so where you eat one, you're likely eating the > other. You hate Camarilla, no? > > Also, playing PtO crosstable is pretty silly as well, unless you're > > *sure* you can oust your prey that same turn and move on. > Regardless of one's opinion of that playstyle, cross table PTO happens. Much like pointless crosstable rushes happen and stupid crosstable rescues. Stupid decisions are made all the time from everyone's point of view. The only view that matters, however, is of the one performing it. I'm just stressing the fact that a crosstable PtO, which is pretty broken if you play bigcap non-cam one star decks, is generally stupid to do, just as burning your predators only vampire in turn 3 is a stupid thing to do. Yet, both things happen and only the PtO effect is whined about. > > I my metagame, minions tend to be small to midcaps (4-5-6-7) and as such > > PtO has hardly the effect it has on bigger minions or minions with lots > > of permanents. > > No part of my position is dependent on particular metagames. I'm looking at > the card as it fits into the game as a whole. The question is whether or not bigcap non-cam one-star-decks should really be considered "the game as a whole". If you'd really care so much about "the game as a whole", you'd look at small and midcaps, bleed and bounce. Not at PtO. > > That said, I think PS gets my vote for most annoying > > political card. > > Given the above, I can see why. Again, I'm not defending PtO and I have said numerous times it should only target prey or predator. I can see the effect is too strong to be applied crosstable, because you can't do shit about it unless you're playing AUS or spi. Or DI. What it isn't, is some greater evil like the Return, that instantly collapses tables gives VP's away like no tomorrow. It's not the "I win" effect on PtO, it's the "You Lose" effect that makes people cry over this over and over again. This of course is only emphasized by the fact that bigcap decks are *already* generally weaker. Yet, there's PLENTY of cards that have the "You Lose" effect and plenty of combo's that have the same result. Many of these can be played by a simple 4 or 5 cap. Why am I not seeing people cry over Mind Rape, Form of Corruption and Spirit Marionette, just to name a few.

snip all > Indeed. That 10-pool swing actually reads 'I hurt you some and help myself > some', while PTO reads 'I hurt you, a lot'. > > > Flux well, to me (i've received a PS in my last tournament, from my prey, and we both have been ousted from my predator...)PS says:"I hurt you and help myself" not "a little" 4 pool that could be passed to anyone who votes in favor (or to your prey, if he needs) are a great opportunity. maybe more accurate than "i burn that minion". sheer strenght is nothing without control. PTO is powerful, sometimes too much. PS gives you the possibility of manage the table better. PTO can win you 6 pool and a GW SP can win you one GW and 10 pool anyway all this talking is because i'm quite neutral to PTO changing: to me is good like that Andrea

In message <c59npa$gob$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, "Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> mumbled something about: >Yet, there's PLENTY of cards that have the "You Lose" effect and plenty >of combo's that have the same result. Many of these can be played by a >simple 4 or 5 cap. Why am I not seeing people cry over Mind Rape, Form >of Corruption and Spirit Marionette, just to name a few. Mind Rape: Requires some setup to do more than just take the minion and bleed with it. It's possible to Rape minions that can play none of the cards in your deck, meaning you need Heidelberg, Fortitude skill cards, or the like in order to really do some damage. Can't be directed cross-table without the target being able to block. Starts at 0 stealth. Form of Corruption: Takes FOREVER to kick off, even in a Free Snakes Rant deck. Can be dealt with by ousting backwards and/or not ever bleeding, something which is inconvenient for many decks but certainly possible. Can only have one in play at any time. For the effect to kick off, the minion typically must be empty or nearly so, giving the target plenty of time to Minion Tap, Blood Doll, or otherwise use up all of the target's blood and get some recompense for the lost minion. Spirit Marionette: Can be dealt with by simply tapping out. Same problems as Mind Rape; it's possible to Rape minions that can play none of the cards in your deck, so you must have additional setup to do damage. Is very vulnerable to intercept; Matthias can't generate THAT much stealth, and if Kiss of Ra can affect you, then you won't get your guy burned with Daring the Dawn. Sure, it's dangerous to tap out every turn, and forces you to rely on Wakes, but so does Anarch Troublemaker, Misdirection, Mind Numb, Jar the Soul, and any of a countless number of 'tap that guy' cards. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

> >Yet, there's PLENTY of cards that have the "You Lose" effect and plenty > >of combo's that have the same result. Many of these can be played by a > >simple 4 or 5 cap. Why am I not seeing people cry over Mind Rape, Form > >of Corruption and Spirit Marionette, just to name a few. <snip analysis of these cards> I know, I know. I was merely trying to make a point why people hate PtO so much and why I understand that too. It's a huge "You lose" effect, with relatively few setup. I'm not convinced that PtO has this fabulous "I win" effect just because I haven't it seen make people win. I *did* see it make people /lose/ a few times, yes. Of the ones I mentioned, Form of Corruption is the most annoying as, as you said, not bleeding is not really an option for most decks. Heck, with Free States Rant, you can often get a minion to 0 blood and steal it away permanently. And the good part is, you get to pick as well. Backrushing is a solution, but isn't getting you much VP's. I've been on the receiving end of Spirit Marionette/Heidelburg a few times and while it didn't bring my predator much closer to winning, it basically ended my game right then and there. Sort of thanks for playing you can leave now. Yup, it's more setup, but not *that* much more setup. For the same reason, I absolutely loathe Slaughterhouse decks. They're a shitty winning strategy, but it simply disallows someone to play the game at all. "nice you're here, but you can't play your deck, since I'll mill away 8 per turn". How much fun. More "you lose" effect.

Izaak wrote: > It's a huge "You lose" effect, with relatively few setup. I'm not > convinced that PtO has this fabulous "I win" effect just because I > haven't it seen make people win. I *did* see it make people /lose/ a few > times, yes. Who's arguing that it has an "I win" effect? To be sure, if you are calling PTO and passing them, you are advancing your game, perhaps greatly. I think it is possible to make the case against the card without having to prove "I win" vs. "You Lose"; the magnitude is simply larger than what one card should generate. > Of the ones I mentioned, Form of Corruption is the most annoying as, as > you said, not bleeding is not really an option for most decks. Heck, > with Free States Rant, you can often get a minion to 0 blood and steal > it away permanently. And the good part is, you get to pick as well. > Backrushing is a solution, but isn't getting you much VP's. Man, you are just hitting all my decks, aren't you? It's actually harder than you depict, getting that zero blood minion. At least it was for me last night when my prey just sat there and said "screw you, dave". Since you can only take them in your master phase, they have the opportunity to hunt and get back to one. I did eventually end up stealing a minion with zero blood, but it took a long time. > I've been on the receiving end of Spirit Marionette/Heidelburg a few > times and while it didn't bring my predator much closer to winning, it > basically ended my game right then and there. Sort of thanks for playing > you can leave now. Yup, it's more setup, but not *that* much more setup. Yes, this combo sucks. It is still less of an effect than burning a minion. Empty guys can become full guys again, with inherent actions and cards you're likely to play with anyway. Ashed guys stay ashed, barring necromancy and soul gems. And the big, fat "D" on the card makes a hell of a difference in comparison. All this tit for tat has been covered, you know? > For the same reason, I absolutely loathe Slaughterhouse decks. They're a > shitty winning strategy, but it simply disallows someone to play the > game at all. "nice you're here, but you can't play your deck, since I'll > mill away 8 per turn". How much fun. More "you lose" effect. For the record, I won a tournament with a Slaughterhouse deck. Slaughtering is actually a good deal. Realistically, it takes time to get the slaughterhouses in play. It takes even more time to oust; I think we can all agree that it is *slow*. In that vast swath of time a slaughtering predator grants you, your pool is untouched and your minions un-fucked with. But yes, it can oust eventually, and when it ousts you your game is likely to be in a defensive posture and not very effective, just like any other game. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

Andrea wrote: > well, to me (I've received a PS in my last tournament, from my prey, > and we both have been ousted from my predator...)PS says:"I hurt you > and help myself" not "a little" So your prey backousted you? So you had two predators? That must have been a sucky game for you. The corollary to "the guy with no predator wins" is "the guy with two predators loses". As to whether it's "little" or "a lot", it's clearly a lot, although I maintain my shorthand of its opportunity cost being "weird". I'd call the weather "weird" too, you know? Just a little too complex for me to break down. The diminishing returns as the game progresses towards its conclusion, the need to have less pool than the target, the fact that it gives you pool when successful (usually)... it's just a *weird* opportunity cost. In light of that, I'd say PS's effect starts really strong and diminishes over time to the equivelant of an inferior Kindred Spirits (i.e. still damn good). While we're at it, who thinks Kindred Spirits should cost two? I do. > 4 pool that could be passed to anyone who votes in favor (or to your > prey, if he needs) are a great opportunity. maybe more accurate than > "i burn that minion". Lets just say it's a great opportunity, because it clearly is. I would not describe PS as accurate though. There's one guy you really want to be hitting with PS: your prey. The more you hit him, the less likely you are going to be able to hit him again; the fact that you can always gain pool if successful provides a strong incentive to start chucking where it really ought not be chucked, as your example above shows. I wouldn't call that any more accurate than "non-cam", but it's really not very well parameterized at the moment. > sheer strength is nothing without control. PTO is powerful, sometimes > too much. > PS gives you the possibility of manage the table better. > PTO can win you 6 pool and a GW > SP can win you one GW and 10 pool See my reply to Izaak for why losing a minion's worth of pool is worse than losing pool. And for PS to give you the game win directly, your own pool must have been terribly, terribly low. There's a risk associated with that, too. I'm not really comfortable with these comparative discussions. Again, they are simply too difficult to quantify. I prefer to rest upon the simple arguments of net up one stealth, 5 votes, burn a minion. That's it. And that's too much. > anyway all this talking is because I'm quite neutral to PTO changing: > to me is good like that Then you aren't neutral. Which fine. Misguided IMO, but fine. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

Izaak wrote: > Saying that any deck should be able to generate 2 intercept or bounce in > the second turn, is simply silly. You had weenie dominate as a predator. If that's the deal, if that's your metagame and you play to it, the possiblity of having a bouncer up by turn two isn't silly at all. What's truly silly is that bleeds of ten on turn two are even possible. But truthfully, I'm not really concerned about *when* you take it. If you are going to lose ten pool, better to lose it early than late. And the fact remains that your deck will have bleed defense of some fashion incorporated into it. > Yes, bleed defense has a lower opportunity cost and I *know* votes are > tough to defend against. However, in that particular game, I'd rather > seen my Banjoko burned than being bled for 6 at 2 stealth over and over > again. You realize you are invoking weenie dominate with you as its first prey in an attempt to show that PTO is OK? Doesn't that set bells off in your head or anything? But sure, I guess I'd rather lose a five cap than get bled for ten on turn two. How is this relevant? I'm talking more about losing, say, Nu on turn 5. Game over. > You hate Camarilla, no? I hate the thought that one group will be left purposefully on top, due simply to the legacy of different design criteria, while the other two thirds of the game is left to wallow under a weaker scheme, simply providing suitably interesting targets for the group that gets to play with cards for which nothing comperable will ever be printed again (judging by what we've seen so far). > Much like pointless crosstable rushes happen and stupid crosstable > rescues. Forget about the examples of stupid play. What about the *smart* crosstable rushes? Do those exist? I think they do, and they are 0 stealth, directed actions that don't burn your guy with a single card. > Stupid decisions are made all the time from everyone's point of > view. The only view that matters, however, is of the one performing it. What the hell does this mean? The guys dropping misdirection and weenie dominating felt pretty good about what they were doing, I'd wager. > I'm just stressing the fact that a crosstable PtO, which is pretty > broken if you play bigcap non-cam one star decks, is generally stupid to > do, just as burning your predators only vampire in turn 3 is a stupid > thing to do. Yet, both things happen and only the PtO effect is whined > about. If WW printed dumb ass players, I'd argue that they should stop printing those, too. As to the "big cap" argument, how are you going to play a big cap and have it *not* be your star vampire? It's a third of your pool, how much more do you have left? So, barring a small clutch of bloating decks, or the decks that get to play The Discipline That Matters, *all* decks that use big caps are star vampire decks. Do you suggest that those vampires should be unplayable? Only playable by the stupid? Playable by those who will provide you with suitably interesting targets, perhaps? I find this unacceptable. > The question is whether or not bigcap non-cam one-star-decks should > really be considered "the game as a whole". If you'd really care so much > about "the game as a whole", you'd look at small and midcaps, bleed and > bounce. Not at PtO. What the hell are you talking about? Small vampires aren't fucked. Mid caps aren't fucked. Stealth bleed isn't fucked. Big non-cams are fucked, relatively speaking. And as I've shown before, you can drop the "one star"... it's meaningless. > Again, I'm not defending PtO and I have said numerous times it should > only target prey or predator. I can see the effect is too strong to be > applied crosstable, because you can't do shit about it unless you're > playing AUS or spi. Or DI. What it isn't, is some greater evil like the > Return, that instantly collapses tables gives VP's away like no > tomorrow. It's not the "I win" effect on PtO, it's the "You Lose" effect > that makes people cry over this over and over again. This of course is > only emphasized by the fact that bigcap decks are *already* generally > weaker. I don't think "predator or prey" is a sufficient fix, because I don't think the PTO problem is limited to cross-table targeting. That just exacerbates it. Other than that, I'm wondering what we are arguing about, because it seems to me you conceed that it fucks decks not in need of fucking. I suppose your point must be that "you lose" effects are tolerable because you can generate other examples of them which no one is going to advocate banning? If you look at the specifics of those examples, as has been looked at exhaustively, none are as bad as PTO. More importantly, none stifle deckbuilding options like PTO. > Yet, there's PLENTY of cards that have the "You Lose" effect and plenty > of combo's that have the same result. Many of these can be played by a > simple 4 or 5 cap. Why am I not seeing people cry over Mind Rape, Form > of Corruption and Spirit Marionette, just to name a few. See above. See Derek's reply. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:c59h4l$2q1rsf$1...@ID-209231.news.uni-berlin.de... [snip] > 2.) Recovering from the blow. Losing five pool requires you to gain 5 pool. > Replacing a lost 5 cap requires five pool, plus recovering the lost time > required to put him back into play. The upper ceiling on *your loss* is 5 > for PS, 11 for PTO. Hmmm that is a bit simplistic is it not? You conveniently ignore the fact that Parity Shift is 'direct to pool' damage here and quote it as less potent later in the thread !!! The latter being IMO way waaay more potent than minion denial even if it is powerful, as I agree PTO is. You also omit that a minion can (and a very popular theory suggests *always* should) be Minion tapped, Blood dolled, etc. down to a 'working level' (1) to minimise loss if Rushed, Depped, PTO'ed, Mind Raped, Spirit Marionetted etc. etc. [snip] > > Also, playing PtO crosstable is pretty silly as well, unless you're > > *sure* you can oust your prey that same turn and move on. > > That's an opinion on playstyle. Me, I would let her rip if I thought it was > *likely* I would oust. In this game, you aren't sure of shit. If you > think you are, you're deluded. See I think that's where you are wrong. Yes, the game is varied and difficult to read but I think you can do a hell of a lot worse than using your brain between turns and reading people/plays and sussing how the tide of the game is going to go. A huge weapon that a lot of people discount IMO. > Regardless of one's opinion of that playstyle, cross table PTO happens. Agreed, although really not that often. When it does happen it's perpetrated by a pretty short lived Methuselah that cross tables to that extent IME. I know it has been debated a lot before but you cannot deny that there *are* comparable effects elsewhere in the game David. TBH I would be a LOT more worried about cross table rush than cross table PTO if it came up. Unfortunately we seem to be ultimately discussing the fact that there is no accounting for stupidity and that cross table stuff will always happen and will always be a part of the game. Knackering this one card is not going to stop that. (1) A topic for another debate Rob

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:c5bbmq$2q4cvp$1...@ID-209231.news.uni-berlin.de... [snip] > While we're at it, who thinks Kindred Spirits should cost two? I do. Please tell me that's a troll to illicit response?? You really have gone mad :o) Rob

Izaak wrote: > > For the same reason, I absolutely loathe Slaughterhouse decks. They're a > shitty winning strategy, but it simply disallows someone to play the > game at all. "nice you're here, but you can't play your deck, since I'll > mill away 8 per turn". How much fun. More "you lose" effect. I fail to understand how Slaughterhouse is worse than some other decktypes. Like, my predator was playing weenie Computer Hacking/AR and I play toolbox that needs some time to setup (yes, this has happened). I could not get my game up and going in 3 turns, so I was dead at turn 4 or 5. At that point, I did not care whether my cards were in ash heap or in library; I had been denied to play the game. Similarly, I have been disallowed to play the game, for example, when I was playing !Toreador vote deck, and my predator who was playing weenie potence, just torpored all my minions as fast that they were influenced. How fair was that? Yes, I could have used more combat defence, accelerators etc. in those 2 situations above. But Slaughterhouse decks can be hosed too: should I except Slaughterhouses, I can always use Suddens, Arsons, Dominate Kine or simply Arika and Dramatic Upheaval... -Antero

Rob Treasure wrote: > Please tell me that's a troll to illicit response?? Sorry old bean. I'm dead serious. Although maybe costing one would be sufficient. Bleed. Bleed anybody. Gain a pool. Do it for two. Do it for free. This jives with you? I think Kindred Spirits bleed decks are too good, in part because it's mostly free. Look on the bright side, I'm not suggesting we ban it. :) > You really have gone mad :o) Nope, but I'm not afraid of fixing the game, or at the very least considering that some things still need fixing. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

> Sorry old bean. I'm dead serious. Although maybe costing one would be > sufficient. Bleed. Bleed anybody. Gain a pool. Do it for two. Do it > for free. This jives with you? I think Kindred Spirits bleed decks are > too good, in part because it's mostly free. Look on the bright side, I'm > not suggesting we ban it. :) I don't agree. Sure, you can bleed anyone (that's the major bonus when compared to a backwards Social Charm, which is generally considered to be inferior to other PRE bleed cards), but so can you Rush anyone. A bleed starts as a (D) action that is at zero stealth (yeah, I know), and all standard defences against (D) actions and/or bleeds work against it. Attacking someone's pool is seldom worth it unless that someone is your prey. Last year my prime tournament deck was a !Malk bleed deck that relied on KS. The only two(three?) times I intentionally bled anyone except my prey (and we're talking about roughly a dozen times three+ rounds here) were the case of one Dramatic Upheaveled Life Boon, and maybe a table split or two. In the vast majority of cases only a poor player would bleed backwards. Just like Rush or PTO. Except the obvious - cross table PTO won't give you the chance to block, deflect, obedience, combat ends, counter, etc... Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Sure, you can bleed anyone (that's the major bonus when compared to a > backwards Social Charm, which is generally considered to be inferior > to other PRE bleed cards), but so can you Rush anyone. A bleed starts > as a (D) action that is at zero stealth (yeah, I know), and all > standard defenses against (D) actions and/or bleeds work against it. Not all standard defenses. Say you are being bled and you want to bounce. Who do you bounce to? Not your prey, he's the one doing the bleeding. I'm sure you can take it from there. > Attacking someone's pool is seldom worth it unless that someone is > your prey. Being able to swap "predator who puts me in a box" for "predator I can manage plus six" is *potent*. It must be potent, since I see good players do this quite a lot. And how many decks can stand up to having two predators, *at least* one of which is a bleed machine? > Last year my prime tournament deck was a !Malk bleed deck that relied > on KS. The only two(three?) times I intentionally bled anyone except > my prey (and we're talking about roughly a dozen times three+ rounds > here) were the case of one Dramatic Upheaveled Life Boon, and maybe a > table split or two. Sure, why bother? It's so stupidly good you rarely need to do anything other than slap the cards down as you draw them. If it's a bunch of bleed decks on the table, I would hunker down and not look back, too. But if it were a weird table with a rush deck or, say, a table dancer, then you've got the power to just make that person *go away*. If it's a five way, big deal. One VP can go somewhere, anywhere at all, and everything is still gravy, just as long as no one gets that second one. > In the vast majority of cases only a poor player would bleed > backwards. I hope the above can bring you at least to the point where you'll admit that that point is debatable. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

>> Sure, you can bleed anyone (that's the major bonus when compared to a >> backwards Social Charm, which is generally considered to be inferior >> to other PRE bleed cards), but so can you Rush anyone. A bleed starts >> as a (D) action that is at zero stealth (yeah, I know), and all >> standard defenses against (D) actions and/or bleeds work against it. > >Not all standard defenses. Say you are being bled and you want to bounce. >Who do you bounce to? Not your prey, he's the one doing the bleeding. I'm >sure you can take it from there. > >> Attacking someone's pool is seldom worth it unless that someone is >> your prey. > >Being able to swap "predator who puts me in a box" for "predator I can >manage plus six" is *potent*. It must be potent, since I see good players >do this quite a lot. And how many decks can stand up to having two >predators, *at least* one of which is a bleed machine? For once I guess I have to agree with Dave! I also think that Kindred Spirits is a tad bit too powerful. My guess is that many of the people posting on this thread have never sat near a Malk/!Malk deck focused on Kindred Spirits and Dramatic Upheaval. When the Malk deck is bleeding you cross-table the entire game b/c he plans to seat-switch, this is indeed one of those cases where a player has two predators and ends up losing no matter what. Halcyan 2

> Not all standard defenses. Say you are being bled and you want to bounce. > Who do you bounce to? Not your prey, he's the one doing the bleeding. I'm > sure you can take it from there. True, you cannot use My Enemy's Enemy. Other Bounce works. As for the target - if the bleeder is indeed your prey, bounce the bleed to your predator (reduces pression). If it is a random cross-table bleed, flick it towards your prey. If there is someone who has intercept, flick it to them. If the guy plays Dramatic, flick it to their prey. If you have lots of bounce, you can start bouncing your two predators' bleeds into eachother. ;) Assuming the person who is using KS to bleed you (despite how he is not your predator) is doing so for rational in-game considerations and an earnest desire to play to win, there may actually be a logical in-game solution when selecting the target of the bounced bleed (like the ones I mentioned above). Given how a basic !Malk KS deck is way slower than a Malk bleed deck (+1 1 +2 vs. +2 1 +1 +3 - that's a bleed for 4 or 7, not counting Madman's Quill and Pentex Loves You or other bleed enhancers) you have very depletable resources. You cannot afford to go screwin' around and waste a bunch of good KSs on bleeding randomly. I'm not sure I have seen many instances where someone bled backwards and still managed to (rest of) table sweep. > > Attacking someone's pool is seldom worth it unless that someone is > > your prey. > > Being able to swap "predator who puts me in a box" for "predator I can > manage plus six" is *potent*. It must be potent, since I see good players > do this quite a lot. And how many decks can stand up to having two > predators, *at least* one of which is a bleed machine? The very resources you spend on eliminating the killah predator might be able to eliminate your juicy prey. By that time you're half in the box anyway. Yes, the only way to go if your predator is aggressive Rush is to oust backwards, but you seldom get that option (if your predator is _that_ aggressive). You can bleed backwards once or twice and then sit there minionless for the rest of the game. > Sure, why bother? It's so stupidly good you rarely need to do anything > other than slap the cards down as you draw them. If it's a bunch of bleed > decks on the table, I would hunker down and not look back, too. But if it > were a weird table with a rush deck or, say, a table dancer, then you've > got the power to just make that person *go away*. If it's a five way, big > deal. One VP can go somewhere, anywhere at all, and everything is still > gravy, just as long as no one gets that second one. The resources you use to make someone "go away" could be used to earn you a VP. In the vast majority of cases I choose the VP instead of some unasserted strategic advantage. After all, most good decks will become monsters if they have enough time. I may eliminate my extremely dangerous grand-predator only to find me in a position where my predator or grand-prey became unstoppable. Also where I play 2 GW is usually enough for the Finals (heck, sometimes even 1 GW and lots of VPs). In any given game you can fail and still compensate in the games to come. > > In the vast majority of cases only a poor player would bleed > > backwards. > > I hope the above can bring you at least to the point where you'll admit that > that point is debatable. The point is (like any other point) debatable. Yet I'm still unshaken in my stance. I'm not exactly a beginner myself, and very few times did I see the need to bleed backwards where it mattered. Sure, I got Theo Bell as a predator, in that case my only solution was to cycle fast enough to get to some anti-Rush remedy. Otherwise I'm cooked in 2 turns, regardless of whether I bleed backwards or forwards. Sure, I got another !Malk deck behind me who contested all my vamps and barely ousts me with some random weenie. Bleeding backwards is not going to tip the scales. The initial cause why I assembled a !Malk deck to begin with was KS. I hate "random" cross-table action, and like to be prepared to "punish" it. On tournaments I usually played Malkavian Antitribu or Assamites (because of their flexibility of applying pressure). I made finals with both deck types, though the Assamites are too aggressive (you sometimes have to backrush or cross-table rush preemptively, which is not nice). I might be playing Assamites again next year, as this year's deck is already assembled. Note that if you are bothered with the directability of KS you are probably an avid anti-politics lobbyman. Because things happen when people table split. KS is only the nicer way to go; getting hammered by (technically) unblockable Parity Shifts and KRCs cross-table is a pain in the ass. Being bled or rushed is just so much more honest. ;) Bye, Daneel

Halcyan 2 wrote: > My guess is that many of the people posting on this thread have never sat near > a Malk/!Malk deck focused on Kindred Spirits and Dramatic Upheaval. When the > Malk deck is bleeding you cross-table the entire game b/c he plans to > seat-switch, this is indeed one of those cases where a player has two predators > and ends up losing no matter what. > > > Halcyan 2 That is evil, but nowadays people tend (the main reason being obvious) to use quite much Delaying Tactics/Direct Intervention/Vox Domini so in many a case the Malk/!Malk player will hand the vp to another player. And in a 5 player game, having 2 predators means that there is 2 other Meths who still could be your allies for a while. IMO, Kindred Spirits is strong, but fine as it is. -Antero

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote... (snip) > My guess is that many of the people posting on this thread have never sat near > a Malk/!Malk deck focused on Kindred Spirits and Dramatic Upheaval. When the > Malk deck is bleeding you cross-table the entire game b/c he plans to > seat-switch, this is indeed one of those cases where a player has two predators > and ends up losing no matter what. > > > Halcyan 2 If someone is going across table that blatantly, it send off a lot of alarm bells and paints a huge *bull's eye* on their chest. Other players will probably start directing actions against them in the hope of restoring table balance... and if you're deck cannot bleed/attack/vote cross table or help another player who is in this sort of mess (two predators), then you're deck has a weakness that is being fairly exploited (IMHO). Cheers, Howard PS Why are so many people worried about game balance when so many aspects of the game have recently been balanced. What's this all about anyway??

Daneel wrote: > True, you cannot use My Enemy's Enemy. Other Bounce works. As for the Part of what makes bounce good is that you take a bleed directed at you, and then you direct it to your prey. If your prey is bleeding you, you can't do that. The best you can do is choose the least damaging place to send it. > Assuming the person who is using KS to bleed you (despite how he is > not your predator) is doing so for rational in-game considerations and > an earnest desire to play to win, there may actually be a logical > in-game solution when selecting the target of the bounced bleed (like > the ones I mentioned above). But you are still causing pool loss to someone who is not your prey. You've suggested this is practically *always* stupid. Now you are doing it, too. So which is it? > Given how a basic !Malk KS deck is way slower than a Malk bleed deck > (+1 1 +2 vs. +2 1 +1 +3 - that's a bleed for 4 or 7, not counting > Madman's Quill and Pentex Loves You or other bleed enhancers) you have > very depletable resources. KS bleeds will be for three or four, Govern bleeds will be at 5 or 6. KS is absolutely free, meaning you are 180 degrees off: your resources are hardly depletable at all. I will choose bleeds for 3 for free and gaining a pool over bleeds that cost two blood for 5 *any day of the week*. The real determiner is deflection i.e. can you live with Telepathic Misdirecion and your brokenly-good bloat, or do you need the possibility of an untapped DOM deflector. > You cannot afford to go screwin' around and > waste a bunch of good KSs on bleeding randomly. I'm not sure I have > seen many instances where someone bled backwards and still managed to > (rest of) table sweep. MMV. And what's with the "randomly"? Bleeding your predator, or any other person on the table, is a choice. It's a choice made by good players who win games. It's a choice made by players who go on to become national champions. > The very resources you spend on eliminating the killah predator might > be able to eliminate your juicy prey. But not if you are ousted. That's the point. Bleeding anyone allows you to choose not to be ousted. > By that time you're half in the > box anyway. Yes, the only way to go if your predator is aggressive > Rush is to oust backwards, but you seldom get that option (if your > predator is _that_ aggressive). You can bleed backwards once or twice > and then sit there minionless for the rest of the game. Not if he's dead. Constructing examples leads inevitably into tit-for-tat, but hucking nine backwards in conjunction with any kind of grandpredator at all is likely to result in death on the spot. > The resources you use to make someone "go away" could be used to earn > you a VP. Do you have an eye towards sweeping with your s+b deck? If so, what does it matter what order you oust those players in? It's still the same number of players. Or do your stealth bleed decks just not have the gas to sweep? -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> Given how a basic !Malk KS deck is way slower than a Malk bleed deck >> (+1 1 +2 vs. +2 1 +1 +3 - that's a bleed for 4 or 7, not counting >> Madman's Quill and Pentex Loves You or other bleed enhancers) you have >> very depletable resources. > > > KS bleeds will be for three or four, 2 or 4 actually (assuming Eyes of Chaos). > Govern bleeds will be at 5 or 6. KS > is absolutely free, meaning you are 180 degrees off: your resources are > hardly depletable at all. I will choose bleeds for 3 for free and > gaining a pool over bleeds that cost two blood for 5 *any day of the > week*. If you assume inf Dom, then the comparable Dem bleed is 2 and gain a pool vs 5 and pay a blood. If you assume sup Dom, then you have to account for other advantages that DOM gets (like Command of the Beast, GtU's superior, Deflection's no tap, etc). > The real determiner is deflection i.e. can you live with > Telepathic Misdirecion and your brokenly-good bloat, or do you need the > possibility of an untapped DOM deflector. No, the real determiner is your cript. If you just want to bleed, you can easily get away with inf Dom, giving you plenty of options for delivery support (Obf, Pot, whatever). Going to DOM only gets you +1 bleed (with no extra cards). By comparison, DEM gets you +2 bleed over dem. >> The resources you use to make someone "go away" could be used to earn >> you a VP. > > > Do you have an eye towards sweeping with your s+b deck? If so, what > does it matter what order you oust those players in? It's still the > same number of players. Or do your stealth bleed decks just not have > the gas to sweep? Each ousting of someone other than your prey adds 6 pool to the amount you have to bleed. Flux

> Part of what makes bounce good is that you take a bleed directed at you, > and then you direct it to your prey. If your prey is bleeding you, you > can't do that. The best you can do is choose the least damaging place > to send it. > But you are still causing pool loss to someone who is not your prey. > You've suggested this is practically *always* stupid. Now you are doing > it, too. So which is it? In general you don't want to do pool damage to anyone except your prey. In general other players will want to do the same thing. There may be specific cases where someone finds strategic advantage in causing pool damage to someone other than their prey. In those cases, the person who is the target will likely find himself in a nonstandard situation. If _anyone but your prey_ bleeds you, you will generally find it useful to bounce it towards your prey. If indeed your prey is bleeding you, you will want to avoid the pool loss (just like when your predator bleeds you), and you will try to gain strategic advantage from choosing the target of the bleed well. If you cannot choose your prey, you are in a nonstandard situation where the given circumstances determine the best target. See the snipped paragraph about this for details. > KS bleeds will be for three or four, Govern bleeds will be at 5 or 6. > KS is absolutely free, meaning you are 180 degrees off: your resources > are hardly depletable at all. Cards. They tend to run out if you go on going on. With 4 players, you have at most 22.5 cards to deal with a player. Including defence, discards, and utility cards. Assuming 4-5 cards for defence and for discards, you are left with 15-16 cards per player. With five-card combos that ends up being 3 packs of 5 cards. With DEM you'll choose Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos, Spying Mission, Lost in Crowds and some random utility stealth. That's a responsible bleed for 4 at 3 stealth. It is free and it gives you a pool if succesful. Repeated twice, it allows you to do 4×3 or 12 pool damage to each player - which is theoretically enough. With DOM you'll choose Govern, Conditioning, Spying Mission, Lost in Crowds and some random utility stealth. That's a responsible bleed for 6 at 3 stealth. It costs 2 blood and gives you nothing. But the total damage you do is 6×3 or 18 pool. Now... If 12 pool damage is enough to oust your prey, you'll be left with at least a spare action that you could theoretically use to Govern at superior, and gain 3 pool. So all in all the only difference is the amount of blood your minions spend - which is a lot, but that is the price of speed. > I will choose bleeds for 3 for free and > gaining a pool over bleeds that cost two blood for 5 *any day of the > week*. The real determiner is deflection i.e. can you live with > Telepathic Misdirecion and your brokenly-good bloat, or do you need the > possibility of an untapped DOM deflector. No. The real difference between DEM vs. DOM is not Deflection. It is Govern the Unaligned vs. Kindred Spirits. Because, with KS you can: 1. Bleed anyone (useful, but since the prey is 99% to the left, it is pretty cornercase) 2. Gain a pool from a succesful (!!) bleed. So much for responsible bleeding - if you have enough stealth to make it to your prey's reserves and you get bounced, you will have a tough choice. Gain 1 pool and get your prey 3-4 pool closer to 6 pool, or play Spying, and forfeit the pool. 3. Free - nothing is free, of course. It does not, however, cost blood. ;) Whereas Govern: 1. Bleeds for +2 at inferior (at which level KS is a bleed for +0). 2. Costs a blood. 3. Can be used to put 3 blood on uncontrolled vampires. This is very important. Which can gain you 2/3 pool if you need it at the cost of an action that does not risk your prey getting 6 pool. That can speed you up, possibly gaining an early action or two - which count. DEM bleed is the reliable .44 of Stealth Bleed, whereas DOM bleed is nothing short of an Assault Rifle. > MMV. And what's with the "randomly"? Bleeding your predator, or any > other person on the table, is a choice. It's a choice made by good > players who win games. It's a choice made by players who go on to > become national champions. [nitpick] A choice made by a good player is not necessarily a good choice. [/nitpick] Anyway, the fact that it is possible to win a game after making an oust backwards does not mean that it is 1. easy, 2. safe and 3. generally worth it. You will try it if you see no other alternative, but most of the cases it will only extend your suffering. > > The very resources you spend on eliminating the killah predator might > > be able to eliminate your juicy prey. > > But not if you are ousted. That's the point. Bleeding anyone allows > you to choose not to be ousted. The point is, if you are close to being ousted, you will probably be ousted with a new predator as well. There are exceptions, but they are just that. Generally if your predator is really the arrow to your achilles-tendon, you'll be out before you can consider backbleeding. Been there, done that, and have no T-shirt to tell the tale. > Not if he's dead. Constructing examples leads inevitably into > tit-for-tat, but hucking nine backwards in conjunction with any kind of > grandpredator at all is likely to result in death on the spot. Chances are, you won't likely be hucking for nine if your predator is really your nemesis. Nor will it be unexpected when it happens. Nor will you be much better off with the new predator, if he is any good. > > The resources you use to make someone "go away" could be used to earn > > you a VP. > > Do you have an eye towards sweeping with your s+b deck? If so, what > does it matter what order you oust those players in? It's still the > same number of players. Or do your stealth bleed decks just not have > the gas to sweep? Not if I'm starting backwards. Especially not if there is a cause to do so (meaning, I'm probably short a minion or two to begin with). Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Cards. They tend to run out if you go on going on. With 4 players, you > have at most 22.5 cards to deal with a player. Including defence, > discards, and utility cards. Assuming 4-5 cards for defence and for > discards, you are left with 15-16 cards per player. With five-card > combos that ends up being 3 packs of 5 cards. Five card combos are bad and unnecessary. Three card combos are the norm: Bleed action, bleed modifier (which may be stealth too) and stealth modifier. That is your combo. You may have to occasionally play an extra stealth card or deploy some anti-bounce tech, but the combo is three. Three is the magic number in this game. Once you've adjusted your combo to something more realistic, what does that do to your argument? > With DEM you'll choose Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos, Spying Mission, > Lost in Crowds and some random utility stealth. That's a responsible > bleed for 4 at 3 stealth. It is free and it gives you a pool if > succesful. Repeated twice, it allows you to do 4×3 or 12 pool damage > to each player - which is theoretically enough. Actually, I would choose Kindred Spirits + Confusion + some stealth card if I needed it. It's a two and a half card combo, slides under AI, and gains me a pool. And I would just do that, over and over again. If I had no pride, that is. ;) -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Can your IC be PTO'd? Yes, given the right prep work. > Can your nine cap do anything comperable? Yes, given right the card combo. And so can a 4 cap with POT...without even going through the motions of asking permission. Want to be on the business end of my Raped, Raved, Razed deck for proof? Mike's right. The card is fine. Quit your bitching and play the fucking game already. Regards, Noal

> Five card combos are bad and unnecessary. Three card combos are the > norm: Bleed action, bleed modifier (which may be stealth too) and > stealth modifier. That is your combo. You may have to occasionally > play an extra stealth card or deploy some anti-bounce tech, but the > combo is three. Three is the magic number in this game. > > Once you've adjusted your combo to something more realistic, what does > that do to your argument? Keeps it the same... Less times more is roughly the same as more times less. ;) But truthfully my formula disregarded masters, etc. that may lower the ratios. Anyway, the packs are packs; having more from them won't change a lot, as we were comparing two similar deck types that have lots of similarities and some peculiar differences. > Actually, I would choose Kindred Spirits + Confusion + some stealth card > if I needed it. It's a two and a half card combo, slides under AI, and > gains me a pool. And I would just do that, over and over again. If I > had no pride, that is. ;) Key element - your preference is based on your desire to keep it as safe as possible (if anything can be safe in this game). You prefer KS because it is safe, gains a pool, does not cost blood, etc. So in the end it seems that being able to bleed backwards is no real incentive. Right as it should be; after all, the prey is towards the left. KS is not overpowered, but it is preferrable in certain ways (whereas Govern is preferable in other ways). Honestly, if you want something broken, consider politics. Not just PTO, mind you - a tablesplitting voter deck is the worst kind of spoiler, as you get no chance to block/deflect/whatnot its actions. Bye, Daneel

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Rob Treasure wrote: > > outrageous tourney win / dominance record. If it is so great go out and win > > with it and show how 'broken' it is. > > I can assert just this much about a formal definition of broken, since I'm > paraphrasing god here: it is not limited to effects that win games. If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are plentiful. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Noal McDonald wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > >>Can your IC be PTO'd? > > > Yes, given the right prep work. > > >>Can your nine cap do anything comperable? > > > Yes, given right the card combo. And so can a 4 cap with POT...without > even going through the motions of asking permission. Quick question: which is better, a one card combo or a four card combo? I know you're rusty, so take a minute if you need it. > Want to be on the business end of my Raped, Raved, Razed deck for > proof? Mind Rape is a D and I have to be younger and it's at 0 stealth. I'm sure it's a good deck, seeing how it's built around Dominate and all, but it's apples and oranges as far as PTO is concerned. > Mike's right. The card is fine. Oh, now I see. > Quit your bitching and play the > fucking game already. I'd bet money I play it more than you do. I'll bet money I've played it as long as you. I'd bet money one of us still dumps his precious time into promoting it and keeping it going, and the other one talks about how he mostly just plays poker these days. -- David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

Daneel wrote: >>Once you've adjusted your combo to something more realistic, what does >>that do to your argument? > Keeps it the same... Less times more is roughly the same as more times > less. ;) Except the bleed part is staying the same. It's the support cards that bump it up from three to five, and I'm saying you won't play those cards consistently enough to count for purposes of analysis. You end up with more total bleed cards and, thus, more gas. > Key element - your preference is based on your desire to keep it as > safe as possible (if anything can be safe in this game). You prefer KS > because it is safe, gains a pool, does not cost blood, etc. It is purely a matter of my preference, but in either case the card numbers are the same: a bleed action, a bleed modifier, and a support card. 3 is less than 6, but if you hurl your deck at doing the same stupid trick over and over again, either magnitude will suffice. In Kindred Spirits' case, you can do it even more reliably. You can rely on your speed and every single minion action you take generating a pool, forgo bounce and untap, and just do that one thing. > So in the end it seems that being able to bleed backwards is no real > incentive. You say this like you've proved something. Saying it ain't making it so. > Honestly, if you want something broken, consider politics. Not just > PTO, mind you - a tablesplitting voter deck is the worst kind of > spoiler, as you get no chance to block/deflect/whatnot its actions. Further still: table splitting of any kind is "broken", since the guy with two predators loses. This is ridiculous. __ David Cherryholmes

Ben Peal wrote: > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. Madness of the Bard is banned. __ David Cherryholmes

In article <bf72a12e.04041...@posting.google.com>, Ben Peal says... > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be > disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are > plentiful. Perhaps banning is too harsh. Tough to say. We're no longer in the "X/ANTI X" phase where Return to Innocence was so obvious. I think that it certainly merits at least a "toning down"; more so than some other cards that have been already altered through reprints. Sure we missed the boat with CE, but that doesn't mean it can't be reprinted at some later date with a nerfing. I don't hate errata like some others. If the card needs it, I'll live with it. -- -Snapcase

[ quoted text not captured ] What circumstances pertaining to non-native speakers of the English language have anything to do with Protect Thine Own? - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

[ quoted text not captured ] The fact that the card is banned, for reasons that have nothing to do with it winning "more than their fair share of tournaments". That is not the sole criteria for banning. __ David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > >Madness of the Bard is banned. > > > > > > What circumstances pertaining to non-native speakers of the English > > language have anything to do with Protect Thine Own? > > The fact that the card is banned, for reasons that have nothing to do > with it winning "more than their fair share of tournaments". That is > not the sole criteria for banning. You're absolutely right. Madness of the Bard is banned due to mechanical problems with the card. I don't see how that opens the door for banning Protect Thine Own. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

> Except the bleed part is staying the same. It's the support cards that > bump it up from three to five, and I'm saying you won't play those cards > consistently enough to count for purposes of analysis. You end up with > more total bleed cards and, thus, more gas. Possibly. The three cards per combo calculation indeed increases the total amount you can bleed, but by the same token a similar calculation can be assumed in the case of Govern. > > Key element - your preference is based on your desire to keep it as > > safe as possible (if anything can be safe in this game). You prefer KS > > because it is safe, gains a pool, does not cost blood, etc. > > It is purely a matter of my preference, but in either case the card > numbers are the same: a bleed action, a bleed modifier, and a support > card. 3 is less than 6, but if you hurl your deck at doing the same > stupid trick over and over again, either magnitude will suffice. In > Kindred Spirits' case, you can do it even more reliably. You can rely > on your speed and every single minion action you take generating a pool, > forgo bounce and untap, and just do that one thing. 1. This is not necessarily so; bleeding in itself is insufficient. You need minions who can consistently get away with what they are doing (e.g. they need a minimum of obf DEM to function properly, and in that case your average crypt size will not allow you to rely on the 1 pool you gain from each succesful bleed). 2. The whole argument came up by you expressing a view that KS is overpowered. I combatted that opinion. Since your (otherwise valid) arguments backing the usefulness of KS have nothing to do with its ability to "target anyone", I think that we can more or less agree that that issue is not really an issue. It happens, it can be useful, but it does not make it overpowered. Otherwise KS is just a backwards Social Charm. > > So in the end it seems that being able to bleed backwards is no real > > incentive. > > You say this like you've proved something. Saying it ain't making it so. Based on your arguments. When I chose a DEM bleed deck for my tourney deck I chose it because of KS, and primarily because of the ability to target anyone. You on the other hand do not seem to consider it that much incentive, even though I presume your opinion of the card being overpowered is somewhat based on its ability to go cross-table or upstream. > > Honestly, if you want something broken, consider politics. Not just > > PTO, mind you - a tablesplitting voter deck is the worst kind of > > spoiler, as you get no chance to block/deflect/whatnot its actions. > > Further still: table splitting of any kind is "broken", since the guy > with two predators loses. This is ridiculous. Yeah, but what can you do? Sure, players who are highly sportsmanlike try to win on their own (as far as you can do that in VTES), and admit defeat if it comes. But if playing spoiler or kingmaker can earn you a VP or more, doing it is understandable. It is not nice towards the players whom you shaft, as they are condemned to lose. But is there a real alternative? People who enjoy VTES for the role of playing a sneaky ruthless methuselah will find nothing wrong with screwing a guy or two just because it is in their interest... Bye, Daneel

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Quick question: which is better, a one card combo or a four card combo? > I know you're rusty, so take a minute if you need it. Which is better, a combo that can only target 75% of the vampires or a combo that can target all of them? You can take all the time you like. Mind Rape/Rave/Force of Will, btw, is a 3 card combo. Fortitude skill cards, stealth cards and Daring the Dawn are only added as needed. > Mind Rape is a D and I have to be younger and it's at 0 stealth. Directed actions can be made to be unstoppable (barring DI) and votes cannot. All it takes is one Discipline card on a 11-cap and everyone is younger. > I'm > sure it's a good deck, seeing how it's built around Dominate and all, > but it's apples and oranges as far as PTO is concerned. True. Arguing which is stronger, Dominate or Titles/Votes, is pretty much a masturbation. I can see why you'd like to avoid it. > I'd bet money I play it more than you do. I'll bet money I've played it > as long as you. I'd bet money one of us still dumps his precious time > into promoting it and keeping it going, I'm sure you're correct. I dump most of my precious time into my job and marriage. But then, having adult priorities and obligations tends to put bullshit arguments about a damned card game in their proper perspective. > and the other one talks about > how he mostly just plays poker these days. At least I don't have to put up with foolish arguments about game balance and people trying to ban the Ace of Hearts. Regards, Noal

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.04041...@posting.google.com>... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > Directed actions can be made to be unstoppable (barring DI) and votes > cannot. Is there a specific text on Elder Impersonation that states that it cant be palyed in combination with a vote-card? Seduction? Any one of the other block-denial cards? Superior Awe for +8 votes is pretty unbeatable on a normal table as well, if you ask me. > I dump most of my precious time into my job and marriage. But then, having > adult priorities and obligations tends to put bullshit arguments about a > damned card game in their proper perspective. Dave hasnt up until this point made a single bullshit argument (as far as I can see), but you have. (the one above)

> 1. This is not necessarily so; bleeding in itself is insufficient. Sorry, could you take that one again? Bleeding in itself sooner or later ousts people in my book :P > You need minions who can consistently get away with what they are doing > (e.g. they need a minimum of obf DEM to function properly, and in that > case your average crypt size will not allow you to rely on the 1 pool > you gain from each succesful bleed). Two incorrect statesments. My crypt average is 4,5 or something close to that. In an avarage game I get out at least 4 minions. 1 pool X 3-5 per turn is strong. Especially if you combine it with blood dolls (and possibly Capitalist). Its really redicolously good. > Otherwise KS is just a backwards Social Charm. So, you loose pool when you succesfully bleed? ;D /A.Gyhlesten

Noal McDonald wrote: > Which is better, a combo that can only target 75% of the vampires or a > combo that can target all of them? You can take all the time you like. Whichever one *doesn't* involve back flips. > Mind Rape/Rave/Force of Will, btw, is a 3 card combo. Fortitude skill > cards, stealth cards and Daring the Dawn are only added as needed. Your trick needs two disciplines. It needs at least three cards. If the target has Basil untapped and/or a wake, suddenly it's up to four cards and you are most likely sending yourself to torpor. PTO takes one card and nothing more and you can tac-nuke from across the table. I don't know which alien race made off with your brain in the last year, but your analysis is way off. > Directed actions can be made to be unstoppable (barring DI) and votes > cannot. Sure D's can. You can burn 4 blood on Horrific or you can send your tooled up 11 cap to torpor, assuming they don't have any of the increasingly popular allies in play. And I am prepared to be educated.... what card makes the D unlockable that couldn't also be played on the vote? I don't know who you are, but I would like Noal back, and I think he's going to be hot that you are posting drivel under his name. > All it takes is one Discipline card on a 11-cap and everyone is > younger. Sure, and getting to that discipline card. How many in the deck? What do you do with the rest? Do you need that extra moving part for PTO? Even then, all you've got is *most everyone* younger. The exceptions are corner case, but with PTO you don't even have to consider the corner case. Can you see the difference? > True. Arguing which is stronger, Dominate or Titles/Votes, is pretty > much a masturbation. I can see why you'd like to avoid it. I'd like to avoid trying to discuss why a 5 card, 2 discipline combo that sends your 12 cap to torpor is *not* better than PTO, yes. It shouldn't need to be debated. I'd also prefer not having that debate with someone who I used to think was pretty cool, but who lately has been coming off like a raving loon. > I'm sure you're correct. I dump most of my precious time into my job > and marriage. So do I Noal, so do I. But out of what little is left, I give up some to putting a public face on VTES. One day I'm going to have kids and I'll probably have to quit even that, but until then I do what I can. > But then, having adult priorities and obligations tends > to put bullshit arguments about a damned card game in their proper > perspective. In their proper perspective, they would be trivialities debated on Usenet. But within that context, PTO is a massive fuck up that should be fixed. The crack heads designed it, everyone knows that. They probably had no eye toward there ever being more than the 4, already sucky, indy clans, because the game's profits were a rounding error compared to Magic. PTO once had a high opportunity cost, but now it doesn't. We've fixed their mistakes in the past. This one just got missed until now. > At least I don't have to put up with foolish arguments about game > balance and people trying to ban the Ace of Hearts. You logged on, you read, you replied. If you really aren't interested, why don't you drop the net copping and just go the fuck away? __ David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] The arguable reason would be that PTO has an overly devastating effect on the victim. It may be true that using PTOs has a fairly balanced effect in terms of allowing the user to win. However, whoever's on the receiving end WILL get burned - and pretty badly if they're losing a large cap minion. That kind of thing makes the game less enjoyable, even if a balance problem isn't indicated. One other interesting point about PTO. Though you seldom ever plan a deck or even choose a strategy just due to the existence of a single card, it is true that in a way PTO tends to encourage smaller cap decks. I assume a certain number of folks around here would think that effect unnecesary. Fred

Kit...@Tjohoo.se (Kitzune) wrote in message news:<f3d02f39.0404...@posting.google.com>... > > 1. This is not necessarily so; bleeding in itself is insufficient. > > Sorry, could you take that one again? Bleeding in itself sooner or > later ousts people in my book :P Sorry, I forgot to phrase in a loser-friendly way. ;) Attempting lots of bleed actions is insufficient in itself when you have no evasion to back your bleeding minions. Having smallies is a form of evasion, but it does not really work without either stealth or combat defence. If you attempt to bleed, you will probably have to deal with blocking attempts. And with KS you want that bleed to connect, because it gives you a pool. In order to consistently get through with your bleeds, you probably need stealth to support it. So you either go with a small avg. crypt size (4.67) and do dem obf, or bring out some "heavy weapons" and do DEM obf (giving you an average crypt of about 6+). > My crypt average is 4,5 or something close to that. In an avarage game > I get out at least 4 minions. > > 1 pool X 3-5 per turn is strong. Especially if you combine it with > blood dolls (and possibly Capitalist). Its really redicolously good. Are we talking about an actual deck, or just hypothesis? Just curious. For obvious reasons... > > Otherwise KS is just a backwards Social Charm. > > So, you loose pool when you succesfully bleed? ;D No, but the methuselah whom you bled does... ;) Bye, Daneel

> > My crypt average is 4,5 or something close to that. In an avarage game > > I get out at least 4 minions. > > > > 1 pool X 3-5 per turn is strong. Especially if you combine it with > > blood dolls (and possibly Capitalist). Its really redicolously good. > > Are we talking about an actual deck, or just hypothesis? Just curious. > For obvious reasons... We are talking about an actual deck.

Kit...@Tjohoo.se (Kitzune) wrote in message news:<f3d02f39.04041...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Would it be impolite to ask for a decklist then? I'm always interested in ridiculously good decks. Bye, Daneel

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > Want to be on the business end of my Raped, Raved, Razed deck for > proof? [*** in comparison to PTO ***] As someone who *has* been on the business end of your deck, Noal, I think I can jump in here with some authority. When you used your RRR deck against me, I laughed whenever you grabbed one of my guys and forced him to burn as he bled me. It was interesting, original and very funny to watch. In fact, I was so impressed by the idea that I tried it in a JOL game (which Cherryholmes may recall). Of course, my version did not work nearly as well as yours did that time. (The fact that I was playing with Blood Brothers, ie inherently [FOR] vampires, helped you a lot, I think :) Your deck, while impressive in many ways, is not easy to pull off, and I have seen it fail more times than I have seen it work. In the four or more games that I have seen you play it in, only the one where I was playing Blood Brothers got you a game win (IIRC). In the other games that I recall you only got 1 VP and that was from ousting me with two Daring the Dawn'ed bleeds for 6, burning your only two vampires and thus essentially suiciding for a VP. Granted, this was the best you could do at the time, and a quite legitimate tactic... not to mention also very funny. That same day even, *I* was playing a PTO deck. I burned Raille's Sutekh the turn after he came out. And later in the same game, I burned Dan Decker's merged Lambach with the Eye of Hazimel. I'm sure I played a Bewitching Oration or maybe a Forgotten Labyrinth at the most (I don't recall). For me, it was just a casual vote that destroyed two successive prey's chance to play their games at all. Consequently, I easily swept that particular table. I don't think there is even a comparison to be honest. Your deck *earns* its burns. I laughed as you burned my guys. I did not see either Raille or Dan laugh as I casually burned theirs with a throw-off PTO. I have been the abuser of PTO far more than I have been the victim. In fact, I don't recall ever having a vampire burned by PTO. But as someone who abuses the card, I see just how bad it is. All other arguments aside, any card that destroys the fun of a game as much as PTO probably needs to go or change... or something. Once a game works for me. As a side note, I noticed the other day that Peter Oh's IRC callsign of "peteo" is quite similar phonetically to "PTO". Therefore, I would like to have him also banned or changed. Just to be safe. Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:c6030...@enews4.newsguy.com... > That same day even, *I* was playing a PTO deck. I burned Raille's Sutekh > the turn after he came out. And later in the same game, I burned Dan > Decker's merged Lambach with the Eye of Hazimel. I'm sure I played a > Bewitching Oration or maybe a Forgotten Labyrinth at the most (I don't > recall). For me, it was just a casual vote that destroyed two successive > prey's chance to play their games at all. Consequently, I easily swept > that particular table. I sure remember that well. :) > I don't think there is even a comparison to be honest. Your deck *earns* > its burns. I laughed as you burned my guys. I did not see either Raille > or Dan laugh as I casually burned theirs with a throw-off PTO. Well while I didn't laugh, I sure didn't cry about it either. That partucular deck was my Redeem the Lost Soul's deck. The vampires are supposted to get burned. I just prefered to use them a couple times first, not transfer up and out! > I have been the abuser of PTO far more than I have been the victim. In > fact, I don't recall ever having a vampire burned by PTO. But as someone > who abuses the card, I see just how bad it is. All other arguments > aside, any card that destroys the fun of a game as much as PTO probably > needs to go or change... or something. > > Once a game works for me. > > As a side note, I noticed the other day that Peter Oh's IRC callsign of > "peteo" is quite similar phonetically to "PTO". Therefore, I would like > to have him also banned or changed. Just to be safe. Changed. Little vis can go a long way. Raille

"Snapcase" <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1aea303ba...@news.optonline.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Uhm, toned down. How about the added PTO text along this line: Succesful referendum results in the acting vampire losing their title. That limits the card to about once per vampire, and makes in more of an end game card since you might want the additional votes to pass other referendums. Although in the right situtation, you might not even notice you lost 3 or 4 votes. ;) Raille

> I have been the abuser of PTO far more than I have been the victim. In > fact, I don't recall ever having a vampire burned by PTO. But as someone > who abuses the card, I see just how bad it is. All other arguments > aside, any card that destroys the fun of a game as much as PTO probably > needs to go or change... or something. > i dunno wes sure it's NOT fun having a vampire burned by a vote - but the vote is so easily cancelled (vox domini) or delayed (delaying tactics) not to mention pulling strings... damn - even PENTEX the inner circle... see how fun that is for a couple of turns... when one sees an inner circle hit the table, why doesn't the table TALK about it and deal with it - in the same way that it used to happen when setites or stealth bleed or weenie votes would hit the table... the table has an obligation to deal with the deck or suffer.... jds

we are still talking about this??? wow. W

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > Which is better, a combo that can only target 75% of the vampires or a > > combo that can target all of them? You can take all the time you like. > > Whichever one *doesn't* involve back flips. You still didn't answer the question. > > Mind Rape/Rave/Force of Will, btw, is a 3 card combo. Fortitude skill > > cards, stealth cards and Daring the Dawn are only added as needed. > > Your trick needs two disciplines. One on the acting minion and one on the victim. > It needs at least three cards. If > the target has Basil untapped and/or a wake, suddenly it's up to four > cards and you are most likely sending yourself to torpor. Daring the Dawn is for the victim, not the acting minion as a rule. > PTO takes one > card and nothing more and you can tac-nuke from across the table. So can Banishment and Sensory Dep. Your point? > I don't know which alien race made off with your brain in the last year, > but your analysis is way off. Rather than attempt to discuss logically, we're going to start ad hominem attacks? Fine. I can play that game, too. > > Directed actions can be made to be unstoppable (barring DI) and votes > > cannot. > > Sure D's can. You can burn 4 blood on Horrific or you can send your > tooled up 11 cap to torpor, assuming they don't have any of the > increasingly popular allies in play. And I am prepared to be > educated.... what card makes the D unlockable that couldn't also be > played on the vote? I said "unstoppable" not "unblockable." Do try to read what's actually written, dipshit. (See! I can do ad hominem attacks, too!) Once you've made your vote unblockable, Delaying Tactics, Pulling Strings, Vox Domini, etc. can ruin a PTO action. Never mind just plain getting voted down. On a Directed Action, once it's unblockable, it's unstoppable. Surely someone of your renown acumen can understand the difference. (Whee! Ad hominem attacks are fun!) > I don't know who you are, but I would like Noal back, and I think he's > going to be hot that you are posting drivel under his name. Noal's doing just fine. Too bad you've been replaced by the Body Snatchers. > > All it takes is one Discipline card on a 11-cap and everyone is > > younger. > > Sure, and getting to that discipline card. How many in the deck? Six is usually enough. > What do you do with the rest? Play them for free and/or discard them. Not really that hard to figure out, I should think. > Do you need that extra moving part for PTO? If you want to target other IC members, yes. > Even then, all you've got is *most everyone* younger. The exceptions > are corner case, but with PTO you don't even have to consider the corner > case. You mean the corner case that your prey and predator are playing Camarilla. That's one rare corner case, let me tell ya. :-P > Can you see the difference? Yes. Too bad you can't. > > True. Arguing which is stronger, Dominate or Titles/Votes, is pretty > > much a masturbation. I can see why you'd like to avoid it. > > I'd like to avoid trying to discuss why a 5 card, 2 discipline combo > that sends your 12 cap to torpor is *not* better than PTO, yes. It > shouldn't need to be debated. I'd also prefer not having that debate > with someone who I used to think was pretty cool, but who lately has > been coming off like a raving loon. Oh no! Because I dared to argue with the great David Cherryholmes I'm no longer cool!!!! Oh, no! What will I do!?! Jesus Mother Fucking Christ Hopping on a Pogo Stick. You think, at 35 years old, I give two shakes of my dick whether you, someone I've never met in person, thinks I'm "cool"?!? Grow the fuck up already. By now, you should know I really don't give a flying fuck what anybody on the newsgroup thinks of me. Btw, I've been a raving loon for quite some time. A cursory Google search should find quite a few rants. Feel free to do so at your leisure. > > I'm sure you're correct. I dump most of my precious time into my job > > and marriage. > > So do I Noal, so do I. But out of what little is left, I give up some > to putting a public face on VTES. One day I'm going to have kids and > I'll probably have to quit even that, but until then I do what I can. Let's see. I stopped being Prince a year ago because I didn't have enough time and energy to do the job justice, due to house shopping, getting married and having a miscarriage, and somehow I'm a bad person? How about you take your fanatical, judgemental, Jyhad evangelical crap and shove it in your mother fucking ear?!? I know who the cool person here is and so does anyone with half a brain. If you run into me at Origins where I'll *actually* be playing Jyhad, don't talk to me. I might say some very unpleasant things about you and your ancestry. Noal

"Wes" wrote: > I don't think there is even a comparison to be honest. Your deck *earns* > its burns. I laughed as you burned my guys. I did not see either Raille > or Dan laugh as I casually burned theirs with a throw-off PTO. True. Comparing PTO to RRR is not the best. Try Banishment or Sensory Dep. Those are both pretty harsh and can have the same effective result. Regards, Noal

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.04041...@posting.google.com... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > Rob Treasure wrote: > > > outrageous tourney win / dominance record. If it is so great go out and win > > > with it and show how 'broken' it is. > > > > I can assert just this much about a formal definition of broken, since I'm > > paraphrasing god here: it is not limited to effects that win games. > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. There is no consistent data system for analyzing tournaments. It'd be more useful to analyze tournament *games* than just "who won the tournament", too; winning the finals is different (and gives a lot less data to analyze) from winning preliminary games. > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be > disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are > plentiful. Sadly, yes. But Protect Thine Own is overly disruptive. Josh burned multiple nine and ten caps with pto last time he played it in a tournament

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.0404...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well PTO burns the vampire. Banishment at least allows for it to return to the game, sometimes in very short order. Sen Dep locks down the vamp, but you can still blood doll. minion tap and vote. As a result PTO cannot be compared directly to the above cards. Raille

Noal McDonald wrote: > You still didn't answer the question. Yes I did, but let me take the inference out of the loop. PTO is better. > One on the acting minion and one on the victim. How does your action not get blocked with only DOM fueling it? You need lots of disciplines. Disciplines on your guys, disciplines on their guys. Cute trick, nothing like PTO. > Daring the Dawn is for the victim, not the acting minion as a rule. Then Basil blocks. >>PTO takes one >>card and nothing more and you can tac-nuke from across the table. > So can Banishment and Sensory Dep. Your point? The comparison to banishment and sense dep have been made. No need to repeat that here. > Rather than attempt to discuss logically, we're going to start ad > hominem attacks? Fine. I can play that game, too. Look, fuckmook, you jumped in and started spewing profanity and net copping, telling me to fucking do this and shitting do that, and now you want to claim the moral high ground? You can honker down on the snotty end and like it, sweetheart. > I said "unstoppable" not "unblockable." Do try to read what's actually > written, dipshit. (See! I can do ad hominem attacks, too!) Got the distinction. Back when I still had a vestige of politeness left in me, I figured I was missing something and asked for the answer. > Once you've made your vote unblockable, Delaying Tactics, Pulling > Strings, Vox Domini, etc. can ruin a PTO action. Never mind just plain > getting voted down. On a Directed Action, once it's unblockable, it's > unstoppable. Surely someone of your renown acumen can understand the > difference. (Whee! Ad hominem attacks are fun!) I understand that vote defense has a high opportunity cost, is weak, and generally does not work. 0 stealth directed actions are, shall we say, not *quite* in the same league? > Oh no! Because I dared to argue with the great David Cherryholmes I'm > no longer cool!!!! Oh, no! What will I do!?! No, you sad, bitter little shit. I don't want to argue with you because I met you at WoN 2002, you gave me a couple rides, and hooked me up with about 70,000 commons to get a few guys -- one of whom is now an active prince -- jump started into the game. I'm also one of the people who emailed you my condolences on your personal tragedy. I used to *like* you, for a *reason*. Now, you can fucking piss off. > I know who the cool person here is and so does anyone with half a > brain. If you run into me at Origins where I'll *actually* be playing > Jyhad, don't talk to me. I might say some very unpleasant things about > you and your ancestry. More "don't approach me in real life" posts. I'm even more impressed. __ David Cherryholmes

Wow, another thread gone awry... I don't have the time / energy to read it all, so maybe this has already been said (or in another of these 10.000 threads). But I just wanted to share one more idea about PTO : the Cammies are immune to it, are they ? Except with a Mind Rape and (assuming they are not titled) a change to Anarch. The vamps will lose 2 blood and become PTOable. Still not all the vamps in the game, granted. But enough to make a difference. And if your prey and predator both play Cammie titled, you say ? Do you know any good voting deck that doesn't include a way to change sitting order ? Orpheus (Group 2) -- "Officially, Krassimir's gender is indeterminate." LSJ "freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: fc6a5b20.04041...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. Well, if that's the case, then you shouldn't ban it for competitive balance reasons. > > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be > > disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are > > plentiful. > > Sadly, yes. But Protect Thine Own is overly disruptive. Which you also can't conclusively show. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

(Hey Dave! Looking forward to the Toronto qualifier!) "freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] People did that for Setites? Hmm... never seen that before. You have nothing to fear from uss, sssurely? I am often surprised to see how little table-talk/cooperation there is when certain deck archetypes hit the table. But everyone has an agenda, and the primary one is ousting one's prey. That can make for some serious blinders to other peoples' problems. Though the idea of table balancing can also get a bit out of hand, it seems to be one of the main foils against things like Malk S&B and weenie hordes. Sure, PTO can also be stopped in this fashion, and I have seen it stopped for no other (apparent) reason than that it is *mean*. (Take note here, Eric Chiang -- You should help *foil* Malk S&B decks... not *assist* them :) I think a lot of this has already been discussed, so I am wary of re-opening the topic of how to *stop* PTO. I agree that there are ways to stop it, and that people should stop it. But I don't think this is relevant to the issue at hand. The problem, to my mind, is that PTO is harmful to the game in the long run. I think that there is a power-scale from suckiness to overpowered that most people can agree to in our heads, with slight differences. We can all agree that Eyes of the Dead is on the sucky end of the scale. Blood Doll is on the other end of the scale. From a player's perspective, the difference between the two poles should not be too extreme and in fact I would make the point that all cards should be equivalently as good as any other card (or strive to be). Maybe the scale can be represented like this: Sucky/Underpowered --- So So --- Good --- Too Good/Overpowered Reasonable cards would fall in the middle two categories. A card designer could produce a card that says "I win. You lose. Nyah nyah." and we would all rightfully complain because it is way to the right of the sucky-toogood scale (See Return to Innocence). The other end of the scale is easier to ignore, as we can all just refuse to put cards like Tortured Confession in our decks or use them to line the birdcage, whatever. (I just give them to new players -- my master plan of never letting them beat me!) There will always be some cards that are at the high end of the spectrum, and some cards have been downgraded, such as was done with Majesty and 5th Tradition, among others. I occasionally hear people who disagreed with those changes, but I think the consensus is that it was good for the game overall. Hostile Takeover went from Too Good back to being just Good. That's fine. At the same time, cards like Oxford University or Acquired Ventrue Assets were brought from the Sucky end to being Usable. I approve of all of these changes, because they narrowed the scale somewhat. It makes more of my cards usable and that's a good thing. (LSJ -- Grand Temple of Set needs your attention :) This is all quite theoretical of course, not to mention that we all have different ideas of how good or bad something is. In my personal opinion, PTO is way outside the scale of reasonable cards for the game. Like TOGP etc I think it needs a tone-down. In fact, I was surprised that it didn't get one. I think PTO needed it moreso than many cards that did get a tone-down. I don't think this is a case of PTO being picked on because it is the "top card" right now, as Legbiter suggested (though I agree that is a possible problem). I don't think this is a case of mob rule either, as Noal suggested. It is a case of a card that should never have been made in the first place and many people are rightfully pissed that it does exist. It either needs to be brought back down to Good or just banned altogether. I'm happy with "Once per game" myself. In closing, it's not so much that I am opposed to PTO specifically, so much as that I want to maintain a reasonable scale of sucky-toogood. And PTO (and some other cards IMO) is off that scale in a bad way. V:tES has always had a great balance, unlike most other CCGs that I have played, and I want to see that balance maintained. Well, that was much longer than I thought it would be. Let the flaming begin. Cheers, WES

On 19 Apr 2004 09:02:16 -0700, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >> Do you need that extra moving part for PTO? > >If you want to target other IC members, yes. Have I missed some Errata? My PTO says "non-Camarilla", and ELDB says the same. So how could you target another IC member? Morgan Vening

<mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > >> Do you need that extra moving part for PTO? > > > >If you want to target other IC members, yes. > > Have I missed some Errata? My PTO says "non-Camarilla", and ELDB says > the same. So how could you target another IC member? Put the aforementioned discipline master card on your IC Member. Mind Rape the other IC Member. When you gain control of the target IC Member, use it to play Clan Impersonation to some random non-Camarilla clan. Use your own IC Member to call PTO on the now former IC Member. Granted, it's probably too clunky to even realistically consider using it in a deck, but it's how you do it. There's probably more value in adding Banishment/Might of the Camarilla to complement PTO. Regards, Noal

"Raille" wrote: > "Noal McDonald" wrote: > > True. Comparing PTO to RRR is not the best. Try Banishment or Sensory > > Dep. Those are both pretty harsh and can have the same effective > > result. > > Well PTO burns the vampire. > Banishment at least allows for it to return to the game, sometimes in very > short order. Unless it is low on blood and the owner is low on pool, which is frequently the case. > Sen Dep locks down the vamp, but you can still blood doll. minion tap and > vote. That's you can even get a Blood Doll or Minion Tap in hand or the vampire has titles. In most cases, you cannot deny that Sense Dep shuts down most vampires cold. > As a result PTO cannot be compared directly to the above cards. Sure they can. They frequently have the same pratical effect of burning a vampire...removing it from play for the rest of the game. Whatever. I'm done discussing this crap. This has gotten to be far more stupid than the card limit arguments ever were. Regards, Noal

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > You still didn't answer the question. > > Yes I did, but let me take the inference out of the loop. PTO is better. It was a simple question that you *still* haven't answered. Do I base my deck around a concept that will be completely shut down if my predator and prey is playing any vampires from one third of the existing set or do I base my deck around a concept where the attributes of their vampires are irrelevent? The point is that for PTO to work (that is oust your prey) reliably, you either have to do the Mind Rape/Clan Impersonation thing or add Banishment/Might of the Camarilla. > The comparison to banishment and sense dep have been made. No need to > repeat that here. Nor anything else. That was my original point: EVERYTHING HAS BEEN REPEATED THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TIMES IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!! GIVE IT A DAMNED REST!!! > > Rather than attempt to discuss logically, we're going to start ad > > hominem attacks? Fine. I can play that game, too. > > Look, fuckmook, you jumped in and started spewing profanity and net > copping, telling me to fucking do this and shitting do that, and now you > want to claim the moral high ground? All I said was "Quit your fucking bitching." I would have said the same thing to anyone, including close friends, after weeks and weeks of babbling about the same damn thing ad infinitum. The difference is that they know I never waste time with tact and wouldn't get all pissy about it. > You can honker down on the snotty > end and like it, sweetheart. And you can toss my salad and lick your lips, cherry balls. > I understand that vote defense has a high opportunity cost, is weak, and > generally does not work. In what universe? Delaying Tactics works every time. Vote defense is necessary for all types of vote decks, not just PTO. > 0 stealth directed actions are, shall we say, > not *quite* in the same league? Add *ONE* card and nobody can do thing one about them. Any sane thought on the matter would tell you that (D) actions are inherently more reliable than vote actions because there are less defenses available. > > Oh no! Because I dared to argue with the great David Cherryholmes I'm > > no longer cool!!!! Oh, no! What will I do!?! > > No, you sad, bitter little shit. I don't want to argue with you because > I met you at WoN 2002, you gave me a couple rides, and hooked me up with > about 70,000 commons to get a few guys -- one of whom is now an active > prince -- jump started into the game. I'm also one of the people who > emailed you my condolences on your personal tragedy. I used to *like* > you, for a *reason*. Now, you can fucking piss off. Whatever. I'm being the same person I've always been. It's not my problem that you can't handle someone getting in your face. > More "don't approach me in real life" posts. I'm even more impressed. Good for you. I just don't see any point in wasting my time on someone who's so blind enraged over a single card that has been around for SIX DAMNED YEARS that they can't stop obsessing about it. Noal

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message > news:bf72a12e.04041...@posting.google.com... > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. There is no > consistent data system for analyzing tournaments. This is all kind of going off the track, though. Ben's point is well- taken and one that I consider to be the essential question when you're considering banning a card as being unbalanced. That fact that there's never an objective way to exactly "prove it" is beside the point. If you set the bar that way, none of the previous cards banned or altered could be deemed worth of such, either. In short: if you _MUST_ make a decision, it's not necessary that the data be analyzed in some precise objective way. You'd _prefer_ to do it that way, of course. If you can not, then it has to be made using peoples' subjective opinions. > > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be > > disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are > > plentiful. > > Sadly, yes. But Protect Thine Own is overly disruptive. For the record, I suspect Ben reckons correctly: there is little to suggest that the "easy" way to win a tournament is to pack your crypt with IC members and load up on PTOs. But I also agree with your statement above: PTO is too wild a swing to be a very well-designed card. Whether it's worth further disrupting the "installed card base" :-) by issuing another bit of errata, reprinting with different text, or banning it is a judgement I'd be hesitant to make. Fred

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.04041...@posting.google.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Ben Peal wrote: > > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > > > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what wins. > > > It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the decks that > > > use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > > > It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. > > Well, if that's the case, then you shouldn't ban it for competitive > balance reasons. Evidence sufficient to truly "show" the "need" for banning pretty much doesn't exist in VTES. That doesn't mean nothing can be overpowered enough to need fixing in VTES. > > > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to be > > > disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options are > > > plentiful. > > > > Sadly, yes. But Protect Thine Own is overly disruptive. > > Which you also can't conclusively show. You could never conclusively show that Return to Innocence was overpowered *or* overly disruptive from any of the data ever available. Yet, here we are. Nor Tomb of Rameses, nor Golconda, nor pre-1998 Immortal Grapple, nor Misdirection. Second Tradition. Fifth Tradition. The list goes on. Vast quantities of these never *approached* being as overpowered as Protect Thine Own still is. We don't have proof, but we do have logical and empirical arguments. I don't think they have irrefutable proof in the courts, either, a lot of the time. They still make decisions. Josh agitatious

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > we are still talking about this??? No. It's a figment of your imagination. Go back to sleep.

Noal McDonald wrote: > It was a simple question that you *still* haven't answered. Do I base > my deck around a concept that will be completely shut down if my > predator and prey is playing any vampires from one third of the > existing set or do I base my deck around a concept where the > attributes of their vampires are irrelevent? I have answered. I just didn't repeat all the justification for choosing PTO over your convoluted combo, since you seem to be fed up with, and blind to, the reasons. You don't agree. Got it. > The point is that for PTO to work (that is oust your prey) reliably, > you either have to do the Mind Rape/Clan Impersonation thing or add > Banishment/Might of the Camarilla. You are confining the issue of PTO to one of ousting your prey. That is not the grounds upon which people object to it. No one ever said it was an "I win" card. > EVERYTHING HAS BEEN REPEATED THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TIMES IN THE LAST > SIX WEEKS!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!! GIVE IT A DAMNED REST!!! And yet here you are, still making the same tired, and wrong, analogies between PTO and SenseDep. Pot. Kettle. Black. > All I said was "Quit your fucking bitching." I would have said the > same thing to anyone, including close friends, after weeks and weeks > of babbling about the same damn thing ad infinitum. The difference is > that they know I never waste time with tact and wouldn't get all pissy > about it. You can leave your double standards at the door, thank you. > In what universe? Delaying Tactics works every time. Vote defense is > necessary for all types of vote decks, not just PTO. Statements like this are part of the reason this subject won't die. I'm not going to bother refuting this. >> 0 stealth directed actions are, shall we say, >>not *quite* in the same league? > Add *ONE* card and nobody can do thing one about them. The one card that sends your twelve cap to torpor? Check. > Any sane thought on the matter would tell you that (D) actions are > inherently more reliable than vote actions because there are less > defenses available. Asserting this doesn't make it so. I will not bother re-making them, since you are simultaneously exhausted by, and impervious to, the arguments, but it's not a given. > Whatever. I'm being the same person I've always been. It's not my > problem that you can't handle someone getting in your face. Telling you to fuck off is handling it. > Good for you. I just don't see any point in wasting my time on someone > who's so blind enraged over a single card that has been around for SIX > DAMNED YEARS that they can't stop obsessing about it. You know, having one of the founders of the NJL tell me to just "shut up and play the game" is so rich with hypocrisy I don't even know where to start. Again, if you don't like talking about the game, or this particular part of the game, you are free to not read, and not participate. I would have thought someone as crusty as you would know better than to net cop. __ David Cherryholmes

12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message > news:bf72a12e.04041...@posting.google.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > Ben Peal wrote: > > > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about a > > > > tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what > > > > wins. It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the > > > > decks that use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > > > > > It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. > > > > Well, if that's the case, then you shouldn't ban it for competitive > > balance reasons. > > Evidence sufficient to truly "show" the "need" for banning pretty much > doesn't exist in VTES. That doesn't mean nothing can be overpowered > enough to need fixing in VTES. Now you're confusing me. I think Ben was trying to say that the evidence he can see is insufficient to conclude that PTO is overpowered as a means to win games (and thus tournaments). Whether there's an objective way to show that or not is (I now think we all agree) not the issue. Even if there isn't, you still have to work from _some_ empirical evidence. Given that point, your objection above ("...almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing") makes no sense. Fred

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.04042...@posting.google.com... > > Whatever. I'm done discussing this crap. This has gotten to be far > more stupid than the card limit arguments ever were. > Whoot! Card Limits. I think we should argue the merits of a 6 card limit. Exceptions for clan cards, perhaps. Can we do a Poll? ;) raille *ducks*

Raille wrote: > Whoot! > > Card Limits. I think we should argue the merits of a 6 card limit. > Exceptions for clan cards, perhaps. > > Can we do a Poll? ;) I vote a 1 card limit. --Colin McGuigan

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:38:16 -0500, Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: > Raille wrote: >> Card Limits. I think we should argue the merits of a 6 card limit. >> Exceptions for clan cards, perhaps. >> Can we do a Poll? ;) > > I vote a 1 card limit. Hmmm... Are Highlander decks even vaguely possible in Jyhad? You could do a politics deck fairly easily I think, but otherwise you'd end up using almost every card in whatever particular disciplines you were using. Some would stay reasonably presentable... pot/ani for combat would still be good, just not as streamlined. Hmmmm... !Nos bruise and vote perhaps? With a splash of stealth at times. > --Colin McGuigan -- Nihil mutatem, omni delendum est...

Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40853F7B...@nospam.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Thank God, i actually thought that we were for a while, W

> Can we do a Poll? ;) One in favor. ;) Bye, Daneel

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<1POcnR2a_-k...@speakeasy.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] There's a new semi-collectible card game by Reiner Knizia [? famous German game designer guy, did weird LotR multiplayer patience-like board game] which has a 1CL. It is called Blue Moon. So far we have played 1 game and have formed the opinion that it has nice components and a LOT of hoser cards, with mechanics similar to complicated Top Trumps. Possibly worth buying just for the Mimix expansion if, like me, you are into curvy naked women.

ThunderFoot <thu...@blackguildTOTHEVOID.com> wrote in message news:<opr6sj97...@news.connect.com.au>... > Hmmm... Are Highlander decks even vaguely possible in Jyhad? > You could do a politics deck fairly easily I think, but otherwise > you'd end up using almost every card in whatever particular disciplines > you were using. Some would stay reasonably presentable... > pot/ani for combat would still be good, just not as streamlined. > Hmmmm... !Nos bruise and vote perhaps? With a splash of stealth at times. Yes they are possible. i had an sort of equipment deck, based on Fidus and a toreador anti wich could look up equipment. It actually got 1,5 vp in a tourny. Two time outs and 1 real vp, my own. I found out that the happy family theory works well with it. almost never had an hand jam. dino

> Hmmm... Are Highlander decks even vaguely possible in Jyhad? > You could do a politics deck fairly easily I think, but otherwise > you'd end up using almost every card in whatever particular disciplines > you were using. Some would stay reasonably presentable... > pot/ani for combat would still be good, just not as streamlined. > Hmmmm... !Nos bruise and vote perhaps? With a splash of stealth at times. We had an unsanctioned a few years ago where one round was 1 CL. I played !Tremere and had no real problem (different DOM bleeds, Different AUS intercept, different THA combat, presented by good old Chamber at the time of need). 1 Blood Doll and 1 Minion Tap are somewhat constraining though... Plus having a total of two block-when-tapped cards gives more room to the tactical "no action this turn". The best deck would probably be a 60 carder with Pochtli and Carlotta, and as much as possible burn option cards. Bye, Daneel

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:1POcnR2a_-k...@speakeasy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I think a 1 card limit if great. We have plenty of cards and sub card types that 1 card limits should be workable. Also with Ericyes Fragment and Agiatas you can alway use your opponents cards and effectively have 2 copies of each! What about clan Cards? 1 or unlimited or somthing else? Raille

Raille wrote: > I think a 1 card limit if great. We have plenty of cards and sub card types > that 1 card limits should be workable. > > Also with Ericyes Fragment and Agiatas you can alway use your opponents > cards and effectively have 2 copies of each! > > What about clan Cards? 1 or unlimited or somthing else? 1! No need to start getting soft now! --Colin McGuigan

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > Ben Peal wrote: > > > > If we're considering banning the card, then we're talking about > > > > a tournament context. In tournaments, we're concerned with what > > > > wins. It has never been shown that Protect Thine Own allows the > > > > decks that use it to win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > > > > > It's almost impossible to conclusively show such a thing. > > > > Well, if that's the case, then you shouldn't ban it for competitive > > balance reasons. > > Evidence sufficient to truly "show" the "need" for banning pretty much > doesn't exist in VTES. That doesn't mean nothing can be overpowered > enough to need fixing in VTES. Well, conclusively or not, objectively or not, it's quite clear that insufficient evidence exists to show that PTO is helping decks that use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > > > If a player is not concerned with winning, and simply wants to > > > > be disruptive with a given card or effect, then his/her options > > > > are plentiful. > > > > > > Sadly, yes. But Protect Thine Own is overly disruptive. > > > > Which you also can't conclusively show. > > You could never conclusively show that Return to Innocence was > overpowered *or* overly disruptive from any of the data ever available. > > Yet, here we are. > > Nor Tomb of Rameses, nor Golconda, nor pre-1998 Immortal Grapple, nor > Misdirection. > Second Tradition. Fifth Tradition. The list goes on. Vast quantities > of these never *approached* being as overpowered as Protect Thine Own > still is. I highly doubt that any of the cards you mention above were changed because they were "disruptive", and I'm fairly certain that all the above cards were changed for reasons of "competitive balance". At the moment, the only card I can think of that was changed because it was "disruptive" is Succubus Club. If you or Cherryholmes or whoever are looking for any way to open the door to get PTO changed, then Succubus Club is the only precedent I can think of, and I suggest you explore that path. It'll be an uphill battle, given that the old version of Succubus Club was far more disruptive than PTO has ever been. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > Well, conclusively or not, objectively or not, it's quite clear that > insufficient evidence exists to show that PTO is helping decks that > use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. You are arbitrarily confining the discussion again to one of cards that win more than their fair share of tournaments. Again, that is not the only criteria for banning, and examples have been produced. Given that this is absolutely, clearly, irrefutably not the *only* metric by which a decision to ban can be made, you must abandon this line of defense. If anyone were to attempt to argue that PTO causes unfair game wins, their argument would be shot down casually in a split second. Luckily, no one is making that argument (or at least I'm not). >>Nor Tomb of Rameses, nor Golconda, nor pre-1998 Immortal Grapple, nor >>Misdirection. >>Second Tradition. Fifth Tradition. The list goes on. Vast quantities >>of these never *approached* being as overpowered as Protect Thine Own >>still is. > > > I highly doubt that any of the cards you mention above were changed > because they were "disruptive", and I'm fairly certain that all the > above cards were changed for reasons of "competitive balance". I'm fairly certain 5th trad was changed because it was timing out an inordinate amount of tables, which leaves it as another card banned for reasons other than winning. Unless the designer cares to shed some light (and I doubt he's going to open that door), our hunches will just have to remain at odds. > At the moment, the only card I can think of that was changed because > it was "disruptive" is Succubus Club. If you or Cherryholmes or > whoever are looking for any way to open the door to get PTO changed, > then Succubus Club is the only precedent I can think of, and I suggest > you explore that path. It'll be an uphill battle, given that the old > version of Succubus Club was far more disruptive than PTO has ever been. Not bad advice, but I actually gave up hope for an actual change to the card when Scott said directly to a question about PTO: "It's a good card." Despite what some people assert, I'm not fanatically campaigning to get it changed; that's a lost battle, and my decks just go to the back of the bus where they, evidently, are intended to be. What I tend not to do, however, is let arguments for why the card is fine as is go unanswered when I disagree with them. __ David Cherryholmes

Ben Peal wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Nor Tomb of Rameses, nor Golconda, nor pre-1998 Immortal Grapple, nor > > Misdirection. > > Second Tradition. Fifth Tradition. The list goes on. Vast quantities > > of these never *approached* being as overpowered as Protect Thine Own > > still is. > > I highly doubt that any of the cards you mention above were changed > because they were "disruptive", and I'm fairly certain that all the > above cards were changed for reasons of "competitive balance". > > At the moment, the only card I can think of that was changed because > it was "disruptive" is Succubus Club. Actually, Succubus Club is one I'd put in the overly powerful club. People were including Succubus Clubs in their decks just to contest anyone else playing Succubus Club. That's a pretty good sign of a competitive balance problem. None the less, it is true that cards have been altered and banned for other reasons than competitive balance, even if not specifically for having too extreme of an effect. I'm sure we could have lived with the effects of The Embrace and Legacy of Pander as they were, without suffering too much from how poorly they represented the backstory. But, hey, we got "saved" from _their_ effects. Fred

David Cherryholmes: > Ben Peal wrote: > > > Well, conclusively or not, objectively or not, it's quite clear that > > insufficient evidence exists to show that PTO is helping decks that > > use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > You are arbitrarily confining the discussion again to one of cards that > win more than their fair share of tournaments. Again, that is not the > only criteria for banning, and examples have been produced. Given that > this is absolutely, clearly, irrefutably not the *only* metric by which > a decision to ban can be made, you must abandon this line of defense. No, _you_ are arbitrarily confining the context of my statements to something narrower than what it is. I have agreed in a prior post (yours) in this thread that competitive balance is not the only criteria (mechanical problems being the one agreed to), and I volunteered an example of a card that was likely changed due to the criteria of a disruptive effect (Succubus Club) in another post - the very post to which you posted this response. > I'm fairly certain 5th trad was changed because it was timing out an > inordinate amount of tables, which leaves it as another card banned for > reasons other than winning. Unless the designer cares to shed some > light (and I doubt he's going to open that door), our hunches will just > have to remain at odds. Eh? I don't recall this at all. Where did you hear this? Not that I think you're wrong, since obviously I don't know either what goes on behind the curtain, but this is the first I've heard of that as the reason. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > No, _you_ are arbitrarily confining the context of my statements to > something narrower than what it is. I have agreed in a prior > post (yours) in this thread that competitive balance is not the only > criteria (mechanical problems being the one agreed to), and I > volunteered an example of a card that was likely changed due to the > criteria of a disruptive effect (Succubus Club) in another post - the > very post to which you posted this response. So we both agree that you don't need to make the case that PTO wins too much, in order to ban it? That there is some other case we could make instead? And you simply disagree that the case has been made? > Eh? I don't recall this at all. Where did you hear this? Not that > I think you're wrong, since obviously I don't know either what goes on > behind the curtain, but this is the first I've heard of that as the > reason. I doubt you would "recall" it. I don't recall an official justification for any of those sweeping changes ever being made. Some are so obvious in intent that there's little to discuss, while others provide more latitude. I certainly remember the screeching and hollering about "stupid 5th trad bloat decks that won't die", but I don't recall any wrt "OBF Princes gaining mad pool and swarming the table." __ David Cherryholmes

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.04042...@posting.google.com>... > No, _you_ are arbitrarily confining the context of my statements to > something narrower than what it is. I have agreed in a prior > post (yours) in this thread that competitive balance is not the only > criteria (mechanical problems being the one agreed to), and I > volunteered an example of a card that was likely changed due to the > criteria of a disruptive effect (Succubus Club) in another post - the > very post to which you posted this response. Well, I guess it is hard to prove how Succubus Club was any disruptive. We all know it was, but I guess it is still unprovable. I'm sure some people did not find SC disruptive. I'm also sure some people honestly don't find PTO disruptive - matter of opinions. It's different from the bunch that are now aggressively against being against PTO (who probably enjoyed 5th trad the way it was). Come to think of it, I'm also having a hunch that more decks that have ICs include PTO than that had Princes and included 5th trad. But the point is, the fact that you cannot prove it does not tip the scales in any way. Cause, they changed Drawing of the Beast. did decks win with that combo? Nay. Was it disruptive? On the whole, hardly. But when it came up, it was. So saying that its disruptiveness is unprovable, or that it does not dominate tourney winning decks, etc. is basically off topic defence. On topic defence is not really possible, because, well, an effect that burns a vampire (discriminated by its sect) regardless of its other attributes, even if it is technically subject to all the shortcomings a political action is subject to, is hardly healthy. Also note that (though it is not possible) the real descriptive survey would be one centered around how an effect causes others to lose (vs. how it causes the player to win). Cause causing others to lose is not the least any less disruptive than making you win. Bye, Daneel

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > > No, _you_ are arbitrarily confining the context of my statements to > > something narrower than what it is. I have agreed in a prior > > post (yours) in this thread that competitive balance is not the only > > criteria (mechanical problems being the one agreed to), and I > > volunteered an example of a card that was likely changed due to the > > criteria of a disruptive effect (Succubus Club) in another post - the > > very post to which you posted this response. > > So we both agree that you don't need to make the case that PTO wins > too much, in order to ban it? That there is some other case we could > make instead? As per the prior statements I made, yes. > And you simply disagree that the case has been made? Yes. > > Eh? I don't recall this at all. Where did you hear this? Not that > > I think you're wrong, since obviously I don't know either what goes on > > behind the curtain, but this is the first I've heard of that as the > > reason. > > I doubt you would "recall" it. I don't recall an official justification > for any of those sweeping changes ever being made. Some are so > obvious in intent that there's little to discuss, while others provide more > latitude. I certainly remember the screeching and hollering about > "stupid 5th trad bloat decks that won't die", but I don't recall any wrt > "OBF Princes gaining mad pool and swarming the table." I personally suspect that it was more due to the "the only decks that win are Prince decks" whining, and I'm pretty sure that the evidence was there that Prince-based decks were winning more than their fair share of tournaments. But again, we don't know what goes on behind the curtain. *shrug* - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > As per the prior statements I made, yes. Hey, it was Saturday afternoon and I was very, uhm, relaxed. Just wanted to make sure I was following you. :) > I personally suspect that it was more due to the "the only decks > that win are Prince decks" whining, and I'm pretty sure that the > evidence was there that Prince-based decks were winning more > than their fair share of tournaments. But again, we don't know what > goes on behind the curtain. *shrug* Bad logic. Princes are too powerful + 5th Trad got changed != 5th trad got changed because it was too powerful. Put another way, I don't think 5th trad contributed to the power of prince decks in the way that, say, Parity Shift or Kindred Restructure does. I believe 5th was percieved to be a problem for other reasons, and got changed. PS I'm pretty bored right now. If you've got the time, wander on over to #vtes. __ David Cherryholmes

Daneel wrote: > So saying that its disruptiveness is unprovable, or that it does not > dominate tourney winning decks, etc. is basically off topic defence. I wish I had a clue what you could be talking about when you refer to "on topic" or "off topic" defense. Topicality is a netiquette issue, not a card design issue. The only thing we care about topicality is your posts be topical to the newsgroup. If you're talking about banning or altering Jyhad card, you're pretty much on solid ground there. Certain people get their panties in a wad over whether a post is "topical" to its subject line. They're idiots. Matching your post to the subject line is a minor nuance of good posting practice but hardly an issue worth spending any words on. If you happen to notice a branch of discussion you're writing about wandering away from its original focus, just change the subject line. Problem solved. > Also note that (though it is not possible) the real descriptive survey > would be one centered around how an effect causes others to lose (vs. > how it causes the player to win). Cause causing others to lose is not > the least any less disruptive than making you win. The two are hardly equal. If you can show that the use of a given (specialized, not staple) card allows for a significantly easier path to victory for the user, that's a much worse problem than one which capriciously kills an opponent's chances. The former will destroy the diversity of the metagame as viable deck archetypes begin thinning out to just "X" decks (using the specialized card in its specialized way) and "anti-X" decks, which contain the specific hosers for the "X" decks. The latter is more of "fun-ness" issue: it sucks to play a game in which you never really had a chance due to some other players choices of strategy. This is the problem I tend to have with rush decks, at least when people don't win with them. They destroy their neighbors chances of winning and then make that whole side of the table meat for their grandpredators. You can't really ban a whole play style though, so it's a moot point. A better example of what I'm talking about are "Milling" or discard decks which screw the user's prey and may well oust him but seem unlikely to get a game win very often. The term "disruptive" that Josh used is really about how the PTO likely hurts its victim a lot more than it helps the user. I'm sure people can come up with a lot of examples where PTOs were used to rebalance a game and pull someone who'd gotten ahead back down into the pack. In the long term, though, I don't think that kind of card is good for the game. Fred

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > As per the prior statements I made, yes. > > Hey, it was Saturday afternoon and I was very, uhm, relaxed. Just wanted > to make sure I was following you. :) Heh...no problem. :) > > I personally suspect that it was more due to the "the only decks > > that win are Prince decks" whining, and I'm pretty sure that the > > evidence was there that Prince-based decks were winning more > > than their fair share of tournaments. But again, we don't know what > > goes on behind the curtain. *shrug* > > Bad logic. Princes are too powerful + 5th Trad got changed != 5th trad > got changed because it was too powerful. Put another way, I don't think > 5th trad contributed to the power of prince decks in the way that, say, > Parity Shift or Kindred Restructure does. I believe 5th was percieved > to be a problem for other reasons, and got changed. *shrug* 5th Trad doesn't require a referendum. At any rate, neither of us really have a clue on this matter, so I don't see the point in arguing how right we speculate ourselves to be. ;) > PS I'm pretty bored right now. If you've got the time, wander on over > to #vtes. Alas, I'm in the middle of other gaming - I'm checking web stuff during our pizza break. :) - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<408C2109...@nospam.com>... > Daneel wrote: > > So saying that its disruptiveness is unprovable, or that it does not > > dominate tourney winning decks, etc. is basically off topic defence. > > I wish I had a clue what you could be talking about when you refer > to "on topic" or "off topic" defense. I am referring to the fact that it does not contribute to the discussion. Saying how many people like PTO the way it is, or that its disruptiveness is unprovable, etc. basically avoids any real discussion. Hence, from that point of view it derails the subject to be off the topic. > > Also note that (though it is not possible) the real descriptive survey > > would be one centered around how an effect causes others to lose (vs. > > how it causes the player to win). Cause causing others to lose is not > > the least any less disruptive than making you win. > > The two are hardly equal. If you can show that the use of a given > (specialized, not staple) card allows for a significantly easier path to > victory for the user, that's a much worse problem than one which > capriciously kills an opponent's chances. The former will destroy the > diversity of the metagame as viable deck archetypes begin thinning out > to just "X" decks (using the specialized card in its specialized way) > and "anti-X" decks, which contain the specific hosers for the "X" decks. If a deck causes other decks to lose (but still stands a fair share to win) it will be played just as often as the deck that is easy to win with. We are talking about tables here - if your deck trumps the deck that would sweep the table, you can possibly do the sweep yourself. You need to get prepared to such a deck as well, playing anti-X. Especially when all X does is hose you. > The term "disruptive" that Josh used is really about how the PTO likely > hurts its victim a lot more than it helps the user. I'm sure people > can come up with a lot of examples where PTOs were used to rebalance a > game and pull someone who'd gotten ahead back down into the pack. "Rebalancing" by means of unbalancing is just a matter of context. You would have used the same force to same effect, but had the scales been tipped against the targetted player to begin with, PTO could have only worsened the situation. The effect, in itself, has a huge effect on the game, regardless of who was strong or weak. (Compare with Parity Shift). Therefor it is an unbalancing effect, even if not every single appearance of the card unbalances the given game. Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > > Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<408C2109...@nospam.com>... > > Daneel wrote: > > > So saying that its disruptiveness is unprovable, or that it does not > > > dominate tourney winning decks, etc. is basically off topic defence. > > > > I wish I had a clue what you could be talking about when you refer > > to "on topic" or "off topic" defense. > > I am referring to the fact that it does not contribute to the > discussion. Saying how many people like PTO the way it is, or that its > disruptiveness is unprovable, etc. basically avoids any real > discussion. Hence, from that point of view it derails the subject to > be off the topic. Not really. If someone has something worthwhile to say about the issue of drawing the line between disruptiveness and non-disruptiveness, it could be worthwhile conversation. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Not worth classifying until you've discussed it - and then it's too late. I repeat, the only issue of topicality that's relevant is newsgroup topicality it clearly belong in this discussion. > > > Also note that (though it is not possible) the real descriptive survey > > > would be one centered around how an effect causes others to lose (vs. > > > how it causes the player to win). Cause causing others to lose is not > > > the least any less disruptive than making you win. > > > > The two are hardly equal. If you can show that the use of a given > > (specialized, not staple) card allows for a significantly easier path to > > victory for the user, that's a much worse problem than one which > > capriciously kills an opponent's chances. The former will destroy the > > diversity of the metagame as viable deck archetypes begin thinning out > > to just "X" decks (using the specialized card in its specialized way) > > and "anti-X" decks, which contain the specific hosers for the "X" decks. > > If a deck causes other decks to lose (but still stands a fair share to > win) it will be played just as often as the deck that is easy to win > with. Sure. And that's a problem, I'll grant. As I said in the text you deleted, it's a "fun-ness" problem, not a playbalance problem. > We are talking about tables here - if your deck trumps the deck > that would sweep the table, you can possibly do the sweep yourself. > You need to get prepared to such a deck as well, playing anti-X. > Especially when all X does is hose you. Sorry, you're totally losing me. If PTO decks don't win more than their share, they don't pose a play-balance problem, and they won't cause the metagame to become thin and therefore boring. If you're pointing at some other problem, I don't understand it. And I don't get the sense you understand the point I made about decks that win too easily. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:408CBD04...@nospam.com... > > Sorry, you're totally losing me. If PTO decks don't win more than > their share, they don't pose a play-balance problem, and they won't Ah, thats the rub. They don't win anymore often than other deck types. They DO pose play balance problems. Seems you have these two very different items merged. Hope you paid your extra pool for that! Raille

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.04042...@posting.google.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Evidence sufficient to truly "show" the "need" for banning pretty much > > doesn't exist in VTES. That doesn't mean nothing can be overpowered > > enough to need fixing in VTES. > > Well, conclusively or not, objectively or not, it's quite clear that > insufficient evidence exists to show that PTO is helping decks that > use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. How's that? If you mean "because it hasn't been errataed or banned", isn't that a circular argument - "it's clear that there's not enough evidence because the action resulting from sufficient evidence hasn't been taken"? If that is your point, it seems clear to *me* that it's also possible that the people who would make the change simply haven't been convinced yet by (or have been overlooking) what is perfectly sufficient evidence. :-) > > Nor Tomb of Rameses, nor Golconda, nor pre-1998 Immortal Grapple, nor > > Misdirection. > > Second Tradition. Fifth Tradition. The list goes on. Vast quantities > > of these never *approached* being as overpowered as Protect Thine Own > > still is. > > I highly doubt that any of the cards you mention above were changed > because they were "disruptive", and I'm fairly certain that all the > above cards were changed for reasons of "competitive balance". Immortal Grapple? Where was the evidence that *that* was letting decks win more than "their share" of tournaments? Golconda? Tomb? What about the "Archon multi-rush" concept, how many tournaments did that win to prove that its decks were winning too much and therefore the card wasn't competitively balanced? Banishment targeting older vampires - where were all the Banishment decks in the TWDA? Certainly Protect Thine Own is bad for the competitive balance of the game as a whole: it makes non-Camarilla decks even more non-competitive than they otherwise would be. And it is harmful to the balance of every game in which it is played. Just because it doesn't say "oust your prey" doesn't mean it isn't harmful to the game: Banishment didn't say "oust your prey" either; neither did Derange, neither did Temptation of Greater Power. > At the moment, the only card I can think of that was changed because > it was "disruptive" is Succubus Club. If you or Cherryholmes or > whoever are looking for any way to open the door to get PTO changed, > then Succubus Club is the only precedent I can think of, and I suggest > you explore that path. It'll be an uphill battle, given that the old > version of Succubus Club was far more disruptive than PTO has ever been. My argument is that an unfair effect doesn't have to always make you directly win to be unfair. Protect Thine Own is as unfair as just about any other card that's ever been printed, even if it's hard to make a deck that wins just by playing PTO. In practice, in fact, the old Succubus Club probably didn't disrupt games any more severely than PTO does now. Josh always a day (or week) late and a kilobyte (or megabyte) short

[ quoted text not captured ] Hows that? The "two very different items" are identity. That's what a "play-balance" problem is: a problem with unequally difficult paths toward victory. If there's another concept here, please identify it so we can synch terminology. ("Disruptiveness"? A term I picked up from Josh which I've been using - not completely sure he meant the same thing - to talk about cards that have extreme effects on the game but aren't particularly stronger than average in terms of allowing the user to win.) Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:408FE1EC...@nospam.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Disruptiveness. good call. Still being disruptive effects the manner in which people play, any unusual game effects on the game effect play balance. <really off the wall example> You play a card, and I pick the card up and read the text to ensure I understand what is being played. Of course I have been picking my nose and eating pizza, but hey whats a little contamination between friends. This constant touching out your cards is going to negatively effect your game play. I as a play have the right to look through your ash heap. So how does this effect your play. Well first your going to be a bit steamed and give me a hard time, probably forcefully. Every time I need to see a card or search your ash heap ect, is going to put you off your game. Imagine me using agiatas and taking your cards right away from you and using them. not cool. </really off the wall example> So you see PTO tends to be a disruptive effect on play and game balance, in a less weird way as above, of course. :) Of course I completely disagree with your statement: "The "two very different items" are identity. That's what a "play-balance" problem is: a problem with unequally difficult paths toward victory." You make it sound like every card is a path towards victory. Not true, many cards are side branches that lead no where. Some cards are just bullets to your head. a 90 mummified deck is a sure loss, a 90 ascendance deck is not. The play balance effect is the cards (PTO) ability to destabilize another deck without a direct benefit you the person playing the PTO, unless you count things like Voter Cap, ect. A So if we state PTO is not effective enough to win, we must therefor establish that the card is NOT powerful enough to make a big difference in game play. B If we state that PTO is disruptive, then we have established that the card is TOO powerful and makes a big difference in Play. So where do we take it. is PTO an A or B card? Raille

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > Evidence sufficient to truly "show" the "need" for banning pretty > > > much doesn't exist in VTES. That doesn't mean nothing can be > > > overpowered enough to need fixing in VTES. > > > > Well, conclusively or not, objectively or not, it's quite clear that > > insufficient evidence exists to show that PTO is helping decks that > > use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. > > How's that? If you mean "because it hasn't been errataed or banned", > isn't that a circular argument - "it's clear that there's not enough > evidence because the action resulting from sufficient evidence hasn't > been taken"? > > If that is your point, it seems clear to *me* that it's also possible > that the people who would make the change simply haven't been convinced > yet by (or have been overlooking) what is perfectly sufficient evidence. > :-) That's not what I mean. I mean that there is insufficient empirical evidence to suggest that PTO is helping decks that use it win more than their fair share of tournaments. What do I mean by "insufficient"? Well, "sufficient" is obviously a hard thing to define. Looking at the TWD Archive, 23 decks out of more than 360 (less than 5%) used at least one PTO. That doesn't seem "unfair" to me. Judging by my own personal experience at tournaments, I haven't seen an undue number of PTO-using decks, nor have I seen them be any more dominant in a tournament than any other strategy. > Immortal Grapple? Where was the evidence that *that* was letting decks > win more than "their share" of tournaments? Ok, I mis-spoke there. What _was_ the change to that card, anyway? (looks on the web) Ohhhh...hand strikes only for the current round. Huh. *shrug* > Golconda? This card got its current text 6 years ago. > Tomb? This card got its current text 5 years ago. > What about the "Archon multi-rush" concept, how many tournaments did that > win to prove that its decks were winning too much and therefore the card > wasn't competitively balanced? That was a correction of an undesired loophole in mechanics, right? > Banishment targeting older vampires - where were all the Banishment decks > in the TWDA? 26 decks in the TWDA between 1997 and 2001 used Banishment. > Certainly Protect Thine Own is bad for the competitive balance of the > game as a whole: it makes non-Camarilla decks even more non-competitive > than they otherwise would be. That would imply that non-Camarilla decks are non-competitive. Gobs of empirical evidence shows the contrary. From personal experience, I haven't felt that I've been at a disadvantage solely on the basis of my playing a non-Camarilla deck. Futhermore, I honestly can't remember the last time I was tagged by a PTO in a sanctioned tournament, despite playing non-Cam decks in tournaments on a highly frequent basis. I also don't see decks with Inner Circle Members any more frequently that I see any other sort of deck. *shrug* Your mileage may vary. > And it is harmful to the balance of every game in which it is played. > Just because it doesn't say "oust your prey" doesn't mean it isn't > harmful to the game: Banishment didn't say "oust your prey" either; > neither did Derange, neither did Temptation of Greater Power. As an aside, I found it highly amusing that at a time when people were clamoring for changes to Prince-based decks, Joscha Duell won the 2001 EC with a Derange-based deck. Since then, 2nd Trad, 5th Trad, and Derange have all been changed. :) Personally, I'd find a Presence weenie vote deck with access to Banishment to be more fearsome than an IC deck. *shrug* > > At the moment, the only card I can think of that was changed because > > it was "disruptive" is Succubus Club. If you or Cherryholmes or > > whoever are looking for any way to open the door to get PTO changed, > > then Succubus Club is the only precedent I can think of, and I > > suggest you explore that path. It'll be an uphill battle, given that > > the old version of Succubus Club was far more disruptive than PTO has > > ever been. > > My argument is that an unfair effect doesn't have to always make you > directly win to be unfair. Protect Thine Own is as unfair as just about > any other card that's ever been printed, even if it's hard to make a > deck that wins just by playing PTO. Personally, I think that argument is supported by Succubus Club. I don't think it's supported by PTO. > In practice, in fact, the old Succubus Club probably didn't disrupt games > any more severely than PTO does now. The disruptive king-making and deal-making effect of the old Succubus Club _did_ disrupt games more severely than PTO has. > always a day (or week) late and a kilobyte (or megabyte) short Heh...no problem. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

> Hows that? The "two very different items" are identity. That's what a > "play-balance" problem is: a problem with unequally difficult paths toward > victory. If there's another concept here, please identify it so we can > synch terminology. ("Disruptiveness"? A term I picked up from Josh which > I've been using - not completely sure he meant the same thing - to talk > about cards that have extreme effects on the game but aren't particularly > stronger than average in terms of allowing the user to win.) This feels like hairsplitting. The balance of play can IMHO be upset by 'disruptive' cards - because it drastically alters the path to victory for other people. But whatever, let's not waste effort on arguing about things we basically agree in. Especially when there are lots of folks who don't agree. Let's get back to the issue when everyone hates PTO, and argue about why we each hate it, exactly how we hate it and what is the precise extent of our hatred. ;) Bye, Daneel

Raille wrote: > Of course I completely disagree with your statement: > "The "two very different items" are identity. That's what a "play-balance" > problem is: a problem with unequally difficult paths toward victory." > > You make it sound like every card is a path towards victory. Not true, many > cards are side branches that lead no where. Some cards are just bullets to > your head. :) Certainly true. Many of my cards seem to qualify for that. ("Nutpunchers", indeed.) But yes, people are presumedly trying to win games as they choose the cards they build into their decks. So the _choice_ (at least) of using a card in a deck is a choice of a path towards victory. If they don't turn out to be that in a given game, it's just because the metagame choice turned out to be the wrong one. > a 90 mummified deck is a sure loss, a 90 ascendance deck is not. Not sure whether you're pointing out that bad cards exists or that bad combinations of cards exist but either way, it doesn't dissuade me from my way of looking at deckbuilding. > The play balance effect is the cards (PTO) ability to destabilize another > deck without a direct benefit you the person playing the PTO, unless you > count things like Voter Cap, ect. That's certainly a legitimate point. Just semantics. I've been calling that "disruptiveness", for no particularly good reason except that Josh used the word and it seemed like a good one. I've been using my definition of "play-balance", which I believe is a popular one, for a long time. > A > So if we state PTO is not effective enough to win, we must therefor > establish that the card is NOT powerful enough to make a big difference in > game play. > > B > If we state that PTO is disruptive, then we have established that the card > is TOO powerful and makes a big difference in Play. > > So where do we take it. is PTO an A or B card? Er, notice that you're using two very different definitions of the term "power" here. For the same reason you make a distinction between "effective" and "disruptive", you need to be careful about how you use the term "powerful". Taking that point into account, the two statements are therefore not mutually exclusive and I believe I agree with them both. (Also the term, "make a big difference in game play". Again, it depends on how you define, "make a difference".) Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:409282B4...@nospam.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm going to have to stop at this point. I can only split hairs so long and right now there is not much left to split. :) When you have to make sub references in each sentence for each key or core word to define the that word and its meaning from line to line we have gone beyond anything useful for the General player and reader. Raille

Raille wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:409282B4...@nospam.com... > > Raille wrote: > > > A > > > So if we state PTO is not effective enough to win, we must therefor > > > establish that the card is NOT powerful enough to make a big > > > difference in game play. > > > > > > B > > > If we state that PTO is disruptive, then we have established that > > > the card is TOO powerful and makes a big difference in Play. > > > > > > So where do we take it. is PTO an A or B card? > > > > Er, notice that you're using two very different definitions of the > > term "power" here. For the same reason you make a distinction > > between "effective" and "disruptive", you need to be careful about > > how you use the term "powerful". Taking that point into account, > > the two statements are therefore not mutually exclusive and I > > believe I agree with them both. (Also the term, "make a big > > difference in game play". Again, it depends on how you define, > > "make a difference".) > > I'm going to have to stop at this point. I can only split hairs so long and > right now there is not much left to split. > :) I would agree with you if we were splitting hair. This is not hair- splitting, this is the crux of the matter. The words you use to describe the difference between cards that let you win too easily and cards that don't let you win too easily but have a devastating effect on other players are unimportant. But it is important that you use different words - and not confuse the matter later on down the road by fuzzing over the mean of other words and terms: "powerful", "make a difference", etc. > When you have to make sub references in each sentence for each key or core > word to define the that word and its meaning from line to line we have gone > beyond anything useful for the General player and reader. That's the whole point: you avoid that by agreeing on the meaning of the words ahead of time and sticking to it. And by being aware of where you could be about to step on a semantic land mine. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40967AF0...@nospam.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Your a bastard. in a freindly way, drawing me on what I should be doing something else, like work! Your going to have to come visit and we can discuss this at leisure of a case or 2 of "Maher 12" I figure we need the first to establish the word and phrases allowed and the second to get into the heart of the matter. Maybe we need a moderator too?! Raille

Raille wrote: > Your a bastard. I am. :) > in a freindly way, drawing me on what I should be doing > something else, like work! Yep, I know what you mean. The reason I risk flame war, annoyance, and all matter of aggravation on this Usenet device is because the interesting thread is truly addictive. > Your going to have to come visit and we can discuss this at leisure of a > case or 2 of "Maher 12" I'd love to - unfortunately, the new job makes it unlikely to happen soon. Unless, of course, I get fired for spending too much on Usenet. Maher 12 sounds like something dangerous. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4096A85E...@nospam.com... [ quoted text not captured ] :) > Maher 12 sounds like something dangerous. Its a Belgian beer. about 10%, very smooth, very drinkable, very... hic..... Ok, probably dangerous. Raille