LSJ and/or Robert Goudie: 40/40 draft question

Apologies if this has been answered before. Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or is it only usable for unsanctioned events? It seems like it would be a fun format to use for non-prerelease tournaments as well, but unfortunately I'm not sure it's sanctionable under current VEKN rules. If it isn't, could it be added to the sanctionable-limited-formats list? Or is it seen as too much of a "constructed/limited hybrid" to fit into the limited format section? Thanks, Josh reinstating the draft

"Joshua Duffin" wrote > Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna > prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or > is it only usable for unsanctioned events? > > It seems like it would be a fun format to use for non-prerelease > tournaments as well, but unfortunately I'm not sure it's sanctionable > under current VEKN rules. If it isn't, could it be added to the > sanctionable-limited-formats list? Or is it seen as too much of a > "constructed/limited hybrid" to fit into the limited format section? > I agree with Josh. The now VEKN limited format is cost prohibitive to many players and it can really result in some boring games. The pre-release was outstanding and very fun. People got to play decks they wnated to play without spending too much money. Hopefully this format can be added to the mix. Tobin -tpl [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tobin Lopes" <tobinhate...@adelphia.fishingnet> wrote in message news:<Rt6dnVtrJZ_...@adelphia.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] If you are looking at an alternative way of doing a limited format without increasing the cost too much, then you can do the following: 7.2.3. Card Use - Limited Tournaments <snip> Players may use only the actual cards they receive or draft at a Limited tournament, and any additional cards specifically provided by the tournament organizer. <snip> I spoke with LSJ about this, and you can provide all your participants with the cards that they use in the event. So, you can provide all participants with (as I did) 50 vampires and 150 library cards from which they must make their decks. This way, costs can be kept down, as you can go through your commons box and do it from that, or cards can be pooled together, and the tournament organiser officially gives to each participant the set of cards he or she must use. This, as far as I would see it, excludes the making decks and bringing them with you 40/40 part of it, as the tournament organiser has no control over this, which you should have, and as such it would be nice to be able to see a ranking set aside for this. Also, I am currently working on a PERL script to produce random boosters for each set, and random tournament pack style starters (like the old Jyhad/VTES starters) so that the element of drafting boosters can be maintained, but the costs reduced. I would like to see 40/40 be introduced as another ranking element, as well as Rapid Thought, especially if Princes/organisers could sanction these ad hoc whilst other events might be going on should people drop/not make the final. Cheers Andy Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

Slytherin expounded: > This, as far as I would see it, excludes the making decks and bringing > them with you 40/40 part of it, as the tournament organiser has no > control over this, which you should have, and as such it would be nice > to be able to see a ranking set aside for this. Only requires you to theoretically have asked the players what cards they want you to provide. Essentially you can borrow people's 40 card decks from them and then provide them back.

Timlagor wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The same cards must be available to all players. -- 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/

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2gus99F...@uni-berlin.de>... > Apologies if this has been answered before. > > Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna > prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or > is it only usable for unsanctioned events? > Also I'm in accord with Joshua: I hope that this format can be used in sanctioned "limited" events to keep low the cost and have strong decks. Best deranges! RavATwoFaces

LSJ expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > > Slytherin expounded: > > > >>This, as far as I would see it, excludes the making decks and bringing > >>them with you 40/40 part of it, as the tournament organiser has no > >>control over this, which you should have, and as such it would be nice > >>to be able to see a ranking set aside for this. > > > > > > Only requires you to theoretically have asked the players what cards > > they want you to provide. Essentially you can borrow people's 40 card > > decks from them and then provide them back. > > The same cards must be available to all players. Bah I'll just go over there and join the "I think it's a god idea" camp then.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:d4%qc.7581$fF3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > The same cards must be available to all players. Does this mean that hypothetical "virtual boosters" are not usable for sanctioned limited play? (that is, "booster packs" created out of already-opened-and-sorted cards, eg from the tournament organizer's personal collection, using some randomizing method to determine what cards are in each pack.) It probably makes sense for that not to be sanctionable, since the "fairness" of the random-assortment nature of boosters normally relies on the booster packs being sealed. Even though tournament organizers are normally (I think) trustworthy, it seems sensible for them to only be able to provide "non-sealed" cards for limited tournaments if the same cards are provided to each participant. Here's another idea, though: with a sufficiently large collection available on-site, the organizer could provide each player with, say, 10 (or 20?) cards and 4 (or 6?) vampires "of his or her choice". Would that also qualify as "the same cards being available to each player", since it's an unlimited set of cards that is available to each of the participants? (Physical limitations on the number of copies of a particular card present might be resolvable by the tournament organizer creating proxies, if necessary...) Josh full of tinier ideas

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>The same cards must be available to all players. > > Does this mean that hypothetical "virtual boosters" are not usable for > sanctioned limited play? (that is, "booster packs" created out of > already-opened-and-sorted cards, eg from the tournament organizer's > personal collection, using some randomizing method to determine what > cards are in each pack.) Yes. > Here's another idea, though: with a sufficiently large collection > available on-site, the organizer could provide each player with, say, 10 > (or 20?) cards and 4 (or 6?) vampires "of his or her choice". Would > that also qualify as "the same cards being available to each player", > since it's an unlimited set of cards that is available to each of the > participants? (Physical limitations on the number of copies of a > particular card present might be resolvable by the tournament organizer > creating proxies, if necessary...) If each player can ask for and receive the exact same cards, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

RavATw...@vampirethemasquerade.com (RavATwoFaces) wrote in message news:<1701e7a4.04052...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. Crypt 8 small tzimisce Library 9 Warghoul 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls Shake up. Congratulations, many of the players left the tournament disgusted (though these decks didn't win ALL of the prereleases)

Emmanuel Martin expounded: > Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > > Crypt > 8 small tzimisce > > Library > 9 Warghoul > 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's > Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls > > Shake up. > > Congratulations, many of the players left the tournament disgusted > (though these decks didn't win ALL of the prereleases) Wish they'd come to us. We had Fortitude; Celerity Guns, more celertity guns. Desert Eagle + Scattershot is going to make quite a mess of a war ghoul for that matter.

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > > Crypt > 8 small tzimisce > > Library > 9 Warghoul > 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's > Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls So no one used Fortitude? Celerity? Guns? Hell, even Potence means that you're taking the War Ghoul down with you, and that's equivalent to a bleed for 3. Even better -- just pack a Kindred Segregation or three. Or Entrancement. Or play Necromancy allies and Compel dead War Ghouls onto your side. Or... --Colin McGuigan

> Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > > Crypt > 8 small tzimisce *Really* small, or do you mean 8 weenie-to-midcap Tzimisce? As far as I remember, the 40/40 format requires a total capacity of 40. So for each Horatio you thrown in, you need one 8-cap like Little Taylor, and so on. > Library > 9 Warghoul > 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's > Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls > Shake up. > Congratulations, many of the players left the tournament disgusted > (though these decks didn't win ALL of the prereleases) This sound just as normal as an 40/40 Anarch Revolt deck, or pure stealth bleed. The disgusting issue has nothing to do with the format; it was provided by a damn good (or particularly eager to win) player. Nothing more. I second the idea. Fabio Sooner VEKN Nc for Brazil

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.04052...@posting.google.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2gus99F...@uni-berlin.de>... > > > Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna > > > prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or > > > is it only usable for unsanctioned events? > Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > > Crypt > 8 small tzimisce > > Library > 9 Warghoul > 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's > Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls > > Shake up. > > Congratulations, many of the players left the tournament disgusted > (though these decks didn't win ALL of the prereleases) Yeah, I can see this being un-fun, but isn't the same thing (indeed, even more so with no capacity restrictions on the crypt) possible with a 60-card deck for a "standard" constructed tournament? I would think hardcore stealth-bleed or Anarch Revolt/Minion Tap, or even Ventrue Law Firm-style 40/40 decks could have about the same potential for being relatively un-fun in draft. I guess for 40/40 draft to be fun, you either need everyone to be playing the same kind of "bring the strongest thing to the draft" style, or else in more of a "bring something amusing and see what happens" mode. I wonder if a 20/20 draft format (where you'd only need to add 20 library cards for the minimum 40, but would need to add 8 vampires - or a 20/30 format with 6 vampires of at least 30 capacity, and 20 library cards?) might alleviate this kind of issue? The higher the proportion is of draft cards you need to use, the less focused your final deck can be, I think. Josh storming the brains

Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b1fd9962...@news.eclipse.co.uk>... [ quoted text not captured ] Come on, be serious and read the cards. Fortitude won't help you against three warghouls unless you can inflict consistent damage on them. Celerity guns is a strong concept that, unftunately, requires IMHO too many crads to be effetive in the 40/40 format. So it's OJK for a "warghoul hoser" deck but that's all. Desert Eagle + scatterhot was the only draft or sealed combo that could help you hurt the warghoul, but only for three. If your deck doesn't have 44 magnums, there is almost no reasonnable way for you to resist the warghouls appart from a deck specifically designed against them.

> > Library > > 9 Warghoul > > 9 random retainers/allies/Jake Washington's > > Pack with stealth, DI, traps, blood dolls > > Shake up. > > Congratulations, many of the players left the tournament disgusted > > (though these decks didn't win ALL of the prereleases) > > This sound just as normal as an 40/40 Anarch Revolt deck, or pure > stealth bleed. The disgusting issue has nothing to do with the format; > it was provided by a damn good (or particularly eager to win) player. > Nothing more. Don't know for the 40/40 anarch revolt deck, but he falls to a few decks, the main of which being the waghoul deck (burn parthenon, and Anson as little options to obedience a warghoul) Pure stealth bleed ? This is a competitive deck, but I think it encounters problem while running into the permanent +1/+2 intercept everyone tends to bring at these games, not to mention the deflections. Pure S&B is, in this format, something you may counter with cards that are not specifically against S&B (wakes, intercept, bleed bounce).

Emmanuel Martin wrote: >>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2gus99F...@uni-berlin.de>... >>>Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna >>>prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or >>>is it only usable for unsanctioned events? > > Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > Crypt > 8 small tzimisce Which 8 "small" Tzimisce add up to capacity 40? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<hrFtc.82111$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Emmanuel Martin wrote: > >>"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2gus99F...@uni-berlin.de>... > >>>Can the 40/40 + draft format (like the one used for the Gehenna > >>>prerelease) be sanctioned as a "normal" limited-format tournament? Or > >>>is it only usable for unsanctioned events? > > > > Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > > Crypt > > 8 small tzimisce > > Which 8 "small" Tzimisce add up to capacity 40? The little Taylor fought his way into the list Little Taylor * 3 Horatio * 2 Lolita Houston * 1 Terrence * 1 The Rose * 1 Could be an example with 41 total capacity

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<hrFtc.82111$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>Emmanuel Martin wrote: >>>Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. >>>Crypt >>>8 small tzimisce >> >>Which 8 "small" Tzimisce add up to capacity 40? > > The little Taylor fought his way into the list Little Tailor is 8 capacity. Clearly not small. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<fThvc.21673$_k3.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Emmanuel Martin wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<hrFtc.82111$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >>Emmanuel Martin wrote: > >>>Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. > >>>Crypt > >>>8 small tzimisce > >> > >>Which 8 "small" Tzimisce add up to capacity 40? > > > > The little Taylor fought his way into the list > > Little Tailor is 8 capacity. Clearly not small. not that small, though having to switch from a 3 cap without vic to a 8 cap with VIC and a "save pool" later isn't that much of a sacrifice, especially in limited format where the four remaining vamps won't necessarily be Tzimisce (and so may be useless). I just mention a fact : part of the tournament attendance was disgusted by these decks. This doesn't mean the wargouls swept all tables, just that some people had their pleasure of discovering Gehenna cards spoiled by this non-Gehenna primer. I will mention that I encoutered thse decks twice in two rounds, gaining a table and losing the other (but not due to the Wargoul deck). I found thse decks cheesy and game breaking, but I had tools (intercept and 44 magnum) to handle them. I do not count myself in the disgusted players. I just think that these decks make this format not so much interesting : - play wargoul - play anti-wargoul (multiple ally theft and 44 magnum, but watch out for the Tzimisce's multiple direct interventions) - get screwed by wargoul (because your 40+40 deck cannot use standard countermesures a standard constructed deck can get, like bleeding faster and/or cycling enough cards to consistently get combat defense/strikeback)

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<fThvc.21673$_k3.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>Emmanuel Martin wrote: >>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<hrFtc.82111$hH.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>>>Emmanuel Martin wrote: >>>>>Problem : we find this format fun until people brought this. >>>>>Crypt >>>>>8 small tzimisce >>>> >>>>Which 8 "small" Tzimisce add up to capacity 40? >>> >>>The little Taylor fought his way into the list >> >>Little Tailor is 8 capacity. Clearly not small. > > not that small, though having to switch from a 3 cap without vic to a > 8 cap with VIC and a "save pool" later isn't that much of a sacrifice, > especially in limited format where the four remaining vamps won't > necessarily be Tzimisce (and so may be useless). That's the point - there are no "8 small tzimisce" whose capacities sum to 40 or more. Best you can do is 8 5-caps (not exactly small, but close). > I just mention a fact : part of the tournament attendance was > disgusted by these decks. This doesn't mean the wargouls swept all > tables, just that some people had their pleasure of discovering > Gehenna cards spoiled by this non-Gehenna primer. Yes. Could be. I was merely disputing the erroneous claim. If the locals don't want to have a "fun" pre-release (and experience the new cards rather than test their constructed deck building capabilities with the old cards), there's not much to be done other than straight sealed/draft to force them to. Straight sealed/draft was an option for any prince who found themselves among such a pack, of course. It's a bit more expensive, but it could be worth it depending on your environment. [ quoted text not captured ]

>If the locals don't want to have a "fun" pre-release (and >experience the new cards rather than test their constructed >deck building capabilities with the old cards), there's >not much to be done other than straight sealed/draft to force >them to. Straight sealed/draft was an option for any prince >who found themselves among such a pack, of course. It's a >bit more expensive, but it could be worth it depending on >your environment. I don't know that fun can be legislated. But, anyway, one idea for doing something different that actually happened in the area was to build a 40 card library and no crypt. Doesn't sound to me like it's that great, but people seemed to think it had potential, and I haven't really thought it through.

Curevei wrote: > I don't know that fun can be legislated. But, anyway, one idea for doing > something different that actually happened in the area was to build a 40 card > library and no crypt. Doesn't sound to me like it's that great, but people > seemed to think it had potential, and I haven't really thought it through. You can't prevent someone from bringing a boring crypt though (25 computer hacks, 8 anarch revolts and 7 dodge for example) - you can't "force" them to play with the new cards is the point. I suppose a 4CL would help. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > I suppose a 4CL would help. :-) I suppose this is still blasphemy? //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

In message <40BF0F71...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >LSJ wrote: >> >> I suppose a 4CL would help. :-) > >I suppose this is still blasphemy? DEATH TO THE INFIDEL! Right, I've got the torches; someone open up the cellar and fetch those pitchforks we had stored up. Anyone got a match? -- 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

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:L6Dvc.25460$_k3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Curevei wrote: > > I don't know that fun can be legislated. But, anyway, one idea for doing > > something different that actually happened in the area was to build a 40 card > > library and no crypt. Doesn't sound to me like it's that great, but people > > seemed to think it had potential, and I haven't really thought it through. > > You can't prevent someone from bringing a boring crypt though > (25 computer hacks, 8 anarch revolts and 7 dodge for example) - you can't > "force" them to play with the new cards is the point. Sure, but a boring library would have a harder time achieving "brokenness" without the old vampires to go with it. e.g., your Computer Hack/Anarch Revolt deck will have trouble being especially strong when all your vampires have to come from a set that's not very weenie-heavy; a War Ghoul deck would have trouble looking overpowered when there are only a few Tzimisce (and mostly big ones) available to draft; etc etc. I kind of like the "40/0" idea. Maybe I'll see if we can try it sometime around here... A "20/20" idea could also work, I think (4 vamps adding up to at least 20 capacity, with 20 library cards), possibly with a minimum 40 decksize (as usual for limited formats) rather than the minimum 60. Josh experimentalist

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <40BF0F71...@freemail.nl>, > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: > > >>LSJ wrote: >> >>>I suppose a 4CL would help. :-) >> >>I suppose this is still blasphemy? > > > DEATH TO THE INFIDEL! > > Right, I've got the torches; someone open up the cellar and fetch those > pitchforks we had stored up. > > Anyone got a match? Is a lighter okay? But seriously, are there still peopple advocating 4CL? I'd imagine we'd have sucked all of them dry by now. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40BF605D...@freemail.nl... > Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <40BF0F71...@freemail.nl>, > > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: > > > > > >>LSJ wrote: > >> > >>>I suppose a 4CL would help. :-) > >> > >>I suppose this is still blasphemy? > > > > > > DEATH TO THE INFIDEL! > > > > Right, I've got the torches; someone open up the cellar and fetch those > > pitchforks we had stored up. > > > > Anyone got a match? > > Is a lighter okay? > > But seriously, are there still peopple advocating 4CL? > I'd imagine we'd have sucked all of them dry by now. > The challenge to XCL advocates offer anything truly new to the debate is backed with cash (who was it that ponied up for that?). As it stands, there are a significant number of unrefuted points in favor of NCL, documented somewhere on The Lasombra's website, IIRC, along with most of the salient points of both sides of the debate... Most groups have taken the conclusions, and wisely chosen to abandon any house rule card limit. I'm certain there are still some (non-vocal) proponents out there, despite all our best efforts to teach the One True Way. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:50:19 GMT, "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote: >The challenge to XCL advocates offer anything truly new to the debate is >backed with cash (who was it that ponied up for that?). As it stands, there A consortium of NCL players. :) I believe I'm in it for at least $20 (possibly more), and I think that there are a few (other) well-known names also. IIRC, Josh, maybe Peter, and hmm...others? I can't remember who. Xian start your googles, gentlemen