Contesting vampires

I think that, with the original base game, contesting vampires could sometimes be a good thing for the game as it forced people to stop playing Malkavian S&B over and over and over again, for fear of your predator and prey doing the same (which was often the case, at least in my old playgroup *sigh*). In other words, it forced us to be creative... to diversify. It was a pain when it happened, but it was also pretty easy to avoid: just don't play with Gilbert Duane. After seeing a few disastrous game situations lately, though, I would like to once again make the case that we should change the rules for contesting vampires. When the rules for contesting were first developed in the original Jyhad set, there were a total of 111 vampires. Now, there are 1061 vampires. The chance of contesting a vampire is much, much lower than it was before, granted, but when it occurs it is just as game-destroying, if not more so, than it ever was. There are many creative and interesting decks that are centred around individual vampires. A deck built around one particular vampire is completely destroyed if that vampire is contested. Chances are that both methuselahs are building around that vampire for some reason, and chances are that the vampire is not a weenie, so now you have two decks essentially shut down because neither player can play it as it was intended. Is this fair to those players? Is it a good thing to give the *other* Methuselahs a distinct advantage and/or an unbalanced table? To me, it seems contrary to the Predator-Prey relationship much of the time, unless one is playing with Betrayer maybe. Even thematically, contesting is flawed, in my opinion. Think about what is happening when two powerful vampires are vying for control over a lesser vampire. Why would that vampire become paralyzed? That vampire would probably feel the effect of being tugged in two different directions, certainly, but they would still be able to perform tasks. They'd probably be very unlikely to take actions against one of the Methuselahs controlling them however. Let's say that Frederick the Weak is being contested by Methuselah A and Methuselah B. Here are some ideas for how this could be handled less disruptively: 1) On Methuselah A's turn, Frederick is turned right side up, becoming controlled and untapped. Methuselah B's copy of Frederick is turned upside down, becoming uncontrolled until their coming turn. Rationale: Only one version of Frederick should be active at any given time. Note that one Methuselah will control Frederick for more game time than the other, depending on where they are seated, adding some interesting tactical considerations. 2) On Methuselah A's turn, Methuselah A's Frederick can take no (D) actions against Methuselah B or anything that B controls. Rationale: Frederick would be unlikely to take actions against either of his masters. 3) If Frederick burns, then he is burned for both Methuselahs (unless he becomes uncontested, ie due to an oust). Similarly, if Frederick goes to torpor, both copies of Frederick go to torpor. Rationale: An incentive to cooperate or abuse depending on the relationship between the two contesting Methuselahs. These are just suggestions... there are probably easier ways to do it. The advantages to these changes should be obvious. With those two Methuselahs able to play their decks as they intended, the game becomes more interesting and less unbalanced. Nobody gets a free ride to victory because their predator or prey is tied down with a contested vampire. A player can actually have fun for a two hour game instead of wishing it was over. (Note that I have not touched on contesting of unique locations, allies, titles, etc. I don't think those rules are quite as disruptive and generally work well as is.) Thoughts? Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > I think that, with the original base game, contesting vampires could > sometimes be a good thing for the game as it forced people to stop playing > Malkavian S&B over and over and over again, for fear of your predator and > prey doing the same (which was often the case, at least in my old playgroup > *sigh*). In other words, it forced us to be creative... to diversify. It was > a pain when it happened, but it was also pretty easy to avoid: just don't > play with Gilbert Duane. > > After seeing a few disastrous game situations lately, though, I would like > to once again make the case that we should change the rules for contesting > vampires. I disagree. Cherryholmes needs to learn that there are other clans besides Assimites. FYI, my deck could have run without Tariq. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote > > Cherryholmes needs to learn that there are other clans besides > Assimites. > > FYI, my deck could have run without Tariq. You're speaking of one particular game. I'm thinking more generally, though that game did prompt me to write this. However, I was under the impression from Pat's email that you had all agreed to restart that game. Is that not the case? Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston <gh...@nyetspammnsi.net> wrote: > 3) If Frederick burns, then he is burned for both Methuselahs (unless he > becomes uncontested, ie due to an oust). Similarly, if Frederick goes to > torpor, both copies of Frederick go to torpor. Slippery slope... If Frederick becomes Archbishop of Mexico, both Fredericks are Archbishop of Mexico? If Frederick Clan Impersonates to Salubri, both Fredericks are Clan Impersonated to Salubri? If Frederick is made Infernal by Barbaro Lucchese, both Fredericks are Infernal? If Frederick is Disarmed, both Fredericks are Disarmed? If Frederick gets an Obtenebration skillcard, both Fredericks get an Obtenebration skillcard? If Frederick (with 2 OBT skill cards, of course) plays Descent into Darkness, what happens exactly??? ... I do not like this idea. Leave the vampire-contestation rules alone, please. It's an occasional annoyance when your star gets contested, but it's no worse than other "I'm hosed as soon as I sit down" situations (i.e. your predator is Cheesequake). Josh

[ quoted text not captured ] While torturing Cherryholmes is fun, I try to limit it to 2 hour sessions. :) ...and yes, we are going to restart the game. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote > > > > Cherryholmes needs to learn that there are other clans besides > > Assimites. > > > > FYI, my deck could have run without Tariq. > > You're speaking of one particular game. I'm thinking more generally, though > that game did prompt me to write this. With every new edition, contesting gets rarer and rarer. It is less of a problem than it has ever been. So yes two Gilber Duane decks or two Tariq decks may show up. That's part of the game, you have to be able to play around it. Contesting a vampire is certainly a better option than the no option of getting your vampire nuked with PTOish cards, Amaranthed, etc... At least, when you contest a vampire you can still keep the option of trying to keep the vampire. Unique vampires are good for the game. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <C7idnTb0NoFlRxbY...@comcast.com>, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes: >Leave the vampire-contestation rules alone, please. It's an occasional >annoyance when your star gets contested, but it's no worse than other >"I'm hosed as soon as I sit down" situations (i.e. your predator is >Cheesequake). If[0] it is a problem for star vampire decks, it would be possible to, instead, develop a couple of cards that gave a star vampire deck the possibility of acting temporarily, but at the cost of wasting library space on cards that might not be useful to them. Potentially, there could be some sort of backup option on the card, to let it be played in a sort-of useful fashion. Tenuous Grasp Master Select a vampire that you are contesting with one or more Methuselahs. Your copy of that vampire becomes controlled. That vampire must act this turn. After its first action finishes, or if it cannot act, return it to being contested. Alternatively, move a blood from the blood bank to a vampire you control with a capacity above 6. DRAFT: As above, but you can move a blood to any vampire you control instead. Just a random idea. (Standard disclaimers: All my own work, White Wolf welcome to steal, etc.) [0] For those following up, please note the "If". -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote > Contesting a vampire is certainly a better > option than the no option of getting your vampire nuked with PTOish > cards, Amaranthed, etc... At least, when you contest a vampire you can > still keep the option of trying to keep the vampire. I am also solidly in the anti-PTO camp, for what it's worth :-) > Unique vampires are good for the game. They would still retain some aspects of uniqueness, only without screwing over the contesting players. There may not be a solution. Or even a problem... just wanted to throw this out there. Cheers, WES

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote > > Slippery slope... > If Frederick becomes Archbishop of Mexico, both Fredericks are Archbishop > of Mexico? It would be like a part-time job for him; he's only Archbishop when Meth A controls him. Same thing if he had equipment. Sometimes, he forgets where he left his 44 Magnum. > If Frederick Clan Impersonates to Salubri, both Fredericks are Clan > Impersonated to Salubri? One controls Salubri Fred, the other controls !Brujah Fred. > If Frederick is made Infernal by Barbaro Lucchese, both Fredericks are > Infernal? Nope, just the one Barbaro took the action on. > If Frederick is Disarmed, both Fredericks are Disarmed? Both would be in torpor but only one would have Disarm card on him. Again, like equipment. > If Frederick gets an Obtenebration skillcard, both Fredericks get an > Obtenebration skillcard? Just the one Fred has it. Sometimes, Fred forgets what he has learned. > If Frederick (with 2 OBT skill cards, of course) plays Descent into > Darkness, what happens exactly??? Honestly, I'm not sure what happens when *anyone* plays Descent into Darkness :-) > I do not like this idea. Fair enough. > Leave the vampire-contestation rules alone, please. It's an occasional > annoyance when your star gets contested, but it's no worse than other > "I'm hosed as soon as I sit down" situations (i.e. your predator is > Cheesequake). You could be right. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers, WES

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > If[0] it is a problem for star vampire decks, it would be possible to, > instead, develop a couple of cards that gave a star vampire deck the > possibility of acting temporarily, but at the cost of wasting library > space on cards that might not be useful to them. Potentially, there > could be some sort of backup option on the card, to let it be played in > a sort-of useful fashion. It happens rarely enough that I don't think a card would be a good solution, just as cards like Diamond Thunderbolt don't find their way into too many decks. Planning for very specific/rare instances does not a good deck make, in my experience. Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote > > > Contesting a vampire is certainly a better > > option than the no option of getting your vampire nuked with PTOish > > cards, Amaranthed, etc... At least, when you contest a vampire you can > > still keep the option of trying to keep the vampire. > > I am also solidly in the anti-PTO camp, for what it's worth :-) I am less an less anti-PTO as my main objection, limited sect access, has been resolved. Auto De Fe seem much more strategically useful on the whole due to the easily aquirable prerequisite title/designation, the non-discriminatory sect designation and the pool damage option. It's just that no one has figured out that while PTO is good as a splash card, Auto De Fe is useful in droves (especially in combination with capacity reducers such as Violette Tremaine and Rastacoure). Auto De Fe is more along the power level of Parity Shift. > > Unique vampires are good for the game. > > They would still retain some aspects of uniqueness, only without screwing > over the contesting players. > > There may not be a solution. Or even a problem... just wanted to throw this > out there. While I don't agree with you, it is interesting to see what sticks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <emgq1...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Andrew 'Wes' Weston [ quoted text not captured ] Even when said situations will completely kill your deck? If you're happy to take that risk, even when you have the tools, isn't it your own fault when it goes to hell? Also note that The Diamond Thunderbolt is rather different, given that there are usually multiple ways of stopping various theft effects before they go off, unlike contesting, and it might be more advantageous to pursue those - such as being able to block the action, sufficiently versatile defence against (say) Mind Rape or Spirit Marionette with DI, aggressively taking out key vampires (such as those with OBE), pool gain to combat a Temptation of Greater Power (and most star vampire decks stay out of range of Hostile Takeover), and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <emgq1...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Andrew 'Wes' Weston <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes: >"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote >> If Frederick is Disarmed, both Fredericks are Disarmed? > >Both would be in torpor but only one would have Disarm card on him. Again, >like equipment. Given that your original argument includes the theme behind contesting being crap, I'd venture to say that your remedy makes that problem with the theme an order of magnitude stupider. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 22, 5:33 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <emgq1t02...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Andrew 'Wes' Weston > > <g...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes: > >"Jozxyqk" <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote > >> If Frederick is Disarmed, both Fredericks are Disarmed? > > >Both would be in torpor but only one would have Disarm card on him. Again, > >like equipment.Given that your original argument includes the theme behind contesting > being crap, I'd venture to say that your remedy makes that problem with > the theme an order of magnitude stupider. > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Nonononono, Wes has a great idea here. This would mean everyone could play Smudge at the same time, but as he cannot act against anyone who has a copy already, he will just be ignored the whole game. awesome, hey?

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > Given that your original argument includes the theme behind contesting > being crap, I'd venture to say that your remedy makes that problem with > the theme an order of magnitude stupider. Funny, I wasn't really thinking about the theme of Disarm... just the way the card works. I agree that seems kind of strange. ...or maybe Frederick has extra arms. Um, yeah. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] While I like the idea of vampires being able to act while contested, I think that may cause unforeseen problems when they are both active. What if the contestation rule were amended like this: "The cost to contest a card is one pool, which *any Methuselah may* pay during each of your untap phases. Instead of paying the cost to contest the card, you may choose to yield the card. A yielded card is burned." So you can briefly appeal to other Meths to assist you in contesting vampires or other resources. This way if two "star" decks contest, that gives the other 2-3 Meths at the table some incentive to keep things balanced, though they don't have to help if they don't want. The Meth controlling the contested card should have the option to refuse help and let the contested card burn of course. Jeff

On Dec 22, 6:59 am, "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <g...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > Let's say that Frederick the Weak is being contested by Methuselah A and > Methuselah B. Here are some ideas for how this could be handled less > disruptively: > > 1) On Methuselah A's turn, Frederick is turned right side up, becoming > controlled and untapped. Methuselah B's copy of Frederick is turned upside > down, becoming uncontrolled until their coming turn. > I think this would be a more entertaining, simpler, and more thematic method: Methuselah A controls Frederick the Weak. Methuselah B contests him. Methuselah B's copy goes face down out of play in front of Methuselah A, and Methuselah B takes control of the in-play copy. During each player's untap phase, if they have a contested copy of Frederick the Weak, they either yield him or pay a pool to switch it with the in-play copy and untap him as normal. Each Methuselah vying for control of him gets to use him, burn him out for other Methuselahs, lay traps for other methuselahs... -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > > (Note that I have not touched on contesting of unique locations, allies, > titles, etc. I don't think those rules are quite as disruptive and generally > work well as is.) > > Thoughts? I agree, but for the sake of discussion, here's a fantastical rules change (in BOLD): **************** 4.1. Contested Cards Some of the cards in the game represent unique resources, such as specific locations, equipment or people. These cards will be identified as "unique" in their card text. In addition, all vampire cards represent unique vampires. If more than one copy of a unique LIBRARY card is brought into play, that means control of the card is being contested. For the duration of the contest, all copies of the contested card are turned face down and are out of play. If an additional copy of an already-contested card is brought into play, it is immediately contested and turned face down as well. The cost to contest a LIBRARY card is one pool, which you pay during each of your untap phases. Instead of paying the cost to contest the card, you may choose to yield the card. A yielded card is burned. Any cards or counters stacked on the yielded card are also burned. IF A CRYPT CARD IS CONTESTED, ALL COPIES OF THE CONTESTED CARD ARE TURNED FACE DOWN AND ARE OUT OF PLAY. DURING YOUR UNTAP PHASE, YOU MUST BURN AT LEAST ONE POOL TO CONTINUE CONTESTING THE CARD. IF MORE THAN ONE POOL WAS BURNED TO CONTEST THE CARD SINCE YOUR LAST TURN, YOU MUST BURN AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT. YOU MAY ALSO CHOOSE TO YIELD THE CARD INSTEAD OF PAYING THE COST. EXAMPLE: BETH CONTROLS FREDERICK THE WEAK. ON JOSH'S TURN, HE INFLUENCES INTO PLAY A SECOND COPY OF FREDERICK, AND BOTH COPIES ARE TURNED FACE TO DENOTE THE CONTEST. ON BETH'S TURN, SHE BURNS ONE POOL TO CONTINUE CONTESTING FREDERICK WITH JOSH. ON JOSH'S NEXT TURN, HE BURNS ONE POOL, AND DECIDES TO BURN THREE MORE POOL. ON BETH'S NEXT TURN, SHE MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO YIELD, BURN FOUR POOL TO CONTINUE THE CONTEST (THE AMOUNT JOSH BURNED ON HIS LAST TURN), OR BURN FIVE OR MORE POOL TO ENCOURAGE JOSH TO YIELD ON HIS NEXT TURN. If all other copies of a card you are contesting are yielded, then the card is untapped and turned face up during your next untap phase, ending the contest. Be careful about putting duplicates of the same unique cards in your deck. You can't control more than one of the same unique card at a time, and you cannot contest cards with yourself (if some effect would force you to contest a card with yourself, then you simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card). On the other hand, you may wish to have a second copy handy in case the first is burned. ********************** It's possible I just came from a poker game. :) Something like the above would certainly shorten contests, I think, when contesters are sitting next to each other, anyway.

On 22 Dec 2006 20:18:45 -0800, gpett...@gmail.com <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I kind of digged Wes' idea, and I kind of dig this even more, because it keeps the spirit of the former while being simple enough to be actually feasible. Still not sure it's worth it (contestation is rare, yes it kills star decks but then again any sort of tac-nuke kills them anyway), but it's definitely food for thought. -- Regards, Daneel

"Wookie813" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote > > It's possible I just came from a poker game. :) Well, you've certainly raised the ante! > Something like the above would certainly shorten contests, I think, > when contesters are sitting next to each other, anyway. I'm not sure that your system really fixes what I see as the problem. It would probably stop people from bothering to contest at all, but someone would still be left with an integral vampire they cannot play, and the game would still be thrown off-balance because of it. However, after giving this some more thought, I think one of the reasons contesting bothers me so much is that I mostly play online these days, specifically JOL, where games can take a lot longer than two hours to finish. Sitting around in a regular game after a contestation has ruined your deck might only take twenty minutes to resolve. You'll be much easier to oust with one less vampire to defend with and rapidly losing pool via contesting costs. In JOL, this process could take weeks to months depending on how fast the rest of the table is. The JOL game that I restarted for XZealot and co above would have been tedious for everyone involved, but had it happened in a live game I don't think it would have been half as bad. Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > Let's say that Frederick the Weak is being contested by Methuselah A and > Methuselah B. Here are some ideas for how this could be handled less > disruptively: > > 1) On Methuselah A's turn, Frederick is turned right side up, becoming > controlled and untapped. Methuselah B's copy of Frederick is turned upside > down, becoming uncontrolled until their coming turn. > > Rationale: Only one version of Frederick should be active at any given time. > Note that one Methuselah will control Frederick for more game time than the > other, depending on where they are seated, adding some interesting tactical > considerations. > > 2) On Methuselah A's turn, Methuselah A's Frederick can take no (D) actions > against Methuselah B or anything that B controls. > > Rationale: Frederick would be unlikely to take actions against either of his > masters. > > 3) If Frederick burns, then he is burned for both Methuselahs (unless he > becomes uncontested, ie due to an oust). Similarly, if Frederick goes to > torpor, both copies of Frederick go to torpor. I didn't see a mention of paying to contest. Second, you could utilized the contested vampire as in the storyline settings, where the contested vampire is played from the center of the table. Third, you could allow contested vampires to remain in play for both players and the pay to contest is the cost to allow you to utilized the vampire for the turn. Contested vampires cannot enter combat with themselves, cannot block, or take D actions. But ultimately the rule works as is, so I'm not 100% on board with this change. Raille

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > > I'm not sure that your system really fixes what I see as the problem. It > would probably stop people from bothering to contest at all, but someone > would still be left with an integral vampire they cannot play, and the game > would still be thrown off-balance because of it. Yes, absolutely. I actually like the contesting rules as is, and wish there was more opprotunity for it. Although from a 'worldview' game perspective, I suppose methuselahs would have so many options that it wouldn't be worth the effort to contest unless the vampire was important - which is pretty much the way the game goes. Still, wrestling for control of a vampire could be a point of strategy, and I think it would be cool to have (non-clan based) means to contest a vampire without having to actually draw that vampire and influence it out- though the requirements would have to be severe due tot he extreme disruptiveness of a contest. Maybe an action that lets you fish from another Meth's crypt to your uncontrolled or something. Just to give you a chance to draw a duplicate. > Sitting around in a regular game after a contestation has ruined > your deck might only take twenty minutes to resolve. You'll be much easier > to oust with one less vampire to defend with and rapidly losing pool via > contesting costs. In JOL, this process could take weeks to months depending > on how fast the rest of the table is. I agree again, which is why I thought that maybe allowing Meths to pay the pool in clusters would speed the process up to a couple of turns if desired. Kinda like an inherent Temptation of Greater Power. Cheers back! Tom

On Dec 23, 8:05 pm, "Wookie813" <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Maybe an action that lets you fish from > another Meth's crypt to your uncontrolled or something. Just to give > you a chance to draw a duplicate. Hey yeah, lets make Las contestation decks viable. I always wanted to be able to play a deck that contests every singkle card on the table, AND makes my prey pay for al of it. At twice the going rate.....

How about keep the contesting rules the same, but add a new influence phase option: You may spend 4 transfers and 1 pool and burn a vampire in your uncontrolled region to burn that vampire that another methuselah is contesting. (wording could do with some massaging) ie: if it really is your star vampire, you'll likely have another one in your uncontrolled region, and can burn it to free your copy from contestion. if you don't have another copy in your uncontrolled region, the vampire isn't really your true star anyway, and so the contestion shouldn't be ending your game ;) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Dec 27, 4:32 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > How about keep the contesting rules the same, but add a new influence > phase option: > > You may spend 4 transfers and 1 pool and burn a vampire in your > uncontrolled region to burn that vampire that another methuselah is > contesting. > > (wording could do with some massaging) > > ie: if it really is your star vampire, you'll likely have another one in > your uncontrolled region, and can burn it to free your copy from contestion. > > if you don't have another copy in your uncontrolled region, the vampire > isn't really your true star anyway, and so the contestion shouldn't be > ending your game ;) > > -- > salemhttp://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ > (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email) Do you mean If you are contesting Bob, you may spend 4 transfers and burn an uncontrolled copy of Bob, to burn a contested copy of Bob?

Blooded Sand wrote: > > On Dec 27, 4:32 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: >> How about keep the contesting rules the same, but add a new influence >> phase option: >> >> You may spend 4 transfers and 1 pool and burn a vampire in your >> uncontrolled region to burn that vampire that another methuselah is >> contesting. >> >> (wording could do with some massaging) ... > Do you mean If you are contesting Bob, you may spend 4 transfers and > burn an uncontrolled copy of Bob, to burn a contested copy of Bob? Yup. that meth over across the other side of the table has a Bob. It's face down, because you'd influenced up a Bob, who is also face down. You're both stubborn gits, and no-one is yielding this contestion. But, since you're playing an all-Bob-all-the-time deck, you have another Bob in your uncontrolled region. So, during your influence phase, you spend 4 transfers and a pool (maybe give the pool to the other methuselah?), burning the Bob you have in your uncontrolled region, and that other methuselah's face-down Bob gets burned. Hopefully that was the only other copy of Bob on the table contesting your's, so in your next untap phase, your other Bob (the one you had influenced up, not the one that was previously uncontrolled but is now in your ash heap) is returned to you face-up untapped. Does that make sense? Does that solve our issues with contestion ruining your game, but solving it in a fair and fairly simple manner? Thematically, you can think of it as you and the other meth are both tugging back and forth for control of the minion, but you, you tug just that bit harder all of a sudden. -- salem [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 27, 10:03 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > Blooded Sand wrote: > > > On Dec 27, 4:32 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> How about keep the contesting rules the same, but add a new influence > >> phase option: > > >> You may spend 4 transfers and 1 pool and burn a vampire in your > >> uncontrolled region to burn that vampire that another methuselah is > >> contesting. > > >> (wording could do with some massaging) > ... > > Do you mean If you are contesting Bob, you may spend 4 transfers and > > burn an uncontrolled copy of Bob, to burn a contested copy of Bob?Yup. that meth over across the other side of the table has a Bob. It's > face down, because you'd influenced up a Bob, who is also face down. > You're both stubborn gits, and no-one is yielding this contestion. But, > since you're playing an all-Bob-all-the-time deck, you have another Bob > in your uncontrolled region. > > So, during your influence phase, you spend 4 transfers and a pool (maybe > give the pool to the other methuselah?), burning the Bob you have in > your uncontrolled region, and that other methuselah's face-down Bob gets > burned. > > Hopefully that was the only other copy of Bob on the table contesting > your's, so in your next untap phase, your other Bob (the one you had > influenced up, not the one that was previously uncontrolled but is now > in your ash heap) is returned to you face-up untapped. > > Does that make sense? > > Does that solve our issues with contestion ruining your game, but > solving it in a fair and fairly simple manner? > > Thematically, you can think of it as you and the other meth are both > tugging back and forth for control of the minion, but you, you tug just > that bit harder all of a sudden. > > -- > salemhttp://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ > (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email) You would need some kind of counter, for when both players are going ABATT (All Bob, All The Time) co. tm. Say, player A burns uncontested, player B may burn an uncontrolled Bob to cancel the ending of the contestation.... So it comes down to who Bobs more :)

> So, during your influence phase, you spend 4 transfers and a pool (maybe > give the pool to the other methuselah?), burning the Bob you have in > your uncontrolled region, and that other methuselah's face-down Bob gets > burned. So you spend 4 transfers and 1 pool to burn the 11-cap which cost the other player 11 pool and 11 transfers? Where do I sign up for this? Alternate rule 1 (aka Pay For The Star): During your influence you may use 4 transfers and burn X pool to burn a contested copy of a vampire you also contest, where X is the capacity of the contested vampire. Alternate rule 2 (aka Speed Contest): During your influence phase, you may use 4 transfers and burn any amount of pool to burn a contested copy of a vampire you also contest. Controller of the copy can burn the same ammount of pool to prevent his copy from being burned. The problem I see here is that star decks will be stopped dead anyway, since only one of them will keep the vampire. So I still like the alternative where each copy can act more. -- bur usually playing star decks

In message <1167217524....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, I. M. Bur <bura...@gmail.com> writes: >> So, during your influence phase, you spend 4 transfers and a pool (maybe >> give the pool to the other methuselah?), burning the Bob you have in >> your uncontrolled region, and that other methuselah's face-down Bob gets >> burned. > >So you spend 4 transfers and 1 pool to burn the 11-cap which cost the >other player 11 pool and 11 transfers? Where do I sign up for this? It would probably help if you'd quoted the paragraph beforehand: >Yup. that meth over across the other side of the table has a Bob. It's >face down, because you'd influenced up a Bob, who is also face down. >You're both stubborn gits, and no-one is yielding this contestion. But, >since you're playing an all-Bob-all-the-time deck, you have another Bob >in your uncontrolled region. That is, you've *both* spent 11 pool and 11 transfers (or equivalent, with Dreams, Zillah's Valley etc.). Now you spend an additional 4 transfers and 1 pool. Much the same happens when you play Praxis Solomon, by the way. >The problem I see here is that star decks will be stopped dead anyway, >since only one of them will keep the vampire. So I still like the >alternative where each copy can act more. Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good ones often include intelligent backup. For example, I've certainly seen Salubri Spirit Marionette decks that have a backup of weenie Dominate bleed (using the fallback on SM intelligently) for when they don't work. Similarly, The Eldest are Tsunda can turn into breed and bleed with or without Tsunda, and ditch the Eldest are Kholo randomly as vote defence. I'm not sure that encouraging all-or-bust star vampire decks is actually in the best interests of the game. That moves into very, very, very rock/paper/scissors territory, which is surely a bad thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Good point. Another idea for a rules change to help prevent a player from losing because of contesting a star vampire: crypts have a 1 card limit on unique cards. That is, each unique vampire (or Imbued) may appear only once in a player's crypt.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:22:35 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I'm not sure that encouraging all-or-bust star vampire decks is actually > in the best interests of the game. That moves into very, very, very > rock/paper/scissors territory, which is surely a bad thing. I'm not sure that star vampire decks are pulling the game towards RPS any more than the existing archetypes like walls, powerbleed and such. Most star vampire decks I've seen are either combat or one-trick-pony decks, with the occasional soul gem powerbleed, which doesn't stand out for me from non-star archetypes that much. Star vampire decks are more fragile even without the contestation. I don't see star decks as any kind of issue; in fact, they allow whacky discipline combinations. -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 27, 1:35 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <1167217524.771442.75...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, I. M. > > Bur <bural...@gmail.com> writes: > >> The problem I see here is that star decks will be stopped dead anyway, > >> since only one of them will keep the vampire. So I still like the > >> alternative where each copy can act more. > > > Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good > > ones often include intelligent backup. For example, I've certainly seen > > Salubri Spirit Marionette decks that have a backup of weenie Dominate > > bleed (using the fallback on SM intelligently) for when they don't work. > > Similarly, The Eldest are Tsunda can turn into breed and bleed with or > > without Tsunda, and ditch the Eldest are Kholo randomly as vote defence. > > > I'm not sure that encouraging all-or-bust star vampire decks is actually > > in the best interests of the game. That moves into very, very, very > > rock/paper/scissors territory, which is surely a bad thing.Good point. Another idea for a rules change to help prevent a player from losing > because of contesting a star vampire: crypts have a 1 card limit on unique > cards. That is, each unique vampire (or Imbued) may appear only once in a > player's crypt.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - So why, if there are no card limits in any other opart of the game, are we to enforce Highlander crypts? This would also make certain clans unplaybale, eg all the Laibon clans as ther are not enough of vamps of those cklans to have a Highlander crypt.....

On Dec 27, 8:19 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > So why, if there are no card limits in any other part of the game, are > we to enforce Highlander crypts? This would also make certain clans > unplayable, e.g. all the Laibon clans as there are not enough of vamps of > those clans to have a Highlander crypt..... Use Tupdogs. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 27, 4:17 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 8:19 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So why, if there are no card limits in any other part of the game, are > > we to enforce Highlander crypts? This would also make certain clans > > unplayable, e.g. all the Laibon clans as there are not enough of vamps of > > those clans to have a Highlander crypt.....Use Tupdogs. > > -- > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew And this helps with G5 vamps how?

[ quoted text not captured ] Um, see thread. Or just the context quoted above. > This would also make certain clans > unplaybale, eg all the Laibon clans as ther are not enough of vamps of > those cklans to have a Highlander crypt..... Those clans would still be playable. Or are you working with a different house rule restricting crypts to one clan?

On Dec 27, 9:41 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > And this helps with G5 vamps how? Moot. There are no G5 Laibon presently. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:uUskh.7503$yC5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > James Coupe wrote: >> Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good >> ones often include intelligent backup. I think this argument is completely circular. The only reason on earth that you would have a concept such as "intelligent backup" is due to the contesting rule. As for whether it's a problem, of course it is. Since people seem to like building decks that are entirely based on a single vampire, that by itself is a reason to permit them. I see no reason why any drawback is particularly necessary for reasons of game balance, and certainly not one which is so chaotic in its effect. The main reason to have the existing drawback is completely for thematic and historical reasons. It can also be excused in that it's a very rare occurance and gets rarer all the time with each new expansions worth of vampires. > Another idea for a rules change to help prevent a player from losing because of contesting a star vampire: crypts have a 1 card > limit on > unique cards. That is, each unique vampire (or Imbued) may appear only > once in a player's crypt. That would do the job - by limiting a great deal of choice in how the game is played. The cure is far worse than the disease. Fred

If a player were to jump on a plane for 9+ hours and travel to the Sweden EC 2007, it would sure suck to have to contest a vampire. Especially one the deck was build around. LSJ wrote: > Good point. Another idea for a rules change to help prevent a player from losing > because of contesting a star vampire: crypts have a 1 card limit on unique > cards. That is, each unique vampire (or Imbued) may appear only once in a > player's crypt. An alternate idea for a rules change to help prevent a player from losing because of contesting a star vampire: Minions with capacity above 5 are unique to their Methuselah. Each Methuselah may control one copy of these minions by name. Minions with capacity 5 and below are unique to the game (without explicit card text). Cannot contest with yourself, but when you absolutely, positively must have Enkidu/Arika, you can. And so can all four of your opponents.

On Dec 27, 12:07 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in messagenews:uUskh.7503$yC5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > > James Coupe wrote: > >> Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good > >> ones often include intelligent backup.I think this argument is completely circular. The only reason on earth > that you would have a concept such as "intelligent backup" is due to the > contesting rule. or Pentex Subversion... or a bad crypt draw... or PTO(/derange)... or a bad combat... Contestation has never entered my mind when building a star deck, but I always have "intelligent backup". I don't care *why* I can't get my star, only what happens *if* I can't get my star. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wanderer's Counsel wrote: > If a player were to jump on a plane for 9+ hours and travel to the > Sweden EC 2007, it would sure suck to have to contest a vampire. > Especially one the deck was build around. Uh, top posting is bayd, mmkay? The point is that building a star vampire deck gets certain benefits (usually found on the star vampire's card text and Discipline spread), at the price of certain risks. Players who do not like the way the probabilities work in such situations (frequent gain balanced out by infrequent disaster) should be advised to build decks more suited to their risk tolerance.

<gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167243921.6...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 27, 12:07 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> messagenews:uUskh.7503$yC5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> > James Coupe wrote: >> >> Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good >> >> ones often include intelligent backup.I think this argument is completely circular. The only reason on earth >> that you would have a concept such as "intelligent backup" is due to the >> contesting rule. > > or Pentex Subversion... Well, yes, as far as it goes. It depends on what is meant by "intelligent backup". My Nergal deck includes 6 Nergal and 6 of what I call his "l'il buddies", in this case the smallest OBF/aus vampires I could find to play Relevations and remove Archon Investigations and bounce and other backup chores like rescuing Nergal from torpor. Removing Pentex Subversion would fall into this category as well. Still, if another player bring out Nergal, I'm screwed. Skidmark isn't going to back Nergal up for a whole game - 'intelligently' or otherwise. I believe this is more what James had in mind or his post would not makes sense. > or a bad crypt draw... Huh? Another circular argument. The only reason to have a bad crypt draw is to include too many backup vampires. Don't have intelligent backup, this would not be a problem. > or PTO(/derange)... > or a bad combat... I suppose. I tend to these more as just a downside to a star vampire deck, like any deck that's vulnerable to combat. Admittedly, PTO is probably a bigger threat to a star vampire deck than anything else. I think the only reason James's point has any merit at all has more to do with star vampire decks being focussed - one trick ponies. A lot of decks can be likewise focussed even with 12 unique weenies. It's just that a deck that relies on a one particular vampire tends to facilitate that form of play much more than usual. The downside is that, as he pointed out, there's a distinct RPS effect that can play hell with table balance. On the other hand, I sort of feel that if the designers disliked facilitating such play, the designers really ought to consider not creating vampires with remarkable powers, such as free Freak Drives, +2 bleed, set combat range, and so forth. Given that such vampires exist, it strikes me as sort of self-contradictory to turn around and limit us to one of each per deck. If you're going to have them, let us use the stupid things! > Contestation has never entered my mind when building a star deck, but I > always have "intelligent backup". I don't care *why* I can't get my > star, only what happens *if* I can't get my star. Sure. But I think in many cases, the only reasonable answer turns out to be: lose. (Or see if you can hang on somehow and eventually get it.) Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:D1zkh.41537$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > Wanderer's Counsel wrote: >> If a player were to jump on a plane for 9+ hours and travel to the >> Sweden EC 2007, it would sure suck to have to contest a vampire. >> Especially one the deck was build around. ... > Players who do not like the way the probabilities work in such situations (frequent gain balanced out by infrequent disaster) > should be advised to > build decks more suited to their risk tolerance. ...to which I would add: I think there's a lot of other stupid, not- particularly-your-own-fault things that can kill your game besides that. "Oh, boy, my combat-lite stealth bleedy decks prey is a backward- rushing combat deck. Happy, happy, joy, joy..." Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:D1zkh.41537$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >> Wanderer's Counsel wrote: >>> If a player were to jump on a plane for 9+ hours and travel to the >>> Sweden EC 2007, it would sure suck to have to contest a vampire. >>> Especially one the deck was build around. > .... >> Players who do not like the way the probabilities work in such situations (frequent gain balanced out by infrequent disaster) >> should be advised to >> build decks more suited to their risk tolerance. > > ....to which I would add: I think there's a lot of other stupid, not- > particularly-your-own-fault things that can kill your game besides > that. "Oh, boy, my combat-lite stealth bleedy decks prey is a backward- > rushing combat deck. Happy, happy, joy, joy..." Sure. But then it's: Why bother with tinkering with the contesting rules when the tiny problem it raises (when measured against the ocean you describe) can already be addressed by the player's own deck building choices? Of course, if anyone has ideas for rules modifications that would help reduce the impact of the other things (the stupid, not-your-own-fault things that can happen in a game to kill your deck), I'd be interested to read them. But the vagaries of seating order seem sort of inherent to the game's pred-prey mechanism, which is itself a cornerstone of the game.

In message <optk7xu6...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:22:35 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> I'm not sure that encouraging all-or-bust star vampire decks is actually >> in the best interests of the game. That moves into very, very, very >> rock/paper/scissors territory, which is surely a bad thing. > >I'm not sure that star vampire decks are pulling the game towards RPS Sorry, I think you're mis-reading what I meant by rock/paper/scissors. It is, of course, sometimes used to refer to the classic triumvirate of bleed/vote/rush. But... >any > more than the existing archetypes like walls, powerbleed and such. Most > star vampire decks I've seen are either combat or one-trick-pony decks, ...one trick pony decks are a sort of rock/paper/scissors. That is, if your deck goes off, it can work fabulously. But if it doesn't, it can be hell. Now, some one-trick pony decks can also be intelligently put together - much like a star-vampire deck with useful back-up. For example, a 45 Cryptic Mission deck can have useful backup with, say, Theft of Vitae and Computer Hacking and some decent hand cycling, so when you find yourself up against Imbued or a deck that can generate blood at inconvenient times annoyingly, you can fall back onto other options. Bad one trick ponies will find themselves up against their nemeses and just collapse. Which is bad for that table - the predator/prey dynamic is all out of kilter from turn one - and bad for V:TES more generally if that situation replicates itself. Analogously, this is why I also think that things like the weenie pot/cel decks that Peter Bakija has put together over many years can benefit so much from Computer Hacking. (Moving from a classic archetype of 12 Rushes, 4 Havens towards something like 8 Rushes, 6-8 Computer Hackings and 4 Havens.) Strength through diversity, but without hugely harming the deck. The bigger problem is that a number of such decks can be extremely intricate and potentially powerful *if* they go off. But a complete nightmare if they don't. Encouraging situations where they don't go off being mitigated can encourage even stupider decks, IME, which also brings its own problems. My experience is that I don't like seeing *bad* one-trick ponies and *bad* star-vampire decks, and that mitigating problems like "What happens when we both bring Arika out?" will encourage more of the bad sort of deck that doesn't have strength outside that situation. Because if you don't have strength in the rest of the deck *somehow*, losing the key vampire is still going to screw you - just not through contesting. Whatever the term for that sort of setup is, that's what I meant. Which is what I was meaning by "all or bust", pretty much. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Uh, top posting is bayd, mmkay? Do you get money for bayd? How much do you get? How often do you get it? Who do you collect it from? > The point is that building a star vampire deck gets certain benefits (usually > found on the star vampire's card text and Discipline spread), at the price of > certain risks. Can you let player's Play The Game when that happens or do they get to sit on their hands for 2 hours? There is such a thing as unplayable risks. I am a new player. I have purchased a starter and some boosters. I show up to a game and bring out Uchenna whom my friends have told me I must use to win, and they have provided me with extra copies of him to make sure the deck works. Some one else brings him out after I have. How do I know how not to lose? Why does the game work better for this 'star vampire' myth to restrict my ability to play in this one game? Why doesn't the game work better, as a game, for all players to be able to play without any regard to other players bringing the same thing? I believe contesting is more important to small playgroups and new players than it is to tournament players. If anything is to be changed, it should be in their favor, not in favor of those who can field 12 different vampires with the required skills. See also: Grouping Rule

[ quoted text not captured ] I think that's what this discussion is all about. Just because someone *else* is playing a star vampire deck doesn't mean you should pay dearly for it as well. If you transfer out another Meth's star first, there's a good chance they'll feel forced into contesting against you, ruining both your games. Yes, there are rules in place for contestation, but the in-game penalty in terms of pool investment and time/actions lost for losing a vampire is much harsher than that for losing a library card. So why not explore alternatives? The player without a predator wins and that is a situation that is worth avoiding or mitigating as much as possible. Jeff

On Dec 27, 6:13 pm, "Wanderer's Counsel" <akuna...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe contesting is more important to small playgroups and new > players than it is to tournament players. If anything is to be > changed, it should be in their favor, not in favor of those who can > field 12 different vampires with the required skills. > > See also: > Grouping Rule The grouping rule was put into place specifically to protect newbies from "tournament players"' vast collections. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Another idea for a rules change to help prevent a player > from losing because of contesting a star vampire: crypts have a 1 > card limit on unique cards. That is, each unique vampire (or Imbued) > may appear only once in a player's crypt. You're going to help my deck by crippling it? Interesting dichotomy. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On 28 Dec 2006 06:19:46 -0800, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >> See also: >> Grouping Rule [ quoted text not captured ] That is precisely the point. If anything is going to change about the vampire contesting rule, it should be done to encourage players with few cards / newbies to "play the game". No more, no less.

On Dec 28, 11:56 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 28 Dec 2006 06:19:46 -0800, "gpettig...@gmail.com" > > <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Dec 27, 6:13 pm, "Wanderer's Counsel" <akuna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I believe contesting is more important to small playgroups and new > >> players than it is to tournament players. If anything is to be > >> changed, it should be in their favor, not in favor of those who can > >> field 12 different vampires with the required skills. > >> See also: > >> Grouping Rule > >The grouping rule was put into place specifically to protect newbies > >from "tournament players"' vast collections.That is precisely the point. > If anything is going to change about the vampire contesting rule, it > should be done to encourage players with few cards / newbies to "play > the game". No more, no less. What about moking stronger the "out of play" part of the rule? I bring out frederick the weak and player B brings out another copy, they cannot stay togheter so they are contested and out of play. I bring out another copy that does not contest as there are no copies of frederick "in play". If player B (or any other) brings another copy that copy contests my second frederick too (and i can influence out a third....etc etc) If player B yelds, on my turn my copy comes back in play and because of the no-self contest rule burns and only 1 frederick survives. If i yeld my copy, on B turn, his copy comes back and immediatly contests my second copy. Basically i can wake another copy of my star vampire and act with it as long as i continue to contest the first copy. Andrea

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > The advantages to these changes should be obvious. With those two > Methuselahs able to play their decks as they intended, the game becomes more > interesting and less unbalanced. Nobody gets a free ride to victory because > their predator or prey is tied down with a contested vampire. A player can > actually have fun for a two hour game instead of wishing it was over. > IMHO, your starting point (avoiding unbalancing of the table) is very good, since nobody should gain such advantage as contesting Arika between his predator and his prey. But I don't like your solution. The vampire must be unique around the table. To my mind, the main root of the problem is time. Should one Methuselah be forced to yield immediately, it would be better - still unbalancing, though. But this can be balanced at least relatively. What about such rules: When a player brings into play a second copy of a unique vampire, this immediately starts the contest. That player can offer some pool to gain control of the vampire, and all players contesting the same vampire can make bids. Whoever wins the bidding, pays the stated amount of pool and gains control of the vampire. All other players keep their pool, spent on the vampire, back. Why do I think this is better? Because there is no stalling, and nobody loses too much. The contest is solved immediately, and both players can continue playing. One get a vampire, another gets his pool back, so no one takes too heavy penalty. Notice that even if you lose a contest, you still can generate pool, influence ANOTHER copy of the vampire and contest him once again! I even think that the same rule can be applied to all unique cards, not just vampires. What if I could pay extra pool for the Dreams, if I would really want to get it and to take it from another player, without waiting for 3 turns? It would be great to know people's opinion about this suggestion. Yours, Ector

In message <HLxkh.64850$0D2....@newsfe15.phx>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:uUskh.7503$yC5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> James Coupe wrote: >>> Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped? Good >>> ones often include intelligent backup. > >I think this argument is completely circular. The only reason on earth >that you would have a concept such as "intelligent backup" is due to the >contesting rule. Bzzzt. Intelligent back-up can be there for all sorts of reasons. Like whatever it is your star vampire does turning out to be a complete crock because you happened to be sat next to a deck that just doesn't care about that. Are you playing a multi-acting star-vampire Baltimore Purge deck, that untaps to get Renewed Vigor, then Graverob a vampire, then Baltimore Purge, with a few Mind Rapes and some blood gain in there for good measure? Okay. Now you want intelligent back-up. Where does that deck not work at all? Against a heavy ally deck, for a start, but most particularly the Imbued. What happens when you sit next to the Imbued without any other options? Your deck collapses in a heap, and you have nothing else to do. So, you include intelligent backup for other situations. This situation can be for when your strategy doesn't work because the Imbued sat down next to you, but it can also be for other situations, like when the star vampire you've chosen to do it gets eaten/stolen/beaten/Banished or whatever. You have a backup plan to get out of jail. If you've constructed a good deck, it's an intelligent backup plan at that. You can, of course, also include those other options in your main strategy. For example, your weenie vampires might be there to bleed your prey when all else fails, but they might also be there to fuel some other aspect of your deck - such as an Al-MonkeyTim deck going along with a whole bunch of Caitiff. If the main strategy of the deck works, it can feed the Caitiff to Mr MonkeyTim. If the main strategy of the deck fails, it can fall back on weenie bleed. Various similar strategies abound. Many of them turn into weenie- something, but that's sort of inevitable when most (but not all) star vampire decks focus around a big vampire, so you want your other vampires to be cheap, for simple reasons of pool cost. The most obvious exception I can think of would be The Eldest are Tsunda, where Tsunda is cheap anyway and so you can have some weenie Ravnos and some midcaps. Your weenie bleed could also be weenie pool gain bitches, in the right deck. If you happen to have the right vampire (e.g. Anson) or throw in some library resources, you can fuel a bunch of hunting and Blood Dolls. Or hunting and Heidelberg. (Or a bit of both!) And, of course, they can weenie bleed. Depending on your deck construction choice and the vampires you have to hand, they might even be able to bleed at stealth - say, a super-star vampire who pulls off the occasional Psychic Veil. It can, as alluded to earlier, also be there for when your star vampire gets mushed, as much as your strategy getting whipped out from under you. Need a rescue? Intelligent backup. Got whipped by a Pentex Subversion? Intelligent backup. Even though you can, of course, take steps to negate or reduce the impact of such strategies, it's rare for them to be entirely successful. Even with a whole bunch of Wash in your deck, you won't always pull one. You'll find yourself on the end of an unblockable Mind Rape at some point. Whatever. Whatever it is, if your star vampire goes tits up, intelligent backup is the way forward. >As for whether it's a problem, of course it is. Since >people seem to like building decks that are entirely based on a single >vampire, that by itself is a reason to permit them. I see no reason why >any drawback is particularly necessary for reasons of game balance, and >certainly not one which is so chaotic in its effect. If we assume that star decks without intelligent backup that get creamed by someone trumping them *somehow* lead to unhelpful tables, it's a pain in the ass. I play my bad deck that gets ass-raped because you played the nemesis and I had nothing else to do. But that causes problems for the *rest* of the table. It's not just my deck. It's not just my decision. When you're in a two-player game, like Magic, poor play generates its own rewards. Occasionally, of course, it'll get lucky - a good shuffle, an ill-thought-out experiment that turns out to be worthwhile, a deck that doesn't think about new facets of the game X, Y and Z (whatever they might be) but it works out fine because that deck never sees a deck exploiting those facets. But overall, on average, a poor deck will get knocked out in early rounds, and the player will need to improve to progress further. The better player will simply find themself with an easier round. We sit down at a table, I'm bleeding you. My deck dies in a heap, because you are playing the anti-deck. Okay. So you get a free game, so your prey isn't happy. I can't do anything at all, so my predator has this inactive lump between him and his next prey, which skews his whole game all randomly. That's three players who are being randomly affected by my deck crashing and burning. Now, if we move to a situation where players playing star-vampire decks are *actively encouraged* to put in many, many more copies of their star vampire, to encourage them to have two, three, four in their uncontrolled region - in order to burn those vampires to force an end to the contest - players don't have those other options. They don't have the weenies to rescue the star. They don't have extra vampires to burn an annoying card, such as a Smiling Jack or a Madness Network. They're actively encouraged to play All Star All The Time, which means that the dynamic of tables is screwed whenever they find that their deck is screwed by something, be it contestation, a well-timed Banishment or Sensory Deprivation, massive combat, the anti-strategy being sat next to it, Pentex Subversion, or whatever. I don't see that that helps the game. >The main reason to >have the existing drawback is completely for thematic and historical >reasons. It can also be excused in that it's a very rare occurance and >gets rarer all the time with each new expansions worth of vampires. That that's why it was created in the first place, yes. However, actively encouraging players to fill their decks with one vampire causes a potential crap-load of other problems, in the round. I put your star-vampire into torpor and keep it there, you can't influence a second copy out to fix that. If your deck isn't intelligently constructed to deal with this situation, bye bye. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5LAkh.185722$HO4.1...@newsfe06.phx>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Well, yes, as far as it goes. It depends on what is meant by "intelligent >backup". The examples given in the original post were pretty explicit about what was meant by intelligent backup, with one example of weenie support and a second example of a deck not needing its star vampire but benefiting greatly when it's available. What was unclear? Note that if you don't understand a term being used, it is stupid to call an argument "entirely circular" because, quite simply, you don't understand the argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1167261217.4...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Wanderer's Counsel <akun...@gmail.com> writes: >Why does the game work better for this 'star vampire' myth to restrict >my ability to play in this one game? Why doesn't the game work better, >as a game, for all players to be able to play without any regard to >other players bringing the same thing? The game has clearly been designed with the possibility of other players doing things in their deck construction that will annoy you in mind. If you are going to follow being able to play a deck without any regard to what other players bring to its logical conclusion, *all* unique cards become unique to that Methuselah. Should a Soul Gem deck (e.g. a Turbo, but not exclusively... any deck with regular burning would be fine) not have to wonder about the possibilities of what happens when another deck brings out a Soul Gem? Why bother stealing the Fragment of the Book of Nod when I can just play my own? Should we all have Dreams of the Sphinx? The possibility for other players to interfere with your strategy in this way is surely inherent to V:TES's design. There is also the minor unhelpful aspect of what happens if we both control Anson. Does his title contest? If so, why not the actual vampire? What about if two decks both decide to Praxis Seizure: Seattle with their copies of Uma Hatch? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1167261870....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, jeff...@gmail.com writes: >I think that's what this discussion is all about. Just because someone >*else* is playing a star vampire deck doesn't mean you should pay >dearly for it as well. You don't have to pay dearly for it. Play a deck that doesn't pay dearly for it, and you don't. If you choose to play a deck that pays dearly in certain situations and then finds itself in exactly that situation, isn't that your own fault? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:R3mLH5sF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <5LAkh.185722$HO4.1...@newsfe06.phx>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Well, yes, as far as it goes. It depends on what is meant by "intelligent >>backup". > > The examples given in the original post were pretty explicit about what > was meant by intelligent backup, with one example of weenie support and > a second example of a deck not needing its star vampire but benefiting > greatly when it's available. > > What was unclear? What was unclear was, why use that definition of "intelligent backup" when it really wasn't the point under discussion? In the entire thread, the issue is what happens when your star vampire is contested; your examples didn't address that at all. It seemed like you were trying to imply that the answer is to build a deck that isn't all that dependent on a single vampire's abilities. But the whole point of a star vampire deck is precisely to make use of some unique aspect of a given vampire - making the suggestion confusing due to its irrelevance. While it's certainly possible to build such a deck with a backup strategy as your examples suggested, in many cases it's not a practical option and making the attempt will only weaken the deck considerably. So who cares? > Note that if you don't understand a term being used, it is stupid to > call an argument "entirely circular" because, quite simply, you don't > understand the argument. "Entirely circular" was an overstatement, I agree. But it wasn't because I didn't understand the argument. Just that it struck me as an extremely oblique response to the problem in the stream of discussion. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:gG9X7rrq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <HLxkh.64850$0D2....@newsfe15.phx>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>The only reason on earth >>that you would have a concept such as "intelligent backup" is due to the >>contesting rule. > > Bzzzt. > > Intelligent back-up can be there for all sorts of reasons. OK, fair enough - I stand corrected. Even so, like everything else in deckbuilding, it's a useful technique only to the extent that it's possible and doesn't weaken the deck unacceptably in other ways. In some star vampire decks, you can reasonably include a backup for what happens when your star vampire doesn't come out, in others you really can't. >>As for whether it's a problem, of course it is. Since >>people seem to like building decks that are entirely based on a single >>vampire, that by itself is a reason to permit them. I see no reason why >>any drawback is particularly necessary for reasons of game balance, and >>certainly not one which is so chaotic in its effect. > > If we assume that star decks without intelligent backup that get creamed > by someone trumping them *somehow* lead to unhelpful tables, it's a pain > in the ass. I play my bad deck that gets ass-raped because you played > the nemesis and I had nothing else to do. But that causes problems for > the *rest* of the table. It's not just my deck. It's not just my > decision. Sure. I understand this point and I agree with it. Unfortunately, what you're talking about is a problem not just to star vampire decks but to any focused, single-strategy deck. Terming them "bad decks" is beside the point, as far as I can see. If the players view the potential payoff to the gamble of focusing a deck on its one trick as being higher than the drawback when their opponents have the perfect foil for that trick (or when a star vampire isn't available to be influenced out for whatever reason), then the deck will get built. If the perception is accurate, the deck isn't bad - it's just risky. It actually might be a rather good deck on the whole. The fact of the matter is that the rule covering uniqueness in vampires doesn't really have a discernable role in discouraging dependence on a particular vampire. It's possible that rule was intended for that purpose in the case of certain library cards, but if it was ever the intended purpose for vampires, it's basically become irrelevant by now. Now, I think it's fair to look at it as just a completely random screw that takes place on very rare occasions that does all the terrible things to table balance you describe above when it takes place (setting aside the possibility of a Betrayer deck, of course). I personally don't think it's a common enough occurrence to warrant any of the solutions I've seen proposed, but I can't blame people for proposing them. Trying to frame proposals like this as being counter-productive just because you want to portray star vampire decks as being "bad" because (in turn), you've focused only on the drawbacks of using a star vampire and not its advantages is just wrong. > Now, if we move to a situation where players playing star-vampire decks > are *actively encouraged* to put in many, many more copies of their star > vampire, to encourage them to have two, three, four in their > uncontrolled region - in order to burn those vampires to force an end to > the contest - players don't have those other options. I don't think the "encouragement" is likely to make all that much of a difference in people's deckbuilding. You're talking about an incentive to alter a crypt makeup to cover an extremely rare situation so I think your fear of that particular proposal making the situation discernibly worse is completely unfounded. What it does is just give one of the two decks a potential 'out' so that at least one of them can get back in the ball game. I don't think it really solves the problem since the loser is still screwed (and unbalances the table, yadda, yadda) and the winner was probably going to sustain high damage to his position due to the delay and extra cost to winning the contest but the end result is likely to be a better game, even so. I just think the whole thing is not really worth the complexity of adding it to the rules for such an unlikely, if terrible, situation. Especially given that it doesn't completely fix the problem. > I don't see that that helps the game. It would. It just wouldn't help all that much. Fred

In message <_XRlh.215385$HO4.1...@newsfe06.phx>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:R3mLH5sFP6lFF >w...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <5LAkh.185722$HO4.1...@newsfe06.phx>, Frederick Scott >> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>>Well, yes, as far as it goes. It depends on what is meant by "intelligent >>>backup". >> >> The examples given in the original post were pretty explicit about what >> was meant by intelligent backup, with one example of weenie support and >> a second example of a deck not needing its star vampire but benefiting >> greatly when it's available. >> >> What was unclear? > >What was unclear was, why use that definition of "intelligent backup" when >it really wasn't the point under discussion? Because that was the point I was raising *at that point in the discussion*. If you only expect threads to discuss exactly the same point over and over with no-one adding a new point into the discussion, no wonder you have trouble actually understanding a word anyone says on Usenet. >In the entire thread, the >issue is what happens when your star vampire is contested; your examples >didn't address that at all. Sure they did. What happens if Tsunda gets contested? You turn the deck into breed and bleed. What happens if your key Salubri gets contested? The deck turns into a Dominate bleed deck. It doesn't matter why you don't get the vampire (or use of the vampire) - contesting, a very rapid Sensory Deprivation, Pentex Subversion, combat. The deck has another option to fall back on, which doesn't just rely on one vampire all the time. Do you want a diagram? > It seemed like you were trying to imply that >the answer is to build a deck that isn't all that dependent on a single >vampire's abilities. No. The suggestion was to build a deck that *can* do other things. That's the whole point about the word "intelligent" in "intelligent backup". Look at the options you're giving yourself, and select intelligently. That is, using your brain. The Eldest are Tsunda throws a massive amount of stress onto Tsunda. She is the key vampire for the intended plays. But because the creator had a brain, it can cope when Tsunda isn't available, for whatever reason. > But the whole point of a star vampire deck is precisely >to make use of some unique aspect of a given vampire - making the suggestion >confusing due to its irrelevance. Absolutely. Make use of the unique aspect. That's still immensely plausible, sensible, and useful. But if you're going to piss and moan when said vampire - or, I guess, Imbued - gets contested, you're still going to piss and moan when you get hand-jam and the vampire gets thumped, Banished, disabled, or screwed in some other fashion. The Tsunda deck makes strong use of Tsunda being the only Ravnos magaji. It's just that the creator also thought "Hey, what if Tsunda gets pounded?" and has some other options available too. It is still a star vampire deck, in every sense of the term. >While it's certainly possible to build >such a deck with a backup strategy as your examples suggested, in many cases >it's not a practical option and making the attempt will only weaken the >deck considerably. So who cares? People who want a deck that works when their star vampire gets hosed, for whatever reason. What are you going to do when your star vampire gets a Sensory Deprivation and you have absolutely no way to do anything else? What about when I Pentex Subversion them? Or rush them into torpor? >> Note that if you don't understand a term being used, it is stupid to >> call an argument "entirely circular" because, quite simply, you don't >> understand the argument. > >"Entirely circular" was an overstatement, I agree. But it wasn't because >I didn't understand the argument. If you didn't understand the term - which you obviously didn't - you didn't understand the argument. Even though the examples were there. > Just that it struck me as an extremely >oblique response to the problem in the stream of discussion. No, see. If you read the whole post, you'll see I was talking about a contrary point of view to the problem being raised. See, you can tell this by the fact that I wrote: "Is it actually a problem if bad star vampire decks get stopped?" Because I ask a question that is contrary to the point of view being expressed in the rest of the thread, it implies that I am posting something that may be contrary to the problem expressed. Then later I say: "I'm not sure that encouraging all-or-bust star vampire decks is actually in the best interests of the game." This again quite clearly suggests that I am suggesting that decks that die in a messy heap with no hope of salvage when they lose their star vampire are not decks I think should be encouraged. This is why you have trouble understanding posts. You obviously don't actually read them properly, noting what people say and what that means, but just read something you expect someone to have posted based on the rest of the thread. Note: people have different points of view, and may not agree that "problems" described in a given thread are actually problems. My post made it quite clear that I was expressing a contrary view. That's why the points I raised fitted in - because I *wasn't trying* to deal with the problems other people were raising, because I was quite clearly pointing out that they aren't necessarily problems. To deal with my post in a way which believes I was trying to address the problems raised in the thread is *completely* missing the point, in a manner that only you manage, somehow. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:CHXPbF6Cz$lFF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Do you want a diagram? No. I want you to accept the obvious flaw in your reasoning. A forlorn hope, no doubt, but there it is. >> It seemed like you were trying to imply that >>the answer is to build a deck that isn't all that dependent on a single >>vampire's abilities. > > No. The suggestion was to build a deck that *can* do other things. Right. In other words, you are telling people to stop building the deck *they* want to build and adjust it to avoid this one particular flaw - whether it makes any sense or not given whatever deck they're attempting to create. > That's the whole point about the word "intelligent" in "intelligent > backup". Look at the options you're giving yourself, and select > intelligently. That is, using your brain. And, using my brain, I can see that for some decks the suggestion makes sense and other times it simply doesn't. Sometimes, the attempt to do such a thing will render it far weaker on balance than simply accepting that it's builder will be in deep shit if they happen to lose their star. Therefore, as a blanket answer to the conumdrum, I find your point wanting. >> But the whole point of a star vampire deck is precisely >>to make use of some unique aspect of a given vampire - making the suggestion >>confusing due to its irrelevance. > > Absolutely. Make use of the unique aspect. That's still immensely > plausible, sensible, and useful. But if you're going to piss and moan > when said vampire - or, I guess, Imbued - gets contested, you're still > going to piss and moan when you get hand-jam and the vampire gets > thumped, Banished, disabled, or screwed in some other fashion. That's where you're wrong. The former is a specific condition associated with a specific rule of questionable necessity that can arguably be mitigated by the well-chosen modification to the rules. Or, at least as LSJ suggested, it's worth listening to what people have to say. All of the others are known risks which have to be taken into consideration when building such a deck, similar to how every other deck in creation has - and should have - drawbacks associated with them. Drawbacks to be considered and mitigated, if reasonable, or simply sustained as the downside to the deck. The comparison with contestation, while fair enough for consisdering the comparitive strength of different decks, is not reasonable or valid for purposes of this discussion. > People who want a deck that works when their star vampire gets hosed, > for whatever reason. > > What are you going to do when your star vampire gets a Sensory > Deprivation and you have absolutely no way to do anything else? What > about when I Pentex Subversion them? Or rush them into torpor? Quite likely, you're going to lose. So if you're going to play such a deck, the advantages you gain from the star vampires abilities and your library cards being well-focused to make the most of those abilities had better be sufficiently positive to outweight the disadvantages of the risk that one of the above conditions will cause you to lose. Of course, some of these can be mitigated by various means other than backup and some of them can't, depending on the particular star vampire and strategy of the deck. > This is why you have trouble understanding posts. You obviously don't > actually read them properly, noting what people say and what that means, > but just read something you expect someone to have posted based on the > rest of the thread. Another way of looking at this is that my expectation of what a person is getting at hinges on the assumption that they can't possibly be making a particular obvious mistake in reasoning. In this case, that James is not telling everyone everywhere in the universe that the whole problem of star vampire contestation boils down to that they should never EVER build such decks without a backup strategy in case the star vampire is lost. I'm sorry James, such a response to the issue seemed so wildly inappropriate that I had trouble fathoming anyone would give it. And, yes, I suppose it's fair to say the disorientation caused thereby resulted in poor comprehension of your thrust. Fred