Total Insanity: Castro Valley (SF Bay Area - CA) Tournament Report

Well Total Insanity: CV was an unqualified success (hehe)... an unprecedented 15 Methuselahs (ok ok we "forced" Ian Lee to participate hehe, don't complain Ian, for finishing second, you got 2 boosters and $10 certificate!) took part in some crazy 3-5 player tables of insane bloodletting :)... the only time we had more was at the Bloodlines Pre-release. So I am hoping that folks had fun and will spread the word and encourage others to show up in future sanctioned tournaments at CV :) I was out of sorts during the tournament (going to bed around 3AM Sunday morning after and evening of "practicing" and tuning my L5R deck for GenCon), so I really didn't keep track of *cool* things that happened (except for the one I was directly involved in where Paul/Gomi called a vote that ousted me (his prey) and Jim (my prey) the same turn, giving me the only VP I "earned" today LOL). On a side note, I don't really like Hostile Takeovers, and am glad it is getting an MRP [damn you Clayton! hehe]. I wanted to play !Malk in honor of the tournament name, but I don't own any Confusions, and Jim didn't bring any for me to borrow :p Here are the standings coming into the finals: (TW = Table Win, VP = Victory Point, TP = Tournament Point) Rank - Name - TWs - VPs - TPs 1 Chris Loux 2TWs 7VPs 120TPs 2 Brandyn Salcedo 1TP 3VPs 84TPs 3 Paul Echiverri 1TW 3VPs 84TPs 4 Ian Lee 0VPs 3VPs 96TPs 5 Vincent Meneau 0TWs 2.5VPs 90TPs 6 Clatyon Cole 0TWs 2.5VPs 84TPs 7 Dave Sisson 0TWs 2VPs 72TPs 8 Randy Ray 0TWs 1.5VPs 72TPs 9 Jeff Kuta 0TWs 1VPs 66TPs 9 Joel Marbella 0TWs 1VPS 66TPs 11 Greg Garson 0TWs 0.5VPs 60TPs 11 Jason Liang 0TWs 0.5VPs 60TPs 13 Ian Kemp 0TWs 0VPs 42TPs 13 James Dyes 0TWs 0VPs 42TPs 13 Alex Con Hon 0TWs 0VPs 42TPs In the finals (my apologies if I described your deck incorrectly, remember, I don't know how to play VTES hehe): Ian, playing Necro Kiasyds, bleeding Paul Paul, playing Alternative Vote, bleeeding Brandyn Brandyn, playing Presence-Stealth Bleeding Assamites, bleeding Chris Chris, playing Breeding Gangrel with DOM, bleeding Vincent Vincent, playing Tor/!Tor Guns, Misdirections and Brainwashes, bleeding Ian After 2 hours and 10 mins of play (I figured the finals deserved 10 more minutes *rolls eyes*), the dust settled and Chris' Gangrel Breed deck emerged victorious with 4 VPs (and Ian relegated to 2nd!! (I think he didn't want to win again, he wanted to break his own hot streak at CV ;) hehe) with 1 VP) Here is the first-hand report from the winner, Chris Loux, with his deck list and a very introspective analysis of his deck. At the end of Chris' report, you will find Ian Lee's report as 2nd place player (loser's perspective hehe)... If you have any questions about future tournaments or general VTES gaming in the SF Bay Area, email Brad Nozik at thep...@sfbayareavtes.com or myself at cv_p...@hotmail.com. Enjoy! -------------------------------------- Deck name: "Those darn unaligned... they need govern'n" Crypt 3 Ingrid Rossler (9 Gangrel Prince) 2 Illiana (7 Gangrel) 1 Camille (5 Gangrel) 1 Sir Walter Nash (7 Ventrue) 1 Caitlin (6 Gangrel Anti) 1 Katarina (9 Gangrel Prince) 1 Angus (10 Gangrel Justicar) 1 Chandler (3 Gangrel) 1 Raven (5 Gangrel) Combat 5 Form of mist 7 Earth meld 4 Claws of the dead 1 Quick meld 17 Combat 10 Freak Drive 4 Earth Control 2 Kiss of Ra 16 Action Mods Masters 1 Eco Terrorists 1 Backways 5 minion tap 6 Dominate 1 Protean 14 Masters Actions 1 Humunculus 6 Govern the unaligned 4 Scouting mission 6 Fifth Tradition 2 Third Tradition- Progeny 4 Embrace 1 Sanguine instruction 2 Raven Spy 1 Graverobbing 2 Fourth Tradition- Accounting 1 Gangrel Justicar 1 IR Goggles 31 actions 3 Second Tradition 3 WWEF 4 Deflection 2 Redirection 12 Reactions Total 90 I made the deck to show how strong I think Gangrel are. After Malk and Ventrue, I think they are the strongest, and head to head they can beat either one, depending on the deck. Above all, people, Gangrel are a misunderstood clan. Everyone wants to burn vamps with them, but they are best at primarily peaceful, multiple action decks. Protean has three of the top four combat cards in VTES: Earth Meld- Everyone says majesty is great, but it turns out this one's free. When you have it, you don't really even care if you get your actions blocked. Form of Mist- What an evil card. I can't believe we don't have more of it in our metagame. It taps the guy, screws up his calculations for how to block, and ends combat as well. Oh yeah, forgot to mention, it adds stealth Claws- No secret here, but the key is using them in a non-violent deck. The maneuver (or the agg) is a lifesaver against potence, and agg is most deadly when everyone is expecting you to end combat. It's also really easy to cycle. In the finals, I ended up doing a lot of 5th/minion tap, but that is not really the point of the deck. The deck is supposed to just sit there and do these six actions until everyone at the table wants to puke: Govern Fourth Tradition Scouting mission Progeny Embrace 5th to refill The key to the deck is card flow. My simple-minded philosophy is that if you have powerful cards and figure out a way to get them on the table, you should do well. I'd say that in the three rounds I used 230-240 cards. Since the deck does have a good amount of combat defense, hand jam was a bit of a problem at points. But the idea is to overcome that in any one combat. At one point, I maneuvered to long with claws, used claws to make my hand damage agg, then played Earth Meld to end up untapped. Two blood to clear the hand and get to my blood producing cards ended up saving me. In the finals, the cards were flowing so fast that I ended up coming back to the 5th traditions almost every turn. (I only had 6 total) If I could do it again, I'd probably do the following: Get rid of Angus. He was impressive when he was a 13 cap with superiors in dom, for, and pro, but he is a liability until he gets double dominate because the deck depends on governing down. Burn every copy of Katarina that I own. Inferior protean? What a joke. Add more Sanguine Instructions. This card is made for Gangrel. They have weird vamps that lack superiors, and their multiple actions make the card easier to use. It's also nice to help get the dominate out to the masses. Add Ingrid, and maybe give Faruq a try. Assuming he is not going to get blocked much, the inferior fortitude won't hurt Faruq too much, and the dominate may make him worth it. At any rate, he's smaller than Ingrid, and that's the key. Get rid of Raven Spys, and replace the seconds with wakes. This tournament was a prime example of why intercept can be a bad thing. I can remember only one action that I actually wanted to block. (Ian's K.D. of Eco Terrorists) Other than that, the intercept just clogged my hand, and was actually a bad thing when I used it, as it let people clear their hands of stealth. Add a lot more bounce. No matter what, the deck is slow. It has to have more defense against stealth bleed. I'd say the one major counter for a deck like this is heavy stealth bleed with tons of sudden reversals. The SR will stop both the minion taps and the big Gangrel from getting dominate. At the tournament, people were saying that intercept would kill the deck but that's not really true. Most actions that the deck really wants to do are at +1 stealth. That becomes +2 stealth with a tapped blocker after form of mist. Backways and earth control can get it up to 5 stealth, so you really need to be able to generate a lot of wakes and intercept each time. Also keep in mind that with enough different powerful actions, the deck shouldn't care if it gets blocked and untaps with earth meld. Telepathic tracking, Psyche, and Grapples will hurt, but opponents have to have enough of them, and they have to be able to deal with the maneuvers or agg of claws, not to mention KoR. A major problem with this deck is that it concentrates hatred of others. The main reason I was able to do well in the last two games was that I seemed quite pathetic for the first five rounds. At any rate, the fix to 5th will make a deck like this much less of a threat. A quick re-cap of the tourney- Round one- Lament that people like Nat, Caleb and Gary failed to provide their asses for kicking. Start playing, then beg Ian to jump in so we can re-start with 15 players. (and get a shot at him) This round basically gets sudden reversaled and we restart with three full games. Real round one- This one seemed uneventful. Jim was ahead of me with a Ravnos toolbox that made Katerina seem like less of a laughingstock than she is. She bloated a bit, then eventually Jim left himself with 7 pool. I got two governs through and was left against a weenie Assamite dom stealth bleed deck played by Dave. The stealth bleed deck had consumed two players, but by that time I had a lot of pool gain and was able to get him out. Round two- My predator was now the Assamite stealth bleed deck. I had really no business surviving in this round. I was getting bled for 6- 8 per round before I had more than one minion out. Jeff K put down one of the bigger Assamites, (that vamp eventually came over and played for me), and my prey actually was gracious enough to haven another. The second one helped, but did not actually make a big difference as I had bloat and bounce going by then. Without Jeff beating the first guy down, though, I would have been out turn 5 or so. At any rate, the machine caught on quickly and pretty soon I was back between 10-15 pool consistently, with above 5 minions and gaining about one per round. Someone across the table, (I think it was Jeff) got a VP and a bunch of pool, but it came down to attrition. Finals- Final layout was: Ian (Kiasyd weird Ian plan going on) bleeding Paul (Vote/Telepathic vote counting) bleeding Brandyn (Big Assamite presence stealth bleed) bleeding Myself (Gangrel stealth bloat) bleeding Vincent (Toreador presence) bleeding Ian Once again, I was punished severely early as Brandyn got Info highway out and had like three big guys hitting me for 3-5 each time. I got Angus out, and got double dominate on him but was drawing jack for bounce. I resolved not to block anything to try to jam him with stealth and it finally paid off say round 6, when the 1 bleeds started appearing. I was still half left-for-dead, when suddenly the 5ths minion taps and governs starting coming like clockwork and I had 20 pool and 6 minions. Angus was at 13 cap for most of the game, without ever getting a 5th blocked or tap reversed. He and Ingrid were also getting others out and making babies. The key at this point was that no one really had the kind of deck that allowed them to screw with people across the table. All hated me strongly, but other than some late defense from Ian, and a steady stream of painful bleeds from Brandyn, there was not much doubt of the future from turn 8 on. At one point, Brandyn negotiated with others to get into combat and unjam his hand, and that gave him more presence mods. I imagine he hit me for a grand total of 35 pool during the game, with another 10 or so getting bounced. (More maybe, its hard to say) Ian put Gomi out at some point, and then tried to wall, but he was fairly low on pool. After a polite KoR/Graverobbing combo, I got Ian out and again it was attrition against Brandyn, who essentially had not been attacked the entire game. As take-aways for the tourney, I saw the power of not blocking as a way of slowing down stealth bleeders. It's so hard to have enough self-control to let them roll on you, but it may be worth the price if you deck is never going to generate any intercept. The other thing I saw was that one-dimensional decks have a disadvantage in that they really don't have anything to offer their prey when things go wrong. A heavy stealth bleed deck is not a speed bump; it's a constant threat. People seem to opt for a known quantity that does not attack as heavily, even if it is stronger overall. Thanks to all who took part. And to those, such as Caleb, who huddled in fear, crouched in a fetal position, terrorized by both my deck strength and the taunting their failure would be met with, I can only say, "It's ok. I understand." -------------------------------------------------------- From Ian Lee: ... just one loser's perspective. So, we had the perfect tournament. Twelve people. I wasn't playing. Then, Jim and Jason showed up. Then, we almost had the perfect tournament. Fourteen people. I wasn't playing. Then, it all went to hell when everyone was convinced that we should start from scratch. Fifteen people. I was playing. First Round: Randy went first playing Lasombra/Giovanni. Ian Kemp went second with Gargoyles. Vincent, third, with what wanted to play like a weenie Presence deck but with bigger minions; it used Brainwashes, for instance, to slow its prey down. Jeff went fourth with Disguised Assault Rifles on the likes of Ellen Fence and Francois and lots of ways to draw cards. I went ... fifth. I probably didn't transfer optimally for the situation. I saw Ellen, so I thought of how I would avoid being tapped for a while. I could have brought out Marconius, the most important vampire in my crypt, first, but I wanted to make sure I could drop Secure Haven on him before he got rushed and I didn't know how rushy Jeff's deck was. Also, after Randy brought out Gratiano, he brought out Pochtli, so I wanted to get Carlotta out before we ran into problems as our decks had tremendous superficial similarities. Early on: Randy wasn't getting much pressure from me and could bleed some; Ian was rushing in various directions but not having much luck; Vincent was decrypting and bloating; Jeff occasionally rushed someone; I had it all and had it right then, though, to survive Blurred Assault Rifles with combat ends and most amusingly Darkling Trickery, of which I played two in one combat, though I forgot I had a Saturday Night Special on Marconius and didn't shoot Ellen for one at long range to empty her minor as that would have been. Deeper into the game Randy and Vincent were able to put some pressure on their respective preys. Ian was getting Obedienced when rushing the invincible Gratiano. Jeff started looking backwards more intently after Vincent got some good bleeds through. My pool sucked as I got jack for blood management, but I drew wakes often enough to put some bleeds through without fearing sudden oust syndrome and Randy's pool was fairly low. I got one turn before Ian would descend into the ousting abyss to put Randy down, but my lack of ability to cycle throughout the game meant I didn't have the plus bleed everyone likely expected and reduced him only to 1 pool. Ian fell. One of Randy's larger bleeds (3) got bounced to Jeff when he was at 4 pool, and contentiousness flared such that Randy stealthed it by which enabled Vincent to oust shortly afterwards. With time running out on us, I just went forward and ousted Randy. Vincent and I agreed that a withdrawal was in order. A stolen (from Jeff) Fragment would have aided going through the motions, but no one really cared to force us to do that. Second Round: Paul went first with his alternative vote deck. Joel was second with Gangrel Royalty. Jim went third with some Chimerstry based deck that didn't end up doing much. I went ... fourth. Alex went fifth with the latest version of his Eurobrujah deck. Jim spent a bunch of pool without help from Joel's Judgment: Camarilla Segregation. Fated to die or something seemed to be the motto of the day. Paul's Gilbert got quickly Disarmed when he blocked Mr. Winthrop. My Julia got similarly torpor advantaged blocking Alex's J:CS. Jim Suddened Alex's KRCG and a Blood Doll (as I recall) while he tried to find a way to survive. Earlier, Jim Cursed Angus at the double inferior level, which didn't have a huge impact. Paul had a vote problem with Alex getting out three Princes and Joel having four or so votes. Command of the Harpies on Donal passed as did Camarilla Threat which Paul immediately lost a pool to as he discarded. I got tired of having Alex around and didn't mind having some more pool, so I ousted him but got Julia Archoned in doing so, which ended up hurting more than I expected as I couldn't get someone I didn't have in play when I decrypted. This gave Paul vote control which he used to take out Joel and Jim with Anarchist Uprising. The two player showdown saw First Tradition and Camarilla Threat hurt us both while Paul's Etrius got big bleeds through (with stealth) and my lack of drawing plus bleed saw, uh, a lack of getting big bleeds through, so I eventually failed to survive. Final Round: Vincent was fifth seed with 2.5 VPs. I was fourth with 3 VPs. Brandyn had 3 and a TW, I believe. Paul did as well? but won the coin toss? Chris went in as the first seed. Paul inserted to my left. Brandyn followed Paul. Chris followed Brandyn. I went first. I didn't do much as I had Pentex Subversion played on my first vampire, which kept him from acting for a couple of turns and (in total) had three Brainwashes played on my guys. Paul's votes started with Might of the Camarilla. Brandyn bled Chris like crazy. But, Chris bloated like crazy and put out some wee folk. Vincent bled me hoping for a quick oust, but I drew Deflections when I needed them for a change and I knew he couldn't get through once I was able to block. Eventually, I had stabilized and was trying not to put Paul down until he could do something fruitful. Course, my delaying meant getting Beatrice burnt by Protect Thine Own which only had two possible targets. Nevertheless, Paul had minimal pool and nothing useful to do. Brandyn was strong but spinning his wheels going forward as Chris just kept bloating. Chris eventually got out enough minions that Vincent was screwed. Vincent had been bloating and wasn't a threat to me anymore, though was losing the ability to wall up. Chris ousted Vincent, and I figured some pool, a VP, and having Brandyn have a predator was useful, so I ousted Paul. From there, Chris simply had too many minions and too much pool for us to do much, and we eventually got ousted, I about the time Chris ran out of cards, Brandyn a few turns later as Chris had eight or so minions. My attempt to build around a coaster and still do something - Shocking Nec-ed Guys x2 Beatrice L'Angou x2 Julia Prima x2 Bartholomew x4 Marconius x2 Carlotta Giovanni x5 Blood Doll x1 Dreams of the Sphinx x1 Giant's Blood x4 Necromancy x1 Regent x1 Secure Haven x3 Shock Troops x4 Storage Annex x6 Govern the Unaligned x4 Jar the Soul x1 Kine Dominance x3 Bonding x1 Call of the Hungry Dead x3 Conditioning x1 Foreshadowing Destruction x2 Seduction x2 Shadow Play x4 Shroud of Absence x4 Stone Travel x2 The Sleeping Mind x3 Darkling Trickery x6 Oubliette x4 Spiritual Intervention x2 Saturday Night Special x5 Deflection x2 Eyes of the Night x2 Forced Awakening x5 WWEF x6 Aura Absorption x2 Spectral Divination The point of the deck is to drop some Necromen to play Jar the Soul (at zero stealth, of course, cuz God forbid Shock Troops have any redeeming value) to tap out my prey so the real vampires can bleed for large amounts. Here's what I learned. There's no way to overcome the supreme coasterness of Shock Troops. Until recently, I completely overlooked that they have -1 stealth on every action. Best guess that whoever posted to the newsgroup about using it for Protean agg rushers overlooked this as well as empty Protean dudes hunting at zero stealth will fall over and die leading to that most glorious of situations where you spent pool and used up master slots in your deck (this, of course, assumes the Shock Troops card isn't Suddened) to have a bunch of them sit in torpor. BTW, I do have a fourth; I just couldn't bring myself to play with that many copies. Every single time I had one in hand, I ended up discarding it. This deck doesn't have enough bleed, which has something to do with putting in cards that a serious deck wouldn't be playing. When I was writing it up in the ELDB, I was very close to ditching the stupidity, but I found some way to get the deck down to 90. I didn't nail the metagame with the notable exception of Darkling Trickery (which isn't saying anything really as the card is always useful to the Kiasyd) as I was constantly having problems with card flow. And, remember, every deck is better with ultrarare weapon hosers. ================================================= J.A. Marbella VEKN (Puppet) Prince of Castro Valley http://www.geocities.com/powerbasecastrovalley/ =================================================

Yoritomo Jiriki wrote: > > Well Total Insanity: CV was an unqualified success (hehe)... ... > Here is the first-hand report from the winner, Chris Loux, with his > deck list and a very introspective analysis of his deck. ... > > If I could do it again, I'd probably do the following: > > Get rid of Angus. He was impressive when he was a 13 cap with > > superiors in dom, for, and pro, but he is a liability until he gets > > double dominate because the deck depends on governing down. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Translation to non-Bay-Area personnel: "governing down" = "governing back". This drives me crazy whenever they use that term. But you have to understand: the players in the Bay Area keep their pool underneath the table, between their feet. Hence, "governing down" is very logical. It also distinguishes the pool gaining version of the card from the non-pool gaining version, termed "governing up". "Governing up" happens when you throw your Govern the Unaligned up into the light fixture in frustration when Nat Hammond blocks your attempt at a "governing down" action for the 37th consecutive time with his 37th consecutive top-decked 2nd Tradition, once again explaining (if you hadn't caught it the first 36 times), "They're there to protect the Brujah Debates." I love the playing in the Bay Area. Just wish I could get them to play on one of the weekends I can make the trip. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D431727...@removethis.com... > Translation to non-Bay-Area personnel: "governing down" = "governing back". > This drives me crazy whenever they use that term. But you have to > understand: the players in the Bay Area keep their pool underneath the > table, between their feet. Hence, "governing down" is very logical. Please tell me you're kidding, what do you use to keep track of your pool? Running shoes? -JTP

[ quoted text not captured ] I use my pool counters, moved with hands. It's not _me_ - did we notice the sentence at the end where I refereed to _traveling there_? Apparently we didn't. I just visit there enough to love the competition but get annoyed by the slang that Chris, amongst others, insists on using for superior Governing. Fred

> > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > > news:3D431727...@removethis.com... > I use my pool counters, moved with hands. It's not _me_ - did we notice the > sentence at the end where I refereed to _traveling there_? Apparently we > didn't. Apologies all around, but I'm still curious about the "pool kept under the table" bit. Can you enlighten me as to what they're doing there or is it a joke that went totally over my head? -JTP

In article <f_219.65261$Ag2.3...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, [ quoted text not captured ] Fred meant it as an explanation for the use of 'down'. Personally, I'm at a loss for what else it could possibly be called -- the uncontrolled area is below the active area, so 'governing down' is super- intuitive. But then, I'm one of the Bay Area players -- I'm SUPPOSED to find it natural. I should totally post my tourney-losing vote deck, the 'alternative' vote deck referred to by Joel and Ian -- it's a Telepathic Vote Deck, no KRC, no ConAg, no Presence vote mods, no Seizures. And one copy each of 25 different PAs. I wasn't expecting to do much more than have fun, but I did make the finals. Ah well. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > Personally, I'm at a loss for what else it could possibly be called -- the > uncontrolled area is below the active area, so 'governing down' is super- > intuitive. Well, I've always heard it referred as 'governing BACK' - 'back', as in where in your area your uncontrolled minions sit that the blood will go on. (Also, usually where your pool is. Though in truth your pool may sit anywhere.) (On the table, that is.) It also makes a lot more sense in that the opposite of 'governing back' is therefore 'governing forward', which sounds pretty reasonable as a term for bleeding. What is supposed to be so super-intuitive about 'governing down' and it's apparent antonym, 'governing up'? Fred

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Personally, I'm at a loss for what else it could possibly be called -- the > uncontrolled area is below the active area, so 'governing down' is super- > intuitive. Your uncontrolled area is under the table? I don't get that either. Mine is behind my controlled area. (Or did I miss a "/sarcasm" thingie?) Fred

In article <3D44F4D0...@removethis.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Fred, you're a dear sweet man, but you can be a wee bit obtuse at times. Unless you're yanking my chain as part of an elaborate Suspire. The area of the vampire card where the name is printed is the 'top' of the card, is it not? And the capacity circle is at the 'bottom', yes? Hence, anything in the play field further away than the 'top' of the card, in its normal orientation (face up, flat on the table, oriented so as to be legible to the controller in standard left-to-right fashion) is 'above', anything under the 'bottom' of the card is 'below'. BEHOLD, THE POWER OF ASCII: ------Line of Doom (Top)------- -------------------- |Bob the Vampire | | -------- | | -- -- | | | | | | | POO | | | | | | | -- -- | | -------- | | AU | | CE PR | | | | 6 | -------------------- ------Line of Doom (Bottom)----- Uncontrolled Area Observe how anything closer to the player (player is at bottom of screen, centre of table is at top of screen) is 'below' Bob, in the horizontal plane. Just reorient your coords so 'top' == 'centre of table' and 'bottom' == 'your chair', in the horizontal plane, and comprehension is not far off! TO REVIEW, when BOB is UNTAPPED: -------------------- TOP IS THIS WAY |Bob the Vampire | ^ | -------- | | | -- -- | | | | | |PREY<--+-->PREDATOR | | POO | | | | | | | | | -- -- | | | -------- | | | AU | | | CE PR | | | | | | 6 | v --------------------BOTTOM IS THIS WAY I can be slightly more clear if this doesn't help. Hugs, [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3D44F4D0...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] 'behind' strongly implies your uncontrolled vampires are between your controlled vampires and the table surface. 'behind' is usually where we put Blood Dolls and the like. Perhaps a diagram, viewing the cards and table edge-on, will prove a useful illustration. BEHOLD, THE POWER OF ASCII: CEILING F [THE 'IN FRONT OF BOB' ZONE] R -------------- <-- BOB THE VAMPIRE E [THE 'BEHIND BOB' ZONE] <-- BLOOD DOLLS GO HERE D ----------------------------------- <-- TABLE SURFACE <-- FRED'S KNEES FLOOR I trust this clears up any lingering misunderstanding. Cheers, [ quoted text not captured ]

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3D44F4D0...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >Gomi no Sensei wrote: > >> Personally, I'm at a loss for what else it could possibly be called -- the > >> uncontrolled area is below the active area, so 'governing down' is super- > >> intuitive. > > > >Your uncontrolled area is under the table? I don't get that either. Mine > >is behind my controlled area. (Or did I miss a "/sarcasm" thingie?) > > Fred, you're a dear sweet man, but you can be a wee bit obtuse at times. > > Unless you're yanking my chain as part of an elaborate Suspire. > > The area of the vampire card where the name is printed is the 'top' > of the card, is it not? And the capacity circle is at the 'bottom', yes? Sorry, I guess we have just have hugely different sensibilities. Yes, when held in your hand, a card has a top edge and a bottom edge, but the word "top" kind of loses its power when the thing is placed flat on a table. At *that* point, the "top" is the face (unless it's in the library or crypt, in which case the top is the back) as referenced by the term, "face UP". You can be anal, I suppose, and still hold that for reference purposes the same edge is still the "top edge", but I would hardly think anyone would ever confer the "topness" and "bottomness" from the now-flat card onto the players' areas of the table and likewise assume a "top" and "bottom" of those areas which are both at the same height. That seems utterly weird in my surreality. I'll write it off to different ways of seeing things, but don't expect me to remember it two months from now. Or to inherently understand how you got there. (Bleh, obtuse am I? At least I know which way is up. When I'm sober, that is.) Fred P.S. I love your word of the day, but Merriam-Webster translates "suspire" as an old English word for "sigh". I'm fear I'm getting confused again.

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3D44F4D0...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >Your uncontrolled area is under the table? I don't get that either. Mine > >is behind my controlled area. (Or did I miss a "/sarcasm" thingie?) > > 'behind' strongly implies your uncontrolled vampires are between your > controlled vampires and the table surface. No, I was always taught that that would be "underneath" (another height- related word). "Behind" is between your controlled vampires and the table edge nearest to where you're sitting - the prescribed place for uncontrolled vampires. > BEHOLD, THE POWER OF ASCII: Oh, cripes, if I see this one more time I beholding my mouth on a rush to the john. All right, let's just check the handy-dandy sensible person's adjective locator: Away from you, towards your opponents => FRONT edge, in front of Towards you, away from opponents => BACK edge, behind To your right or left => Right and left edges, to the right or left of Physically higher => up, top, over, above, on top of, etc. Physically lower => down, bottom, below, underneath, etc. (Wallet cards available for a nominal fee.) Fred

go...@panix.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote in message news:<ai2st5$gqh$1...@panix3.panix.com>... > In article <3D44F4D0...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >Gomi no Sensei wrote: > BEHOLD, THE POWER OF ASCII: > > ------Line of Doom (Top)------- > > -------------------- > |Bob the Vampire | > | -------- | > | -- -- | > | | | | > | | POO | | > | | | | > | -- -- | > | -------- | > | AU | > | CE PR | > | | > | 6 | > -------------------- > > ------Line of Doom (Bottom)----- Bob can't Govern down. ;) Maybe Enchant down, but not Govern down. ;) Hope this helps clear the confusion. hehe Jeff

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D451263...@removethis.com... > > Sorry, I guess we have just have hugely different sensibilities. Yes, when > held in your hand, a card has a top edge and a bottom edge, but the word > "top" kind of loses its power when the thing is placed flat on a table. I liked your first post in this thread, very amusing. :-) But seriously, I think approximately 100% of the VTES players I've met (all except you, apparently) either use or understand the phrase "governing down" to mean "using superior Govern to add blood to an uncontrolled vampire". Likewise, "pay one to see one" (meaning pay a pool (and four transfers) to move the next vampire from your crypt to your uncontrolled region) appears (to me) nearly universal. Josh sobered up

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D451263...@removethis.com... > > > > Sorry, I guess we have just have hugely different sensibilities. Yes, > > when held in your hand, a card has a top edge and a bottom edge, but the > > word "top" kind of loses its power when the thing is placed flat on a > > table. > > I liked your first post in this thread, very amusing. :-) But > seriously, I think approximately 100% of the VTES players I've > met (all except you, apparently) either use or understand the > phrase "governing down" to mean "using superior Govern to add > blood to an uncontrolled vampire". Well, it's clearly not universal. I must have learned "governing back" and "governing forward" (what's supposed to be the bleed version of "governing down", I wonder) from _somewhere_. I know the voices in my head aren't clever enough to have come up with them. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: >Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I liked your first post in this thread, very amusing. :-) But >> seriously, I think approximately 100% of the VTES players I've >> met (all except you, apparently) either use or understand the >> phrase "governing down" to mean "using superior Govern to add >> blood to an uncontrolled vampire". > >Well, it's clearly not universal. I must have learned "governing back" >and "governing forward" (what's supposed to be the bleed version of >"governing down", I wonder) from _somewhere_. I know the voices in my >head aren't clever enough to have come up with them. Well, there's a difference between being universally used and being universally understood. Even those who use "governing back" can derive the meaning of "governing down" when someone else uses that phrase. In understand both, even though I personally would say "I'm Governing at superior to add 3 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire in my uncontrolled region at +1 stealth". :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson

"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:ai4714$11htqm$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de... > > I understand both, even though I personally would say "I'm Governing > at superior to add 3 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire > in my uncontrolled region at +1 stealth". :-) But surely what you would say is "Gratiano plays Govern the Unaligned at the superior Dominate level, to add 3 blood from the blood bank to this younger vampire (indicating) in my uncontrolled region, as a +1 stealth action that costs 1 blood"? ;-) Man, that's a mouthful. Josh not even mentioning that it's a sabbat war govern the unaligned

"L. Scott Johnson" wrote: > > Well, there's a difference between being universally used and being > universally understood. Even those who use "governing back" can > derive the meaning of "governing down" when someone else uses that > phrase. Actually, that was exactly my major problem with it. No, I did not understand it. "Down" to me means *down*, as in on the floor or something. Gomi's explanation of taking a card as you hold it your hand, noting which is lower edge in that position (thus the "bottom" or "down"), then putting it flat on the table and using the same convention for one's entire playing area does not strike me as making much sense. I'm trying to imagine holding my play area vertically in my lap now to appreciate how anyone managed to come up with this slang. I keep thinking there must have some other rationale for it because I truly find this hard to picture. So, now that I've gotten involved in a long thread about it, I'll probably manage to remember which one "governing down" is for *2* months... Fred - looking forward to the improvements in memory which should manifest with the onset of Alzheimer's disease

In article <3D45CA4A...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: >Actually, that was exactly my major problem with it. No, I did not >understand it. "Down" to me means *down*, as in on the floor or >something. Gomi's explanation of taking a card as you hold it your >hand, noting which is lower edge in that position (thus the "bottom" >or "down"), then putting it flat on the table and using the same >convention for one's entire playing area does not strike me as making >much sense. I'm trying to imagine holding my play area vertically >in my lap now to appreciate how anyone managed to come up with this >slang. I keep thinking there must have some other rationale for it >because I truly find this hard to picture. Does thinking of it as 'logical down' vs. 'physical down' help at all? Like, here in the Bay Area, you have to take 280 *south* in order to head *north*. The 280 in San Jose is heading, in the long run, southwards, hence its designation (or, if you will, 'logical south'), but that particular stretch that heads to the 680 junction runs northwards (physical north). That is, the cards have their own set of coordinates, which is invariant respective to their position in the hand, on the table, wall, whatever. It is in particular invariant with respect to the local (gravity-referent) frame of 'above/below' (away from/closer to Earth's centre). This gravity-referent frame is the 'physical' frame, but the cards' own frame of reference is invariant with respect to its orientation within the physical frame. In particular, with vampire cards, the portraits display a head (and, sometimes, feet). Considering the depicted vampire as a little person, it seems logical enough that 'above' is over the vampire's head, 'below' is under his feet, 'in front' is on top of the card, 'behind' is below the cardback, just as with a standing human being. I suppose if a printed vampire were depicted in a supine or prone position, this would screw up that particular rationalizing aid, but I'd have that one yield to the majority -- TTBOMK, no vampire currently in print is lying down, although Normal is kind of hunkered down/squatting. Oh, and Suspire is a RPG nerd term -- it's the lengthy approach to Golconda, where vampires see and do weird inexplicable things as they work out their ya-yas. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3D45CA4A...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > > >Actually, that was exactly my major problem with it. No, I did not > >understand it. "Down" to me means *down*, as in on the floor or > >something. Gomi's explanation of taking a card as you hold it your > >hand, noting which is lower edge in that position (thus the "bottom" > >or "down"), then putting it flat on the table and using the same > >convention for one's entire playing area does not strike me as making > >much sense. I'm trying to imagine holding my play area vertically > >in my lap now to appreciate how anyone managed to come up with this > >slang. I keep thinking there must have some other rationale for it > >because I truly find this hard to picture. > > Does thinking of it as 'logical down' vs. 'physical down' help at all? Sure. I don't have a problem coming up with some kind of memory trick for it. I'm just annoyed that people think up slang where you _have_ to invoke an unnatural memory trick to remember. Excepting, it must not be unnatural to some, I'm gathering from all this. It just occurred to me today to take the case of my stovetop. For some reason, the oven in the house I moved into here in Phoenix has a stove with four burners (on each of the corners) with knobs that are not labeled "Front" and "Back" as I've seen on stoves in the past. (The normal labeling for stove burners would be opposite the Jyhad front and back as they're oriented towards the stove-user, not one's opponents.) It's been driving me crazy because the knobs are labeled with three open circles and a filled-in circle to indicate the burner associated with knob. Also, the two knobs on each side are higher and lower on the panel, which supports the filled-in circle being the upper or lower one. The one associated with the bottom knobs turns out to operate the front burners. For the longest time it drove me *nuts* trying to remember that. I turned the wrong one on over 50% of the time for a while, apparently due to some weird stress about which was which probably causing me to arbitrarily remember exactly the wrong relationship. Anyway, the point is that apparently the manufacturers must think like Gomi and assume everyone else does, too. Why, I can't figure out. The existing knob/burner association makes sense if you imagine knocking the control panel over top-away-from-you. Then the four knobs would be in the same positions as the burners. But why *that's* the valid way to think of it and knocking the panel over top-TOWARDS-you is wrong seems completely arbitrary to me. At least, now I have some idea why they did it this way, even if the reasoning for the apparent convention still isn't clear. > That is, the cards have their own set of coordinates, which is invariant > respective to their position in the hand, on the table, wall, whatever. > It is in particular invariant with respect to the local (gravity-referent) > frame of 'above/below' (away from/closer to Earth's centre). I suppose they do. But why anyone would bother to use them when they're sitting flat when the existing physical relationships work just find is what befuddles me. Why use 'logical' (and 'logical' for another object, the card as opposed to the playing area, no less) when physical exists? > Oh, and Suspire is a RPG nerd term -- it's the lengthy approach to Golconda, > where vampires see and do weird inexplicable things as they work out > their ya-yas. I like it. A very cool term, indeed. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Yoritomo Jiriki wrote: > > > > > double dominate because the deck depends on governing down. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Translation to non-Bay-Area personnel: "governing down" = "governing back". I realize that ever noun, verb and adverb used in this thread is pretty much tongue in cheek, and most of the pronouns, prepositions and adjectives are being used in a lighthearted manner (can't speak for the articles or interjections however). However, I would assume Governing Down is used because the target vampire is a younger vampire, therefore "down" the generational ladder, or down in capacity or whatever. On the other hand, I think that as you say Fred, Governing forward is most splendidly apparent, and its opposite is of course Govern at Superior. I assume that Governing up is not common parlance with our northern brethren? And no doubt you heard Govern back here in LA, where it is almost as common as LSJ/Josh Duffin's ^idiomatic^ Govern language. chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

This has got to be the most hilariously worthless thread ever. How long are you guys going to talk about what "down" means? Tim Bowen Columbus, OH "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D45E289...@removethis.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D45E289...@removethis.com... > > Anyway, the point is that apparently the manufacturers must think like > Gomi and assume everyone else does, too. Why, I can't figure out. I think it is natural to some (most?) people; as you say, it sort of matches some other arbitrary spatial conventions. For another example, have you ever heard of people talking about driving "up" to, say, Boston or "down" to, say, Atlanta? (Replace with other cities as needed.) The logic there seems to be that "north" is "up" because north is traditionally toward the top of a map. Certainly it doesn't seem to be dependent on Boston being farther above sea level than Washington DC (I doubt that it is) or Atlanta being at a lower elevation. Josh know that we have always been down down

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<3D44D1BF...@vtesinla.org>... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Yoritomo Jiriki wrote: > > > > > > > double dominate because the deck depends on governing down. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Translation to non-Bay-Area personnel: "governing down" = "governing back". > However, I would assume Governing Down is used because > the target vampire is a younger vampire, therefore "down" the generational > ladder, or down in capacity or whatever. On the other hand, I think that as > you say Fred, Governing forward is most splendidly apparent, and its opposite > is of course Govern at Superior. I assume that Governing up is not common > parlance with our northern brethren? And no doubt you heard Govern back here > in LA, where it is almost as common as LSJ/Josh Duffin's ^idiomatic^ Govern > language. We don't Govern up. We just "Govern you" or "Bleed with Govern the Unaligned." I also think "Govern Down" to me evokes an image of the uncontrolled vampire hanging out in an underground sarcophagus just waiting for someone to give them enough vitae so they can wake from their slumber, from which they RISE. ;) Jeff

In message <ai63mk$11ucv0$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think it is natural to some (most?) people; as you say, it >sort of matches some other arbitrary spatial conventions. For >another example, have you ever heard of people talking about >driving "up" to, say, Boston or "down" to, say, Atlanta? >(Replace with other cities as needed.) The logic there seems >to be that "north" is "up" because north is traditionally >toward the top of a map. Certainly it doesn't seem to be >dependent on Boston being farther above sea level than Washington >DC (I doubt that it is) or Atlanta being at a lower elevation. There's a long-standing and mostly forgotten tradition of going "up" to capital cities. Also, with University, one goes up to Cambridge - the reverse of the fact that you get "sent down" if you're naughty. But most of these are forgotten by everyone now. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D you say one or two amusing things, but so EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 did Herman Goering (does that sidestep Godwin?) 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome

"Timothy F. Bowen" wrote: > > This has got to be the most hilariously worthless thread ever. How long are > you guys going to talk about what "down" means? Until I understand all you weirdos. (By which I mean the rest of humanity.) It will be the longest thread in the history of Usenet. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D45E289...@removethis.com... [snip] > The existing knob/burner association makes sense if you imagine knocking the control panel over > top-away-from-you. Man, I love this newsgroup. Where else would I hear this sort of conversation? (Not at all poking fun here, just was missing my normal routine after 3 days camping in a state park...) Xian loved gomi's ascii art...and the explanation...

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ai63mk$11ucv0$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > I think it is natural to some (most?) people; as you say, it > sort of matches some other arbitrary spatial conventions. For > another example, have you ever heard of people talking about > driving "up" to, say, Boston or "down" to, say, Atlanta? Man, I always hear people using it the wrong way, though. From Minneapolis: "When are you driving UP to Madison?" From Madison: "So, when do you have to head back down to Minneapolis?" Sigh. :) Xian swing low, sweet chariot

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3D45CA4A...@removethis.com>... > "L. Scott Johnson" wrote: > > > > Well, there's a difference between being universally used and being > > universally understood. Even those who use "governing back" can > > derive the meaning of "governing down" when someone else uses that > > phrase. > > Actually, that was exactly my major problem with it. No, I did not > understand it. "Down" to me means *down*, as in on the floor or > something. There is another way to look at this. You can only govern to a vampire of a lower generation than the acting vampire...as you are acting from an older vamp to a younger vamp, that can be seen as governing 'down' as well. But not governing back. T

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.02073...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Over here, we just either: - "Superior Govern" - "Govern. Bleed for X" Tobias Deventer

In message <8aa6db00.0208...@posting.google.com>, Tobias <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> writes: >Over here, we just either: > >- "Superior Govern" >- "Govern. Bleed for X" Shame on you. You're supposed to Govern anti-clockwise, representing the movements of your forefathers, which doesn't actually mean beneath the table but beside it, due to a local law requiring you to keep your crypt on a separate coffee table. [ quoted text not captured ]