Eek! 120 messages...

Man, what is everyone doing? You used to be able to miss a day or two and have no problem catching up. I go on a two day business trip and there's 120 messages to read....errr, make that 121. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@shout.net Internet Strategy and Development Consultant ****** Please note new e-mail address ******

There are so many messages, because LSJ (the one man rules team) has made errata to completely rewrite cards and changed the rules so that the game is now totally different> [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I beg to differ. There are so many messages because people who like to be able to exploit loopholes in the poor cards and rules are upset because those poor cards and rules are being removed. Anyone who cannot see that a card can be "broken" would be better served playing Magic. Jyhad is (or is supposed to be) a balanced game. All barriers to that balance shall be removed. Two factors should reign supreme when deciding who wins games: a) Deck construction skill and b) Play skill. Then, the next factors should be: c) Diplomacy and d) Random chance. A distant fifth is where I place e) Number of cards owned. Without new errata, number of cards owned goes up to number 2, behind deck construction. -Chris

In article <35B04CE5...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Hey, it must be nice to be so completely right all the time! Don't you think there's the teeniest possibility that we actually mean what we say when we point out that the new rulings are going to get in the way of popularising the game? Don't you think that a lot of the people who are objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE like Magic?

Chris wrote: > Jyhad is (or is supposed to be) a balanced game. All barriers to that > balance shall be removed. Two factors should reign supreme when > deciding who wins games: a) Deck construction skill and b) Play skill. > Then, the next factors should be: c) Diplomacy and d) Random chance. A > distant fifth is where I place e) Number of cards owned. Without new > errata, number of cards owned goes up to number 2, behind deck > construction. If the rulings simply reflected fixing errata or making clarifications I'd be a happy guy. Sadly, some rulings go beyond those limits. Deck construction skill is now subject to the caprice of time. What is a good card today may not be one tomorrow. Personally, why should I invest more time and money in these cards? I now have go run out and spend more money on cards to replace my Wakes (which are good, sound cards) with Forced Awakenings not because there existed errors in text or unclear language, but because the rule -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

My original post got cut off by my browser; here is the post in its entirety. > If the rulings simply reflected fixing errata or making clarifications > I'd be a happy guy. Sadly, some rulings go beyond those limits. > Deck construction skill is now subject to the caprice of time. What > is a good card today may not be one tomorrow. Personally, why > should I invest more time and money in these cards? I now have > go run out and spend more money on cards to replace my Wakes > (which are good, sound cards) with Forced Awakenings not because > there existed errors in text or unclear language, but because the rule guy feels that a card does not comport with his vision of the game. Our gaming group has decided to ignore several of the new rulings. We also have decided to eschew tournaments that opt to use all of the new rulings. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Hey, it must be nice to be so completely right all the time! Don't you > think there's the teeniest possibility that we actually mean what we say > when we point out that the new rulings are going to get in the way of > popularising the game? Don't you think that a lot of the people who are > objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE > like Magic? Actually, it is nice to be completely right all the time. If it bothers you, I will never again post an opinion.... Really, though.... *Do* people think that the game is becoming more like Magic? I thought that banning cards, and allowing overpowered cards made the game more like Magic. In one poster's words(paraphrasing), "Some cards are more powerful than others. All cards weren't meant to have the same power level." *That* is what Magic is about. Jyhad cards are not supposed to be more powerful than other Jyhad cards. Jyhad is about combos. And the only reason that people are arguing that this will hurt with popularising the game is because *they* don't like the rules and it will hurt the game's popularity with them. Humans are supposed to be able to adapt to change. When the change makes things better instead of worse, why all the complaints? -Chris

Legbiter wrote: "Hey, it must be nice to be so completely right all the time! Don't you think there's the teeniest possibility that we actually mean what we say when we point out that the new rulings are going to get in the way of popularising the game? Don't you think that a lot of the people who are objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE like Magic?" Yes, it is nice to be completely right all the time. :-) Anyway, again, I fail to see how these rulings get in the way of popularizing the game. New players come into Jyhad by being taught by old players, not by seeing advertising or reading reviews (as there aren't any...). If, at this point in time, someone starts playing Jyhad, I would say that 90% of the time, it is because some old player teaches them how. The people teaching the game can very easily teach the rulings as well, especially as most of the more drastic card changes were made to cards that new players will have very little access to. How many new players are going to have Tombs, RTI, and Mind Rape? Not many, and I assure you that they will probably be happier that the 3 Tombs you have are less poweful (due to errata) than the none that they have. The vast bulk of the errata is fairly simple clarifications and/or minor changes that are in no way obstructive to learning the game, like Immortal Grapple, Pulled Fangs, Zip Gun, WWEF, and the vote push rules. The dramatic and complex rulings A) don't come up all that often and B) mostly affect cards from currently difficult to aquire expansion cards that new players will have limited access to (and most of that access will come from older players who can easily explain the rulings). Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "To this vast wasteland we will set a flame This is the beginning of our burning farm" -Shonen Knife

[ quoted text not captured ] how many new players will have wakes? When they realize that every time they wish to use a card they will have to go online to find the most current rulings, I don't think they will be very happy. Not only will we lose new players, we will lose old ones too.

In article <199807192304...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > "Hey, it must be nice to be so completely right all the time! Don't you think > there's the teeniest possibility that we actually mean what we say when we > point out that the new rulings are going to get in the way of popularising the > game? Don't you think that a lot of the people who are objecting to these > rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE like Magic?" > > Yes, it is nice to be completely right all the time. > > :-) > > Anyway, again, I fail to see how these rulings get in the way of popularizing > the game. New players come into Jyhad by being taught by old players, not by > seeing advertising or reading reviews (as there aren't any...). If, at this > point in time, someone starts playing Jyhad, I would say that 90% of the time, > it is because some old player teaches them how. The people teaching the game > can very easily teach the rulings as well, especially as most of the more > drastic card changes were made to cards that new players will have very little > access to. How many new players are going to have Tombs, RTI, and Mind Rape? > Not many, and I assure you that they will probably be happier that the 3 Tombs > you have are less poweful (due to errata) than the none that they have. Well, the reason why the card rewrites get in the way of popularizing the game is that when a new guy plays a creative combo and i tell him he can't do that, i am not PLAYING better than he is - i am merely demonstrating my knowledge of an information resource to which he doesn't have access. People shouldn't be able to win games by being rules lawyers. Also, i bridle at the suggestion that i would play a tomb or RTI against a newbie. What do you take me for, a 6000-year old embodiment of absolute evil????? > > The vast bulk of the errata is fairly simple clarifications and/or minor > changes that are in no way obstructive to learning the game, like Immortal > Grapple, Pulled Fangs, Zip Gun, WWEF, and the vote push rules. The dramatic > and complex rulings A) don't come up all that often and B) mostly affect cards > from currently difficult to aquire expansion cards that new players will have > limited access to (and most of that access will come from older players who can > easily explain the rulings). > Indeed, and i have no problem with the vast bulk of the errata. And i am in favour of the bits that move the game back to where it was supposed to be - no direct bleeds except against your predator unless via Night Moves or Cat Burglary, for example; Rotschreck doing what it actually says it does; and overturning the absurd idea that you can prevent the Rutor's Hand damage using combat cards. But i still disagree with the rewrites. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis again. How likely is it that you are going to be RtI'd next time you play? How bad is it to be RtI'd? How likely is it for a new player to be put off by a rules-lawyery oldie? How bad is it for a new player to be put off by a rules-lawyery oldie? I can't put numbers on these but it seems to me that the first two are in-game costs - they only really matter for the particular match that is currently going on. They have no impact on the game AS A WHOLE. Contrast with the latter two. And obviously, i will change my mind if there is a realistic prospect of a re-issue.

On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Mike Bohlmann wrote: > Man, what is everyone doing? You used to be able to miss a day > or two and have no problem catching up. I go on a two day business > trip and there's 120 messages to read....errr, make that 121. :) I'd say that this is a very good thing. If history repeats itself, the current newsgroup conflict will stay unresolved for some time, with slow, eventual defections towards a side that best argues the current "issue": the 7/7 RTR. Back in the good old days, 120 was par for the course... :) @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Eccentric $#@ @#$ The Corrupter $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Hedonist MHSTHSTS $#@ @#$ Cabal Rogue $#@ GAT/CS/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@ R+++* r+ z++**? $#@ ...watching the lake turn the sky / into blue-green smoke...

Legbiter wrote: > > How likely is it that you are going to be RtI'd next time you play? It depends. In Ithaca we had banned the card, so I don't know that anyone even owned any. In a tournament, I don't just fear it, I expect it to happen. > How bad is it to be RtI'd? If the card is being used effectively, it will oust me. Hence, very bad. > How likely is it for a new player to be put off by a rules-lawyery oldie? Not very. A: The player will most likely not own very many copies of the broken cards. 2: It should be quite easy to explain to the newbie why the card is broken, and hence III: it is not likely that they will be very put off by it. There are already cards with typos or confusing texts that a couple more sensible pieces of errata won't make much of a difference. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

Legbiter wrote: "How likely is it that you are going to be RtI'd next time you play?" In competetive gaming, very likely, and I like to encourage my play group to be competetive. "How bad is it to be RtI'd?" As James pointed out, if RTI is used appropriately (i.e. to maximum abuse potential), it will oust you when used. That is pretty bad. "How likely is it for a new player to be put off by a rules-lawyery oldie?" There is a vast difference between going "Heh heh. Now that you have attempted to play that RTI to oust me, I will inform you that it does not work the way you think it does. I beat you! You stupid newbie! Bwahahahah!" and explaining the rules before you play. It is not at all difficult to explain before playing a game "the rules have been changed some. Most of the changes are pretty minor and I'll let you know when they come up, but the following 4 or 5 cards have been changed pretty substantially...". Not difficult at all, and only off putting to the incredibly impatient and fickle. "How bad is it for a new player to be put off by a rules-lawyery oldie?" Again, this does not have anything to do with the rules. If you (not you specifically) are going to be a jerk, you are going to put off new players. There are ways to teach new players a game, and all of the good ways involve letting new players know stuff _before_ you kill them with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote .. >> >> Hey, it must be nice to be so completely right all the time! Don't you >> think there's the teeniest possibility that we actually mean what we say >> when we point out that the new rulings are going to get in the way of >> popularising the game? Don't you think that a lot of the people who are >> objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE >> like Magic? > >Actually, it is nice to be completely right all the time. If it bothers >you, I will never again post an opinion.... Actually, it kinda bothers me. Would you mind not posting anymore? :-) Hey, Chris.. Been awhile, eh? >Really, though.... *Do* people think that the game is becoming more >like Magic? I thought that banning cards, and allowing overpowered >cards made the game more like Magic. In one poster's >words(paraphrasing), "Some cards are more powerful than others. All >cards weren't meant to have the same power level." *That* is what Magic >is about. Jyhad cards are not supposed to be more powerful than other >Jyhad cards. >Jyhad is about combos. I only agree with this in part. Jyhad is about playing in a Group Dynamic. Table talk, bluffing, backstabbing, partnerships.. These are the elements of Jyhad that I take to heart. The cards simply provide the medium. This is also why I believe people like myself are opposed to the changing of (D) Actions by the 7/7 ruling. While it makes for some game consistency (ie.. Must Kill My Prey!!), it removes some of the crucial FUN from play. Using the DCI Victory Point system, it generally does me no good to oust my grand-predator giving someone else that VP that I want for myself. Yet, in the same instance.. Maybe I need to oust that bugger to put more pressure on MY predator buying me time. With the changing of the (D) Action you've made this game an Echo of Magic:TG. Instead of being a group game, it becomes a two player game (at a given time). As I recall most folks here agree that Jyhad is pretty weak as a 2-player game. >And the only reason that people >are arguing that this will hurt with popularising the game is because >*they* don't like the rules and it will hurt the game's popularity with >them. Humans are supposed to be able to adapt to change. When the >change makes things better instead of worse, why all the complaints? > > -Chris The argument about change is simple: Change needs to happen, Most of us will agree with that simple statement. Where we disagree is WHEN the game should change, and just how much. I find it really interesting that people keep spewing about R. Garfield's intentions for Jyhad vs. V:TES. I met Mr. Garfield about 2 years ago in Ann Arbor, he had nothing to say about the V:TES brand and left the impression on me that he probably created the basic mechanics of the game and then left a team of others to flesh it out. I could be wrong in my impression, but even so.. Just because R. Garfield created the game doesn't mean that his original ideas were the best (didn't Jyhad get released about the same time as Legends)? Seems to me Mr. G. still had a lot to learn about the CCG environ that he had created, and has spent his remaining focus on whatever game catches his eye at a particular time. The problem with Change as I see it is simple. Instead of escalation like in other card games, it will be real easy to fall onto the path of "De-Escalation". After 6 cards are fixed, 4 months later (like clockwork) 6 more cards will be fixed after they've been deemed to be "UnBalanced". And so on.. The game cannot be truely fixed until there is a revision (Card text fixed and actually printed on cards, new rulebook w/o the lame basic game). Until all you have left is a game that tastes as good as superglue.. (If you don't believe me, taste some superglue - Though I will not be held accountable if you choose to do so. ;-) Bernie Bresnahan

not.av...@your.security.clearance (Legbiter) writes: > Also, i bridle at the suggestion that i would play a tomb or RTI against a > newbie. What do you take me for, a 6000-year old embodiment of absolute > evil????? Well, actually... *grin* > But i still disagree with the rewrites. It comes down to a cost-benefit > analysis again. ... > And obviously, i will change my mind if there is a realistic prospect of a > re-issue. Obviously the best thing would be a re-issue (2nd edition, anyone?), but that looks to be very unlikely unless Vampire is moved away from FRPG. //Petri

> > With the changing of the (D) Action you've made this game an Echo of > Magic:TG. Instead of being a group game, it becomes a two player > game (at a given time). As I recall most folks here agree that Jyhad > is pretty weak as a 2-player game. > Well, I agree with this. But I stated my opinion on the (D) bleed rule, and was satisfied that I am not in the majority. Anyway, the fact is that the rule will not have that much effect on game-play. (D) bleeds at non-prey were not something I saw very often. You don't get rewards for ousting anyone else, so (D)bleeding someone else was only productive as a counter-measure (and not really a great one at that... if you don't oust them, you'll still get smacked by them, and if you do oust them, you give someone else pool and a VP). So, even though I think changing (D) bleeds has a bad effect on the game, I think it's a very small bad effect. > The problem with Change as I see it is simple. Instead of escalation > like in other card games, it will be real easy to fall onto the path of > "De-Escalation". After 6 cards are fixed, 4 months later (like clockwork) > 6 more cards will be fixed after they've been deemed to be "UnBalanced". > And so on.. > A lot of people who argue against fixes make this same arguement. I disagree strongly. All the cards which have been fixed were the ones that needed to be fixed. There are still some cards which are a little strong, but very few people have problems with them. The cards that almost everyone had a problem with have been fixed, and most people are fine with that. The only one that had not been widely complained about (and basically proven to be unbalanced) was Wake, and that used to be widely complained about. Anyway, the fix to Wake doesn't really upset the balance between Wake and Forced Awakening, nor does it hurt the game in my opinion. I just don't think that it helps either. But back on topic... No other cards are as big a problem as RtI, TB, ToRIII, PF, Fame, and Mind Rape. Those cards were all blatantly overpowered. > The game cannot be truely fixed until there is a revision (Card text > fixed and actually printed on cards, new rulebook w/o the lame > basic game). > Well, that would certainly be nice. Who the hell *ever* played the basic game? What a crock. > Until all you have left is a game that tastes as good as superglue.. > (If you don't believe me, taste some superglue - Though I will not > be held accountable if you choose to do so. ;-) > Let me tell you... Superglue tastes slightly better than the taste in your mouth when your vampire is Mind Raped by a Prince who was brought out first turn with Tomb of Ramses III, and then Returns to Innocence, ousting you. Although it still tastes worse than the blood your opponent tastes after you punch him in the face. 8) -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> writes >Well, the reason why the card rewrites get in the way of popularizing the >game is that when a new guy plays a creative combo and i tell him he can't >do that, i am not PLAYING better than he is - i am merely demonstrating my >knowledge of an information resource to which he doesn't have access. >People shouldn't be able to win games by being rules lawyers. > However, when teaching a new player it is very simple to sit down and explain that half a dozen cards have been changed vastly and that another (however many cards) have had a little ambiguity cleared up on them. >Also, i bridle at the suggestion that i would play a tomb or RTI against a >newbie. What do you take me for, a 6000-year old embodiment of absolute >evil????? Would you like to be taken for anything else? <g> -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <jvgrzZAF...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, > Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> writes > >Well, the reason why the card rewrites get in the way of popularizing the > >game is that when a new guy plays a creative combo and i tell him he can't > >do that, i am not PLAYING better than he is - i am merely demonstrating my > >knowledge of an information resource to which he doesn't have access. > >People shouldn't be able to win games by being rules lawyers. > > > > However, when teaching a new player it is very simple to sit down and > explain that half a dozen cards have been changed vastly and that > another (however many cards) have had a little ambiguity cleared up on > them. Indeed, that's so. But I often meet people who already know roughly how to play and want to try their deck against me. And it is embarrassing to be put in the position of saying that despite the fact that logic and literacy say the card works in way [a], the truth of the matter is that it works in way [b] because, well, because i say that somebody on the net says so. > > >Also, i bridle at the suggestion that i would play a tomb or RTI against a > >newbie. What do you take me for, a 6000-year old embodiment of absolute > >evil????? > > Would you like to be taken for anything else? <g> > Yeah, i'd like to be taken for a marguerita by an unfeasibly large-breasted blonde [it's been that kind of day]. Sadly, the ULBB has her exercise class tonite.

On Sat, 18 Jul 1998, Legbiter wrote: > Don't you think that a lot of the people who are > objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE > like Magic? I'm not sure how this point works. Care to explain it to me? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.980724174038.3486C-100000@blackbear>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jul 1998, Legbiter wrote: > > > Don't you think that a lot of the people who are > > objecting to these rulings do so because they see the game becoming MORE > > like Magic? > > I'm not sure how this point works. > > Care to explain it to me? > > Because of the proliferation of errata.

Au contraire mon frere! Direct bleeds were the scourge of greedy predators. I've been known to turn around and oust my predator out of spite just because he thought he could bleed me with impunity. Bring back direct bleeds!!! Badger [ quoted text not captured ]

badger wrote: > > Au contraire mon frere! > > Direct bleeds were the scourge of greedy predators. I've been known to > turn around and oust my predator out of spite just because he thought he > could bleed me with impunity. ...and this is a good thing? Why? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your position. You're basically saying "you used to be able to (D) bleed anyone, and that's why I think you should be able to be able to (D) bleed anyone". Nuff said? Hardly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, badger wrote: > Au contraire mon frere! > > Direct bleeds were the scourge of greedy predators. I've been known to > turn around and oust my predator out of spite just because he thought he > could bleed me with impunity. > > Bring back direct bleeds!!! I'm not sure I understand. If you are not a "greedy predator" yourself, then why do you have those bleed cards in your hand? Are you saying that the earlier rule limited bleed decks? Seems to me it enhanced them by giving them extra options. What you call "direct bleeds" are still possible using a rare card called "Cat Burglary". "Night Moves" can also be used against your predator. "Direct Bleeds", as you call them, give far too much reign to spite. I have seen some hard feelings caused by this sort of tactic. If one is not doing it to win the game it seems personal. If someone should get ornery, and decide to do this to me in a game, then I really don't stand a chance, as it is hard to deal with 2 predators at once. If you want to beat up on a particular player, then I suggest you use politics, not bleeds. That way you are more likely to need a consensus of players, and random spite will be checked. I once designed a deck where I bled my predator using Misdirection/Legal Manipulations, and then played Dramatic Upheaval when he was low on pool. The deck did not win reliably, since it was hard to pull off the dramatic upheaval at the correct moment, but it sure as hell made sure that my poor predator lost. He was ALWAYS the first player ousted, even if he was the best player at the table. My misdirections left him damaged not only against me, but also against his own predator. Not very fair to him, I should think. I was in this instance playing to win, not for spite, but it still does not seem fair. Votes are re-usable, but each time I block a bleed, it taps me. No player can survive for long a double assault in the bleed department, and in my opinion no player should have to. Against such an assault, he will lose regardless of skill. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

> > > > Direct bleeds were the scourge of greedy predators. I've been known to > > turn around and oust my predator out of spite just because he thought he > > could bleed me with impunity. > > ...and this is a good thing? Why? > > I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your position. You're basically > saying "you used to be able to (D) bleed anyone, and that's why I think > you should be able to be able to (D) bleed anyone". Nuff said? Hardly. > Well, since Badger doesn't seem to articulate his points very well, and since I happen to agree (at least in part) with him on this point, I suppose it's time for my argument, which I consider to be pretty well thought out. I think this argument has been made before, and I know that there was a big fight over (D) bleeds back in the day. Therefore, I'm sure LSJ will not change his mind on this issue (I've seen LSJ's posts on (D) bleeds). However, in the interests of completeness, I'll attempt to convince a few people... Okay, Jyhad is a game of predator and prey. You bleed your prey, get bled by your predator. IMO, this aspect was put into the game to get around the arbitrary "king-making" of multiplayer Magic games. Everyone gangs up on the weakest player, kills him, repeat until you have a 2-player game. Not much fun. So, in Jyhad, you are basically fighting one person and defending yourself from another. This helps remove the randomness, but also waters it down to a 2-player game, basically. In general, you can simply ignore what happens to anyone besides your predator or prey. Or can you? You see, winning the game is not simply a matter of being the last man standing. If your prey ousts 3 people, then you oust him, you still lose. So, you have to endeavor to keep the table even until you can sweep it. Political decks can do it, as damaging votes can target any methuselah. Rush decks can do it, by destroying all vampires on the table and then slowly ousting everyone in turn. Bleed decks cannot anymore. If the person across the table is racking up huge amounts of pool, you must simply sit and watch. His actions affect you, but you have no way of affecting him. IMO, this relegates the game more to luck, which is a Bad Thing. With directed bleeds, you can pop over there and steal from his pool. This way, the entire table affects you, and you can affect the entire table. A deck which is gradually becoming unstoppable will win if its predator is not a fast bleed deck. With directed bleeds, you can say something about that. Now, why don't people like directed bleeds. IMO, it is because it makes the game "too random" and it degenerates into a free-for-all. I think this is rubbish. As for being too random, I believe it is completely the opposite, for the above reasons. A skillful player need no longer lose just because his predator is inept and his grand-predator is racking up pool like you wouldn't believe. A player can no longer ignore half of the table when playing, but must take into account everything on the board. Forcing more thought is also, IMO, a Good Thing. As for the game becoming a free-for-all, I can't see why. You only gain VP's and pool for ousting your prey. This is plenty of incentive to bleed your prey. What reason is there to force it? Bleeding your predator or grand-predator does only one thing: slow them down. If you are stupid enough to oust them, then you have done no good, and have actually hurt yourself. A good player will not do this unless it is absolutely necessary. As long as I've played, I have only rarely seen a bleed directed at a non-prey. It's simply not a good thing to do most times. But when it *is* useful, I don't see why a methuselah should be denied the option. Am I missing anything here? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6q7mpa$h1g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > endeavor to keep the table even until you can sweep it. Political decks can > do it, as damaging votes can target any methuselah. Rush decks can do it, by > destroying all vampires on the table and then slowly ousting everyone in > turn. Bleed decks cannot anymore. Unfortunately for rush and votes, it's not as easy as it may seem. Reliably putting every vampire on the table into torpor is VERY difficult. Heck, I've only done it a few times in all the combat decks I've played. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that bleed decks cannot do it anymore. They can still send the occasional small bleed at their predator if they are playing with Celerity (B&B - Cat Burglary), Obfuscate (S&B - Night Moves), and whatever that other card is that people sometimes mention. So rather than being able to generically use any bleed cards to make their predator think twice, they might have to include some cards that are inferior to regular bleed cards when bleeding your prey. > If the person across the table is racking up huge amounts of pool, you must > simply sit and watch. His actions affect you, but you have no way of > affecting him. If he's putting your predator out quickly, most likely your predator is busy dealing with him. So that leaves you to put high pressure on your prey. In a four player game, it kind of evens out. It's only in a larger game where this wouldn't be the case. > Am I missing anything here? You covered it quite well. I've always been pretty neutral on the topic and still am pretty much. As LSJ stated, if people can show that a ruling made things unbalanced, the RT will review it and change it. Let's see what happens with the new bleed ruling and then determine if it really does hurt bleed decks too much. Btw, when my friends and I first played Jyhad in 1994, the others interpreted the rulebook as saying you could bleed anyone (not even requiring a card). I felt you could only bleed your prey. Nonetheless, I was outvoted. And I was often targeted by three players in a game because I would get out some really cool card. Obviously, there must have been some evidence of a problem with cross-table bleeding or the RT wouldn't have changed the rule to reflect a different interpretation. Let's just see how things go with the new ruling, and then decide if it really does throw things out of wack. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP My Sucky Web Site - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Okay, Jyhad is a game of predator and prey. You bleed your prey, get bled by > your predator. IMO, this aspect was put into the game to get around the > arbitrary "king-making" of multiplayer Magic games. Everyone gangs up on the > weakest player, kills him, repeat until you have a 2-player game. Not much > fun. So far so good. [keeping the whole table under your control] > Political decks can > do it, as damaging votes can target any methuselah. ...but these votes can be easily thwarted by another political deck at the table, or simply by other players' titled vampires. > Rush decks can do it, by > destroying all vampires on the table and then slowly ousting everyone in > turn. Um, yeah, right. Have you ever played a Rush deck? It takes a huge amount of effort just to oust your first prey, unless they suck. The only time I have ever cross-table attacked anyone was (a) out of spite or (2) for my own direct benefit (e.g., there's an Anathema on a weak IC member). Decks that spend their time spreading their damage around the table tend not to do very well, since they're not killing their prey, which is Job #1. > Bleed decks cannot anymore. And the cross-table bleed required the least effort, and was hence arguably the most successful way to attack cross-table. > If the person across the table is racking up huge amounts of pool, you must > simply sit and watch. His actions affect you, but you have no way of > affecting him. If he only indirectly affects you, why should you be able to directly affect him? Why not do the same thing, by helping out his neighbors and encouraging them to kill him? > IMO, this relegates the game more to luck, which is a Bad > Thing. This seems to be the only point in your post. Again, you're saying "you used to be able to cross-table bleed and now you can't, and that's why I think you should be able to cross-table bleed". I understand the _uses_ of cross-table bleeding, but explain to me why it's _necessary_ to have that in the game. Remember, from LSJ's point of view, he's simply reversing an old, bad, ruling. I think that leaving in cross-table bleeding relegates the game to spiteful gang tactics. "I don't like you, so I'll go 'teach you a lesson' by going and bleeding you". Then they say "Hey! Now I'll go bleed you!", and so on. Why is _this_ a Good Thing? And what does luck have to do with it? The luck of table placement? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is often quite easy to look at the initial table placement and call the winner before the game even starts. > A skillful player need no longer lose just because > his predator is inept and his grand-predator is racking up pool like you > wouldn't believe. If your predator is inept, one of two things happens: 1. Without the pressure on your back, you easily oust a few people. B. The inept predator is easily ousted, and then you can deal with the more powerful predator first-hand. > A player can no longer ignore half of the table when > playing, but must take into account everything on the board. Forcing more > thought is also, IMO, a Good Thing. You can never ignore what's happening around the table. With a vote deck, you can dip your hand into the honey jar with weird votes, or with a combat deck mess up one of their vampires. But a bleed deck is generally capable of more damage with less risk, you're smashing the honey jar with a sledgehammer. > As for the game becoming a free-for-all, I can't see why. You only gain VP's > and pool for ousting your prey. This is plenty of incentive to bleed your > prey. What reason is there to force it? Bleeding your predator or > grand-predator does only one thing: slow them down. No, it usually either makes them angry or kills them. > As long as > I've played, I have only rarely seen a bleed directed at a non-prey. It's > simply not a good thing to do most times. But when it *is* useful, I don't > see why a methuselah should be denied the option. > > Am I missing anything here? You're arguing from the wrong side. Why _should_ a methuselah be _allowed_ the option? [ quoted text not captured ]

> [keeping the whole table under your control] > > Political decks can > > do it, as damaging votes can target any methuselah. > > ...but these votes can be easily thwarted by another political deck at > the table, or simply by other players' titled vampires. > Easily thwarted? That's like saying cross-table bleeds can be easily thwarted by bleed bounce. Specific conditions do not make something less viable in the general case. > > Rush decks can do it, by > > destroying all vampires on the table and then slowly ousting everyone in > > turn. > > Um, yeah, right. Have you ever played a Rush deck? It takes a huge > amount of effort just to oust your first prey, unless they suck. The > only time I have ever cross-table attacked anyone was (a) out of spite > or (2) for my own direct benefit (e.g., there's an Anathema on a weak IC > member). > Yes, I know this. I have spent a lot of breath saying how hard it is for a rush deck to take out all blockers and weaken its predator without giving its grand-predator a free run. I am one of the biggest proponent of bruise and bleed because of this, but unfortunately the implementation is even more difficult there (due to other problems, including non-directed bleeds). So, yeah, I know this isn't really likely. But the point is, you can. Bleeds cannot. Further, you usually don't need to take out the whole table. Taking one action to remove your grand-predator's largest vampire is possible and sometimes very useful. > Decks that spend their time spreading their damage around the table tend > not to do very well, since they're not killing their prey, which is Job > #1. > This is my biggest argument in favour of cross-table bleeds. If cross-table bleeds are not very efficient (and I maintain that they are not), why the fuss? Why should you take away a weapon that is not all that powerful? Is there really a need to remove a player's strategic decisions when usually the decision that is currently enforced is the best one? > > Bleed decks cannot anymore. > > And the cross-table bleed required the least effort, and was hence > arguably the most successful way to attack cross-table. > Not true at all. A cross-table bleed still requires just as much effort as a prey-bleed, with much less payoff. In fact, it's nearly impossible to get any benefit from a cross-table bleed without giving someone else an even greater benefit. > > If the person across the table is racking up huge amounts of pool, you must > > simply sit and watch. His actions affect you, but you have no way of > > affecting him. > > If he only indirectly affects you, why should you be able to directly > affect him? Why not do the same thing, by helping out his neighbors and > encouraging them to kill him? > Encourage his neighbors to kill him? (I'm in echo mode today... 8)) "Hey, Mr. Ventrue's prey. I know you have no ready vampires anymore and almost no pool, but would you go over and kill his vampires?" "Hey, Mr. Ventrue's predator. I know your deck is set up for single large bleeds, and that's why you only have 1 vampire who can bleed right now. However, considering that he keeps bleed bouncing you, would you bleed with a whole bunch of weenies to slow him down?" Sometimes you need to take matters into your own hands. > > IMO, this relegates the game more to luck, which is a Bad > > Thing. > > This seems to be the only point in your post. Again, you're saying "you > used to be able to cross-table bleed and now you can't, and that's why I > think you should be able to cross-table bleed". I understand the _uses_ > of cross-table bleeding, but explain to me why it's _necessary_ to have > that in the game. Remember, from LSJ's point of view, he's simply > reversing an old, bad, ruling. > I have seen no evidence, and almost no argument, that the old ruling *was* bad. All I've seen is some doomsday predicitions about cross-table chaos. *I've* never seen that happen in the years that I've been playing with these rulings. In fact, I rarely ever see cross-table bleeds at all. > I think that leaving in cross-table bleeding relegates the game to > spiteful gang tactics. "I don't like you, so I'll go 'teach you a > lesson' by going and bleeding you". Then they say "Hey! Now I'll go > bleed you!", and so on. Why is _this_ a Good Thing? > Gang tactics? That's exactly what the VP system stops. If one person is about to be ousted, it is up to everyone who is not his predator to save him (barring extreme circumstances, such as when leaving that person in the game is more detrimental than allowing his predator to gain a VP and 6 pool). Again, I've never ever seen this type of bleed chaos. At every tournament, all friendly games, and all JOL games I've been in, people bleed their prey. Only in extreme circumstances does anyone bleed his or her predator. This is why I said before that the change will have little effect (but I think that it will be a little bad effect). In fact, I wouldn't even be arguing this, except as an academic issue. I never play bleed decks, so this doesn't hurt me at all, but I personally *like* for people to have strategic decisions to make. So, since all of my empirical data is against this, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and looking at it logically. Logically, there is also no reason to not allow directed bleeds. As I've said before, cross-table bleeds are usually a bad idea, so they will only be employed when useful, and will almost never oust someone. > And what does luck have to do with it? The luck of table placement? > Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is often quite easy to look at the > initial table placement and call the winner before the game even starts. > > > A skillful player need no longer lose just because > > his predator is inept and his grand-predator is racking up pool like you > > wouldn't believe. > > If your predator is inept, one of two things happens: > > 1. Without the pressure on your back, you easily oust a few people. > B. The inept predator is easily ousted, and then you can deal with the > more powerful predator first-hand. > 1. rarely happens. Having an inept prey is a much greater advantage than an inept predator. And as for B... you will deal with the powerful predator first-hand after they've gone through a prey. This is a hell of a lot more difficult and I think you know that. > > As for the game becoming a free-for-all, I can't see why. You only gain VP's > > and pool for ousting your prey. This is plenty of incentive to bleed your > > prey. What reason is there to force it? Bleeding your predator or > > grand-predator does only one thing: slow them down. > > No, it usually either makes them angry or kills them. > Killing them is stupid. You can't make allowances for stupidity. The only times I've ousted my predator have been with votes. Perhaps we should make a rule that votes can only damage yourself or your prey. > > As long as > > I've played, I have only rarely seen a bleed directed at a non-prey. It's > > simply not a good thing to do most times. But when it *is* useful, I don't > > see why a methuselah should be denied the option. > > > > Am I missing anything here? > > You're arguing from the wrong side. Why _should_ a methuselah be > _allowed_ the option? > There is no wrong side. Why *shouldn't* a methuselah be allowed the option. Although LSJ may simply be overturning an old ruling, there should still be some reason for overturning the ruling, more than just, "this isn't the way it used to be." The ruling was made for a reason, and I think it's just as important to justify the new way (that is, post 7/7), as it is to justify the other way. Just to reiterate... I don't really expect the ruling to be overturned, and I don't think the effect is that great. I do, however, prefer the old ruling, and for the above reasons. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

One problem I see a lot is not picking a few pool from someone who's getting ahead, but no-holds-barred ganging up on someone for no reason. I see it in board games, and I see it in Jyhad with cross-table bleeding. "AAH! He's got a Rush deck! Somebody go bleed him for 20!" Non-bounce bleed defense is hard enough without having to worry about defending against _everyone_ at the table. I think cross-table bleeding makes bleeding too versatile. [cross-table rushing] > But the point is, you can. No, I think the point is, the effect is usually much less useful than a bleed. For a combat deck to really _hurt_ someone, you have to put _all_ of their vampires into torpor, otherwise they'll just be rescued. If you bleed someone, you have directly affected their pool. > This is my biggest argument in favour of cross-table bleeds. If cross-table > bleeds are not very efficient (and I maintain that they are not), why the > fuss? Why should you take away a weapon that is not all that powerful? Is > there really a need to remove a player's strategic decisions when usually the > decision that is currently enforced is the best one? Because cross-table bleeds are harder to defend against than prey bleeds. The proactive defenses (rush the bleeders, incapacitate the bleeders, etc.) are completely useless, since you won't be able to see the bleed coming. > > And the cross-table bleed required the least effort, and was hence > > arguably the most successful way to attack cross-table. > > Not true at all. A cross-table bleed still requires just as much effort as a > prey-bleed, with much less payoff. In fact, it's nearly impossible to get any > benefit from a cross-table bleed without giving someone else an even greater > benefit. It is often worth giving someone else a victory point to get an annoying deck off the table. The deck with 4 Anarch Revolts that will kill you next turn, for example. You'll gladly oust it yourself, just to keep yourself alive. > > If he only indirectly affects you, why should you be able to directly > > affect him? Why not do the same thing, by helping out his neighbors and > > encouraging them to kill him? > > Encourage his neighbors to kill him? (I'm in echo mode today... 8)) "Hey, > Mr. Ventrue's prey. I know you have no ready vampires anymore and almost no > pool, but would you go over and kill his vampires?" "Hey, Mr. Ventrue's > predator. I know your deck is set up for single large bleeds, and that's why > you only have 1 vampire who can bleed right now. However, considering that > he keeps bleed bouncing you, would you bleed with a whole bunch of weenies to > slow him down?" Sometimes you need to take matters into your own hands. But I don't think "taking matters into your own hands" is a good thing at all. This is the only way to directly affect someone else's pool. Voting involves the whole table, and rushing doesn't affect pool. Basically the cross-table bleed makes the bleed deck more versatile (and hence more powerful), and I think this is _too_ much versatility. > I have seen no evidence, and almost no argument, that the old ruling *was* > bad. I think that's because all of the arguments occured years ago when the ruling was made. > All I've seen is some doomsday predicitions about cross-table chaos. > *I've* never seen that happen in the years that I've been playing with these > rulings. In fact, I rarely ever see cross-table bleeds at all. The cross-table bleed usually has a "king-maker" kind of effect. The person doing the bleeding isn't helping himself to win, but he unfairly tips the balance of the rest of the table. > Gang tactics? That's exactly what the VP system stops. If one person is > about to be ousted, it is up to everyone who is not his predator to save him > (barring extreme circumstances, such as when leaving that person in the game > is more detrimental than allowing his predator to gain a VP and 6 pool). Huh!? Why should you care if someone across the table is being ousted? You can't always get every single victory point, you know. > > If your predator is inept, one of two things happens: > > > > 1. Without the pressure on your back, you easily oust a few people. > > B. The inept predator is easily ousted, and then you can deal with the > > more powerful predator first-hand. > > 1. rarely happens. Having an inept prey is a much greater advantage than an > inept predator. Having no pressure on your back is a god-send for almost every deck. You have more pool since you aren't being bled/attacked/whatever. You can concentrate your efforts solely on your prey, and leave the killing of your predator to someone else. > And as for B... you will deal with the powerful predator > first-hand after they've gone through a prey. This is a hell of a lot more > difficult and I think you know that. So they have six more pool. Big deal. There's not really any reason to go hopping around the table trying to keep everybody even. I can recall one time when something like this happened: It was the final game at a tournament in Ithaca. My prey was a weenie bleed deck, and the other two decks at the table were also rush combat decks. I knew that if I was allowed to go one-on-one with my prey, I would be able to kill him. So I allowed my predator to be ousted by his predator, and then I allowed that person to be ousted himself. I got the remaining two victory points. It seems to me like you're trying to sweep every table you sit down at... > > No, it usually either makes them angry or kills them. > > Killing them is stupid. Knocking them down 3 pool might be enough to let them be killed on the next turn. It certainly brings them closer to death. > You can't make allowances for stupidity. The only > times I've ousted my predator have been with votes. Perhaps we should make a > rule that votes can only damage yourself or your prey. But when you're voting damage, _everyone_ can defend against this. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Decks that spend their time spreading their damage around the table tend > > not to do very well, since they're not killing their prey, which is Job > > #1. > > This is my biggest argument in favour of cross-table bleeds. If cross-table > bleeds are not very efficient (and I maintain that they are not), why the > fuss? Why should you take away a weapon that is not all that powerful? Is > there really a need to remove a player's strategic decisions when usually the > decision that is currently enforced is the best one? It is not very efficient or very powerful from the point of the person doing the cross-table bleed. From the point of view of the victem, it is devastating, as I have already argued. No player, no matter how good, can cope with two determined bleeders at once. Whatever defences he has will run out. I know this, because I have tried a "bleed your predator/Dramatic Upheaval Deck". While unreliably from MY point of view as far as winning victory points was concerned, it was totally reliable as far as dooming my chosen cross-table victem. That is what I think is unfair. Every player deserves to stand a chance. This is one reason why I support the new ruling. (Apart from the fact that it is a logical ruling that eliminates an unnecessary and silly piece of errata). [ quoted text not captured ]

Please forgive the long post, Since the games inception my play group has allowed directed actions (bleeds, whatever) to occur across the table. This has never caused a problem but has instead added a great a amount of versatility to the game. Most of the (D) bleed based actions that occur in our group serve the purpose of weakening a competitor not killing them (ie. a political deck that is really starting a large build and accumulating a large pool, a combat deck bringing out his 5th large vampire and smashing his prey). At one point you must deal with this political monster or gangrel with 6 vampires and 3 garou. Having this capability doesn't impact the small game, because there is simply no application to it. In a large game this changes the dynamic drastically. Many deals come about because of (D) actions (ie. If I bleed and weaken your predator will you vote for me?, I bleed someone who is totally disconnected from me just to get the edge, I weaken another political deck so that I may acheive political dominance, on and on). " The deck with 4 Anarch Revolts that will kill you next turn, for example. You'll gladly oust it yourself, just to keep yourself alive." 100% correct if that vampire is affecting my pool I will snuff them as soon as possible. This breeds a need for a more complex strategy. If you know that everyone at the table will object to your playing 4 anarch revolts then you will think before you do and attempt to time the anarchs revilts with other actions to acheive the same obejctive. The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I the capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other vampire that I choose. "For a combat deck to really _hurt_ someone, you have to put _all_ of their vampires into torpor, otherwise they'll just be rescued." 6 rescued vampires with no blood does a deck little good. Their deck has been crippled "Cross-table bleeds are harder to defend against than prey bleeds. The proactive defenses (rush the bleeders, incapacitate the bleeders, etc.) are completely useless, since you won't be able to see the bleed coming." Again you are correct (D) bleeds are much more diffucult to defend against however that does not nessecitate their exclusion. I can tap a vampire and intercept a (D) action whats the problem. (D) actions 99% will not occur consistently. Why continually bleed the guy across the table from you. Once in a while for strategic advantage it makes perfect sense consistently bashing the guy across the table from you gets doesn't kill your prey. "Basically the cross-table bleed makes the bleed deck more versatile." Again 99% of the time heavy bleed decks don't want to waste their time across the table when they could spend those bleed cards on squashing their prey. They want the pool. They want a quick kill. BTW a heavy bleed deck smashing their prey is the perfect target for a cross table bleed. It slows down their strategy and forces them to either defend themselves or bleed you in retaliation. Either way, less pressure on their prey. "Why should you care if someone across the table is being ousted?" I dont care about the VP. I care about that another player is getting pool and thereby strengthening themselves against my eventual attack. General rule: I want all the blood points and if I can't have them then no one else should either. There has been an occasion when I have snuffed my predator. It depends upon what your predator is doing. If he has a combat deck and you have a voting deck (and are almost out of S:CE) then killing him in favor of your new predator being another politcal deck sometimes it is very strategically sound. You simply have to be careful to not create a predator that you can't control. Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > [snip] > Most of the (D) bleed based actions that occur in our group serve the > purpose of weakening a competitor not killing them But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. Of course you wouldn't purposefully oust someone unless it directly benefitted you, but perhaps your bleed brings that deck down into the range where it can be killed on the next turn. The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, intercept). If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the cross-table bleed. > If you know that everyone at the table will object to your > playing 4 anarch revolts then you will think before you do and attempt > to time the anarchs revilts with other actions to acheive the same > obejctive. What!? First of all, the Anarch Revolt has a vote burn action. If you don't like it, vote it away. If you can't vote, cajole someone who can. A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. This is not the way the game works. You deal with your predator and your prey directly, and you deal _indirectly_ with the other players. When building a deck, you shouldn't have to say "wow, this deck is pretty good, so everyone else is going to jump all over me once I start winning". It is not your job to jump on somebody from across the table. That's the job of their predator and their prey. If those players aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, tough noogies. > The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I the > capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > vampire that I choose. Whatever. Anyway... > "For a combat deck to really _hurt_ someone, you have to put _all_ of > their vampires into torpor, otherwise they'll just be rescued." 6 > rescued vampires with no blood does a deck little good. Their deck has > been crippled This statement leads me to believe you've never played a successful rush deck. If your prey's vampires aren't all in torpor, you're losing. When they're not in torpor they can vote, block, bleed, hunt, etc. That's hardly crippled. When they're in torpor they can't do anything. > Again you are correct (D) bleeds are much more diffucult to defend > against however that does not nessecitate their exclusion. I can tap > a vampire and intercept a (D) action whats the problem. Oh, I don't know. Maybe the action is at stealth. Maybe since all of my predator's vampires are in torpor or have no blood, I figured it would be OK to be tapped out. You sure showed me the error of my ways. > BTW a heavy bleed deck smashing their prey is the perfect target for a > cross table bleed. It slows down their strategy and forces them to > either defend themselves or bleed you in retaliation. Either way, > less pressure on their prey. OK. I'll say it again. Unless you (a) go jumping across the table yourself or (b) have reactive bleed defense, you CANNOT defend against a cross-table bleed. I understand that cross-table bleeds usually don't benefit the cross-table bleeder. But they are a great detriment to the recipient of the bleed. > I dont care > about the VP. I care about that another player is getting pool and > thereby strengthening themselves against my eventual attack. General > rule: I want all the blood points and if I can't have them then no one > else should either. They're _across_ the _table_! You're not going to be able to oust everyone. And six pool really isn't that much. Your "general rule" seems a little megalomaniacal, and certainly delusional. There should be more that just the benefits of having VP's to prevent the rampant deranged free-for-all that bleed decks are allowed to have. This is just _too_ much versatility. So, what's your point, anyway? Somebody please answer this question: Why should cross-table bleeding be allowed? Don't explain how cross-table bleeding is useful or not-so-useful. Justify its existence. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6q7mpa$h1g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: snip. > As for the game becoming a free-for-all, I can't see why. You only gain VP's > and pool for ousting your prey. This is plenty of incentive to bleed your > prey. What reason is there to force it? Bleeding your predator or > grand-predator does only one thing: slow them down. If you are stupid enough > to oust them, then you have done no good, and have actually hurt yourself. A > good player will not do this unless it is absolutely necessary. As long as > I've played, I have only rarely seen a bleed directed at a non-prey. It's > simply not a good thing to do most times. But when it *is* useful, I don't > see why a methuselah should be denied the option. > > Am I missing anything here? > > -Chris I had a friend with an Anti malk deck that whould run the table backwards. He figured that everyone would get 1 Vp and he would get 2. It worked occasionally too! :) Got to love (hate) those malks! Raille [ quoted text not captured ]

But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, intercept). If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the cross-table bleed. Uh.... ya, build a more versatile deck >A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. Yes it should.... you should be on your guard for everyone at the table (and they for you). >It is not your job to jump on somebody from across the table. This is not a job, it is strategical evaluation and if bringing them down helps my strategy then I have every intention of killling them. No matter who the predator and prey are. >If those players aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, tough noogies. No not tough ... solve the problem by attempting to stop them. The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I the > capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > vampire that I choose. >Whatever. Anyway... Your casual response indicates to me that you obviously don't consider of the intent and basic common sense underlying these "actions". >Maybe since all of my predator's vampires are in torpor or have no blood, I figured it would be OK to be tapped out. You >sure showed me the error of my ways. You figured wrong ..... if you completely lower your defenses you deserve to be shown your error. You are NOT fighting against just your predator and prey you are fighting everyone at the table (no matter who is seated directly next to you). >OK. I'll say it again. Unless you (a) go jumping across the table yourself or (b) have reactive bleed defense, you CANNOT >defend against a cross-table bleed. OK I'll say it again. So what. Your lack of defense is not the issue. The fact that it CAN be defended against is the issue. I don't care how you design your deck but if you can't defend yourself from a particular action then you may die from that action. >This statement leads me to believe you've never played a successful rush deck. If your prey's vampires aren't all in torpor, >you're losing. I have very little desire to design a "rush" deck. I have used MANY combat decks with some of the elements that are required in a "rush" architecture however these decks are just about as inventive as the "stealth bleed" concept. Complete reliance upon cards and little upon strategic development. >When they're not in torpor they can vote, block, bleed, hunt, etc. When they're in torpor they can't do anything. Obvious >Why should cross-table bleeding be allowed? Don't explain how cross-table bleeding is useful or not-so-useful. Justify its >existence. Cross table bleeding greatly enhances the game dynamic and player interaction. Why don't you justify it's exclusion. >They're _across_ the _table_! You're not going to be able to oust everyone. And six pool really isn't that much. Your >"general rule" seems a little megalomaniacal, and certainly delusional. I_know_where_they_are_located !! Your right, I won't be able to oust everyone. The general rule is both megalomaniacal, and certainly delusional that is exactly what I am playing as a methuselah attempt to conquer his competitors. James Hamblin wrote: > Christopher Chew wrote: > > > [snip] > > Most of the (D) bleed based actions that occur in our group serve the > > purpose of weakening a competitor not killing them > > But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. Of course you > wouldn't purposefully oust someone unless it directly benefitted you, > but perhaps your bleed brings that deck down into the range where it can > be killed on the next turn. > > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > intercept). If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, > incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the > cross-table bleed. > > > If you know that everyone at the table will object to your > > playing 4 anarch revolts then you will think before you do and attempt > > to time the anarchs revilts with other actions to acheive the same > > obejctive. > > What!? First of all, the Anarch Revolt has a vote burn action. If you > don't like it, vote it away. If you can't vote, cajole someone who can. > A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. This is > not the way the game works. You deal with your predator and your prey > directly, and you deal _indirectly_ with the other players. > > When building a deck, you shouldn't have to say "wow, this deck is > pretty good, so everyone else is going to jump all over me once I start > winning". It is not your job to jump on somebody from across the table. > That's the job of their predator and their prey. If those players > aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, tough noogies. > > > The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I the > > capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > > vampire that I choose. > > Whatever. Anyway... > > > "For a combat deck to really _hurt_ someone, you have to put _all_ of > > their vampires into torpor, otherwise they'll just be rescued." 6 > > rescued vampires with no blood does a deck little good. Their deck has > > been crippled > > This statement leads me to believe you've never played a successful rush > deck. If your prey's vampires aren't all in torpor, you're losing. > When they're not in torpor they can vote, block, bleed, hunt, etc. > That's hardly crippled. When they're in torpor they can't do anything. > > > Again you are correct (D) bleeds are much more diffucult to defend > > against however that does not nessecitate their exclusion. I can tap > > a vampire and intercept a (D) action whats the problem. > > Oh, I don't know. Maybe the action is at stealth. Maybe since all of > my predator's vampires are in torpor or have no blood, I figured it > would be OK to be tapped out. You sure showed me the error of my ways. > > > BTW a heavy bleed deck smashing their prey is the perfect target for a > > cross table bleed. It slows down their strategy and forces them to > > either defend themselves or bleed you in retaliation. Either way, > > less pressure on their prey. > > OK. I'll say it again. Unless you (a) go jumping across the table > yourself or (b) have reactive bleed defense, you CANNOT defend against a > cross-table bleed. > > I understand that cross-table bleeds usually don't benefit the > cross-table bleeder. But they are a great detriment to the recipient of > the bleed. > > > I dont care > > about the VP. I care about that another player is getting pool and > > thereby strengthening themselves against my eventual attack. General > > rule: I want all the blood points and if I can't have them then no one > > else should either. > > They're _across_ the _table_! You're not going to be able to oust > everyone. And six pool really isn't that much. Your "general rule" > seems a little megalomaniacal, and certainly delusional. > > There should be more that just the benefits of having VP's to prevent > the rampant deranged free-for-all that bleed decks are allowed to have. > This is just _too_ much versatility. > > So, what's your point, anyway? Somebody please answer this question: > Why should cross-table bleeding be allowed? Don't explain how > cross-table bleeding is useful or not-so-useful. Justify its existence. > [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > I said: > But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > intercept). If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, > incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the > cross-table bleed. Then you said: > Uh.... ya, build a more versatile deck So you're saying that every deck should include bleed bounce or intercept? That makes for a real interesting game. You admit that you've never played a rush combat deck, so you have no direct experience with playing a deck requiring proactive bleed defense. > >A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. > > Yes it should.... you should be on your guard for everyone at the > table (and they for you). OK, even though you seem to be calling me "Mr. Obvious" you missed my point here. Allow me to elaborate: A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table since cross-table attacks (bleeds, etc.) do not directly benefit the person making such attacks. > > If those players aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, > > tough noogies. > > No not tough ... solve the problem by attempting to stop them. Sorry, I take issue with someone across the table saying "you're not playing the game right. Here, let me show you". It seems awfully pretentious. > > The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I > > the capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > > vampire that I choose. > > Whatever. Anyway... > > Your casual response indicates to me that you obviously don't consider > of the intent and basic common sense underlying these "actions". My response was casual because I don't care about "real world" concerns. "Badger" was talking about game-world common sense, about which I could not care less. > OK I'll say it again. So what. Your lack of defense is not the issue. > The fact that it CAN be defended against is the issue. I don't care > how you design your deck but if you can't defend yourself from a > particular action then you may die from that action. Now who's being Mr. Obvious? My point is that the "proactive" defenses are valid ones; the fact Rush can't reliably defend against a cross-table bleed doesn't necessarily make that defense less worthwhile. Such bleeds happen rarely in a sane group where the intent of each player is to win. > I have very little desire to design a "rush" deck. I have used MANY > combat decks with some of the elements that are required in a "rush" > architecture however these decks are just about as inventive as the > "stealth bleed" concept. Complete reliance upon cards and little upon > strategic development. You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you play with card limits? > Cross table bleeding greatly enhances the game dynamic and player > interaction. Cross-table bleeding allows bleed decks to exert an unfair amount of control over the pool of players not adjacent to them. I don't see how this "enhances the game dynamic", and the ct-bleed isn't going to be done if it's enhancing player interaction. In other words, you aren't going to ct-bleed someone if you think they're going to block or deflect you. [ quoted text not captured ]

I am against cross-table bleeds. I have used them on occasion, trying it to find some 'advantage' to doing so, and haven't found too many. Many multi-player games display what I call the 'Akira Kurosawa' problem. That is, there is a long, slow, and patient development of resources, and then one huge, climactic, overwhelming battle; the game is then won by the person who committed least to the battle and conserved most of his forces. Jyhad seeks to side-step this problem in a two-fold system : the predator/prey mechanic and what I call the primary/secondary resource split. The predator/prey mechanic has been discussed elsewhere as the primary tactic by which the Kurosawa problem is averted. Every person in play has a target, and every person in play has a predator. Outside of this pyramid are effects which have an effect on your position, but for the most part, they are secondary concerns (to be viewed in the long-run as future predators/prey). There are exceptions to this, of course : Antidiluvian Awakening, Anarch Revolt, and Smiling Jack are the primary examples. The Anarch Revolt deck is effective because of its circumvention of the predator/prey mechanic, but the deck is difficult to win consistently with due to its non-directability. The primary/secondary resource split is a bit more complex to explain. Jyhad has one primary resource : pool. With pool, secondary resources are purchased (Vamps, equipment, allies, etc). These secondary resoures often can contribute back to your pool (Hunting Ground/Blood Doll being the primary example). Minions (a secondary resource) are used to attack the primary resource of your prey and secondary resources of anyone else. Occasionally, they may attack primary resources (ie. vote decks) but these non-prey primary resource attacks are more difficult to perform (a vote require a successful action, and then a successful vote. Often the deck attempts to minimize the second requirment with cards such as Awe or by having many titled vampires, but the the condition of a successful vote still requires a two successes for the effect to occur). A combat deck attempts to win by eliminating the secondary resources of the predator/prey. It attempts to weaken his own predator to the benefit of his grand-predator; it attempts to weaken its prey by eliminating defenses to its non-stealth bleeds. The strength of a combat-deck is all on the secondary- resource level. Hence, assaults on the secondary resources outside of the predator/prey pyramid have a small impact on the game environment. No rush deck is going to systematically take out every vampire in play, nor is it going to concentrate on eliminating the vampires of those who aren't harming it. Tactical advantages of eliminating vampires outside of the predator/prey pyramid weaken the other Methuselah without bringing its primary resource reserve into jeopardy. Granted that the Meth in question may expend its primary resources to recover its secondary, but this relies on the judgement of the target Methuselah himself, not the acting Methuselah (ie. the rush-combat player). Not only that, but vampires are resilient; a combat deck, unless it places all of a rivals vampires in torpor, will soon be faced with these vampires returning to play as they are rescued and slowly rebuild strength. An out-of-pyramid rush attack will place an offending vampire in torpor (most times) but with time the minion may be recovered later. A bleed deck, however, attempts to win by eliminating the primary resource reserve of his prey while holding off his predator with other measures ( bleed bounce usually). It weakens its target on both the primary and secondary resource level. By reducing the primary resource reserve, it not only brings the target closer to elimination but closes off the opportunities to bring new resources into play. Its attacks, when successful, are more efficient than the rush-deck player (especially since blood can be regained by vampires weakened by combat via the hunting action, but pool requires a more sophisticated action sequence to replenish). A bleed is more difficult to recover from, especially if the bleed is large enough to place the recipient in jeopardy of ousting by a single successful bleed. It has directly brought the recipient of a cross-table bleed closer to defeat in a way that is not reproducable by the rush-deck player. (A rush deck usually has little reason to burn vampires out of the predator/prey pyramid unless his prey is on the verge of defeat and the rush-deck player has already begun working on his grandprey). In short, the benefit gained from an out-of-pyramid bleed is excessive to the benefit gained from an out-of-pyramid rush. The rush can only effect secondary-resources which usually leaves the recipient of the action some recovery options. It slows down the deck without giving the target's predator too gross an advantage. The bleed directly effects the primary resource pool, and can place the predator of the target an enormous game advantage. Alan (aj)

Alan Flesch wrote: > > I am against cross-table bleeds. I have used them on > occasion, trying it to find some 'advantage' to doing > so, and haven't found too many. [Snip another masterpiece of game theory.] Man, you are just amazing. I'm hanging my head in shame for not being as eloquent and intelligent as you. :) Good job. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu seventeen days

In article <35CB63AA...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes >>A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. > >Yes it should.... you should be on your guard for everyone at the table (and >they for you). No, it shouldn't. A deck should have to work out who it's most likely competitors will be (ie which people on the table will be ousted by someone else before this deck has to deal with them) and keep only the cards it needs to defend itself from the others. Otherwise, you'll end up wasting pool/action on combat cards (Flak Jacket, say) simply because there is a combat deck on the table, even if there is very little chance of you and it ever coming in direct competition. And these pool/actions/master phase actions/whatever will work to the detriment of the bleed defence I have, being as I won't be able to play it because I've wasted my time defending myself from everyone on the table. The point of the predator-prey dynamic as Richard Garfield created it was to prevent a cross-table free for all. You are supposed to oust your prey, not someone else's. Only exceptional decks/circumstances would demand something else (eg ousting someone's prey so you can claim that victory point back off them with your life (I think) boon you played earlier). A deck has to focus on its strategy, and on defending itself from its likely predators/preys. It shouldn't be defending itself from everyone. >>OK. I'll say it again. Unless you (a) go jumping across the table >yourself or (b) have reactive bleed defense, you CANNOT >defend against a >cross-table bleed. > >OK I'll say it again. So what. Your lack of defense is not the issue. The >fact that it CAN be defended against is the issue. The point is, you then have the equivalent of TWO predators. If your deck is so well stocked with bleed defence as to be able to cope with two predators, I'd like to be able to see you do anything else. And you might not even be able to predict, early on in the game, who that second predator will be so you can put any defence down against him. BTW, if I created a card that said "(D) Oust a Methuselah who is not you, your predator or prey. This action may only be blocked by Samantha" and it ousts you, your lack of defence is not the issue. The fact that it CAN be defended against is the issue. Nope, actually, you should be defending against STRATEGIES not CARDS. I should be defending against people doing damage to my minions, not against people using Thrown Sewer Lid, Torment the Soul, Body of Sun, Sub Machine Gun, Weather Control, Wolf Companion, Meat Cleaver and Sacrament of Carnage all individually. I should be thinking - how do I deal with damage? From strikes? From environmental sources? Maybe damage dealt outside of combat? How will I get blood back from that? With bleed I should be thinking - How will I deal with bleeds? Reduce it? Block it? Torporise them? Banish them? Shift myself to another position on the table? Burn the large bleeders with Justicar Retribution? I shouldn't be thinking "How do I deal with Govern the Unaligned? How do I deal with Bonding? How do I deal with Legal Manipulations? How do I deal with Pulse of the Canaille?" I should be thinking of strategies. Jyhad has *never* been about dealing with specific cards, until the introduction of the broken cards. Before then, all counters were counters to strategies, not cards. It was very rare to see r.g.t-c.j arguing about how to deal with specific cards, unless they were given as an *example* of a strategy. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

James Hamblin wrote: > Christopher Chew wrote: > > > > I said: > > > But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. > > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > > intercept). If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, > > incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the > > cross-table bleed. > > Then you said: > > > Uh.... ya, build a more versatile deck > > So you're saying that every deck should include bleed bounce or > intercept? That makes for a real interesting game. > If you have not effectively planned your defense any more than to say "I have a great offense" (ie a rush deck) then your problem. A deck with a very narrow focus does one thing well (combat in this case) at the detriment of other things. > You admit that you've never played a rush combat deck, so you have no > direct experience with playing a deck requiring proactive bleed defense. > "Admit" as if that were a bad thing. I said I have played many combat decks, played against rush deck and have seen them played so I am keenly aware of the issues in which you are addressing. > > >A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. > > > > Yes it should.... you should be on your guard for everyone at the > > table (and they for you). > > OK, even though you seem to be calling me "Mr. Obvious" you missed my > point here. Allow me to elaborate: > > A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table since > cross-table attacks (bleeds, etc.) do not directly benefit the person > making such attacks. > I didn't miss your point I simply thought you were mistaken. Why must the action directly benefit you? If bleeding, bashing, or voting to the detirment of a player across the table from you benefits you strategy even indirectly then do it. > > > If those players aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, > > > tough noogies. > > > > No not tough ... solve the problem by attempting to stop them. > > Sorry, I take issue with someone across the table saying "you're not > playing the game right. Here, let me show you". It seems awfully > pretentious. > Its not about playing the game right, it is about furthering your own endeavours at the table. If a predator across the table is doing a fantasitic job killing his prey I might want to help him finish that guy off faster. If as an example that prey in question has half the politcal power at the table and I have the other half I want that player to go so that I then have more of a chance of being the last guy at the table. This improves the player dynamic because it is quite likely that the rest of the players at the table don't want me to have all the politcal muscle and may attack me or the predator in question (or may aid the dying player in some fashion, boons, intercept, ending combats, etc). > > > The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > > > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I > > > the capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > > > vampire that I choose. > > > > Whatever. Anyway... > > > > Your casual response indicates to me that you obviously don't consider > > of the intent and basic common sense underlying these "actions". > > My response was casual because I don't care about "real world" concerns. > "Badger" was talking about game-world common sense, about which I could > not care less. > Huh..... > > OK I'll say it again. So what. Your lack of defense is not the issue. > > The fact that it CAN be defended against is the issue. I don't care > > how you design your deck but if you can't defend yourself from a > > particular action then you may die from that action. > > Now who's being Mr. Obvious? My point is that the "proactive" defenses > are valid ones; the fact Rush can't reliably defend against a > cross-table bleed doesn't necessarily make that defense less > worthwhile. Such bleeds happen rarely in a sane group where the intent > of each player is to win. > Sure "proactive" defenses are valid but not all encompassing. In the context of this discussion whether or not a rush concept can or cannot be defended against does make it more or less viable. If you happen to be my predators predator and are beating him senseless, I see you coming and begin to worry that I might be next I will attempt to stop you. This can be acomplished through bleeding, voting, combat or and combination of such through (D) actions so what is your arguement. Where do you get the idea that these bleeds don't happen in a sane group with the intent to win. This is not random flip a coin "I think I'll bleed player #3 this turn" this is a choice that furthers your position at the table. > > I have very little desire to design a "rush" deck. I have used MANY > > combat decks with some of the elements that are required in a "rush" > > architecture however these decks are just about as inventive as the > > "stealth bleed" concept. Complete reliance upon cards and little upon > > strategic development. > > You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you play with card > limits? I have perfect clarity of the thought and understanding regarding these matters, address this issue again when you can come up with a mature response. I will not respond to the card limits question as I do not wish to get into this arguement, trite and hackneyed.. > > Cross table bleeding greatly enhances the game dynamic and player > > interaction. > > Cross-table bleeding allows bleed decks to exert an unfair amount of > control over the pool of players not adjacent to them. I don't see how > this "enhances the game dynamic", and the ct-bleed isn't going to be > done if it's enhancing player interaction. In other words, you aren't > going to ct-bleed someone if you think they're going to block or deflect > you. > Ct-bleeding does enable you to exert a measure of control over your opponenets pool, but no more than they over yours (remember we can all bleed, vote or bash one another). Well I'll tell you I certainly hope that the people that I bleed don't block me but it usually doesn't work out that way. What is the difference? Most of the time I won't care if you are smashing your prey across the table but if I do then you better be ready. With rare exception I have not played Jyhad in any manner other than allowing cross table actions and those actions although not terribly numeroues are the great equalizer in many cases. Temporary allies and enemies turn up in the strangest of circumstances. This interaction makes all possible actions and reactions take on a value that is a bargaining position at the table of favors. You bleed him I'll vote for you, You don't bleed me and I will burn his hunting ground, you do or don't do this for me and I will return the favor. This player-to-player discourse makes all actions take on a "political" value and thereby enchances the strategic depth of your deck. I am not speaking in a theory sense. This is "basic" way that I have played since the games inception. What is your experience on these matters? [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote:<snip> > > > This is my biggest argument in favour of cross-table bleeds. If cross-table > bleeds are not very efficient (and I maintain that they are not), why the > fuss? Why should you take away a weapon that is not all that powerful? Is > there really a need to remove a player's strategic decisions when usually the > decision that is currently enforced is the best one? <snip> Just to pipe up here but some of my decks were routinely backbled out of the game by my predator because my own predator was weak. My prey would oust me and trade off 1 VP in order to assure their own safety and end up with a weaker predator (even with the extra 6 pool). Sometimes that 1 VP is a small price to pay if your Predators deck has your number. I have only played a few games with the new bleed rules regarding (D) bleeds but I like the change it has made so far. The added bonus being that grudge bearing players must resort to combat or vote to spread the damage around. ( I hope that this will encourage the use of combat and vote to at least equal viabilaty with bleed variations in popularity.) Karl

In article <35CF34FD...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > James Hamblin wrote: > If you have not effectively planned your defense any more than to say "I > have a great offense" (ie a rush deck) then your problem. A deck with a very > narrow focus does one thing well (combat in this case) at the detriment of > other things. But adding "other things" would be detriment to combat. Ordinarily, rush combat is a good defense against votes and bleed. However, when you are having to defend against two attackers rather than one because you are doing well, your defense goes out the window. > > A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table since > > cross-table attacks (bleeds, etc.) do not directly benefit the person > > making such attacks. > > > > I didn't miss your point I simply thought you were mistaken. Why must the > action directly benefit you? If bleeding, bashing, or voting to the > detirment of a player across the table from you benefits you strategy even > indirectly then do it. But you can almost never say that a cross table action _is_ to your benefit, directly or indirectly. What if by rushing a vampire or bleeding your grand-prey, you weaken him enough that before you can finish your own prey, your prey finishes off your grand-prey. Immediate direct benefits of cross table actions are rare, usually table wide effects to begin with. > > > > If those players aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, > > > > tough noogies. > > > > > > No not tough ... solve the problem by attempting to stop them. > > > > Sorry, I take issue with someone across the table saying "you're not > > playing the game right. Here, let me show you". It seems awfully > > pretentious. > > > > Its not about playing the game right, it is about furthering your own > endeavours at the table. > > If a predator across the table is doing a fantasitic job killing his prey I > might want to help him finish that guy off faster. The only time this would make sense is in the following situations: 1) you are getting your butt kicked by your predator 2) something your predator is doing is absolutely stopping your deck in its tracks Either of these would point to fundamental flaws in your deck's design or possibly a bad draw. > If as an example that > prey in question has half the politcal power at the table and I have the > other half I want that player to go so that I then have more of a chance of > being the last guy at the table. This improves the player dynamic because it > is quite likely that the rest of the players at the table don't want me to > have all the politcal muscle and may attack me or the predator in question > (or may aid the dying player in some fashion, boons, intercept, ending > combats, etc). How do they choose which one to attack? The person that is more attractive? If I'm diverting resources to keep someone else alive, it is only going to be because they are my grand-prey and my prey is practically dead already or I've worked out a deal for something I really need. Otherwise, I'm not working to accomplish my goal: oust my prey before I die. > > My response was casual because I don't care about "real world" concerns. > > "Badger" was talking about game-world common sense, about which I could > > not care less. > Huh..... What he's saying is that he doesn't care about Vampire: the Masquerade reasonings behind why something works or should work a certain way. > If you happen to be my predators > predator and are beating him senseless, I see you coming and begin to worry > that I might be next I will attempt to stop you. So because he is doing well, you want to gang up on him so he can't win? All you are doing in the above situation is playing kingmaker. > This can be acomplished > through bleeding, voting, combat or and combination of such through (D) > actions so what is your arguement. I've tried every way possible to figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean, but I'm just not having any luck. > Where do you get the idea that these bleeds don't happen in a sane group > with the intent to win. This is not random flip a coin "I think I'll bleed > player #3 this turn" this is a choice that furthers your position at the > table. A more correct statement would be: This is a choice that hopefully furthers your position at the table. > > You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you play with card > > limits? > > I have perfect clarity of the thought and understanding regarding these > matters, address this issue again when you can come up with a mature > response. > I will not respond to the card limits question as I do not wish to get into > this arguement, trite and hackneyed.. Actually, the question is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. A CL game and a NL game are very different. A CL person's reasoning comes from a totally different place than a NL person. James is just stating his frustration with statements that seem to indicate a CL environment. <CL vs NL experiences soapbox> Isn't CL supposed to keep someone from building a killer deck? (I have played both 4CL and 6CL quite extensively, btw.) And with a CL, someone is still able to build a killer deck, doesn't that say to you that CL doesn't really fix anything? What can I tell you of the actual play differences between CL and NL? With NL, you can actually put enough of the necessary cards in a deck to defend against a given strategy. What if you are playing a Lasombra stealth and bleed deck? You have three defensive combat cards - Obedience, Shadow Body, and Arms of the Abyss. If the other guy is playing a weenie rush deck with Haven Uncovered's, you are going to run out of combat defense very quickly. </soapbox> > > > Cross table bleeding greatly enhances the game dynamic and player > > > interaction. > > > > Cross-table bleeding allows bleed decks to exert an unfair amount of > > control over the pool of players not adjacent to them. I don't see how > > this "enhances the game dynamic", and the ct-bleed isn't going to be > > done if it's enhancing player interaction. In other words, you aren't > > going to ct-bleed someone if you think they're going to block or deflect > > you. > > > > Ct-bleeding does enable you to exert a measure of control over your > opponenets pool, but no more than they over yours (remember we can all > bleed, vote or bash one another). Well I'll tell you I certainly hope that > the people that I bleed don't block me but it usually doesn't work out that > way. What is the difference? Most of the time I won't care if you are > smashing your prey across the table but if I do then you better be ready. > > With rare exception I have not played Jyhad in any manner other than > allowing cross table actions and those actions although not terribly > numeroues are the great equalizer in many cases. Great equalizer for what? Superior play? > Temporary allies and > enemies turn up in the strangest of circumstances. This interaction makes > all possible actions and reactions take on a value that is a bargaining > position at the table of favors. You bleed him I'll vote for you, You don't > bleed me and I will burn his hunting ground, you do or don't do this for me > and I will return the favor. This player-to-player discourse makes all > actions take on a "political" value and thereby enchances the strategic > depth of your deck. Actually, it adds a social and bargaining requirement to every deck. If you aren't a good bargainer or very social, you are going to lose in this environment because you are incapable of making deals that benefit you. > I am not speaking in a theory sense. This is "basic" way that I have played > since the games inception. What is your experience on these matters? I've played both ways with my latest group being no ct-bleeds (pre-rulings). And I can tell you from experience that ct-bleeding has one of the following effects: 1) Does not benefit you, but the target's predator. 2) Creates ill-will and bad feelings because you most likely just made a person that was winning a game lose the game. Let me give you an example. In the playgroup I played with last year, there was one player who was very easy to manipulate. I mean, if he was my predator, I could convince him to bleed my prey on a semi-consistent basis. We called him the Minion because everyone at the table had a decent chance of getting him to do anything they wanted. This environment doesn't make it fun for anyone but the person doing the manipulating. Often, you could get him to do something that would benefit him in no way whatsoever simply because you threatened him with your combat deck. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP Rules Survey Website - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > > Christopher Chew wrote: > > > [snip] > > Most of the (D) bleed based actions that occur in our group serve the > > purpose of weakening a competitor not killing them > > But by weakening someone, you bring them closer to death. Of course you > wouldn't purposefully oust someone unless it directly benefitted you, > but perhaps your bleed brings that deck down into the range where it can > be killed on the next turn. As a good strategic player you are constantly trying to weaken *everyone* at the table while gaining power yourself. Most of the time it is counter productive to actively go after people other than your prey but their are times when a well timed cross table - Bleed, vote, rush/kill - will benefit you greatly with little detriment. You need to take into account what will happen as a result of your action. If you want that Meth to die and you can weaken them enough that their prey can get them next turn then good job. If you don't want them to die then don't do something that will lead to their death. > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > intercept). Of course it is a detriment, why else would you do it????? If a deck has proactive bleed defense (rush the bleeders, > incapacitate the bleeders), there is no way to defend against the > cross-table bleed. > > > If you know that everyone at the table will object to your > > playing 4 anarch revolts then you will think before you do and attempt > > to time the anarchs revilts with other actions to acheive the same > > obejctive. > > What!? First of all, the Anarch Revolt has a vote burn action. If you > don't like it, vote it away. If you can't vote, cajole someone who can. > A deck should not have to defend against everyone at the table. This is > not the way the game works. You deal with your predator and your prey > directly, and you deal _indirectly_ with the other players. You deal *efficiently* directly against only your preditor or prey. You need to generally use a card for every action you direct against someone else. That is why you need to time it correctly and very few decks do well directing all their power against someone other than their prey. > When building a deck, you shouldn't have to say "wow, this deck is > pretty good, so everyone else is going to jump all over me once I start > winning". It is not your job to jump on somebody from across the table. > That's the job of their predator and their prey. If those players > aren't doing a "good enough" job in your opinion, tough noogies. What I like about this game and what makes it the best multiplayer CCG out there - IMNSHO - is the amount of interaction all over the place. It is also so political (not just in the sense of political cards). If you think your deck is so powerful that everyone will jump on you, you should hide that for as long as you can. Keep a "low profile". > > The use of this strategy makes common sense. I am a very powerful > > vampire controlling other weaker vampires. Who is to say that if I the > > capability to do so (ie. a card) that I couldn't bleed any other > > vampire that I choose. > > Whatever. Anyway... > > > "For a combat deck to really _hurt_ someone, you have to put _all_ of > > their vampires into torpor, otherwise they'll just be rescued." 6 > > rescued vampires with no blood does a deck little good. Their deck has > > been crippled > > This statement leads me to believe you've never played a successful rush > deck. If your prey's vampires aren't all in torpor, you're losing. > When they're not in torpor they can vote, block, bleed, hunt, etc. > That's hardly crippled. When they're in torpor they can't do anything. Crippled and dead are two completely different things. It is probably just different play styles that creates this difference of opinion. I don't know about Chris, but when I play there are some people I would just as soon cripple as spend the time and energy (cards/actions) to kill. Generally if I can seriously cripply my preditor in one quick action, that works fine and I will finnish him off later. > > Again you are correct (D) bleeds are much more diffucult to defend > > against however that does not nessecitate their exclusion. I can tap > > a vampire and intercept a (D) action whats the problem. > > Oh, I don't know. Maybe the action is at stealth. Maybe since all of > my predator's vampires are in torpor or have no blood, I figured it > would be OK to be tapped out. You sure showed me the error of my ways. > You knew what you were getting into when you put no intercept in your deck. If you tap out - suffer the consequences. This game is about pluses and minuses and taking chances. If you chose wrong, you might get beat. > > BTW a heavy bleed deck smashing their prey is the perfect target for a > > cross table bleed. It slows down their strategy and forces them to > > either defend themselves or bleed you in retaliation. Either way, > > less pressure on their prey. > > OK. I'll say it again. Unless you (a) go jumping across the table > yourself or (b) have reactive bleed defense, you CANNOT defend against a > cross-table bleed. If you can't defend against *ANYTHING* it is because either you decided to take that chance when designing you deck or you screwed up. That's the way the game works. > I understand that cross-table bleeds usually don't benefit the > cross-table bleeder. But they are a great detriment to the recipient of > the bleed. Are we playing in "Nice vampire" land. In the words of Dennis Leary "Life sucks get a fucking helmet". <snip..> > > So, what's your point, anyway? Somebody please answer this question: > Why should cross-table bleeding be allowed? Don't explain how > cross-table bleeding is useful or not-so-useful. Justify its existence. I'll try to answer you question. It provides anouther tool to create strategy. It gives you options to deal with certain situations. It makes everyone have to consider anouther possible tactical move. It is not "to powerful" as it is only really useful in certain situations. (I have seen people who go the opposite way around the table - neat deck but hardly ever won). So now that I have given you reasons why it *should* be included. Would you give me a reason why it shouldn't. And don't say "Its too powerful" - thats not good enough. Kevin *********************************_____________________________***************************** ********************************==============================****************************

In article <35CF34FD...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes >Ct-bleeding does enable you to exert a measure of control over your >opponenets pool, but no more than they over yours (remember we can all >bleed, vote or bash one another) No, it doesn't, as has been thrashed out already. Combat doesn't affect pool - only vampires, but only involves the two Methuselahs who control the vampires. Voting DOES affect pool but involves EVERYONE on the table. Bleeding, on the other hand, involves pool but, in many instances, only involves the two Methuselahs who are bleeding/being bled. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > What I like about this game and what makes it the best multiplayer CCG > out there - IMNSHO - is the amount of interaction all over the place. Richard Garfield prefers games which are designed with limits to the amount of interaction. Limited interaction makes a better game. > It is also so political (not just in the sense of political cards). If > you think your deck is so powerful that everyone will jump on you, you > should hide that for as long as you can. Keep a "low profile". Richard Garfield goes to great lengths to prevent this sort of tactic from being useful - because it makes the game (whatever it is) more boring. See his article on Melee Magic in Duelist #2 -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : As a good strategic player you are constantly trying to weaken : *everyone* at the table while gaining power yourself. Most of the time : it is counter productive to actively go after people other than your : prey but their are times when a well timed cross table - Bleed, vote, : rush/kill - will benefit you greatly with little detriment. You need to : take into account what will happen as a result of your action. If you : want that Meth to die and you can weaken them enough that their prey can : get them next turn then good job. If you don't want them to die then : don't do something that will lead to their death. I don't think this is the best way to describe it. As the ideal strategic player, you want everyone to be just weak enough that they are about to die when they become your prey. (ie, you want everyone to stay alive until you oust your initial prey; then you want your new prey to be as weak as possible, etc.) Simply weakening everyone at the table while gaining power yourself may not win you the game. If other people get too weak, someone else might pick up too many victory points for you to win. In most cases, it is counterproductive for you to oust (or even bring closer to ousting) anyone other than your prey, because that gives someone else a victory point and six pool to better compete with you for the win. The times that it's most useful to oust someone not your prey is if they look like turning out to be the winner of the table - that is, they seem to be the best player with the best deck. In this case, it may be advantageous to everyone else at the table to gang up on them until they're dead. But that's not very fun for the good player, is it? We 'anti-CTB' people feel that less potential for playing kingmaker is better, to some extent. The best player at the table *should* win the game; it should not be easy for the rest of the table to prevent them from winning by working together. Games that allow full interaction between all players tend to be determined solely by diplomatic ability, believable lying, things like that. If you feel (as we do) that in-game skill is what *should* be most emphasized, then limits on interaction are a good thing. That's why the predator-prey dynamic exists in the first place - to encourage people to concentrate on a particular subset of the people in the game. It is also why CTB should not be allowed: It allows too much interaction, at too influential a level, to be good for the game. Voting and Bum's Rushes *can* be used across the table. But with combat, the level of impact is clearly lower than the impact a cross-table bleed typically has on the recipient. With voting, the impact can be as great; the only justification I can offer here is the full-table nature of the voting process - that is, voting inherently is a full-interaction aspect of the game, since every player can vote in every vote (at least in theory). : What I like about this game and what makes it the best multiplayer CCG : out there - IMNSHO - is the amount of interaction all over the place. : It is also so political (not just in the sense of political cards). If : you think your deck is so powerful that everyone will jump on you, you : should hide that for as long as you can. Keep a "low profile". : This is as valid an opinion on what makes a good game as any other. I find, however, that Jyhad is a good game because it has some 'all over the place' interaction, but not so much that it becomes purely political. : > I understand that cross-table bleeds usually don't benefit the : > cross-table bleeder. But they are a great detriment to the recipient of : > the bleed. : Are we playing in "Nice vampire" land. In the words of Dennis Leary : "Life sucks get a fucking helmet". No, you're absolutely right, no one has to be any nicer than the rules force them to be. That's why I think the rules shouldn't allow cross- table bleeds. : > So, what's your point, anyway? Somebody please answer this question: : > Why should cross-table bleeding be allowed? Don't explain how : > cross-table bleeding is useful or not-so-useful. Justify its existence. : : I'll try to answer you question. It provides anouther tool to create : strategy. It gives you options to deal with certain situations. It : makes everyone have to consider anouther possible tactical move. It is : not "to powerful" as it is only really useful in certain situations. (I : have seen people who go the opposite way around the table - neat deck : but hardly ever won). So now that I have given you reasons why it : *should* be included. Would you give me a reason why it shouldn't. And : don't say "Its too powerful" - thats not good enough. Is 'it's bad for the game' good enough? It certainly is another tool to advance your strategy. But it's a tool that shouldn't really be available. Josh 'awww... your wussiness better come in handy.'

Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the exact opposite is true. How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics make the game more exciting. -Chris LSJ wrote: > Kevin M Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > > What I like about this game and what makes it the best multiplayer CCG > > out there - IMNSHO - is the amount of interaction all over the place. > > Richard Garfield prefers games which are designed with limits to > the amount of interaction. Limited interaction makes a better game. > > > It is also so political (not just in the sense of political cards). If > > you think your deck is so powerful that everyone will jump on you, you > > should hide that for as long as you can. Keep a "low profile". > > Richard Garfield goes to great lengths to prevent this sort of tactic > from being useful - because it makes the game (whatever it is) more > boring. > > See his article on Melee Magic in Duelist #2 > > -- > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: > http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch > [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the > exact opposite is true. > > How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics > make the game more exciting. With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <6qqeml$v7o$3...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> wrote: >Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: >> Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the >> exact opposite is true. >> >> How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics >> make the game more exciting. > >With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can >play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best >deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. >--- And note that even in Diplomacy it's not that bad, since the geography of the map gives an effect analagous to the pred/prey table dynamic in Jyhad. IMHO that's the whole purpose of the pred/prey relationship: to add geography to the game, so it's not just some amophous free for all (e.g. in Diplomacy it's fairly impossible to direcly affect nations on the other side of the board). Jyhad still falls short of games like Diplomacy in this respect IMHO, since there is no built in mechanism for seeing the "geography" change (other than ousting), and so it tends to be quite static. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Kevin M Kelly wrote: > James Hamblin wrote: > > > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > > intercept). > > Of course it is a detriment, why else would you do it????? This last comment implies a belief that players never act to benefit other players. As a rhetorical question, it fails, despite all the question marks. Regarding the previous statement, it may be said that c-t bleeds are a detriment even when their is a reactive bleed defence, as it forces the use of resources that would have been reserved for his prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qpkva$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes >With voting, >the impact can be as great; the only justification I can offer here >is the full-table nature of the voting process - that is, voting >inherently is a full-interaction aspect of the game, since every >player can vote in every vote (at least in theory). Well, I have to say that unless I'm playing a weenie deck, if it comes to a choice between two vampires who have the disciplines and/or clan I want, I'll almost always put the one with the votes in the deck. I mean, just thinking of playtest11 at the moment (which I'm moderating). There is a more or less dedicated vote deck on the table which has got five votes out on the table - Justicar and a prince. The Justicar is in torpor. However, also on the table are a Sabbat Bishop, Sabbat Archbishop and a Malkavian Primogen, each one controlled by a different player on the table (the vote deck is in slot 2, the other decks in 1, 4 and 6). And I've seen deck 3 cancel a vote with a playtest card (could have been doing with Delaying Tactics, but this card had more flexibility and a little more power). I know that deck 1 must have at least a couple of political actions in its deck because it just called one (and passed it due to the torporised Justicar). And I know from table talk that we can all deal with votes to some extent. Deck 5 has a (contested) copy of Muaziz out so it could bypass the voting structure, for instance. Do I think this is a good thing? Yes, I do. Voting now is the only real way to harm someone cross-table from you unless your prey has some way to bleed bounce and you organise it with them. But voting is one of the most social aspects of the game. I mean, on a table of six, there's only one person, so far, who hasn't actively participated in a vote (deck 5) by cancelling votes or casting them. I mean, a vote deck on that table could cause 5 pool loss to a player (and has done) without much problem, and with only one card, and only one real type of card in the deck. Now it faces a difficult task balancing votes, action modifiers etc. and passing the votes now it can't vote push. Sensible players have some way to cope with votes. I mean, let's just say I was playing that archetypal Brujah rush combat deck we often see mentioned. Pro-active vote defence be damned. I'll have Rake, Anvil and Volker thank you very much. If other people are sensible enough, so will they. And even if they're playing a deck with NO vampires capable of voting (say, a weenie deck), then a couple of Surprise Influences, Pulling Strings, Kindred Co-ercions etc. wouldn't go amiss. Voting is still very powerful, but maybe they'll actually have to start constructing decks like the rest of us (and as someone who used to play weenie vote push decks regularly, I know how easy it was comparatively). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qqeml$v7o$3...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.ed u.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> writes >Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: >> Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the >> exact opposite is true. >> >> How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics >> make the game more exciting. > >With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can >play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best >deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. I believe that there's a very good article about this in Duelist by said Mr Garfield in one of his back page slots. Fairly old issue, I believe. I'll drag it out next time I get a chance when I'm at home. I think it uses the example of War or some such game, with the results above. Whoever was perceived as the biggest threat was ganged up on. Is it mentioned in Darkness Unveiled too? The game degenerates into "I'm not the threat, he's the threat!" But in the same article he does a wonderful thing with counters. Take three players. Give each one a counter. Choose a player to start. When it is their turn, they choose another player. That player loses a counter from his pool. A player with no counters in their pool loses. Play then proceeds clockwise. If you give each player 1 counter, the first person to play CANNOT win the game but they get to choose both who wins and who doesn't win. The position of kingmaker. Now, if you give all three players, say, thirty counters, it's basically down to whichever one is ganged up on. If player A and player B decide to gang up on player C, then it only takes 15 turns for him to be ousted because A and B both get rid of him on their turns. Player C, though, is still in a very powerful position. He has 14 turns at his disposal (he is ousted by player B's 15th turn so doesn't get his 15th turn himself). What does he do with his 14 turns? 7 each? All on B? All on A? In any case, he chooses who wins. Kingmaker again. Now, think about this in terms of Jyhad. Player A should be getting rid of Player B. Player B, C. Player C, A. It gives less of an incentive for two players to gang up on another player (which creates its own, real life problems if you're not careful). If a player received 6 extra counters each time he got rid of his prey, he has a definite incentive to do so. Of course, in Jyhad, things aren't so simple. It isn't a case of choosing a player and they lose a pool. You can lose more pool. You can reduce the amount of pool. You can make it easier to get said reductions through (combat, stealth, unblockability). You can make it harder for someone to bleed you (Telepathic Counter, permanent/transient intercept). But if you have cross table bleeding at the drop of a hat then it becomes the counter game. Superior play, cardsmanship, deck crafting, metagame judging, when to contest or yield, when to discard and so forth be damned. We'll all just gang up on someone with such skills. And then, what incentive would there be for them to play? Having to play more badly so that people don't oust them first (say, after 45 minutes)? Having to hide their very good deck just for the sake of prolonging the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

The winner is "sometimes" detirmined by who can play politics most effectively. The political factor is only one of the elements in a game with alot of interaction. How can you have too much interaction? Is increased interaction not one of the purposes of playing a larger game? -Chris Eric Pettersen wrote: > Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > > Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the > > exact opposite is true. > > > > How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics > > make the game more exciting. > > With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can > play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best > deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: " I don't think this is the best way to describe it. As the ideal strategic player, you want everyone to be just weak enough that they are about to die when they become your prey. (ie, you want everyone to stay alive until you oust your initial prey; then you want your new prey to be as weak as possible, etc.) Simply weakening everyone at the table while gaining power yourself may not win you the game. If other people get too weak, someone else might pick up too many victory points for you to win. In most cases, it is counterproductive for you to oust (or even bring closer to ousting) anyone other than your prey, because that gives someone else a victory point and six pool to better compete with you for the win. The times that it's most useful to oust someone not your prey is if they look like turning out to be the winner of the table - that is, they seem to be the best player with the best deck. In this case, it may be advantageous to everyone else at the table to gang up on them until they're dead." Very well said. This is what I was trying to get across, you just said it better than me :) Unfortunately I think that is where we stop agreeing. > But that's not very fun for the good player, is it? > > We 'anti-CTB' people feel that less potential for playing kingmaker is > better, to some extent. The best player at the table *should* win > the game; it should not be easy for the rest of the table to prevent > them from winning by working together. Games that allow full interaction > between all players tend to be determined solely by diplomatic ability, > believable lying, things like that. If you feel (as we do) that > in-game skill is what *should* be most emphasized, then limits on > interaction are a good thing. This is just an opinion that I don't happen to agree with. I consider "best" to mean the person to best balance all the aspects - one of which is the political angle. Remember too that it is not "full interaction". I think I would agree that if you could choose who you bleed for *any* default bleed and if you could block any action on the table, this would probably not be very fun. As it is, Jyhad sufficiently (IMO) focuses actions against prey and blocks against Pret/Prey. You must *design* your deck to interact with anyone else. If people do that it could weaken other overall strategies. This is why *most* interaction is in the pret/prey relationship and other interaction is only *possible*. It is simply my opinion that the original amount of interaction is very fun, and limiting it takes some of the fun away for me. > > That's why the predator-prey dynamic exists in the first place - to > encourage people to concentrate on a particular subset of the people > in the game. It is also why CTB should not be allowed: It allows > too much interaction, at too influential a level, to be good for > the game. > > Voting and Bum's Rushes *can* be used across the table. But with > combat, the level of impact is clearly lower than the impact a > cross-table bleed typically has on the recipient. With voting, > the impact can be as great; the only justification I can offer here > is the full-table nature of the voting process - that is, voting > inherently is a full-interaction aspect of the game, since every > player can vote in every vote (at least in theory). I don't completely agree with this. Often killing a particular vampire has alot more impact on the game than taking away 3 blood. How many times do you let vampires bleed you just so you don't have to fight them and risk losing your Justicar. > : What I like about this game and what makes it the best multiplayer CCG > : out there - IMNSHO - is the amount of interaction all over the place. > : It is also so political (not just in the sense of political cards). If > : you think your deck is so powerful that everyone will jump on you, you > : should hide that for as long as you can. Keep a "low profile". > : > > This is as valid an opinion on what makes a good game as any other. > I find, however, that Jyhad is a good game because it has some > 'all over the place' interaction, but not so much that it becomes > purely political. I agree completely but I think this is still true with ct bleeds. > : > I understand that cross-table bleeds usually don't benefit the > : > cross-table bleeder. But they are a great detriment to the recipient of > : > the bleed. > > : Are we playing in "Nice vampire" land. In the words of Dennis Leary > : "Life sucks get a fucking helmet". > > No, you're absolutely right, no one has to be any nicer than the rules > force them to be. That's why I think the rules shouldn't allow cross- > table bleeds. > <snip> > > Is 'it's bad for the game' good enough? It certainly is another tool > to advance your strategy. But it's a tool that shouldn't really be > available. It is good enough but I don't agree that it is true. Kevin

Kevin M Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: [snip my summary of the most effective times to cross-table bleed] : Very well said. This is what I was trying to get across, you just said : it better than me :) : Unfortunately I think that is where we stop agreeing. Well, at least we've got one point of commonality. ;-) : > But that's not very fun for the good player, is it? : > : > We 'anti-CTB' people feel that less potential for playing kingmaker is : > better, to some extent. The best player at the table *should* win : > the game; it should not be easy for the rest of the table to prevent : > them from winning by working together. Games that allow full interaction : > between all players tend to be determined solely by diplomatic ability, : > believable lying, things like that. If you feel (as we do) that : > in-game skill is what *should* be most emphasized, then limits on : > interaction are a good thing. : This is just an opinion that I don't happen to agree with. I consider : "best" to mean the person to best balance all the aspects - one of which : is the political angle. Remember too that it is not "full : interaction". I think I would agree that if you could choose who you : bleed for *any* default bleed and if you could block any action on the : table, this would probably not be very fun. As it is, Jyhad : sufficiently (IMO) focuses actions against prey and blocks against : Pret/Prey. You must *design* your deck to interact with anyone else. : If people do that it could weaken other overall strategies. This is why : *most* interaction is in the pret/prey relationship and other : interaction is only *possible*. It is simply my opinion that the : original amount of interaction is very fun, and limiting it takes some : of the fun away for me. Of course it's an opinion, and it's equally valid to have an opposing one. Your definition of 'best' player, though, is automatically taking into account any political aspects of the game no matter how vast. It's true that even with CTB, Jyhad doesn't allow completely full interaction, but if it did, your definition of 'best player' would still apply. (In other words, your idea of 'best player' isn't very useful for discussing what level of politics is appropriate.) Regardless, at this point it comes down to a matter of opinion as to how much interaction is too much, since you agree that there could be too much. My feeling is that almost any primarily-bleed deck will tend to use a lot of (D) bleed cards, such that it is almost unconstrained in who it can bleed. In that respect, while bleeding interaction is restricted for 'normal' decks, it's not effectively restricted for bleed decks. Since those are the decks most likely to have significant impact via their cross-table-bleed interaction, it seems to me that this allows 'too much' bleed interaction. The original amount of interaction has beeen fun most of the time for most of the people, I think. The reasons to change it back to the no-CTB rule are that one, that was the original (primordial) rule, before any (D) rulings were issued, and two, it is feasible under the CTB-allowed rules to make decks that, for example, go 'the wrong way' around a table, effectively putting their initial predator out of the running regardless of how effective their deck and play abilities might otherwise be. And with CTB allowed, the potential for kingmaking is much greater than I find to be enjoyable. [re: the remaining cross-table impact of votes & bum's rush] : I don't completely agree with this. Often killing a particular vampire : has alot more impact on the game than taking away 3 blood. How many : times do you let vampires bleed you just so you don't have to fight them : and risk losing your Justicar. Since I began playing Jyhad as a no-card-limits game, I have essentially never been making the choice between blocking a bleed (and losing my justicar) or taking the bleed for fear of the fight. Any deck of mine that has Justicars who are afraid to fight is liable to have non-blocking defenses against bleed (eg bounce). And then, any bleeding vamp that I'd want to block will probably not be blockable anyway. (The only time I could see having that choice to make, really, would be against a bruise-bleed deck, and I have never seen a truly effective-looking bruise-bleed deck in action.) Killing vampires (eg with Bum's Rushes) *can* have a great impact on the game, sure. (It won't always.) But a CTB is almost never going to be done if it's not going to have a great impact - for example, if the 3 pool you're taking away is the victim's *last* 3 pool. : > This is as valid an opinion on what makes a good game as any other. : > I find, however, that Jyhad is a good game because it has some : > 'all over the place' interaction, but not so much that it becomes : > purely political. : I agree completely but I think this is still true with ct bleeds. I admit that allowing D bleeds to be cross-table isn't going to make Jyhad *purely* political. But I think it opens up the possibility of it being more political than is enjoyable. : > Is 'it's bad for the game' good enough? It certainly is another tool : > to advance your strategy. But it's a tool that shouldn't really be : > available. : It is good enough but I don't agree that it is true. Well, maybe I can convince you otherwise. ;-) Josh ...but if I can't change your mind, then no one will...

James Coupe (ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article <6qpkva$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin : <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes : >With voting, : >the impact can be as great; the only justification I can offer here : >is the full-table nature of the voting process - that is, voting : >inherently is a full-interaction aspect of the game, since every : >player can vote in every vote (at least in theory). : Do I think this is a good thing? Yes, I do. Voting now is the only : real way to harm someone cross-table from you unless your prey has some : way to bleed bounce and you organise it with them. But voting is one of : the most social aspects of the game. I mean, on a table of six, there's : only one person, so far, who hasn't actively participated in a vote : (deck 5) by cancelling votes or casting them. I mean, a vote deck on : that table could cause 5 pool loss to a player (and has done) without : much problem, and with only one card, and only one real type of card in : the deck. Now it faces a difficult task balancing votes, action : modifiers etc. and passing the votes now it can't vote push. Sensible : players have some way to cope with votes. I mean, let's just say I was : playing that archetypal Brujah rush combat deck we often see mentioned. : Pro-active vote defence be damned. I'll have Rake, Anvil and Volker : thank you very much. If other people are sensible enough, so will they. : And even if they're playing a deck with NO vampires capable of voting : (say, a weenie deck), then a couple of Surprise Influences, Pulling : Strings, Kindred Co-ercions etc. wouldn't go amiss. Hey, I don't think you're disagreeing with me at all. Are you actually allowed to post a response in that case? ;-) Yes, I agree that putting in titled vampires is a Good Thing, when all else is equal, and even to some extent when they're slightly inferior in other respects. (Personally I often do not use Rake, because inferior Potence and inferior Celerity are big handicaps in a Pot/Cel rush deck - especially if you're not using Presence. In a Pre/Pot/Cel bruise bleed deck, or some such, he'd be much more justifiable for me. Anvil, though, of course. And I like Volker, too, even though he has inferior Pot.) : Voting is still very powerful, but maybe they'll actually have to start : constructing decks like the rest of us (and as someone who used to play : weenie vote push decks regularly, I know how easy it was comparatively). Is this secretly an article on why no-vote-push is a good thing? ;-) Definitely, with NVP vote decks do have to built with some consideration of how to pass votes, because as you say, other people will often have some votes available even if they're not playing vote decks. And that does help balance the full-table nature of the effects of votes. Josh not a prince (a pauper maybe)

I'd like to know how people who support ct-bleeds feel about this situation. In a group I played in for about a year, my combat decks were perhaps the most feared. This could be partly due to my bluffing ability. One player that was especially prone be being bluffed was a person we called the Minion. If the Minion were my grand prey, by merely leaning over, looking at his vampires, and then saying, "Andy, I think you should bleed my prey for me." And he would do it. And that person would be gone and out of the game. Usually, the ousted person would be very frustrated both at the Minion and in general. The main reason they had been ousted was because they were seated between the Minion and myself because of a die roll. Often, the Minion could be gotten to do things that were equivalent to losing the game on purpose and served no benefit to him whatsoever. Now, let's say you are at a tournament. In one round, you are seated with a bleeding deck as your prey and a viscious combat deck as your predator. Now your predator, rushes a nice vampire of yours and destroys it. He then leans over to your prey and says, "If you don't bleed my prey, I'll do the same to your vampires, too. If you do this, I'll let you oust your prey/my predator, so you can have a victory point." Now, true, many people will probably just say "Screw you." However, some people are going to be the Minion, and you're now facing two predators. More often than not (probably 95%), you are going to be ousted. Does this seem exactly right to you? After all, against a single well built combat deck, you will at least have a chance if you built in some combat defense. But against two players, forget it. So what does the elimination of cross-table bleeding accomplish? First, it prevents bleeding for spite. Maybe that player across the table put a point of that KRC on you last turn, and you didn't like it. Now, tough, you've got to oust your prey before you can get to him. Second, it eliminates possible collusion between friends who end up at the same table. Third, it eliminates intimidation by a dominant deck on a person that may not be as strong willed. Sure, this last aspect isn't entirely eliminated, but it confines it only to certain circumstances: Combat Prey/Bleeding Predator, Combat Prey or Predator/Voting Predator or Prey. And considering that one of the best voting clans has the best combat defense (Ventrue with Presence and Fortitude), the last possibility isn't that great with a well constructed deck. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew (c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com) wrote: : The winner is "sometimes" detirmined by who can play politics most : effectively. The political factor is only one of the elements in a game : with alot of interaction. How can you have too much interaction? Is : increased interaction not one of the purposes of playing a larger game? In a *purely* political game, the winner is *always* determined by who plays politics most effectively. In a game with freer interaction, the game is more frequently determined by political aspects than in a game with more limited interaction. That's why limiting interaction can be a good thing. It focuses attention more on the non-political aspects of the game. (Therefore many people think it's possible to have 'too much' interaction, though they certainly might disagree about how much is too much.) Having some interaction (in particular, at the level of table talk, trash talk, threats, and promises) is one of the purposes of playing games with more than two players, yes. But the maximum possible amount of interaction is probably not the most desirable amount. (Check out the article featuring Richard Garfield's illustrative game with counters to see why not.) Josh not a politician (a bureaucrat maybe)

You present a strong arguement in favor of banning (D) bleeds. Addressing your last paragraph, some many-to-one actions do occur (you can't deny that they don't) but on a limited scale. With an enviroment where your deck MAY contented with bleeding, political actions, or combat those skill that you described "Superior play, cardsmanship, deck crafting, metagame judging, when to contest or yield, when to discard and so forth" become all the more evident because your strategies must be more more than 2 dimensional. You must be able to compensate in an increasingly competative enviroment. I have never had to play "worse", but I have had to apply a more flexible conceptualiztion of timing to my plans with regards to how my actions will reprecuss upon the other players at the table. Their actions may be the springboard that either ignites or stalls my mechanations. Another point that is rearly brought up (D) heavy (5 - 10% of actions) enviroment I may very well choose to protect one of my fellow methuselahs. This also adds depth to the game. -Chris "There is timing in everything, even in the void" -Miyamoto Musashi 1645 James Coupe wrote: > In article <6qqeml$v7o$3...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.ed > u.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> writes > >Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > >> Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the > >> exact opposite is true. > >> > >> How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics > >> make the game more exciting. > > > >With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can > >play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best > >deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. > [ quoted text not captured ]

If direct bleeding of Methuselahs is limited to your prey, can we expect that a similarly intrusive tactic, bouncing bleeds, will be limited to one's prey in the future? Limiting the offensive tactic while not limiting the defensive tactic seems arbitrary. Or is it? I notice that Deflection and Telepathic Misdirection have not been rewritten. Why not?

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't forget that it is not simply (D) Bleed that has become limited, but rather that (D) doesn't mean that it can be directed at anybody, i.e. the omnidirectability of (D) as been removed, which is *the original intent of the rule* (which, in the mind of most, is a good thing). You need specific card text to overide this (like "(D) Attack any minion"). It doesn't require any rewritting of cards (except those that were written with this the superflous omnidirectability rule in mind). However, changing Deflection, TM or other bleed bounce cards require errata, and people prefer to avoid that except when play balance is compromised. But, to be able to use bleed bounce to "bleed somebody else", you first need someone who bleeds you, which is not that easy to have as a bleed card with the omnidirectability rule. So those cards are still balanced. Frederic.

augi...@my-dejanews.com (Augie) wrote: > If direct bleeding of Methuselahs is limited to your prey, can we expect that a > similarly intrusive tactic, bouncing bleeds, will be limited to one's prey in the > future? Limiting the offensive tactic while not limiting the defensive tactic seems > arbitrary. Or is it? I notice that Deflection and Telepathic Misdirection have not > been rewritten. Why not? They are not unbalanced and operate the way they were designed to. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Kevin M Kelly wrote: > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > The cross-table bleed seems really effective from the point of view of > > > the person being bled. It is totally irrelevant that the bleed rarely > > > directly benefits the bleeder. It is a direct _detriment_ against the > > > deck being bled, unless that deck has reactive bleed defense (bounce, > > > intercept). > > > > Of course it is a detriment, why else would you do it????? > > This last comment implies a belief that players never act to benefit > other players. As a rhetorical question, it fails, despite all the > question marks. ok, apparently my overuse of question marks clouded my point. I completely agree that players do act to benefit other players, I often do. My point was that, except in very particular circumstances, you would not bleed someone to *help* them. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) writes: >Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: >> Why does limited interaction make a better game? In my experience the >> exact opposite is true. >> >> How does this make the game more "boring"? If anything these tactics >> make the game more exciting. > >With "too much" interaction, the winner is always determined by who can >play the game of table politics the best, not by who can build the best >deck. If I wanted to play a game like that, I'd play Diplomacy. I think that that is a matter of taste. On the other hand, you're correct that there's already lots of games that allow for basically unlimited interaction. Having one or two multiplayer games that actually limit such stuff certainly doesn't hurt. Anyway, it has to be respected that V:tES was intended as such a game. Fred

In article <6qsrgj$l...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes >(Check >out the article featuring Richard Garfield's illustrative game >with counters to see why not.) Recounted and applied to Jyhad by me elsewhere in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

Just a small point, not meant to sound rude or whiny. Can you please follow Usenet conventions and reply beneath my post so that, in all cases, anyone can see what bit you're replying to. And can you snip down my articles to the relevant bits. People need to be able to see enough of the article to work out what you're replying to, especially if my article has got lost in the news server somewhere, but they won't necessarily need the whole thing. It also makes it much easier for people to leap into a discussion and get their thoughts together because they can see an exchange going back and forth, and see what points are being responded to. In article <35D1FAF0...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes >You present a strong arguement in favor of banning (D) bleeds. > Thank you. Although a lot of credit must go to Mr. Garfield. >Addressing your last paragraph, some many-to-one actions do occur (you >can't deny that they don't) but on a limited scale. With an enviroment where >your deck MAY contented with bleeding, political actions, or combat those >skill that you described "Superior play, cardsmanship, deck crafting, >metagame judging, when to contest or yield, when to discard and so forth" >become all the more evident because your strategies must be more more than 2 >dimensional. You must be able to compensate in an increasingly competative >enviroment. But can you? If my deck is working on the principle that I have one predator at once, I might put bleed defence in so that I can stop a couple of a bleeds a turn - intercept, bounce, reduction, reduce stealth etc. So, assuming a reasonably good shuffle, I get a couple of cards a turn (not necessarily in hand, because of playing cards, drawing new ones) coming my way. Okay, so let an arbitrary number of cards, X, represent the number of cards I've allocated to stopping bleeds. Now, if someone gets the hump at me for doing something nasty, they decide to start bleeding me - or, as noted elsewhere in this thread, you get The Minion bleeding you. However, it happens, you end up with two people bleeding you. Now, my X cards of bleed defence were working around one predator. I draw enough cards every turn to put up a fight against ONE predator. To draw enough to stop two predators, I'd have to put 2X in, more or less. So, I've got 90 cards in my deck. 90-X cards are cards not allocated to bleed defence. If I have to go to 90-2X cards for the rest of my deck, it gets harder to play it. I have to start making a deck with more and more bleed defence in it simply because I'm a good player (I'm not - I can theorise but my actual playing skills let me down a fair bit). So, a player who gets ganged up on has to start not playing the game and start acting defensively. So, my deck which was good fun to play now gets people ganging up on me. I have to put more defence in, making my deck less likely to do what it wants, or just die, making the game less fun for me. Cross-table votes are harder to pull off now, because of the No Vote Pushing rules (see another post of mine in this thread about the social interaction of votes). And combat is still very difficult to pull off effectively and though it puts me in a more vulnerable position, a cross table rush doesn't bring my pool closer to an ousting level. > >I have never had to play "worse", but I have had to apply a more flexible >conceptualiztion of timing to my plans with regards to how my actions will >reprecuss upon the other players at the table. Their actions may be the >springboard that either ignites or stalls my mechanations. > >Another point that is rearly brought up (D) heavy (5 - 10% of actions) >enviroment I may very well choose to protect one of my fellow methuselahs. >This also adds depth to the game. > But the only (D) actions we're discussing are bleeds. A (D) bleed may help another Methuselah, but it works to the detriment of another Methuselah. I fail to see how a cross-table bleed actually "protects" them though. The vampires preying on it are just as liable to do damage to it, they just might leave one or two more untapped to block. On the other hand, their predator might just think "Blow it - if people are ganging up on me cross-table then I'm going to be ousted. I might as well just take him out now and to hell with the consequences. I came to play my deck and I'm not going to stop playing it just because other people on the table can't actually play the game and so have to gang up on me." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qspt7$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes >Hey, I don't think you're disagreeing with me at all. Are you actually >allowed to post a response in that case? ;-) Probably not, no ;) > >Yes, I agree that putting in titled vampires is a Good Thing, when >all else is equal, and even to some extent when they're slightly >inferior in other respects. Well, I had fun with Potence Fortitude at PS: Isle of Wight. Had Sheldon, Lord of the Clog in that one. Came out, too. Got burned tho :( >(Personally I often do not use Rake, because >inferior Potence and inferior Celerity are big handicaps in a Pot/Cel >rush deck - especially if you're not using Presence. I do agree, but the toning down of IG makes first round potence combat much preferable if you're not planning on using frisbees etc. So the press of superior IG is now much less important, unless you want it to end the combat. So superior Potence isn't so much needed for there and you can still do a pretty hefty thwack with inferior potence. And I wouldn't mind using him because Ventrue are a pretty popular clan, after all, and that +1 hand damage starts to draw out their combat defence. Of course, though, if you're going up against a BIG vampire, you will need the superior potence but hopefully you'll have another vampire out with it. > In a Pre/Pot/Cel >bruise bleed deck, or some such, he'd be much more justifiable for me. Of course, yes. His superior Presence is annoying, yes, but I just like the fact that he has the votes. >Anvil, though, of course. Definitely. A slightly over-powered vamp in terms of disciplines, although I doubt I'd ever use him for more than a couple of them. >And I like Volker, too, even though he >has inferior Pot.) Yeah, I do like him too. That restriction isn't going to come up too often and he's a pretty balanced vampire anyway. There's always Sela, too. POT cel Bishop for 6. And from what I've seen, the potence decks flying round recently prefer POT to CEL. > >: Voting is still very powerful, but maybe they'll actually have to start >: constructing decks like the rest of us (and as someone who used to play >: weenie vote push decks regularly, I know how easy it was comparatively). > >Is this secretly an article on why no-vote-push is a good thing? ;-) Shhh.... I was hoping that no-one would notice. >Definitely, with NVP vote decks do have to built with some consideration >of how to pass votes, because as you say, other people will often >have some votes available even if they're not playing vote decks. Well, I don't know if they often will but it is definitely my opinion that they often SHOULD. As I've said before, my deck construction technique tends to include a few vampires up to about 4 capacity with the disciplines I want (maybe only one, preferably at superior, if it's an odd combo), and then starting to go up to mid-range vampires with a few vampires who are *big* with votes eg Sheldon. He only had the inferior fortitude but he was lovely for the votes. >And >that does help balance the full-table nature of the effects of votes. Yep. AFAIC if a deck doesn't have voting vampires, it's a lickle bit silly. [ quoted text not captured ]

>But can you? If my deck is working on the principle that I have one >predator at once, I might put bleed defence in so that I can stop a >couple of a bleeds a turn - intercept, bounce, reduction, reduce stealth Seems to me that you work to advance your own deck within the rules. >But the only (D) actions we're discussing are bleeds. A (D) bleed may >help another Methuselah, but it works to the detriment of another >Methuselah. I fail to see how a cross-table bleed actually "protects" >them though. If you know someone who has a D bleed deck and they know how to use it properly, then there is sometimes very good reason to ct bleed. I guess the correct responce to all of this is to 'get over it' if you have ever been wronged by ct bleeds. And for those of you who are ct bleed players, be careful or you may not be allowed to play. This is a social game, not chess, not poker. Anyone can own a fantastic deck and get a perfect stack, but if they are anti-social in this game, they lose. For tournament play, well if you are running it then you decide the rules. Players will show up or they won't. Replace nospam with red for a usable email address. =================================================== Get out of your own way. - Wicker ===================================================

<FLAME ON> > "Dragon" <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >But can you? If my deck is working on the principle that I have one > >predator at once, I might put bleed defence in so that I can stop a > >couple of a bleeds a turn - intercept, bounce, reduction, reduce stealth > > Seems to me that you work to advance your own deck within the rules. Right. I think I've had a bit too much of the self-righteous bullshit from people who don't have any evidence or logic to support their points. This is not "working to advance your deck within the rules". The rules quite clearly state (in BOTH rulebooks) that (D) bleeds do _NOT_ have the ability to target anyone other than your prey. All other rulings were alterations and we have returned to the original context of the game, not F*cked up version that had been provided by a series of poorly-informed, uncaring WotC rulings teams. > > >But the only (D) actions we're discussing are bleeds. A (D) bleed may > >help another Methuselah, but it works to the detriment of another > >Methuselah. I fail to see how a cross-table bleed actually "protects" > >them though. > > If you know someone who has a D bleed deck and they know how to use it > properly, then there is sometimes very good reason to ct bleed. This is really quite pathetic. Everyone else provides arguments, points, and logic. Certain people who "support" (as in blindly try and shout everyone else down) ct-bleeds offer nothing other than these mysterious reasons - which they never explain. Other than desiring total table dominance with no effort. > > I guess the correct responce to all of this is to 'get over it' if you have > ever been wronged by ct bleeds. Great. As previous examples have been given (see C.Berger's post on this topic), ct-bleeds are often used abusively to oust someone from a tournament because they are "doing to well" either in the game or in the tournament as a whole, some some know-nothing f*ckwit starts ct bleeding them or deflecting to them out of some misguided, uninformed, idiotic notion that it is "fun" or "their duty to even up the table" or "because it is harmless" or "it forces them to go defensive". So take your self righteous cr*p somewhere else, and get over it yourself - or make a point, use some logic, and try to defend it. > > And for those of you who are ct bleed players, be careful or you may not be > allowed to play. Or you could grow up and play your deck in a jyhad game rather than a mt$ Lightning bolt situation. > For tournament play, well if you are running it then you decide the rules. > Players will show up or they won't. And you with your ct-bleed deck will get to dominate, because everyone else presumed that your would be using DCI rules (what a stupid presumption!). THis is akin to saying "My world, My rules!" "Play the way I say or I'll take my bat and ball and go home" <sulk>. Well there's the door. Don't let us stop you... <Flame off> The Autarch. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6r507u$7eq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... ><FLAME ON> [oh hey, that looks like one of those things people do to justify their unfocused hate] >Right. I think I've had a bit too much of the self-righteous bullshit from >people who don't have any evidence or logic to support their points. Hmm... Ditto! It's a game. A collectible card game at that and if you are not having any fun playing it then don't. [ quoted text not captured ] You mean you actually have time to research, keep track of and quote other posts about a game?! Chill! You need a vacation. > >So take your self righteous cr*p somewhere else, and get over it yourself - or >make a point, use some logic, and try to defend it. > I'll admit that I like to argue, but what I like more is a game where the rules are relatively constant and it is fun to play. I am not sure what your point is other than releasing your hostility. >> >> And for those of you who are ct bleed players, be careful or you may not be >> allowed to play. > >Or you could grow up and play your deck in a jyhad game rather than a mt$ >Lightning bolt situation. Ah, Magic really sucks for some very important reasons. Perhaps you should pay attention and watch what happens to Jyhad/VtES in the next year or two. You may very supprised by a startling transformation. Putting the rules in a state of flux is a good start! > >> For tournament play, well if you are running it then you decide the rules. >> Players will show up or they won't. > >And you with your ct-bleed deck will get to dominate, because everyone else >presumed that your would be using DCI rules (what a stupid presumption!). >THis is akin to saying "My world, My rules!" "Play the way I say or I'll take >my bat and ball and go home" <sulk>. Oh really? I attended Origins this year and the rules were complete bunk! I was informed by two of my friends that did participate in the first tournament not to participate in the next one for a number of reasons. Particularly the lack of the judges authority due to no advance notice of what the rules were going to be. Players were given the option to argue the rules, a perfect set up for a fantastic mess! > >Well there's the door. Don't let us stop you... > Got $500 dollars? You can have my cards for good they will be worth in two years time. ><Flame off> >The Autarch. I am not for or against rule changes. Just play limitations. Variety, think variety. Each rule or change that is made, by committee, general consensus or other reasons, should be evaluated for one major flaw.... Does it destroy a type/kind/style of play? I would hope changes my create new decks and not force more players into traditional strategies. One more thing.... If you are so hot about tournament rules, where do you spend your winnings and do they put food on the table? Keep it in perspective. We're here to have fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <UEiB1.1272$N15.5...@news.axxsys.net>, Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> writes >I guess the correct responce to all of this is to 'get over it' if you have >ever been wronged by ct bleeds. > >And for those of you who are ct bleed players, be careful or you may not be >allowed to play. Bad idea. A group shouldn't work like this. It can cause animosity in a group if you start telling people that you don't like their decks or that they should just stop whining. Official rulings help get round this because it's not *you* discriminating against them, it's the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F1rB1.1430$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> writes >I'll admit that I like to argue, but what I like more is a game where the >rules are relatively constant and it is fun to play. The rules are relatively constant with (D) bleeds. Please go and read your rules book. You will find that (D) bleeds are only directable at your prey. The Golden Rule of Cards allows this to be over-ridden, but that is all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F1rB1.1430$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> writes >I am not for or against rule changes. Just play limitations. Variety, >think variety. Each rule or change that is made, by committee, general >consensus or other reasons, should be evaluated for one major flaw.... Does >it destroy a type/kind/style of play? I would hope changes my create new >decks and not force more players into traditional strategies. Do you not think that the ORIGINAL rules creators didn't think of that? Do you not think that LSJ has not considered that in *immense* detail given that his knowledge of the game, due to his position as Netrep and having to quote rulings left right and centre, is far in advance of anyone else's on the group? [ quoted text not captured ]

I don't usually stoop, but in this case....... Autarch, "I think I've had a bit too much of the self-righteous bullshit from people who don't have any evidence or logic to support their points" " blindly try and shout everyone else down" you've just illustrated your own points perfectly. I (and others) have explained points and have addresses those dissenting opinions as they have come. Read the thread. If you can't read to support your opinion, don't bitch just shut up. If you have read the thread and can't grasp complex concepts (and logic) don't scream at the rest of us for your inadequacies. Agree or disagree there is no reason to insult others (please excuse the hipocracy). Ct bleeding has nothing to do with desiring ultimate dominance, being as asshole to the guy across from you or maximizing your deck to have enough bleed to kill everyone at the table. Ct bleeding is a s-t-r-a-t-e-g-i-c option. Usually this option has long term implications, not short term. The objective is to futher ones position at the table, not just the death of ones prey. Killing ones prey is the short (and ulitmate) route that one can take to victory but not the only route. I will use my favorite example once again <sigh> .. You have a political deck with a little bit of bleeding. A player across the table also has a political deck. You each have 1/2 of the political muscle at the table. He taps himself out on a powerplay that doesn't succeed. You bleed him and oust him. His predator get the six blood. Did this action aid you? Have you played many games with ct bleeding? Are you arguing theory? This game is nothing like magic even with Ct bleeding and most players (Even those that disagree with my opinion about bleeding) on this board would find it insulting that you would suggest such. I dont care about tournaments. -Chris the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > <FLAME ON> > > > "Dragon" <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > >But can you? If my deck is working on the principle that I have one > > >predator at once, I might put bleed defence in so that I can stop a > > >couple of a bleeds a turn - intercept, bounce, reduction, reduce stealth > > > > Seems to me that you work to advance your own deck within the rules. > > Right. I think I've had a bit too much of the self-righteous bullshit from > people who don't have any evidence or logic to support their points. This is > not "working to advance your deck within the rules". The rules quite clearly > state (in BOTH rulebooks) that (D) bleeds do _NOT_ have the ability to target > anyone other than your prey. All other rulings were alterations and we have > returned to the original context of the game, not F*cked up version that had > been provided by a series of poorly-informed, uncaring WotC rulings teams. > > > > > >But the only (D) actions we're discussing are bleeds. A (D) bleed may > > >help another Methuselah, but it works to the detriment of another > > >Methuselah. I fail to see how a cross-table bleed actually "protects" > > >them though. > > > > If you know someone who has a D bleed deck and they know how to use it > > properly, then there is sometimes very good reason to ct bleed. > > This is really quite pathetic. Everyone else provides arguments, points, and > logic. Certain people who "support" (as in blindly try and shout everyone else > down) ct-bleeds offer nothing other than these mysterious reasons - which they > never explain. Other than desiring total table dominance with no effort. > > > > > I guess the correct responce to all of this is to 'get over it' if you have > > ever been wronged by ct bleeds. > > Great. As previous examples have been given (see C.Berger's post on this > topic), ct-bleeds are often used abusively to oust someone from a tournament > because they are "doing to well" either in the game or in the tournament as a > whole, some some know-nothing f*ckwit starts ct bleeding them or deflecting > to them out of some misguided, uninformed, idiotic notion that it is "fun" or > "their duty to even up the table" or "because it is harmless" or "it forces > them to go defensive". > > So take your self righteous cr*p somewhere else, and get over it yourself - or > make a point, use some logic, and try to defend it. > > > > > And for those of you who are ct bleed players, be careful or you may not be > > allowed to play. > > Or you could grow up and play your deck in a jyhad game rather than a mt$ > Lightning bolt situation. > > > For tournament play, well if you are running it then you decide the rules. > > Players will show up or they won't. > > And you with your ct-bleed deck will get to dominate, because everyone else > presumed that your would be using DCI rules (what a stupid presumption!). > THis is akin to saying "My world, My rules!" "Play the way I say or I'll take > my bat and ball and go home" <sulk>. > > Well there's the door. Don't let us stop you... > [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > I don't usually stoop, but in this case....... I think the reason tempers are flaring on this topic is because of a misunderstanding. Some people who are for ct-bleeds feel so because, like you, they don't want to lose a strategic option even if it's not that useful; to these people, the counterargument has been: "but ct-bleeds directly affect the pool and are easy to make successful; hence they are too powerful". Others for ct-bleeds think that they're useful and want to use them (the "we fear change" camp?) to which the counterargument is similar. The confusion, I believe, came from people disagreeing over whether ct-bleeds are useful at all. Since one argument against ct-bleeds is that they are too useful, this caused some confusion. Also note: the other argument against ct-bleeds is that the game was originally intended _not_ to have ct-bleeds except in cases like Cat Burglary. Does that clear things up? [snip] > I dont care about tournaments. In your house, play with the rules you want to. But the official rules will be used in an official tournament setting, and those rules should be fair, balanced, and reflect the original intent of the game. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "All the headless corpses / where do they all come from?"

>Autarch,"I think I've had a bit too much of the self-righteous bullshit from >people who don't have any evidence or logic to support their points""blindly >try and shout everyone else down" you've just illustrated your own points >perfectly. Thank you. I presume by screaming, I finally got through the dense wall of ignorance, idicoy and sheer refusal to listen you use for a skull to make my point. I am now through with insult-trading, unless you wish to take this to a private forum. I (and others) have repeatedly laid out reasons and argument for the continued removal of ct-bleeds. 90% of the replies have been of the nature "Well I like them, So there!". It is little wonder that tempers are lost more and more frequently. I will address the points you make below, in the hope that we can either agree or come to an amicable agreement to disagree - but one more post of the nature "ct-bleeds r so kewl" that pass for argument will result in me reaching through my modem to tear of said munchkins head. :) > > I (and others) have explained points and have addresses those dissenting >opinions as they have come. Read the thread. If you can't read to support your I have read the thread, and participated in it and parallel threads significantly. Most (but not all) of the pro-ct-bleeds args have been childish to say the least. > Agree or disagree there is no reason to insult others (please excuse the > hipocracy). I'm not quite sure of this term "hipocracy"? Government by Flower-Power Children (just lightly pulling your leg) As to insulting others, occasionally it seems to be the only way to get them to respond. Unfortunate necessity, but it at least did prompt even you to collect your arguments in one place, so I can attempt to demolish them :) > Ct bleeding has nothing to do with desiring ultimate dominance, being as >asshole to the guy across from you or maximizing your deck to have enough bleed >to kill everyone at the table. Ct bleeding is a s-t-r-a-t-e-g-i-c option. Which gives an unfair advantage to one particular deck style. This is one of my points: Bleeding is the _only_ strategy that directly removes an opponents pool, without chance of reprisal - particularly if the bleeding methuselah is cross table. Such a bleed removes all of the proactive defense, and draws out defense that should be used against predator (not some schmuck across the table witha GtU and a point to make). >Usually this option has long term implications, not short term. The objective Untrue. It has immediate short term implications - usually the ousting of the methuselah who you just bled, by another methuselah. Even if there is no oust (immediately) you have weakened them in a fashion you _should not_ be able to. There are few, if any legitimate reasons to bleed someone other than your prey, and most of these reasons can be served adequately by the few cards which do allow you to bleed someone other than your prey (nightmoves, mindtricks, cat burglary) >is to futher ones position at the table, not just the death of ones prey. Furthers one position at the table by the death of ones prey, and strengthening your own power, not "terrorist" style strikes at someone across the table via ct-bleeds. That should be left to table politics, not direct action. >Killing ones prey is the short (and ulitmate) route that one can take to >victory but not the only route. I will use my favorite example once again Describe these "other routes". I think they are few and not worth the danger that ct-bleeds can be. ><sigh> .. You have a political deck with a little bit of bleeding. A player >across the table also has a political deck. You each have 1/2 of the political >muscle at the table. He taps himself out on a powerplay that doesn't succeed. >You bleed him and oust him. His predator get the six blood. Did this action aid >you? Yes. Should you have been able to do it? No. Why not? because this person was not your prey, and had _no_ opportunity to react to this. He (presumably) carefully calculated this "powerplay" and was thwarted for some reason. They thought that even should the action fail, they could take a round of bleeds from their predator, but be able to stave off a hostile vote from you. By (D) bleeding them, you changed the rules of the game. In this regard, the "advantage" you have gained was unfair - unsupported by the rulebook, the creator, or the dynamic of the game. > > Have you played many games with ct bleeding? Are you arguing theory? Now this is a silly question. I'll leave you to consider if during 4 years of playing that I might have ever played in a ct-bleed game. And to deride something because it is "theory" is particularly obtuse. > > This game is nothing like magic even with Ct bleeding and most players (Even > those that disagree with my opinion about bleeding) on this board would find > it insulting that you would suggest such. How in particular is it different than a bunch of Mt$ers playing red lightning bolt decks and pounding on each other? > > I dont care about tournaments. Well that may be part of the problem. In your own playgroup, try and define workable houserules. If _all_ of you want ct-bleeding, fine. But consider a game without it, and see how it strengthens other decktypes in comparison to S&B or B&B. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rbcft$b3p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > <snipped> > > I dont care about tournaments. > > Well that may be part of the problem. In your own playgroup, try and define > workable houserules. If _all_ of you want ct-bleeding, fine. But consider a > game without it, and see how it strengthens other decktypes in comparison to > S&B or B&B. Let my tell you my opinion: I don't care if there are ct-bleeds or not. For me it's not an important question, as I don't consider ct-bleeds a threat to my play-style. I can always block or bounce the bleed, but that's not a valid defense for every deck. Granted, ct-bleeds don't happen often (ever?) around here, and when they do they don't cripple the targeted player. In a way, a bounced bleed is also a ct-bleed. I have played in games where my grand-predator was deflected to me, and I told him "okay, lets do each 1 damage or I can even play a maneuver" and the other guy added stealth, just because he liked to! If you ask me, I agree with no ct-bleeds in tournament environments, as this is like a huge free-for-all (like in Blood-Bowl, GW). In friendly play, each group should be free to play the way they like. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > I (and others) have explained points and have addresses those dissenting > >opinions as they have come. Read the thread. If you can't read to support your > > I have read the thread, and participated in it and parallel threads > significantly. Most (but not all) of the pro-ct-bleeds args have been childish > to say the least. > I take exception to this remark. Go ahead and flame if you want to, but realize that flaming only begets flaming. There are indeed valid arguments for cross-table bleeds, and it is my strong opinion that no one who is anti-ct has addressed those arguments. There has been some stupid raging argument as to whether ct-bleeds are useful. That's not a reasonable argument, because uselessness is not a good reason to ban a tactic (and it *is* a tactic, not a strategy... unless you're really warped). Just because Concealed Weapon as printed is useless doesn't mean it should be banned (it should have the misprint errata'ed but that's besides the point). Just because Regaining the Upper Hand is useless, should we say that it can't be called? No. The reason that I changed sides in the debate (well, actually, I simply dropped out of the debate) was due to spectacular displays of abusing ct-bleeds. If there were a way to insure intelligent use of ct-bleeds, I would still be arguing in favour of them. Therefore, I propose a new card be brought into the game. With this card, we can safely leave ct-bleeds in the game without allowing them to become unbalancing. Thinning the Herd Master Each player must take one blood from his pool and give it to the player on his right. Then, that player must take a blood from the blood pool and put it back in the blood pool. Then, he must move one blood from one of his vampires to a second vampire controlled by another player, and one blood from the second vampire to his vampire. Finally, take the Edge and give it to the methuselah who is wearing the most red. That methuselah must then pass the Edge to the player who had it before this card was played. Any methuselah who actually moved anything during the resolution of this card is ousted from the game. His predator does not receive any pool or victory points. Alright? (See... the stupid methuselahs won't understand... get it? Oh nevermind...) -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

I may not have been following this thread correctly, but I have an opinion on ct bleeds. V:TES is supposed to be more than just go and bleed your predator and hope your prey doesn't bleed you. It was supposed to be a game of strategy and diplomacy. I have often used or requested that if someone bleeds X or does X (like get Army of Rats off my back), I will do Y for them. Now that element of diplomacy is gone and the game has become the uncomplicated bleed your preadator, have your prey bleed you. A game for simple minds with little diplomacy and strategy like real Methusalahs would use.

Opps. I think I said that wrong. Bleed your prey, and your predator bleeds you. Sorry. :[ Forrest [ quoted text not captured ]

LOL! Chris, I gotta give you credit.... This post contains the most valid point in the entire arguement.... Ban stupid people who play ct-bleeds for no reason. But hey, that is not realistic so for tournament play, remove ct-bleeds. Replace nospam with red for a usable email address. =================================================== Get out of your own way. - Wicker =================================================== ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote in message <6rcfqv$mjc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

fnielsen wrote: > > I may not have been following this thread correctly, but I have an > opinion on ct bleeds. > V:TES is supposed to be more than just go and bleed your predator and > hope your prey doesn't bleed you. It was supposed to be a game of > strategy and diplomacy. I have often used or requested that if someone > bleeds X or does X (like get Army of Rats off my back), I will do Y for > them. Now that element of diplomacy is gone and the game has become the > uncomplicated bleed your preadator, have your prey bleed you. A game > for simple minds with little diplomacy and strategy like real > Methusalahs would use. First of all, it is hardly the case that cross-table bleeding is the only possible diplomatic tactic. But directly depleting someone's pool from across the table when they can't reliably defend against it is simply too useful. Cross-table voting and attacking are fine for the same reasons that you feel ct-bleeds are fine. But votes can be voted down, especially when they go across the table, and a combat can at worst burn a vampire. But bleeding directly affects someone's pool, and unless that person is playing with Deflections or intercept, they're having undue pressure put on them. And it's not fair to say "that's person's doing well" or "I don't like that person" and have the result be a ct-bleed. Cross-table bleeds were never intended to be a part of this game. They bring too much interaction into play, and prevent people with skill from being able to do well. If you sit down at a table and somehow everyone else is convinced that you must die, there won't be anything you can do about it; they'll cross-table bleed you to death out of their own paranoia. In your own group, you know better than anyone else the personality and temprament of the players. But in a tournament setting the rules should (a) reflect original intent and (2) provide a balanced fair environment. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

I agree completely in the case of a tournament setting. If for one reason or another every single possible variation of a card must be spelled out and all grey area removed to produce a level playing field then so be it. The only exception I take to the entire thing is that these rules are THE rules not just tournament rulings for play balance. If all we were discussing was tournament rules I would be lurking right now. My apologies for being an ass (if it came across as such). James Hamblin wrote: > Christopher Chew wrote: > > > > I don't usually stoop, but in this case....... > > I think the reason tempers are flaring on this topic is because of a > misunderstanding. Some people who are for ct-bleeds feel so because, > like you, they don't want to lose a strategic option even if it's not > that useful; to these people, the counterargument has been: "but > ct-bleeds directly affect the pool and are easy to make successful; > hence they are too powerful". Others for ct-bleeds think that they're > useful and want to use them (the "we fear change" camp?) to which the > counterargument is similar. > > The confusion, I believe, came from people disagreeing over whether > ct-bleeds are useful at all. Since one argument against ct-bleeds is > that they are too useful, this caused some confusion. > > Also note: the other argument against ct-bleeds is that the game was > originally intended _not_ to have ct-bleeds except in cases like Cat > Burglary. > > Does that clear things up? > > [snip] > > I dont care about tournaments. > > In your house, play with the rules you want to. But the official rules > will be used in an official tournament setting, and those rules should > be fair, balanced, and reflect the original intent of the game. > > James > -- > James Hamblin > ham...@math.wisc.edu > > V:EKN FAQ Maintainer > http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html > [ quoted text not captured ]

fnielsen wrote: > I may not have been following this thread correctly, but I have an > opinion on ct bleeds. > V:TES is supposed to be more than just go and bleed your predator and > hope your prey doesn't bleed you. It was supposed to be a game of > strategy and diplomacy. I have often used or requested that if someone > bleeds X or does X (like get Army of Rats off my back), I will do Y for > them. Now that element of diplomacy is gone and the game has become the > uncomplicated bleed your preadator, have your prey bleed you. A game > for simple minds with little diplomacy and strategy like real > Methusalahs would use. That is exactly what I hate to see happen, the game reduced to simplicity.

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I have no problem with agreeing to disagree... ;) Honestly what is the difference if you loose a vampire or pool. Pool can be voted away, I use the 1 extra point in KRC as political leverage all the time. If you send my IC to torpor or bleed me for five whats worse (it really depends upon the situation). Wether you affect "primary" or secondary resources its really mox nix. 50 pool and all of my vampires in torpor I'm screwed or 10 vampires loaded to the gills and 1 pool, either way things look very poor. The question I am about to ask is meant to be genuine. Am I one of the only players here that uses "well rounded decks" ? It seems that most of the discussions seem to hail from the vein of a very focused deck. If all you can do is one thing you're probably going to be very good at it (at the detriment of everything else). Numerous people have mentioned S&B decks but who actually makes a pure bleed deck? If you do make one do you enjoy playing it or beating someone with it? This is a game of strategic application not deck stacking (at least it shouldn't be). Most experienced players have tried the deck and tossed it because it was boring. Could you please give me a common sense reason why you should not be able to bleed another methuselah? Going on the concept of the game not the rules. There are numerous reasons to bleed, vote against or attack a player across the table. I don't mean that to be blatantly "fuzzy" but one cannot specify every reason where these actions may be useful. These is no difference between these 3 types of directed actions. The end result is the weakening of another player. In my example should you have been able to bleed the opposing methuselah? I say yes regardless of wether or not he was your prey. He has the oppurtunity to react in the same fashion as if his predator where performing the same action against him. Wake and block or take the hit. If you have not prepared for the contingency of being attacked when tapped out, poor planning. The advantage I gain is quite fair and balanced. If he has a combat deck he might bash me for bleeding him or a vote deck direct some pool loss my way. This make a directed bleed an option but one that is rarely preferable becuase of the respone that it may cause. It also slow you down from eleiminating your prey. The dyanmic of the game supports (D) bleeds as well as its supports any other (D) action. No difference. I was not attacking the position because it is a theory. The point was, do you have some experience to back up your statements. I was not aware of your background. I do not consider not caring about tournaments a problem. I have no desire to play to the lowest common denominator where every contingency must be spelled out in advance or watered down to allow any putz to play a deck. I am interested in testing concepts against others in an "open" playing enviroment where rules do not constrain our ability to formulate theories. That is not meant to insult those players who can play effectively. To the contrary, if you can play well throw fewer rules upon yourselves and see how well you deal with more diffucult and complex situations even if "the cards are stacked against you". How would the elimination of (D) bleed strengthen any deck type other then a tighly focused combat deck? PS Sorry abou the lack of punctuation, run-on sentences and spelling errors (stream of consciousness) ... and lazieness (hey wait, was that spelled corectly)?

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > > > I (and others) have explained points and have addresses those dissenting > > >opinions as they have come. Read the thread. If you can't read to support > your > > > > I have read the thread, and participated in it and parallel threads > > significantly. Most (but not all) of the pro-ct-bleeds args have been childish > > to say the least. > > > > I take exception to this remark. Go ahead and flame if you want to, but > realize that flaming only begets flaming. There are indeed valid arguments > for cross-table bleeds, and it is my strong opinion that no one who is > anti-ct has addressed those arguments. There has been some stupid raging > argument as to whether ct-bleeds are useful. That's not a reasonable > argument, because uselessness is not a good reason to ban a tactic (and it > *is* a tactic, not a strategy... unless you're really warped). Just because > Concealed Weapon as printed is useless doesn't mean it should be banned (it > should have the misprint errata'ed but that's besides the point). Just > because Regaining the Upper Hand is useless, should we say that it can't be > called? No. > > The reason that I changed sides in the debate (well, actually, I simply > dropped out of the debate) was due to spectacular displays of abusing > ct-bleeds. If there were a way to insure intelligent use of ct-bleeds, I > would still be arguing in favour of them. Therefore, I propose a new card be > brought into the game. With this card, we can safely leave ct-bleeds in the > game without allowing them to become unbalancing. > > Thinning the Herd Master Each player must take one blood from his pool and > give it to the player on his right. Then, that player must take a blood from > the blood pool and put it back in the blood pool. Then, he must move one > blood from one of his vampires to a second vampire controlled by another > player, and one blood from the second vampire to his vampire. Finally, take > the Edge and give it to the methuselah who is wearing the most red. That > methuselah must then pass the Edge to the player who had it before this card > was played. Any methuselah who actually moved anything during the resolution > of this card is ousted from the game. His predator does not receive any pool > or victory points. > > Alright? (See... the stupid methuselahs won't understand... get it? Oh > nevermind...) > > -Chris > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum >it *is* a tactic, not a strategy Point taken "a strategic option" (ie. tactic)... ;) YES YES institute the card right now. Abuse is something that unfortunatly happens ...... but is there ever a way to curb that other than smothering everyone in a mountain of rules? I would hope so, but I'm sure thats hoping to much.

In article <35DC40FF...@earthlink.net>, Christopher Chew <cac...@earthlink.net> wrote: Call me anal about some things, but there's no need to quote the entire message you are replying to. Just quote the parts you are referring to with your statements. Plus, it's the bandwidth conscious thing to do. [ full quote of original article from the_a...@hotmail.com deleted ] > The question I am about to ask is meant to be genuine. Am I one of the only > players here that uses "well rounded decks" ? It seems that most of the > discussions seem to hail from the vein of a very focused deck. If all you can > do is one thing you're probably going to be very good at it (at the detriment > of everything else). Unless you are making a fast, very focused deck and/or all of your opponents are playing slower decks, you are going to lose without planning on how to deal with the [other] archetypes. However, well rounded is a very loose term, so it would be hard for me to say if I build them or not. I do know that I do not make very focused decks. I can tell you that I do not put cards in my decks that do not help me win or defend me against common strategies. This goes so far as to say that I do not play with much pool gain...usually. > Could you please give me a common sense reason why you should not be able to > bleed another methuselah? Going on the concept of the game not the rules. "Concept of the game" is another pretty loose term as people's opinions on the concept of the game will differ. > There are numerous reasons to bleed, vote against or attack a player across > the table. I don't mean that to be blatantly "fuzzy" but one cannot specify > every reason where these actions may be useful. These is no difference between > these 3 types of directed actions. The end result is the weakening of another > player. Voting - Unless you announce that the majority of a cross table damaging vote is going across the table, you have a pretty good chance of being blocked. Then when the vote actually comes around, you need a vote lock or cooperation from all the other players with votes. Also, defending against a cross table vote does not require tapping or destroy (except votes that do such) any minions. A cross table bleed or rush may do that. Rush - Rushing across the table in a typical rush deck could very well cost you the game. It means you are allowing your Prey and Predator to recover from your previous attacks. Of all the cross table actions, I consider a rush to usually be the least useful without some kind of collaboration from the other players. And even then, you have to be in a winning position or you'd be better off attacking your Prey or Predator. Unless it is a determined rush attack by multiple attackers, it is a pretty flimsy tactic. Bleed - Bleeding is only defensible by the target player. (although, I did save my grand-prey from a 1 stealth, 4 point bleed with a 2nd Tradition'd Anneke last night:) In order to defend against it, you have to bounce, reduce, or block. The bouncing and reducing decks don't have much problem with this. However, a deck that has to block has a serious problem. A cross-table bleed is going to be at least 2. So you either block it or you take it. If you take it, you may be closer to death. At that point you may either be more determined, go into defensive mode, or return the favor in kind. Going into defensive mode usually means that the ct-bleed has cost you the game. The others don't have the effect most pro-ct-bleed people say they want when they ct-bleed. If you block the ct-bleed, you have one less minion to block your own predator. > I was not attacking the position because it is a theory. The point was, do you > have some experience to back up your statements. I was not aware of your > background. Yes, I am not the person you were referring to, but I do. I call it the Minion Effect. DejaNews archived - http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=380498945 It isn't common to every group I've been in, but occasionally, it can be done in almost any setting. With a little intimidation or coaxing, the next thing you know, you have two predators. > How would the elimination of (D) bleed strengthen any deck type other then a > tighly focused combat deck? As far as I know, it's not meant to strengthen anything. What I do know is that it goes back to the original rules. > PS Sorry abou the lack of punctuation, run-on sentences and spelling errors > (stream of consciousness) ... and lazieness (hey wait, was that spelled > corectly)? No, it's laziness. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > I have no problem with agreeing to disagree... ;) > > Honestly what is the difference if you loose a vampire or pool. Pool is a primary resource; it serves as your life total and can be used to bring out secondary resources: more vampires, master cards, etc. The loss of a secondary resource isn't as devestating as the loss of pool, since you can choose to use pool to bring out a replacement for the lost resource, or you can choose not to. With a bleed, some of your primary resource is removed, bringing you closer to death and less able to influence further secondary resources. > Pool > can be voted away, I use the 1 extra point in KRC as political > leverage all the time. If you send my IC to torpor or bleed me for > five whats worse (it really depends upon the situation). You can always rescue the IC member from torpor. And then what have I accomplished? > Wether you > affect "primary" or secondary resources its really mox nix. 50 pool > and all of my vampires in torpor I'm screwed No, you have fifty pool, which would take a long time to deplete and gives you time to bring out more vampires. > or 10 vampires loaded to > the gills and 1 pool, either way things look very poor. You can have blood dolls and minion taps to gain pool. > The question I am about to ask is meant to be genuine. Am I one of > the only players here that uses "well rounded decks" ? If by well-rounded you mean "unfocused", then no. Most card-limit players enjoy this kind of deck, since it's so hard to make a focused deck in that environment. Not every deck should/can do "a little bit of everything". If I'm not a vote deck, why should I put in vote cards? They're not going to pass. If I'm not a bleed deck, why should I put in bleed cards? They take away from the effectiveness of my other strategies, and will just clog my hand when I don't want them. > It seems that > most of the discussions seem to hail from the vein of a very focused > deck. What's wrong with a focused deck? A focused deck consistently does what it is designed to do, and is hence effective. > If all you can do is one thing you're probably going to be very > good at it (at the detriment of everything else). A deck should not be so focused to the point of not having defenses for the other common strategies. A deck without bleed defense should be killed by a bleed deck. But "deflection" is not the only bleed defense in existence. > Numerous > people have mentioned S&B decks but who actually makes a pure bleed > deck? Why not? > If you do make one do you enjoy playing it or beating someone > with it? I enjoy playing this game. Why would the deck I'm playing with prevent me from enjoying myself, unless it was really bad? > This is a game of strategic application not deck stacking > (at least it shouldn't be). I have no idea what you're saying here. > Most experienced > players have tried the deck and tossed it because it was boring. One man's boring is another man's interesting. For some reason people like you think that a deck which is consistent must somehow be boring. The arguments over this are moot, since I can't convince you that something you think is boring isn't. All I can say is most everyone else doesn't find this sort of thing boring. You think that drawing the same kinds of cards over and over is boring. Then I can only assume that you play the "card vs. card" kind of game; my card beats that card beats that other card. But the "strategy vs. strategy" game, where every deck is good at what it does, and you ply your strategy against someone else's strategy, is a completely different game. > Could you please give me a common sense reason why you should not be > able to bleed another methuselah? Going on the concept of the game > not the rules. Because in the role-playing game, you can't affect a methuselah other than your prey unless you're wearing a bright-red clown nose which honks when you squeeze it (really! it's on page 57!) Seriously, game-world concerns don't matter if they sacrifice good game-play and balance. > There are numerous reasons to bleed, vote against or attack a player > across the table. I don't mean that to be blatantly "fuzzy" but one > cannot specify every reason where these actions may be useful. These > is no difference between these 3 types of directed actions. The end > result is the weakening of another player. But the extent of the weakening and defendability of the action is totally different. If it's a vote, you can try to vote it down, tapped out or not. If it's a combat, you get to fight back, tapped out or not. But if you're all tapped out (and why shouldn't you be?) you can't even try to defend yourself. Even if you aren't tapped out, if they want to get that bleed through with stealth, only a Deflection is going to save you. So let's see: votes have a bunch of defenses, combat has a bunch of defenses, and bleeds have... Deflection. Yep, no difference there. > He has the oppurtunity to react in the > same fashion as if his predator where performing the same action > against him. Wake and block or take the hit. Yes, but not the same ability to "proact". I know, that's not a word, but "incapacitate the bleeders" is a perfectly valid defense which is completely useless against ct-bleeds. You can't expect every single deck to play with Deflection. Then things really _do_ get boring. > If you have not prepared for the contingency of being > attacked when tapped out, poor planning. Whatever. You can't plan for a cross-table bleed. Someone across the table decides they have a bug up their ass and decides to take it out on you. > I do not consider not caring about tournaments a problem. I have no > desire to play to the lowest common denominator where every > contingency must be spelled out in advance or watered down to allow > any putz to play a deck. What the hell is this supposed to mean? You would prefer a tournament environment where there are one or two almighty decks, and the only thing you can do to not get killed instantly is play an anti-deck? Sounds a lot like the Magic tournament scene to me. At GenCon, using the 7/7 rules, there were a whole bunch of competitive decks, and play was not dominated by decks abusing broken cards. Chalk one up for 7/7, I say. > I am interested in testing > concepts against others in an "open" playing enviroment where rules > do not constrain our ability to formulate theories. That is not meant > to insult those players who can play effectively. To the contrary, if > you can play well throw fewer rules upon yourselves and see how well > you deal with more diffucult and complex situations even if "the > cards are stacked against you". That's great. So, according to you, we should just play with as few rules as possible because somehow that makes the game better. And what, if there is a rules conflict what do we do? I know! We'll open up the roleplaying game book (guess I'll have to go buy that) and make something up! Sounds atrocious. > How would the elimination of (D) bleed strengthen any deck type other > then a tighly focused combat deck? We're not adocating rules changes because they make certain decks better or worse. They improve the quality of the game by making it more balanced. By "balanced" I don't mean balanced between good players and bad, or between good decks and bad; I mean balanced in the sense that no strategy has a distinct advantage over another. Then good game play and clever, effective decks win tournaments; not broken cards and broken rules. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35DC2DD0...@earthlink.net>, Christopher Chew <cac...@earthlink.net> writes >The only exception I take to the entire thing is that these rules are THE >rules not just tournament rulings for play balance. If all we were >discussing was tournament rules I would be lurking right now. The *ONLY* place were *THE* rules have to apply are DCI tournaments. You don't care about tournaments so you don't have to disallow cross- table bleeds in your play group. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35DC3AD4...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >That's great. So, according to you, we should just play with as few >rules as possible because somehow that makes the game better. And what, >if there is a rules conflict what do we do? I know! We'll open up the >roleplaying game book (guess I'll have to go buy that) and make >something up! Sounds atrocious. When will you Rage? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

fnielsen wrote: > > I may not have been following this thread correctly, but I have an > opinion on ct bleeds. > V:TES is supposed to be more than just go and bleed your predator and > hope your prey doesn't bleed you. It was supposed to be a game of > strategy and diplomacy. It is a game of strategy and diplomacy even without ct bleeds. It is clear that V:TES' designers never intended to allow ct bleeds. -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players' Organization

On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Robert Goudie wrote: > fnielsen wrote: > > > > I may not have been following this thread correctly, but I have an > > opinion on ct bleeds. > > V:TES is supposed to be more than just go and bleed your predator and > > hope your prey doesn't bleed you. It was supposed to be a game of > > strategy and diplomacy. > > It is a game of strategy and diplomacy even without ct bleeds. It is > clear that V:TES' designers never intended to allow ct bleeds. Right. An equivalent limitation are the rules on who can block certain actions. Normally only your predator and your prey can block you, unless an action is directed, in which case only the target can block. In the case of Blocking, special cards like Eagle's Sight were created to allow circumvention of these rules. One needed superior Auspex to use the ability, indicating that designers took the restrictions seriously, and thought that they should not be easy to break. In the case of Bleeding, the special cards Cat Burglary and Night Moves were printed to get around the rules specifying who could be bled. Both cards limit the bleed to 1, again indicating that the designers clearly felt that ct bleeds required serious limitation. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Well, I haven't been following this thread AT ALL, but i still have an opinion. CT bleeds i have no problem with, PROVIDED they are supported by card text - Cat burglary is the classic ct bleed card. Computer hacking etc should not be cross-table bleeds, because the rules say they are not. Also, people will conspire, get into girlish pets and/or just do dumb things however you try to fix the rules. That's the nature of the game - it is difficult and stressful, and in the metagame it leads to the formation of intense relationships of various colours. Good, i say!

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Legbiter wrote: > Well, I haven't been following this thread AT ALL, but i still have an > opinion. CT bleeds i have no problem with, PROVIDED they are supported by > card text - Cat burglary is the classic ct bleed card. Computer hacking > etc should not be cross-table bleeds, because the rules say they are not. A sensible opinion. I still don't understand why it is still so difficult for some apparently intelligent people to see it this way. > Also, people will conspire, Fine, provided only that players do not feel that they have to conspire in order to compete. This has not been a problem in my experience, but if Jyhad were more popular in my area, it probably would be. I would like it to become more popular, and tournaments better attended. The minimization of C-T bleed possibilities does minimize the possibility that in such a case, collusion will reach such levels that the enjoyment of the game will suffer. > get into girlish pets and/or just do dumb > things however you try to fix the rules. That's the nature of the game - Well, that's human nature, really (and in my experience just as typical of the male as the female players, if not more so). Did you mean "girlish fits" or "girlish pouts"? > it is difficult and stressful, and in the metagame it leads to the > formation of intense relationships of various colours. Good, i say! I'm not sure what you are saying here, but if things become too "difficult and stressful" for some people, they will stop playing, and that is a BAD THING. Such tends to happen when someone feels they are being ganged up on or unfairly picked on, or when another player attacks them for what they presume to be personal reasons. [ quoted text not captured ]