VTES Survivor Format - different game format.

I can hear the groans already :-) My group was playing around with different game varients, just to try out different things and see how they work. I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: The rules, nothing changes. Everything stays the same except you don't chose one deck, you pick 2-5 decks. (Depending on how long you feel like taking) Now, lets assume we have for players A, B, C, D. Each player has chosen two decks for the Surviror format. The seating order is done as normal and you play as normal. Let's assume the seating order is like this. A > D > B > C Now A ousts D. A > B > C B has a turn as normal, C has a turn as normal and take actions against A. D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now the table seating is like this. D > A > B > C D's turn runs as normal except that in this one turn D gets ten transfer points in that one influence phase. So A now has D behind him. A's turn. Play resumes as normal until someone else is outsed. So far the format works pretty well, (1VP per deck kill). You still gain six pool for ousting a player/deck. Notes: Only real problem is people shifting stuff around, through if you have a decent sized table this isn't too much of an issue. We have only tried this format in 2, 3 and 4 player games to decent success. I looking on improving this idea so any feedback, questions, etc are most welcome. :-)

d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) wrote in message news:<4fa15655.04100...@posting.google.com>... > I can hear the groans already :-) > > My group was playing around with different game varients, just to try > out different things and see how they work. > > I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: > > The rules, nothing changes. Everything stays the same except you don't > chose one deck, you pick 2-5 decks. (Depending on how long you feel > like taking) > > Now, lets assume we have for players A, B, C, D. > > Each player has chosen two decks for the Surviror format. > > The seating order is done as normal and you play as normal. Let's > assume the seating order is like this. > > A > D > B > C > > Now A ousts D. > > A > B > C > > B has a turn as normal, C has a turn as normal and take actions > against A. > > D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now > the table seating is like this. > > D > A > B > C > > D's turn runs as normal except that in this one turn D gets ten > transfer points in that one influence phase. > > So A now has D behind him. > > A's turn. Play resumes as normal until someone else is outsed. Then what? How and when does a game end? Is there a limit on how many times a player can be ousted and keep coming back in? Does only the first guy out get to come back, or everybody? > So far the format works pretty well, (1VP per deck kill). You still > gain six pool for ousting a player/deck. > -John Flournoy

> > I can hear the groans already :-) > > > > My group was playing around with different game varients, just to try > > out different things and see how they work. > > > > I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: > > > > The rules, nothing changes. Everything stays the same except you don't > > chose one deck, you pick 2-5 decks. (Depending on how long you feel > > like taking) > > > > Now, lets assume we have for players A, B, C, D. > > > > Each player has chosen two decks for the Surviror format. > > > > The seating order is done as normal and you play as normal. Let's > > assume the seating order is like this. > > > > A > D > B > C > > > > Now A ousts D. > > > > A > B > C > > > > B has a turn as normal, C has a turn as normal and take actions > > against A. > > > > D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now > > the table seating is like this. > > > > D > A > B > C > > > > D's turn runs as normal except that in this one turn D gets ten > > transfer points in that one influence phase. Then, if I understand correctly, we now have a player who for some reason was the first to be ousted, and he gets in the game with 30 pool and 10 transfer, at a time when the other meths will probably be much weaker. You'll object : "yes but they too, if killed, will come back". It is worse IMO : we get a game looking way too much like randomness to me. It can also be abused. My second deck is a weenie. I begin my second turn with 4 minions who bleed a weakened meth for a disciplineless 6-8 pool, or a dominate *much more* (stealthed or not, does it really matter ?). Not counting the obvious Anarch Revolt. This is just an example on top of my head, the meaning being : the second and subsequent decks can be calculated for these precise rules. Of course, if you find this format fun, do whatever you want. But I don't think this game looks anymore like VTES : too many unbalancing factors. -- Deadly yours, Orpheus

d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) writes: > I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: > [SNIP] > D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now > the table seating is like this. > > D > A > B > C What happens if A ousts both B and C at the same time? By calling a Domain Challenge, for example. What positions do they take? I love the "revenge"-aspect - you get ousted, you return as the strongest metuselah in the game, and as the predator of the metuselah that ousted you. "It's payback time!" >:-) Smiling Jack seems godawfully strong in this format, though... I'd play this variant with 12 gehenna cards per deck. You're welcome to influence out that 1-capacity Arika who can do nothing but hunt. ;-) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

> > Then what? > > How and when does a game end? > > Is there a limit on how many times a player can be ousted and keep coming back in? > > Does only the first guy out get to come back, or everybody? > An ousted player can keep coming back as long as he has decks. You use your first deck and then when you are ousted, you pull out your second deck. When ousted a second time you are gone (or if you have more decks). The rule applies to everybody. You may only come back as long as you have decks.

> > Then, if I understand correctly, we now have a player who for some reason > was the first to be ousted, and he gets in the game with 30 pool and 10 > transfer, at a time when the other meths will probably be much weaker. > You'll object : "yes but they too, if killed, will come back". It is worse > IMO : we get a game looking way too much like randomness to me. IMO? I see your point, but that's the option you have too take. Do you oust that meth with the knowledge he is going to appear behind you. Potentially alot stronger than you. > It can also be abused. My second deck is a weenie. I begin my second turn > with 4 minions who bleed a weakened meth for a disciplineless 6-8 pool, or a > dominate *much more* (stealthed or not, does it really matter ?). Not > counting the obvious Anarch Revolt. This is just an example on top of my > head, the meaning being : the second and subsequent decks can be calculated > for these precise rules. > > Of course, if you find this format fun, do whatever you want. But I don't > think this game looks anymore like VTES : too many unbalancing factors. I never said it couldn't be abused. It's merely a game varient we have been experimenting with in friendly games. Through I have tried what you suggested except we tossed out the "gain six pool when ousted". You only gain six pool when you oust your prey with his final deck. I ran around the table once and then suffered table wrath as everyone was on their final deck. Through I had played the Anarch Revolt deck first. It can be abused, that's why I threw it on the newsgroup. Different points of views are always helpful.

h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote in message news:<m3ekk9y...@nothung.homelinux.net>... > d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) writes: > > > I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: > > > [SNIP] > > D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now > > the table seating is like this. > > > > D > A > B > C > > What happens if A ousts both B and C at the same time? By calling a > Domain Challenge, for example. What positions do they take? > I suppose A moves past B and C to become D's predator. Two players have never been ousted at the same time so far. I should have a Survivor Format report when my playgroup next meets. I'd like to hash out any issues where possible and use the newsgroup to tear apart my Survivor format. ;-)

h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote in message news:<m3ekk9y...@nothung.homelinux.net>... > d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) writes: > > > I present the Vtes/Jyhad Survivor Format: > > > [SNIP] > > D re-enters play with a second deck, taking A's old position. So now > > the table seating is like this. > > > > D > A > B > C > > What happens if A ousts both B and C at the same time? By calling a > Domain Challenge, for example. What positions do they take? > > I love the "revenge"-aspect - you get ousted, you return as the strongest > metuselah in the game, and as the predator of the metuselah that ousted you. > "It's payback time!" >:-) > > Smiling Jack seems godawfully strong in this format, though... As pointed out, many things seem godawfully strong in this format. The easy solution is - play a universal hoser deck first (AR, for instance), let yourself be ousted first, then come back with a massive bloat machine. You're back with your second deck while everyone else is weakly struggling to hang on with their first. You build and build and build, until eventually the others just have to die. Then you're essentially starting a new game, only you're starting with twice as much pool. > I'd play this variant with 12 gehenna cards per deck. You're welcome to > influence out that 1-capacity Arika who can do nothing but hunt. ;-) Actually, Gehenna doesn't really work in this format. They still have the "once per game" limitation. Once the methusaleh who controls the events is ousted, no one can ever play those events again. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) wrote in message news:<4fa15655.04100...@posting.google.com>... > > [ quoted text not captured ] So, if I have 20 decks prepared (and at least one person in my play group has at least that number ready to go, typically), I can keep coming back until I've lost 20 times? That seems tedious. -John Flournoy

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e904e39f.04101...@posting.google.com... > d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) wrote in message news:<4fa15655.04100...@posting.google.com>... > > You may only come back as long as you have decks. > > So, if I have 20 decks prepared (and at least one person in my play > group has at least that number ready to go, typically), I can keep > coming back until I've lost 20 times? > > That seems tedious. Assuming I read the first post of this thread correctly: Each player has the same number of decks. The range suggested was 2-5 decks. It was suggested that the number be chosen depending on how long you felt like taking. See the first post of this thread. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2svjauF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:e904e39f.04101...@posting.google.com... > > d21...@yahoo.com.au (Damien Hennessy) wrote in message > news:<4fa15655.04100...@posting.google.com>... > > > You may only come back as long as you have decks. > > > > So, if I have 20 decks prepared (and at least one person in my play > > group has at least that number ready to go, typically), I can keep > > coming back until I've lost 20 times? > > > > That seems tedious. > > > Assuming I read the first post of this thread correctly: > > Each player has the same number of decks. > > The range suggested was 2-5 decks. It was suggested that > the number be chosen depending on how long you felt like > taking. > > See the first post of this thread. Yep, you are correct. Still, 5 decks sounds like an all-day-and-then-some affair. -John Flournoy