InQuest Game picks V:TES as all-time best multi-player CCG

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Direct Inquiries to: Philippe Boulle, Marketing Director White Wolf Publishing 1554 Litton Drive Stone Mountain, GA 30083 prbo...@white-wolf.com 404-292-1819 x203 INQUEST GAMER picks VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE® as all-time best multiplayer CCG Atlanta, GA, January 30, 2004 - InQuest Gamer, an industry-leading magazine, has named White Wolf's Vampire: The Eternal Struggle as the best multiplayer collectible card game of all time. The article, appearing in the March 2004 issue of InQuest Gamer (#107), examines all the top collectible card games based on their play in games with more than two players, examining (among others) the variety of viable strategies in multiplayer games and how much interaction went on between players. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (or VTES) soared to the top of the list, eclipsing such well-known games as Lord of the Rings and Magic: The Gathering. "[VTES] combines the best of one-on-one play with multiplayer while remaining balanced," said InQuest, and paid special attention to importance of diplomacy and politics in the game. "The politics of the setting shine through in the CCG... Diplomacy isn't just an aspect of [VTES], it's a necessity." "Right after he designed the world's best dueling CCG in Magic: The Gathering, Richard Garfield designed the world's best multiplayer CCG in Vampire: The Eternal Struggle. CCG fans who haven't experienced real multiplayer CCG strategy owe it to themselves to pick up some Vampire starters and see why InQuest rated it number one," said Steve Wieck, White Wolf's director of card development. L. Scott Johnson, line developer for VTES, added, "The game emphasizes making (and the threat of breaking) deals so that it doesn't feel like each player is just playing solitaire. But the predator/prey constraints and victory conditions ensure that the deal-making aspect doesn't overshadow deck building and card play." Vampire: The Eternal Struggle is a collectible card game based on White Wolf's award-winning roleplaying game, Vampire: The Masquerade. In VTES, players take on the roll of ancient vampires called Methuselahs who use a variety of vampiric agents (represented by cards) to act against one another. These actions (also represented by cards) can be aimed at physical resources, political influence or even social spheres. Unlike many other such card games, VTES is designed primarily for multiple players, and its official tournaments use that format (rather than the one-on-one duels more common in other games). First introduced in 1994, VTES celebrates its tenth anniversary this year and is going stronger than ever, with more organized play than ever before. VTES's next set "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle - Gehenna" releases this May. (Vampire: The Eternal Struggle - Gehenna 36-pack booster display: WW02651; $99.00; Individual 11-card booster pack: $2.75 MSRP) More information about VTES is available at http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ . Since its entry into the roleplaying game market in 1991, White Wolf Publishing, Inc. has grown, maintaining an average market share of 26%. With collective book sales in excess of 5.5 million copies during this time, White Wolf is one of two undisputed worldwide publishing leaders for pen and paper roleplaying games. White Wolf properties have been licensed for television series, comic books, action figures, console and computer video games, coin-operated arcade games, professional wrestlers, replica props and weapons, interactive media events, and a myriad of merchandise. More information on White Wolf can be found at www.white-wolf.com . InQuest Gamer is a publication of Wizard Entertainment, based in Congers, New York. launched in 1997, InQuest Gamer has proven to be the ultimate source for information about collectible card games, roleplaying games, and all fantasy gaming. More information on InQuest Gamer can be found at www.wizarduniverse.com . Vampire and Vampire the Eternal Struggle are registered trademarks of White Wolf Publishing. Gehenna is a trademark of White Wolf Publishing. All rights reserved. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

While I would agree with IQ in this regard, I just received my copy for issue 106 wherein they rate all English CCGs. I find their ratings rather useless, showing about as much bias as can be expected of any group of people who play a variety of CCGs. Wheel of Time as a hall of fame game? As much enjoyment I gained from being involved with it, let's say that I had a hard time selling large numbers of people on a two-player CCG that often took us 2 hours to play (with shortcuts) and eventually required rolling 100s of dice ... in a single turn. On the flip side, Shadowfist escapes their hall of fame designation? I might not personally like playing the game as I don't like easy removal and easy comebacks, but I'm willing to consider it the only multiplayer CCG in V:TES's league. Maybe they give some sort of objective criteria for how they rank games in issue 107, but as is, it just seems to me that it comes down to "I like game X more than game Y", which is fine if all you want to do is market the games you like. I found Scrye's ratings, which are broken down into categories, found in their guide to CCGs, a lot more plausible, with the added benefit of more in depth descriptions of what the game's about and, maybe, why they ended up with some of their ratings. Well, ranting aside, it does help market V:TES, which is good. And, it has no effect on my favorite CCG (which they think sucks) as it died long ago.

yeah vtes rocks!! "Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040130165124...@mb-m27.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > > Well, ranting aside, it does help market V:TES, which is good. And, it has no > effect on my favorite CCG (which they think sucks) as it died long ago. Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I don't recall you having a favourite. Mine is V:tES... woohoo! :) Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<bvflk...@enews3.newsguy.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] My guess his favourite is Rage. First edition Rage I am still fond of, although you and your opponent(s) will have to realize there's no game balance in this; just gratuitous violence and a good time had by all :) Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

> My guess his favourite is Rage. First edition Rage I am still fond of, > although you and your opponent(s) will have to realize there's no game > balance in this; just gratuitous violence and a good time had by all > :) Must be weird, a game without politics, bleed... ;-) Was it in substance a VTES-type game with only the fight options, was there real strategy of deckbuilding and playing etc ? -- Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040130165124...@mb-m27.aol.com>... > Wheel of Time as a hall of fame game? As much enjoyment I gained from being > involved with it, let's say that I had a hard time selling large numbers of > people on a two-player CCG that often took us 2 hours to play (with shortcuts) > and eventually required rolling 100s of dice ... in a single turn. Sounds like the game precisely reproduces the tedium of Jordan's books. :)

> Was it in substance a VTES-type game with only the fight options, was there > real strategy of deckbuilding and playing etc ? No. It was developed seperately from VTEs entirely (WoTC developed VTES, WW developed Rage). Play style is completely different. Game play begins with all your Garou in play, up to a maximum renown value determined before play begins. Each player picks their alpha (acting minion for the turn). Then everyone just drops non-combat cards on the table. Literally. Everything happens at once. Then one person challenges another and combat begins. Strikes are committed to before exposed, so you can't respond to your opponents strike. Games are short and bloody. Timing issues abound because everything happens at once. There is politics (called Moots), but most people don't play with them. VPs are based on what renown value of Garou and monsters you kill. Players who make combat decks and achieve personal victory in VTES by torporing/burning vampires and could care less about ousting would LOVE Rage. A few years later, 5RP released a revised version that had more concrete timing rules and slower play. The revised game tanked (partly because it looked identical to the old game, but lots of rules changed and many cards changed effects -- moreso than any errata we've seen in VTES). Fanboy

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in news:bvflk...@enews3.newsguy.com: > Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I > don't recall you having a favourite. It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. gomi

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:34:01 -0600, Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote: >> Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I >> don't recall you having a favourite. >It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. Ultimate Combat! was my favorite 2 player collectible card game as well. The only broken cards were Combination 0, 1, 2, X. How can you not love a game with cards like: Cup Hand Ear Crush Elbow Break Instep Stomp Spinning Head Kick Standing Choke Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:41:19 -0500, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled: >On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:34:01 -0600, Gomi no Sensei ><xn...@pollywog.com> wrote: > >>> Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I >>> don't recall you having a favourite. > >>It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. > >Ultimate Combat! was my favorite 2 player collectible card game as >well. The only broken cards were Combination 0, 1, 2, X. My housemate is 1 card short of a complete set (and has been for about 3 or 4 years). i don't suppose anyone has any UC! singles they'd like to trade for umm...not much, do they? I'll find out what his missing card is, too. :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9481B2B9FB16B...@64.81.79.101>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ohmigod, Rage was so much fun. We always found that the best part (besides the names of the combat cards...I only wish there were more things like Pulled Fangs, Disarm, and Decapitate in V:TES. But then, I'm also an ultraviolent bastard like yr. droog Alex) was the fact - and correct me if I'm wrong, I sadly haven't played the game in, like, eight years and have no rulebook handy - that you could drop NPC guys to kills, like a bestiary, but you could also just run over and beat on your opponent's Garou. Eventually we stopped playing with the "bestiary" cards and just kept doing naughty, naughty things to each other. In fact, we stopped playing the Werewolf RPG entirely, as this card game distilled everything about the RPG into a much faster, more fun game... Anyone still play this? Can I get a box on Ebay for like $5 or something? And yes, V:TES is the greatest game ever...thanks designer folks. Kushiel

>> Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I >> don't recall you having a favourite. > >It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. It's the Magic stand alone expansion with the best mechanics. Actually, an inferior Magic mechanic like only drawing one card per turn probably contributed to it being a more marketable game, though it hardly matters marketingwise when UC! was a total ripoff of Magic with a less compelling theme and poor execution of theme. Then, the game lasted briefly enough for me to never get bored with it. Given more time, I might have net fonder memories of V:TES. As for brokenness, it's only in the last year or so, when fooling around with the game after some other CCGs died, that I found a deck that autowins at least 90% of the match ups I've come up for it. I don't stress the game's awesome balance so much anymore. As for missing cards, I was amused by trade.mahasamatman.com having UC! and looked at the 9 people who have lists. Someone mentioned a promo I'd never heard of. Trying to check on whether it really exists. For any other cards, it's entirely possible that I have extras given that I'm over the 10,000 card level and haven't opened all of the packs I have. Someone gifted me a case *after* I had built my collection, etc.

"Patrick van der Reest" <sam...@hotmail.com> wrote > > My guess his favourite is Rage. First edition Rage I am still fond of, > although you and your opponent(s) will have to realize there's no game > balance in this; just gratuitous violence and a good time had by all You know Patrick, I have a big bag full o' Rage here which I've never even used. We should have played that instead of all those crappy two-player V:tES games while you were stuck in Windsor! :) Cheers, WES

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > > > >It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. (Well, Gomi wrote that, but this is more for you...) http://www.ccgworkshop.com/game.list.jsp Looks like they may be trying to put it on CCGW... Thought you might be interested. Cheers, WES

thisi_s...@yahoo.com (kushiel) wrote in message news:<6f98ce2a.04020...@posting.google.com>... > Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9481B2B9FB16B...@64.81.79.101>... > > "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in news:bvflk...@enews3.newsguy.com: > > > > > Which game is your favourite? You've mentioned many CCGs before but I > > > don't recall you having a favourite. > > > > It's Ultimate Combat! Yes, we all rib him about this. > > > > gomi > > Ohmigod, Rage was so much fun. We always found that the best part (besides > the names of the combat cards...I only wish there were more things like > Pulled Fangs, Disarm, and Decapitate in V:TES. But then, I'm also an > ultraviolent bastard like yr. droog Alex) was the fact - and correct me if > I'm wrong, I sadly haven't played the game in, like, eight years and have > no rulebook handy - that you could drop NPC guys to kills, like a bestiary, Enemies > but you could also just run over and beat on your opponent's Garou. One of them [that turn's alpha] unless you have a special rush card. Eventually > we stopped playing with the "bestiary" cards and just kept doing naughty, > naughty things to each other. In fact, we stopped playing the Werewolf RPG > entirely, as this card game distilled everything about the RPG into a much > faster, more fun game... > Anyone still play this? Whenever we can! Fabulous game! With beer-proof cards for playing whilst drunk [the best way]. > Can I get a box on Ebay for like $5 or something? i don't know. i have ALL the cards, though. <snip stuff we all knew all along>

sam...@hotmail.com (Patrick van der Reest) wrote in message news:<92081c66.04013...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, those were the days... :) I should remember to pack 1 or 2 rage decks as well, when I travel again. :) Evasion. Head Wound. Mangle.... oooooh Mangle. Frenzy. Curb Stomp. Nasty gifts that make your opponent unable to strike - True Fear. Sneak Attacking with Bane arrows on Furmlings. Ka Spirit. Banana Split. -- Tobias Deventer

Hey Guys, Vtes is cool, way cool and now people other than us know it, so why are we discussing Rage ? "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bvktd...@enews2.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

David Wilson <do...@umich.edu> wrote: : Hey Guys, : Vtes is cool, way cool and now people other than us know it, so why are we : discussing Rage ? Because we all already knew that, nothing new ;) Now, about Dungeoneer.. //T

"David Wilson" <do...@umich.edu> wrote > Hey Guys, > > Vtes is cool, way cool and now people other than us know it, so why are we > discussing Rage ? Actually, if you read the post of mine that your responded to, it is clear that we are actually discussing Ultimate Combat! :) We can talk about V:tES *and* other games though, right? :) I'm always interested to see if certain mechanics can be translated from one game to another. I don't know about pure combat games like Rage and UC though... I think V:tES' combat is already fairly robust IMHO. I wonder if we'll get many new players out of this top 10 list? Do these people even know V:tES is still alive? Cheers, WES

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kc0p10ho81oui1olc...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] And cards like: Bitch slap Torn assunder spine crushed And don't forget the flavor texts: You hit your opponent in the, ehm, sensitive area... what was that card again? Rage 6 combat?

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kc0p10ho81oui1olc...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<401AB6E2...@white-wolf.com>... > > Atlanta, GA, January 30, 2004 - InQuest Gamer, an industry-leading > magazine, has named White Wolf's Vampire: The Eternal Struggle as the > best multiplayer collectible card game of all time. Congrats, and ofcourse they are right, W

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:bvq1r...@enews1.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Inquest readers should know V:TES is still alive. Inquest has bits of V:TES coverage every couple of issues. Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

>I'm always interested to see if certain mechanics can be translated from >one game to another. Your Mind Is My Mind Action Cost = 6 (blood) [no inferior version] <AUS+DOM>: Choose a Methuselah. If this action is successful, you may play that Methuselah's next turn as if you were him or her. Note that somewhere, possibly on the card, you could mention how you couldn't concede while acting as that player. If this sounds broken, ... well it's borderline broken in UC! and, once Magic got around to ripping off another UC! idea, it's been in broken Magic decks. It might be interesting to see how broken it would be with this game.

Curevei wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Worst abuse would be: Put Succubus Club in play at some point Disputed Territory the SC to target Meth "Your Mind Is My Mind" target Meth. On target Meth's turn, tap SC and give everything to you, including the SC. Rinse, repeat. --Colin McGuigan

Curevei expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Fool's Gambit Something or other. While both methuselahs are in play, when target methuselah would gain a VP you gain a VP instead. When you would gain a VP, taget Meth gains a VP instead. [something similar for pool/blood could be funy too]

On 30 Jan 2004 21:51:24 GMT, Curevei wrote: >On the flip side, Shadowfist escapes their hall of fame designation? I might >not personally like playing the game as I don't like easy removal and easy >comebacks, but I'm willing to consider it the only multiplayer CCG in V:TES's >league. I haven't read the March Inquest article yet but amused by the comments from Steve Wieck and LSJ about deal-making. This feature of real-world VTES play make it inferior to Shadowfist, IMO. And what's odd is that it's not an overt part of the game mechanics. Neither the Shadowfist rules nor the VTES rules say anything to suggest that you make deals or alliances. That these don't tend to happen in one game but do tend to happen in the other is quite subtle. That aside, I'm sure that Shadowfist is the better multi-player game because it's hard to eliminate players during the course of the game and it's feasible to come back from a weakened position to win. It's no fun to be ousted and yet that's what VTES is all about. The main difficulty with a multi-player game is finding all those other players to play with. VTES scores well in that respect because it got good market penetration, being the first CCG to appear after Magic. Magic is still popular, not because it is a particularly good CCG (it was as we know quite broken) but because it was first. VTES was the first multiplayer CCG and, even though it was quite broken too, also rests upon this advantage. At our games club in Finchley, the two multiplayer CCGs which are currently played are Shadowfist and Game of Thrones. The latter must have its merits but I'm still not going to try it - the theme doesn't interest me. That's the strength of VTES for me - its theme. I really must break open those unopened boxes of Rage I have and see if the similar WoD theme works better there. There are just too many of these games. Anyone tried Cyberpunk yet ...? Andrew

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040204151335...@mb-m23.aol.com>... > Your Mind Is My Mind > Action > Cost = 6 (blood) > [no inferior version] > <AUS+DOM>: Choose a Methuselah. If this action is successful, you may play > that Methuselah's next turn as if you were him or her. This is probably the most broken card I've ever seen suggested here. > Note that somewhere, possibly on the card, you could mention how you couldn't > concede while acting as that player. If this sounds broken, ... well it's > borderline broken in UC! and, once Magic got around to ripping off another UC! > idea, it's been in broken Magic decks. The mechanic was first done in Magic. See: Word of Command. Only applied to a specific spell instead of an entire turn. > It might be interesting to see how broken it would be with this game. You play it on your prey, tap all of his minions, spend as much pool as possible and get rid of as many of his reactions as possible. Then you bleed him out with AUS/DOM. This says "I WIN" more than RtI did. -- -Snapcase

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:hae7201a79sfp41ra...@4ax.com... > Anyone tried Cyberpunk yet ...? Our initial consensus here in Denver is: avoid, for now. The rules are unclear, the card mix is too small, and in its present form, the best way to win the game is to avoid interacting with other players. Some of the cards are pretty funny, though. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > That these don't tend to happen in one game > but do tend to happen in the other is quite subtle. It doesn't really strike me as that subtle. In Shadowfist, there is nothing at all to gain by helping someone else win--no VPs, only "Game Winer" and "Losers". There isn't really any half measure winner in Shadowfist, so the incentive to make a deal to help someone win isn't really there. It is possible that the current tournament rules have some sort of well defined second/third/forth place that I haven't seen yet, but from what I understand, there was nothing but winning and tie breaker points. In VTES there is defenite incentive to make deals--portioned out VPs. Often, making a deal for 2 VPs to help someone get 3 VPs 'cause you are in a bad position is the best you can hope for, and thus the deal makes perfect sense (in a Machiavellian sense), epsecially as VPs are often very significant in getting into the final round. In Shadowfist, on the other hand, there is a lot of incentive to form temporary alliances and make temporary deals to cut the winner back (just the other day, I convinced an opponent to Golden Comback someone so I could get back my Underworld Tracker, and we could both team up to stop someone else from making a winning move--a deal/alliance is made. But it was over as soon as I could make my own win attempt). But because of the structure of the game--only 1 winner, and no clear cut way to determine 2nd/3rd/4th place--making "king maker" deals isn't really an attractive option. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike, http://www.punkvoter.com

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > That aside, I'm sure that Shadowfist is the better multi-player game > because it's hard to eliminate players during the course of the game > and it's feasible to come back from a weakened position to win. It's > no fun to be ousted and yet that's what VTES is all about. I'll agree that Shadowfist has the advantage that everyone gets to play until the game is over, unlike V:TES where the game goes on and some players are left waiting for a game until they're ousted. However, every game of Shadowfist I've ever played has involved everyone building up and then taking turns attemping their big push in sequence to win the game, while the entire table tries to stop them. They might as well just call the game Hot Potato. However, this is to be expected when anyone can attack any other player, and all other players are permitted to interfere. The flavor and story for Shadowfist, however, rocks the house. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.04020...@posting.google.com... : However, every game of Shadowfist I've ever played has involved : everyone building up and then taking turns attemping their big push : in sequence to win the game, while the entire table tries to stop : them. They might as well just call the game Hot Potato. However, : this is to be expected when anyone can attack any other player, and : all other players are permitted to interfere. I've played a lot of Shadowfist in the last couple of years, probably 200 games in the last year alone. This particular dynamic almost never happens as directly as you describe in our games. Sometimes it does, but it's much more common for one of us to figure out a way to puncture the game's equilibrium. Hitting a strong player's site with an Orbital Laser Strike so that the next player has an incentive to attack it, or using Tortured Memories/Vivisector to get rid of a big hitter...there are dozens of ways to do this. And if you're in the second seat, you have to ask yourself, am I being set up? Is the guy on my right going to be able to surge for the win once he's gotten me to wear myself out doing his dirty work for him? Or is there something I know that he doesn't? Another dynamic I see a lot is one where someone has built a really powerful engine into his deck. Sure, he only has one site in play and one BFV, but he's got three Simian Liberation Armies in his smoked pile, four Simian Sneakers came back into play when his last site got seized, he's got a SAM Simian out and he's playing with Diamond Beach, he just dropped two Claw Of Furies when someone Scrounged him for characters, there's an Inauspicious Return in his smoked pile, and he's got an Orange Sage in play. This guy's a threat *now*, because when he makes his big push for victory it's going to be a *big* push -- in fact, it may already be too late to beat this guy. (Unless there's a Dragon player in the game. Heh.) In games like this one, the dynamic is not so much about beating on the guy who's pushing for the win, it's trying to figure out how to throw sand in his engine's gears. (The flaw with playing decks like this is that your cards are, literally, out on the table, which is why in our group people who play like this have a lot of fun but don't win much.) Or to take advantage of it. (In this game, I happened to be playing a Shaolin Agent deck, which loves weenie decks.) I think the build-up-and-go dynamic you describe is certainly part of the game, but I also think there's a lot more to it than it sounds like. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

>> That these don't tend to happen in one game >> but do tend to happen in the other is quite subtle. > >It doesn't really strike me as that subtle. > >In Shadowfist, there is nothing at all to gain by helping someone else >win--no VPs, only "Game Winer" and "Losers". There isn't really any half >measure winner in Shadowfist, so the incentive to make a deal to help >someone win isn't really there. It is possible that the current tournament >rules have some sort of well defined second/third/forth place that I haven't >seen yet, but from what I understand, there was nothing but winning and tie >breaker points. > >In VTES there is defenite incentive to make deals--portioned out VPs. Often, >making a deal for 2 VPs to help someone get 3 VPs 'cause you are in a bad >position is the best you can hope for, and thus the deal makes perfect sense >(in a Machiavellian sense), epsecially as VPs are often very significant in >getting into the final round. > >In Shadowfist, on the other hand, there is a lot of incentive to form >temporary alliances and make temporary deals to cut the winner back (just >the other day, I convinced an opponent to Golden Comback someone so I could >get back my Underworld Tracker, and we could both team up to stop someone >else from making a winning move--a deal/alliance is made. But it was over as >soon as I could make my own win attempt). But because of the structure of >the game--only 1 winner, and no clear cut way to determine 2nd/3rd/4th >place--making "king maker" deals isn't really an attractive option. This probably makes sense, but it would make a lot more sense to me to fail to see enduring alliances if I didn't play another multiplayer CCG that also had poorly defined "not first places". I've discussed the differences in play style between 'fist and V:TES and I still wonder why you don't get two players who decide to not screw with each other and basically fight it out between themselves for first/second. Is it just that this doesn't work as the non-cooperating opponents will just throw the game to one member of the alliance and end the game?

>I haven't read the March Inquest article yet but amused by the >comments from Steve Wieck and LSJ about deal-making. This feature of >real-world VTES play make it inferior to Shadowfist, IMO. And what's >odd is that it's not an overt part of the game mechanics. Neither the >Shadowfist rules nor the VTES rules say anything to suggest that you >make deals or alliances. That these don't tend to happen in one game >but do tend to happen in the other is quite subtle. > >That aside, I'm sure that Shadowfist is the better multi-player game >because it's hard to eliminate players during the course of the game >and it's feasible to come back from a weakened position to win. It's >no fun to be ousted and yet that's what VTES is all about. I don't have any problem with being ousted. The situation that sucks IMO with V:TES is playing while having no chance of winning, which is why I don't like rush decks, wall decks, Brainwash, Sens. Dep., milling, etc. Even if being ousted is unpleasant, there are benefits to such a mechanic. As players drop, kingmaking ability drops. Speeds play up. OTOH, I'm sure there are table politics issues with the threat of taking yourself out of games that are problematic. >The main difficulty with a multi-player game is finding all those >other players to play with. VTES scores well in that respect because >it got good market penetration, being the first CCG to appear after >Magic. Magic is still popular, not because it is a particularly good >CCG (it was as we know quite broken) but because it was first. VTES >was the first multiplayer CCG and, even though it was quite broken >too, also rests upon this advantage. Magic has a lot of advantages besides being first. V:TES has decent market penetration because the WoD is so well known amongst gamers and because Jyhad boxes went for so little for so long. Not to say it doesn't have an advantage in age, but I think it gets a lot less "first on the block" advantage than Magic does. >At our games club in Finchley, the two multiplayer CCGs which are >currently played are Shadowfist and Game of Thrones. The latter must >have its merits but I'm still not going to try it - the theme doesn't >interest me. That's the strength of VTES for me - its theme. I >really must break open those unopened boxes of Rage I have and see if >the similar WoD theme works better there. There are just too many of >these games. Anyone tried Cyberpunk yet ...? I only hear about Cyberpunk secondhand, and I know secondhand info can be wrong as well as biased, so I'll pass.

Curevei wrote: > This probably makes sense, but it would make a lot more sense to me to fail to > see enduring alliances if I didn't play another multiplayer CCG that also had > poorly defined "not first places". I've discussed the differences in play > style between 'fist and V:TES and I still wonder why you don't get two players > who decide to not screw with each other and basically fight it out between > themselves for first/second. 'Cause in Shadowfist, there really isn't a second place. The victory conditions are "Get to 5 Feng Shui sites, stealing the 5th". There aren't victory points, really, and having 4 Feng Shui sites when someone wins doesn't really mean that you are in second place to any meaningful extent. There have been countless ranking systems in Fist for figuring out what place you get in a given tournament game, for tie breaker purposes (such as "Count Feng Shui sites in play at end of game" or "Count Feng Shui Stites burned for victory" at the end of the game. Or something.), but really, none of them are that significant, in terms of actually determining a "place". Having 5 Feng Shui sites means you win. Having 4 means very little--you could easily have 4 Feng Shui sites in play on the 4th turn simply by playing one per turn, but then you likely don't have any resources or characters or any remote chance of winning. In VTES, victory points are a solid indicator of success in a given game--if one guy has 3 and another has 2, the guy with 2 clearly did well enough to justify having second place. In Fist, that really isn't the case, such that fighting for second place isn't worth doing, and being in second place doesn't really mean anything. > Is it just that this doesn't work as the > non-cooperating opponents will just throw the game to one member of the > alliance and end the game? Throwing the game just to make it end is always a possibility, but that is either just dumb (and doesn't get you anywhere) or collusion (and as such, cheating). This last year at Origins, there was a legendary game (in the land of Fist geekiness) that went on for an *absurdly* long time--I think the single, 4 player game, went on for 9 hours. Primarily, 'cause it was very balanced, and no one wanted to accidentally make someone else win, and there was zero incentive to make a deal to help someone else win, as second place doesn't really mean anything. This being said, this is a *very* extreme example, and most games don't do this. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <IVuVb.254251$na.416123@attbi_s04>, "Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> mumbled something about: >"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message >news:bf72a12e.04020...@posting.google.com... > >: However, every game of Shadowfist I've ever played has involved >: everyone building up and then taking turns attemping their big push >: in sequence to win the game, while the entire table tries to stop >: them. They might as well just call the game Hot Potato. However, >: this is to be expected when anyone can attack any other player, and >: all other players are permitted to interfere. > >I've played a lot of Shadowfist in the last couple of years, probably 200 >games in the last year alone. This particular dynamic almost never happens >as directly as you describe in our games. Sometimes it does, but it's much >more common for one of us to figure out a way to puncture the game's >equilibrium. Hitting a strong player's site with an Orbital Laser Strike so >that the next player has an incentive to attack it, or using Tortured >Memories/Vivisector to get rid of a big hitter...there are dozens of ways to >do this. Frankly, the mechanics you describe sound exactly like "while the entire table tries to stop them". Other than that, let's all please keep in mind that Andrew S. Davidson does not post to encourage discussion on a subject, but rather to disrupt discussion. To this extent he continually resets followups to groups they do NOT belong in -- a common practice of trolls. The idea is, simply stated, to cause arguments and dissent. I have redirected the followups to THIS message appropriately. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.