What Happened When We Ran Out of Cards

After the discussion of running out of cards, it was amusing that the next game we played had two players run out. It was a four player game with: Tom (Tremere would-be Princes) Michael (newbie Settite/Assamite/Brujah) Dave (Lasombra/Ventrue antitribu - showing off his newly acquired Sabbat - the first seen in our group) Andrew (Malkavian/Tremere) When Dave and Andrew got voting vamps into play before my first prince or Praxis Seizure opportunity, I knew it would be a grim night. Although Dave was making a mess of Andrew with stealthy bleed, I couldn't persuade Andrew of the need for a voting block against Dave and discarded Seizures furiously until Michael took an opportunity to card flow a vote reaction in my favor making Muaziz my only Prince of the game. Michael switched the seating making himself Andrew's prey, which worked nicely for me as Dave soon ousted Andrew and then Michael. By this time we each had 5-6 vamps in play, with blood dolls and hunting grounds to stabilize pool. I was running low on cards, but my final hand had three 2nd Trad (? - the untap and +2 intercept anyway) which was enough to see off his final stealthy attempts and drain his library and hand as well. Muaziz and her friend whose name I forget who also had inherent stealth then bled Dave into the ground. A pleasing 2-2 draw after a grim start. Andrew sneered "Draw, hmmph" but I replied "Not for you it wasn't". So I quickly join the consensus that the Sabbat withdrawal rule sucks. Tom Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:16:41 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >After the discussion of running out of cards, it was amusing that the >next game we played had two players run out. It was a four player game >with: >.... >So I quickly join the consensus that the Sabbat withdrawal rule sucks. The way things went, you were able to turn a small difference in final stength between you and Dave into 2 VP for ousting him and surviving. If he had been able to withdraw after he ran out of cards then the final score would have been 2-1 to him, instead of the 2-2 draw. This would have been a fairer result and a more satisfactory one. As it was, the conclusion to the game was a hurriedly abbreviated affair as you and Dave didn't want to keep me and Michael waiting. On the evidence of this game, the original withdrawal rule does indeed blow chunks and Sabbat withdrawal is better. I'm bringing my Sabbat rules sheet along next time - we didn't get the Sabbat voting rules right either. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] ?!?!? So a player that has the better staying power but takes his time building defense/offense is to be penalized? That's quite contrary to the theme of the game, and it's original design. Sorry to say, but your support of the Sabbat withdrawal rules makes whole aspects of the game not worth playing (or at least worth significantly less). Any permanent option would be replaced with transient ones, etc. Sabbat withdrawal deters the building up of permanent resources, in favor of a footrace style deck... NOT a good thing, IMNSHO... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <F59BD92158540BA0.85A0E03C...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:16:41 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: > > >After the discussion of running out of cards, it was amusing that the > >next game we played had two players run out. It was a four player game > >with: > >.... > >So I quickly join the consensus that the Sabbat withdrawal rule sucks. > > The way things went, you were able to turn a small difference in final > stength between you and Dave into 2 VP for ousting him and surviving. > If he had been able to withdraw after he ran out of cards then the > final score would have been 2-1 to him, instead of the 2-2 draw. This > would have been a fairer result and a more satisfactory one. As it > was, the conclusion to the game was a hurriedly abbreviated affair as > you and Dave didn't want to keep me and Michael waiting. On the > evidence of this game, the original withdrawal rule does indeed blow > chunks and Sabbat withdrawal is better. It seems that Sabbat withdrawal encourages hit and run tactics that don't look that interesting. Play a 60 card (or even 40 card if you insist on the printed rulebook) all-out bleeding deck, take out two prey quickly and run. No doubt a fresh perspective has some value, but I'd rather pay attention to the accumulated experience of those who have been playing this game for five years. > I'm bringing my Sabbat rules > sheet along next time - we didn't get the Sabbat voting rules right > either. I thought we did, but suspected we didn't. As I understand it, Sabbat vamps are allowed to vote on Praxis Seizures - we just thought it seemed odd and doubted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > As I understand it, Sabbat > vamps are allowed to vote on Praxis Seizures Correct. All vampires can vote (if they have votes and are ready) in all referendums, unless card text explcitly denies this. This is true even if the vampire in question could not have called the referendum in the first place. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

(I'm back from a week on the boat! Who missed me? ;) On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:35:24 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:16:41 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: > >>After the discussion of running out of cards, it was amusing that the >>next game we played had two players run out. It was a four player game >>with: >>.... >>So I quickly join the consensus that the Sabbat withdrawal rule sucks. > >The way things went, you were able to turn a small difference in final >stength between you and Dave into 2 VP for ousting him and surviving. Correct. This is not inconsistent with proper deckbuilding strategy and play, which allows one to PRODUCE a small difference in final strength by your skills and deck. If you oust two people rapidly and leave yourself resourceless in the process, while your opponent ousts one person more slowly, but maintains a solid position, he deserves to beat you and gain 3 VPs to your 2. So it is possible to build fast decks that go "kaboom" when they run out of cards, or slow buildup decks that use a lot of permanents and don't rely on their library very much. This is balanced. Why would you want to ruin permanents and encourage fast bleed and/or vote decks? >If he had been able to withdraw after he ran out of cards then the >final score would have been 2-1 to him, instead of the 2-2 draw. This >would have been a fairer result and a more satisfactory one. As it Why would this have been fairer? Note that there are 4 VPs and 2-1 means that a VP has been "lost" somewhere - increasing the # of draws and timeouts is NOT a good thing. >was, the conclusion to the game was a hurriedly abbreviated affair as >you and Dave didn't want to keep me and Michael waiting. On the >evidence of this game, the original withdrawal rule does indeed blow >chunks and Sabbat withdrawal is better. I'm bringing my Sabbat rules No, sorry. Sabbat withdrawal honks like a big dog, and encourages stupid play since if you can run out of cards in a losing position before you're ousted, you survive. That's absolutely not what was intended, nor is it appropriate. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:22:46 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: >?!?!? So a player that has the better staying power but takes his time >building defense/offense is to be penalized? That's right. In other games, such as Shadowfist, such long-range strategies are decried as "turtling" for the good reason that they tend to make the games long and boring. This certainly seems to be an issue with Vampire too. >That's quite contrary to the theme of the game, and it's original design. You seem quite happy to junk the original design when it suits you. The folk who designed Sabbat clearly thought there was merit in easier withdrawal and I find this option worth considering too. Andrew

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:25:17 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:22:46 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: > >>?!?!? So a player that has the better staying power but takes his time >>building defense/offense is to be penalized? > >That's right. In other games, such as Shadowfist, such long-range >strategies are decried as "turtling" for the good reason that they >tend to make the games long and boring. This certainly seems to be an >issue with Vampire too. Which certainly doesn't happen at all with experienced players. The early-ousted are often able to get a five-player pickup game in while a tournament round is finishing, and finish BEFORE the round does! The game is long not because of "long range strategies", but because of its depth and complexity. This leads to a much better game, although it does have a slight downside. Players who "turtle", or begin "going right", or any of a number of phrases for an obnoxious strategy, generally are going to lose in the end anyway, BECAUSE of that permanent-force buildup. DungeonQuest (a board game), on the other hand, was the extreme opposite. You stepped into the dungeon, drew up your tile, it was a bottomless pit. Roll to see if you avoid it- nope, you die. Your opponent wins. That was fun! Want to play again? In actuality, DungeonQuest was terribly fun. The gameplay was largely random and required minimal, if any, strategic thought. But the games also took ten to fifteen minutes, tops. It's a situation where you pick what you want out of a game, and go there. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:22:46 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: >>?!?!? So a player that has the better staying power but takes his time >>building defense/offense is to be penalized? >That's right. In other games, such as Shadowfist, such long-range >strategies are decried as "turtling" for the good reason that they >tend to make the games long and boring. This certainly seems to be an >issue with Vampire too. First off, you're equating "staying power" and permanent resources with "turtling up" Sorry to say, but most times, you've got to have both guts and a solid plan to go for those resources _and_ still gain VP in _this_ game. By going for those long term resources, you run a higher risk of being ousted quickly. Fast decks are fine, and effective... The point here is that Sabbat withdrawal rules have a deliterious effect on a wider array of deckbuilding strategies than the original rules. >>That's quite contrary to the theme of the game, and it's original design. >You seem quite happy to junk the original design when it suits you. Back that up with an original quote from a previous thread, pal ;-) >The folk who designed Sabbat clearly thought there was merit in easier >withdrawal and I find this option worth considering too. Of course its worth considering... Look, unfortunately for new players, the jokers you find here (myself included) have been playing VTES from (Jyhad) Day 1. I think you might be getting bent out of shape because a lot of what you're saying seems to be getting shot down. We've been through six years of playtesting, releases, errata rulings and clarifications. These arguments are a bit rote, but everyone here is happy to debate through again, in case something was missed. Realize, though, that you are up against arguments that have been hashed out over terabytes of open debate. That being said, everyone hopes you'll bring something new to these discussions... Unfortunately, not many of us provide enough good vibes to these threads... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:49:57 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >The game is long not because of "long range strategies", but because >of its depth and complexity. This leads to a much better game, >although it does have a slight downside. The game is long primarily because of its multi-player, last-man-standing format. Depth and complexity are only relevant in so far as players tend to take a long time reading the cards. I would call this opacity rather than D&C. >In actuality, DungeonQuest was terribly fun. The gameplay was largely >random and required minimal, if any, strategic thought. But the games >also took ten to fifteen minutes, tops. It's a situation where you >pick what you want out of a game, and go there. For fast, entertaining play, it's hard to beat Brawl. I've played some long, drawn-out games in my time - games which make VTES look fast - but a good game of Brawl delivers much of the same kick inside a minute. Andrew

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:23:53 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >This is balanced. Why would you want to ruin permanents and encourage >fast bleed and/or vote decks? I'm not convinced that it's balanced but, leaving that aside, the reason to tilt the balance in favour of fast decks is to speed the game up. >Why would this have been fairer? Because Dave ousted two players in their prime. Tom ousted Dave after they had both run out of cards and by a narrow margin. Beating one person narrowly should not compare with beating two handsomely. >Note that there are 4 VPs and 2-1 means that a VP has been "lost" >somewhere - increasing the # of draws and timeouts is NOT a good thing. You've lost me too. The result was a draw. If withdrawal had been possible, it would not have been a draw. >No, sorry. Sabbat withdrawal honks like a big dog, and encourages >stupid play since if you can run out of cards in a losing position >before you're ousted, you survive. That's absolutely not what was >intended, nor is it appropriate. One supposes that it was what the Sabbat designers intended. Appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder. Andrew

In article <EB4F48B91F267A04.021C449D...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:23:53 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > > >This is balanced. Why would you want to ruin permanents and encourage > >fast bleed and/or vote decks? > > I'm not convinced that it's balanced but, leaving that aside, the > reason to tilt the balance in favour of fast decks is to speed the > game up. > Learning the cards and having to read the text less often will speed the game up. It's getting faster. > >Why would this have been fairer? > > Because Dave ousted two players in their prime. They weren't all that prime as they got ousted. Why should an early ousting be worth more than a later one? > Tom ousted Dave after > they had both run out of cards and by a narrow margin. What narrow margin? He was losing two pool a turn to inherent stealth bleeds while I was gaining three a turn from the Edge/Hunting Ground/Rack/Blood Dolls. > Beating one > person narrowly should not compare with beating two handsomely. > How can you possibly characterize one ousting as narrow and another as handsome? Does someone give points for artistic effect? One ousting does not compare with two (well, it does but unfavorably). One ousting plus survival does. > >Note that there are 4 VPs and 2-1 means that a VP has been "lost" > >somewhere - increasing the # of draws and timeouts is NOT a good thing. > > You've lost me too. The result was a draw. If withdrawal had been > possible, it would not have been a draw. > I believe tournaments strive for 5 or 3 player games, keeping the VP at the table an odd number. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F6D2486948B47A6E.9CC09E55...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >That's right. In other games, such as Shadowfist, such long-range >strategies are decried as "turtling" for the good reason that they >tend to make the games long and boring. This certainly seems to be an >issue with Vampire too. Vampire is intended to be a long, drawn out game, representing the centuries of planning and manipulation of a Methuselah. The little I have played of Shadowfist suggests that it was intended to go significantly faster. If you want a fast, deadly game, V:TES is not the game to play. Its entire design and strategy allow a game to be slowed down to a snail's pace, by a Methuselah who wants to, for whatever reason. I once played a game in Cardiff where 5 people were playing. First person bleeds. Person two bounces to three. Three bounces to four. Four bounces to five. Five throws down Second Tradition and blocks, and has miscellaneous other intercept (both transient and permanent) and bleed reduction to stop you. The game went slowly. -- James Coupe

I believe one of the points missing here is that the Sabbat was created as a stand-alone expansion, which was compatible with the other sets. Now when playing Sabbat only, the sabbat withdrawing rules are indeed useable, as the sabbat normally strikes fast and hard, without a lot of staying power. Now when playing all sets combined, there are more viable strategies other than speed bleed. Why would there be so many cards for bigger vampires if they would be useless with the Sabbat withdrawing rule? Other than that the Sabbat rule would also takes away something from the game in terms of tournament play.Imagine I get one VP normally, then because I need only one more to enter the finals, i would use the barrens, Fragment and dreams of the Sphinx to deplete my library, so that I would get another VP. This strikes me as too benefactory to any deck, and no skill whatsoever is needed for it. Tim Eijpe In article <8m63sk$el6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] -- PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message ... >The game is long primarily because of its multi-player, >last-man-standing format. Depth and complexity are only relevant in >so far as players tend to take a long time reading the cards. ??? Please explain more. Your meaning didn't come across... > >>In actuality, DungeonQuest was terribly fun. The gameplay was largely >>random and required minimal, if any, strategic thought. But the games >>also took ten to fifteen minutes, tops. It's a situation where you >>pick what you want out of a game, and go there. > >For fast, entertaining play, it's hard to beat Brawl. I've played >some long, drawn-out games in my time - games which make VTES look >fast - but a good game of Brawl delivers much of the same kick inside >a minute. Brawl is great fun on the lunch hour. Ultimately, though, it is only slightly more elaborate version of "Slap Jack", except you don't get to make your siblings hands numb and red... ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:55 GMT, guenh...@mindspring.com (Richard D. Zopf) wrote: >rulings and clarifications. These arguments are a bit rote, but >everyone here is happy to debate through again, in case something was >missed. Realize, though, that you are up against arguments that have >been hashed out over terabytes of open debate. That being said, >everyone hopes you'll bring something new to these discussions... >Unfortunately, not many of us provide enough good vibes to these >threads... Netrek had a FOCS in addition to its FAQ. The FOCS was the "Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions", and was used on the newsgroup and in other places to direct people to INSTEAD of hashing everything out yet one more time. All of the hash-outs were included, in a tidy little "Why can't we..."/"Because..." format, and I think we're about due for one. It certainly makes things a touch easier, in that you can ask people to please read the FOCS, and if you have an idea that isn't covered by the FOCS, then go ahead and bring it up. =) Anyone else think this would be a good idea? If there's enough interest, I'll (cringe, what am i saying?!@) volunteer to draft the first runthrough of it - and believe me, any submissions of past clever suggestions and arguments thereof would be welcome since I KNOW i won't remember them all on the first drive-by. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:51:33 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:23:53 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>This is balanced. Why would you want to ruin permanents and encourage >>fast bleed and/or vote decks? > >I'm not convinced that it's balanced but, leaving that aside, the >reason to tilt the balance in favour of fast decks is to speed the >game up. It's not necessary to speed the game up. Among experienced players, it moves PLENTY fast. Inexperienced players will have a learning curve in ANY game, more so with one this complex. Especially if you, as most new groups/players do, stop to explain and/or debate things during the game itself. >>Why would this have been fairer? > >Because Dave ousted two players in their prime. Tom ousted Dave after >they had both run out of cards and by a narrow margin. Beating one >person narrowly should not compare with beating two handsomely. So Dave nuked two weak decks, and Tom was able to oust Dave even though Dave had gained an additional 12 pool via oustings - and that 12 pool is a LOT! Letting your prey oust anyone is normally a Very Bad Thing - I routinely use Eagle's Sight in my intercept decks to save my grandprey from the "killing blow". A deck that is able to oust 2 players is usually in position, with the extra pool, to complete the sweep. To overturn that is a sign of a good deck in its own right. Also, if I read Tom's message correctly, I have to object as well - it was NOT a narrow margin, as these things go. It was a concedable position - when one player has permanent blood gain and permanent stealth bleed, and the other player does not, it is generally a horribly bad thing for the other player. Muaziz and Rebecca combined with a Hunting Ground and Blood Doll definitely qualify as "long term assets". The game is balanced this way because of the "seating position" thing. If you have four strong decks and one weak deck at the table, the person who is the predator of the weak deck has a free VP, and the person who is the PREY of the weak deck has a free ride early on. Once the weak deck is ousted, the stronger predator will run up against his new stronger prey, and things will begin to return to balance. The other two players are going to have to settle in for the longer term and wait until the two players who had an advantage have beaten each other up a bit. An early oust means nothing other than deck failure on the part of the oustee - not necessarily a guarantee of deck strength on the part of the ouster. >>Note that there are 4 VPs and 2-1 means that a VP has been "lost" >>somewhere - increasing the # of draws and timeouts is NOT a good thing. > >You've lost me too. The result was a draw. If withdrawal had been >possible, it would not have been a draw. Sorry, I abbreviated that too much. On a 4-player table, there are a total of 4 VPs to be gained. One for each of the three players ousted, and one for the last man standing. Withdrawal rules screw this up. A person who withdraws gains no VP (appropriate), but nobody else gains his VP either. This results in a net loss of one VP to the table, since as you state the results would have been 2-1. This is not important UNTIL you are in a tournament, where total number of VPs determines who reaches the finals. People running fast run-out-of-cards bleed decks become almost untouchable, as they oust two people and then leave their table, guaranteeing that nobody else at that table can surpass them. 2 VPs per round will, in most tourneys, guarantee you a seat in the finals. Timeouts do this as well, to some degree. Normal withdrawal is almost impossible to succeed with, and that is fine with everyone. Sabbat withdrawal would be very easy to manage in a deck designed for it - Deal with the Devil being an excellent card for the purpose, especially up next to a Rumors of Gehenna or Parthenon. >>No, sorry. Sabbat withdrawal honks like a big dog, and encourages >>stupid play since if you can run out of cards in a losing position >>before you're ousted, you survive. That's absolutely not what was >>intended, nor is it appropriate. > >One supposes that it was what the Sabbat designers intended. One may suppose that all he wants. The original Jyhad design, however, is what we opt to be faithful to, not the overpowered standalone expansion. =) >Appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder. Then behold the Deal with the Devil example above and keep telling me how appropriate it is that a deck can deliberately run itself out of cards to "escape" certain death, as opposed to actually having to provide for its own defense. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8m63sk$el6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom Kassel <tkassel@my- deja.com> writes >> >Why would this have been fairer? >> >> Because Dave ousted two players in their prime. > >They weren't all that prime as they got ousted. Why should an early >ousting be worth more than a later one? Certainly. Consider that if I run really fast and oust you with a Govern the Unaligned, Command the Beast (the +1) and Conditioning type combination in the first few turns, and play Pentex Loves You(tm) for some more, you haven't had a chance to build up defences. It's an easy kill. Later in the game, a Methuselah may have gained loads of pool from Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap, Consanguineous Boon, Voter Captivation or whatever. A late kill can be unthinkably difficult. I remember a very awkward game once, where Mark Baxter was my prey. I was playing Ventrue lease and loan, along with some bleed. I'd done not badly pool wise, but was jamming my hand. It became incredibly cut and thrust and I eventually managed to oust him with a 1 point Day Op. A hideously tortuous end game, where it could eventually have gone all down the pan for me. -- James Coupe

In article <DJrDKDCZ...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, [ quoted text not captured ] Ahah, an opening for another newbie's helpful suggestion. How about 1 VP for the first ousting, 1.5 for the next, 2 for the next, etc. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8m722s$5bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom Kassel <tkassel@my- deja.com> writes >Ahah, an opening for another newbie's helpful suggestion. How about 1 >VP for the first ousting, 1.5 for the next, 2 for the next, etc. :-) Hehe. I know you're not serious, but.... In this case, I hadn't ousted anyone else. Ousting your prey repeatedly makes getting the next one easier - pool gain. Also, it makes sweeps far more powerful. A 1 table sweep could not be beaten by two half-table sweeps. -- James Coupe

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:18:45 GMT, Tim Eijpe wrote: >I believe one of the points missing here is that the Sabbat was >created as a stand-alone expansion, which was compatible with the >other sets. Now when playing Sabbat only, the sabbat withdrawing rules >are indeed useable, as the sabbat normally strikes fast and hard, >without a lot of staying power. This is the first credible point I have heard so far. >Why would there be so many cards for bigger vampires if they >would be useless with the Sabbat withdrawing rule? Eh? It's the fight to the finish that punishes the bigger vampires. Card exhaustion means that you can't use their superior disciplines and titles because you have no combat or vote cards left. A weenie with a gun seems a better buy in the long run. >Other than that the Sabbat rule would also >takes away something from the game in terms of tournament play.Imagine I >get one VP normally, then because I need only one more to enter the >finals, i would use the barrens, Fragment and dreams of the Sphinx to >deplete my library, so that I would get another VP. This strikes me as >too benefactory to any deck, and no skill whatsoever is needed for it. You don't get a VP if you withdraw Sabbat-style. Andrew

In article <90A0979DCEBF8A3D.03D1CAEF...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Card exhaustion means that you can't use their superior disciplines Irrelevant if you have already used them for permanents e.g. a superior Raptor, Wolf Companion, Murder of Crows etc. >and titles Which can defend cards burnable by votes e.g. your Elysium which is providing excellent combat defence. >because you have no combat Permanents. >or vote cards left. More difficult. However, a good number of KRCs will have done damage earlier. A number of vote cards may still be in play. Your Camarilla Exemplary and Archons, for example, will be hurting people, long after the vote has passed. >A weenie >with a gun seems a better buy in the long run. They can be great, if that's the deck you want to play. -- James Coupe

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:57:54 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: >>The game is long primarily because of its multi-player, >>last-man-standing format. Depth and complexity are only relevant in >>so far as players tend to take a long time reading the cards. > >??? Please explain more. Your meaning didn't come across... Someone suggested that VTES is time-consuming because it's complex. This isn't the reason - I haven't noticed players taking an unusually long time to think through their move. What takes the time is the number of turns required to eliminate all but one player. What does seem take longer than other CCG is reading the card texts - even allowing for my unfamiliarity, they seem particularly wordy and opaque. More use of symbols instead of words for the disciplines and clans (as in Sabbat) might help. Andrew

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:55 GMT, Richard D. Zopf wrote: >The point here is that Sabbat withdrawal rules have a >deliterious effect on a wider array of deckbuilding strategies than >the original rules. I'm still not seeing this. The original withdrawal rules make a hit-and-run deck nearly impossible because you can't disengage. The Sabbat withdrawal rules don't make a long-haul deck impossible. They just reduce the opportunity to score VP and you stil1 get 1 VP for surviving. >>>That's quite contrary to the theme of the game, and it's original design. >>You seem quite happy to junk the original design when it suits you. > >Back that up with an original quote from a previous thread, pal ;-) Loose talk - I was referring to the received wisdom that the original design needs to be amended in various ways - golden tenets &c. If you don't support this revisionism then you have my apologies. Andrew

On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:19:36 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Withdrawal rules screw this up. A person who withdraws gains no VP >(appropriate), but nobody else gains his VP either. This results in a >net loss of one VP to the table, since as you state the results would >have been 2-1. This is not important UNTIL you are in a tournament, >where total number of VPs determines who reaches the finals. People >running fast run-out-of-cards bleed decks become almost untouchable, >as they oust two people and then leave their table, guaranteeing that >nobody else at that table can surpass them. 2 VPs per round will, in >most tourneys, guarantee you a seat in the finals. So it doesn't really matter whether you can withdraw or not - what matters is racking up those 2 VPs, right? Fast bleeders look like the best way to go regardless - bleeding your prey is the basic objective of the game, after all. Anyway, I still fail to see the point you're making about draws. >Then behold the Deal with the Devil example above and keep telling me >how appropriate it is that a deck can deliberately run itself out of >cards to "escape" certain death, as opposed to actually having to >provide for its own defense. My preference would be for the game to provide a means of making a fighting withdrawal - something between the automatic withdrawal of Sabbat and the impossible withdrawal of Jyhad. E.g. allow a player to declare that he is withdrawing and then for him to do so if he hasn't been bled by the start of his next turn. This would be a reasonable effect for a new Master or Vote card (assuming that one doesn't already exist). Andrew

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:19:35 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >It seems that Sabbat withdrawal encourages hit and run tactics that >don't look that interesting. Play a 60 card (or even 40 card if you >insist on the printed rulebook) all-out bleeding deck, take out two >prey quickly and run. If such a deck is effective then it's a good idea to play it anyway - if you can be sure of 2 VP, then you can't lose a 4-player game. I'm not rushing to build such a small deck though. I thought that players rarely ran out of cards but, now it turns out that cards are a resource after all, I want as many as possible. I'm a bit confused about the deck sizes though. I'm building decks of 90 cards if that's the usual tournament maximum. LSJ suggested that this should be reduced for social play if there's less than 5 players but life's too short to retune decks as players come and go. Andrew

On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:00:36 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >So it doesn't really matter whether you can withdraw or not - what >matters is racking up those 2 VPs, right? Fast bleeders look like the >best way to go regardless - bleeding your prey is the basic objective >of the game, after all. Anyway, I still fail to see the point you're >making about draws. Fast bleed decks are a good way to go, yes. The dangers in playing one are multiple, however - a deck that can bleed rapidly and take out multiple Methuselahs has usually had to sacrifice things like combat defense, and if it sits next to a combat deck, will normally die horribly with 0VP. Fast bleed decks have been known to oust the table for their prey when faced with heavy Deflection. And if you play a strong-appearing deck, you may be hit with a bunch of cross-table nastiness. So fast bleed decks don't really dominate the scene at all. Slight clarification: reducing your prey's pool is the basic objective of the game. Bleed is merely one fashion to do it, although it is surprising to see someone go through a game without bleeding occasionally. The point about draws was more that if you start arbitrarily permitting the removal of VPs from a table (by, say, Sabbat withdrawal), you hurt the other people at that table's chances at minimal cost to yourself. It was mostly another nail I was applying to Sabbat withdrawal's coffin. >My preference would be for the game to provide a means of making a >fighting withdrawal - something between the automatic withdrawal of >Sabbat and the impossible withdrawal of Jyhad. E.g. allow a player to >declare that he is withdrawing and then for him to do so if he hasn't >been bled by the start of his next turn. This would be a reasonable >effect for a new Master or Vote card (assuming that one doesn't >already exist). I think it would need to be a bit more difficult than that, as it's possible to make it very hard for your predator to bleed you. Perhaps trim down the Jyhad rules a bit (i haven't looked at that particular rule in forever, mostly because i know it won't ever fly), and see what comes out. But the Sabbat withdrawal rule is just plain silly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3FD704DF01C7A0E3.659A02CE...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >If such a deck is effective then it's a good idea to play it anyway - >if you can be sure of 2 VP, then you can't lose a 4-player game. In a tournament environment, 6VP is not a guarantee of the final. Other tables may be being swept. Also, there is no such thing as a guarantee. Bleed bounce, for example. -- James Coupe

In article <D4B6F06E68ECEC40.BAF26742...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Someone suggested that VTES is time-consuming because it's complex. >This isn't the reason - I haven't noticed players taking an unusually >long time to think through their move. You clearly have not met the right players. Saying that V:TES is not complex because the players you have met do not think is like saying that Chess isn't hard because look at Gary Kasparov. Also, a lot of thought, negotiation and planning takes place out of turn. Once your prey has finished their turn, you can start planning what to do to get passed them which will, of course, be affected by what your predator does - but your predator is unlikely to be able to give them any new defences. And an arbitrary amount of the complexity comes from deck design. -- James Coupe

In article <8809CFBDCA3E0D4D.A1D92212...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I'm still not seeing this. The original withdrawal rules make a >hit-and-run deck nearly impossible because you can't disengage. Not true. Telepathic Counter and Obedience provide a useful defence against many decks, when you get down to 7 cards. Having seven of those in hand will make it difficult to do much to you, against the right deck. If you have several of the standard forms of defence (bleed reduction, combat avoidance, vote stopping), just discard the ones that don't apply to your predator, and hold the other ones until you finish. -- James Coupe

In article <6F9B0CF2DE063C2F.B1392B4B...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >So it doesn't really matter whether you can withdraw or not - what >matters is racking up those 2 VPs, right? And if you can get a 3rd, no-one I know is going to refuse it. I've seen people plan decks around it - badly, in the case I'm particularly thinking of. Let's see, 2VPs each in 3 rounds or 3VPs in 3 rounds. Can't think which I'd prefer. -- James Coupe

In article <D4B6F06E68ECEC40.BAF26742...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:57:54 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: > > >>The game is long primarily because of its multi-player, > >>last-man-standing format. Depth and complexity are only relevant in > >>so far as players tend to take a long time reading the cards. > > > >??? Please explain more. Your meaning didn't come across... > > Someone suggested that VTES is time-consuming because it's complex. > This isn't the reason - I haven't noticed players taking an unusually > long time to think through their move. What takes the time is the > number of turns required to eliminate all but one player. I don't think Jyhad takes an inordinate number of turns to finish a game compared to other CCGs. In a tournament it's probably a rare game that goes more than twelve times around the table. That would be sixty player-turns at most. In Magic, a game where both players get 30 turns would be long but not unheard of. In Shadowfist it might be more unusual (in a 4-player game, that would be 15 turns per player), but Fist is definitely a faster-paced game than Jyhad. To me, at least, the slow progress of Jyhad games is part of the flavor of the game. And I think it's due largely to each player having typically at least three or four minions, all of whom you have to make decisions for, and who may end up playing several cards each every turn. > What does seem take longer than other CCG is reading the card texts - > even allowing for my unfamiliarity, they seem particularly wordy and > opaque. More use of symbols instead of words for the disciplines and > clans (as in Sabbat) might help. Well, in my group, people hardly ever read the card texts. Because we know most of the cards by heart... Obviously this isn't so much the case for people still learning the game, but eventually I think you'll see much less text-reading slowing you down. What slows *us* down is (no really!) people thinking about things during their turns. Some people more than others... but that tends to be true of any game. Josh hey Andrew, you gonna be playing Jyhad at GenCon? see you there, if so! (plus I'll get to play Fist competitively for the first time in years! probably get my ass kicked, too, but...) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:19:35 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: > > >It seems that Sabbat withdrawal encourages hit and run tactics that > >don't look that interesting. Play a 60 card (or even 40 card if you > >insist on the printed rulebook) all-out bleeding deck, take out two > >prey quickly and run. > > If such a deck is effective then it's a good idea to play it anyway - > if you can be sure of 2 VP, then you can't lose a 4-player game. The problem is that even this strategy wouldn't guarantee anything; it would just be predisposed to take advantage of the Sabbat withdrawal rule. This would encourage the environment to move toward faster decks. I'm not saying V:TES with Sabbat withdrawal isn't workable. I'm sure it is. But they changed the rule when Sabbat came out for no reason. The old withdrawal rule kind of sucks (in that it's virtually impossible to actually withdraw), but it's better than the alternative. Note: Yes, there have been other rules changes, but these were not implemented arbitrarily. They came after long, long discussions here on the group. It may seem to you that we've made a whole lot of changes/errata, and from your position you may not see all the reasoning behind them. But be assured that these decisions are not made lightly. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "...and I made you trust in literature." -- Everything But The Girl

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:55 GMT, Richard D. Zopf wrote: > > >The point here is that Sabbat withdrawal rules have a > >deliterious effect on a wider array of deckbuilding strategies than > >the original rules. > > I'm still not seeing this. The original withdrawal rules make a > hit-and-run deck nearly impossible because you can't disengage. The > Sabbat withdrawal rules don't make a long-haul deck impossible. They > just reduce the opportunity to score VP and you stil1 get 1 VP for > surviving. I think the intent of the original withdrawal rules was to make withdrawal very difficult to do. The Sabbat rule takes this to the other extreme (withdrawal is not only easy, but _compulsory_!). It gives an advantage to some decks, while giving other decks a disadvantage. I agree that the Sabbat rule doesn't make a build-up style deck impossible, but it does (as Richard said) have a deleterious effect on that style. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "...such righteousness in me is not a nice thing to display..." [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > More use of symbols instead of words for the disciplines and > clans (as in Sabbat) might help. > I like this idea. Why not for every time the word "action" is used, insert the <> symbol and so on. Magic does it for tapping and for mana colors... Chris > Andrew -- chris ultimate disc - V:TES - hockey v:ekn prince of torrance, ca

I believe that the Sabbat Withdrawal rules were brought into play along with cards like Raptor and Dirty Little Secrets to encourage "Millstone" type decks a la M:TG. It also was to encourage a 4th method of prey destruction (besides bleed, vote, and combat) which not coincidentally would aid the Nosferatu and Nos!, who really don't *excel* at any of the other 3 (except maybe pot combat [PDB6 et.al]). Please don't post your decks that prove that Nos(!) can be really good at those three. I think a good Ventrue vote deck played by an excellent player will always do better than a good Nos vote deck played by same excellent player, all other factors being identical (which never happens, but we're talking theory here). And the same for bleed. I think there is still room for it, but I think that it would actually help if the rule gave the withdrawer's predator a VP (but say, not the 6 pool). I don't think it will encourage faster decks, since a speed bleed deck or a speed vote deck will oust a prey or three long before the prey has run out of cards. It might actually encourage the use of more permanents, since by their very nature, a permanent does not use up as much card resource (Tasha Morgan vs Threats at minor - which uses up more card resource per action?). Of course, then a Feldon's Cane type card would have to be introduced (take your entire ash heap and reshuffle it into your library), which brings us closer to Magic - and we all know how Anathema that can be... I haven't thought this through really, so I welcome all your comments to point out the glaring holes in my logic... Chris [ quoted text not captured ] -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message <8809CFBDCA3E0D4D.A1D92212...@lp.airnews.net>... >On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:00:55 GMT, Richard D. Zopf wrote: > >>The point here is that Sabbat withdrawal rules have a >>deliterious effect on a wider array of deckbuilding strategies than >>the original rules. > >I'm still not seeing this. The original withdrawal rules make a >hit-and-run deck nearly impossible because you can't disengage. Why is disengaging so critical to a "hit and run" deck? In fact, disengaging (by Sabbat rules) only allows you to deny the VP someone would have gotten for you being ousted after running through your deck. It doesn't gain the player himself anything directly. This also allows another avenue to a king-maker strategy(oust someone, then deny another by cancelling your own VP? No thanks...) Varying the number of VP per table by such an easy means can't be good for tournament play, either. >The >Sabbat withdrawal rules don't make a long-haul deck impossible. They >just reduce the opportunity to score VP and you stil1 get 1 VP for >surviving. > 1 VP on a five player table represents 20% of all available VP. On a four player table, its 25%. Imagine reducing a player's opportunity to score that much in _any_ other game, and you can see how poor an idea it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:51:27 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: >Why is disengaging so critical to a "hit and run" deck? It's just a matter of definition. If you can't withdraw then what you have is a "hit and die" deck. This doesn't have the same appeal, AFAIC. >Varying the number of VP per table >by such an easy means can't be good for >tournament play, either. I've only played in one tournament. In the first round, three of us survived so the total score for that table was 3.5 VP. I don't see that this is a problem. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:51:27 -0700, R. David Zopf wrote: >>Why is disengaging so critical to a "hit and run" deck? >It's just a matter of definition. If you can't withdraw then what you >have is a "hit and die" deck. This doesn't have the same appeal, >AFAIC. Hit and run then, is fine, but we can't ruin a game at the concern for one person's "appeal". >>Varying the number of VP per table >>by such an easy means can't be good for >>tournament play, either. >I've only played in one tournament. In the first round, three of us >survived so the total score for that table was 3.5 VP. I don't see >that this is a problem. Timing out a table with three people is incredibly difficult to pull off, unless all three are doing so intentionally. Changing the VP structure through an easier method of withdrawal would make table VP manipulation, and by extension king-maker strategies, easier to accomplish overall... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com [ quoted text not captured ]