In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
Comment Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot wrote:
> In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
>
> I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
> organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
> decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
I like it.
A perhaps novel twist (to keep the game from degenerating too badly after the
first oust): allow only 3 VPs at the six-player table.
When your prey is ousted or withdraws, 1 VP is awarded, and both you and your
prey are eliminated. The 1 VP goes to your team if your prey was ousted; it goes
to your prey's team if your prey withdraws. In the case of ousting, the six pool
reward (or whatever amount) is divided among the remaining team members as they
see fit.
Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)
If four teams are interested at the NAC or the EC or Dragon*Con or Gen*Con, I'll
be happy to officiate an unsanctioned tournament in this format for them.
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
> In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?> I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
> organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
> decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
That worked out really well with Bernie's Clan War format, actually,
that he ran way back at Gencon when Cam Edition was just an infant.
3 rounds of 6-player games with predetermined seating (where, in the
last round, you're sitting back to back with your teammate).
Of course, it caused me to oust my teammate in a really stupid move
that I will regret forever (sorry Ethan!), but other than that, I
enjoyed the format.
On Jun 27, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> > do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> > competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
>
> > I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
> > organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
> > decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
>
> I like it.
>
> A perhaps novel twist (to keep the game from degenerating too badly after the
> first oust): allow only 3 VPs at the six-player table.
I don't understand how limiting VP's helps. After you gain your first
VP, then you are preying on your ally. So if you show up with Obf/Dom
S&B or Weenie Computer Hacking then you better make sure that your
teammate is packing Deflections or you have to eliminate your own
teammate.
Or perhaps what you mean by limiting VPs to 3 is that you are only
awarded a VP for ousting a member of the opposite team, to keep
players from self-ousting (after their predator has been eliminated)
to give their team the win?
> When your prey is ousted or withdraws, 1 VP is awarded, and both you and your
> prey are eliminated. The 1 VP goes to your team if your prey was ousted; it goes
> to your prey's team if your prey withdraws. In the case of ousting, the six pool
> reward (or whatever amount) is divided among the remaining team members as they
> see fit.
Interesting.
> Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)
>
> If four teams are interested at the NAC or the EC or Dragon*Con or Gen*Con, I'll
> be happy to officiate an unsanctioned tournament in this format for them.
If I make it to Dragon Con then I would be very interested in this
format.
Comments Welcome,
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot napisa (a):
[ quoted text not captured ]
And what do you think about the following format:
http://www.veknfrance.com/site/article.php3?id_article=45
?
It requires fewer players for a team, and fewer at the single table
which would shorten the game even more. The bad side is, I guess, that
certain strategies are overpowered in such a format (let's say 2x
Tupdogs or Tupdogs+Weenie Saturday Night Special+Dragon Breath Rounds)
and some bans and restrictions should be applied.
Regards
Tomek 'Pudel' Pietkiewicz
XZealot wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> XZealot wrote:>>> In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
>>> do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
>>> competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
>>> I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
>>> organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
>>> decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?>> I like it.
>>
>> A perhaps novel twist (to keep the game from degenerating too badly after the
>> first oust): allow only 3 VPs at the six-player table.>
> I don't understand how limiting VP's helps. After you gain your first
> VP, then you are preying on your ally. So if you show up with Obf/Dom
> S&B or Weenie Computer Hacking then you better make sure that your
> teammate is packing Deflections or you have to eliminate your own
> teammate.
>
> Or perhaps what you mean by limiting VPs to 3 is that you are only
> awarded a VP for ousting a member of the opposite team, to keep
> players from self-ousting (after their predator has been eliminated)
> to give their team the win?
No. I mean limited VPs by removing the predator of a Methuselah who is ousted.
>> When your prey is ousted or withdraws, 1 VP is awarded, and both you and your
>> prey are eliminated. The 1 VP goes to your team if your prey was ousted; it goes
>> to your prey's team if your prey withdraws. In the case of ousting, the six pool
>> reward (or whatever amount) is divided among the remaining team members as they
>> see fit.>
> Interesting.
>>> Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)
... except for slitting the VP pool reward, of course.
One more thing: simultaneous ousting.
If simultaneous ousting would result in an uneven number of players ousted (more
from one team than another, after applying the above rule), then don't apply the
above rule beyond what is needed to make parity.
This will result in more than 3 VPs being awarded in the game.
Examples (A-F seated around the table in that order).
If C and D are ousted, then the rule would have B C and D removed. In this case,
only C and D are removed. Each team gets 1 VP. (The six pool for C goes to B as
usual).
If C D and E are ousted, then B-E are removed as usual. Since B was removed
without being ousted, his remaining teammate (F) gets the six pool reward. The
ACE team gets 1 VP (for D). The BDF team gets 2 VPs (for C and E).
If C D and F are ousted, then C-F are removed (B is not removed). E's 6-pool
reward goes to A. The ACE team gets 2 VPs (for D and F). The BDF team gets 1 VP.
If C-F are ousted, then B stays and gets 6 pool. Each team gets 2 VPs.
If B-F are ousted, A's team wins (4 to 2).
If A-F are ousted, it's a draw. (3 to 3).
LSJ wrote:
> If simultaneous ousting would result in an uneven number of players
> ousted (more from one team than another, after applying the above rule),
> then don't apply the above rule beyond what is needed to make parity.
>
> This will result in more than 3 VPs being awarded in the game.
>
> Examples (A-F seated around the table in that order).
>
> If C and D are ousted, then the rule would have B C and D removed. In
> this case, only C and D are removed. Each team gets 1 VP. (The six pool
> for C goes to B as usual).
>
> If C D and E are ousted, then B-E are removed as usual. Since B was
> removed without being ousted, his remaining teammate (F) gets the six
> pool reward. The ACE team gets 1 VP (for D). The BDF team gets 2 VPs
> (for C and E).
>
> If C D and F are ousted, then C-F are removed (B is not removed). E's
> 6-pool reward goes to A. The ACE team gets 2 VPs (for D and F). The BDF
> team gets 1 VP.
>
> If C-F are ousted, then B stays and gets 6 pool. Each team gets 2 VPs.
>
> If B-F are ousted, A's team wins (4 to 2).
3-2, that is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 27 Giu, 13:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> XZealot wrote:
> >>> In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> >>> do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> >>> competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
> >>> I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
> >>> organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
> >>> decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
> >> I like it.
Nice and elegantly simple twist. I'd also be happy to try it out.
> >> Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)
>
> ... except for slitting the VP pool reward, of course.
Well, I actually think there will be *a lot* of table talk in this
format,
because teammates will find that discussing a detailed common strategy
is very advantageous... don't you think?
Ciao ciao,
Emiliano
(the one in Swansea, not the one of the SIlence of Death format...:-) )
On 27 jun, 15:05, Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I actually think there will be *a lot* of table talk in this
> format,
> because teammates will find that discussing a detailed common strategy
> is very advantageous... don't you think?
Having played that kind of events (2 vs 2) in Paris and 1 here in
Antwerp, i'll tell you that Emiliano is right. More talking, instead
of less.
Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> On 27 Giu, 13:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>> On Jun 27, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>>> Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)>> ... except for slitting the VP pool reward, of course.>
> Well, I actually think there will be *a lot* of table talk in this
> format,
Not if it is forbidden. The "no table talk" sentence above is introducing a
rule; it is not merely an observation of the consequences of the other rules.
> because teammates will find that discussing a detailed common strategy
> is very advantageous... don't you think?
I'm sure bridge partners would find table talk advantageous.
On 27 jun, 16:32, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > because teammates will find that discussing a detailed common strategy
> > is very advantageous... don't you think?
>
> I'm sure bridge partners would find table talk advantageous.
oooh. Does this mean the teams can start to practice secret signs like
those bridge cheaters do?
*If I scratch my nose, like his, pull my hair exactly 3 times, I have
a deflection in hand*
:-)
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote in news:1182944677.986728.63040
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Nice. Team play 6-player should be shorter than standard 5-player,
anyways. You only need to have three ousts occur, for the win, and once
you have a one-man advantage, tables can theoretically accelerate
quickly.
Emperor-style Magic co-opted and modified the predator-prey relationship
from VTES... It might be interesting to playtest or thought-test a few
different kinds of table layouts, and see what is most interesting;
Team A, players 1,2,3
Team B, players 1,2,3
Alternating Seating A1-> B1 -> A2 -> B2 -> A3 -> B3 (standard pred-prey
applies, until the table collapses by a player... then what?)
Emperor Seating A2 -> A1* -> A3 -> B2 -> B1* -> B3 (Players A2,A3,B2,B3
have standard pred-prey relationship. A1*, B1* "Emperors" can "reach" up
to two seat positions in either table direction with D effects)
Others?
Alternate seating is the most strightforward. Some deck mods caan be
made for the team dynamic, but it will play out much like what we expect
from VTES.
Emperor Seating could have some potential to see some _really_ different
decks, particularly from the emperor seat. COuld be neat to see.
On 27 Giu, 15:32, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Emiliano Imeroni wrote:
> > On 27 Giu, 13:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> Oh, and "no table talk", since there are only two sides. :-)
> >> ... except for slitting the VP pool reward, of course.
>
> > Well, I actually think there will be *a lot* of table talk in this
> > format,
>
> Not if it is forbidden. The "no table talk" sentence above is introducing a
> rule; it is not merely an observation of the consequences of the other rules.
Oh sure, that changes everything! I was misled by the smiley and
didn't understand it was a rule :-)
> > because teammates will find that discussing a detailed common strategy
> > is very advantageous... don't you think?
>
> I'm sure bridge partners would find table talk advantageous.
Indeed.
Cheers,
Emiliano
On Jun 27, 7:05 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> > do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> > competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
>> That worked out really well with Bernie's Clan War format, actually,
> that he ran way back at Gencon when Cam Edition was just an infant.
> 3 rounds of 6-player games with predetermined seating (where, in the
> last round, you're sitting back to back with your teammate).
I've tried to evolve the format and document all I could find on the
subject here
http://wiki.vekn.org/index.php/Clan_Wars
Feel free to help me clean it up.
-------------------
Ethan Burrow - yes, I still play pre/vic
http://monger.vekn.orghttp://presence.vekn.org
pu...@o2.pl schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually from the experience of having played in more than one team
tournament I think there is quite a list of cards that need to be banned.
Roetschreck is about the first that comes to mind. It is absolutely
broken. Also Derange/Malkavian Dementia with *another* guys playing the
Golcondas is seriously broken since you don´t even have to consider
getting a 2nd MPA.
Capacity limits for the crypts should also apply, I think. I played only
2vs2 tournaments, but if a team are both packing 1-2 cap decks that is
quite broken as well (no matter if it is Tupdog, DBR, Anarch Revolt or
whatever).
I am sure there is more to think of.
Johannes
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht
news:f5u2bm$ufu$1...@news01.versatel.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
yes:
both playing Reversal of Fortune or both playing Brainwash, will mean that
one player won't get a chance to play.
Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> both playing Reversal of Fortune or both playing Brainwash, will mean that
> one player won't get a chance to play.
Brainwash only targets prey.
LSJ schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Still Brainwash is bad if one team plays it with all players. There will
be no nice guys taking it off like in most regular games.
Why 3 player teams? Why not just 2 player Teams? A game of 4 won't be
nearly as long as a 6 player game. I know Ohio and Michigan
experimented with this 4 player 2 man teams on at least one occasion.
Though it was more Ohio players VS Michigan players. With each 4
player game having 2 representatives. Still it was quite enjoyable
even if I did more contesting in that tourney than any other I've ever
been in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You lose that multi-player aspect when it's 2 against 2.
With 2 teams of 2 players each, it's simply a duel.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Alternative seating or seating next to each other? Would make a
difference...
The 2 on 2 game could go much much faster if rules are set as such.
A team can choose to bleed any player of the opposite team.
A team member can choose to block a (D) action targeting that player's
team member after his/her team member has decline to block.
A team member may rescue your team member's vampire from torpor as a
+1 stealth action. This action is considered an undirect action.
The most a team member can bleed his/her own team member is 0.
(Deflecting a bleed doesn't really work in this format, maybe?)
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't like this very much, but then again I play omni-directional
decks.
I think it should alternate A B A B A B for teams A and B.
I also think that no additional rules are needed.
You know what you are getting into, so build accordingly.
Comments Welcome,
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
In MtG Emperor format, the reach was uniformly 2, even for the Generals (the
non-Emperor players).
Besides that, if you wanted to restrict reach to 1 for the generals, your "prey"
would be "adjacent player of the opposite team" rather than the standard
pred-prey (no sense having A2's prey be her team's Emperor, I think).
A3's prey is B2. B2's prey is A3.
A3's predator is B2. B2's predator is 3.
The Emperor has no prey and no predator until one of his teammates is ousted.
For more:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/rules/emperor
On Jun 27, 10:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > In an effort to eliminate the politicking going on at the tables, what
> > do you think of a Team Format with two teams of three players
> > competing at a six person table with the teams set up before hand?
>
> > I know that six player games take a long time, but I think that teams
> > organizing themselves beforehand would create synergisms between their
> > decks. This would actually shorten the game. What you do think?
>
> I like it.
>
> A perhaps novel twist (to keep the game from degenerating too badly after the
> first oust): allow only 3 VPs at the six-player table.
>
I've always thought that in a team format the players on the same team
would share the same pool. That way both players (in 2x2) can stay in
the game right up until the end. You might need some special rules
like:
You cannot bleed your teammate
You can block actions directed at your teammate after they have
declined
Chris.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I've been thinkiing, and the one thing i dont get is: VtES is a
MULLTIPLAYER game. So now we wanna play 2 teams and reduce it to duels
again? Why not rather go with the 6 man team enviroment, but make it 3
teamed up pairs?
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:iyugi.27151$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Not if it is forbidden. The "no table talk" sentence above is introducing a rule; it is not merely an observation of the
> consequences of the other rules.
Bleh. Sounds too anal to me. Why not just let people talk, albeit (as in
the normal game) no showing anyone cards outside of where game mechanics
allow for it and all talk must be audible to all players? The team concept
is novel enough without throwing in a "no talking" rule. The charms of
unforced errors based on team members' lack of ability to communicate verbally
sounds cutesy but cutesyness isn't really that entertaining in the long run
compared the ability to just play out the tactics in a more or less "normal"
(i.e. talking-allowed) environment. I think people would ultimately appreciate
the latter more. And it also prevents snarkiness around the edges of the no-
talking rule which people would attempt to evade in spirit by making faces,
grunting, screaming, urinating on themselves**, etc. when they wished to
communicate something to their teammates.
Fred
** - Hopefully only on themselves... :-P