En Passant for V:tes

In the spirit of En Passant* and possibly speeding up the game**, I wonder how folks would feel about first turn 8 transfer then back to 4 subsequent turns. Why? well it gets the game going faster, with less time worrying about weenies etc. I know others have suggested these schemes before, has anyone tried them? Any data to share? The primary goal I have in mind is help out the larger cap vampires, get the weenies out of the limelight, a weenie deck could on turn one put into play 4 two caps, and a fatty deck could only get 1 eight cap, so perhaps you want to restrict the number of vampires you transfer to? I would love constructive feedback. *To those who don't know, Chess was sped up a few centuries ago to allow pawns to move 2 spaces off the start row and that added the ability for pawns to skip past other pawns, to fix that situation a new rule was added, called En passant, meaning when you pass the opponents pawn they can capture you on their next move. **You may say the game doesn't need speeding up, fine, your prerogative, so instead please offer your opinion on this alternate version.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi, what is the reason of this line of thinking? What are you trying to fix? If you think the game is too long - I would doubt this have a change. First few turns (two turns would be affected by this) are very fast in my environment ("Barrens, transfer 2, discard" "Nothing, transfer 3, discard" etc). If you feel need to hamper weenie decks, I dont think, this is the way to go - some weenie deck will be unaffected or better (!Malk bleed for example), as this only allows their prey to transfer out faster. Others will be simply unplayable - like weenie politics which now relies to getting out first and call Legacy of pander/crusade when there are no other votes present yet. But what would you affect the most (in negative way) are toolboxes, that relies on building setup - also when there is no reliable intercept (for example). I can imagine lot of deck being hampered by fact, that on turn 1 there is some 8cap Ahrimane;) Peter

I think there is no need to change any rule in v:tes. I play v:tes every single week and each week with a new deck. I've played big caps, mid caps and weenies. My experience tellls me, that this game is wonderfully balanced and just works fine this way. So please (LSJ) don't change any rule! PLEASE!!!

On Sep 22, 10:31 pm, Wilsoros <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know others have suggested these schemes before, has anyone tried > them? Any data to share? Oh, sure--there was a whole tournament on JOL that used the Kuta (?) Transfer rule--you get 5 transfers per turn (I don't remember what happened on the first turn, however) every turn, but it cost a transfer to move a minion to your ready region (so it cost 5 transfers and 4 pool to get out a 4 cap, or more importantly, 2 transfers and 1 pool to get out a 1 cap). This meant weenies were significantly slower to get out and big vampires were faster. IIRC, it worked fine. There was also (I think it was called) the Undo Influence format that LSJ (?) ran a few times at Gen Con or something, where you always had infinite transfers. I never saw any discussion on the results, but I'm sure it was played a few times. > The primary goal I have in mind is help out the larger cap vampires, > get the weenies out of the limelight, a weenie deck could on turn one > put into play 4 two caps, and a fatty deck could only get 1 eight cap, > so perhaps you want to restrict the number of vampires you transfer > to? I would love constructive feedback. I think the idea is certainly solid, but 8 then 4 seems wonky. I kinda like the Kuta rule better. Seems a lot more elegant, and doesn't just work on the first turn. -Peter

On Sep 23, 2:46 am, Zappo <podsv...@gmail.com> wrote: > what is the reason of this line of thinking? What are you trying to > fix? Well, as he, ya know, stated in his initial post, it would be an attempt to help balance out big vampires vs weenies. This comes up all the time. And there are plenty of existing variants that people have tried out along this line that mess with the transfer system. I don't think it would do anything to actually speed the game up (as the first 2-3 turns are the short ones; I can't remember a game where the first 2 turns took longer than 5 minutes in total). But it would certainly make big minions a little less disdvantaged relative to weenies. Any number of tweaks (i.e. what Dave suggested, or the Kuta rule of 5 transfers per turn, but it costs one to move a minion to the uncontrolled region, or infinite transfers all the time, but your transfer phase ends if you draw a new minion) accomplish the same thing. And have been floating around for years. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > There > was also (I think it was called) the Undo Influence format that LSJ > (?) ran a few times at Gen Con or something, where you always had > infinite transfers. Undue Influence. +20 transfers on your first turn only. 1hr time limit.

On Sep 23, 2:54 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Ya know, this is the internet. People show up here just for the sake of discussing ideas and variants and rules tweaks. 'Cause that is what it is for. And there is no need to react to every possible suggestion and discussion with "But the rules are fine! Don't change anything! Agh!!!!!!" 'Cause that doesn't stop people from having these discussions (as they are interesting). And it isn't like LSJ is going to read Dave's post, say "Huh! I will now change that rule!" and then read your post and say "Well, Martin makes a good point! Especially 'cause he wrote "please" in all caps *and* with 3 exclamation points! Thank goodness! Otherwise, I would have changed that rule!" -Peter

On Sep 23, 2:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> > Ya know, this is the internet. People show up here just for the sake > of discussing ideas and variants and rules tweaks. 'Cause that is what > it is for. And there is no need to react to every possible suggestion > and discussion with "But the rules are fine! Don't change anything! > Agh!!!!!!" 'Cause that doesn't stop people from having these > discussions (as they are interesting). And it isn't like LSJ is going > to read Dave's post, say "Huh! I will now change that rule!" and then > read your post and say "Well, Martin makes a good point! Especially > 'cause he wrote "please" in all caps *and* with 3 exclamation points! > Thank goodness! Otherwise, I would have changed that rule!" > > -Peter Actually your right, sorry. However I still don't get the point why the transfer rule should be changed. I've read that the reason is to balance big caps. Well, what I wanted to say is that I never experienced any inbalance. You just need to build decks useing big caps in a different way.

On Sep 23, 8:37 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually your right, sorry. However I still don't get the point why > the transfer rule should be changed. I've read that the reason is to > balance big caps. Well, what I wanted to say is that I never > experienced any inbalance. You just need to build decks useing big > caps in a different way. Oh, sure--again, people have been experimenting with transfer tweaks for years. As weenie vampires *still* have a very significant advantage over big guys, if for no other reason that you get tons of actions for the same pool (i.e. a 10 cap gets 1 action; 5x2 caps get 5 actions). Yeah, there are ways around that, but the basic dynamic disadvantages big vampires. And if they were quicker to get out (or weenies slower), that dynamic would change. I don't think anyone here is agitating to change all the rules. Just experimenting with ideas. -Peter

> As weenie vampires *still* have a very significant > advantage over big guys, if for no other reason that you get tons of > actions for the same pool (i.e. a 10 cap gets 1 action; 5x2 caps get 5 > actions). Yeah, there are ways around that, but the basic dynamic > disadvantages big vampires. And if they were quicker to get out (or > weenies slower), that dynamic would change. Yes, but don't forget all the advantages a big cap has. You cant villein for 8 a weenie, cast a vote and voter it. Weeies don't have powerfull specials like Gabrielle diRhigetthi, Lutz, Maris Streck have, just to name a few. I think the game is blanced right now. New transfer rules, that help big caps could actually make weenie decks almost unplayabel, because their advantage is speed. In all other matters they are worse (title, specials, disciplines etc.)

On Sep 23, 11:19 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, but don't forget all the advantages a big cap has. You cant > villein for 8 a weenie, cast a vote and voter it. Weeies don't have > powerfull specials like Gabrielle diRhigetthi, Lutz, Maris Streck > have, just to name a few. I think the game is blanced right now. New > transfer rules, that help big caps could actually make weenie decks > almost unplayabel, because their advantage is speed. In all other > matters they are worse (title, specials, disciplines etc.) Maybe, maybe not. Yes. Big vampires have a lot of good advantages, but if you are ousted before you have a minion in play, that doesn't do you any good. Yes. Extreme example. But illustrates the issue. I want to get out an 11 cap. You get out 3 one caps on the first turn. Assuming just stupid 1 cap computer hacking, I'm getting bled for 14 before I have a minion out. Which is a problem. Yeah, you can play crypt acceleration, but how much of your deck is spent on this? If it is a lot, you have it reliably, but a big chunk of your deck is a dead draw after the first couple turns. If you don't have a lot, you end up not drawing it when you need it. It isn't a great trade off. Weenie decks always have a very significant advantage in the early game, and if they can press that advantage, they do very well compared to huge vampires. Yeah, a lot of stuff has filtered into the game in the last few exapnsions that specifically make big vampire decks stronger and faster, but still, I can see how someone would want to experiment with adjustments to the transfer rules. -Peter

> You get out 3 one caps on the first turn. > Assuming just stupid 1 cap computer hacking, I'm getting bled for 14 > before I have a minion out. Which is a problem. > I get a small victory knowing your 0GW 3VP isn't getting you near the finals though.

I see your point. Yet I have to say, that if you take away the weenie's advantage then there would be no sense playing weenie's. The other thing is, that each type of deck has it's counterpart. Arika's one is computer hacking weenie. Computer hacking's weeinie is a mid cap wall deck with lots of wakes. Wall deck enemy is a strong combat deck. etc.

On Sep 22, 10:31 pm, Wilsoros wrote: > In the spirit of En Passant* and possibly speeding up the game**, I > wonder how folks would feel about first turn 8 transfer then back to 4 > subsequent turns. Why? well it gets the game going faster, with less > time worrying about weenies etc. I'd only want to see this if you couldn't bring any minions into play with those 8 transfers. i.e. everyone gets a turn to distribute 8 pool to minions, then transfer starts as normal on the second turn. This would allow some advantage to larger vampires while not obsoleting the midcaps. I wouldn't be in favor of players starting with 4 2-caps in play though, which would seem to be the required solution to your proposal. I bring out 4 2-caps, Misdirect or Pentex your 8 cap, then bleed you out. Repeat Misdirect or Pentex on next prey, bleed them out.

On Sep 23, 12:48 pm, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org> wrote: > I get a small victory knowing your 0GW 3VP isn't getting you near the > finals though. Yeah, not really the point. That was an extreme example as it was easy to understand. There are plenty of very good decks (see: weenie DEM for a good example) that are incredibly efficient and take full advantage of the disparity of actions between one huge minion and lots of little ones. That also make the issue apparent. -Peter

Well I'm curios how a transfer rule would change a metagame. If you can calculate with more big caps to be played, I would definitly choose a rush combat or baltimore purge deck. If almost everybody brings out bigcaps you need to kill fewer vampires.

On Sep 23, 1:19 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see your point. Yet I have to say, that if you take away the > weenie's advantage then there would be no sense playing weenie's. Yeah, see, I don't think anyone wants to nullify weenies. But making them slightly less overwhelmingly good is something that the game has been trying to do for years and years (see: stronger big minions, crypt acceleration, weenie hosing cards, etc.) And maybe at this point, the game has done enough to do that. But maybe not--I still regularly see games where someone with a big minion deck sits down in front of a speedy weenie deck and got blasted out of the water before it even started rolling. -Peter

. But maybe not--I still > regularly see games where someone with a big minion deck sits down in > front of a speedy weenie deck and got blasted out of the water before > it even started rolling. > > -Peter Well thats true. But I think I almost as often see a weenie killed by a well timed domain challange or anarchist uprising. By the way, if you want to make Big caps stronger then actually the card that should be banned is called Pentex Subversion.

On Sep 23, 5:26 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well thats true. But I think I almost as often see a weenie killed by > a well timed domain challange or anarchist uprising. Sure. But the game has to get to the point where such a card kills them. And the weenie decks tend to do well early, and if they get momentum, they keep going. Big vampire decks tend to be slow to start, but if they can get a footing, are strong. > By the way, if you want to make Big caps stronger then actually the > card that should be banned is called Pentex Subversion. Well, yes. But that is a completely different subject that has been covered many times before (and will likely be covered many times again...) -Peter

On Sep 23, 4:48 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, yeah, but then big minions are that much harder to kill. As noted, when we played a JOL tournament with the Kuta transfer rule, I don't think that games were particularly different, but the early game was a bit slower for weenies and a bit faster for bigger guys-- you could only get out a single 2 cap in one turn (2+1 transfer), but you got 9 caps out in two turns (5+4+1). Slows down weenie rush and gets bigger guys out a bit quicker. Seemed completely reasonable. I mean, I don't need to see it all the time, but it seemed to work ok. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well a way to could be to organize such a tournament as a side event for fun play. I'd love to try out my Brujah Alastor deck in such a tournamnet.

[ quoted text not captured ] One could say that your example illustrates how good Kindred Spirits is, not how good DEM weenie vampires are, since without KS they seem pretty lackluster. I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties equates to Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of disciplines+cool text, although I personally *love* the idea of the Kuta Transfer Rules[1]. [1] Kuta Transfer Rules: a. Transfers go 1...2...3...4...5...5...5... b. Moving a minion from Uncontrolled to Ready costs 1 transfer Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't use big caps very often because they indeed are slow. Even if there are crypt accelerator cards, they are much more unreliable than just influencing out 4 wheenies. Now that I've seen the Kuta Transfer Rule, I'm just amazed. If there were any rules changes for V:tES, that would be only one I would vote for. Kuta Tranfers would make fatties more playable when there are wheenies around - fatties would be more faster while wheenies slower. Beauty of KTR is, that wheenies would still be faster and fatties slower, but the evident gap between the two would be smaller.

On Sep 24, 1:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > One could say that your example illustrates how good Kindred Spirits is, > not how good DEM weenie vampires are, since without KS they seem > pretty lackluster. Man. Could everyone get caught up in the specifics of a general example a bit more? Ok. How about "there are plenty examples of decks that are: A) Very fast due to being composed of weenies and B) Capable of getting more than 1 VP and burning out see: weenie dom, weenie pre, weenie vote, weenie obf, weenie dem, weenie pot, weenie ani, etc. where the advantage and speed of beeing a lot of little guys instead of one big guy often provides a significant advantage, and usually it is because the weenie deck is considerably faster. And if they were slowed down a bit (or big vampires were sped up a bit), this advantage would be brought to a reasonable level." Does that work, such that I'm not going to be plagued by "but that deck does this and this deck does that!" shenanagins? > I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties equates to > Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of disciplines+cool text, It does. But you'll also recognize, I hope, that for years and years, this game has been bending over backwards to make big vampires more playable and weenie vampires less effective, yes? -Peter

> It does. But you'll also recognize, I hope, that for years and years, > this game has been bending over backwards to make big vampires more > playable and weenie vampires less effective, yes? > > -Peter Well, my experience in tournaments tells me that there is no significant difference between the effectivness of weenies and big caps. EC 2007 was won by Alexandra, Anneke, Anson. Many tournaments in Hungary (this is where I play ;) ) where won by big caps like Alonso Petrodon, Gabriel di Rhigetthi, Dmitra Ilyanova. And I've seen many other big caps in the finals like Saulot, Cybele, Arika and so on. Of course, if the weenie sits behind the big cap, they will very often make an easy vp. But you know each deck has its enemy. If you make the big caps stronger I think the weenies won 't have the resources anymore to make a GW. However I think it would be a great idea to have tournaments (for example as a side event) with the alternative transfer ruleing. It could be great fun. But I think it wouldn't be a great idea to change the transfer ruleing of v:tes entirely.

On Sep 24, 12:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties equates to > Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of disciplines+cool text, > although I personally *love* the idea of the Kuta Transfer Rules[1]. > > [1] Kuta Transfer Rules: > a. Transfers go 1...2...3...4...5...5...5... > b. Moving a minion from Uncontrolled to Ready costs 1 transfer > The one part that you skipped is the one part that I dislike about Kuta transfer rules: c. Drawing a vampire from your crypt costs 5 transfers and 1 pool. I feel like weenie decks are hosed pretty good by Kuta transfers already, they need to be able to decrypt, and letting them decrypt and move a vamp into play OR decrypt and transfer a pool in the same influence phase still leaves them weaker than in the standard game of VTES, as well as making a star vamp deck that doesn't get its star vamp a little bit less hosed.

Chris Berger wrote: > On Sep 24, 12:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties equates to >> Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of disciplines+cool text, >> although I personally *love* the idea of the Kuta Transfer Rules[1]. >> >> [1] Kuta Transfer Rules: >> a. Transfers go 1...2...3...4...5...5...5... >> b. Moving a minion from Uncontrolled to Ready costs 1 transfer >> > The one part that you skipped is the one part that I dislike about > Kuta transfer rules: c. Drawing a vampire from your crypt costs 5 > transfers and 1 pool. That's the standard rule: decrypting costs all your (standard) transfers and a pool. > I feel like weenie decks are hosed pretty good by Kuta transfers > already, they need to be able to decrypt, and letting them decrypt and > move a vamp into play OR decrypt and transfer a pool in the same > influence phase still leaves them weaker than in the standard game of > VTES, as well as making a star vamp deck that doesn't get its star > vamp a little bit less hosed. They can't decrypt and transfer a pool under the current rules, either.

On 24 syys, 17:39, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you make the > big caps stronger I think the weenies won 't have the resources > anymore to make a GW. You say it like it's a bad thing.

[ quoted text not captured ] There is a proverb we have, I'll try to translate it: Don't fell off the other side of the horse. However I'll do you guys a favour and I'll shut up.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> One could say that your example illustrates how good Kindred >> Spirits is, not how good DEM weenie vampires are, since without >> KS they seem pretty lackluster. > > Man. Could everyone get caught up in the specifics of a general > example a bit more? Why so touchy? Seems you agree with my assertion. :) > Ok. How about "there are plenty examples of decks that are: > > A) Very fast due to being composed of weenies > > and > > B) Capable of getting more than 1 VP and burning out > > see: weenie dom, weenie pre, weenie vote, weenie obf, weenie dem, > weenie pot, weenie ani, etc. > > where the advantage and speed of beeing a lot of little guys instead > of one big guy often provides a significant advantage, and usually > it is because the weenie deck is considerably faster. And if they > were slowed down a bit (or big vampires were sped up a bit), this > advantage would be brought to a reasonable level." > > Does that work, such that I'm not going to be plagued by "but that > deck does this and this deck does that!" shenanagins? No, it doesn't work. Perhaps you should say "see: bad decks", as every one of the decks you mentioned wouldn't be a 1VP deck if someone good was playing them. Or resign yourself to the fact that people are going to get on your case when you put up lists of uber-generic less-than-useful data points. ;) >> I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties >> equates to Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of >> disciplines+cool text, > > It does. But you'll also recognize, I hope, that for years and > years, this game has been bending over backwards to make big > vampires more playable and weenie vampires less effective, yes? Certainly, LSJ has made many cards supporting the theory that larger vampires need more help than smaller vampires do, and that is something I happen to agree with. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > No, it doesn't work. Perhaps you should say "see: bad decks", as > every one of the decks you mentioned wouldn't be a 1VP deck if > someone good was playing them. Wha? Weenie dominate? Weenie presence? Weenie vote? Weenie obfuscate? These are not "bad decks" that get 1VP. Weenie animalism is very strong (although not particularly fast). Weenie pot can do fine. I'm not quite sure where you are seeing these as "bad decks". > Certainly, LSJ has made many cards supporting the theory that > larger vampires need more help than smaller vampires do, and > that is something I happen to agree with. Fair enough. -Peter

On Sep 24, 10:06 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > On Sep 24, 12:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> I think the general idea in VTES is that weenies vs. fatties equates to > >> Speed+few disciplines+no text vs Slow+lots of disciplines+cool text, > >> although I personally *love* the idea of the Kuta Transfer Rules[1]. > > >> [1] Kuta Transfer Rules: > >> a. Transfers go 1...2...3...4...5...5...5... > >> b. Moving a minion from Uncontrolled to Ready costs 1 transfer > > > The one part that you skipped is the one part that I dislike about > > Kuta transfer rules: c. Drawing a vampire from your crypt costs 5 > > transfers and 1 pool. > > That's the standard rule: decrypting costs all your (standard) transfers and a pool. > That's not the standard rule. The standard rule is decrypting costs 4 transfers and a pool. Since Kuta Transfers increases your standard number of transfers from 4 to 5, I guess you feel it's necessary to also increase the transfers to decrypt from 4 to 5 (do you do the same with Advancing? I don't recall seeing that in the rules), but it doesn't have to be that way. > > I feel like weenie decks are hosed pretty good by Kuta transfers > > already, they need to be able to decrypt, and letting them decrypt and > > move a vamp into play OR decrypt and transfer a pool in the same > > influence phase still leaves them weaker than in the standard game of > > VTES, as well as making a star vamp deck that doesn't get its star > > vamp a little bit less hosed. > > They can't decrypt and transfer a pool under the current rules, either. Under the current rules, they can transfer 4 pool to bring out 4 vampires in the same turn (by which I mean, "Kuta transfers and the standard rules are different"). Since you're already limiting a weenie deck to, generally, a max of 2 vamps per turn into play instead of the current max of 4, forcing them to also spend longer bringing out a vamp they decrypt seems unnecessarily harsh. With regular transfers: decrypt vampire costs "all" transfers (4), then next turn it costs 1 transfer (2 for a 2 cap) to bring the vamp into play. With Kuta transfers: decrypt costs "all" transfers (5), then next turn it costs 2 transfers (3 for a 2 cap) to bring the vamp into play. I submit that since decrypting is already very expensive (IMHO, too expensive in a standard game), allowing a decrypted vamp to somewhat bypass the Kuta restriction (in essence, paying you back the 1 transfer you're going to have to spend to get him into play) is fair, and actually makes it a little more interesting.