Contesting at the NAC 2009 and the Week of Nightmares

I contested three items during the entire Week of Nightmares and the NAC championship events. 1) The Coven (with both my predator and prey! woo hoo! won that game) 2) Nosferatu Justicar title (Alonso vs. Sheldon, Sheldon won the contest, was able to make a shady deal for 2 VPs anyway) 3) Alonso Petrodon (No choice on my part, my prey had 6 on him when I influenced him into play. My predator was Giovanni power bleed - or at least seemed to be, so my prey contested him to prevent himself from bounced bleeds. I made another shady deal for half a VP in that game. If I had influenced Servius Marius Pustula or Gabrielle di Righetti first instead it would have been a completely different game. Antón de Concepción was unable to save me by himself, and a cross table DI on a Govern, a Pentex on my predator, and an offered Eagle's Sight block kept me in the game long enough for Antón to make his appearance.) What did you contest? How did that contest affect your games?

[ quoted text not captured ] When building your deck, did you consider the higher risk of contestation for such an awesome vampire as Alonso Petrodon? If alternate contestation rules were in use, do you think the game would have been more fun for you and/or other people at the table? In the situation you describe, it seems like your prey played a powerful defensive move by denying you a vampire. Presumably he hoped you'd be ousted quickly by powerbleed and then your prey would be able to play his game. Ira

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, The Lasombra wrote: > What did you contest? Round 3 day 2 (the round I won), my Tatiana Romanov contested rulership of Houston with Lazverinus. I actually didn't realize I was contesting the title until I put her in play. > How did that contest affect your games? Not greatly, I would say. That game was lousy with contestation already as my grandprey (Corey) was contesting Smiling Jack with my grandpredator (Kelley), who was Lazverinus' controller. Then my predator, Hugh, contested Owain Evans with Kelly. Darby, my prey, was the only person at the table not contesting. When I first contested with Kelly, I talked about yielding the title in exchange for a mutual kill prey deal (he would vote for me to kill Darby and I would not try to prop up Hugh and deal a little damage to him). It became apparent to me that Kelly wasn't interested and Lazverinus' votes would probably turn hostile, so I kept up the contest. Kelly eventually dropped it to save blood after Darby was ousted and I had absolute vote lock. Owain and Smiling Jack were contested to the death. Since Lazverinus' votes would probably have been hostile to me, the fact that my two votes and his two votes were out of play was basically a wash. The contest only went like 3-4 turns and neither vampire got low enough on blood for it to be a big deal. Matt Morgan

On Oct 5, 2:51 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What did you contest? 2 Vampires in 1 game, 1 Master in another and 1 title in a third. All in the NAC tournaments. I seem to recall contesting the Ivory Bow at some point too, though I can't remember the details so it was clearly unimportant. I had planned to intentionally contest the Anarch Troublemaker in one NAC game, but it was used before I could get mine into play and I didn't want to contest with the player in its new home. Likewise with Pentex on another NAC occasion - burned before the contest could occur. I also intentionally avoided contesting minions/titles on a few other occasions, but I don't think chosing a different minion to influence was troublesome (not wheel vampires). > How did that contest affect your games? On Day 1, round 1, I contested Igo the Hungry and Gideon Fontaine with my predator. It deprived him of a 2nd turn Prince (Igo) and minions he needed to be able to apply pressure on me and/or defend, to my significant advantage. He ended up yielding both after a couple of turns. On Day 1, round 3, I contested Pentex Subversion with my preyI missed my prey (Reuben) by 1 pool, courtesy of his Veil of Darkness canceling a card and I died 1 turn later (having loaded up the bleed cannon for another attempt if I survived). Not really a huge factor - I wanted the Pentex in play for the lunge before the contest occurred anyway, so it didn't even cost me any extra pool in my contestation. On Day 2, round 1, I contested my only prince title (Cairo) with my grandprey/grandpredator (Reuben again) - with 3 Parity Shifts and 2 Voter Caps in hand. I can't say it killed me outright, as Nergal only bled my for 19 of my 22 pool in the subsequent turn, but having that title would certainly have changed how my last turn played. It's likely that I would have gained between 7 and 17 pool - 7 on my own and 0-10 more if Reuben chose to throw some of his 2 shifts on me to prevent the Nergal oust and possibly kill that player. Only he knows how he would have played, but certainly Shifting at least some of the 1st 5 points to me would have enabled use of that remaining Shift, so it seems very possible. As to Ira's question - it's good that vampires like Arika and equipment like the Ivory Bow can be contested. High-power cards should include some additional inherent risk.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: >When building your deck, did you consider the higher risk of >contestation for such an awesome vampire as Alonso Petrodon? No. Contesting is not a deck building consideration. I didn't bring Gabrielle into play first because Ferenc (my prey) had almost won the tournament the night before with her and I thought he might be playing with her again. > If alternate contestation rules were in use, do you think the game would >have been more fun for you and/or other people at the table? Yes. There wouldn't have been three players stomping on Selen to keep me in the game, so she could have played a more normal game, and likely would have ousted me. >In the situation you describe, it seems like your prey played a powerful >defensive move by denying you a vampire. Yes, it won him the game, as he had no predator. >Presumably he hoped you'd be ousted quickly by powerbleed and >then your prey would be able to play his game. I was only able to pay for the contest for 1 turn. He got the vampire almost immediately. I had 1 pool when Anton came into play. (Starting crypt: 10 cap, 10 cap, 10 cap, 9 cap - all unique)

On Oct 5, 5:57 pm, Darby Keeney <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > As to Ira's question - it's good that vampires like Arika and > equipment like the Ivory Bow can be contested. High-power cards > should include some additional inherent risk. Just as a clarifying aside, no one has ever advocated for removing contestation. Or messing with contestation of anything other than minions. Even with any of the various tweaks to contestation presented as ideas, higher power cards would still include additional inherent risk. Assuming there was a tweak to contestation like the simple: "If a minion you control is contested, during your untap phase, you may either pay 1 pool to keep contesting the minion, or remove the minion from the game and move all blood from that minion to your pool." (which is a simple, non definitive version), there would still be a great deal to lose by having Arika contested. You just generally wouldn't be completely killed as a result. -Peter

Did anyone play or contest House of Sorrow during the tournament? That sucks to have so much contestation. Brandon

> What did you contest? Almost contested Sheldon crosstable > How did that contest affect your games? Totally wrecked one game. I flipped Sheldon up. My crosstable "ally" who had 7 pool on a vampire about started to cry because he was going for Sheldon too. My Sheldon then got Pentexed. It was a four person table. It was turn 7 before I got to my first Villein and took it all off my vampire so my crosstable could contest then I reliquished, but the game was pretty much over by then. Needless to say neither I nor the crosstable "ally" who I was playing with didn't win the game.

On Oct 6, 9:22 am, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Did anyone play or contest House of Sorrow during the tournament? That > sucks to have so much contestation. I saw it in play both on Day 1 and in the First Chance Q, neither time with any contestation. Never saw it the rest of the week. As far as contesting goes, I saw an accidental vampire contestation - person flipped up a vampire his predator had just influenced out, and went 'oops, I thought that was a different one for you'. The game didn't go well for him. Aside from that, I contested the Heart of Nizchetus with my predator to slow his cycling in one game, and contested the Ivory Bow with my prey in another - the Bow was specifically in my deck to not let anyone else have it, so I was happy to contest with him and get it when I finished ousting him. Saw Mr. Winthrop get contested unintentionally in another game, which didn't seem to make much of a difference as both players had other forms of intercept handy. > Brandon -John Flournoy

On Oct 5, 3:51 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What did you contest? > How did that contest affect your games? In addition to hearing about people's contesting experiences at the 2009 NAC, I'm particularly interested in how it compares to last year's NAC and the year before. And 5 years before. I've been observing the various contestation threads for a while now. And I just managed to figure out how to search the older archives from the group (hate what Google did to the Search functionality). The thing that constantly puzzles me is why contestation has suddenly become such a big issue *now*. With every set, crypt contestation becomes less and less likely (because more vampires are printed and new groups are introduced). If the contestation rules were to be changed, I would have expected a large movement 5 or 10 years ago when it was a bigger deal. So why *now*? During the 2009 NAC, there were talks about contesting Sheldon, Petrodon, and Gabrielle. But at least you had three options for choosing Nosferatu Justicar (Sheldon, Cock Robin, Petrodon) or Tremere Justicar (Ulugh Beg, Zagreb, and Gabrielle). Before November 2008, you only had two options. And before August 2002, you only had one option. So why is there more complaining and dissatisfaction now, when it should have been such a larger issue before? I am especially puzzled about the apparent sea change against the current contestation rules, especially by people who previously supported them. 3 years ago, XZealot said: "With every new edition, contesting gets rarer and rarer. It is less of a problem than it has ever been. So yes two Gilber Duane decks or two Tariq decks may show up. That's part of the game, you have to be able to play around it. Contesting a vampire is certainly a better option than the no option of getting your vampire nuked with PTOish cards, Amaranthed, etc... At least, when you contest a vampire you can still keep the option of trying to keep the vampire. Unique vampires are good for the game." So back then, it was part of the game and something you'd have to play around. But now Norm has been launching a crusade against the current rules. What changed? Similarly, LSJ's previous mode of thought was: "The point is that building a star vampire deck gets certain benefits (usually found on the star vampire's card text and Discipline spread), at the price of certain risks. Players who do not like the way the probabilities work in such situations (frequent gain balanced out by infrequent disaster) should be advised to build decks more suited to their risk tolerance." and "Why bother with tinkering with the contesting rules when the tiny problem it raises (when measured against the ocean you describe) can already be addressed by the player's own deck building choices? Of course, if anyone has ideas for rules modifications that would help reduce the impact of the other things (the stupid, not-your-own-fault things that can happen in a game to kill your deck), I'd be interested to read them. But the vagaries of seating order seem sort of inherent to the game's pred-prey mechanism, which is itself a cornerstone of the game." More recently this issue was briefly brought up in a discussion between Bill Ricardi, LSJ, and wumpus, but I don't think it got as much attention as it deserved. James Coupe has been consistently objective over the years, and his recent comments on Richard Garfield's design notes were particularly insightful. Even back in 2006, James was advocating the importance of "Intelligent back-up" so that a star vampire deck could still have options even if it didn't get its star vampire: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/e03a36f377649b7c/bb0c6b26556389f9?q=contesting+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&lnk=ol& Another interesting older thread is: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/a218ef1746e6251c/7b77f4c886de21b2?q=contesting+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad#7b77f4c886de21b2 Where Brian Moritz gets feedback on ways to avoid contesting Gratiano, the star vampire in his Pander deck. And people provided plenty of constructive feedback on how to minimize the problem (rather than railing against the actual contestation rules). In years past, contestation was regarded as a relatively minor issue. Why is it suddenly such a big issue now? Not trying to be snide but the only thing I can think of is that in years past, people were so used to contesting that it wasn't considered out of the ordinary. With contestation becoming less and less likely, people become somewhat "spoiled" but not having to contest, so that when they actually do they perceive it as a bigger issue. Kind of like how in pre-industrial societies, death was a natural part of the lifecycle but in modern societies, death has now become abnormal rather than normal. I'm guessing this is what Peter Bakija was alluding to in his comment about how contesting used to be "less of a random misery phase and more of a reliable function of the game." But I still find it ironic that contesting has apparently become a bigger issue precisely because it has become less and less likely.

On Oct 5, 4:13 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Round 3 day 2 (the round I won), my Tatiana Romanov contested rulership of > Houston with Lazverinus. I actually didn't realize I was contesting the > title until I put her in play. > > When I first contested with Kelly, I talked about yielding the title in > exchange for a mutual kill prey deal (he would vote for me to kill Darby > and I would not try to prop up Hugh and deal a little damage to him). It > became apparent to me that Kelly wasn't interested and Lazverinus' votes > would probably turn hostile, so I kept up the contest. Kelly eventually > dropped it to save blood after Darby was ousted and I had absolute vote > lock. Owain and Smiling Jack were contested to the death. > > Since Lazverinus' votes would probably have been hostile to me, the fact > that my two votes and his two votes were out of play was basically a wash. > The contest only went like 3-4 turns and neither vampire got low enough on > blood for it to be a big deal. Hey, we could always bring back the original Prince/Archbishop rules which allowed them to both keep their titles but allowed them to attack each other instead. Though I suppose Tatiana Romanov probably wouldn't like the thought of Lazverinus having an innate rush against her.... :-P

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > So back then, it was part of the game and something you'd have to play > around. But now Norm has been launching a crusade against the current > rules. What changed? For me: the revelation that the undo influence rule was created to address the problem of contesting (or rather: of losing the uniquness lottery).

On 6 loka, 20:40, echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > star vampire Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a given game, regardless of good, bad, or any kind of play on behalf of players. Also note that the issue is not about star vampires, intentional contesting or playing popular vampires.

On Oct 6, 1:40 pm, echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > In years past, contestation was regarded as a relatively minor issue. > Why is it suddenly such a big issue now? Well, in most of those threads, the issue hasn't been about actually contesting, and it's certainly not been about star vampires. It's about the random screw-over that happens when, with no cause to be suspicious that it might, the vampire you just happen to be *about* to bring out, pops out somewhere else on the table. That's only, really, a problem when it's a big vampire, but it leaves you with two choices, most of the time: 1) roll over, start transferring to someone else, and watch your now- two-turns-and-8-pool-behind game evaporate into a big pile of "you lose", or 2) bring the vamp out anyway, contest, and drag the other guy down with you, since you're both out 9+ pool and 3+ turns. A star vampire deck really only has the second option, and is still screwed under any of the proposed changes to how contesting unique crypt cards might work - and that's all well and good, because, as stated, that's part of what a star vampire deck is. Why now? Here's my theory: A lot of work has gone in, in recent years, to making bigger vampires more playable, more usable. The contestation-lottery-hosing has thus become more pronounced and more evident, and it's also much, much more bolt-out-of-the-blue random. Midcaps and weenies aren't hit by it, really. So it's not really doing anything other than hosing over big- cap vampires, which is exactly what the design team seems to be trying to reverse the trend toward. - D.J.

On Oct 5, 3:51 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 3) Alonso Petrodon (No choice on my part, my prey had 6 on him when I > influenced him into play. My predator was Giovanni power bleed - or > at least seemed to be, so my prey contested him to prevent himself > from bounced bleeds. I made another shady deal for half a VP in that > game. If I had influenced Servius Marius Pustula or Gabrielle di > Righetti first instead it would have been a completely different > game. Antón de Concepción was unable to save me by himself, and a > cross table DI on a Govern, a Pentex on my predator, and an offered > Eagle's Sight block kept me in the game long enough for Antón to make > his appearance.) On Oct 6, 9:37 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Totally wrecked one game. I flipped Sheldon up. My crosstable "ally" > who had 7 pool on a vampire about started to cry because he was going > for Sheldon too. My Sheldon then got Pentexed. It was a four person > table. It was turn 7 before I got to my first Villein and took it all > off my vampire so my crosstable could contest then I reliquished, but > the game was pretty much over by then. Needless to say neither I nor > the crosstable "ally" who I was playing with didn't win the game. Here's a question for Jeff and Norm: Did you ever consider announcing your plans to transfer out Petrodon/ Sheldon before actually putting him directly into play? It seems like many people treat crypt contestation like a game of chicken - who's willing to contest and who's willing to back down. Oftentimes, the onus appears to fall on the second player who "chooses" to contest. (For those familiar with law, it's somewhat reminiscent of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine often used in tort liability for train/car/horse accidents). Have people thought about making clear their intentions at an earlier point? Thinking about years and years worth of games, I can only recall a few occasions where people have actually bothered to do so when in fact it would be beneficial to do so far more often. In Jeff's case, the choice of Petrodon is arbitrary (i.e. any of his vampires can do). So before deciding which vampire to place his first transfers on, he can announce "I'm going to be transferring to a vampire with inferior Fortitude, inferior Thaumaturgy, and +1 bleed. Anyone have problems with that?" AFAIK, Petrodon is the only vampire who meets those three criteria. (And you don't necessary have to state which of those disciplines you're actually using). In Norm's case, once Sheldon had 5 counters and he's about to put the final 4 on, he could have asked "I'm about to bring out Sheldon unless someone has any objections." In this case there would still be a conflict, but they could have avoided a lot of the heartache by dealing with the problem before it actually came up. Even if Norm was willing to then transfer to a different vampire, this would have saved him an additional turn of transfers. So instead of getting frustrated at the second person who brings a unique vampire into play, why isn't the first person doing more to avoid such a situation? If anything, I think it would be especially prudent to do so when you're about to bring out any 9+ vampire into play. Thoughts?

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Have people thought about making clear their intentions at an earlier > point? Thinking about years and years worth of games, I can only > recall a few occasions where people have actually bothered to do so > when in fact it would be beneficial to do so far more often. > Thoughts? I can't even get people to announce cards played as required by the rules. Getting them to announce cards not yet played just in case a vanishingly remote possibility has occurred is not ever going to happen. And it still won't help you if someone else decides to encourage your investment only to then bring out the vampire anyhow (expecting that, since you asked, you're adverse to actually making the contest happen).

On Oct 6, 12:51 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Well, in most of those threads, the issue hasn't been about actually > contesting, and it's certainly not been about star vampires. It's > about the random screw-over that happens when, with no cause to be > suspicious that it might, the vampire you just happen to be *about* to > bring out, pops out somewhere else on the table. That's only, really, > a problem when it's a big vampire, but it leaves you with two choices, > most of the time: > 1) roll over, start transferring to someone else, and watch your now- > two-turns-and-8-pool-behind game evaporate into a big pile of "you > lose", or > 2) bring the vamp out anyway, contest, and drag the other guy down > with you, since you're both out 9+ pool and 3+ turns. > > A star vampire deck really only has the second option, and is still > screwed under any of the proposed changes to how contesting unique > crypt cards might work - and that's all well and good, because, as > stated, that's part of what a star vampire deck is. But the thing is, much of this is quite avoidable if people actually bothered to communicate. What most people do: My turn, I put four transfers and bring out Violette Prentiss. Afterwards either A.) Oops! I didn't realize that my cross-table ally built his deck around Violette and now it's too late to do anything about it, or B.) Oops! I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that Violette Prentiss is already in play, leading to an accidental contest. What you could do: My turn. Tell people, "I'm about to put four transfers on Violette Prentiss and bring her out." People can remind you that she's already in play or that they really need her instead. Then you can proceed to bring her out or bring a different vampire (i.e. Mariana Gilbert) out instead. What most people do: Recklessly bring out a large capacity vampire without looking around or talking to other players. Leads to problems when someone else is also trying to get that same vampire, but the problem only becomes an issue once the vampire actually hits play. Option 1: Alluded to in the Sheldon case. Simply announce who you're going to bring out right before making the final four transfers. Quite a minimal change. You don't give away any sensitive info (you're about to bring him into play anyway). And if there is a problem, you can talk about it before making an irrevocable decision (and saving you 4 transfers if you do change your mind). Option 2: Alluded to in the Petrodon case. You do reveal a bit more information about which vampire you're trying to get, but then you largely avoid the contestation problem (except in cases where someone strategically wants to contest with you, which is rather cornercase).

Hello, I think I contested Owain on Day 2, Dreams on Day 2, Day 1 and earlier in the week, Pentex on 2-3 occasions, Powerbase Montreal once or twice and nearly bowl and ivory bow. I deliberately didn't contest Owain with Kelly for as long as possible on Day 2 in the game Matt described above but felt I had little choice when my third minion went down and the two guys I had up only had 'for'. It probably kept me in the game longer and if my grand predator had managed to do a bit more in that game forwards I might have lived till time or even got to do more forwards. The other contests were likewise all deliberate choices apart from accidently Pealmeister contesting Heart of Cheating with me in a friendly. So I don't feel i'm in a comfortable place to think much about the proposed changes to minion contestation as I spent a week with it not happening to me.

On Oct 6, 12:49 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Okay. That seems like a valid point and one I can definitely appreciate and understand. Going off on a slight tangent: It has been quite some time since anyone last interviewed Richard Garfield about VTES. (Last I knew was when Goudie did an interview in 2001: http://www.vtesinla.org/articleGarfield.htm ). Maybe it would be interesting to re-interview him again some time. In particular, bring up some of the changes in the game. Describe some of the current challenges which weren't initially anticipated when the game was first designed and get his thoughts. Obviously he's far enough from the game now that nothing would be binding. Not to take away any of the limelight from LSJ (who has done a phenomenal job) but I think it would be insightful. He could shed light on some new information (like the recently discovered tidbit) or provide a fresh perspective. Plus consulting with the original designer could be a useful tactic to convince entrenched old-timers of new changes "Well if Richard Garfield says that was what the original intention was, maybe I should rethink this...." Maybe we should start keeping a list of issues that we could ask him one day.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > What most people do: Recklessly bring out a large capacity vampire > without looking around or talking to other players. Leads to problems > when someone else is also trying to get that same vampire, but the > problem only becomes an issue once the vampire actually hits play. I also recklessly pour my morning coffee without announcing that I'm doing it and asking if any of my co-workers have dropped a fingernail or a contact lens or anything into the pot. This isn't in fact reckless at all, given the odds.

On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Have people thought about making clear their intentions at an earlier > > point? Thinking about years and years worth of games, I can only > > recall a few occasions where people have actually bothered to do so > > when in fact it would be beneficial to do so far more often. > > Thoughts? > > I can't even get people to announce cards played as required by the rules. > Getting them to announce cards not yet played just in case a vanishingly remote > possibility has occurred is not ever going to happen. This might be true with casual or new players. But when it comes to high profile tournaments with experienced players, they should really know better. If anything, it is the experienced players who have the most at stake and have the most to gain by changing their announcement behavior. I don't want to get all philosophical, but this definitely has some allusions to policy issues. When people don't read instructions or follow directions should we focus on greater enforcement and adherence, or try to minimize the problems when people do stupid things. Is it enough to put up stop signs and traffic lights. Or should we completely change the traffic and road system because some idiots are still going to try and run a red light. I guess my main concern is that the contestation rule is just a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. Yes, it can exacerbate the situation when things go wrong, but there are better solutions that can prevent things from going wrong in the first place (i.e. communication). For example, some of the other examples have involved accidental contestation. People simply aren't paying attention (i.e. not looking across the table to see that vampire is already in play). The problem isn't with the rules as much as player behavior. And what can you do? Force people to be more attentive? In the case that you described, if people simply aren't playing by the rules (i.e. not making proper announcements) that's a completely different problem with a different root cause. Similar issues exist with library cards and talking about things beforehand can be quite beneficial. But at least people do tend to talk about library cards more often (though it's still far from perfect). The classic example is DI. Many times, it's kind of like "Well you should have talked about what you were going to play instead of immediately playing it and forcing me to DI your card." I guess I'd say that if you're really having personal problems with contestation (and it's really ruined your game), you should at least first try changing your own behavior before expecting the entire system and rules to change for you. Even though announcing what vampire you're bringing out is not required, the benefits may very well outweigh the negatives. And it's such an easy change that I'm surprised people don't at least give it a try before advocating a large, systemic disruption in the established rules. > And it still won't help you if someone else decides to encourage your investment > only to then bring out the vampire anyhow (expecting that, since you asked, > you're adverse to actually making the contest happen). That's a fair point. But then that person loses their credibility. And if he ends up having later problems with contestation, that's his problem. And as previously mentioned and referenced, most of the time both players lose out by contesting minions. Sidebar: All this talk about contestation has made me nostalgic about old school Betrayer decks. Now those were the days... ;-)

I'm interested in a case study with the proposed solution. I was just talking to Bob on #vtes, so I hope I have the details right. Someone please correct me if I don't. Norm->Michael->Bob->Ferenc Norm goes first and gets Sheldon on turn 3. Bob has 7 on Sheldon. What happened is Sheldon got Pentexed and could do nothing and Bob had to spend two more turns getting Selma out. Basically these guys couldn't do anything because they were crippled in the early game and lost. They lost the "contestation lottery." So if I'm not mistaken, the proposed change is that when contesting, one can choose to pay a pool during untap as normal or one can remove the (crypt) card from the game to gain the pool back from that card. Would this help Norm and Bob? Bob could contest Sheldon on turn 3, which would make Norm pay an extra pool and miss a turn (which was missed anyway due to Pentex), then Bob could get his 9 pool back on his turn, but now he's not getting Selma until turn 6. Ouch. I'd say the game is still lost. It's not going to make much difference. Or Bob could get Selma on turn 5, contest Sheldon later to get the pool back, but he's still behind due to not having gotten his important vampire on turn 3. Getting into the game on turn 5-6 is pretty much a death sentence. For my money, the problem isn't contestation and the fact that you might wind up in a situation like what Bob and Norm had. The problem is that high cap vampires are inherently weak in vtes. You invest around 1/3 of your pool in a vampire that could become contested, get Pentexed right away (and you won't have another vampire to try to remove it for a couple turns) or you could get Disarmed by Koko and diablerized by Smudge right away. If Norm and Bob had contested Duck, they would've been fine. Or look at it like this: Norm gets Sheldon out. Somebody Pentexes him before he gets an action off. Nobody contests Sheldon. Nobody can/will remove the Pentex right away. Norm is still probably just as hosed as he would be in any of the above scenarios. I guess it wouldn't be hard to come up with scenarios where the rule change does save somebody's game, but I really think in general that if you spend 3 turns putting pool on a vampire and then wind up not being able to get that vampire, you're going to lose, even if you can get the pool back. Matt Morgan --

On Oct 6, 2:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] But is that true for everyone's metawork? I mean, we all have different local scenes. What if, in Eric's experience, people do that sort of thing all the time? :-) (Sorry, couldn't resist - the phrase "metawork" popped into my head and wouldn't go away.) - D.J.

On 6 loka, 22:14, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I guess it wouldn't be hard to come up with scenarios where the rule > change does save somebody's game, but I really think in general that if > you spend 3 turns putting pool on a vampire and then wind up not being > able to get that vampire, you're going to lose, even if you can get the > pool back. > > Matt Morgan > > -- What if you get to move the pool to another minion in your uncontrolled region?

On Oct 6, 3:14 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Would this help Norm and Bob? Bob could contest Sheldon on turn 3, which > would make Norm pay an extra pool and miss a turn (which was missed anyway > due to Pentex), then Bob could get his 9 pool back on his turn, but now > he's not getting Selma until turn 6. Ouch. I'd say the game is still > lost. It's not going to make much difference. > > Or Bob could get Selma on turn 5, contest Sheldon later to get the pool > back, but he's still behind due to not having gotten his important vampire > on turn 3. Getting into the game on turn 5-6 is pretty much a death > sentence. Or Bob could contest Sheldon on turn 3, Norm could yield Sheldon and get his 9 pool back on turn 4 since, with the Pentex, Sheldon's not there anyhow, and Norm could be back to or nearly back to 30 pool, and be a couple turns behind. Death sentence for Norm? Maybe, but so was the Pentex on its own - this way there's a fighting chance for him, with that extra pool buffer. - D.J.

echia...@yahoo.com writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Nuh-uh. If I announce: "I'm going to bring out Alonso Petrodon as my first vampire," that's a license for my predator to bring out those dominate weenies, instead of his fattie star vampire, and bleed me for gazillion. Because he'll know how many turns it takes for me to get my defenses up, since I was stupid enough to announce it. Also, my prey knows I'm bringing up Alonso, so he'll influence up the best possible counter he has in his opening crypt. HG

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: > What if you get to move the pool to another minion in your > uncontrolled region? That would help sometimes. If your crypt draw is Sheldon, Selma, Murat and Duck, you're probably okay. If your crypt draw is Sheldon, Duck, Koko and Regilio and you have 7 on Sheldon, it's not so good. It also doesn't address the core problem, which is that large vampires are inherently weak. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] Come on, just spit it out. ;) You're suggesting some variation of more transfers but only on a single crypt card per turn, right? Or is there some other way to fix the contesting problem and the overall weakness of large vampires at the same time?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, D.J. wrote: > Or Bob could contest Sheldon on turn 3, Norm could yield Sheldon and > get his 9 pool back on turn 4 since, with the Pentex, Sheldon's not > there anyhow, and Norm could be back to or nearly back to 30 pool, and > be a couple turns behind. Death sentence for Norm? Maybe, but so was > the Pentex on its own - this way there's a fighting chance for him, > with that extra pool buffer. No, Sheldon isn't Pentexed yet at the point when Bob has to decide whether or not to contest. However, if Bob does contest, that would give Sheldon a Pentex-free turn as he'd come back on Norm's untap phase and there'd be no opportunity to Pentex him before he could act. For whatever that's worth. The Pentex is especially bad for Norm because normally in a 4 player game, you would have an ally who would want the Pentex removed. In this case, Norm's ally wasn't able to help due to having 7 pool on Sheldon. But the fact that Norm was probably hosed with or without contestation because he invested 9 pool in a useless (Pentexed) vampire cuts to the heart of my point. The problem isn't contestation. The problem is that large vampires are flawed. Replace Sheldon with Duck and do you have the same sad story? So basically I don't want the rule changed because I don't believe it actually fixes the problem. Matt Morgan

On Oct 6, 3:31 pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > echiang...@yahoo.com writes: > > Have people thought about making clear their intentions at an earlier > > point? Thinking about years and years worth of games, I can only > > recall a few occasions where people have actually bothered to do so > > when in fact it would be beneficial to do so far more often. > > Nuh-uh. > > If I announce: "I'm going to bring out Alonso Petrodon as my first vampire," > that's a license for my predator to bring out those dominate weenies, instead > of his fattie star vampire, and bleed me for gazillion. Because he'll know > how many turns it takes for me to get my defenses up, since I was stupid > enough to announce it. Also, my prey knows I'm bringing up Alonso, so he'll > influence up the best possible counter he has in his opening crypt. > > HG This. Voluntarily disclosing non-mandatory information = sacrificing a competitive advantage; generally poor game play... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > I'm interested in a case study with the proposed solution. I was just > talking to Bob on #vtes, so I hope I have the details right. Someone > please correct me if I don't. > > Norm->Michael->Bob->Ferenc > > Norm goes first and gets Sheldon on turn 3. Bob has 7 on Sheldon. What > happened is Sheldon got Pentexed and could do nothing and Bob had to > spend two more turns getting Selma out. Basically these guys couldn't > do anything because they were crippled in the early game and lost. They > lost the "contestation lottery." > > So if I'm not mistaken, the proposed change is that when contesting, one > can choose to pay a pool during untap as normal or one can remove the > (crypt) card from the game to gain the pool back from that card. The proposed solution is: When yielding, you distribute all of the blood on the vampire among your uncontrolled vampires and/or your pool. > Would this help Norm and Bob? Bob could contest Sheldon on turn 3, > which would make Norm pay an extra pool and miss a turn (which was > missed anyway due to Pentex), then Bob could get his 9 pool back on his > turn, but now he's not getting Selma until turn 6. Ouch. I'd say the > game is still lost. It's not going to make much difference. Bob contests Sheldon. Norm doesn't pay any extra pool, but instead moves the pool from the yielded Sheldon to his another vampire(s) (bringing one out). Bob has Sheldon ready to go on his next untap.

On Oct 6, 10:40 am, echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 3:51 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What did you contest? > > How did that contest affect your games? > > In addition to hearing about people's contesting experiences at the > 2009 NAC, I'm particularly interested in how it compares to last > year's NAC and the year before. And 5 years before. > > I've been observing the various contestation threads for a while now. > And I just managed to figure out how to search the older archives from > the group (hate what Google did to the Search functionality). > > The thing that constantly puzzles me is why contestation has suddenly > become such a big issue *now*. With every set, crypt contestation > becomes less and less likely (because more vampires are printed and > new groups are introduced). If the contestation rules were to be > changed, I would have expected a large movement 5 or 10 years ago when > it was a bigger deal. So why *now*? Jeff raised the issue since the NAC is one of the handful of high profile VTES tournaments which occur each year, so it is a great test case. Unlike many local events where people often try to prove points by winning with conventionally weaker clans or forcing a specific strategy, people play with good cards at the continental championships. The likelihood of contestation at such an event is higher than you would otherwise expect at a garden variety tournament. Three Parity Shift decks made the finals. That single card really focuses the attention on some 80-ish vampires who have Prince or Justicar titles. Cut out about half of those again because they lack DOM/FOR/OBF/PRE or are just plain bad and you've got a pretty tight group from which to select. > In years past, contestation was regarded as a relatively minor issue. > Why is it suddenly such a big issue now? > > Not trying to be snide but the only thing I can think of is that in > years past, people were so used to contesting that it wasn't > considered out of the ordinary. With contestation becoming less and > less likely, people become somewhat "spoiled" but not having to > contest, so that when they actually do they perceive it as a bigger > issue. Kind of like how in pre-industrial societies, death was a > natural part of the lifecycle but in modern societies, death has now > become abnormal rather than normal. I'm guessing this is what Peter > Bakija was alluding to in his comment about how contesting used to be > "less of a random misery phase and more of a reliable function of the > game." But I still find it ironic that contesting has apparently > become a bigger issue precisely because it has become less and less > likely. I also think that since LSJ and the design team have been working hard to make large-cap vampires more playable, amazingly, people are playing them more often! And the new ones are generally better than the old ones so that focuses the field yet again. Contestation may just be flavor of the month, but there are always those who are going to come up with ideas on how to improve the game we all love so dearly. But I think it really is one of the more important problems remaining in VTES. PTO, seat-changers, and Edge Explosion were banned. Weenies got hosed with Scourge of the Enochians. It's just the next thing that might need fixing and it's good to debate even if nothing ever comes of it. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] If I had a fix to propose, I wouldn't beat around the bush with it. I don't mind so much that the game isn't balanced. I still play with large vampires a lot of the time and like them. It's just risky. I just don't buy that contestation is the real problem here. Again, go back to the original scenario and imagine Bob gets out Duck when Norm wanted to. Do we need a rule change to handle this horrible tragedy? No. Both players will be fine. Matt Morgan

On Oct 6, 3:48 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > No, Sheldon isn't Pentexed yet at the point when Bob has to decide whether > or not to contest. However, if Bob does contest, that would give Sheldon > a Pentex-free turn as he'd come back on Norm's untap phase and there'd be > no opportunity to Pentex him before he could act. For whatever that's > worth. Oh, I'd misunderstood the order of events (thought Sheldon was already Pentexed when it got to Bob). You're right - that does make some difference. (Of course, that opens up the T3 Norm gets Sheldon, Bob moves on to Selma for a turn, Sheldon gets Pentexed, and on T4 Norm starts working on another vamp, Bob finishes and contests Sheldon, and Norm yields - putting them both better off than they were. But that's a rabbit hole with no bottom. Your point stands, I'd misunderstood the order of things.) - D.J.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, LSJ wrote: > Bob contests Sheldon. > Norm doesn't pay any extra pool, but instead moves the pool from the yielded > Sheldon to his another vampire(s) (bringing one out). > Bob has Sheldon ready to go on his next untap. Well, that works as long as Norm has another decent vampire to get. I only know that Bob had Selma to get into the game. If the players made the determination that it's better for Norm to have Sheldon, then things are tougher. Anyway, yes, the solution you propose is a little bit better for both players. I still think the players will be disadvantaged by not being able to have the vampire they wanted and also feel that the fact that one or the other is about to get a Pentex feeds back to my other point about large vampires being risky and weak. I just don't see reason in solving a "contestation lottery" (which is really only a problem when large vampires are contested) when the "Pentex lottery", "weenie dom lottery", and "Koko Disarm lottery" are still at large. Matt Morgan

On 6 loka, 23:25, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I just don't buy that contestation is the real problem here. It's not really important whether you define the problem as contestation, the inherent weakness of big caps or the interaction between the contestation rules and the properties of big caps. The list of viable solutions doesn't change either way.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, it's all about trade-offs. I mean if you think about it, each time you discard (especially near the beginning of the game), you are revealing information about your deck to the other players. But in those cases, the perceived benefit (cycling through your deck to get the card you need) outweighs the perceived cost (revealing information). The same applies here. In some cases, the perceived benefit (avoiding contestation) may exceed the perceived cost (people have a better idea of what you're playing). In addition, there are plenty of ways to communicate information without tipping your hand. Obviously spilling the beans with "I'm bringing out Petrodon" is probably a bit bone-headed. But there are ways to describe a vampire without revealing too much. As previously suggested, you could say that he has inferior Fortitude, inferior Thaumaturgy, and +1 bleed. Most people won't instantly think "oh it must be Petrodon." They might think "okay probably not a weenie. Could be a fattie. Or maybe one of those weird Jyhad/DS/AH era mid-caps with weird disciplines." Furthermore, if you're clever you can confuse your opponents by having them draw the wrong assumptions (without even needing to lie). In this case, people might think you're playing a bleedy Tremere deck, or a Weather Control / Dawn Op deck (when the standard Nos deck doesn't even use Fortitude or Thaumaturgy). So when done poorly, obviously you're giving up a competitive advantage. But there are plenty of ways to carefully disclose such information in a way consistent with *excellent* game play. Then again, maybe that's asking for too much from some players? :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] I concur with Matt's assessment. Contestation is one of the more visible examples/symptoms, but it's not the core problem. Putting all your eggs in one basket is inherently a risky strategy, and that's especially the case with high pool investments (large capacity vampires, expensive locations/allies which are just as easily burned as free ones, etc.). LSJ and the White Wolf design team have made significant strides over the years to make large caps more competitive (individual vampires are significantly stronger than in years past, new cards that make large vampires more attractive, cards that make it easier to play large vampires, etc.) but it seems clear that the issue has not been fully resolved. For example, if you change the specific circumstances of the examples, you still have the same underlying problem. If you spend 9 pool on Sheldon but you can't use him because he's disabled (contested, Pentexed, Sensory Deprived, immediately torpored or burned) you're probably going to have lots of trouble because you've wasted a lot of time and resources on a single card. Does situations are going to be just as disruptive as if you had contested him. In the case where the cross-table ally was set back several turns because he had 7 pool on his own Sheldon, the same scenario could easily happen through non-contestation examples. A well-timed Kaymakli Nightmares can easily set you two turns back - what if that was the actual reason why the player couldn't get out his first minion earlier? Or Brainwash, Cairo International Airport, Lazar Dobrescu, Trick of the Danya, Banishment, Gemini, or Solomon Batanea could just as easily set you back 1 or more turns. If your predator uses Solomon Batanea and Information Highway each turn to nullify 3 of your transfers, you're going to be having trouble regardless of contestation. (Hypothetically, he could bring out Info Highway + Solomon on his first turn, play Kaymakli Nightmares and influence out Gemini during his second turn. Which means you will probably not be able to bring out a vampire larger than 4-capacity for most of the game. A bit contrived yeah but it's just to illustrate the underlying point).

On Oct 6, 4:55 pm, echiang wrote: > Have people thought about making clear their intentions at an earlier > point? Yes, thought about it, tried it, found it to be without value. > Well, it's all about trade-offs. Trade offs? Expose my first minion when that minion can't do anything or respond to anything, vs. the extremely tiny chance that someone else is transferring onto the same minion and that wouldn't want to contest with you? > I mean if you think about it, each time you discard (especially near > the beginning of the game), you are revealing information about your > deck to the other players. But in those cases, the perceived benefit > (cycling through your deck to get the card you need) outweighs the > perceived cost (revealing information). I didn't need any new cards, the Villein was in my hand. > The same applies here. In some cases, the perceived benefit (avoiding > contestation) may exceed the perceived cost (people have a better idea > of what you're playing). There is no benefit to be perceived. Your prey is still better off contesting your 10 cap vampire. Only your cross table 'allies' can benefit from not transferring onto the same minion you are transferring to. Setup: 1) Contest 10 cap vampire with predator, have no predator, while their predator is unfettered. = Game Win. 2) Be about to contest 10 cap vampire with cross table player = One of you loses. > In addition, there are plenty of ways to communicate information > without tipping your hand. Obviously spilling the beans with "I'm > bringing out Petrodon" is probably a bit bone-headed. But there are > ways to describe a vampire without revealing too much. As previously > suggested, you could say that he has inferior Fortitude, inferior > Thaumaturgy, and +1 bleed. Most people won't instantly think "oh it > must be Petrodon." They might think "okay probably not a weenie. Could > be a fattie. Or maybe one of those weird Jyhad/DS/AH era mid-caps with > weird disciplines." Furthermore, if you're clever Clever? No value add there. If I outsmart my prey, because he isn't using Tha/For or care much about the +1 bleed, he has no reason to believe we are bringing out the same minion. > you can confuse your > opponents by having them draw the wrong assumptions (without even > needing to lie). In this case, people might think you're playing a > bleedy Tremere deck, or a Weather Control / Dawn Op deck (when the > standard Nos deck doesn't even use Fortitude or Thaumaturgy). Right. Which will have exactly zero value in preventing the Nosferatu Justicar player from influencing him into play. > So when done poorly, obviously you're giving up a competitive > advantage. But there are plenty of ways to carefully disclose such > information in a way consistent with *excellent* game play. You haven't shown one yet. Feel free to try again. > Then again, maybe that's asking for too much from some players? :-) No smilie for me, thanks.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] At risk of being told I'm off-topic (I disagree, since I'm talking about a case that occurred at the NAC), I'll respond. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. If contestation is the problem, then the proposed solution may solve it. If it isn't, then the proposed solution can only partially solve it. I think it isn't because again, compare Norm and Bob contesting Sheldon to them contesting Duck. Compare Sheldon getting locked down (Pentex, Sensory Deprivation, etc.) to Duck getting the same treatment. Compare Sheldon getting rushed into torpor to a Duck hunt. Etc., etc. Matt Morgan

On Oct 6, 2:33 pm, echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > But the thing is, much of this is quite avoidable if people actually > bothered to communicate. Well, it is only quite avoidable if you don't both want the same minion. And really, most folks I play with don't start the game by saying "I'm about to transfer out a minion whose name rhymes with "Bleldon, Blord of the Blog"--anyone else?" Being in a situation where someone wants the same big minion as you, regardless of communication, is both incredibly random and incredibly debilitating. And occasionally just ends your (where "your" = "both players involved") game right there. It might take a few turns to stick, but if two players both want the same big minion, one of them, if not both of them, are probably completely screwed. Due to pure, random, dumb luck. > What most people do: Recklessly bring out a large capacity vampire > without looking around or talking to other players. How is it "reckless" to start transferring out a big minion when your deck uses big minions, and then randomly see the same minion hit the other side of the table? As someone who was in the thick of this discussion last time, no one is suggesting removing contestation. Just lessening the incredibly harsh penalty that comes from getting struck by lightning. Again, a nice, simple solution is: "During your untap phase, if you have a contested minion, you may pay a pool to continue contesting the minion *or* burn the minion and move all the blood on that minion to your pool." This might not be the absolute best solution, but it solves a significant amount of the incredibly harsh and random punishment of contestation. And has the handy side effect of a lessening benefit if you already used that minion significantly (i.e. if someone contests your Arika, and you burn her instead of contesting her, but she only has 1 blood on her, you only get 1 blood back. But presumably, you did something good with the other 10 already). -Peter

On Oct 6, 3:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > I'm interested in a case study with the proposed solution. I was just > > talking to Bob on #vtes, so I hope I have the details right. Someone > > please correct me if I don't. > > > Norm->Michael->Bob->Ferenc > > > Norm goes first and gets Sheldon on turn 3. Bob has 7 on Sheldon. What > > happened is Sheldon got Pentexed and could do nothing and Bob had to > > spend two more turns getting Selma out. Basically these guys couldn't > > do anything because they were crippled in the early game and lost. They > > lost the "contestation lottery." > > > So if I'm not mistaken, the proposed change is that when contesting, one > > can choose to pay a pool during untap as normal or one can remove the > > (crypt) card from the game to gain the pool back from that card. > > The proposed solution is: > > When yielding, you distribute all of the blood on the vampire among your > uncontrolled vampires and/or your pool. Making sure the ramifications are clear here... I bring out Sheldon. I keep him in play for a few turns, and most of his blood goes away between healing damage and playing cards. Then my prey contests him. At this point, if I give him up, I get virtually no payback onto other vampires, but my prey gets full payback if he yields instead. Which seems kinda reasonable, in that I got to use him for a few turns. But let's say that instead my prey backrushes Sheldon and wipes all his blood off, and then my predator contests him in turn - now I get no payback for yielding, except I haven't got the theoretical 'balance' of 'got to use him first'. I'd think this'd make the person who had him out first (assuming he lost a lot or spent a lot of his blood already) even less likely to want to give up the contestation ("hey, you give it up, you get 6 more pool back than I do!"). -John Flournoy

On Oct 6, 3:55 pm, echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, it's all about trade-offs. > > I mean if you think about it, each time you discard (especially near > the beginning of the game), you are revealing information about your > deck to the other players. But in those cases, the perceived benefit > (cycling through your deck to get the card you need) outweighs the > perceived cost (revealing information). More accurately: it _sometimes_ outweighs the perceived cost. I know that several players, including myself, have deliberately withheld discarding specific cards, or in some cases any cards, at the start of a game so as not to reveal information about what they're playing until it became unavoidable. -John Flournoy

My apologies to Jeff, for my role in derailing this thread. Jeff's original intent was apparently solely to gather information. But others could easily view the thread as an opportunity to complain about their contestation experiences. In fact, in a different situation, someone could easily use exactly such a thread to politicize their pro- or anti-contestation views. (If you didn't see any contestation at all during the NAC, then you can start the thread to highlight how contestation wasn't a big issue. If you did see a lot of contestation, then such a thread would be a convenient lightning rod to further an agenda to change the contestation rules). I don't think that was the underlying motive in this case, but an outwardly neutral query can easily be used as a cover to further another objective (see classical books about Lying with Statistics). My main concern was that looking at just the contestation in NAC 2009 is unrepresentative. Ideally, you need a larger sample size to haev context (comparing it to previous years, which was my first comment, though things admittedly digressed after that). For example, this is underscored by brandonsantacruz comment, "That sucks to have so much contestation." Was there really that much contestation or did it just appear so? If there was twice as much contestation in NAC 2008, and five times as much contestation in NAC 2004, then actually brandonsantacruz drew the incorrect conclusion because there really wasn't that much contestation. This is further complicated since psychology and sociology elements also heavily influence one's "perception" over recent vs past events. So at the time, I did not think it was off-topic to emphasize the importance of temporal context, so that people could better evaluate the 2009 experience instead of looking at it in potentially biased isolation. Sorry once again that the topic did eventually stray.

[ quoted text not captured ] (Note that Subject Line has now been changed). Exactly. I often dislike discarding early for precisely that reason as well. Discarding a Conditioning or a KRC can give the table the wrong impression (even if it's the only copy in your deck). This is especially the case in trick decks, where you don't want to reveal too much (recently played a borrowed Kiasyd deck which makes Song of Pan lunges - had a hand with several but I didn't want to discard them because then people would know what I was trying to do). In the cases that you actually do discard, the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. But if they don't, then you don't necessarily have to discard that card and reveal the information. That's why I was trying to draw the parallel with crypt cards. You shouldn't always reveal that information, and in many cases it's not in your interests to do so. But sometimes it may be worthwhile to telegraph your intentions more clearly.

> My main concern was that looking at just the contestation in NAC 2009 > is unrepresentative. Ideally, you need a larger sample size to haev > context (comparing it to previous years, which was my first comment, > though things admittedly digressed after that). For example, this is > underscored by brandonsantacruz comment, "That sucks to have so much > contestation." Was there really that much contestation or did it just > appear so? If there was twice as much contestation in NAC 2008, and > five times as much contestation in NAC 2004, then actually > brandonsantacruz drew the incorrect conclusion because there really > wasn't that much contestation. If we're making comparisons about contestation in VTES, we have our own frames of reference. For me, contesting something other than maybe Dreams, Heidelberg Castle, or Information Highway is enough to find it annoying. Had I been in this NAC, for which I finally qualified :), I likely would have felt like there was too much contestation. Had I been in the NAC in 2004, I would have felt that there was too much contestation(from the sound of it). Any amount of unintentional, avoidable game-wrecking is too much for my taste (although intentional game wrecking by contesting seems to be a slightly different issue). Thankfully, contesting doesn't come up for me very often outside of drafting, where we generally do not allow vampires to contest. Interestingly enough, I won the Imperator storyline by contesting my only remaining opponent's Sir Walter Nash. Brandon

On 7 loka, 00:21, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: > > On 6 loka, 23:25, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > >> I just don't buy that contestation is the real problem here. > > > It's not really important whether you define the problem as > > contestation, the inherent weakness of big caps or the interaction > > between the contestation rules and the properties of big caps. The > > list of viable solutions doesn't change either way. > > At risk of being told I'm off-topic (I disagree, since I'm talking about a > case that occurred at the NAC), I'll respond. I don't see how you can > reach that conclusion. What I meant is that the problem people seem to be talking about is contesting big caps. From the perspective of solving this specific problem it's less important to define the ultimate root of it and more important to find a viable solution to it. However, I now realize that you may have been talking about something completely different. > If contestation is the problem, then the proposed > solution may solve it. If it isn't, then the proposed solution can only > partially solve it. > > I think it isn't because again, compare Norm and Bob contesting Sheldon to > them contesting Duck. Compare Sheldon getting locked down (Pentex, > Sensory Deprivation, etc.) to Duck getting the same treatment. Compare > Sheldon getting rushed into torpor to a Duck hunt. Etc., etc. > > Matt Morgan In order to usefully define something as a root of problems there needs to be a viable solution to it. Otherwise you might as well treat the problems separately. My gut feeling is that it's easier to treat contesting+big caps and Pentex as separate problems.

> What did you contest? > How did that contest affect your games? I contested on purpose the Pentex put on one of my vampire. And it was a good thing.

[ quoted text not captured ] Those lotteries are about deck vs. deck -- the foundation of the game. The uniqueness lottery is not.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT), echiang777 wrote: >In years past, contestation was regarded as a relatively minor issue. >Why is it suddenly such a big issue now? It isn't. It simply a topic worthy of discussion. Also, the bigger vampires are significantly better now. >Not trying to be snide but the only thing I can think of Keep trying. You'll be able to think of more, I'm sure of it. The point of the thread was to get information about whether or not contesting was happening, by asking 54+ players that played 6+ games a day for a week. I played in 8 games (one of the benefits of only organizing). Somewhat significant contesting came up in three of them, as I discussed. I don't recall many other instances of contestation, though I am sure there were some library cards discarded that could have been brought into play, and I did lose the Giant's Blood race on a number of occasions. Only the contesting of a 10 cap destroyed the game. Norm and Bob's near contesting was also game destroying. Perhaps losing the uniqueness lottery on large minions can be an area of the game that is improved, similar to removing the paralyze rules from Jyhad to VTES.

> > Only the contesting of a 10 cap destroyed the game. > I was the predator against whom Darby contested Igo the Hungry, then Prince of Boston, on the second round of Game 1, Day 1. Igo the Hungry is not a large cap vampire, but I can tell you my game was entirely messed up, especially after I chose to contest Gideon Fontaine, one the four vampires in my opening crypt, who, incidentally, is not a large cap vampire, either. I think contestation, or the threat of contestation, occurs in 20-25% of all games I play. Sometimes it's more serious than others, but it cannot be dismissed as a force in the game.

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a842372e-0fcb-47aa...@j28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > I don't want to get all philosophical, but this definitely has some > allusions to policy issues. When people don't read instructions or > follow directions should we focus on greater enforcement and > adherence, or try to minimize the problems when people do stupid > things. Is it enough to put up stop signs and traffic lights. Or > should we completely change the traffic and road system because some > idiots are still going to try and run a red light. *WARNING!* OFF THE TOPIC OF CONTESTATION,... ...just a reaction to the above attitude in general. Sometimes people breaking rules is a sign of lazy people. On the other hand, sometimes it's a sign that the rule being broken was a crappy rule. Use discernment. Fred

i don't really like card-based fixes.... No Contest Gehenna Event When No Contest is in play, no cards contest each other. Unique cards are treated as non-Unique. or Double Duty Master out-of-turn. You may play Double Duty on your own turn. Play as a contestation is about to happen. Place Double Duty on the Unique card that is about to contest. All copies of that card are no longer considered Unique as long as Double Duty remains in play.

[ quoted text not captured ] oh crap, these are terrible. they don't take self-contesting abuse into acct... never mind.

SPORE <spore...@hotmail.com> writes: > i don't really like card-based fixes.... > > No Contest > Gehenna Event > When No Contest is in play, no cards contest each other. Unique cards > are treated as non-Unique. My crypt is 12 Neighbor Johns. I equip all my minions with an Ivory Bow, a Heart of Nizchetus and a Bowl of Convergence. I play a Dreams of the Sphinx with my every master phase action. Or how about a vote deck? I place seven Ventrue Headquarters in play... HG

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, LSJ wrote: > Those lotteries are about deck vs. deck -- the foundation of the game. > The uniqueness lottery is not. Well, I'm not really seeing a whole lot of practical difference between: A) I want to influence Sheldon. My predator is playing weenie dom and bleeds for 13 before I get Sheldon out. Then I get Sheldon, he Pentexes me and bleeds for the other 8 and I'm out without having gotten to play. and B) I want to influence Sheldon. So does my prey. We contest and neither of us feel we can play the game without Sheldon (i.e. the rule change wouldn't solve anything or the rules haven't changed). I die first because I have an actual predator. Again I'm out without having gotten to play. In both cases, I just plain lose because I want to have a 9 cap vampire. To say nothing for other cases of contestation. Two players wanting to influence Sheldon isn't normally that critical because usually there's Selma, Nikolaus, Murat, etc. If the players realize they are playing the same deck before things go too far and/or if the rules are changed, these players will be able to manage things. What if Norm and Bob were playing Cesewayo decks, i.e. decks that rely on Cesewayo's magaji title and use his dominate and thaumaturgy to some degree? There's no other vampire who can fit the bill. Even if we do change the rules and let one of them move all the pool over to other uncontrolled vampires, I would say they have still lost the uniqueness lottery. One or both of them will be unable to play. Matt Morgan

Okay, here's a new topic. Everybody happy now? Great! On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: > What I meant is that the problem people seem to be talking about is > contesting big caps. From the perspective of solving this specific > problem it's less important to define the ultimate root of it and more > important to find a viable solution to it. However, I now realize that > you may have been talking about something completely different. I think I was clear that what I consider to be the problem is not contesting large vampires, but the inherent weakness in large vampires. Small vampire decks are just better. I disagree that it's best to look for a solution before the core problem is discovered. I'm a software engineer. If I'm maintaining some code that isn't behaving properly, I want to go and find out it's because of a missing constraint or whatever, not just write IF (bug) THEN (patch). No, I don't really have a solution. The design team has given us some cards to make larger vampires better, but there's still inherent risk in investing 1/3 of your pool in a single vampire that can be taken out of the game easily. I'm not bringing this up because I want to find a solution, although I guess that would be nice. I'm bringing it up because I don't think contestation is a problem, or at least not the entire problem. Again, two players contest Sheldon? Bad for them, even if the rule changes. Two players contest Duck? Not really that big a deal. > In order to usefully define something as a root of problems there > needs to be a viable solution to it. Otherwise you might as well treat > the problems separately. My gut feeling is that it's easier to treat > contesting+big caps and Pentex as separate problems. We can't define a problem without already having a solution? Ha ha. Okay, my solution is everyone should play Appolonius decks. What's the problem, Trebek? Pentex is not a problem card. If I play weenie AUS and somebody puts a Pentex on Isabel de Leon, I'm probably fine. If I play Cesewayo wall and somebody puts Pentex on him, I'm probably about to die. Note that I'm not advocating everybody run only weenie decks. I had 10 and 11 caps in every deck I played at NAC tournaments (including my draft decks, heh). Most of my complaints about weenie decks are regardless of table dynamics as often such decks will take one VP and then die, but it sucks to be that one VP and be unable to play because you chose to go with an Eze deck instead of 1 cap hack. Thinking a bit more on it, some variation on undue influence rules might help both cases. You couldn't have unintentional contestation (unless players are stupid) because vampires would come into play in a single turn. This preserves intentional contestation, which I like. It also could remove the inherent slowness of large vampires, which is part of the problem. I think there have been a number of decent undue influence variations suggested. Maybe something like go with normal influence rules if you're transferring to/from multiple vampires or you can use all your transfers to fill a vampire from your pool. That would be pretty simple. This would be the death of weenie title-grabber vote. Is that a bad thing? Matt Morgan

I agree with Matt. It seemed to be in the Sheldon situation, if your 9 cap minion got Pentexed without a bounce discipline on him, you were just tucking in your knees and taking it for that turn while if you had a four and a five, it wouldn't have been as terrible.

As for me I contested Fragment the Book of Nod (I won) and on NAC day 1 Dolphin Black was contested with Ben Peal (a strategic move on his part), but it also screwed my game only having one minion as my prey was out of reach for most of the game and I was low on pool. Per the rest of this interesting topic of contesting vampires the only thing that I notice as a new player is that if it happens early enough it completely screws at least one players game if not both and in most cases means you have little chance of winning the table. Even if you yield your predator just bled you for X amount which could be a high cap vamp or someone critical to your game. Think about it this way.... if I bring out Mary Anne Blaire and someone else does that same turn and does not want to yield that is 10 pool I have been bled for and by the time I bring someone else out I am most likely well below 10 pool and stuck with just that 1 vampire. Seems kind of lame that I don't have an option beyond paying 1 pool or burning. The only two thoughts that come to my mind that could be decent are transferring all that back to my pool as I noticed other people have said or doing the option of being able to move part of that blood onto one vampire in your uncontrolled region as well. The latter may seem too powerful, but at least I get another vampire relatively soon as opposed to 2-3 turns later while still being bled out. If nothing else being able to just rake it back to my pool seems like a great option and doesn't radically change the game as it seems the most neutral of choices.

On 7 loka, 18:28, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Okay, here's a new topic. Everybody happy now? Great! > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: > > What I meant is that the problem people seem to be talking about is > > contesting big caps. From the perspective of solving this specific > > problem it's less important to define the ultimate root of it and more > > important to find a viable solution to it. However, I now realize that > > you may have been talking about something completely different. > > I think I was clear that what I consider to be the problem is not > contesting large vampires, but the inherent weakness in large vampires. > Small vampire decks are just better. I disagree that it's best to look > for a solution before the core problem is discovered. I'm a software > engineer. If I'm maintaining some code that isn't behaving properly, I > want to go and find out it's because of a missing constraint or whatever, > not just write IF (bug) THEN (patch). > > No, I don't really have a solution. The design team has given us some > cards to make larger vampires better, but there's still inherent risk in > investing 1/3 of your pool in a single vampire that can be taken out of > the game easily. Does that (viable) solution even exist? If not, we should focus on treating the symptoms, which is another way of saying "treat contestation etc. as separate problems". > I'm not bringing this up because I want to find a solution, although I > guess that would be nice. I'm bringing it up because I don't think > contestation is a problem, or at least not the entire problem. Again, two > players contest Sheldon? Bad for them, even if the rule changes. Two > players contest Duck? Not really that big a deal. > > > In order to usefully define something as a root of problems there > > needs to be a viable solution to it. Otherwise you might as well treat > > the problems separately. My gut feeling is that it's easier to treat > > contesting+big caps and Pentex as separate problems. > > We can't define a problem without already having a solution? Ha ha. > Okay, my solution is everyone should play Appolonius decks. What's the > problem, Trebek? No, we just can't do anything useful with that definition if a possible solution doesn't exist. > Pentex is not a problem card. If I play weenie AUS and somebody puts a > Pentex on Isabel de Leon, I'm probably fine. If I play Cesewayo wall and > somebody puts Pentex on him, I'm probably about to die. > > Note that I'm not advocating everybody run only weenie decks. I had 10 > and 11 caps in every deck I played at NAC tournaments (including my draft > decks, heh). Most of my complaints about weenie decks are regardless of > table dynamics as often such decks will take one VP and then die, but it > sucks to be that one VP and be unable to play because you chose to go > with an Eze deck instead of 1 cap hack. > > Thinking a bit more on it, some variation on undue influence rules might > help both cases. You couldn't have unintentional contestation (unless > players are stupid) because vampires would come into play in a single > turn. This preserves intentional contestation, which I like. It also > could remove the inherent slowness of large vampires, which is part of the > problem. Yes, that would help. > I think there have been a number of decent undue influence variations > suggested. Maybe something like go with normal influence rules if you're > transferring to/from multiple vampires or you can use all your transfers > to fill a vampire from your pool. That would be pretty simple. This > would be the death of weenie title-grabber vote. Is that a bad thing? > > Matt Morgan No.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, suoli wrote: > Does that (viable) solution even exist? If not, we should focus on > treating the symptoms, which is another way of saying "treat > contestation etc. as separate problems". Who says it doesn't? So we've got a proposed rule where you can reclaim the pool invested in a contested vampire, which would offer some relief from the Bob/Norm Sheldon situation, but none from the get killed by weenie dom + Pentex problem. I don't like this solution because it treats contestation as the problem. I don't think contestation is the problem. Contesting Smudge does not make one unable to play. Contesting the Ivory Bow does not make one unable to play. Maybe you feel that contestation is the primary problem, in which case of course our desired solutions will be different. I think the problem is "The Big Problem." That is, that larger vampires are inherently weaker (or carry much greater risk, if you'd rather look at it like that) than smaller ones. There are a bevy of proposed undue influence solutions and I think I'd rather see one of those than a change to the contestation rules. Anything that lets you get a large vampire out in a single turn would handle the Sheldon problem just fine (unless a player wanted to contest, which I think is fine). There are potential problems to examine and iron out. I hope the rules team will consider a closer look at some undue influence variation before just enacting a change to the contestation rules. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd hose weenies rather than buff big caps even more. Now that there's Villein the cost of big caps vs. mid caps is somewhat mitigated. Speed is the last advantage mid caps have. Take that away and next you'll be worrying about how to make Victor Pelletier viable when you could just as well be playing Lucinde.

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> What did you contest? > > Almost contested Sheldon crosstable > >> How did that contest affect your games? > > Totally wrecked one game. I flipped Sheldon up. My crosstable "ally" > who had 7 pool on a vampire about started to cry because he was going > for Sheldon too. My Sheldon then got Pentexed. It was a four person > table. It was turn 7 before I got to my first Villein and took it all > off my vampire so my crosstable could contest then I reliquished, but > the game was pretty much over by then. Needless to say neither I nor > the crosstable "ally" who I was playing with didn't win the game. I don't know about crying, but it definitely blew. In addition to this one devastating issue, I had the problem that the opening crypt draw was something like sheldon, sheldon, sheldon, selma, and the 5th one was nik, who norm already had out as his second vampire. It was not a game for the nosferatu to win, that's for sure. -- Bob Joseph jos...@cse.ohio-state.edu http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~joseph

[ quoted text not captured ] KUTA TRANSFER RULES are just like the normal transfer rules, except: 1) Players get 5 transfers instead of 4. 2) It costs 1 transfer to move a minion (that has counters equal to or greater than its capacity) from the uncontrolled region to the ready region. 3) It costs 5 transfers plus 1 pool to move a minion from the top of the crypt to the uncontrolled region. Notes: - On the first turn of the game, Player 1 gets only 1 transfer, Player 2 gets 2, etc., up to 5 transfers for Player 5. - Rule #2 only applies to bringing minions to the ready region in the "normal" way. Cards like Tomb of Rameses III, Gather, Chain of Command, and Web of Knives Recruit don't cost extra transfers. Slows down weenies. Speeds up fatties. Everyone wins. Some of the proposed contestation avoidance rules (e.g. remove a contested vampire from the game and move all blood to your pool) don't solve the problem of large caps being inherently weaker, but it does mitigate the risk of playing large cap vampires, which is still not such a horrible thing. Jeff