Empirical evidence of weenies' brokenness

This is a serious post and I want to start a serious discussion, so please don't flame me with "OMGZ if you can't see weenies are broken then you're dumb". This is my experience with weenies and I'm not looking to ignore it, but rather to understand whatever all of you see when you tell me weenies are broken. --------------- I started playing Tremere, but when Sabbat came out, I immediately began trying to build a Pander deck. Before I even saw Legacy of Pander, my idea was to combine their Potence (Jimmy Dunn, Mitchell, Rex, and the Ghouled Street Thug) with some skill cards and some Embraces (which could, at the time, get skill cards.) Nobody really used either weenie voters OR potence very much/very well in my playgroup, so the deck was sort of an amalgam of everything I thought was broken that nobody was breaking. Vote pushing was allowed, and of course intercept was quite rare back in those days. Naturally the deck was able to steamroll over people pretty effectively. (How I long for those days!) Well, in time, I discovered the Seattle playgroup, and brought my Panders with me. By now vote pushing had been removed from the rules, but the deck was still interesting and quite powerful. Weenie Potence with Con Boons for 8+, if you will. I started working a job about 90 miles in the other direction from the Seattle playgroup, and I wasn't able to attend for 6 months or so, when the qualifier made it a priority. That six months was the biggest metagame shift I'd ever seen. Suddenly, all the stealth-bleed was replaced by toolboxes and intercept-combat. There were a few voters, but more or less, the huge payoff of the Con Boon with the minimal risk of being blocked had turned into the surefire way to get someone to block me. Having recently taken out the Potence, since fights seemed increasingly rare, I was the least prepared for this I ever was. I had one Gangrel block me 11 times in 3 turns. Not one Gangrel player, ONE GANGREL. He was my predator in round two and then my prey in round 3 (yuck). I tried to get them to work, and to a degree I had--but the deck was no longer a true weenie deck. My understanding of the weenie deck is mostly that it uses its huge number of actions to overwhelm an opponent--and I don't really use the weenies for actions at all. I bring out Marie Faucigny, who calls Con Boons and plays Private Audience so that they pass. That's all the Panders are--more pool, until I have enough to pass Legacy of Pander in the same way and THEN I can try to lunge. Yeah it's slow. Real slow. And it gets most of the table hate that weenies get. But you know what? It isn't an auto-loss to weenie AUS, the way every other version of that deck is. Marie can do a vote at 6 or 7 stealth without breaking a sweat. In fact, the less the deck was taking actions with the newly-fragile Panders, the better it was doing. I considered putting in Nightmares Upon Nightmares, to convince the table that I wasn't going to act with the vampires and maybe even get some free discards in the process, but decided against it cause I often have to use them to lunge with. Don't think I'm crazy. Various incarnations of the "no Panders act" Panders won two qualifiers and got 5th at the 2005 EC. My point? That in my experience personally, both in the local metagame and in large tournaments, the trend is that a bunch of vampires with 1 or 2 stealth all trying to act are going to end up next to a single Sport Bike, or Carna, or Bowl, or all three, or Howler... You get my point. Only by stopping the Panders from doing anything but giving me pool could I get the deck to work. And I have seen weenie breed decks, and they're usually foiled by Domain Challenge, Ancilla Empowerment, Anarchist Uprising, or just sitting next to someone with a handful of Auspex. If they aren't, BTW, I see them play Palla Grande or Week of Nightmares and sweep the table--but that's if. So in conclusion, I've seen weenies at their best. Times when vote- pushing and a dearth of intercept meant I could go through a table like hot fangs through butter. But I've seen good vampires with incidental titles increase, casual intercept increase, dedicated intercept sharply increase, and of course political decks remain a force, bringing with them the weenie-hosing votes. I think the time that a bunch of 1-caps could just rely on going unblocked is behind us, and weenies need to think about their delivery system and payload in order to get anything done. CEL on a 4 cap? Maybe. POT on a 4 cap? Sure. DOM on a 4 cap? Quite likely. Nothing on a bunch of 1 caps? Not at all. Years of coming closer and closer to this conclusion, and then at the EC last year, a strict weenie deck, all 1- and 2-caps, comes out guns blazing--literally--and blows three tables away with concealed weapon, cheap guns, Dragon's Breath Rounds, and sometimes Graverobbing. Now, I respect the player who did it--both for designing it effectively and for being one hell of a player. But I still ask: Has this crap been going on all along, and I just haven't seen any of it in the last 7 years of casual and 5 years of championship-level play? (Discount Anarch Revolt weenies, as that couldn't happen today.) I don't see how everyone can tell me weenies are totally broken unless they either don't mean the 1- and 2-caps that I mean (rather the 4- caps with superior disciplines in common), or unless their experience diverges REALLY significantly from mine. Thank you for reading my story, and I hope someone can tell me what it is about weenies--not conceptually, I understand they have a lot of actions--what it is that makes them so feared. -- Brian

> Thank you for reading my story, and I hope someone can tell me what it > is about weenies--not conceptually, I understand they have a lot of > actions--what it is that makes them so feared. Hi Brian, so it took be a bit of rereading to figure out that by "Empirical Evidence of Weenies' Brokenness", you meant "GIVE ME Empirical Evidence of Weenies' Brokenness", rather than "This post will provide all of you with Empirical Evidence of Weenies' Brokenness". I don't think they're broken. I think, in a game where number of actions is pivotal, weenies are very efficient, giving you a lot of bang for your buck. If your deck concept is something other than just weenie swarm, and your deck concept fails, you can still fall back on weenie swarm. Often, that is good enough. I have had that experience most notably with my Cryptic Mission deck. It is hindered by a single Hunting Ground, and foiled by even a small degree of permanent intercap. Even in those cases, however, I still have 6+ minions with which to bleed, and that often wins the game. Legacy of Pander and Ghouled Street Thug decks probably work in a similar way, though I don't have much experience with them. You are correct that weenies are less powerful than they used to be, and you mentioned a couple key factors (anti-weenie votes, prohibition of vote-pushing). Also, Majesty and Catatonic Fear now cost a blood, which hinders significantly the presence weenie deck. The pure 1- and 2-cap weenie bleed deck is also hindered by additional untap cards (On the Que Vive, Special Report). No question that Friendmaker decks are no longer taking the world by storm. Overall, I suspect that the general consensus is that weenies are a strong element of any strategy, and a weenie bleed deck is sure to win a frequent VP and also the occasional game, but the case for weenies being broken is a lot harder to make. cheers, Jon

On Feb 27, 11:48 am, "mummy" <mummydirtys...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Overall, I suspect that the general consensus is that weenies are a > strong element of any strategy, and a weenie bleed deck is sure to win > a frequent VP and also the occasional game, but the case for weenies > being broken is a lot harder to make. I think the weenie problem is an actual flaw in the game design. The theoretical brokeness (yes, I know Brian isn't looking for theory) is seen in the case that four influence can be spent on four 1-caps that can bleed for four or block 4 zero stealth bleeds versus the case that four influence can be spent on one 4-cap that can bleed for one or block 1 bleed (aka "The Sheldon Situation"). This flaw in the V:TES design has never been fixed directly. LSJ has done an admirable job of patching this flaw by creating cards that punish weenies as well as by continuing to provide boosts to the fatties. I'm very comfortable with the current level of things where weenies are still playable but not, imo, too powerful. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > On Feb 27, 11:48 am, "mummy" <mummydirtys...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Overall, I suspect that the general consensus is that weenies are a >> strong element of any strategy, and a weenie bleed deck is sure to win >> a frequent VP and also the occasional game, but the case for weenies >> being broken is a lot harder to make. > > I think the weenie problem is an actual flaw in the game design. The > theoretical brokeness (yes, I know Brian isn't looking for theory) is > seen in the case that four influence can be spent on four 1-caps that > can bleed for four or block 4 zero stealth bleeds versus the case that > four influence can be spent on one 4-cap that can bleed for one or > block 1 bleed (aka "The Sheldon Situation"). Perhaps there is a flaw, perhaps not. The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once (or if combat isn't the natural result of blocking, or some other change to the rules that alters the attrition rate of weenies in comparison to non-weenies) and when weenies can play and pay for the same combos that larger vampires with more Disciplines can.

> This flaw in the V:TES design has never been fixed directly. LSJ has > done an admirable job of patching this flaw by creating cards that > punish weenies as well as by continuing to provide boosts to the > fatties. I'm very comfortable with the current level of things where > weenies are still playable but not, imo, too powerful. I think recent card releases has patched this flaw from the other direction as well. Not just limiting weenies, but also helping out ol' Sheldon. Freak Drive has gone from being a rare (Jyhad) to being a highly sought-after uncommon (Cam Ed) to being an uncommon-that-is- still-sought-after-but-reasonably-easy-to-get. Not to mention Forced March for the cel for vampires, Mylan Horseed, Helicopter, what-have- you. In the last year or two, I very commonly see huge vampire take and block multiple actions, and that helps close the Sheldon gap as well. Which is great, because, considering how many huge vampires there are, it's nice to see them be playable competitively. I'm a big fan of card games where you can play the game with the cards. -Jon

[ quoted text not captured ] There is only one basic game design rule that is anti-weenie: TORPOR It costs 2 blood to Leave Torpor and 2 blood to Rescue. A deck full of 1-caps cannot leave torpor without using cards. Everything else favors them because they get to take so many actions. Additionally, hunting is at default +1 stealth, which means some card or ability must grant +1 intercept to block. Everyone should just play with Justine, Elder of Dallas, if they're so concerned about weenies. Get her a Bowl and a Flak Jacket and you're golden. ;) Jeff

In message <Lm2Fh.1389$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once >(or if combat isn't the natural result of blocking, or some other >change to the rules that alters the attrition rate of weenies in >comparison to non-weenies) and when weenies can play and pay for the >same combos that larger vampires with more Disciplines can. I agree up to a point. In general, I would say that the most direct ousting actions in the game are bleeding. There may be specific screwball games where it's completely hosed but, I think, most people would agree that bleeding is the most direct route to victory, across the myriad permutations of the game as a whole. Followed up to that, vote is also a direct ousting mechanism (assuming the player uses them as damage votes), with similar disclaimers to bleed. Everything else is typically weaker. Now, my two 4 cap vampires (for example) can take two bleed actions - and probably two fairly meaty bleed actions. Kindred Spirits, Govern the Unaligned, Lost in Crowds, Social Charm etc. are all available and fairly cheap. When my 8 cap untaps, he can't take a second bleed action, and so we presumably have to hope that the bleed he does plus the secondary, weaker action equal two bleeds. But this leads to a problem. Because bleed is so prevalent, bleed defence is pretty common and, specifically, bleed bounce. Though my 8 cap will - presumably - have some superior disciplines and - presumably - get a point or two of extra bleed as a result, I am commensurately more exposed to bleed bounce. Instead of two bleeds for 3, I have one bleed for 4/5 (and a secondary weaker action, to make up for the gap) which is more vulnerable to bounce and more vulnerable to Archon Investigation. And the "eggs in one basket" syndrome is not just there. Against one 8 cap, I need one lucky break and I can pound him into the dirt. When compared to the vulnerability of two 4 caps, or two 3s and a 2, or whatever, it's not just a case of the 8 cap being equal to the offensive capability but potentially superior, to compensate for this problem. That this extra power is or isn't available in practise is far harder to establish, however! -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <Lm2Fh.1389$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once >> (or if combat isn't the natural result of blocking, or some other >> change to the rules that alters the attrition rate of weenies in >> comparison to non-weenies) and when weenies can play and pay for the >> same combos that larger vampires with more Disciplines can. > > I agree up to a point. Actually, from the sounds of it, you agree to what I wrote above: that the paragraph Robert wrote illuminated only one aspect of a very complicated system.

[snip weenie analysis] > > Thank you for reading my story, and I hope someone can tell me what it > is about weenies--not conceptually, I understand they have a lot of > actions--what it is that makes them so feared. Turn 1: Predator flips over four 1 caps I put four blood on Raven. Turn 2: Predator plays Effective Management. Predator KRCs four times. I lose 12 pool. Predator brings up fifth vamp. I put one blood on Raven (now have 13 pool) Turn 3: Predator KRCs five times. Someone burns edge to cause one vote to fail I can't block with my Cat's Guidance in my hand because Raven only has basic ani. I lose 12 pool. 1 pool left. I now have one pool left at the start of my third turn. It's ridiculous that this can even happen. Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Turn 1: > Predator flips over four 1 caps > I put four blood on Raven. > > Turn 2: > Predator plays Effective Management. > Predator KRCs four times. I lose 12 pool. > Predator brings up fifth vamp. > I put one blood on Raven (now have 13 pool) > > Turn 3: > Predator KRCs five times. Someone burns edge to cause one vote to fail > I can't block with my Cat's Guidance in my hand because Raven only has > basic ani. I lose 12 pool. 1 pool left. > > I now have one pool left at the start of my third turn. It's > ridiculous that this can even happen. ...and even more ridiculous to think that the weenie vote deck in question will EVER get more than 1VP at ANY table. Which is why these kind of decks are more bark than bite, unless someone else at the table acts as an enabler, which is often what the stupid weenie deck hopes for. 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

> > I think the weenie problem is an actual flaw in the game design. The > > theoretical brokeness (yes, I know Brian isn't looking for theory) is > > seen in the case that four influence can be spent on four 1-caps that > > can bleed for four or block 4 zero stealth bleeds versus the case that > > four influence can be spent on one 4-cap that can bleed for one or > > block 1 bleed (aka "The Sheldon Situation"). > > Perhaps there is a flaw, perhaps not. > > The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once (or if > combat isn't the natural result of blocking, or some other change to the rules > that alters the attrition rate of weenies in comparison to non-weenies) and when > weenies can play and pay for the same combos that larger vampires with more > Disciplines can. Weenie decks can quite easily be built that rely solely on +1 stealth actions (Breed/Vote) which makes blocking not straightforward. If weenies (<4 cap) had -1 stealth on some actions (votes perhaps) that might be a simple to implement (no card changes) and effective reduction in their power. Chris.

On Feb 28, 1:09 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > Turn 1: > > Predator flips over four 1 caps > > I put four blood on Raven. > > > Turn 2: > > Predator plays Effective Management. > > Predator KRCs four times. I lose 12 pool. > > Predator brings up fifth vamp. > > I put one blood on Raven (now have 13 pool) > > > Turn 3: > > Predator KRCs five times. Someone burns edge to cause one vote to fail > > I can't block with my Cat's Guidance in my hand because Raven only has > > basic ani. I lose 12 pool. 1 pool left. > > > I now have one pool left at the start of my third turn. It's > > ridiculous that this can even happen. > > ...and even more ridiculous to think that the weenie vote deck in question > will EVER get more than 1VP at ANY table. Sure. But the total number of VPs the player ends up getting is little consolation to their first victim, and strangely enough, doesn't always deter people from playing them. And anyway decks like that CAN sweep tables. Not always (depending largely on amount of votes / intercept at the table) but they can. A player swept a LCQ finals table in Australia a couple of years ago in around 18 minutes with such a deck. > Which is why these kind of decks are more bark than bite, I would call being ousted in 4 minutes "bite" rather than "bark".

On Feb 28, 2:48 am, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > [snip weenie analysis] > > > > > Thank you for reading my story, and I hope someone can tell me what it > > is about weenies--not conceptually, I understand they have a lot of > > actions--what it is that makes them so feared. > > Turn 1: > Predator flips over four 1 caps > I put four blood on Raven. Turn 1: Predator flips over four 1 caps I put four blood on Volker. > > Turn 2: > Predator plays Effective Management. > Predator KRCs four times. I lose 12 pool. > Predator brings up fifth vamp. > I put one blood on Raven (now have 13 pool) Turn 2: Predator plays Effective Management. Predator KRCs four times. (assume nobody has the edge, or DI, or any vote cards to toss etc) I put one blood on Volker. (13 pool) > > Turn 3: > Predator KRCs five times. Someone burns edge to cause one vote to fail > I can't block with my Cat's Guidance in my hand because Raven only has > basic ani. I lose 12 pool. 1 pool left. Turn 3: Predator lost his vote-lock forever, so he cant do anything (he drawed 9 KRCs in two turns, so I assume he has nothing else in his deck) He bleeds for one. blocked, torpor. Bleeds again, 2nd trad, blocked, torpor. Predator packs his cards and goes for a pizza. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Turn 1: > Predator flips over four 1 caps > I put four blood on Volker. > > Turn 2: > Predator plays Effective Management. > Predator KRCs four times. (assume nobody has the edge, or DI, or any > vote cards to toss etc) > I put one blood on Volker. (13 pool) > > Turn 3: > Predator lost his vote-lock forever, so he cant do anything (he drawed > 9 KRCs in two turns, so I assume he has nothing else in his deck) > He bleeds for one. blocked, torpor. > Bleeds again, 2nd trad, blocked, torpor. Why wouldn't he continue bleeding with 1-caps? Or alternatively, *not* bleed this turn, knowing that he won't get through and instead influence out two more nerds? Also, it's entirely possible that he might find some other help on the table to pass his KRCs. If I were the weenie player, I would avoid doing dumb shit. . . at least until I had 8 or 9 minions. I would also play every event in the game. Because I'm a bastard bitchnut. And if my deck is truly 80% KRCs. . . the rest of those cards will allow me to have a Fall of the Cam/Sabbat, and not hurt my game, since I don't care about lower hand size. (I'll always have KRC.) I don't know if such a deck will work. But it sounds like it will. Also, another card that helps the weenie case is Cairo International Airport. . . the card that has alternate card text saying "Volker never comes out ever in life. Ever. Bitch." Ankur Play. The. Game.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:Lm2Fh.1389$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > Perhaps there is a flaw, perhaps not. > > The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once Is this a foreshadowing of a discipline-less untap card for higher capacity minions, then? ...A Fattie Freak Drive, if you will? ;-) I have two votes in favor. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] I didn't say "per turn", you know.

On Feb 28, 2:54 pm, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: > > Turn 1: > > Predator flips over four 1 caps > > I put four blood on Volker. > > > Turn 2: > > Predator plays Effective Management. > > Predator KRCs four times. (assume nobody has the edge, or DI, or any > > vote cards to toss etc) > > I put one blood on Volker. (13 pool) > > > Turn 3: > > Predator lost his vote-lock forever, so he cant do anything (he drawed > > 9 KRCs in two turns, so I assume he has nothing else in his deck) > > He bleeds for one. blocked, torpor. > > Bleeds again, 2nd trad, blocked, torpor. > > Why wouldn't he continue bleeding with 1-caps? Or alternatively, *not* > bleed this turn, knowing that he won't get through and instead influence > out two more nerds? Also, it's entirely possible that he might find some > other help on the table to pass his KRCs. if he finds some help on the table, you dont have a weenie problem, you have a "I play with idiots" problem :) as a devils advocate: why won't he bleed for edge and then get a praxis, in the first turn, before any KRCs? > > If I were the weenie player, I would avoid doing dumb shit. . . at least > until I had 8 or 9 minions. I would also play every event in the game. > Because I'm a bastard bitchnut. And if my deck is truly 80% KRCs. . . the > rest of those cards will allow me to have a Fall of the Cam/Sabbat, and > not hurt my game, since I don't care about lower hand size. (I'll always > have KRC.) I don't know if such a deck will work. But it sounds like it > will. > > Also, another card that helps the weenie case is Cairo International > Airport. . . the card that has alternate card text saying "Volker never > comes out ever in life. Ever. Bitch." Yes, or you could Brainwash him. But he can also have an Info Highway and come out first turn. And then play Aranthebes immediately..whatever. I just wanted to point out to Chris, that I can also make up my own random scenario, but at least I wouldn't call it (at least according to the thread title) an empirical evidence of anything. > > Ankur > Play. The. Game.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:LNgFh.2993$BE2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Huh. But the four weenies get to tap four times per turn, while the one 4-cap gets to tap once per turn. How does the flaw Robert showed not persist through the entire game? I mean yeah, complex system and all, but the flaw is the flaw and it's still there. It's maybe more persistent when you talk about four 2-caps compared to one 8-cap, but it exists at all levels of the "pool cost to actions" ratio between small versus large vampires, and the large vampires need a lot of patches to really compete on even ground. Disciplines mostly don't do it since you can get superior disciplines on small vampires without that much trouble (and in a lot of cases, inferior disciplines are close enough to the strength of superior that you can get by without superior anyway). Titles do sometimes, but there are titling votes that weenies can use. The basic rule-set of the game really has very little love for big vampires at all - they have to rely on cardtext. Josh refer to card text

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:LNgFh.2993$BE2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> atomweaver wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>> news:Lm2Fh.1389$LF6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >>>> Perhaps there is a flaw, perhaps not. >>>> >>>> The above only show it is a flaw if each minion gets to tap only once >>> Is this a foreshadowing of a discipline-less untap card for higher >>> capacity minions, then? ...A Fattie Freak Drive, if you will? ;-) I >>> have two votes in favor. >> I didn't say "per turn", you know. > > Huh. But the four weenies get to tap four times per turn, while the one > 4-cap gets to tap once per turn. How does the flaw Robert showed not > persist through the entire game? I didn't say it didn't. I said Robert's post neglected the weenie's weaknesses -- attrition, fewere Disciplines, less blood, &c. -- looking only at the "one tap (act or block)" case in isolation. > > I mean yeah, complex system and all, but the flaw is the flaw and it's still > there. I didn't say it wasn't there. I addressed Robert's post.

On Feb 27, 11:23 am, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > This is my experience with weenies and I'm not > looking to ignore it, but rather to understand whatever all of you see > when you tell me weenies are broken. > I haven't felt weenie decks were very strong for quite a while. Breed/ Boon is still quite good, but that's not what most people mean by weenie deck. The weenie bleed/blitz vote style deck seems like its on the way out. They are just too predicable and fragile. They win the two player game but not a 4-5 player game. The can still ruin your day. If their predator pops up with weenie DOM, good players will recognize the threat, hang their head and sigh, the then try to hang in and back oust- hoping to conserve enough resources to get to play their game at some point. The weenie deck might get the 1 vp but will have been ganged up upon, and then face a prey #2 who has had time and no pressure. The more players get to know "the drill" the less often they play those decktypes. Other types of weenie decks suffer from different sets of problem - but predictability and minion fragility are common themes. I would say the metgame is moving towards the fatties. Big guys that don't vote, block, bounce, or multi-act very well (like say !Brujah and Assamites) don't get much love. But most everyone else seems to be doing just fine. I'm a little surprised to the "weenies are broken" cries coming back. -Ben Swainbank PS. Brian, you do have other decks you play, don't you?

On Feb 28, 8:32 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:LNgFh.2993$BE2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > > atomweaver wrote: > >> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in [ quoted text not captured ] I think that the power of weenies comes from their speed, not necessarily by the quality of the actions they can take. If a Meth couldn't actually bring out four 1-caps at the end of their first influence phase, then we might have something useful. Here are the current rules for the Influence phase: "During your influence phase you may spend your [four] transfers as follows: * Spend one transfer to move 1 blood counter from your pool to a vampire in your uncontrolled region. * Spend two transfers to move 1 blood counter from a vampire in your uncontrolled region to your pool. * Spend four transfers and burn a pool to move a vampire from your crypt to your uncontrolled region (drawing from the top, as always). At the end of your influence phase, any vampire in your uncontrolled region with a number of blood counters on him equal to (or more than) his capacity becomes controlled. The vampire is turned face up and moved to the ready region, untapped. The counters are kept on him to represent his blood (counters in excess of his capacity drain off immediately as usual)." Suppose it were slightly different: First, you would max out at five transfers instead of four. During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as follows: * Spend one transfer to move 1 blood counter from your pool to a vampire in your uncontrolled region. * Spend two transfers to move 1 blood counter from a vampire in your uncontrolled region to your pool. * Spend four transfers and burn a pool to move a vampire from your crypt to your uncontrolled region (drawing from the top, as always). * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready region. That's it! There's no automatic move from uncontrolled to ready as there is now. You gotta pay for it with transfers (but it doesn't cost pool). So someone with a crypt full of 1-caps could at best bring two of them out on turn 1 (3x influences for blood, 2x influences for move from uncontrolled to ready). The following turn, they would have 4 vampires ready to rock and roll, but by then everyone else could have a much larger vampire in play ready to beat on the brats. This also has a side effect for those who want to bring out larger vampires. With 10 transfers in your first two turns, 9-caps could make an appearance on turn 2. If you went first, after 11 transfers on your third turn, you could have a 10-cap in play. Larger crypts don't feel the negative impact of this change nearly as much, and that's good by me. Any comments on this are more than welcome. Jeff

On Feb 28, 1:31 pm, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Suppose it were slightly different: > > First, you would max out at five transfers instead of four. > > During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as > follows: > > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > region. > Ya, know-- I'm not at all convinced there is a problem. And I'm even less convinced that, if there is a problem, it can't be solved with new cards (which is preferable to core rules changes.) But as "solutions" go - this isn't half bad. Here's my offering: Personal Entreaty Master. Trifle. X Pool Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. -Ben Swainbank

On Feb 28, 10:44 am, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 1:31 pm, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Suppose it were slightly different: > > > First, you would max out at five transfers instead of four. > > > During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as > > follows: > > > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > > region. > > Ya, know-- I'm not at all convinced there is a problem. And I'm even > less convinced that, if there is a problem, it can't be solved with > new cards (which is preferable to core rules changes.) But as > "solutions" go - this isn't half bad. If you're not convinced there's a problem, then I can see why you'd want to add cards to level the playing field. Since I am convinced, I see changing the core rules is a global way to address it immediately. For me, it's not so much about speeding up the slower large-cap decks, but rather slowing down the fast small-cap ones right out of the gate when they can wreak so much havoc. In the long run, they aren't hampered all that much, but at least you would stop the 4x Computer Hack or KRC on turn 2. > Here's my offering: > > Personal Entreaty > Master. Trifle. > X Pool > Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. > > -Ben Swainbank This would be a nice addition to large-cap decks, but it has the problem of being a library card. Much as Zillah's Valleys and Information Highways are not so useful later in games, Personal Entreaty also loses much of its effectiveness. But, it is a free trifle if you want, which makes it almost perfectly cycleable at any point in a game so it's not quite dead like ZV. Jeff

On Feb 28, 12:44 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ya, know-- I'm not at all convinced there is a problem. And I'm even > less convinced that, if there is a problem, it can't be solved with > new cards (which is preferable to core rules changes.) But as > "solutions" go - this isn't half bad. > > Here's my offering: > > Personal Entreaty > Master. Trifle. > X Pool > Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. > > -Ben Swainbank Unfortunately addressing widespread issues with new cards is difficult as almost all card tpyes have a counter (sudden, DI, etc) and effecting a dramatic shift solely through new cards is a very slow process, that if successful, only encourages the use of the counter-card. I think it could be agreed that there have been attempts to slow/ hinder weenies in recent sets (weenie hosing events, Aranthebes, Carvers) but IMO their effects have not deterred players from playing weenies and they have not been effective in controlling weenies due to the cards not being in play. (Part of that may be due to uniqueness/once per game of the cards mentioned above). Addressing any widespread issue (we can argue whether weenies are widespread) with "magic bullet" cards does not work effectively, unless the magic bullets are over powered no-brainers and have other uses. Addressing weenies with a rules change has the advantage that it does not require deck slots, and comes into effect in every game. Its more an innoculation than cure. As a result I favour a minor rules tweak to hinder weenies somewhat, but I'm not sure what that should be yet. Hinder Weenies, empower fatties, I dunno. It seems weenie success is still built around what else is at the table. If no one other than one player at the table can stomp/stop the weenies, the weenies can usually keep ahead of their losses and push ahead through numbers. Put two combat decks at a table with weenies and the combat decks can usually work together to kill the weenies - but usually at the expense of at least one of the combat deck's own game. A fast bleed predator can often kill a weenie deck but usually not before the weenie kills one prey (and the fastest bleed decks are small vampires, nearly weenies themselves). Wall decks can still stop them IMO if they get moving fast enough and have transient intercept and untap. (Atonement, No secrets from the Magaji, Eternal Vigilance are not a great help as that action to go get it usually is an action you cannot afford when sorely pressed by weenies). The solutions to weenies through deckbuilding require a significant portion of decks to adopt anti-weenie tactics. It has not happened on a large scale here, probably because weenies are seldom played (as most players here play for amusement rather than strict competition, and avoid weenie decks) but this leaves us open to exploitation by the occassional weenie deck that does show up, specially under multideck tournaments. The very fact that socially we exclude weenies prevents us from using the cards that might cure it. Lovely, a catch-22. I have no evidence that this is the case elsewhere, but I suspect it is to some degree, specially in smaller groups. New cards won't address this, new rules might. -John P.

On Feb 28, 10:31 am, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as > follows: > > * Spend one transfer to move 1 blood counter from your pool to a > vampire in your uncontrolled region. > * Spend two transfers to move 1 blood counter from a vampire in > your uncontrolled region to your pool. > * Spend four transfers and burn a pool to move a vampire from your > crypt to your uncontrolled region (drawing from the top, as always). > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > region. I also like this for the reason that the 5th player at a 5-player table also gets a minor benefit. Also, to further hamper weenies, I would make it cost 5 transfers to move a vamp from your crypt to your uncontrolled. It also makes Tarbaby Jack's special somewhat worthwhile; I never found it to be useful before, and that always bothered me. :) Ira

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172694395.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I like it too, for all those reasons. That said, I don't expect it to happen. For one, it's a pretty noticeable modification to the rules for a problem that, apparently, not everyone believes exists. Then besides that, it sort of moves in the opposite direction as the "Undue Influence" suggestion to alter the VEKN tournament rules: where that rule aims to speed up the start of the game so that everyone gets off the ground as fast as weenies currently do, this aims to slow down weenies to a similar early pace as (at least slightly-) larger-vampire decks. I think the game is generally believed to fall more often on the side of "too long" than "too short", so speeding it up is probably preferred to slowing it down. But in any case - ingenious idea, I do like it. :-) Josh tar this baby, jack!

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1172688240.4...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 28, 1:31 pm, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Suppose it were slightly different: >> >> First, you would max out at five transfers instead of four. >> >> During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as >> follows: >> >> * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or >> equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready >> region. >> > > Ya, know-- I'm not at all convinced there is a problem. And I'm even > less convinced that, if there is a problem, it can't be solved with > new cards (which is preferable to core rules changes.) But as > "solutions" go - this isn't half bad. I think it's hard to address "the weenie issue" effectively with new cards, since those cards have to be put into decks and then drawn before they can do anything. But since so many people apparently don't find them a problem (to me, the fact that it's so relatively easy, as even "not much weenie problem" posters have mentioned, to ruin one person's game if not get your 1 VP at their expense, is a problem in itself, even if it's not a problem that necessarily wins games), yeah, I don't know how likely it is we'll see any rule changes for them. (What's up with me writing so many ridiculously long sentences lately? Sheesh.) > Here's my offering: > > Personal Entreaty > Master. Trifle. > X Pool > Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. Cute, and very easy to play, but to me this seems too usable *by* small-vampire decks to be much help *against* small-vampire decks. You know? Josh always trying to wedge too many things into too few cardslots

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm with you, I don't think there is a problem. But it would be interesting for there to be a new type of card that was a crypt card that gave extra transfers or something. Call it a Lobbyist card or something. It counts towards your 12 crypt cards. You can only have N in your crypt (N=some arbitrary number that is tested). The Lobbyist cards come up at the beginning of your Influence phase and effect the Influence phase. Etc etc. The Events added "stuff" to teh discard phase. The Influence phase hasn't had "stuff" added to it yet. It could be something like this. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Feb 28, 9:56 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [...] > > Ya, know-- I'm not at all convinced there is a problem. And I'm even > > less convinced that, if there is a problem, it can't be solved with > > new cards (which is preferable to core rules changes.) But as > > "solutions" go - this isn't half bad. > > I think it's hard to address "the weenie issue" effectively with new cards, > since those cards have to be put into decks and then drawn before they can > do anything. The weenie issue could be effectively addressed with new cards, but with a new library card type (e.g., "Elder Power"). NEW LIBRARY CARD TYPE Elder Power: During your untap phase you may search your library for an Elder Power card and put it in play. Example of "Elder Power" card: Name: Ancient Domain Cardtype: Elder Power Only usable if you control no minions. Only usable during your first turn. Put 3 counters on this card. Remove 1 counter from this card during your influence phase. Burn this card if it has no counters. You do not burn pool when a minion bleeds you, regardless of the amount of the bleed. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow! New Card Type! These Elder Powers could be huge. I'd do it like this: NEW LIBRARY CARD TYPE Elder Power. One Elder Power may be played during your untap phase. During your untap phase you may burn 1 pool to search your library for an Elder Power card and put it into your hand. Discard down to hand size. You could have rules about only 1 Elder Power being in play at a time, as well so they don't get totally abused. Then you could have some serious control over how you want your early game to develop. I like this idea A LOT. It kind of personalizes your Methuselah even more rather than them being simply a puppeteer (though I know the Master cards also represent that, but they generally affect minions too). Jeff

On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > The weenie issue could be effectively addressed with new cards, but > with a new library card type (e.g., "Elder Power"). > > NEW LIBRARY CARD TYPE > Elder Power: > During your untap phase you may search your library for an Elder Power > card and put it in play. Interesting. But you need an "Elder Power" then to deal with each type of stuff that weenies would need to do. Bleed, vote, fight etc. Or I guess you could come up with an elder power such as: Put 5 counters on this card. Minions with a capacity less than the number of counters cannot act. No card can put counters on this card. But this would slow down the game and as somebody mentioned above this game does not need to be slowed down. You would probably need a restriction that each methuselah can only play one elder power each game. It could be something akin to WWE Raw's Prematch cards. Cards that are not included in deck totals, do not go in either crypt or library, and are played or not played at the start of a game. -John P.

On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it's hard to address "the weenie issue" effectively with new cards, > since those cards have to be put into decks and then drawn before they can > do anything. Yeah, going the speed-up route we run into the Zilla's problem. I really want it in my initial hand, but don't really care after that. So, how many stinkin' master slots do I dedicate to this card (and I tend to end up a 0). I tried to get at some of that with my suggestion. > But since so many people apparently don't find them a problem > (to me, the fact that it's so relatively easy, as even "not much weenie > problem" posters have mentioned, to ruin one person's game if not get your 1 > VP at their expense, is a problem in itself, even if it's not a problem that > necessarily wins games) I think the "Broken because it ruin's my game" and "broken because it ruin's my game and goes on to win" distinction is useful though. If a deck type wins often we can expect people to play it, even if others don't like it. (See "Play to Win" thread). But, scanning the recent TWD entries I see very few weenie decks and no speed-kill weenies with wins in the last year. Maybe I missed something, but among deck-types it appears to be remakable for it lack of winning. If the "broken" deck type isn't winning, players will try it, get the hate from their prey, get the table-hate and go on to lose. Most players are going to give up and find more pleasant ways to not-win. I know what it's like to be on the "game ruined" end of one of these decks. At EC 05 I had the pleasure of sitting next to a Pander-vote or weenie-breed deck in all 3 round. ("I flew all the way to freakin' Budapest for *this*!"). But I feel like the game (the US game?) has moved on at this point. And changing game rules to hamper decks that don't tend to win, but do ruin peoples game, seems like a route to maddness. > > > Here's my offering: > > > Personal Entreaty > > Master. Trifle. > > X Pool > > Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. > > Cute, and very easy to play, but to me this seems too usable *by* > small-vampire decks to be much help *against* small-vampire decks. You > know? > Yeah, it should probably have a "you can only bring out one vampire this turn" clause. Maybe... Personal Entreaty Master. Trifle. X Pool Gain X+2 transfers during your influence phase this turn. Only one minion may enter your ready region during your influce phase. Hmmm... that wording doesn't seem right. Oh, well. -Ben Swainbank

In message <1172686637.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> writes: >I'm a little surprised to the "weenies are broken" cries coming back. I'd be interested to know if there was a progression like: - Some groups hate PTO - A player in a given group who hates PTO most decides to play weenies so he doesn't get shafted by PTO so much - Group hates weenies Or something like that. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Feb 28, 1:31 pm, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] LSJ Already proposed a adjustment to a very similar idea. http://tinyurl.com/2989pj I had the chance to play with this rule last week and it looks very good. First game a 2 cap weeny deck swepted a 3 player table. The second game with the new rule, they had a slight uptick of power about turn 4-5, then faded to superior combat and votes. Raille

> First, you would max out at five transfers instead of four. > > During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as > follows: > > * Spend one transfer to move 1 blood counter from your pool to a > vampire in your uncontrolled region. > * Spend two transfers to move 1 blood counter from a vampire in > your uncontrolled region to your pool. > * Spend four transfers and burn a pool to move a vampire from your > crypt to your uncontrolled region (drawing from the top, as always). > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > region. > > Any comments on this are more than welcome. I think it's brilliant. If i can convince the guys in my group we might try it out tonight. Would everyone start with five transfers or would the first player get one, second player get two etc. as it is now? It's interesting that moving a vampire from the uncontrolled region to the ready region wouldn't be mandatory. You could keep a vampire in the uncontrolled region indefinitely even if it had more than enough blood on it. Perhaps as a target for Governs etc.? Chris.

> > Also, another card that helps the weenie case is Cairo International > > Airport. . . the card that has alternate card text saying "Volker never > > comes out ever in life. Ever. Bitch." > > Yes, or you could Brainwash him. But he can also have an Info Highway > and come out first turn. And then play Aranthebes > immediately..whatever. I just wanted to point out to Chris, that I can > also make up my own random scenario, but at least I wouldn't call it > (at least according to the thread title) an empirical evidence of > anything. It's not random. I've seen it happen more than once. Weenie vote is fairly standard. The fact that it's relatively easy to create a deck that can do a huge amount of damage so early is a flaw in Vtes. Chris.

On Mar 1, 7:53 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It speeds up fatties though. You could get a nine cap out in two turns rather than three. Chris.

Dasein wrote: >> ...and even more ridiculous to think that the weenie vote deck in question >> will EVER get more than 1VP at ANY table. > > Sure. > But the total number of VPs the player ends up getting is little > consolation to their first victim, and strangely enough, doesn't > always deter people from playing them. Just throwing another (probably bad) suggestion into the mix re: weenie vote. What if we could go back in time to 1994 and write the following cards so: Kine Resources Contested Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more Conservative Agitation Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more Praxis Seizure Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more Crusade Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more Weenies could still call votes, but they would have to be the more "interesting" votes - Domain Challenge (hah!), Finding the Path, etc - rather than KRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRC. I can just picture two players in this ficticious world chatting after Gideon called a KRC. "That guy is cheap!" "You think that's bad - imagine if it was callable by anyone. A player with 1 caps could call 4 on turn 2!" "Heh. Like they'd ever allow that." Of course this doesn't fix other "you don't play" decks like weenie dominate, but in theory a similar approach could have been taken. Appolonius.

> Kine Resources Contested > Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more > > Conservative Agitation > Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more > > Praxis Seizure > Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more > > Crusade > Requires a vampire of capacity 3 or more > > Weenies could still call votes, but they would have to be the more > "interesting" votes - Domain Challenge (hah!), Finding the Path, etc - > rather than KRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRCKRC. > > I can just picture two players in this ficticious world chatting after > Gideon called a KRC. > "That guy is cheap!" > "You think that's bad - imagine if it was callable by anyone. A player > with 1 caps could call 4 on turn 2!" > "Heh. Like they'd ever allow that." > > Of course this doesn't fix other "you don't play" decks like weenie > dominate, but in theory a similar approach could have been taken. > Yep, I like your ideas, especially with regard to the title gaining votes. I suppose the problem is a lot of people are against card text changes so making a small rule change would be more acceptable. Chris.

On 28 Feb 2007 13:43:43 -0800, "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] How about... Ancient Domain Elder Power Put 5 cards from your hand face down under Ancient Domain. During your untap phase, you can use a Elder Power Phase to return one of these cards to your hand. Cards under Ancient Domain count towards your hand size, but cannot be played*. Vampires with a capacity less than the number of cards under Ancient Domain cannot act. * Obviously, the wording needs proper care, but you get the idea. Firstly, it removes the exception necessary to Goth Band style effects. Secondly, it's a cost that I feel makes it a choice, rather than a guarantee. Your first turn, hand size 2, Minions 4 or less can't act. Your second turn, hand size 3, Minions 3 or less can't act. Your third turn, hand size 4, Minions 2 or less can't act. Your fourth turn, hand size 5, Minions 1 or less can't act. Your fifth turn, hand size 6, All minions can act. Your sixth turn, hand size 7, All minions can act. I think Elder Powers should also take a penalty of some kind, like Scarce. Something like "When you put an Elder power into play, pay 1/2/? pool for each Elder Power in play/you control." Note, that my initial Ancient Domain doesn't burn itself at zero cards. So it'd sit there in play. Anyways, just some ideas thrown out there. I like the idea, but automatically found silver bullets need something significant as a cost, and one that continues to persist after the benefit is gone (AD above stays in play, and drops your hand size by 1 even after it's exhausted). Just my USD$0.0157280 Morgan Vening

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] A very simple and elegant solution to a difficult problem... I like it a lot. Cheers, WES

On Mar 1, 4:53 am, "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <g...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote > > During your influence phase you may spend your [five] transfers as > > follows: > > * Spend one transfer to move 1 blood counter from your pool to a > > vampire in your uncontrolled region. > > * Spend two transfers to move 1 blood counter from a vampire in > > your uncontrolled region to your pool. > > * Spend four transfers and burn a pool to move a vampire from your > > crypt to your uncontrolled region (drawing from the top, as always). > > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > > region. > > Any comments on this are more than welcome. > > A very simple and elegant solution to a difficult problem... I like it a > lot. > Cheers, > WES Seconded. In fact, that is the first solution I've ever seen that addresses the 'problem' (weenie horde showing up in the first turns of the game) without really messing that phase up in the rest of the game, or requiring too big a change (such as the unlimited transfers overkill solution). It is so good it even seems wrong. ;) Is it possible we're overlooking some crucial aspect of the game, or any specific strategy, that would be noticeably hampered by this? Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] > LSJ Already proposed a adjustment to a very similar idea.http://tinyurl.com/2989pj > > I had the chance to play with this rule last week and it looks very > good. > > First game a 2 cap weeny deck swepted a 3 player table. The second > game with the new rule, they had a slight uptick of power about turn > 4-5, then faded to superior combat and votes. > > Raille Debut token is kind of nice too. Slows down the early game just enough, then lets the rest of the game progress as normal. Perhaps that slows it down just a bit too much though. This would probably kill off weenie decks entirely since it would take them 4 turns to bring out their initial crypt. The extra transfer and extra cost still gives them a bit of speed, but not as overwhelming. Jeff

Jeff Kuta wrote: > Debut token is kind of nice too. Slows down the early game just > enough, then lets the rest of the game progress as normal. Perhaps > that slows it down just a bit too much though. This would probably > kill off weenie decks entirely since it would take them 4 turns to > bring out their initial crypt. The extra transfer and extra cost still > gives them a bit of speed, but not as overwhelming. Your system, with 5 xfers + 1 pool for a new vampire, is almost exactly the same as the debut token system, but with additional flexibility for fatties (which translates into speed). And it's simpler (since it doesn't introduce new rules-based tokens). Although it does allow the weenie player to field two vamps on turn 1. A satisfactory trade, IMO.

On Mar 1, 10:52 am, "Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio.soo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote > > > * Spend one transfer to move a vampire with blood greater than or > > > equal to its capacity from your uncontrolled region to your ready > > > region. > > > Any comments on this are more than welcome. snipped > In fact, that is the first solution I've ever seen that addresses the > 'problem' (weenie horde showing up in the first turns of the game) > without really messing that phase up in the rest of the game, or > requiring too big a change (such as the unlimited transfers overkill > solution). > > It is so good it even seems wrong. ;) > Is it possible we're overlooking some crucial aspect of the game, or > any specific strategy, that would be noticeably hampered by this? > > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo It totally nerfs the Bakija gambit as you can decline to use a transfer for a full minion. That of course might be a good thing. It does allow you to continue to govern down to a small vampire without fear that it will come into play with blood draining off until you are ready. (IE Make Governing Down and Enchanting Down, etc an even more effective bloat mechanism). -John P.

On Mar 1, 11:52 am, "Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio.soo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is so good it even seems wrong. ;) > Is it possible we're overlooking some crucial aspect of the game, or > any specific strategy, that would be noticeably hampered by this? > The effect on Tupdog decks is worth considering. Although, I think it work out ok there. You can bust out two a turn, or queue them up with a pool each one turn, and bust out 5 at once the next. The "Draft counter soultion" would pretty much kill the dogs. But this seems ok to me. And I expect some people will see slowing down Tupdogs a bit to be good thing. -Ben Swainbank

In article <1172786160....@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It totally nerfs the Bakija gambit as you can decline to use a > transfer > for a full minion. That of course might be a good thing. Man. Then I won't be good at anything... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

On Mar 1, 8:52 am, "Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio.soo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible we're overlooking some crucial aspect of the game, or > any specific strategy, that would be noticeably hampered by this? As Ben mentioned, it hurts Tupdogs, but the general case is that it hurts 1-caps the most. This is a good thing. Regarding the concern that it will make Govern/Enchant even more powerful bloating: I don't think that's really a significant issue. It's pretty rare that you have problems keeping the blood below capacity, and the benefit of keeping it on seems very small to me (if you're bloating, you're taking the pool back.) Also note that this allows the first player to get out a 10 cap on turn 3, when before the max was a 9-cap. It's also impossible for the first player to get out any vamp on the first turn without transfer enhancers. Again, hurting 1-caps. That's fine by me, though. I say we implement it (or at least start playtesting it!) Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] One thing that it does do is eliminate simultaneity at the end of your influence phase. Before, all vampires/imbued would enter play at the same time. With this change, there would be discrete moments when minions moved from uncontrolled to ready with each transfer. I can't think of any oddball implications, but it would be another side effect of any such change. One thing I did keep in mind is that it is still possible (as Meth Five) to bring out a turn one 4-cap without any influence enhancers. And Meth One still has transfers enough to bring out a 5-cap first, which is where the power curve for vampires really starts to kick in (i.e. instead of inf1 inf2 inf3, you often get SUP1 SUP2 inf3 for disciplines). Jeff

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:52 am, "Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio.soo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Is it possible we're overlooking some crucial aspect of the game, or >> any specific strategy, that would be noticeably hampered by this? > > As Ben mentioned, it hurts Tupdogs, but the general case is that it > hurts 1-caps the most. This is a good thing. > > Regarding the concern that it will make Govern/Enchant even more > powerful bloating: I don't think that's really a significant issue. > It's pretty rare that you have problems keeping the blood below > capacity, and the benefit of keeping it on seems very small to me (if > you're bloating, you're taking the pool back.) I also see a bonus in that when people, currently, forget to bring out a vamp that is full, or they transferred to the wrong guy and he's accidentally full, or something, then it causes all sorts of messy 'how the fuck to we rewind this?' scenarios that such mistakes usually lead to (and I hate having to make calls on, when judging tournaments). With the extra transfer point requirement to bring the vamp to the ready region, there is no longer that mistake to make, and that means less messy stuff when people screw up. Which is awesome. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] *gasp* High praise here. ;) Hm, maybe he's getting soft on us. Time to try to get PTO banned again... Jeff

Jeff Kuta wrote: > One thing that it does do is eliminate simultaneity at the end of your > influence phase. Before, all vampires/imbued would enter play at the > same time. Not quite. They enter play one at a time, all in the same window. So scarce vampires come out "in sequence" (with later ones paying penalty for earlier ones), for example. > With this change, there would be discrete moments when > minions moved from uncontrolled to ready with each transfer. I can't > think of any oddball implications, but it would be another side effect > of any such change. No change. Now, if you allow paying one influence to bring out vampires who grant extra influence, that would be a change.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah yes. Good old Tarbaby Jack. Now that'd be broken. ;)

On Mar 1, 1:25 pm, "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Debut token is kind of nice too. Slows down the early game just > enough, then lets the rest of the game progress as normal. I don't care for the debut token idea because it adds a new mechanical element to the game, and feels convoluted. It might get the job done, but I prefer simpler mechanics over more complicated ones.

> > This is my experience with weenies and I'm not > > looking to ignore it, but rather to understand whatever all of you see > > when you tell me weenies are broken. > > I haven't felt weenie decks were very strong for quite a while. Breed/ > Boon is still quite good, but that's not what most people mean by > weenie deck. The weenie bleed/blitz vote style deck seems like its on > the way out. They are just too predicable and fragile. They win the > two player game but not a 4-5 player game. I agree. Weenies taking a table by storm just isn't something I see these days. If today's weenies want to win, they have to use Power Structure, Amaravati, Eldest Are Kholo, or some such, together with Consanguineous Boons. (Failing that, a card that gives you +1 bleed on each of them will do it.) > PS. Brian, you do have other decks you play, don't you? Yes. My most effective decks are based around large vampires: My Ventrue voters, my Gangrel voters, my Una voters (Dual Form Cardinals) and my Huitzilopochtli Soul Gem deck are my most effective decks. Note they all have average capacities of between 9 and 10. However, despite my perception that it's too easy to win with stealth- voting fatties--not weenies as suggested elsewhere in this thread--I like to play with weenies anyway. Also, I have to assume your comment above is based on how often you've seen me playing Panders in championship level events. I've played Panders in every NAC and EC from 2004 to present, but that's just cause I like Panders. Anything lower than a qualifier, and you won't see me using them--we've just probably met more often across a championship table than anywhere else. Next time we meet, remind me, and I'll bring something odd out and challenge you to the most epic-ly casual game the world has ever seen! :) -- Brian