KRC/Conservative Agitation decks are nothing new. When I first read
arguements for card limits many months ago, I too agreed that limits
were not only necessary, but that playing without them couldn't
possibly be sane. This idea was further reinforced by a KRC deck that
someone posted (my news-server has since trashed it) that I could see
no possible way of any number of opponent's beating. It was too fast.
It wouldn't last, but two or three victory points is enough to clean
up most games.
Time and experience has shown me differently. Once again, for those
of you who haven't read Curt Adams great article on card limits,
please do. (Where you'll find it, I'm not as certain. I wish I had
it copied somewhere! :) He can argue more effectively against card
limits than I can, but...
with the topic coming around again, I would like to throw in my own
opinion. The major power of the KRC deck comes, as we all know, from
the Pushing of the vote. Some of our popular opinions regarding
voting are as follows:
>From L. Scott Johnson's compiled "house rules"
> o. Only Methuselahs other than the acting Methuselah may use
additional
> political action cards for votes.
> [Curt Adams in favor]
> -L. Scott Johnson & Shane H. W. Travis opposing-
>
> o. Only one Political Action card may be used to gain a vote by each
> Methuselah during a vote. (Includes any PA played to call the
vote.)
> NOTE: This fits the text in the rulebook as well as any other
rule does.
> [Alan S. H. Kwan in favor]
>
Both of these options for Political Actions are interesting. The
first is an interpretation of section 17.1, taken almost verbatim, but
our happy DT's FAQ says that any Methuselah may Push vote cards (more
in line with the second). They both address well the problems of a
Pushed vote deck. My group was not satisfied with either solution.
>From 17.1
>A political card always provides one vote for the Methuselah playing
it.
We felt that it was a good thing to be able to push votes, but not in
the grotesque KRC manner. Our solution is simple. As the vote that
is being called is the actual action, any vote cards played by
Methuselahs for votes are effectively "action modifiers" and
"reaction" cards. Therefore, you may only play ONE vote card of any
particular kind. We have found it gives enough flexibility to allow
for surprise without overwhelming someone with KRC. Comments are
appreciated.
-As a side note, my newsserver is several days behind on this
newsgroup making it difficult to even respond in a timely manner to
others' postings. If anyone knows of any servers that are timely and
accessible (sp?) please mail me. Thanks much!
---
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>"
sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here>
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
GAT/CS/M/P/O d-(---) h++ s g+ p+ au-(0) a-- w+(+++) v+++(-)* c(+++)
UX+$ P L 3 E- N+++>++ K+>++++ !W M++ V-->! -po+ Y+ t 5->! j R+++>+++
G++++'' tv b++(+++) D+ B-(---)>? e+* u+(++)@-*/** h!*>+ f* r@++
n+(---) y*+? // from <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> v2.1
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
Would have to agree that that deck was disgusting. its kind of like
playing solitare with only A-3.
But do you think crippling a vot deck by 1 card resrtiction and not doing
it to the other decks is fair to the people who like to play them?
Sorry as a newbie to the net i can't help with the server,but will
patiently wait your reply.
>Time and experience has shown me differently. Once again, for those
>of you who haven't read Curt Adams great article on card limits,
>please do. (Where you'll find it, I'm not as certain. I wish I had
>it copied somewhere! :) He can argue more effectively against card
>limits than I can, but...
Thanks for the compliment, but Alan's article was better than mine.
I keep my long pieces about (on this and other subjects); anybody
who wants one need only ask for it.
I've a copy of Alan's article on card limits.
>We felt that it was a good thing to be able to push votes, but not in
>the grotesque KRC manner. Our solution is simple. As the vote that
>is being called is the actual action, any vote cards played by
>Methuselahs for votes are effectively "action modifiers" and
>"reaction" cards. Therefore, you may only play ONE vote card of any
>particular kind. We have found it gives enough flexibility to allow
>for surprise without overwhelming someone with KRC. Comments are
>appreciated.
I find Alan's "one vote push" works best. (I support my own as workable
and a literal interpretation of the rules - I think the better rulebook
support for my position counts for more.)
I've never tried your suggestion, but it would have the problem of
deteriorating with an increase in the number of selfish vote cards. I
can't say how it would play right now. I suspect that a seizure deck
could still work by having a variety of votes (especially the seizures) to
provide the variety to get the seizures accross and then using the titles
to pass the votes. A true KRC deck (KRC/CA only) would indeed hit the
wall.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Errol Trepanier <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>Would have to agree that that deck was disgusting. its kind of like
>playing solitare with only A-3.>But do you think crippling a vot deck by 1 card resrtiction and not doing>it to the other decks is fair to the people who like to play them?
It's really not so much of a problem. A non-vote deck rarely has any
votes to throw down anyway. Another vote deck can be negotiated with, as
you can do the same to it. Also remember that with most votes you'll have
supporters as well.
The cards to gain or influence votes go a very long way, too. After
Bewitching Oration and Bribes, almost any vote is going to pass.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
SULLIVAN, ADRIAN L - F94 <sulli_al@glutamic> wrote:
>We felt that it was a good thing to be able to push votes, but not in
>the grotesque KRC manner. Our solution is simple. As the vote that
>is being called is the actual action, any vote cards played by
>Methuselahs for votes are effectively "action modifiers" and
>"reaction" cards. Therefore, you may only play ONE vote card of any
>particular kind. We have found it gives enough flexibility to allow
>for surprise without overwhelming someone with KRC. Comments are
>appreciated.
great idea! This is a simple, elegant way to solve the problem without the
problem of directly contradicting the DT :)
Alec
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
>>We felt that it was a good thing to be able to push votes, but not in
>>the grotesque KRC manner. Our solution is simple. As the vote that
>>is being called is the actual action, any vote cards played by
>>Methuselahs for votes are effectively "action modifiers" and
>>"reaction" cards. Therefore, you may only play ONE vote card of any
>>particular kind. We have found it gives enough flexibility to allow
>>for surprise without overwhelming someone with KRC. Comments are
>>appreciated.>
>great idea! This is a simple, elegant way to solve the problem without the
>problem of directly contradicting the DT :)
I think I read somewhere that you don't replace cards until a vote is
concluded. If that is the case, then that should solve the vote pushing
problem, since nobody would be able to push votes indefinately, so
besides votes on the table, the most votes a single person could come up
with is 4 (Bewitching Oration) + 6 (vote cards) + 1 or 2 (Elder Library
and/or Cassandra) = 12 absolute maximum, which can be overcome without
too much difficulty in, say, a five player game.
Plus-wise, one intercept/combat deck can ruin a KRC player's whole day.
--
Simeon
----------------------------
simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu
jcl...@netcom.com (James C. Clover) writes:
>I think I read somewhere that you don't replace cards until a vote is
>concluded. If that is the case, then that should solve the vote pushing
>problem, since nobody would be able to push votes indefinately, so
>besides votes on the table, the most votes a single person could come up
>with is 4 (Bewitching Oration) + 6 (vote cards) + 1 or 2 (Elder Library
>and/or Cassandra) = 12 absolute maximum, which can be overcome without
>too much difficulty in, say, a five player game.
Well, overcoming 12 votes is hardly easy in any number game, when the
twelve all comes from your hand (to be augmented by Titled Vampires
and Ventrue HQ), but 12 is certainly not the maximum:
4 (oration) + 1 (initial card) + 7 (PAs in hand) + 2 (Elder Lib and Cassandra)
= 14. Plus 3*(pool-1) in the case of Business Pressure.
(I'll leave out the Justicar Vote-induced votes for members of a clan.)
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>SULLIVAN, ADRIAN L - F94 <sulli_al@glutamic> wrote:>>We felt that it was a good thing to be able to push votes, but not in
>>the grotesque KRC manner. Our solution is simple. As the vote that
>>is being called is the actual action, any vote cards played by
>>Methuselahs for votes are effectively "action modifiers" and
>>"reaction" cards. Therefore, you may only play ONE vote card of any
>>particular kind. We have found it gives enough flexibility to allow
>>for surprise without overwhelming someone with KRC. Comments are
>>appreciated.>great idea! This is a simple, elegant way to solve the problem without
the
>problem of directly contradicting the DT :)
Except it still contradicts the DT, which has stated that political
actions are not in the group of action modifiers/reactions. You can't fix
this problem without going against the current DT rulings somehow.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
The way you want to work is cool.
it's a nice idea because some friends of mine have problems with my high voting deck.
Looks like i like politics.
I only play recently a lot of politics after a long time of heavy combatd decks.
You should try to start playing with 40 blodod counters instead of 30.
Gives more depth and longer fun.
Give it a try i think you'll love it.
Koen.L...@ping.be