Ban Vote Update

Sure, it's unscientific, but it makes me feel better! ------------------------------------------------------ So far, we have: Pro-Ban. Taking this position means that you generally feel that banning cards is favorable to drastically changing the card's text. Anti-Ban. Taking this position means that you feel that changes to card text are preferred to banning. Undecided. Taking this position means that you are, well, undecided. If you see your name here, but you really _are_ decided, let me know. In fact, if I have incorrectly interpreted your position and put you on the wrong list, let me know. Note: I have included e-mail addresses only in the cases where the poster does not use their real name, to aid in identification. If anyone objects to this, let me know. Pro: James Hamblin Peter Bakija Adrian Sullivan Luis P. Duarte "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> Steve Bucy James McClellan ("Legbiter") Mike Bohlmann Real name unknown <bi...@my-dejanews.com> Real name unknown <Gym...@aol.com> Todd Banister Greg Faulkner Ian Cyr R. Brain Smith Eric Freeman Jeff Dai Anti: LSJ (obviously) Ethan Burrow "TigersClaw" <lpic...@netdirect.net> Frederic Genest <gen...@iname.com> Gomi no Sensei Undecided: Doug Dunaway Robert Goudie Jaysen Knight ------------------------------- Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor of just banning cards instead of making such complex changes. LSJ, your thoughts? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > of just banning cards instead of making such complex changes. LSJ, your > thoughts? Nice little survey. As more information continues to come in, I will be able to evaluate the situation more fully. If problems with the errata persist, then changes will have to be made, naturally. But still, tournament-level banning is in the domain of the VEKN and the DCI, not the RT. I wouldn't recommend that they impose a ban at this point, obviously. Thanks for handling this in a level-headed way. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

In article <6o31b6$q46$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > If problems with the errata persist, then changes will > have to be made, naturally. When you've got lurkers coming from the underbrush, I'd say that people are pretty fired up about it, that's for sure. > But still, tournament-level banning is in the domain of > the VEKN and the DCI, not the RT. I wouldn't recommend > that they impose a ban at this point, obviously. So why not let people make up their own house rules to fixing the "overpowerful" cards? And if VEKN and the DCI think a card is too powerful, leave it to them to either recommend changing the card text or banning the card in tournament play? The major card text revisions and some of the other rulings just make me feel like you're trying to impose someone else's house rules on how we play. Mike [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Thanks for handling this in a level-headed way. Hey, no problem. Another update, while we're on the subject. The count is now 18-6-3 (pro:anti:undecided). ------------------------------- Pro: James Hamblin Peter Bakija Adrian Sullivan Luis P. Duarte "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> Steve Bucy James McClellan ("Legbiter") Mike Bohlmann Real name unknown <bi...@my-dejanews.com> Real name unknown <Gym...@aol.com> Todd Banister Greg Faulkner Ian Cyr R. Brian Smith Eric Freeman Jeff Dai Dave Stevers Josh Duffin Anti: LSJ (obviously) Ethan Burrow "TigersClaw" <lpic...@netdirect.net> Frederic Genest <gen...@iname.com> Gomi no Sensei Robert Grau Undecided: Doug Dunaway Robert Goudie Jaysen Knight ------------------------------- James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

To be more accurate, I would rather be labeled as undecided. James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > > Thanks for handling this in a level-headed way. > > Hey, no problem. > > Another update, while we're on the subject. The count is now 18-6-3 > (pro:anti:undecided). > Anti: > LSJ (obviously) > Ethan Burrow > "TigersClaw" <lpic...@netdirect.net> > Frederic Genest <gen...@iname.com> > Gomi no Sensei > Robert Grau _____________________________________________________________ Ethan Burrow V:EKN Prince of Austin et...@ddg.com http://www.ddg.com/ethan/austin http://www.ddg.com/ethan/

Question, If the Vote goes against you would you change it ? LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote in article <6o31b6$q46$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > > of just banning cards instead of making such complex changes. LSJ, your > > thoughts? > > Nice little survey. > > As more information continues to come in, I will be able > to evaluate the situation more fully. > > > > -- >

> Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > of just banning cards instead of making such complex changes. LSJ, your > thoughts? Put my vote for 'anti' as well. Thanks, Justicar. (just...@my-dejanews.com) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Sure, it's unscientific, but it makes me feel better! > > ------------------------------------------------------ > So far, we have: > > Pro-Ban. Taking this position means that you generally feel that > banning cards is favorable to drastically changing the card's text. > > Anti-Ban. Taking this position means that you feel that changes to card > text are preferred to banning. > > Undecided. Taking this position means that you are, well, undecided. > If you see your name here, but you really _are_ decided, let me know. > In fact, if I have incorrectly interpreted your position and put you on > the wrong list, let me know. > > Note: I have included e-mail addresses only in the cases where the > poster does not use their real name, to aid in identification. If > anyone objects to this, let me know. > > Pro: > James Hamblin > Peter Bakija > Adrian Sullivan > Luis P. Duarte > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> > Steve Bucy > James McClellan ("Legbiter") > Mike Bohlmann > Real name unknown <bi...@my-dejanews.com> > Real name unknown <Gym...@aol.com> > Todd Banister > Greg Faulkner > Ian Cyr > R. Brain Smith > Eric Freeman > Jeff Dai > > Anti: > LSJ (obviously) > Ethan Burrow > "TigersClaw" <lpic...@netdirect.net> > Frederic Genest <gen...@iname.com> > Gomi no Sensei > > Undecided: > Doug Dunaway > Robert Goudie > Jaysen Knight > > ------------------------------- > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > of just banning cards instead of making such complex changes. LSJ, your > thoughts? > > James > -- > James Hamblin > ham...@math.wisc.edu Mark me for anti-ban

ernie&jeanine wilson wrote: > > > > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in > > > favor of just banning cards..." > Dear Justicar, Actually, that was me that wrote that. > Banning Cards is a very dangerous step. I would like to see more > discussion of specifics before we vote on something that could change > the whole direction of the game. Sure; the whole point of this poll was to see how many people thought that banning was at least a viable option. The count is now 22-10 with 3 undecided. I would say that banning should at least be discussed seriously. > Which cards are you proposing to ban ? I'll bet there is a > counter-measure to almost every one of them, Note that a card being too powerful is not the only reason to ban it. > and in most cases you > would not have to change any card text to do it. Will you take the bet > ? 1.00 per card. Even if I lose on a few it would be worth it to me to > see a full discussion on this issue. > Please publish your proposed ban list so we can get a look at it, > let some people respond, then vote. I believe that the cards most people would want to see discussed for banning include: Tomb of Ramses III Return to Innocence Direct Intervention Mind Rape Thoughts Betrayed ...at the very least. [ quoted text not captured ]

gen...@iname.com wrote: > > > Direct Intervention > > Pardon my ignorance, but why is it one a problem? [snip] > Why > is it considered "broken", or ban material? I don't think it's particularly broken. Neither do I think Thoughts Betrayed is particularly broken. But I don't think that either of these cards belongs in this game. [ quoted text not captured ]

just...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article <6o4cd9$3n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > > > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > > of just banning cards..." Dear Justicar, Banning Cards is a very dangerous step. I would like to see more discussion of specifics before we vote on something that could change the whole direction of the game. Which cards are you proposing to ban ? I'll bet there is a counter-measure to almost every one of them, and in most cases you would not have to change any card text to do it. Will you take the bet ? 1.00 per card. Even if I lose on a few it would be worth it to me to see a full discussion on this issue. Please publish your proposed ban list so we can get a look at it, let some people respond, then vote. my 2 cents, Ernie

> Direct Intervention Pardon my ignorance, but why is it one a problem? It does something similar to Sudden Reversal, except that it targets a minion card and cost 1 pool. Considering that there aren't that much SR played anyway, and that there is *so* many minion cards played in a game, I failed to honestly see how DI could be "abused" without causing an hand jam or costing large amount of pool. Why is it considered "broken", or ban material? Maybe there something I'm not seeing here... Frederic.

O.K. , There is your list. Here are my counters. (See below) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in article <35A6B976...@math.wisc.edu>... > ernie&jeanine wilson wrote: > > > > > > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in > > > > favor of just banning cards..." > > > Dear Justicar, > > Actually, that was me that wrote that. > > > Banning Cards is a very dangerous step. I would like to see more > > discussion of specifics before we vote on something that could change > > the whole direction of the game. > > Sure; the whole point of this poll was to see how many people thought > that banning was at least a viable option. The count is now 22-10 with > 3 undecided. I would say that banning should at least be discussed > seriously. > > > Which cards are you proposing to ban ? I'll bet there is a > > counter-measure to almost every one of them, > > Please publish your proposed ban list so we can get a look at it, > > let some people respond, then vote. > > I believe that the cards most people would want to see discussed for > banning include: > > Tomb of Ramses III SUDDEN REVERSAL, ARSON > Return to Innocence DIRECT INTERVENTION, ARCHON INVESTIGATION, AND INTERCEPT Direct Intervention WHY WOULD YOU BAN THIS ? , ...... SUDDEN REVERSAL > Mind Rape DIRECT INTERVENTION, AND INTERCEPT If you have all of the skills you should be able to deal with those cards, they're easy. This next one is a bit tougher, but again I say DIRECT INTERVENTION. I can not understand why you would want to ban such a versitle card as DI. Thoughts betrayed For me the varried nature of V:tes decks is the thing that keeps it interesting. By banning cards you will dillute the flavor of the game. >

gen...@iname.com wrote in article <1103_90...@CAM.hip.cam.org>... > > Direct Intervention > > Pardon my ignorance, but why is it one a problem? > I don't understand it either. How can you abuse a card that you can only play one of per turn?

ernie&jeanine wilson wrote: > > O.K. , There is your list. Here are my counters. (See below) In a game where "counterspell" (or whatever you want to call it) exists, of course this can be used to thwart any broken card. But the existence of a counterspell does not justify the existence of the broken card, or make that card any less broken. Before the release of Sabbat, this game did not have a counterspell. Nor did it need such a card. It seems to me that some people on the design team felt as you do; that the existence of such a card would allow them to design other overpowered cards. But this is not in the spirit of this game. Direct Intervention hurts the game, and hence should be banned. > > I believe that the cards most people would want to see discussed for > > banning include: > > > > Tomb of Ramses III > SUDDEN REVERSAL, ARSON Please no need to shout. Sudden Reversal is always a factor with Master cards, and again does not justify making them overpowered. Even if you Arson the Tomb on your turn, the Tomb user has already gained 1 pool and four free transfers. > > Return to Innocence > DIRECT INTERVENTION, ARCHON INVESTIGATION, AND INTERCEPT See my above comments on DI. Archon Investigation is another card which most likely should not have been printed and/or needs to be banned; I forgot to put it on my list. Intercept will not help if the action is made to be unblockable. And before you mention it, not everyone can play with bleed bounce. > > Direct Intervention > WHY WOULD YOU BAN THIS ? , ...... SUDDEN REVERSAL See my above comments on DI. > > Mind Rape DIRECT INTERVENTION, AND INTERCEPT See my above comments on DI. The fact that an action can be blocked is not an excuse for it to be unbalancingly powerful. > > Thoughts betrayed > For me the varried nature of V:tes decks is the thing that keeps it > interesting. By banning cards you will dillute the flavor of the game. Varied is good. Overpowerful is bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6o8ile$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "ernie&jeanine wilson" <auta...@juno.com> wrote: <snip the banned list and counters> > If you have all of the skills you should be able to deal with those > cards, they're easy. This next one is a bit tougher, but again I say > DIRECT INTERVENTION. I can not understand why you would want to ban such a > versitle card as DI. > Thoughts betrayed > For me the varried nature of V:tes decks is the thing that keeps it > interesting. By banning cards you will dillute the flavor of the game. The "flavor" of the game has already been irrevocably changed by the decreed new card text. The people that have been voting for a ban do so because the old cards are apparantly unacceptable and the new wordings of the cards are worthless. It is easier to tell a person new to your group, these 5 cards are banned than to say read these 2 pages on these 5 cards and then read the other 25 pages of errata on this website before you come to play. I would rather see a card officially banned than see that same card changed into a new card completely unsupported by card text. But, I agree with you in your belief that they are not broken. However, if all players are forced to play with Direct Intervention and Sudden Reversal because of the presence of these cards in the game, something needs to be done. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > It is easier to tell a person new to your group, these 5 cards are > banned than to say read these 2 pages on these 5 cards and then > read the other 25 pages of errata on this website before you come > to play...... > Lasombra I chose none of the above. Remember, just because they feed it to you does not mean that you have to eat it.

> just...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article > <6o4cd9$3n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > > > > > > Right now the count is 16-5-3. Looks like a LOT of people are in favor > > > of just banning cards..." Well, I'm indecisive, but I rather tend to not ban cards. But I don't like that new cards are "created" out of existing ones. Leave the cards the way they are, or at least modify them only slightly. What I like: - aggro rule - D-bleed only your prey (with exceptions) - golden rule of card-ownership What I don't like: - D-actions allowed against oneself - Wake-ruling - Pulled Fang-ruling (7/7) - Rewriting ToR, RtI, MR (though I wouldn't mind *minor* adjustments) - Fame ruling - Zip gun ruling What I'm not sure about: - vote pushing rule - TB ruling (that's not so hard) - DI discussion Okay, I think these are the major points. Let me state this: in general, I think LSJ does a good job. But the (7/7)-rulings were a bit rash. Some of them are a bit weird (esp. WwEF!!) for seasoned players. I have the *impression* these are houserules of LSJ. While some of the new rulings are debatable, some are definitly wrong for V:TES (like WweF or PF). I could live with most of the new rules. The point is: too much rulings in too few time! This is a very sensitive area, quick fixes and changes do the game great harm! -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Servus, Carl. In article <6od4uk$8g3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > Well, I'm indecisive, but I rather tend to not ban cards. Do you guys still use 4CL and a 2CL on certain cards? > But I don't like that new cards are "created" out of existing ones. Me, either. My only real complaint with the new rulings. Minor wording changes are a lot easier to remember and can be explained as typos to newbies. > What I like: > - aggro rule I like it, too, but could be hard to teach. Minor problem, really. > - D-bleed only your prey (with exceptions) What this really does is force a little variety in a bleed deck. > - golden rule of card-ownership Yeah, I always liked in Vienna how cards stayed around after someone was ousted. The big problem, IMHO, is that a lot of American players have bad attitudes and "want to take the ball and go home" when they lose. > What I don't like: > - D-actions allowed against oneself There really are only a few to worry about. Plus it elliminates a lot of errata. > - Wake-ruling It will now be used primarily in Deflection decks. Forced Awakening will be used by decks that actually want to get into combat. > - Pulled Fang-ruling (7/7) It really is hard enough to do more damage than the other vampire. At least in the groups I've played in. That's why I like my Assamite deck the most: Blood Sweat baby. :) > the (7/7)-rulings were a bit rash. Some of them are a bit weird > (esp. WwEF!!) for seasoned players. I have the *impression* these > are houserules of LSJ. I think the problem here is the interaction between the RT and the DCI/V:EKN tournament stuff. The DCI/V:EKN should ban cards that are overpowered in tournaments. The RT should be focused on eliminating ambiguity and determining what happens in weird situations. Anything else should be up to individual groups. Mike [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > I could live with most of the new rules. The point is: too much rulings > in too few time! This is a very sensitive area, quick fixes and changes > do the game great harm! The other school of thought on this is: better to make the changes all at once so players don't have to continually go "how does this card work this month?" or "has this card been fixed yet?" and so that they don't have to recheck their decks every month to see if they're still legal/workable. (some players complained about this even when the RTRs were spaced almost a year apart). As has been noted: you cannot please everyone all the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6odamp$gk4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > Servus, Carl. Guten Tag, Mike. > > In article <6od4uk$8g3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > Well, I'm indecisive, but I rather tend to not ban cards. > > Do you guys still use 4CL and a 2CL on certain cards? We guys are still playing 4CL, but we dropped the 2CL (on TB and Rutors Hand). Currently we are running the league, and as a novum we installed a secondary league with 6CL. But, unfortunatly, most of our players don't play 6CL, they think the game is broken that way (no, no need to worry, I won't start the CL-disc. again!). I played a few NL games in the past, just to see if it's that bad. I think it's not, my friends think it is. Nevertheless I built a good Gangrel wall NL deck. I use it every now and then, but only if all players agree. > > > But I don't like that new cards are "created" out of existing ones. > > Me, either. My only real complaint with the new rulings. Minor > wording changes are a lot easier to remember and can be explained > as typos to newbies. > > > What I like: > > - aggro rule > > I like it, too, but could be hard to teach. Minor problem, really. Under Jyhad it was not hard to teach either. So why does everyone say it is hard to teach? I don't get it. > > > - D-bleed only your prey (with exceptions) > > What this really does is force a little variety in a bleed deck. That's O.K. for me. > > > - golden rule of card-ownership > > Yeah, I always liked in Vienna how cards stayed around after someone > was ousted. The big problem, IMHO, is that a lot of American players > have bad attitudes and "want to take the ball and go home" when they > lose. From the reactions in the newsgroup I got the same impression. This makes me really sad. I think staying and watching the game is also very interesting. I hope the DCI picks up this new rule. A tournament player is not likely to leave after a game if it doesn't go well. If he did, he should be banned (unless there is a good reason for leaving: I'd consider an earth-quake a good reason). :) > > > What I don't like: > > - D-actions allowed against oneself > > There really are only a few to worry about. Plus it elliminates a lot > of errata. I changed my mind on this one. Now I accept it, too. > > > - Wake-ruling > > It will now be used primarily in Deflection decks. Forced Awakening > will be used by decks that actually want to get into combat. I cannot bear this ruling. It was never wanted by the players. Now,I mean. > > > - Pulled Fang-ruling (7/7) > > It really is hard enough to do more damage than the other vampire. > At least in the groups I've played in. That's why I like my Assamite > deck the most: Blood Sweat baby. :) It's always hard against damage-preventers. Non-stackable it's O.K. > > > the (7/7)-rulings were a bit rash. Some of them are a bit weird > > (esp. WwEF!!) for seasoned players. I have the *impression* these > > are houserules of LSJ. > > I think the problem here is the interaction between the RT and the > DCI/V:EKN tournament stuff. The DCI/V:EKN should ban cards that are > overpowered in tournaments. The RT should be focused on eliminating > ambiguity and determining what happens in weird situations. Anything > else should be up to individual groups. Hm, you have a point there. > > Mike > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > BTW: For Madness of the Bard: "Ich nehm' Dir ein Blut, sieh' wie gut das Dir tut!" or "Mein Vampir will etwas, blockst Du das?" It works in every language, but I don't see how foreign players will understand what I do? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > > But I don't like that new cards are "created" out of existing ones. > > > > Me, either. My only real complaint with the new rulings. Minor > > wording changes are a lot easier to remember and can be explained > > as typos to newbies. > > This, I agree with. > > > What I like: > > > - aggro rule > > > > I like it, too, but could be hard to teach. Minor problem, really. > > Under Jyhad it was not hard to teach either. So why does everyone > say it is hard to teach? I don't get it. > The only thing about them that was hard to teach (or learn, for that matter) was the packet garbage that was incorrect and should never have been done in the first place. Since LSJ has eliminated that, the Jyhad agg rules are much better. > > > > > - D-bleed only your prey (with exceptions) > > > > What this really does is force a little variety in a bleed deck. > > That's O.K. for me. > Nah. What it does is allow you to concentrate on 2 people and ignore the rest of the table. While this really won't have all that much effect on games, it's my opinion that the effect it will have is bad. Oh well, I can certainly accept small bad with large good. 8) > > > > > - golden rule of card-ownership > > > > Yeah, I always liked in Vienna how cards stayed around after someone > > was ousted. The big problem, IMHO, is that a lot of American players > > have bad attitudes and "want to take the ball and go home" when they > > lose. > > From the reactions in the newsgroup I got the same impression. This makes > me really sad. I think staying and watching the game is also very > interesting. I hope the DCI picks up this new rule. A tournament player > is not likely to leave after a game if it doesn't go well. If he did, > he should be banned (unless there is a good reason for leaving: I'd > consider an earth-quake a good reason). :) > Hell, I'd leave a game after I lost, especially at a tournament. Pretty much the only tournaments I've played in were at Gen Con, and if I pay that much to get in, I want to go to the exhibit hall when I have the chance. Although, I still have never liked the "oops, I lose... all the stuff you got from me goes poof..." My solution was always to use proxies for those cards. Now, it's official. Yay! 8) -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

<Snip> First, a small treatise on 'Trump Cards'. I object to the presence of cards which counter opponants' plays without game interactions. The simulation presented in Jyhad was the interaction of Methuselahs (behind-the- scenes manipulators) via minions (front-line warriors and schemers). Master Cards were represented as the 'boons' of the Methuselahs to their minions. These could represent resources of the cities, special benefits, or other power-structure forming. Sudden Reversal was created to counter these Methuselah Boons on the same level on which they are granted. In most cases, the Master Cards are strategic cards which represent the establishment of a battlefield, rather than being actual tactical advantages (though these strategic resources may have tactical advantages eg. Elysium). However, the interaction of Methuselah-to-methuselah was limited to this level alone. The majority of the game is played on the minion-to-minion level. That is, there should be no possible way for a player with no minions to achieve victory. It is necessary for these minions to interact in some fashion -- this is the level on which the Game-qua-game is played. The Master Phase establishes the battlefield, but the Minion Phase enacts the battles. Direct Intervention violates this minion-to-minion interaction by countering minion activities without interaction. The game is 'bypassed' for advantage rather than playability. Since the majority of the game takes place during the minion phase, cards which prevent/counter minion interaction destroy the fabric of playability. Yes, it's advantageous to nullify your opponants' strategies by Direct Intervention, but this violates the fundamental principles upon which the game was created. Even from a 'storyline' perspective (I am also an L5R player) the multiplicity of Direct Intervention violates the premisse. A methuselah shouldn't dirty its hands directly in the activities of its minions, except in grave circumstances. The repeatablity of Direct Intervention lessens the 'omnipresence' mystique of the Methuselah until they become somewhat similar to Bond Villains rather than Illuminati. I could permit Direct intevention if it received the same kind of text as Giants' Blood (may only be played once per game; if nullified, it still counts as having been played) to simulate the gravity of a Methuselah who comes forth from the shadows to protect a valued minion. It would move the card from the realm of humdrum everyday-ness to a real Event. The presence of a powerful trump card also has an effect on how other cards are viewed. No card can be considered abusive, because a trump card exists. It's a vicious cycle. Direct Intervention was created to counter terribly constructed cards such as Return to Innocence or Thoughts Betrayed. It becomes necessary to counter these overpowered cards; however, the presence of a countermeasure card now 'justifies' having such overpowered cards! "It's not that powerful -- it can be countered with Direct Intervention!" Sudden reversal doesn't bother me as much, simply because Master Cards do represent behind-the-scenes operations; there is already very little interaction between Methuselahs themselves; countering the activities of a Methuselah off-screen doesn't violate the premisse of the game. The problem with the card arises with the 'countermeasure justifies powerful Master Cards' problem described above. > > Tomb of Ramses III SUDDEN REVERSAL, ARSON To counter the Tomb, one has to rely on a trump card. I don't like that premisse in gameplay, so I'll set it aside for the moment. By the time Arson can be played, the Meth has already recouped his loss and even gained some effective pool (since he didn't have to pay the extra pool, but ends up with a larger vamp, he has gained 'effective' pool). > > Return to Innocence DIRECT INTERVENTION, ARCHON > > INVESTIGATION, AND INTERCEPT DI : Trump Card. 'nuff said. Archon Investigation : An overpowered countermeasure to an Overpowered problem. The Card was necessary to counter unblockable ultrableeds. When RtI was released, this card became a had-to-have card (it took me months to get mine). Now, any deck that doesn't play with it is hosed. I don't like being forced to construct 1/4 of my deck before I even have a concept. (Direct Interventions/Sudden Reversals/Archon Investigations). Intercept : Most of the problem with RtI is that it can be made unblockable : Day Operation (the most common route), Misdirection/ The Sleeping Mind (A popular Dominate combo since RtI can then be boosted with bleed modifiers) If RtI could be used not permitting modifiers, it _might_ be playable... Bleed-bounce : (not mentioned) - This necessitates every player playing with Dominate (since most of the Bleed-bounce exists here). I like versatility and flexibility in games, not ones that demand particular playing styles. > Direct Intervention WHY WOULD YOU BAN THIS ? , ...... SUDDEN REVERSAL See my diatribe above on why I dislike Countermeasure cards. > > Mind Rape DIRECT INTERVENTION, AND INTERCEPT Again, intercept has taken some big hits against unblockability. > If you have all of the skills you should be able to deal with those > cards, they're easy. Skill is set aside with such cards as Direct Intervention, Sudden Reversal, or unblockable actions. What skill is present in relying on directly countermeasuring your opponants' tactics? What you should say is "If you have all the cards you should be able to deal with those cards, they're easy." Reliance on two all-purpose no-drawback counter-measures for all your deck's defense is just bad game design. >This next one is a bit tougher, but again I say > DIRECT INTERVENTION. I can not understand why you > would want to ban such a versitle card as DI. Because it justifies a power-escalation which crept into the game over time. The presence of the two counter-cards which were created to re-balance the game have thrown the power-curve way up, since now there is no card which cannot be justified as being "easy to counter". Because Direct Intervention betrays the whole premisse of the game (no, I can't spell Premisse. I could look it up, but then I'd lose my train of thought) that interaction between minions is a good thing. Because it is a substitute for strategy and rather relies on brute-force denial in an elegant game of action/reaction. Because it smacks of 'there is no problem, look at this card!' solutions to real problems which were added to a very simple design. > Thoughts betrayed > For me the varried nature of V:tes decks is the thing that keeps it > interesting. By banning cards you will dillute the flavor of the game. I would love to dilute the game by banning Direct Intervention. Alan (aj)

gen...@iname.com wrote: > > > Direct Intervention > > Pardon my ignorance, but why is it one a problem? > > It does something similar to Sudden Reversal, > except that it targets a minion card and cost 1 pool. I just wrote a diatribe against the card. Here are the highlights... I : Storyline/Game Design Argument Jyhad is a game where Methuselahs use minions to try to destroy their rivals. Master Cards represent the actions of the Methuselahs to give their minions advantages. These are largely strategic items rather than tactical. There is little interaction between Meths; Sudden Reversal is one of the few Meth/Meth interactions in the game. Very little a Master Card can do will affect another Meth (it is the violation of this principle which makes Fame such a lethal card). Minion Cards represent actions between minions. The game is largely played on this level, with minions acting to carry out the whims of their masters. The game consists of the acting player trying to act, and the minions trying to counter those actions with reactions of their own (stealth/intercept, political actions/voting blocs, etc). Direct Intevention has the Meth interacting in the Minion level. There is no interaction between minions. There is no gameplay. There is only the great NO. It violates the division between minion/Meth. It violates the gameplay scenario. It violates the inscrutability of the Meths (especially since multiple DI's can be played serially). It violates the idea of the game. II. The Justifiability of Power The presence of DI is seen as the ultimate justification of Overpowered cards. Remove the 'Just use Direct Intervention' argument, and suddenly the discussions on countermeasures become increasingly convoluted and of questionable use. There is no card which cannot be justified by the existence of DI ( a card which was _created to counter_ overpowered cards in the first place). Alan (aj) [ quoted text not captured ]

> The "flavor" of the game has already been irrevocably changed by the > decreed new card text. The people that have been voting for a ban > do so because the old cards are apparantly unacceptable and the new > wordings of the cards are worthless. Setting rhetoric aside... Why are the new wordings of the cards 'worthless'? > It is easier to tell a person new to your group, these 5 cards are > banned than to say read these 2 pages on these 5 cards and then > read the other 25 pages of errata on this website before you come > to play. Straw-man. Nobody is saying that anyone has to do it. It is easier to play Go-fish than Jyhad. Because it is easier, it doesn't mean it is better. Whether or not the text on the proposed cards is changed, there will still be (and will always be) 25 pages of errata on the website to read. This is because of the hackneyed manner in which rulings were decided, made, changed, and amended over the course of the games' publication. If it will make it easy to players, type out the new text on labels, paste them to the cards themselves, and use sleeves. Yes, they're now marked cards. If playing in a tournament, then tell the judge first, that this is a newbie and they need the added help. If you're simply teaching them how to play, this will be a good way to get them up to speed. (Don't use real RtI's then; use extra Rats' Warning or Cryptic Missions or something). > I would rather see a card officially banned than see that same card > changed into a new card completely unsupported by card text. Don't play with the card then. Don't make that decision for someone else. I hate Direct Interventions. I don't give up every time someone else uses one. > But, I agree with you in your belief that they are not broken. I disagree. > However, if all players are forced to play with Direct Intervention > and Sudden Reversal because of the presence of these cards in the > game, something needs to be done. Absolutely. I am firmly a non-banner. Alan (aj)

In article <35ACE9...@calvin.usc.edu>, Alan Flesch <afl...@calvin.usc.edu> wrote: > <Snip> > > I could permit Direct intevention if it received the same kind of text > as Giants' Blood (may only be played once per game; if nullified, > it still counts as having been played) to simulate the gravity of a > Methuselah who comes forth from the shadows to protect a valued > minion. It would move the card from the realm of humdrum > everyday-ness to a real Event. > > The presence of a powerful trump card also has an effect on how > other cards are viewed. No card can be considered abusive, because > a trump card exists. It's a vicious cycle. Direct Intervention was > created to counter terribly constructed cards such as Return to > Innocence or Thoughts Betrayed. It becomes necessary to counter > these overpowered cards; however, the presence of a countermeasure > card now 'justifies' having such overpowered cards! "It's not that > powerful -- it can be countered with Direct Intervention!" > Direct Intervention only playable once per game, in the same sense as Giants Blood, is probably the best fix to this card. _If_ it has to be fixed, then I favor this version. -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

By the way, not everyone can read HTML messages. badger wrote: > > I believe you've left out an option. I don't feel any card should be > banned, but that doesn't mean I support the neutering strategy LSJ has > supported by rewriting cards. But if you must categorize me, I'm > anit-ban. What would you propose to do about broken cards, then? [ quoted text not captured ]