Tired of thos X CL debates...

Hey !! this forum is here to discuss about V:tes. The official (& tournament applicapble) rules of V:tes sez "No card limit". Most of the players around the world play with "No card limit". If some players want to play under card limit, or with house rules or whatever, this is their own problem. I'm tired of reading always the same argument for or against CL, and to see that 2/3 of the newsgroup are actually CL related. Can't anyone create another news group -rec.cardgames.vteslimited or something to discuss about that ?? reyda

In message <9r6oal$ebl$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes: >Can't anyone >create another news group -rec.cardgames.vteslimited or something to discuss >about that ?? You'd need 120 people or so, as a bare minimum. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

>>Can't anyone >>create another news group -rec.cardgames.vteslimited or something to discuss >>about that ?? > >You'd need 120 people or so, as a bare minimum. It takes one to create vte...@yahoogroups.com. I could do it in about 5 minutes if the title hasn't already been taken. Could also start adding people or (better) have people figure out how to add themselves within about 15 minutes. Not that I'm volunteering, as anyone motivated could do the same thing, but seeing an end to card limit arguments would be nice.

> >>Can't anyone > >>create another news group -rec.cardgames.vteslimited or something to discuss > >>about that ?? What about limiting the players ? Like, no more than 20 of each type (the nice player, the vindicative player, the asshole player etc.) per city for each 1000 inhabitants ? > >You'd need 120 people or so, as a bare minimum. And what if the City Limits don't allow you to have 120 people ? How do you respect those limits on the frontierless net ? > It takes one to create vte...@yahoogroups.com. I could do it in about 5 > minutes if the title hasn't already been taken. Could also start adding people > or (better) have people figure out how to add themselves within about 15 > minutes. Not that I'm volunteering, as anyone motivated could do the same > thing, but seeing an end to card limit arguments would be nice. Yes, it would as long as it's arguments, like "your version is broken and mine ain't", and I've seen that discussions on that subject don't go anywhere. But then, is it worth "concurrencing" this forum, and having to dispatch the infos etc. everywhere ? We know that this is an official forum, with official news and official rules, and basta. Most of the things said here can B beneficial for everybody anyway, except maybe for pure game tactics, and for (that started it all for me...) game and cards balanced in this or that environment. But then, if a CL, or any other houserules forum is created, what will it B ? 4CL ? 3CL ? 6CL ? 90 cards or no limit ? No Grand Mother allowed ? No White People With Dogs and Yellow Shoes ? And maybe, a new forum for each ? FREEDOM OF SPEECH (you know, the thing the Censoring USA are forgetting all about recently...) !!! (and dogfood for all).

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message news: 9r7kbc$343$1...@wanadoo.fr... > We know that this is an official forum, with official news and official > rules, and basta. on dit basta en anglais aussi ?? > But then, if a CL, or any other houserules forum is created, what will it B > ? 4CL ? 3CL ? 6CL ? 90 cards or no limit ? No Grand Mother allowed ? No > White People With Dogs and Yellow Shoes ? And maybe, a new forum for each ? calm down my friend ;) > FREEDOM OF SPEECH (you know, the thing the Censoring USA are forgetting all > about recently...) !!! 1st amendment or whatever... > (and dogfood for all). not for me thanks.

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9r6oal$ebl$1...@hadron.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I find it very sad to see that you acctually belive that anyone who disagrees with you should be ostracized to another forum. To me that says we ( the regular posters to this group) have no need to dicuss anything about this game that we ( the regular posters to this group)did not innitiate. I belive this to be a very sad state of affairs where the opinions of the few ( the regular posters to this group) always out weigh any and all opposing positions. yes the official rules say "no card limit" but when one of the VTES elite (read as old school usenet) decide there is a problem with the official rules. It is met with thoughtful respect from the powers that be and initiates a constructive discussion.(note the recent rules argument between James Coupe and LSJ) However when anyone else belives there may be a problem the VTES elite band together and generally force the opposing positon to simply give up as they have met the large immovable object that is the VTES elite general concensus. this has happened to me on more than one occasion which is why I generally lurk rather than post anymore. As far as the CL/NCL debate is concerned I agree with some arguments on both sides *Quiet pause as many feign shock* the game was designed with nolimits and as I see it this as neccasary for the following reason... In magic you can limit the cards because you only have to defeat a single opponent in tournament play so with four of each card getting your winning combo off is a likely occurance and somewhat balanced. With VTES however you have up to six other players to be concerned with and with only four copys of your great ousting combo in the deck you can only see it acctually come up in a usefull order four times. realisticly you will only get it twice if that and 2 VP's cannot garantee you a victory. so four of a given card is not enough thus the basic no limit argument as I see it from a tournament perspective. now on the other hand the basic argument of the CL camp is ridiculous repitition I can see the point here because from a tournament perspective some heavily repetitive decks require zero skill to win with I want to win or lose a tournament based on the playing skill of my opponents not the "cheesyness" of there deck. I have a deck in the yahoo archive ( deck name "Little Ones" if you care) that is a very good deck however it requires zero skill to play and win with I can take any player with a simplistic understanding of the game give them this deck and enter them in a tourny and they will honestly have a decent shot at doing quite well. This is very bad for the game IMHO because they are not a good enough player to be a tournament winner. the fact that the world champ could one day be a 12 year old who happend to pick the right flavor of cheese cannot be good for the game as a whole. I honestly belive the reason this argument keeps coming up is not because either side is wrong or right but because the game needs some sort of compromise between both camps to acchive the ever sought after balance I don't honestly belive that will ever happen simply due to the large immovable object I spoke of earlier. ok I'll shut up now and go back to lurking Eric

>I find it very sad to see that you acctually belive that anyone who >disagrees with you should be ostracized to another forum. To me that >says we ( the regular posters to this group) have no need to dicuss >anything about this game that we ( the regular posters to this >group)did not innitiate. I belive this to be a very sad state of >affairs where the opinions of the few ( the regular posters to this >group) always out weigh any and all opposing positions. Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old same old argument going back and forth. It would be a great deal easier if most people actually searched the archives from time to time. In many cases, the topic has already been discussed and the arguments have been laid out a thousand times over. It's sort of an annoyance, just like when different people post the same question three different times within a week (just an example). Halcyan 2

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9r6oal$ebl$1...@hadron.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I for one must say that this time around I feel that the yearly debate is pretty constructive and is for once not ending up in a flamewar. People are constructively debating their points of view and that is what this forum is about IMO. Tim

In message <20011025044648...@mb-fi.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >>I find it very sad to see that you acctually belive that anyone who >>disagrees with you should be ostracized to another forum. To me that >>says we ( the regular posters to this group) have no need to dicuss >>anything about this game that we ( the regular posters to this >>group)did not innitiate. I belive this to be a very sad state of >>affairs where the opinions of the few ( the regular posters to this >>group) always out weigh any and all opposing positions. > >Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old same old argument going back and >forth. Kill-files are your friend. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Oct 2001 08:46:48 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old >same old argument going back and forth. > >It's sort of an annoyance, just like when different people post the same >question three different times within a week (just an example). That's very funny. NCL advocates ought to enjoy repetition of the same old same old. I'm fairly sure that they do, in fact, enjoy repeating their arguments again and again. It's just frustrating for them that there's no closure - nobody ever wins the game. Andrew

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: 20011025044648...@mb-fi.aol.com... > >I find it very sad to see that you acctually belive that anyone who > >disagrees with you should be ostracized to another forum. You misunderstood : there is no "agree" or "disagree". > > To me that > >says we ( the regular posters to this group) have no need to dicuss > >anything about this game that we ( the regular posters to this > >group)did not innitiate. I belive this to be a very sad state of > >affairs where the opinions of the few ( the regular posters to this > >group) always out weigh any and all opposing positions. I think this particular point, playing jyhad the "CL way", brings totally different problems and outcomes. Why not create a place where people who play CL talk about their version of the game ? I can't recall exactly how many times, when a question is answered, the people who asked said "hey, but i cannot rely on your advice because we play X car limit". And the arguments about CL/no CL starts again, twice a months, and seems to have no end. I wonder if people playing 5color magic (a varian of 'the other card game') talk on their own forum. (Halcyan2)> Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old same old argument going back and > forth. That's it... Skill, luck, drawing, equality betwen players, anti suitcase policy... whatever. We've heard it numerous time. > It would be a great deal easier if most people actually searched the archives > from time to time. In many cases, the topic has already been discussed and the > arguments have been laid out a thousand times over. The archives are quite good. If you are not too lazy to search, that is ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011025044648...@mb-fi.aol.com>... > Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old same old argument going back and > forth. > I might note that you had no response to my argument as to WHY this keeps coming up Eric

James Coupe wrote > Kill-files are your friend. simply put we don't think any new opinions are worthwile we know it all and can produce buddies to back us up therfore any new arguments should be kill-filled and never read as we know it all so obvously we are the only ones with any usefull insight thus any opposing positions are to be ignored. I belive that is the definition of pathetic Eric

On 25 Oct 2001 01:37:43 -0700, eric...@hotmail.com (Eric Freeman) wrote: >yes the official rules say "no card limit" but when one of the VTES >elite (read as old school usenet) decide there is a problem with the >official rules. It is met with thoughtful respect from the powers that >be and initiates a constructive discussion.(note the recent rules This is because those same elite generally constrain themselves to discussing not their own opinions, or what they believe should happen, but what the actual card text, actual rules text, etc. is, and so forth. >argument between James Coupe and LSJ) However when anyone else belives >there may be a problem the VTES elite band together and generally >force the opposing positon to simply give up as they have met the >large immovable object that is the VTES elite general concensus. this >has happened to me on more than one occasion which is why I generally >lurk rather than post anymore. I've brought this up before, and maybe it's time to bring this up again. We have a FAQ. It's almost time that maybe we should have a FOCS: Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions. On it we can put Concealed Weapon, card limits, etc., in nauseating detail, with the arguments for and against. And in the FAQ we can say "Refer to the FOCS for the details regarding your idea, and if you haven't anything new to say that isn't discussed in there, please put a lid on it", ... except we can probably say it much more politely. See, the problem is, that general consensus was arrived at by several YEARS of back-and-forth about these very arguments. Concealed Weapon has been hashed out and beaten into the ground on many different occasions. So have card limits, but even MORE so. Everyone gets frosted because we're very, VERY tired of repeating what, to us, is already demonstrated fact... because I can assure you I haven't heard ANYTHING new out of the "fix CW" or "make a CL" camps this time around that hasn't already been said and countered at some point in the past. And it's not good that we tend to respond with a bit more vitriol than we should, but REALLY, people always want to stand up and believe that somehow, we haven't thought of something or that nobody's made the argument before, when yes, it HAS been said. a FOCS would certainly be much easier than saying "go look in Google", as nobody bothers to look in Google to find the old debates... which is irritating to us, since we really don't want to have to go forth and write all of it out AGAIN, over and over. -- Derek

> I for one must say that this time around I feel that the yearly debate > is pretty constructive and is for once not ending up in a flamewar. > People are constructively debating their points of view and that is > what this forum is about IMO. > > Tim Agreed, but while many others of the threads that have been thoroughly discussed and posted in contain up to 30-50 posts, the CL ones tend to contain under 10 on average and are instead regularly popping up in new threads... I'm not an old player or a regular poster (just regular reader =) and I'm pretty sick of this CL (imho BS, since it very efficiently limits what kind of decks you can build) . Telling people to go to a different forum is a wee bit extreme, but please understand that people get annoyed when someone is too lazy to read through what has been said over and over again, even more annoyed when people are too lazy to post in the CURRENT thread where the issue is being discussed and thus show that by making a new thread...

Isn't there a way to say, when somebody subscribes to this forum : Cards Limits are not discussed here (yes, kind of dictatorial, but I'm not the one who elected Bush), or "Please search the archives at this URL B4 posting anything on this list of subjects : CL, Concealed Weapon, is your Granma a Werewolf, etc..." ? Just an idea. I launched myself one of those debates, and wouldn't have if I wasn't pushed into it (by nobody in particular, just by the conversation, when it reached the "is the game balanced" question...). -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com "_Fire_" <fi...@localbar.com> a écrit dans le message news: 9cee9925.01102...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Eric Freeman" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, it's closer to a working definition of the "good 'ol boy" network. I've found this forum to be as conservative and closed a community as I have seen in my 10 years of reading usenet (though not quite so much as the team-specific sports groups). The players and posters who have been here longest tend to be far from emmissaries for their game, and are more likely to drive you away from this forum than embrace you in discussion. I've read this forum for a few months now, and I've seen more comments from regulars proclaiming that the game can do without players than comments trying to recruit or retain them. Most opinions that challenge the orthodoxy (especially card limit discussions, but pretty much any conversation that challenges the state of the game as it stands at the moment) are met with great hostility and very often open insults. Otherwise, I agree with what you posted, and it discourages me. - Jason Bell

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote > > The archives are quite good. If you are not too lazy to search, that is ;) The archives are also full of misinformation. not that it was incorrect at the time it was posted but that it is incorrect now. By suggesting that everyone read 7 years worth of conversation before ever voicing an opinion is silly. It effectivly means that they never get to post anything because they will always be 7 years behind in the conversation. How convieniant. You win a tourny VP against this person because they show up with a "meet the inner circle" deck they just read about. Poor guy hasn't made it to 7/7 yet. so he dosent know that the deck has been castrated. They get disqualified you get a VP. good strategy < sarcasm off> This IS a "Discussion" forum not a "we've convieniantly already discussed it for you" forum. Eric

In message <9b6ba9ce.01102...@posting.google.com>, Eric Freeman <eric...@hotmail.com> writes: >This IS a "Discussion" forum not a "we've convieniantly already >discussed it for you" forum. When entering into established discussions, a person will almost inevitably find themself repeating a number of the previously used arguments. It may occur to a person who wants to advance the discussion, rather than repeat it, that reading up on the highlights of the old arguments would help them - such that they could avoid the pit-falls old proponents fell into and move on to a higher or further level of argument. No problem with people discussing things at all. Indeed, no problem with people going over old conversations (though some may choose not to read them). What can often be a problem, however, is people coming to an established discussion thinking that their Brand New Idea (tm) is just that when, in fact, it's a quite well argued and generally debunked theory, who then is quite surprised at having an argument torn to pieces from numerous different angles. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9b6ba9ce.01102...@posting.google.com>, Eric Freeman <eric...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote >> Kill-files are your friend. > >simply put we don't think any new opinions are worthwile we know it >all and can produce buddies to back us up therfore any new arguments >should be kill-filled and never read as we know it all so obvously we >are the only ones with any usefull insight thus any opposing positions >are to be ignored. Not at all, from my point of view. However, if certain individuals do not wish to read certain discussions, they are perfectly entitled to kill-file them. This alleviates any need to split any given newsgroup as a result. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:17:40 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >Actually, it's closer to a working definition of the >"good 'ol boy" network. > >I've found this forum to be as conservative and closed a >community as I have seen in my 10 years of reading usenet >(though not quite so much as the team-specific sports groups). I've seen this identical statement, with a few word changes, on over 100 groups, conservatively speaking. Anyone who isn't being agreed with says it. It, too, is nothing new. (another reason I believe that 90% of USENET is crap; 90% of USENET really *IS* crap) >The players and posters who have been here longest tend to be >far from emmissaries for their game, and are more likely to drive >you away from this forum than embrace you in discussion. How many times do I need to discuss card limits before the subject can be let die peacefully? I'm sorry, but I didn't exactly get a "warm fuzzy" feeling from reading Talonz' post; he pretty much openly decried NCL as broken and full of abuses, and that focused, repetitive decks were "boring and cheesy", implying of course that the players of such decks were the same. What the hell? What do you think, that I'm NOT going to respond and point out that 4CL is a worthless Magic-reflex bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself? Everyone and their grandmother thinks they know the BEST tweaks and rules and the RIGHT way to play this game, better than anyone else does. Yeah, whatever. That's why we have ONE person to make those rulings, with a team he occasionally consults for opinions. Otherwise, this sort of crap would go on forever, and nothing would ever get done. That one person is not infallible, and may be wrong sometimes; I know I don't personally agree with some of his rulings. But damn, at least rulings get MADE, and I don't have to waste time arguing them over and over, or trying to change the rules to suit myself instead of learning to work within those rules. Maybe some of y'all never SEEN a committee try to decide anything, or had to live with it while it was doing so. I'm sure there are plenty of NFL players who don't agree with the use of instant replay. But you don't see them going off and making their own league WITHOUT replay, do you? No, they just deal with it and try to make the best out of what they can; and if anyone asks their opinion, they give it, and then say "well, that's the way things are, so we're working with it... maybe things will change later, but for now, this is it." You don't see them crusade on a soapbox at every opportunity. >I've read this forum for a few months now, and I've seen >more comments from regulars proclaiming that the >game can do without players than comments trying to >recruit or retain them. Name names, please, and quote USENET posts in full context showing where anyone has proclaimed that the game can "do without" players. I can assure you that I personally have said the exact OPPOSITE on numerous occasions. (however, I will say this: There's no point in recruiting on the Internet, unless a player from your area posts looking for players in your area. The only place to do recruiting is locally, in your own game shops/etc, IN PERSON. Doing recruiting here is preaching to the choir; we all already play the game. And I don't see anyone declaring they're quitting, so I don't see a need to try to "retain" anyone.) >Most opinions that challenge the orthodoxy (especially >card limit discussions, but pretty much any conversation >that challenges the state of the game as it stands at the >moment) are met with great hostility and very often >open insults. I don't see Randy Moss going down to the NFL commissioner's office and ranting about his opinion on instant replay just because someone challenged his reception and the replay showed that his foot was out, do you? I've never SEEN a game where people spent more time discussing how to change the rules so they could win, as compared to so little time discussing how to just build a damn deck that can win. -- Derek

[snip stuff that's not really relevant to what I'm asking] Generally speaking would it be fair to say that many ppl that argue for xCL either haven't played NCL much or don't get outside their playgroup much? I know that when I started playing ( when the game first came out ) that I thought that the game needed a card limit. Especially when Auspex was the only discipline that could keep up with Obfuscate and even then not always. I stopped playing just before any of the expansions came out and then got back into it when Sabbat War came out. Now I regularly play in two very different playgroups which have mixtures of veteran and novice players as well as having played out of town in various social games and tournaments. After seeing all kinds of decks, including having 22 of card X I've decided that card limits are not necesseary. I've also found that many new players sometimes think there should be limits on cards or certain cards should be restricted or banned until they become more experienced and realise that playing with a lot of one or two cards has it's own disadvantages.

eric...@hotmail.com (Eric Freeman) wrote: >"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote >> >> The archives are quite good. If you are not too lazy to search, that is ;) >The archives are also full of misinformation. not that it was >incorrect at the time it was posted but that it is incorrect now. By >suggesting that everyone read 7 years worth of conversation before >ever voicing an opinion is silly. It effectivly means that they never >get to post anything because they will always be 7 years behind in the >conversation. Not so. With respect to xCL/NCL (and a multitude of other topics) its been the same 7-10 arguments being talked about, repeated >200 times. Pick out one thread, and ignore the other 6 years, 10.5 months. Find one thats recent, and the rules structure is pretty much the same. Really, when someone encourages a person to search the archive, they're asking for _maybe_ an hour or less worth of reading before posting... DaveZ/Atom Weaver Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

eric...@hotmail.com (Eric Freeman) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That argument that a compromise must be reached in order for everyone to be happy. Sadly, I suspect that a compromise will make _no one_ happy. But still, there's that great dynamic tension that results from these "debates". [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9ra5m0$kdj$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > Isn't there a way to say, when somebody subscribes to this forum : Cards > Limits are not discussed here (yes, kind of dictatorial, but I'm not the one > who elected Bush), or "Please search the archives at this URL B4 posting > anything on this list of subjects : CL, Concealed Weapon, is your Granma a > Werewolf, etc..." ? > > Just an idea. > > I launched myself one of those debates, and wouldn't have if I wasn't pushed > into it (by nobody in particular, just by the conversation, when it reached > the "is the game balanced" question...). Please do not top post if for no other reason than we don't have to listen to James Coupe admonish you for it.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:32:19 +1000, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >[snip stuff that's not really relevant to what I'm asking] (well, yeah, but it needed to be said anyway) >Generally speaking would it be fair to say that many ppl that argue for xCL >either haven't played NCL much or don't get outside their playgroup much? Good question. I have not played in an xCL group, so I have no firsthand experience. From the stories I've seen, it seems that most xCL groups started out playing NL briefly, then slapped an xCL on as a band-aid once people discovered the most obvious "woops!" parts of the original design. Once the xCL is on, it's difficult to remove, as xCL players are no less resistant to change than NL players. From what I see posted/proposed by xCL players as 'effective' strategy ideas under NCL, I tend to assume that most xCL players have never played NCL at high levels; however, this isn't to say that they haven't played it at all, or haven't tried it again from time to time. >I know that when I started playing ( when the game first came out ) that I >thought that the game needed a card limit. Especially when Auspex was the >only discipline that could keep up with Obfuscate and even then not always. Auspex has no direct equal for either Elder Impersonation or Forgotten Labyrinth -- this is where it tends to fall down. Good thing, too; offense should always be stronger than defense, or nobody would be ousted. (THOUGHT FOR THE DAY) >I stopped playing just before any of the expansions came out and then got >back into it when Sabbat War came out. Now I regularly play in two very >different playgroups which have mixtures of veteran and novice players as >well as having played out of town in various social games and tournaments. (in other words, you got to see and play NL at a high level) >After seeing all kinds of decks, including having 22 of card X I've decided >that card limits are not necesseary. I've also found that many new players >sometimes think there should be limits on cards or certain cards should be >restricted or banned until they become more experienced and realise that >playing with a lot of one or two cards has it's own disadvantages. There's the point we find difficult to get across to xCL players, and are largely forced to rely on testimony from ex-xCL players (say it fast) to handle. Any deck that turns itself into too much of a one-trick pony (20 Majesties) will find itself in severe trouble when its trick gets derailed; what happens when the deck sits in front of a deck that takes a whole lot of Corruption and other stealth actions, and sits behind a deck that is full of voter-bloat and Deflection? It won't ever get into combat, and it'll die miserably with a handful of Majesty. Most people usually figure out very quickly that playing decks like this turns too much over to the realm of chance (sit next to an IG deck, and die), and moderate their building style after awhile to be more robust and immune to the vagaries of seating position. I know I generally build decks very heavy-handedly at first (large globs of the Primary Trick), and trim out as appropriate after the first couple times I play it, while adding in whatever support cards I've found to be lacking. Very rarely do I leave a deck with more than 10 of any given card in it, and very rarely do I ever even BUILD a deck with 10 of any *two* given cards. It just isn't effective -- and it's quite amusing that Andrew's analysis shows that the self-limitation of NCL players generally ends up around 10 as well, barring special cases (Corruption, Cryptic Mission, etc). -- Derek

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >Isn't there a way to say, when somebody subscribes to this forum : Cards >Limits are not discussed here (yes, kind of dictatorial, but I'm not the one >who elected Bush), or "Please search the archives at this URL B4 posting >anything on this list of subjects : CL, Concealed Weapon, is your Granma a >Werewolf, etc..." ? Yeah. We tried that. Its in the FAQ... >Just an idea. And a good one, at that. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >argument between James Coupe and LSJ) However when anyone else belives > >there may be a problem the VTES elite band together and generally > >force the opposing positon to simply give up as they have met the > >large immovable object that is the VTES elite general concensus. this > >has happened to me on more than one occasion which is why I generally > >lurk rather than post anymore. > > I've brought this up before, and maybe it's time to bring this up again. > We have a FAQ. It's almost time that maybe we should have a FOCS: > Frequently Offered Clever Suggestions. On it we can put Concealed > Weapon, card limits, etc., in nauseating detail, with the arguments for > and against. And in the FAQ we can say "Refer to the FOCS for the > details regarding your idea, and if you haven't anything new to say that > isn't discussed in there, please put a lid on it", ... except we can > probably say it much more politely. > Good idea. Rec.arts.books.tolkien put these sorts of things right in their FAQ. God help you if you post a message asking if Balrogs could fly.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote: >Please do not top post if for no other reason than we don't have to >listen to James Coupe admonish you for it. LMAO!!!! [ quoted text not captured ]

>I've never SEEN a game where people spent more time discussing how to >change the rules so they could win, as compared to so little time >discussing how to just build a damn deck that can win. For some reason, just as an observation, maybe due to its history with what major changes have been made, this game gets a lot more posts on how to change it to make it better than I've seen for others. BTW, don't recall whether this was part of this thread or one of the similar ones, but it would take about 10 more minutes to create vte...@yahoogroups.com, vte...@yahoogroups.com, vte...@yahoogroups.com (o = odd, as in odd number, as 4 and 6 seem to be the most commonly used, odd should be able to cover all of the odd card limit rules). I'm not being particularly facetious. Groups that play, say, 4cl would likely learn a lot more useful strategy discussing with others who play 4cl than they would discussing with 6cl or ncl or whatever.

In message <r9rhttk7lrns3r4if...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes: >Good question. I have not played in an xCL group, so I have no >firsthand experience. From the stories I've seen, it seems that most >xCL groups started out playing NL briefly, then slapped an xCL on as a >band-aid once people discovered the most obvious "woops!" parts of the >original design. Once the xCL is on, it's difficult to remove, as xCL >players are no less resistant to change than NL players. It's a standard way to start the game. 1) Small group of players go out and buy V:TES cards 2) One player - either through luck or aggressive buying/trading - amasses sufficient to play a Malkavian deck[0] 3) The Malkavian deck is played, and players realise that a stealth and bleed archetype is strong[1] 4) What now? Do we attempt to force someone to not play a boring, powerful deck through social pressure? Through a card limit (which we think is going to work, but which is reinforced by the social pressure of *why* it was brought in)? Or do we step up our level of play ability and deal with S&B as NL has been doing for years? [0] Obviously, all the other players may be doing similar things - but one might go for the Gangrel, one might go for the Ventrue, one might find a really nice deck idea with Brujah and Toreador and Iztahk Levine in etc. Law of averages, someone eventually hits on the Malkavians. [1] Potentially, in their opinions, repetitive too. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:0fqNapATTS27Ewi$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <r9rhttk7lrns3r4if...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yah00.com> writes: > >Good question. I have not played in an xCL group, so I have no > >firsthand experience. From the stories I've seen, it seems that most > >xCL groups started out playing NL briefly, then slapped an xCL on as a > >band-aid once people discovered the most obvious "woops!" parts of the > >original design. Once the xCL is on, it's difficult to remove, as xCL > >players are no less resistant to change than NL players. > > > It's a standard way to start the game. > > 1) Small group of players go out and buy V:TES cards > 2) One player - either through luck or aggressive buying/trading - > amasses sufficient to play a Malkavian deck[0] > 3) The Malkavian deck is played, and players realise that a stealth and > bleed archetype is strong[1] > 4) What now? Do we attempt to force someone to not play a boring, > powerful deck through social pressure? Through a card limit > (which we think is going to work, but which is reinforced by the > social pressure of *why* it was brought in)? Or do we step up > our level of play ability and deal with S&B as NL has been doing > for years? This is what lead me to my original comment, it seems to me that players who advocate xCL seem to do so for lack of any other way that they can think of to stop a highly focussed deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:r9rhttk7lrns3r4if...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:32:19 +1000, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: > > >[snip stuff that's not really relevant to what I'm asking] > > (well, yeah, but it needed to be said anyway) I agree, I didn't reply to that part however because I wouldn't have had anything new to say. > >Generally speaking would it be fair to say that many ppl that argue for xCL > >either haven't played NCL much or don't get outside their playgroup much? > > Good question. I have not played in an xCL group, so I have no > firsthand experience. From the stories I've seen, it seems that most > xCL groups started out playing NL briefly, then slapped an xCL on as a > band-aid once people discovered the most obvious "woops!" parts of the > original design. Once the xCL is on, it's difficult to remove, as xCL > players are no less resistant to change than NL players. It's always difficult to get ppl to chage something that they feel is working, which is why the two camps are divided. My stance is that, from my experience at the high level NCL is not broken, the game is designed for NCL, therefore, play NCL. > From what I see posted/proposed by xCL players as 'effective' strategy > ideas under NCL, I tend to assume that most xCL players have never > played NCL at high levels; however, this isn't to say that they haven't > played it at all, or haven't tried it again from time to time. > > >I know that when I started playing ( when the game first came out ) that I > >thought that the game needed a card limit. Especially when Auspex was the > >only discipline that could keep up with Obfuscate and even then not always. > > Auspex has no direct equal for either Elder Impersonation or Forgotten > Labyrinth -- this is where it tends to fall down. > > Good thing, too; offense should always be stronger than defense, or > nobody would be ousted. (THOUGHT FOR THE DAY) I agree, I've seen a few games with a good wall deck or 2 in it turn into a contest between which deck burns cards the slowest or have the best permenants in play. > >I stopped playing just before any of the expansions came out and then got > >back into it when Sabbat War came out. Now I regularly play in two very > >different playgroups which have mixtures of veteran and novice players as > >well as having played out of town in various social games and tournaments. > > (in other words, you got to see and play NL at a high level) Yep, which is why I am a NL advocate, at the high level, NL works because One Trick Pony decks rarely succeed. Either that or they succeed once and get swatted in the future. [ quoted text not captured ] The first part of your last paragraph touches on a very good point someone else made which is that a One Trick Pony deck ( e.g. 20 Majesties ) has to beat FOUR other decks. You can be almost guarantee that one of those decks is packs quite a few Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking or Immotal Grapple. If you're sitting next to that deck, well, it's going to be a short game for you.

On 26 Oct 2001 06:27:40 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote: >>I've never SEEN a game where people spent more time discussing how to >>change the rules so they could win, as compared to so little time >>discussing how to just build a damn deck that can win. > >For some reason, just as an observation, maybe due to its history with what >major changes have been made, this game gets a lot more posts on how to change >it to make it better than I've seen for others. Yeah. That's what puzzles me, frankly; it's in my NATURE to complain. And somehow people have pegged me as being one of the "staunch defenders of the faith", ...which seems weird to me. >BTW, don't recall whether this was part of this thread or one of the similar >ones, but it would take about 10 more minutes to create >vte...@yahoogroups.com, vte...@yahoogroups.com, vte...@yahoogroups.com (o = >odd, as in odd number, as 4 and 6 seem to be the most commonly used, odd should >be able to cover all of the odd card limit rules). I'm not being particularly >facetious. Groups that play, say, 4cl would likely learn a lot more useful >strategy discussing with others who play 4cl than they would discussing with >6cl or ncl or whatever. Well... nobody is stopping the xCL advocates from doing this. But I can tell you that I have an open bias against web-boards anyway (I believe they're a step BACKWARDS from USENET, technologically; they only exist to increase the radius of coverage, as opposed to improve the quality of said coverage); and I think that they're more difficult to use and less supportive of back-and-forth discussion. I wonder if the 4CL groups -would- learn more useful strategy? I wonder if it even matters? The tournament format is NCL, and the 'official' rules are NCL. I do NOT support the existence of any official splinter groups; my primary objection to the NJL was not with its ideas, but with the fact that it was splitting the playerbase at a time when the playerbase did not NEED to be split. We are in much better shape now, but legitimizing the xCL variations will still cause a split, when ANY split hurts. Albeit a very small one (cf. Carl Pilhatsch's survey regarding NL v. xCL, where over 85% of the population plays NL). So that's where I come from. I don't mind if people have more fun with xCL, really, I don't. But I don't ever want people to believe that it's anything other than house rules. -- Derek

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<o41C7.37251$%B6.14...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > The players and posters who have been here longest tend to be > far from emmissaries for their game, and are more likely to drive > you away from this forum than embrace you in discussion. Maybe we should take the positive step of recognizing the long-time posters who ARE great emissaries for the game. Pat Ricochet, in my estimation, is one such. He's insightful, does a great job with the Giovanni newsletter, provides helpful advice and opinions, has a friendly sense of humor and doesn't get involved in every last cranky flamewar. Thanks, Pat!

(R. David Zopf) wrote > (Eric Freeman) wrote: > > >halc...@aol.com wrote ... > > >> Well I think Reyda's just sick of the same old same old argument going back and > >> forth. > >> > > > I might note that you had no response to my argument as to WHY this keeps coming up > > That argument that a compromise must be reached in order for everyone > to be happy. Sadly, I suspect that a compromise will make _no one_ > happy. But still, there's that great dynamic tension that results > from these "debates". I just want to say I have been reading and sometimes posting to this forum for roughly 4 years now I am not new to this conversation. I played 4CL for over 3 years (from the games inception until about a year after I started reading this group)and have played NCL for the 3+ years since due to many arguments made by the regulars to this forum as well as the fact that I wanted to play in tournaments and have a solid background in the tourney format. I belive I am well versed in both styles of play (I am now and will continue to play NL) I am not saying that card limits are the awnser to the problems I posted earlier but I honestly want a fair format that promotes the skill of the players. I belive that my experiance playing under a card limit made me a much better tactical player than I otherwise would have been. If asked I would advise NCL tounament players to play even one game a month under a CL. It does improve your tactical skills no bullshit. I do agree that a CL is to constricting for many reasons. I am not advocating implementing a card limit to the official rules. never the less I belive something has to be done. I can't say what that something is as of yet (Belive me I have been thinking quite hard on this) To those saying "these are the official rules" you are 100% correct. I am saying that the official rules could be improved as to promote a better tournament environment. My argument that a 12 year old kid with no experiance could one day Luck into the metagame and become world champ under the current rules still stands and I note that no one has challenged it. Eric " no one here likes me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

Apologies in advance for the length. "Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > wrote: > > >Actually, it's closer to a working definition of the > >"good 'ol boy" network. > > > >I've found this forum to be as conservative and closed a > >community as I have seen in my 10 years of reading usenet > >(though not quite so much as the team-specific sports groups). > > I've seen this identical statement, with a few word changes, on over 100 > groups, conservatively speaking. Anyone who isn't being agreed with > says it. YMMV. > It, too, is nothing new. (another reason I believe that 90% of USENET > is crap; 90% of USENET really *IS* crap) > > >The players and posters who have been here longest tend to be > >far from emmissaries for their game, and are more likely to drive > >you away from this forum than embrace you in discussion. > > How many times do I need to discuss card limits before the subject can > be let die peacefully? I would suppose about as many times as the subject of the weather can be so discussed in a forum where discussion of the weather is appropriate. Your best (read most civil) solution for such repeated discussions is either to not participate or at least treat the person bringing up the subject as an individual participating for their first time. Your worst solution for such repeated discussions is to loudly proclaim that you decided earlier that it was going to rain, and any further discussion of the matter is the realm of fools. > I'm sorry, but I didn't exactly get a "warm > fuzzy" feeling from reading Talonz' post; he pretty much openly decried > NCL as broken and full of abuses, and that focused, repetitive decks > were "boring and cheesy", implying of course that the players of such > decks were the same. What the h*ll? What do you think, that I'm NOT > going to respond and point out that 4CL is a worthless Magic-reflex > bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself? Not going to get into the particulars if I can help it, but it is not clear to me that your inference or your observations are necessarily correct. > Everyone and their grandmother thinks they know the BEST tweaks and > rules and the RIGHT way to play this game, better than anyone else does. Well, of course. Have you ever played Hearts? Every time I play that game, we start with a long discussion about which little variations are going to be used (Play with the JD? Hearts Reversal? Does Reversal require QS? Does Shooting require the JD?). Yet somehow we manage to get through this discussion every time without insulting one another, while simultaneously each retaining our own opinions of the best variety of hearts to play. Would that this forum could accomplish such a feat. > Yeah, whatever. That's why we have ONE person to make those rulings, > with a team he occasionally consults for opinions. Otherwise, this sort > of crap would go on forever, and nothing would ever get done. I think you'll find that there isn't just one person making these decisions. Each play group is allowed to have its own house rules, as long as they aren't playing an official tournament. I don't see the harm in tolerating the opinions of people who think the game could be better if it were different in some ways. Are we really concerned that LSJ and the rules team are going to get together and decide on 4CL because some guy complained about his opponent playing his 10th Majesty? > That one > person is not infallible, and may be wrong sometimes; I know I don't > personally agree with some of his rulings. But dam*, at least rulings > get MADE, and I don't have to waste time arguing them over and over, or > trying to change the rules to suit myself instead of learning to work > within those rules. You need not so waste your time. But you would probably sprain your fingers if you tried to intimidate or insult them out of their beliefs. Or worse, you could sour them to this community or even this game. > Maybe some of y'all never SEEN a committee try to decide anything, or > had to live with it while it was doing so. I'm sure there are plenty of > NFL players who don't agree with the use of instant replay. But you > don't see them going off and making their own league WITHOUT replay, do > you? Well, you don't see them using instant replay in practice, do you? I guess I'm trying to say that your analogy is inapt. > No, they just deal with it and try to make the best out of what > they can; and if anyone asks their opinion, they give it, and then say > "well, that's the way things are, so we're working with it... maybe > things will change later, but for now, this is it." You don't see them > crusade on a soapbox at every opportunity. College basketball fan? I am, and I can tell you that Dick Vitale rarely lets a game go by without criticizing the alternate possession rule. > >I've read this forum for a few months now, and I've seen > >more comments from regulars proclaiming that the > >game can do without players than comments trying to > >recruit or retain them. > > Name names, please, and quote USENET posts in full context showing where > anyone has proclaimed that the game can "do without" players. I can > assure you that I personally have said the exact OPPOSITE on numerous > occasions. Well, I'll avoid consulting Google and go with one that's currently sitting on my newsreader: *** On 25 Oct 2001, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >For cryin' out loud, don't you see how patently ridiculous that is?!? >If you don't, sell all your Jyhad cards on e-bay and go play Magic: >The Crack Habit. Then you can play a 4cl "fair and diverse" card game >to your heart's content. *** Ugly. Extremely ugly. > (however, I will say this: There's no point in recruiting on the > Internet, unless a player from your area posts looking for players in > your area. The only place to do recruiting is locally, in your own game > shops/etc, IN PERSON. Doing recruiting here is preaching to the choir; > we all already play the game. And I don't see anyone declaring they're > quitting, so I don't see a need to try to "retain" anyone.) Hmm. Retaining players has been my biggest problem here. I have a much larger group of friends who played Jyhad once upon a time than do now. The current playgroup is probably less than half of the number at its peak (and subsequent renaissance of $5 boxes). Again, YMMV. > >Most opinions that challenge the orthodoxy (especially > >card limit discussions, but pretty much any conversation > >that challenges the state of the game as it stands at the > >moment) are met with great hostility and very often > >open insults. > > I don't see Randy Moss going down to the NFL commissioner's office and > ranting about his opinion on instant replay just because someone > challenged his reception and the replay showed that his foot was out, do > you? I think you have an odd view of the role of this newsgroup (or I do). My impression is that this is a legitimate forum to discuss the things we like or dislike about the game, the things that frustrate us, or even what we should call the game. That this is also the office where we ask the commissioner questions is more likely due to the fact that this is where many players are (though I don't know which came first, the newsgroup of the presence of the netrep herein). But for context, people talking about card limits are getting shouted down, and I've been called a liar and misrepresenter for trying to compare two prince actions (in the context of comparing concepts of card restriction). That is not cool. > I've never SEEN a game where people spent more time discussing how to > change the rules so they could win, as compared to so little time > discussing how to just build a damn deck that can win. Shrug. My play group may very well ban Succubus Club because of the game problems it causes. I also cannot play one deck I have constructed because one of my play group refuses to tolerate it (it is a pretty stupid deck). We may allow Monacle of Clarity because we don't have munchkins who ask yes/no questions that must be diagrammed before being understood. We have often allowed our one Madness of the Bard fan to play it if he wishes, though it leads to has led to one player falling completely silent, another to speak pig-latin, and a third to end every sentence with the same two words. I've alrealy been advised by people in this forum (I believe even the netrep, though I cannot recall) to allow violations of tournament rules and non-use of the most recent card texts for the duration of an action or even a game when players in my group are not up-to-date on the relevant rules or texts. My point is that every play group will make its own rules to suit its players, and it seems a bit unreasonable to decide that it is out of bounds for them to share with the community how these decisions enriched their play experience, even if they are treading down a well-worn path. - Jason Bell

>My point is that every play group will make its own rules to suit >its players, and it seems a bit unreasonable to decide that it >is out of bounds for them to share with the community how >these decisions enriched their play experience, even if they >are treading down a well-worn path. There are two (general) things that bug me about the cl/ncl threads. First, unlike with other games, where someone suggesting playing without card limits (assuming the game has cl as most CCGs do) would be scoffed at then ignored, here there are endless posts as the old arguments against cl are recycled, the responses are recycled, the responses to the responses are recycled. The tournament rules are never going to change that way which makes it all pointless. Second, it's not constructive for someone to say things along the lines of "This is way too powerful. Oh, we play cl." or "That wouldn't be a problem if you played with cl." Drawing analysis of the game for playing under tournament rules from house rules doesn't do anyone any good. *If* cl players stated posts along the lines of "We play cl, and this is good/bad/interesting in that format.", I wouldn't see a problem. *If* someone both made a substantive and complete argument for how cl was better than ncl and dropped the subject when there wasn't significant interest, shouldn't be a problem either as trying to make the game play as well as possible should be all of our goals. But, if no one is listening, the argument just doesn't really matter.

On 27 Oct 2001 00:50:08 -0700, Eric Freeman wrote: >My argument that a 12 year old kid with no experiance could >one day Luck into the metagame and become world champ under >the current rules still stands I saw something like this in a $500 Survivor event. A 9-year old girl who appeared not to know which way up to hold the cards made it to the final game. She'd teamed up with an older guy, had great luck and they slaughtered the other players. He wouldn't split the prize but nearly got his just desserts when her luck held and she saw off all but one of his castaways too. It went down to the wire but, unfortunately, he won it with a "Cutthroat" card. The main things stopping this in VTES may be lack of significant prizes and the duration of the events - only a dedicated player would be prepared to sit through an 8 hour event just for the fun of it. Andrew

eric...@hotmail.com (Eric Freeman) wrote in message news:<9b6ba9ce.01102...@posting.google.com>... > My argument that a 12 year > old kid with no experiance could one day Luck into the metagame and > become world champ under the current rules still stands and I note > that no one has challenged it. I apologize for only addressing one piece of your argument, but: a monkey who doesn't even understand English could also luck into making all the correct tapping/untapping motions and playing (and drawing) all the right cards at the right time and becoming world champ under the current (or any) rules, as well. This low-probability event doesn't really prove anything about the adequacy (or inadequacy) of any particular ruleset. The same thing could be said about chess. Or golf. The more relevant question might be *to what extent* luck overpowers "skill" (under whatever definition of skill you/we think is appropriate) and whether that's too much (or, for that matter, not enough). Josh i've been working on the railroad all the live-long day

On 29 Oct 2001 06:35:49 -0800, Joshua Duffin wrote: >The more relevant question might be *to what extent* luck >overpowers "skill" (under whatever definition of skill you/we >think is appropriate) and whether that's too much (or, for that >matter, not enough). I have experience of several CCG and think that it's easier to build a "robot" deck for this game than others. The reasons for this are: 1. Your deck can be totally prey-focussed - it can ignore all the other players and still be effective. Without the bleed-left rule, you tend to get more player-interaction in other multi-player games. 2. NCL means that you can have high multiples of few cards so that little to no choice is required when deciding what to play. E.g. the Computer Hacking/Effective Management weenie deck. This also eliminates the problem of shuffling - the deck has little randomness. Paradoxically, this lack of luck decreases the amount of skill required to play. 3. It's not strictly necessary to win - doing well may be enough in many events. You only need to score one VP for an average performance. Peter Bajika published a winning deck at the weekend that seemed quite formulaic. The library was mostly made up of six cards which I think I can recall from memory - they are such clichés. They were: Minion Tap, 5th Tradition, Majesty, Obedience, Telepathic Misdirection and Kine Resources Contested. In addition, it had seven Anarch Revolt and a crypt full of high-cap vampires. I'm no expert but I think I got the hang of that deck without any explanation. An algorithm for playing it wouldn't be very lengthy. Andrew

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:45:44 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >Apologies in advance for the length. You certainly don't have to apologize to ME, considering some of the novels I throw out on occasion. >> How many times do I need to discuss card limits before the subject can >> be let die peacefully? > >I would suppose about as many times as the subject of the weather >can be so discussed in a forum where discussion of the weather >is appropriate. Considering the official rules state "there is no limit on the number of cards", I find this to be slightly off-parallel, but I understand the point. >Your best (read most civil) solution for such repeated >discussions is either to not participate or at least treat the >person bringing up the subject as an individual participating >for their first time. I can't understand where you'd have got the impression I'd ever be UNcivil to people. =) >Your worst solution for such repeated discussions is to >loudly proclaim that you decided earlier that it was >going to rain, and any further discussion of the matter >is the realm of fools. This sentence should end with "while failing to actually answer any questions or address the issues." Fortunately, most of mine come somewhere inbetween. Yay me. >> I'm sorry, but I didn't exactly get a "warm >> fuzzy" feeling from reading Talonz' post; he pretty much openly decried >> NCL as broken and full of abuses, and that focused, repetitive decks >> were "boring and cheesy", implying of course that the players of such >> decks were the same. What the h*ll? What do you think, that I'm NOT >> going to respond and point out that 4CL is a worthless Magic-reflex >> bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself? > >Not going to get into the particulars if I can help it, but it is not >clear to me that your inference or your observations are necessarily >correct. He's been pretty adamant about the "cheese" part, from what I've seen. I dislike any sort of SERIOUS denigration of decks/strategies as "cheese", simply because that invariably means "something which kicks my ass more often than not". There's a lot of teasing that goes on 'round here about filth, sleaze, etc., but it's also understood (among friends, of course) that it's simply another descriptive word for the way the deck operates. >> Everyone and their grandmother thinks they know the BEST tweaks and >> rules and the RIGHT way to play this game, better than anyone else does. > >Well, of course. >Have you ever played Hearts? >Every time I play that game, we start with a long discussion about >which little variations are going to be used (Play with the JD? >Hearts Reversal? Does Reversal require QS? Does Shooting require >the JD?). All of which are filed directly under "house rules", with the understood assumption that "the owner of the house picks the rules, if there's any disagreement", or often just "majority rules". >Yet somehow we manage to get through this discussion every time >without insulting one another, while simultaneously each retaining >our own opinions of the best variety of hearts to play. >Would that this forum could accomplish such a feat. USENET isn't anyone's house; that's one problem. Identifying a majority is another problem; it's a lot easier to pick "most out of 4" for Hearts than it is to pick "most out of 2,397,108,748" for USENET. Technically, the NCL people have it by 82% to 17%, but I don't expect that to ever matter to the CL people. >> Yeah, whatever. That's why we have ONE person to make those rulings, >> with a team he occasionally consults for opinions. Otherwise, this sort >> of crap would go on forever, and nothing would ever get done. > >I think you'll find that there isn't just one person making these >decisions. Each play group is allowed to have its own house rules, >as long as they aren't playing an official tournament. Since USENET is nobody's house, the only appropriate solution is to play by the official rules as printed. There is one primary arbiter of those rules, and those rules say "NCL", so... In someone else's house, I would play by their rules. I just happen to not know anyone who plays xCL. >I don't see the harm in tolerating the opinions of people who >think the game could be better if it were different in some >ways. Are we really concerned that LSJ and the rules team >are going to get together and decide on 4CL because some >guy complained about his opponent playing his 10th Majesty? Nope. I'm concerned that any new players drifting into the forum will start bolting on the 4CL for the same reasons so many others did; because it was force of habit, or because they didn't know any better, and then inherently limit themselves for the future. I also find it inherently annoying that the xCL players tend to come in and say "yeah, all you cheesy players who don't know how to have fun in a game", and stuff like that. Even Eric Freeman is still declaring that xCL players will be "better" tacticians, despite there being no visible support for the argument (it's possible to build "toolbox" in NL as well as CL, and so many players have long since learned the tactical lessons that a toolbox format provides). Yes, I'm sure that the xCL players tend to find OUR attitude annoying as well, but we -are- the ones playing by the official rules. >> That one >> person is not infallible, and may be wrong sometimes; I know I don't >> personally agree with some of his rulings. But dam*, at least rulings >> get MADE, and I don't have to waste time arguing them over and over, or >> trying to change the rules to suit myself instead of learning to work >> within those rules. > >You need not so waste your time. Right. Because we have one person who makes decisions, as opposed to a committee. >But you would probably sprain your fingers if you tried to >intimidate or insult them out of their beliefs. Yep. But that's the only way to get anything done in a committee. >Well, you don't see them using instant replay in practice, do you? >I guess I'm trying to say that your analogy is inapt. Hm, somewhat, I suppose, since instant replay in football doesn't inherently change the very way the game is played. Better analogy next week, folks. >> No, they just deal with it and try to make the best out of what >> they can; and if anyone asks their opinion, they give it, and then say >> "well, that's the way things are, so we're working with it... maybe >> things will change later, but for now, this is it." You don't see them >> crusade on a soapbox at every opportunity. > >College basketball fan? I am, and I can tell you that Dick Vitale >rarely lets a game go by without criticizing the alternate possession >rule. Absolutely. But Dick isn't a player, he's a member of the media; it's his JOB to soapbox at every opportunity. The players' job is to play the game. We're even now on inapt (is this a word?) analogies. =) >> (however, I will say this: There's no point in recruiting on the >> Internet, unless a player from your area posts looking for players in >> your area. The only place to do recruiting is locally, in your own game >> shops/etc, IN PERSON. Doing recruiting here is preaching to the choir; >> we all already play the game. And I don't see anyone declaring they're >> quitting, so I don't see a need to try to "retain" anyone.) > >Hmm. Retaining players has been my biggest problem here. >I have a much larger group of friends who played Jyhad >once upon a time than do now. The current playgroup >is probably less than half of the number at its peak >(and subsequent renaissance of $5 boxes). >Again, YMMV. Yeah, but why exactly is this? We've lost a couple players since we first started playing, but that's also due to many of us simply not having as much time to play the game anymore. Recent marriages (a small FLOOD of matrimony has swept the southeast, which i've successfully escaped), births (a lot of that going around too), and just all-purpose life-having tends to get in the way of a game that could be 2 hours long. If this game appealed to college-age players more, it would probably do much better, as those sort of players HAVE the time to spare. But attention spans have shortened with time. >I think you have an odd view of the role of this newsgroup (or I do). >My impression is that this is a legitimate forum to discuss the >things we like or dislike about the game, the things that frustrate >us, or even what we should call the game. It is, but it's also a legitimate forum for us to respond to those likes/dislikes. See "politics", aka an eternal argument in search of no resolution. >That this is also the office where we ask the commissioner >questions is more likely due to the fact that this is where >many players are (though I don't know which came first, >the newsgroup of the presence of the netrep herein). Newsgroup, I suspect. >But for context, people talking about card limits are getting >shouted down, and I've been called a liar and misrepresenter >for trying to compare two prince actions (in the context of >comparing concepts of card restriction). That is not cool. I'll freely admit to doing some shouting myself. But really, it's difficult to even identify from some people WHY they do things, and it's been difficult to get some people to word-for-word *read* things, or even justify their position with more than "bah, it's cheesy". >> I've never SEEN a game where people spent more time discussing how to >> change the rules so they could win, as compared to so little time >> discussing how to just build a damn deck that can win. > >Shrug. >My play group may very well ban Succubus Club because of the game >problems it causes. Can't say I blame them. >I also cannot play one deck I have constructed because one of >my play group refuses to tolerate it (it is a pretty stupid deck). I dislike social pressure, myself, but understand the problem (and realistically, it's hard to maintain a purely objective approach; Daffy Deck has been unofficially banned in three states because it's tremendously annoying to sit next to). >We may allow Monacle of Clarity because we don't have munchkins >who ask yes/no questions that must be diagrammed before being >understood. I don't know that any of us bother with Monocle, even though we don't actually have any of that type of munchkin either. Its possession -can- skew the *actual* effectiveness of a deck, however, especially since the answer to, say, "Do you have any Deflections in hand?" is extremely useful information. >We have often allowed our one Madness of the Bard fan to >play it if he wishes, though it leads to has led to one player >falling completely silent, another to speak pig-latin, and a >third to end every sentence with the same two words. This is the sort of thing that makes me just cringe in horror... one player being able to "de-fun" the game for the other three. It's one reason I'm glad Madness is banned. >I've alrealy been advised by people in this forum (I believe even >the netrep, though I cannot recall) to allow violations of >tournament rules and non-use of the most recent card texts >for the duration of an action or even a game when players >in my group are not up-to-date on the relevant rules or texts. People should have fun. >My point is that every play group will make its own rules to suit >its players, and it seems a bit unreasonable to decide that it >is out of bounds for them to share with the community how >these decisions enriched their play experience, even if they >are treading down a well-worn path. The fine line between 'We had fun this way' and evangelizing, however, is one that most people find difficult to not cross. Also, a lot of people want deck advice or a 'problem solution', then when it is given say "well, that won't work because we play xCL"... ffft! -- Derek "Agricultural barbarians? What do THEY do... rape, pillage, and plant?"

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > > >I would suppose about as many times as the subject of the weather > >can be so discussed in a forum where discussion of the weather > >is appropriate. > > Considering the official rules state "there is no limit on the number of > cards", I find this to be slightly off-parallel, but I understand the > point. But are these posters asking about what the official rules are, or how they think the official rules would be better? If they argue the former, of course you are right. > >> I'm sorry, but I didn't exactly get a "warm > >> fuzzy" feeling from reading Talonz' post; he pretty much openly decried > >> NCL as broken and full of abuses, and that focused, repetitive decks > >> were "boring and cheesy", implying of course that the players of such > >> decks were the same. What the h*ll? What do you think, that I'm NOT > >> going to respond and point out that 4CL is a worthless Magic-reflex > >> bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself? > > > >Not going to get into the particulars if I can help it, but it is not > >clear to me that your inference or your observations are necessarily > >correct. > > He's been pretty adamant about the "cheese" part, from what I've seen. > I dislike any sort of SERIOUS denigration of decks/strategies as > "cheese", simply because that invariably means "something which kicks my > a** more often than not". Uh, the observations I was failing to cede were the "worthless Magic-reflex bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself," not the rest of it. > All of which are filed directly under "house rules", with the understood > assumption that "the owner of the house picks the rules, if there's any > disagreement", or often just "majority rules". Isn't CL just one of those majority rules that some players suggest would be good actual rules, or have I seriously mis-apprehended these threads (would be no great surprise, as I usually whisk past them in search of threads of greater interest to me)? > >I don't see the harm in tolerating the opinions of people who > >think the game could be better if it were different in some > >ways. Are we really concerned that LSJ and the rules team > >are going to get together and decide on 4CL because some > >guy complained about his opponent playing his 10th Majesty? > > Nope. I'm concerned that any new players drifting into the forum will > start bolting on the 4CL for the same reasons so many others did; > because it was force of habit, or because they didn't know any better, > and then inherently limit themselves for the future. That would of course be bad, but it would be solved by diligent responding with "of course, there is no card limit in the official V:tES rules." instead of some of the unpleasantness that usually accompanies. > >But you would probably sprain your fingers if you tried to > >intimidate or insult them out of their beliefs. > > Yep. But that's the only way to get anything done in a committee. Have you ever seen news reports of some of the South- and East-Asian Parliaments? Fistfights and wrestling are occasionally employed as parliamentary tools. It always seems a spectacle, and I do not recommend the tactics. > Absolutely. But Dick isn't a player, he's a member of the media; it's > his JOB to soapbox at every opportunity. The players' job is to play > the game. Ack, now my analogy is inapt. However, players in this game are simultaneously players, coaches, managers, owners, and post-tournament play-by-play men. > We're even now on inapt (is this a word?) analogies. =) Ya > >Hmm. Retaining players has been my biggest problem here. > >I have a much larger group of friends who played Jyhad > >once upon a time than do now. The current playgroup > >is probably less than half of the number at its peak > >(and subsequent renaissance of $5 boxes). > >Again, YMMV. > > Yeah, but why exactly is this? We've lost a couple players since we > first started playing, but that's also due to many of us simply not > having as much time to play the game anymore. This may seem self-serving to my argument, but I'll assure you that in some cases, it comes from frustration about how rules are changed and cards re-written out from under them. The first major souring came when Wylie came aboard and the first wave of new card rules happened (no ammo for Zip, etc). Our group went inactive for quite some time, until $5 boxes were available, then there was a new flurry of playing. What keeps some out now is the sense that there is no way to know the rules by reading the cards as the game intended, making playing a lot of trouble. But there is a core to our play-group who consist of hard-core card gamers (you met me and Matt in Atlanta, plus two more here in our same house), who will almost always agree to a game if the time can be made or the players found. > If this game appealed to college-age players more, it would probably do > much better, as those sort of players HAVE the time to spare. But > attention spans have shortened with time. Not so easy. Magic was crack in part because the games were easily digestible, at 15 minutes or so. Jyhad can continue for hours (especially at 6 or more players), and the rules off the cards are far more complicated than Magic (though Magic's card effects are often far more sophisticated and elegant than Jyhad's effects). I wouldn't be so quick to blame attention spans. > >I think you have an odd view of the role of this newsgroup (or I do). > >My impression is that this is a legitimate forum to discuss the > >things we like or dislike about the game, the things that frustrate > >us, or even what we should call the game. > > It is, but it's also a legitimate forum for us to respond to those > likes/dislikes. See "politics", aka an eternal argument in search of no > resolution. Yes, but responses in a certain fashion make the forum less collegial. No one wants to play a game that's no fun, or participate in an unpleasant conversation (except perhaps for contrarians). > >But for context, people talking about card limits are getting > >shouted down, and I've been called a liar and misrepresenter > >for trying to compare two prince actions (in the context of > >comparing concepts of card restriction). That is not cool. > > I'll freely admit to doing some shouting myself. But really, it's > difficult to even identify from some people WHY they do things, and it's > been difficult to get some people to word-for-word *read* things, or > even justify their position with more than "bah, it's cheesy". Yeah, but "cheesy" is really just a feeling. One of my Dragon*Con games had a player whose deck was maybe 5 different cards, one of which, Horrid Form, he used 7 times in one round of combat. I got a real cheesy feel about that deck. > >I also cannot play one deck I have constructed because one of > >my play group refuses to tolerate it (it is a pretty stupid deck). > > I dislike social pressure, myself, but understand the problem (and > realistically, it's hard to maintain a purely objective approach; Daffy > Deck has been unofficially banned in three states because it's > tremendously annoying to sit next to). You'll have to help me with this. Daffy Deck? > >We have often allowed our one Madness of the Bard fan to > >play it if he wishes, though it leads to has led to one player > >falling completely silent, another to speak pig-latin, and a > >third to end every sentence with the same two words. > > This is the sort of thing that makes me just cringe in horror... one > player being able to "de-fun" the game for the other three. It's one > reason I'm glad Madness is banned. Madness comes with a Re-Fun button, Malks can't defend much of anything (I'm not opening this point for discussion, so let it be), so maybe one or two turns of rhyming can be amusing in a long game. And it's not the only card in Jyhad that has a big "destroy me now" sign taped to its butt. > >I've alrealy been advised by people in this forum (I believe even > >the netrep, though I cannot recall) to allow violations of > >tournament rules and non-use of the most recent card texts > >for the duration of an action or even a game when players > >in my group are not up-to-date on the relevant rules or texts. > > People should have fun. Even if that consists of 4CL? I think we may be in agreement. > >My point is that every play group will make its own rules to suit > >its players, and it seems a bit unreasonable to decide that it > >is out of bounds for them to share with the community how > >these decisions enriched their play experience, even if they > >are treading down a well-worn path. > > The fine line between 'We had fun this way' and evangelizing, however, > is one that most people find difficult to not cross. Also, a lot of > people want deck advice or a 'problem solution', then when it is given > say "well, that won't work because we play xCL"... ffft! Shouldn't that be alright, though? I mean, if I was looking for help with pool gain in my rush decks, and someone suggested Succubus Club contract killing, it should still be alright to solicit further advice after declaring that Succubus Club is not really cool for my playgroup, right? - Jason Bell

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:42:52 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >Technically, the NCL people have it by 82% to 17%, but I don't expect >that to ever matter to the CL people. Some guy in Austria collected these stats, right? They seem fairly worthless as the folk playing with a CL are almost by definition outside of the VEKN ambit. >Yes, I'm sure that the xCL players >tend to find OUR attitude annoying as well, >but we -are- the ones playing by the official rules. You're the ones _making_ the rules and then calling them official. LSJ started off here as a collector of unofficial house rules. Some of his house rules are now published in the WW rulebook (vote pushing/NCL) and some are not (NRA/card bans). These rules deserve respect but LSJ's own example shows that you don't have to blindly accept what the publisher puts out. Another definition of "CCG" is "customizable card game" and their nature encourages you to customize the playing environment in various ways. It is, for example, a valid VEKN tournament option to limit the decks to a particular expansion or expansions. This obviously constrains the choice of decks but that's the idea. If you only stick to one format, then smart players eventually figure that format out and then the game becomes stale. When I play poker, I usually play "dealer's choice". When I play other CCG casually, we mix up the metagame by changing the number of players - sometimes one big game, sometimes two small ones. Vampire's pretty much dead in our group again now but I might stir it up again with a bit of sealed deck action when Bloodlines comes out. I'm certainly not going to try and sell casual players on the standard tournament NCL game - it's too cheesy and overpowered. Even the CL4 game would be too much - the players who've got the cards would break it. Succubus Sealed with a splash of Bloodlines - that's the format that'll work best for us for a session or two. And then it's on to something else - Buffy, perhaps. Andrew

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:12:31 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > I'm certainly not >going to try and sell casual players on the standard tournament NCL game >- it's too cheesy and overpowered. In your opinion, which you have shown time and agin, is useless

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<C7FC480E3E244406.79DF96C3...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 29 Oct 2001 06:35:49 -0800, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >The more relevant question might be *to what extent* luck > >overpowers "skill" (under whatever definition of skill you/we > >think is appropriate) and whether that's too much (or, for that > >matter, not enough). > > I have experience of several CCG and think that it's easier to build a > "robot" deck for this game than others. The reasons for this are: > > 1. Your deck can be totally prey-focussed - it can ignore all the other > players and still be effective. Without the bleed-left rule, you tend > to get more player-interaction in other multi-player games. You could imagine a Shadowfist robot that always attacks the Feng Shui site with the fewest characters in front of it, too, and I don't think it'd be a lot more complicated than the VTES version. Neither would probably do well against competent human players. > 2. NCL means that you can have high multiples of few cards so that > little to no choice is required when deciding what to play. E.g. the > Computer Hacking/Effective Management weenie deck. This also eliminates > the problem of shuffling - the deck has little randomness. > Paradoxically, this lack of luck decreases the amount of skill required > to play. Sure, but not if you like playing decks that have more than one trick (ie can be robust against people trying to shut them down). The Computer Hacking/Effective Management deck loses badly to (a) people who can block it and hit it for more than 1 point of damage, (b) people who can block it every time and hit it for 1 every time, (c) a Corruption-playing predator, (d) heavy bleed bounce, (e) weenie rush combat, (f) a bloat-playing prey. And probably other things too. > 3. It's not strictly necessary to win - doing well may be enough in > many events. You only need to score one VP for an average performance. Average, yes, but you won't make the finals with 3 VPs in 3 rounds. You need to do approximately twice as well as average under the current scoring system in a medium-size (20 players or so) tourney. > Peter Bajika published a winning deck at the weekend that seemed quite > formulaic. The library was mostly made up of six cards which I think I > can recall from memory - they are such clichés. They were: Minion Tap, > 5th Tradition, Majesty, Obedience, Telepathic Misdirection and Kine > Resources Contested. In addition, it had seven Anarch Revolt and a > crypt full of high-cap vampires. I'm no expert but I think I got the > hang of that deck without any explanation. An algorithm for playing it > wouldn't be very lengthy. Yes, it was a fairly well-known deck type. (They were actually Telepathic Counters rather than Misdirections - reduction rather than bounce, and a little less popular - but the point remains.) The high multiples of the cards you mention make it look almost like a parody of that type - because it's so heavy on those, it'll fall down badly against anything intended to work against the 5th/ Tap bloat archetype. Anyone with a consistent +1 intercept, for example, can block every single 5th Tradition and KRC in the deck. If you do that, it has literally no way to win. (It could hope to oust with bleeds or Anarch Revolts, but it has no stealth for bleeds either, and the Anarchs don't kill your prey first unless you do something beyond playing Anarchs.) It's also worth noting that it won a ten-player tournament, qualifying for the finals with 1.5 VPs in two rounds. In a wider setting this deck would be more likely to run into its (many) nemeses and lose to decks with more tricks. (No offense to Jason Dettman (its player) intended by that supposition.) Josh 5th... tap... 5th... tap... what do you mean, you block?

Andrew wrote: >> Vampire's pretty much dead in our group again now but I might stir it up again with a bit of sealed deck action when Bloodlines comes out. I'm certainly not going to try and sell casual players on the standard tournament NCL game - it's too cheesy and overpowered. Even the CL4 game would be too much - the players who've got the cards would break it.>> And here we are again. Andrew. You don't play this game. You don't like this game. You don't like anything about this game. You don't like the rules. You don't like the errata. You don't like the players. You don't like the rules team. You don't like the art. You don't like the clarifications. You don't like playing with no card limit. You don't like playing with a card limit. You don't like that the Survivalist may or may not have a gun. You don't like this game. At all, apparently. Why? Why are you here? Why do you insist on posting in this forum, on and on, about a game you neither play nor like? Why? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:42:52 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Technically, the NCL people have it by 82% to 17%, but I don't expect > >that to ever matter to the CL people. > > Some guy in Austria collected these stats, right? They seem fairly > worthless as the folk playing with a CL are almost by definition outside > of the VEKN ambit. Also, as an aside about this kind of thing, I should add that there was a time I perceived the CL people outnumbered NCL people back when the DCI was running things. The status quo makes a huge difference in a lot of peoples' opinions. I will say that at the time, I never recall any NCL people apologizing for being in the minority. And why should they? If you think you're right, you ought to be out there talking about it even if you feel like a lonely voice in the wilderness. The only thing about being in the minority that a person should be doing is constantly reexamining why he or she is in the minority and (if this applies) is failing to convince others of the correctness of their opinion. There's a thin line between insanity and genius - and a lot more insane people than geniuses. Fred

>There's >a thin line between insanity and genius - and a lot more insane people than >geniuses. > >Fred Seems to me that if you combine Insanity with Genius the product would be Guiness! Which also goes to show somewhat how Budweiser is the #1 import in Ireland.. Ah well, at least it's not Corona.. (= Corn + Bologna) Bernie

In message <gtcrttcvb6r8je7pi...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes: >Even Eric Freeman is still declaring that >xCL players will be "better" tacticians, despite there being no visible >support for the argument (it's possible to build "toolbox" in NL as well >as CL, and so many players have long since learned the tactical lessons >that a toolbox format provides). In that xCL players will more often find themselves holding a hand full of nothing and have to try and make something of it (to emulate the focus), it's theoretically possible. I recall someone mentioning something similar about American vs European Bridge players, or something. The Europeans tend to be strategically "better" at choosing the optimum number of tricks, whereas the Americans tend to bid more outlandishly but then have more experience of getting themselves out of the problems they've just created. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:46:19 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> Considering the official rules state "there is no limit on the number of >> cards", I find this to be slightly off-parallel, but I understand the >> point. > >But are these posters asking about what the official rules are, >or how they think the official rules would be better? >If they argue the former, of course you are right. About half and half, actually. Many posters simply flat-out make assumptions about the state of the rules, and then immediately say "oh, well, the official rules suck then" when they're advised that they're wrong. >Uh, the observations I was failing to cede were the "worthless Magic-reflex >bolt-on that accomplishes nothing by itself," not the rest of it. Oh. Well, I wasn't intending to start THAT up, more to point out what sort of response is likely to be provoked by his attitude. Restated far, far out of context: "He called me a sleazy toad licker; he shouldn't be surprised if I suddenly call him a filthy frog kisser." >> All of which are filed directly under "house rules", with the understood >> assumption that "the owner of the house picks the rules, if there's any >> disagreement", or often just "majority rules". > >Isn't CL just one of those majority rules that some players suggest >would be good actual rules, or have I seriously mis-apprehended >these threads (would be no great surprise, as I usually whisk past >them in search of threads of greater interest to me)? Would that everyone could do the same. xCL is invariably a house rule attached onto the game once someone found out either that Majesty/Earth Meld/Freak Drive were seriously overpowered without NRA, OR that the Malks were the easiest clan to build an effective deck from... often left over from the original pre-VTES days (one of the reasons things tend to flare up so badly). Generally, these players have been playing "their way" for a long time, and walked into their local game store to see new V:TES expansions.. and immediately came down to the newsgroup to check things out, where lo and behold, the official rules said "NCL" and decks are being posted with 10 and 12 of all these wack-ass cards. Not satisfied with simply accepting and/or ignoring it, they begin evangelizing on how the game is broken with NCL, and scorched-earth conversation ensues. Occasionally, people have been intelligent, and asked "Hey, why isn't there xCL on this game? We've played with one ever since V:TES because of the Malks and Majesty." Then we refute the Malks and Majesty issue, and *THEIR* part in the conversation often ends there, as they're satisfied (or at least satisfied enough to ignore us). However, the xCL trolls (Andrew Davidson occasionally joins their ranks, although he's more of a general practitioner) are always lurking, and scorched-earth tangents will spontaneously form off the main thread from these trolls. It has been said that every thread degenerates into the xCL debate. It's probably true. >> Nope. I'm concerned that any new players drifting into the forum will >> start bolting on the 4CL for the same reasons so many others did; >> because it was force of habit, or because they didn't know any better, >> and then inherently limit themselves for the future. > >That would of course be bad, but it would be solved by diligent responding >with "of course, there is no card limit in the official V:tES rules." >instead >of some of the unpleasantness that usually accompanies. Believe it or not, sometimes we do that. LSJ's responses to anyone who says "We play under a 4CL" always include "Note that the official rules include no card limits". This, too, is sufficient to bring the trolls out of the woodwork. >> >But you would probably sprain your fingers if you tried to >> >intimidate or insult them out of their beliefs. >> >> Yep. But that's the only way to get anything done in a committee. > >Have you ever seen news reports of some of the South- and East-Asian >Parliaments? Fistfights and wrestling are occasionally employed >as parliamentary tools. It always seems a spectacle, and I do not >recommend the tactics. *chuckle* I've seen a few of the fistfight reports, yes. I can't imagine such a thing in Congress myself, although it might be quite amusing. I will admit to being astonished that nobody (in all the years I've been posting here) has yet made ANY "I'd beat some sense into your ass if you lived in this city" remarks, even the Detroiters [0]. That sort of thing seems to be endemic to USENET and any sort of online-forum. >> Absolutely. But Dick isn't a player, he's a member of the media; it's >> his JOB to soapbox at every opportunity. The players' job is to play >> the game. > >Ack, now my analogy is inapt. However, players in this game are >simultaneously players, coaches, managers, owners, and post-tournament >play-by-play men. Yeah, but we're still PLAYERS. We do best when we just Shut Up and Play. :) >This may seem self-serving to my argument, but I'll assure you >that in some cases, it comes from frustration about how rules >are changed and cards re-written out from under them. >The first major souring came when Wylie came aboard and >the first wave of new card rules happened (no ammo for Zip, etc). I can understand being ticked because errata happens, although I can't see totally refusing to play as a result. But did anyone really think that Zip Gun/DBR was -not- broken? >Our group went inactive for quite some time, until $5 boxes >were available, then there was a new flurry of playing. What keeps >some out now is the sense that there is no way to know the >rules by reading the cards as the game intended, making >playing a lot of trouble. Dangerous ground, that "intended'. But while I can understand this as well with some effort, it sort of puzzles me; then again, I've also been playing for a long time and know most cards by reflex. There really aren't THAT many cards that are changed when you get down to it, and a lot of the ones that were are the ones with ridiculously convoluted text anyway. We've found the easiest way to help people out is just to say "Look, think of it this way; when you build your deck with the Oh-My-God, It's-So-Cool trick, be sure to go look it up BEFORE you play it to make sure your trick works. Also, if it seems too good to be true (original Thoughts Betrayed), it probably is." Strangely, we get quite a bit of success with this. But we may have different people. >But there is a core to our play-group who consist of hard-core >card gamers (you met me and Matt in Atlanta, plus two more >here in our same house), who will almost always agree to a game >if the time can be made or the players found. Something like this is vital to keeping things going. >> If this game appealed to college-age players more, it would probably do >> much better, as those sort of players HAVE the time to spare. But >> attention spans have shortened with time. > >Not so easy. Magic was crack in part because the games were >easily digestible, at 15 minutes or so. Jyhad can continue for That was why I included the "attention spans" bit. With such a long game, it's not going to appeal to everyone, especially not younger players who were brought up on a steady diet of console games and instant everything. >hours (especially at 6 or more players), and the rules off the >cards are far more complicated than Magic (though Magic's >card effects are often far more sophisticated and elegant >than Jyhad's effects). I wouldn't be so quick to blame >attention spans. *cough* I would. Look at the average age of the V:TES player as compared to the average age of the Magic/Pokemon/L5R/etc. player. Why are we all significantly older than the others? >> It is, but it's also a legitimate forum for us to respond to those >> likes/dislikes. See "politics", aka an eternal argument in search of no >> resolution. > >Yes, but responses in a certain fashion make the forum >less collegial. No one wants to play a game that's no fun, ?? Congenial? >or participate in an unpleasant conversation (except >perhaps for contrarians). Then they shouldn't rush about with their OWN unpleasant associations so much. =/ >> I'll freely admit to doing some shouting myself. But really, it's >> difficult to even identify from some people WHY they do things, and it's >> been difficult to get some people to word-for-word *read* things, or >> even justify their position with more than "bah, it's cheesy". > >Yeah, but "cheesy" is really just a feeling. One of my Dragon*Con >games had a player whose deck was maybe 5 different cards, >one of which, Horrid Form, he used 7 times in one round of >combat. I got a real cheesy feel about that deck. (shrug) Such decks are self-limiting (although I'm pretty sure I can guess the owner of the deck in question =). With so many HF, it sacrifices the ability to do other things, providing extra weak points. If the idea were taken to the extreme, it can kill any given vampire and yet still fail to oust its prey... and eventually die due to being out of HF. See also Ben Peal's filthy (HI BEN) 66-Weather Control deck, which is truly obnoxious, but comes with a large pile of weak points. (specifically, if it runs out of ways to Rush, kiss it goodbye -- nobody will EVER block it). >> >I also cannot play one deck I have constructed because one of >> >my play group refuses to tolerate it (it is a pretty stupid deck). >> >> I dislike social pressure, myself, but understand the problem (and >> realistically, it's hard to maintain a purely objective approach; Daffy >> Deck has been unofficially banned in three states because it's >> tremendously annoying to sit next to). > >You'll have to help me with this. Daffy Deck? A creation of mine based entirely around AUS/CEL. It takes no actions, intercepts every action near it with the AUS, then uses the CEL to run away and take no damage. Eventually it will get a couple Pulse of the Canaille for offense, and HAS actually swept a couple tables, but it's absolutely no fun to sit next to, because in order to survive, the deck MUST waste cards at a ridiculous rate. It has to intercept every action it can until it draws into a Pulse, and for every action it intercepts, it has to waste CEL cards until it's drawn back into intercept for the NEXT block. Legbiter characterized it with the apt phrase: "congratulations, you've built a filthy counterspell deck for Jyhad." It was roundly cursed in several appearances at DragonCon 2000, and has had vile things said about it by numerous victims. Technically, I shouldn't feel bad, and I should assume that "the metagame will take care of it, it's their problem". But realistically, it just sucks to sit next to a deck that doesn't LOOK like it's doing anything but stopping your deck, so in the interests of harmony I don't play it. This is also the reason nobody plays an aggressive Life Boon or Dramatic Upheaval deck (MT/5th for pool gain, KRC cross-table for 3 and 1 to your prey, drop Life Boon, start beating up ITS prey, or DU behind the guy you're slaughtering and steal the VP)... it's not so much that the idea sucks, it's just that people will lose their shit if you don't actually win the game with it. >> This is the sort of thing that makes me just cringe in horror... one >> player being able to "de-fun" the game for the other three. It's one >> reason I'm glad Madness is banned. > >Madness comes with a Re-Fun button, Malks can't defend >much of anything (I'm not opening this point for discussion, >so let it be), so maybe one or two turns of rhyming can be >amusing in a long game. And it's not the only card in Jyhad >that has a big "destroy me now" sign taped to its butt. My personal reaction to Madness of the Bard is to simply, in sequence, tap each of my vampires, reach across table, and point directly at the Madness card. I'll refuse to speak other than "yes, I guess" or "no, you schmoe", and I won't take any other actions until the card's gone, no matter how badly this hurts my position. And I'm pretty quick-minded and don't generally have trouble finding rhymes at all -- but I didn't sit down to play parlor games, I sat down to play V:TES. >> People should have fun. > >Even if that consists of 4CL? >I think we may be in agreement. If they must. I'd rather have xCL players than no players, although I'll also ask that they realize they ARE playing by house rules. >> The fine line between 'We had fun this way' and evangelizing, however, >> is one that most people find difficult to not cross. Also, a lot of >> people want deck advice or a 'problem solution', then when it is given >> say "well, that won't work because we play xCL"... ffft! > >Shouldn't that be alright, though? The problem seems to come in when the xCL is preventing an actual worthwhile solution to their problem from being implemented. Telling them this is often taken as a declaration of war. >I mean, if I was looking for help with pool gain in my rush decks, >and someone suggested Succubus Club contract killing, it should >still be alright to solicit further advice after declaring that >Succubus Club is not really cool for my playgroup, right? Solicit away... but don't go kaboom over an accurate answer. =/ [0] Kisses to Noal, Wes, and Aaron! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:12:31 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:42:52 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Technically, the NCL people have it by 82% to 17%, but I don't expect >>that to ever matter to the CL people. > >Some guy in Austria collected these stats, right? They seem fairly >worthless as the folk playing with a CL are almost by definition outside >of the VEKN ambit. The existence of xCL VEKN domains would immediately indicate otherwise. However, "worthless" is nothing more than an opinion here, unless you can suggest a better means of surveying V:TES players... specifically, FINDING them. >>Yes, I'm sure that the xCL players >>tend to find OUR attitude annoying as well, >>but we -are- the ones playing by the official rules. > >You're the ones _making_ the rules and then calling them official. LSJ Jyhad wasn't intended to be played with an xCL, although the DCI apparently lost its mind and tried to Scotch-tape one on at some point. How much more official do you need? >some are not (NRA/card bans). These rules deserve respect but LSJ's own >example shows that you don't have to blindly accept what the publisher >puts out. Right. Which is why we bother to actually defend NL and keep poking the xCL players to come up with good reasons -why- their rules should exist. >particular expansion or expansions. This obviously constrains the >choice of decks but that's the idea. If you only stick to one format, >then smart players eventually figure that format out and then the game >becomes stale. Right again. But limiting to xCL isn't going to fool any NL players; they'll just stick to disciplines that will give them the focus they desire. Unfortunately, that's going to produce a whole stinking lot of weenie DOM, weenie PRE, and Malk S&B decks. I see that being a lot more stale. (troll snipped. shame on you) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Oct 2001 14:49:42 -0800, Joshua Duffin wrote: >You could imagine a Shadowfist robot that always attacks the >Feng Shui site with the fewest characters in front of it, too That's not much of a game plan. I could probably devise reasonable robots for other CCG - it just seems a bit easier in VTES. >The Computer Hacking/Effective Management deck loses badly to... I dare say. The question is whether it could luck its way through to the scissors/paper/stone metagame to get to the final and then win that. The robot would probably have trouble in the final with hostile coalitions - it's dumb so it can't negotiate effectively. But some players might treat it as a useful stooge ("it's only a dumb robot") and then miscalculate. >Average, yes, but you won't make the finals with 3 VPs in 3 rounds. My point is that you don't have to be sweeping every table to do well enough to make the final. It's not like a Swiss duelling format where dropping more than one game in five is probably fatal. The real hurdle is the final where the robot has to be capable of winning against good opposition. Andrew

On 25 Oct 2001 01:37:43 -0700, eric...@hotmail.com (Eric Freeman) wrote: >"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9r6oal$ebl$1...@hadron.noos.net>... >> Hey !! >> this forum is here to discuss about V:tes. The official (& tournament >> applicapble) rules of V:tes sez >> "No card limit". Most of the players around the world play with "No card >> limit". If some players want to play under card limit, or with house rules >> or whatever, this is their >> own problem. I'm tired of reading always the same argument for or against >> CL, >> and to see that 2/3 of the newsgroup are actually CL related. Can't anyone >> create another news group -rec.cardgames.vteslimited or something to discuss >> about that ?? >> >> >> reyda > >I find it very sad to see that you acctually belive that anyone who >disagrees with you should be ostracized to another forum. Your reply misrepresents the original message, which indicates a desire to not beat dead horses, rather than a desire to squelch opposing opinion(s). As to the CL issue, I'll submit the opinions that.... 1) xCL/0CL discussion and debate will never end, as long as new players join the game. and 2) Card limits serve mainly as a proxy for effect limits, so I find most of the card limit discussion to be pointless. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > - sometimes one big game, sometimes two small ones. Vampire's pretty > much dead in our group again now but I might stir it up again with a bit > of sealed deck action when Bloodlines comes out. I'm certainly not > going to try and sell casual players on the standard tournament NCL game > - it's too cheesy and overpowered. Even the CL4 game would be too much > - the players who've got the cards would break it. Succubus Sealed with > a splash of Bloodlines - that's the format that'll work best for us for > a session or two. And then it's on to something else - Buffy, perhaps. Does this mean you will be leaving rgt-cj? Raille

James Coupe wrote: > I recall someone mentioning something similar about American vs European > Bridge players, or something. The Europeans tend to be strategically > "better" at choosing the optimum number of tricks, whereas the Americans > tend to bid more outlandishly but then have more experience of getting > themselves out of the problems they've just created. Thats a good thing. Those that follow simple strategic thinking can always be out thought. Its hard to get out landished. ;) Raille

> >Technically, the NCL people have it by 82% to 17%, but I don't expect > >that to ever matter to the CL people. > > Some guy in Austria collected these stats, right? They seem fairly > worthless as the folk playing with a CL are almost by definition outside > of the VEKN ambit. You are correct, some guy in Austria collected the data. This guy happens to be me. The data was collected from *all* active VEKN Princes in the world. As the VEKN is the only world-wide players organization for VTES, this seems valid enough. Now, even in the VEKN, some playgroups like to have houserules in casual play, and there is nothing to say against it, as long as it remains clear that those are *houserules* and VEKN tournaments are to be held with the official VEKN rules. You might answer that most CL-groups are not included, as they have no representative in the VEKN. Correct. But they have always the option of nominating a Prince (*if there is not already one in the city*). However, the Prince would have to be aware of all the requirements (see the WW HP for those). What they do *privately* is of no concern to the VEKN, though we *encourage* play by the official rules, so players have it easier to partake in tournaments and can use their decks in other domains as well. VTES is an *extremely* international CCG, which can be seen by the large number of tournament-tourists. :) The VEKN has a total of 2546 players in 176 domains all around the world. Of these domains, 82% play without any houserules (in private games), and 11% play with a CL of any sort (in private games). (The missing 6% gave no indication whether they use CL or not.) Percentage wise, the largest CL-using areas are South America and the Pacific Region (see Prince-listing on WW HP). Also, large groups tend to be using NL (in private games), while small groups are more inclined to a CL of any sort (in private games). Europe has 16% CL users, North America has 6%, whereas the two largest domains in the world (Barcelona, Spain, and L.A., US use no house-rules). These tidbits just for general information. (snip) > You're the ones _making_ the rules and then calling them official. LSJ > started off here as a collector of unofficial house rules. Some of his > house rules are now published in the WW rulebook (vote pushing/NCL) and > some are not (NRA/card bans). These rules deserve respect but LSJ's own > example shows that you don't have to blindly accept what the publisher > puts out. *Someone* has to make the official rules. That being is most likely inclined to use rules he deems the best for the game. This is true for *any* CCG. > Another definition of "CCG" is "customizable card game" and their nature > encourages you to customize the playing environment in various ways. It > is, for example, a valid VEKN tournament option to limit the decks to a > particular expansion or expansions. Not in a constructed format, in sealed formats this can be done. > This obviously constrains the > choice of decks but that's the idea. If you only stick to one format, > then smart players eventually figure that format out and then the game > becomes stale. Having played VTES for more than 7 years, I can say that it didn't become stale. It depends on how much you like the game and it's mechanic, and how good the players are you play with. > When I play poker, I usually play "dealer's choice". When I play other > CCG casually, we mix up the metagame by changing the number of players > - sometimes one big game, sometimes two small ones. What's the relevant point here? Every playgroup (with sufficient players) does that. > Vampire's pretty > much dead in our group again now but I might stir it up again with a bit > of sealed deck action when Bloodlines comes out. Questions: Where is your group located? How many players are there in the group? Do you use house-rules in casual games? Have a significant number of players in your group played in tournaments? Have you tought all the players in your group your style of play? Is there a VEKN Prince in your domain? If yes, have you contacted him, has your group mixed with the other players in your city? If not, why so? Since when are you playing VTES? How often do you play? I'm curious, I'd really like to know more about you and your group, as your postings seem sometimes a little ... without foundation? > I'm certainly not > going to try and sell casual players on the standard tournament NCL game > - it's too cheesy and overpowered. Cheesy and overpowered in your opinion, for your level of play. For all the other players who attend VEKN tourneys, it's a fun experience. Have you ever been to one of the *really* big events (EC 1999, EC 2000, EC 2001, etc.)? New players are likely to not be prepared for tournaments. Once they get more experience, they *can* compete in such an event. Telling them that they cannot, would seem to be very mothering them... > Even the CL4 game would be too much > - the players who've got the cards would break it. Correct, but this is in fact an argument *against* a CL: players with few cards cannot build the same decks as players that have *all* cards X times. Using NCL levels the field, as most rares are only specialised versions of commons. And commons are easy to come by. So what do you play? 1CL? XCL? Any special sort of CL? Or no CL at all? Would you care to explain? > Succubus Sealed with > a splash of Bloodlines - that's the format that'll work best for us for > a session or two. And then it's on to something else - Buffy, perhaps. You seem to be the one in your group who decides what to play and when. This could mean that your group probably never will see the strong sides of VTES and get better at playing this great (probably best balanced multiplayer) CCG. Pity. Carl Pilhatsch (VEKN membership director) PS: and yes, as a member of the VEKN Inner Circle, I'm certainly inclined to play NL, though I have played with a 4CL for a long time. Thanks to Robert Goudie (and others as well), I enjoy now the merits of NL. FMPOV it's better. :)

Derek Ray wrote Even Eric Freeman is still declaring that > xCL players will be "better" tacticians, despite there being no visible > support for the argument (it's possible to build "toolbox" in NL as well > as CL, and so many players have long since learned the tactical lessons > that a toolbox format provides). I agree it is possible in fact I play toolbox quite often. however I belive it to be human nature to take the path of least resistance. Thus many players will have tried a toolbox deck lose with it and toss it out as poor and unreliable (even though the deck may be sound) and go back to the more focused less skill required decks because they win more with them, or continue to focus the deck until it is no longer a toolbox but yet another repetitive play itself deck and they begin to win with it the deck gets "better" but the player does not. Thus never learning the skill required to make toolbox work. however in most CL environments toolbox is the norm there is no (accepted) better option so learning the required skill is no longer optional.I still don't advocate card limits but I do not dismiss the lessons I learned by playing with one. (pause as I switch gears) What about a tournament format where round one is a regular NL game round two is clan specific decks only(your entire crypt must belong to the same clan no more than two copies of the same vampire) and the final 4CL with specific clans restricted. I am sure this idea needs tweaking but the basic idea is the farther you advance the more skill required of you. Test the players make sure only the best win. It would test their skill in all aspects of the game. how the hell would you guess that metagame right? Eric Running head first into a large imovable object

In message <1C48CF22EF200D4E.E5E50353...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On 29 Oct 2001 14:49:42 -0800, Joshua Duffin wrote: >>You could imagine a Shadowfist robot that always attacks the >>Feng Shui site with the fewest characters in front of it, too > >That's not much of a game plan. I could probably devise reasonable >robots for other CCG - it just seems a bit easier in VTES. Just throwing yourself at your prey (with possibly the exception of a very few decks) is not much of a game plan in V:TES. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<1C48CF22EF200D4E.E5E50353...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 29 Oct 2001 14:49:42 -0800, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >You could imagine a Shadowfist robot that always attacks the > >Feng Shui site with the fewest characters in front of it, too > > That's not much of a game plan. I could probably devise reasonable > robots for other CCG - it just seems a bit easier in VTES. Well, if you say so. Bleeding for two with as many no-discipline- using vampires as you can come up with isn't much of a game plan either. :-) > >The Computer Hacking/Effective Management deck loses badly to... > > I dare say. The question is whether it could luck its way through to > the scissors/paper/stone metagame to get to the final and then win that. > The robot would probably have trouble in the final with hostile > coalitions - it's dumb so it can't negotiate effectively. But some > players might treat it as a useful stooge ("it's only a dumb robot") and > then miscalculate. If they know the robot's program it's hard to see how they could miscalculate. Unless they weren't thinking at all. Bad human-played decks could hypothetically luck their way into the finals and luckily win that too. In any game. I'm not sure exactly what the point is anymore... ;-) > My point is that you don't have to be sweeping every table to do well > enough to make the final. It's not like a Swiss duelling format where > dropping more than one game in five is probably fatal. The real hurdle > is the final where the robot has to be capable of winning against good > opposition. In the tradition of experimentalists everywhere, I suggest you test this theory in actual games of VTES and Shadowfist. Make a deck of Computer Hackings and Effective Managements and play it in a VTES tournament according to the rules of your robot. Make some straightforward Shadowfist deck (something boring but potentially effective would be appropriate) and play it in a Fist tournament according to robotic rules. See how you do. Well, I think it'd be interesting, anyway. :-) Josh you must take the a train

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > > >Yes, but responses in a certain fashion make the forum > >less collegial. No one wants to play a game that's no fun, > > ?? Congenial? Congenital? Never mind me, I still can't functionally differentiate circumscribe and circumspect. My brain, as a time-saving measure, sometimes keeps similar information in the same place, where I feel free to mistake it for identical. > >> This is the sort of thing that makes me just cringe in horror... one > >> player being able to "de-fun" the game for the other three. It's one > >> reason I'm glad Madness is banned. > > > >Madness comes with a Re-Fun button, Malks can't defend > >much of anything (I'm not opening this point for discussion, > >so let it be), so maybe one or two turns of rhyming can be > >amusing in a long game. And it's not the only card in Jyhad > >that has a big "destroy me now" sign taped to its butt. > > My personal reaction to Madness of the Bard is to simply, in sequence, > tap each of my vampires, reach across table, and point directly at the > Madness card. I'll refuse to speak other than "yes, I guess" or "no, > you schmoe", and I won't take any other actions until the card's gone, > no matter how badly this hurts my position. And I'm pretty quick-minded > and don't generally have trouble finding rhymes at all -- but I didn't > sit down to play parlor games, I sat down to play V:TES. There are other parlor games in V:tES, including Malkavian Game and Malkavian Prank. Surely you don't opt out of those as well? What about the cards that turn V:tES into an open auction? - Jason Bell

On 30 Oct 2001 03:12:24 -0800, Carl Pilhatsch wrote: >> Another definition of "CCG" is "customizable card game" and their nature >> encourages you to customize the playing environment in various ways. It >> is, for example, a valid VEKN tournament option to limit the decks to a >> particular expansion or expansions. > >Not in a constructed format, in sealed formats this can be done. Not so: 6. Constructed Tournament Rules 6.1. Constructed Formats The V:EKN sanctions only one constructed format: Standard Constructed. 6.1.1. Set Restrictions The tournament organizer may limit players to the use of one or more card sets. For example, the tournament organizer may require players to restrict their decks to cards from the Dark Sovereigns and Final Nights card sets. >I'm curious, I'd really like to know more about you and your group, as >your postings seem sometimes a little ... without foundation? I've played with various people in various places. Newsgroupies like Legbiter, The Lasombra and the Prince of Watford, for example. I don't have a regular play group right now, as I've indicated. >Correct, but this is in fact an argument *against* a CL: players with >few cards cannot build the same decks as players that have *all* cards >X times. Using NCL levels the field, as most rares are only >specialised versions of commons. And commons are easy to come by. That's one of the NCL arguments that I don't buy. I have thousands of VTES cards and still feel that I have too many gaps in my collection. What's really annoying is to have cards like Burst of Sunlight and Weather Control as rares and uncommons when the vampires are common but unique. I have lots of Tremere vampires but I wouldn't make a Tremere deck right now for lack of Telepathic Tracking, Apportation, etc. and so that makes all this talk of Gargoyles annoying too. >So what do you play? 1CL? XCL? Any special sort of CL? Or no CL at >all? Would you care to explain? I've either played with a limited card pool (e.g. drafts) or NCL. >You seem to be the one in your group who decides what to play and >when. This could mean that your group probably never will see the >strong sides of VTES and get better at playing this great (probably >best balanced multiplayer) CCG. Pity. Most of the players at the weekly club I go to are familiar with several CCG - we usually try every new CCG that comes along and some players get quite keen on particular ones. The only multi-player CCG that has endured there is Shadowfist. As compared with VTES, I suppose its main edge is that it supports a varied mix of players better - the players with weak skills or decks aren't humiliated by being ousted. And you really can be competitive without many cards - you only need a starter. As for my influence, I was the one that got them playing VTES again. It hadn't stuck the first time and didn't stick the second. Andrew

In message <32A50D79FC40091C.CA7FF4C1...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >That's one of the NCL arguments that I don't buy. I have thousands of >VTES cards and still feel that I have too many gaps in my collection. >What's really annoying is to have cards like Burst of Sunlight and >Weather Control as rares and uncommons when the vampires are common but >unique. I cannot recall a set where the vampires appeared at the common level of rarity. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F If I had a dick, I'd go get laid. We can do the B457CA213D7E6 next best thing. Let's kill people. Oh, not *you*. 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <32A50D79FC40091C.CA7FF4C1...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >That's one of the NCL arguments that I don't buy. I have thousands of > >VTES cards and still feel that I have too many gaps in my collection. > >What's really annoying is to have cards like Burst of Sunlight and > >Weather Control as rares and uncommons when the vampires are common but > >unique. > > I cannot recall a set where the vampires appeared at the common level of > rarity. In Sabbat War, the new vampires were (mostly) common while the reprinted vampires were uncommon. In all other sets, the vampires were "vampire" rarity (equivalent to "uncommon"), or were uncommon (and in a very few cases, rare). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 07:57:45 -0500, LSJ wrote: >In Sabbat War, the new vampires were (mostly) common while the reprinted >vampires were uncommon. In all other sets, the vampires were "vampire" >rarity (equivalent to "uncommon"), or were uncommon (and in a very few >cases, rare). Well they feel common. I have over a hundred Tremere vampire cards and don't value any of them - if they are at all misprinted (as some of them were) I just throw them away. The only two vampires that are at all precious to me are Dan Murdock (which I bought as a single for $8) and Quira, The Bitch Queen (who I got in a Sabbat booster and for which I thank you again). When you do the new Camarilla base set, I suggest that you make the vampires rare and push the non-unique cards down a rarity level so that Burst of Sunlight becomes uncommon and Weather Control becomes common. You'll have fixed vampires in the starters too which will ensure the new players have a core to build around. Andrew

In message <CB82EC83356F478D.192DE895...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >When you do the new Camarilla base set, I suggest that you make the >vampires rare and push the non-unique cards down a rarity level so that >Burst of Sunlight becomes uncommon and Weather Control becomes common. This would make sealed/draft boosters prohibitively expensive for all concerned. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know why vampires "feel" common to you. It's important that they not be rare so that it's relatively easy to get hold of every vampire they ever printed. As it is, non-reprinted Sabbat vampires go for a premium on EBAY. That's bad. Let the various library cards be difficult to find. The vampires need to be there for everyone. (Which is why I sort of don't like the R1 vampires in Final Nights.) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I don't know why vampires "feel" common to you. It's important that they > not be rare so that it's relatively easy to get hold of every vampire they > ever printed. I don't see why this is important for crypt cards or, if it is, why it is more important for crypt cards than for library cards. > As it is, non-reprinted Sabbat vampires go for a premium on EBAY. ... having nothing to do with the rarity in that set, since they were all the same rarity, AIUI. > That's bad. I don't see collectability as inherently bad. The demand for certain library cards is higher than that for others, as well. So long as the cards are balanced, this isn't a bad thing. > Let the various library cards be difficult to find. The > vampires need to be there for everyone. Again I don't see why the crypt cards have this "need" more than the library cards do. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > I don't know why vampires "feel" common to you. It's important that they > > not be rare so that it's relatively easy to get hold of every vampire they > > ever printed. > > I don't see why this is important for crypt cards or, if it is, why it is > more important for crypt cards than for library cards. Because the ability to construct crypts is half the ability to construct playing decks. If a library card is unobtainable, there's some number of decks you can't build. If it's a relatively specialized one, the decks are small in number and very narrowly focused. I believe that the lack of any given vampire, let alone a number of them, is going to tend to affect someone's ability to construct a lot more types of decks (or construct them effectively). The inaccessibility of a lot of Tremere Antitribu vampires to newer players is likely affecting more players' attempts to build Thaumaturgy and possibly certain types of Auspex decks much more so than being unable to obtain things like Shotgun Rituals. This obviously isn't a hard and fast rule. Rarify the more common cards that could be considered staple cards and their lack will probably have a stronger effect on things than any single vampire. Freak Drive could possibly be considered a staple card that should be more common. Thus I would guess that it's rarity is having a fairly significant effect on a lot of players. By the same token, I suppose in some ways those 11-cap vampires being on the high end of the age spectrum probably makes them more specialized than most crypt cards and thus better candidates for things a collection can do without than, say, a six cap with strong in-clan disciplines. But in general, I believe vampire variety is more important to players than the vast majority of relatively specialized rare library cards. > > As it is, non-reprinted Sabbat vampires go for a premium on EBAY. > > ... having nothing to do with the rarity in that set, since they were all the > same rarity, AIUI. No. But in practice they're very rare and hard to get at this moment. I'm not criticizing the rarity levels of these vampires in The Sabbat. It's just that the way things have gone with those particular vampire cards has had an unfortunate effect, IMO. > > That's bad. > > I don't see collectability as inherently bad. > The demand for certain library cards is higher than that for others, as well. > So long as the cards are balanced, this isn't a bad thing. Collectability is not inherently bad. (Well, if I had my druthers, customizable card games would not be collectible. Unfortunately, I suspect that's not a realistic hope given the economic practicalities. Anyway, it's a different subject altogether.) But you have to call your shots about which cards are easy to obtain and which are the ones that people have to hunt and peck for. If you make it too hard to build _any_ kind of viable, competitive deck without being a Mr. Suitcase then you'll discourage the players with more modest investments from playing at all. I'm afraid if you were to follow Mr. Davidson's suggestion, that might well become a problem. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > I don't know why vampires "feel" common to you. It's important that they > > > not be rare so that it's relatively easy to get hold of every vampire they > > > ever printed. > > > > I don't see why this is important for crypt cards or, if it is, why it is > > more important for crypt cards than for library cards. > > Because the ability to construct crypts is half the ability to construct > playing decks. If a library card is unobtainable, there's some number of decks > you can't build. If it's a relatively specialized one, the decks are small in > number and very narrowly focused. I believe that the lack of any given vampire, > let alone a number of them, is going to tend to affect someone's ability to > construct a lot more types of decks (or construct them effectively). The ... unless it's a relatively specialized one (vampire). > inaccessibility of a lot of Tremere Antitribu vampires to newer players is > likely affecting more players' attempts to build Thaumaturgy and possibly certain > types of Auspex decks much more so than being unable to obtain things like > Shotgun Rituals. Ah. I thought you were discussing rarity in a set in the usual sense. "not be rare ... easy to get hold of *every* vampire ever printed" seems to indicate this usual sense. > subject altogether.) But you have to call your shots about which cards are easy > to obtain and which are the ones that people have to hunt and peck for. If you > make it too hard to build _any_ kind of viable, competitive deck without being a > Mr. Suitcase then you'll discourage the players with more modest investments > from playing at all. I'm afraid if you were to follow Mr. Davidson's suggestion, > that might well become a problem. I agree. But saying that "not all vampires should be rare" is quite different than "no vampire should be rare" [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I don't know why vampires "feel" common to you. It's important that they > > > > not be rare so that it's relatively easy to get hold of every vampire they > > > > ever printed. > > > > > > I don't see why this is important for crypt cards or, if it is, why it is > > > more important for crypt cards than for library cards. > > > > I believe that the lack of any given vampire, > > let alone a number of them, is going to tend to affect someone's ability to > > construct a lot more types of decks (or construct them effectively). > > ... unless it's a relatively specialized one (vampire). I don't think there's very many vampires that are very specialized at all. What would a "specialized" vampire look like? It would have to be to be a vampire that's not useful to the vast majority of decks that use it's disciplines - likely one that's far too high a capacity for number of disciplines it offers or else has some notable disadvantage that might normally discourage players from using it just for its disciplines. The former, and usually the latter (unless it just has a lot of disciplines for its age), is going to have some distinct compensating advantage. I suppose a truly "specialized" vampire might have a compensating advantage that made it highly useful for a rather narrow type of deck but little else. Hopefully you can see why I'm leery about making vampires rare. Vampires get chosen for their clan (can use what Gomi No Sensei calls "clan toys"), their discipline (to use cards in that discipline), for a combination of particular disciplines, for their size (almost always because they're small enough for the builder's purposes), for their titles (either to use cards which require titled vampires or for their votes), or for some special ability on their card. Only the last thing is likely make a given vampire a one-trick pony. > > But you have to call your shots about which cards are easy > > to obtain and which are the ones that people have to hunt and peck for. If you > > make it too hard to build _any_ kind of viable, competitive deck without being a > > Mr. Suitcase then you'll discourage the players with more modest investments > > from playing at all. I'm afraid if you were to follow Mr. Davidson's suggestion, > > that might well become a problem. > > I agree. > But saying that "not all vampires should be rare" is > quite different than "no vampire should be rare" Very few, if any, vampires should be rare. Fred

On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 15:01:54 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >LSJ wrote: >> >> ... unless it's a relatively specialized one (vampire). > >I don't think there's very many vampires that are very specialized at all. What >would a "specialized" vampire look like? It would have to be to be a vampire Ian Forestal, for all his AllPurposeWenchness, is very specialized. He only fits in decks with strange discipline combos that are trying to do Too Many Things. Ur-Sluggy is actually quite specialized, despite having The Works(tm) for disciplines. If you aren't making use of the vast majority of his 11 points, he can be replaced by a number of cheaper Assamites. >that's not useful to the vast majority of decks that use it's disciplines - likely Ur-Sluggy and Ian both fit this. =) >one that's far too high a capacity for number of disciplines it offers or else has >some notable disadvantage that might normally discourage players from using it >just for its disciplines. The former, and usually the latter (unless it just has >a lot of disciplines for its age), is going to have some distinct compensating >advantage. I suppose a truly "specialized" vampire might have a compensating >advantage that made it highly useful for a rather narrow type of deck but little >else. say, like Quentin, whose disciplines can be found or manufactured elsewhere much more easily/cheaper. :) >Hopefully you can see why I'm leery about making vampires rare. Vampires get >chosen for their clan (can use what Gomi No Sensei calls "clan toys"), their >discipline (to use cards in that discipline), for a combination of particular >disciplines, for their size (almost always because they're small enough for the >builder's purposes), for their titles (either to use cards which require titled >vampires or for their votes), or for some special ability on their card. Only >the last thing is likely make a given vampire a one-trick pony. Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo, deflectors and Govern+Bonding bleeders extraordinaire, would like to discuss that with you. I expect to see a lot more of both now, actually. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 15:01:54 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > >LSJ wrote: > >> > >> ... unless it's a relatively specialized one (vampire). > > > >I don't think there's very many vampires that are very specialized at all. What > >would a "specialized" vampire look like? It would have to be to be a vampire > > Ian Forestal, for all his AllPurposeWenchness, is very specialized. He > only fits in decks with strange discipline combos that are trying to do > Too Many Things. To me, that sounds like potentially a number of different decks - even if they'd all be kind of weird decks. I guess you're right that you don't see him used that often so he must not be that much of a staple vampire. But I wouldn't classify him as a super-specific cog, either. > Ur-Sluggy is actually quite specialized, despite having The Works(tm) > for disciplines. If you aren't making use of the vast majority of his > 11 points, he can be replaced by a number of cheaper Assamites. Agreed. In general, I notice that more disciplines beyond a certain point is seldom that useful and being too large is a distinct drawback. I believe this is why the older vampires all tend to need titles, various free bonuses, and assorted specials to balance them against the mid-level vampires that can usually be found for some specific combination of disciplines. So what kinds of things they have along those lines might qualify them as "specialized" or not. But the 11-caps in Dark Sovereigns without exception have +2 bleed and 4 votes each, which are very generalized-use bonuses. Hard to argue that they would be considered specialized. The ones in Final Nights halve both of these bonuses so one would expect them to have better specials. Ur-whats-his-name has a pretty miserable special, all things considered. That doesn't so much qualify him as being "specialized" as just being useless, I'd say. (Maybe I'd eat my words later if someone comes up with a really interesting Assamite that needs to diablerize badly.) The other 11-caps in FN seem somewhat better in this respect and may be more likely to form the basis of some bizarre/interesting deck. (I keep looking at Ezmerelda, in particular.) > >that's not useful to the vast majority of decks that use it's disciplines - likely > > Ur-Sluggy and Ian both fit this. =) > > >one that's far too high a capacity for number of disciplines it offers or else has > >some notable disadvantage that might normally discourage players from using it > >just for its disciplines. The former, and usually the latter (unless it just has > >a lot of disciplines for its age), is going to have some distinct compensating > >advantage. I suppose a truly "specialized" vampire might have a compensating > >advantage that made it highly useful for a rather narrow type of deck but little > >else. > > say, like Quentin, whose disciplines can be found or manufactured > elsewhere much more easily/cheaper. :) Actually, no. Because Quentin's superneat(tm) special is not a narrowly focused one. Gee, cancel anyone's vote? What kind of weird, bizarre deck could ever find a use for *that* power?!? Very few of the vampires have anything that can be used to form the basis of a very narrow deck and ONLY that one kind of deck. > >Hopefully you can see why I'm leery about making vampires rare. Vampires get > >chosen for their clan (can use what Gomi No Sensei calls "clan toys"), their > >discipline (to use cards in that discipline), for a combination of particular > >disciplines, for their size (almost always because they're small enough for the > >builder's purposes), for their titles (either to use cards which require titled > >vampires or for their votes), or for some special ability on their card. Only > >the last thing is likely make a given vampire a one-trick pony. > > Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo, deflectors and Govern+Bonding bleeders > extraordinaire, would like to discuss that with you. I expect to see a > lot more of both now, actually. :) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. Superior dominate in a 4-cap is not the makings of specialized vampire. Deflecting and bleeding are - well, from where I'm sitting, anyway - pretty common, generalized deck functions. That a couple of vampires happen to be really good at these functions doesn't make them "specialized" vampires in the sense that I've been discussing. It has to do with being a critical cog in a single type of bizarre deck. Fred

On 30 Oct 2001 03:12:24 -0800, carl.pi...@chello.at (Carl Pilhatsch) wrote: >The data was collected from *all* active VEKN Princes in the world. As >the VEKN is the only world-wide players organization for VTES, this >seems valid enough. Your sample is thus horridly biased towards ncl then. Sorry, but your data is thus only useful in showing that the majority of VEKN players play by CL, not an accurate representation of what VTES players play by. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3bef87f6.233790301@news>... [ quoted text not captured ] Please re-read my posting. We *know* that most CL groups are not included in this survey, because no hard data about these can be obtained. The domains in this survey all have a VEKN Prince, so reliable data can be gathered. I suppose there are a number of groups out there that play CL. However, as long as they remain in the dark they *cannot* be counted and be taken into account. Carl

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If you don't have a sample of VTES playes in general, how do you know that the sample is biased toward NCL? I've never been a member of a VTES organization, but I've never played with xCL. Sincerely, Gene Wrichenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

On 8 Nov 2001 00:24:52 -0800, carl.pi...@chello.at (Carl Pilhatsch) wrote: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3bef87f6.233790301@news>... >> data is thus only useful in showing that the majority of VEKN players >> play by CL, not an accurate representation of what VTES players play >> by. > >Please re-read my posting. We *know* that most CL groups are not >included in this survey, because no hard data about these can be >obtained. The domains in this survey all have a VEKN Prince, so >reliable data can be gathered. >I suppose there are a number of groups out there that play CL. >However, as long as they remain in the dark they *cannot* be counted >and be taken into account. > >Carl We're in agreement there. Thus, my statement stands. T

On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:57:19 GMT, ge...@mail.ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>On 30 Oct 2001 03:12:24 -0800, carl.pi...@chello.at (Carl >>Pilhatsch) wrote: >> >>>The data was collected from *all* active VEKN Princes in the world. As >>>the VEKN is the only world-wide players organization for VTES, this >>>seems valid enough. >> >>Your sample is thus horridly biased towards ncl then. Sorry, but your >>data is thus only useful in showing that the majority of VEKN players >>play by CL, not an accurate representation of what VTES players play >>by. > > If you don't have a sample of VTES playes in general, how do you >know that the sample is biased toward NCL? I've never been a member >of a VTES organization, but I've never played with xCL. > >Sincerely, Because it is required by VEKN rules Gene. The data merely confirms that the vast majority of VEKN groups play by those rules. T