Ian Forestal, again...

Robert Frankiln Grau wrote: "I think Eric has summarized the issue well. I remember the debate surrounding Ian Forestal right after the Sabbat expansion came out in 1996. There were similar comments about how his ability was way overpowered for an 8 cap vamp, and how the Tremere were going to be unstoppable after Sabbat, yada, yada, yada." As a very vocal part of that original Ian Forrestal argument, I would say that the problem with him (and the argument at the time) was not that he was too powerful and would destroy game balance, but that he was a complete slap in the face to the original vampire design system and a sign of bad things to come, which he was. The vampires in the Sabbat set were designed seemingly completely randomly when compared to the original set vamps. 4 point vampires with 5 points of abilites. 6 point vampires with 8 points of abilities. 7 point vampires with 4 points of abilities. 8 point vampires with 20 points of abilites. It was just not good. Ian Forrestal is not too powerful on a grand scheme. However, he is just completely wrong when compared to similarly sized vampires. As far as I remember, he has 6 points of disciplines, and then every other discipline in the game at inferior. This is completely preposterous from a design standpoint, as all other vampires were required to pay for all of their inferior disciplines. Whay should Ian get them all for free? Becasue it is a special ability? That is just dumb. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I am the world's forgotten boy the one who searches and destroys." -Iggy Pop

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Robert Frankiln Grau wrote: > "I think Eric has summarized the issue well. I remember the debate > surrounding Ian Forestal right after the Sabbat expansion came out in > 1996. There were similar comments about how his ability was way > overpowered for an 8 cap vamp, and how the Tremere were going to be > unstoppable after Sabbat, yada, yada, yada." > > As a very vocal part of that original Ian Forrestal argument, I would > say that the problem with him (and the argument at the time) was not > that he was too powerful and would destroy game balance, but that he > was a complete slap in the face to the original vampire design system > and a sign of bad things to come, which he was. The vampires in the > Sabbat set were designed seemingly completely randomly when compared to > the original set vamps. 4 point vampires with 5 points of abilites. > 6 point vampires with 8 points of abilities. 7 point vampires with 4 > points of abilities. 8 point vampires with 20 points of abilites. It > was just not good. Hmm, as a participant on the opposite side of that debate, I remember the words "overpowered" and "broken" being thrown around. :-) My argument, as I recall, was that in order to get "your money's worth" from Ian's inferiors, you would have to use a deck with so many disciplines that it could never be very effective. I think time has shown that Ian is not overpowered. I personally see no reason that the vampire "formula" can't be ignored if the result is a well-balanced vampire. Now, the Sabbat expansion has vampires that are both too good for their cost and too weak, because they varied from the "formula" without proper balancing abilities/penalties. Sela is too good. Most of the !Gangrel are too weak. ;-) Ian, however, is fine. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Petterson wrote: "Hmm, as a participant on the opposite side of that debate, I remember the words "overpowered" and "broken" being thrown around. :-)" Well, he is clearly "broken" and in a sense "overpowered", but not in a way that will destroy the game environment on a practical level. "My argument, as I recall, was that in order to get "your money's worth" from Ian's inferiors, you would have to use a deck with so many disciplines that it could never be very effective." And that same argument can hold for every large vampire in the game, yet they all have to pay for their extra disciplines, in terms of larger capacity. Take Democritus for instance. You are never, in one deck, going to use PRE, DOM, for, aus, and cel, yet Democritus has to be a 10 to justify having all of these disciplines. If, for instance, he didn't have the fairly useless aus, he could possibly have FOR (and thus at least be an effective Ventrue) for the same cost. In order to get your money's worth from any vampire with 4 or more disciplines, you have to use a deck with so many disciplines it could never be effective. However, all of these vampires pay for each and every discipline they have, where Ian does not. He is getting an awful lot of stuff for free. "I think time has shown that Ian is not overpowered." Does he break the game? No, in a similar way to Dreams of the Sphinx. Dreams does not break the game, yet Dreams is pretty widely regarded as a card that is too good and should not have been introduced into the set. Same with Jimmy Dunn. Ian is completely wrong, just like Dreams and Jimmy, and should not have been made. "I personally see no reason that the vampire "formula" can't be ignored if the result is a well-balanced vampire." But balance only exisits in the context of what it is balanced against. The Sabbat set completely threw the vampire formula completely out the window, and ended up with vampires like Sela, Sheila Mezzarin, and Jessica, that when compared to their fairly similar Camarilla counterparts, are much more powereful for the same cost. "Now, the Sabbat expansion has vampires that are both too good for their cost and too weak, because they varied from the "formula" without proper balancing abilities/penalties. Sela is too good. Most of the !Gangrel are too weak. ;-) Ian, however, is fine." The Sabbat set vampires were a unholy nightmare. Again, however, because of the way the game works, and everyone can benefit from the bustedness at the same time, it doesn't have that much of an effect on the game (other than relegating many Camrilla vampires to the "obsolete" pile). However, I belive that the game would have benefitted far more from the set if the vamps had been designed using the same rules as the basic set vamps. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199806301731...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> writes >This is completely preposterous from a design >standpoint, as all other vampires were required to pay for all of their >inferior disciplines. Whay should Ian get them all for free? Becasue it is a >special ability? Technically, yes, Ian does get them all for free. But look at it from another point of view. How many decks do you play with more than, say, three disciplines in it? Though technically Ian could play any discipline card you had in your deck, you restrict his ability by not having those cards for him to play. If it was a very esoteric discipline combination, I might not mind paying 8 blood for a vampire with all three at inferior but I would generally not put Ian in a deck unless one of his superior disciplines was involved. In that case, his other two points are the two other disciplines I was playing - maybe cel, THA, obf or something like (maybe, rush combat, blurred Thefts and a little bit of stealth or something, I dunno). The only real thing with Ian is that his disciplines would then "change" between each deck I put him in. And for an 8 capacity vampire, that isn't too bad anyway. Of course, I could see hideousness going on with him if you team up with someone using a Succubus Club but that's another story entirely.... -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Eric Petterson wrote: > "My argument, as I recall, was that in order to get "your money's worth" from > Ian's inferiors, you would have to use a deck with so many disciplines that it > could never be very effective." > > And that same argument can hold for every large vampire in the game, yet they > all have to pay for their extra disciplines, in terms of larger capacity. Take > Democritus for instance. You are never, in one deck, going to use PRE, DOM, > for, aus, and cel, yet Democritus has to be a 10 to justify having all of these > disciplines. If, for instance, he didn't have the fairly useless aus, he could > possibly have FOR (and thus at least be an effective Ventrue) for the same > cost. In order to get your money's worth from any vampire with 4 or more > disciplines, you have to use a deck with so many disciplines it could never be > effective. However, all of these vampires pay for each and every discipline > they have, where Ian does not. He is getting an awful lot of stuff for free. I think the point is that "the formula" is flawed. Having a superior discipline is better than having two inferior disciplines due to deck focus issues. Consider if Masika had six inferior disciplines instead of three superior disciplines -- would he be as good? The answer is no. I think later expansions tried to give larger vampires "more stuff" because "the formula" was overcharging them for disciplines. The result has been haphazard, but I understand the motivation. > > "I think time has shown that Ian is not overpowered." > > Does he break the game? No, in a similar way to Dreams of the Sphinx. Dreams > does not break the game, yet Dreams is pretty widely regarded as a card that is > too good and should not have been introduced into the set. I don't think Ian Forestal is widely regarded as too good. > The Sabbat set vampires were a unholy nightmare. Again, however, because of > the way the game works, and everyone can benefit from the bustedness at the > same time, it doesn't have that much of an effect on the game (other than > relegating many Camrilla vampires to the "obsolete" pile). High-cap Cam vamps that were heavily overcharged for their disciplines (e.g. Cardano, Ulugh Beg) were pretty much in that pile anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Eric Petterson wrote: > "Hmm, as a participant on the opposite side of that debate, I remember the > words "overpowered" and "broken" being thrown around. :-)" > > Well, he is clearly "broken" and in a sense "overpowered", but not in a way > that will destroy the game environment on a practical level. > Bah! "Broken" or "overpowered" mean that a card is more useful than any other cards with comparable cost. Ian is not. He's overpriced in a "standard" 3 discipline Tremere deck. He's only useful if you build a deck to take advantage of him, just like Powerbases are "overpowered" compared to Investments if you build a deck to take advantage of them. > > "I think time has shown that Ian is not overpowered." > > Does he break the game? No, in a similar way to Dreams of the Sphinx. Dreams > does not break the game, yet Dreams is pretty widely regarded as a card that is > too good and should not have been introduced into the set. Same with Jimmy > Dunn. Ian is completely wrong, just like Dreams and Jimmy, and should not have > been made. > Bah, again! Ian isn't wrong at all. He simply has a special ability (a 5 point special, at that), that allows him to pretend he has all of the disciplines. IMNSHO, 5 points is a perfect price to pay for that special, as even 5 disciplines are an awful lot to use in one deck. Just think, if you use a 5 discipline deck, then IAN operates by the normal vampire formula. How many 5 discipline decks do you use? Then, his 3 superiors are simply 1 point each, because they are added to his special ability of having everything at inferior. What your debating is not whether he fits the vampire formula, but whether his special is worth 5 points. How many do you think it should be worth? This discount for quantity is not unprecedented in other areas, so why should it be so "wrong" in Jyhad? -Chris

In article <35A03050...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes >He simply has a special ability (a >5 point special, at that), that allows him to pretend he has all of the >disciplines. Why five points? Card Title: Ian Forestal Capacity: 8 Disciplines: THA AUS DOM Clan: Tremere Antitribu Card Text: Sabbat: Ian can play cards of any Discipline as though he has the basic level of that Discipline. Master Discipline cards played on him grant the superior level of that Discipline. 6 points of disciplines, 8 capacity vampire. Taking him, therefore, as either 8 or 9 (I can never remember if it's 8 and above or above 8 for adding an extra point to the vamp), that's still only 2 or 3 points for his ability. However, I do agree with you. He is versatile enough to go into any deck, of course, but expensive enough to put you off doing it. I mean, I see plenty of decks with Dreams in them, but how many have I ever seen with Ian Forestal in? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <JgCRQBAYfTo1Ew$B...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <35A03050...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger > <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes > >He simply has a special ability (a > >5 point special, at that), that allows him to pretend he has all of the > >disciplines. > > Why five points? 5 points for all disciplines at basic and then 3 points for the superior versions of Dominate, Auspex, and Thaumaturgy. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <JgCRQBAYfTo1Ew$B...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > In article <35A03050...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger > > <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes > > >He simply has a special ability (a > > >5 point special, at that), that allows him to pretend he has all of the > > >disciplines. > > > > Why five points? > > 5 points for all disciplines at basic and then 3 points for the > superior versions of Dominate, Auspex, and Thaumaturgy. He doesn't have all disciplines at the basic level. He can still be Kiss of Ra'ed for instance, and cannot be retrieved from a crypt with Summon the Serpent. What he has is three disciplines at superior and a special ability allowing him to play certain cards and altering the way Master: Discpline cards affect him. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

he's fine... they are all fine quit whining and use them yourself =D

RYOGAtheH wrote: "he's fine... they are all fine quit whining and use them yourself =D" Yeah, that's helpful. What you seem to be missing out on is that most arguments around here come from one of two highly divergent viewpoints: A) That Jyhad was designed as a well balanced game with appropriate cost for comparable ability to be the very basis of the game. People who believe this to be the case are generally very critical of cards that ignore this balance and find such cards to be damaging to the game as whole. B) That Jyhad is a card game, so super powered Rares and random throwing out of balance is all part and parcel of the genre, and as such, is perfecly acceptable. Besides, there is always Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention. Clearly, I always argue from the standpoint of (A), while most new posters tend to argue from the (B) standpoint. I'm not quite sure why that is. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "To this vast wasteland we will set a flame This is the beginning of our burning farm" -Shonen Knife

In article <199807192315...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Fairly put. As an arguer for (B) maybe i can clarify our standpoint a little by saying that there is almost always a cost for any change to the game - the cost being INCREASED opacity of the rules, and DECREASED variety of possible combinations. So i don't think we really disagree about the objective facts of the situation - what we disagree about is whether the benefits of any change outweigh the costs.

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: >In article <199807192315...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com [snip: check back if you don't know what (B) is] >Fairly put. As an arguer for (B) maybe i can clarify our standpoint a >little by saying that there is almost always a cost for any change to the >game - the cost being INCREASED opacity of the rules, and DECREASED >variety of possible combinations. So i don't think we really disagree >about the objective facts of the situation - what we disagree about is >whether the benefits of any change outweigh the costs. Hmmm, I don't agree. The rules do become more complex (although marginally so in this case I believe), but I hardly think such changes tend to decrease the variety of possible combinations. The cards that were weakened are still viable (although Pulled Fangs is debateable), and since they are no longer so "trump" IMHO they actually open up the possibility of more "combos" than before. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

On 19 Jul 1998, RYOGAtheH wrote: > he's fine... they are all fine quit whining and use them yourself =D Well, that's a no... First, to whining. It seems that the last stand of the person who has no intelligent point to make is "quit your whining". Why is that? Well, the primary reason is likely, since these people have a lack of pointed, reasonable arguments to make, they are going to try to shame their opponents from speaking. Unconsciously (sp?), they know that their argument is lacking in reason, and one of the only ways to disarm an intelligent opponent is cause their response to be inflamed (the insult) or silenced (fear of mockery, etc). --- Why am I going off on this? I've grown sick, of late, of people's complaints about play balance, game support, card pool, and other issues (both in this game and in the Other game) being dismissed by the complacent and slow-minded as whining. I've been annoyed at people agreeing with me on the non-issue of a certain topic by calling that person "a whiner". Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. And maybe they are whining. But, I'll be damned if you're going to waste my time and my bandwith by declaring someone a whiner. If you disagree, convince them, argue with them, debate with them. Leave the name-calling on the playground. -whining @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Eccentric $#@ @#$ The Corrupter $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Hedonist MHSTHSTS $#@ @#$ Cabal Rogue $#@ GAT/CS/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@ R+++* r+ z++**? $#@ ...watching the lake turn the sky / into blue-green smoke...

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Great! Permission to trot out my definition of "whining", as I see used on Usenet: Whine - v, complaining about that which *I* don't think is a problem. Fred

> > > >I've grown sick, of late, of people's complaints about play balance, game > >support, card pool, and other issues (both in this game and in the Other > >game) being dismissed by the complacent and slow-minded as whining. I've > >been annoyed at people agreeing with me on the non-issue of a certain > >topic by calling that person "a whiner". > > > >Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. And maybe they are > >whining. But, I'll be damned if you're going to waste my time and my > >bandwith by declaring someone a whiner. If you disagree, convince them, > >argue with them, debate with them. Leave the name-calling on the playground. > > There are two points of view: that there IS a problem with game balance [your view] and that there is not [my view]. In principle, these two points of view could be tested scientifically, by looking at the decks that win and proving that one discipline, clan or strategy was so absurdly dominant that the others didn't have a chance. That data has not been collected, so right now both points of view are valid. Clearly our subjective impressions of the existing situation are different, otherwise we would not disagree. And i'm sorry if you are offended by being called [though not by me] a whiner. Fortunately i have a much thicker skin than you, and don't in the slightest resent the implication that i am slow-minded and complacent.

Legbiter wrote: > > There are two points of view: that there IS a problem with game balance > [your view] and that there is not [my view]. In principle, these two > points of view could be tested scientifically, by looking at the decks > that win and proving that one discipline, clan or strategy was so absurdly > dominant that the others didn't have a chance. That data has not been > collected, so right now both points of view are valid. Clearly our > subjective impressions of the existing situation are different, otherwise > we would not disagree. We don't have enough data to be certain but the tournament results I've witnessed (I've run or participated in over 30 so far) seem to point to RTI, Tomb, Mind Rape, and Weenie Vote Push having an unfair advantage in competitive play. Is rarity and $$$ an effective restriction where you live? It's not in Los Angeles. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Having only run four tournaments so far I cannot compete with Robert Goudie's experience, but what I've seen supports his (and my) view that the "problem cards" mentioned above were seriously broken. Before this year's tournament which used the 7/7 rulings, weenine vote decks were overabundant, and RtI flew left and right -- this even with the fact that rarity and $$$ is a sort of a restriction over here, cards are more expensive than in the States and there aren't any game stores selling singles. In other words, I think the 7/7 and earlier rulings have done a good job in restoring tournament play balance. //Petri

In article <35BA3984...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > > > > > There are two points of view: that there IS a problem with game balance > > [your view] and that there is not [my view]. In principle, these two > > points of view could be tested scientifically, by looking at the decks > > that win and proving that one discipline, clan or strategy was so absurdly > > dominant that the others didn't have a chance. That data has not been > > collected, so right now both points of view are valid. Clearly our > > subjective impressions of the existing situation are different, otherwise > > we would not disagree. > > We don't have enough data to be certain but the tournament results I've > witnessed (I've run or participated in over 30 so far) seem to point to > RTI, Tomb, Mind Rape, and Weenie Vote Push having an unfair advantage in > competitive play. > > Is rarity and $$$ an effective restriction where you live? It's not in > Los Angeles. Also, I'd like to add that the CL/NL-issue is also responsible for the diverging opinions on the "brokenness" of cards. While in NL, cards appear often, they don't do as often with CL. Therefore, many CL players don't think of these powercards as broken, because they do not dominate the game. I play CL myself. In my environment, I don't think that the discussed cards are such a huge problem. A bit nasty perhaps, but that's all. But I can clearly understand that in NL, they pose a serious problem. And no, the existance of a counter card (namely DI, SR) doesn't justify the existence of such powerful cards. Yet again, this does not mean that powerful cards have to be completely re-written. Minor changes can be enough to soften the effects of these cards. Take Fame: the Methuselah takes the pool loss, whose turn it actually is. Or Tomb: for each blood transferred to the vamp, add a -1 capacity/blood counter to that vamp. (after the vamp is controlled, these counters could be burned or not.) Zip Gun: is not a gun, only weapon. You see, there are possibilities to make changes without making the cards function totally different. I agree with most other players, that the problem cards are too powerful, but I doubt that rewording or banning will do any good. -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35BA3984...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > > > > > There are two points of view: that there IS a problem with game balance > > [your view] and that there is not [my view]. In principle, these two > > points of view could be tested scientifically, by looking at the decks > > that win and proving that one discipline, clan or strategy was so absurdly > > dominant that the others didn't have a chance. That data has not been > > collected, so right now both points of view are valid. Clearly our > > subjective impressions of the existing situation are different, otherwise > > we would not disagree. > > We don't have enough data to be certain but the tournament results I've > witnessed (I've run or participated in over 30 so far) seem to point to > RTI, Tomb, Mind Rape, and Weenie Vote Push having an unfair advantage in > competitive play. That is just the kind of data we need to settle the argument. Of course, we have to adjust the findings to take account of different starting fields [ie if everyone or a majority of people are playing similar decks it proves little]. And, in thinking about what if anything needs fixing we need to remember that competitive play is only a tiny, minor aspect of Jyhad. It bears the same relationship to real Jyhad as the one-night stand does to marriage, and you will get into serious trouble if you apply the same rules to your marriage as you do in your affaires. > > Is rarity and $$$ an effective restriction where you live? It's not in > Los Angeles. > No, but metagame evolution is. The metagame has yet to make a significant impact on the tournament scene here, but that us because it is relatively young. I think we can all agree that the only area of Jyhad in which the "problem" cards MAY be a problem is competitive play. Personally I do not regard competitive play as the motor of this game.

> Yet again, this does not mean that powerful cards have to be completely > re-written. Minor changes can be enough to soften the effects of these > cards. Take Fame: the Methuselah takes the pool loss, whose turn it > actually is. Or Tomb: for each blood transferred to the vamp, add a > -1 capacity/blood counter to that vamp. (after the vamp is controlled, these > counters could be burned or not.) > Zip Gun: is not a gun, only weapon. > > You see, there are possibilities to make changes without making the > cards function totally different. > Fame: That is no less of a change than the current change. Given the choice, I'd prefer to stick with the current one. Tomb: Can't argue with you there, as that is my preferred fix. Zip Gun: You change is actually more of change than the current one. I prefer "cannot use ammo." -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I think we can all agree that the only area of Jyhad in which the > "problem" cards MAY be a problem is competitive play. Personally I do not > regard competitive play as the motor of this game. > I don't think we can all agree on that (can we even all agree that the sky is blue? -- "no, it's rather grey this morning..." -- SMACK!!). They are also a problem when you play some smart-aleck kid at the local game store. Or when your so-called friends refuse to see that their Mind Rape-RtI deck and their Anarch vote deck don't make them better players than you. My problem has always been that if you don't play competitively, what's the point? The point of the game is to try and win. If you have to shame people out of playing to win, then there's not much point to the game. Okay, I suppose you can always applaud the person who wins with a Wolf Companion deck, or with a pot-tha deck, but you also know they'd get stomped by any deck with a few broken cards in it. And then you get problems with stuff like PF. If you're playing Fortitude or Potence, you're almost stupid not to put it in. But are people going to call your deck broken if you put just a few in? And how many is too many? I prefer things cut and dried... I want everyone to be able to play whatever they want, and the better player still at least has a chance of winning (the better player doesn't have to *always* win... that might also get boring). So yeah, the power cards are the most problematic in a tournament game, but they can be annoying and stupid even when playing casual games. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6pikdh$9b6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > I think we can all agree that the only area of Jyhad in which the > > "problem" cards MAY be a problem is competitive play. Personally I do not > > regard competitive play as the motor of this game. > > > I don't think we can all agree on that (can we even all agree that the sky is > blue? -- "no, it's rather grey this morning..." -- SMACK!!). > > They are also a problem when you play some smart-aleck kid at the local game > store. Or when your so-called friends refuse to see that their Mind Rape-RtI > deck and their Anarch vote deck don't make them better players than you. My > problem has always been that if you don't play competitively, what's the > point? The point of the game is to try and win. Agreed. And to have fun doing so. But [except for tournaments] the game is MUCH more than just the isolated match, wouldn't you agree? If you have to shame people > out of playing to win, then there's not much point to the game. When an unusually powerful deck emerges in a regular playgroup people build decks and/or make alliances to counter it. Shame does not enter the equation, in my experience. Okay, I > suppose you can always applaud the person who wins with a Wolf Companion > deck, or with a pot-tha deck, but you also know they'd get stomped by any > deck with a few broken cards in it. And then you get problems with stuff > like PF. If you're playing Fortitude or Potence, you're almost stupid not to > put it in. But are people going to call your deck broken if you put just a > few in? And how many is too many? I prefer things cut and dried... I want > everyone to be able to play whatever they want, and the better player still > at least has a chance of winning (the better player doesn't have to *always* > win... that might also get boring). > > So yeah, the power cards are the most problematic in a tournament game, but > they can be annoying and stupid even when playing casual games. > > -Chris > CAINE'S FORK AND BEDDING TOOL! If i didn't know better i'd swear you were ..... AGREEING with me!!!!! Legbiter, feeling rather queer and having a sit-down .....

> > > > They are also a problem when you play some smart-aleck kid at the local game > > store. Or when your so-called friends refuse to see that their Mind Rape-RtI > > deck and their Anarch vote deck don't make them better players than you. My > > problem has always been that if you don't play competitively, what's the > > point? The point of the game is to try and win. > > Agreed. And to have fun doing so. But [except for tournaments] the game is > MUCH more than just the isolated match, wouldn't you agree? > Eh... Sort of. But I don't play all *that* often, and neither do many other people. Once a week is the *best* I can hope for. > If you have to shame people > > out of playing to win, then there's not much point to the game. > > When an unusually powerful deck emerges in a regular playgroup people > build decks and/or make alliances to counter it. Shame does not enter the > equation, in my experience. > The thing is... no amount of deck tweaking/meta-gaming would get rid of Thoughts Betrayed/Return to Innocence/Tomb of Ramses III/Pulled Fangs. Even if it could, you'd end up with every deck having: guns, bleed bounce/AI, tons of SR, Arson, and damage prevention. That's at least 30 cards in each deck. Not only that, but everyone would need vampires with dominate and fortitude. The only deck fast enough to stop this was Anarch vote, and most people used the SPTR anyway. Why do you think that Ventrue almost always win tournaments(at least, every one that I've ever been at)? They have S:CE, damage prevention, untap, bleed, vote, titles, what have you. But since, in normal play, you're not going to tweak your deck to that point (you want to have fun, not play a carbon copy of every other deck), the power cards are never meta-gamed away (and as I said above, I don't think even this could get rid of those cards). So, you either use shame or house-rules to get rid of the power cards. Now, you don't need house rules and can viably play with other groups without huge arguments. > Okay, I > > suppose you can always applaud the person who wins with a Wolf Companion > > deck, or with a pot-tha deck, but you also know they'd get stomped by any > > deck with a few broken cards in it. And then you get problems with stuff > > like PF. If you're playing Fortitude or Potence, you're almost stupid not to > > put it in. But are people going to call your deck broken if you put just a > > few in? And how many is too many? I prefer things cut and dried... I want > > everyone to be able to play whatever they want, and the better player still > > at least has a chance of winning (the better player doesn't have to *always* > > win... that might also get boring). > > > > So yeah, the power cards are the most problematic in a tournament game, but > > they can be annoying and stupid even when playing casual games. > > > > > CAINE'S FORK AND BEDDING TOOL! If i didn't know better i'd swear you were > ..... AGREEING with me!!!!! > Well, it's possible I agree with you. My point is, though... now the answers to these questions are cut and dried. The power cards are not overpowered (well not as much). I can now conceivably play with any combination of cards and not have my deck be called broken. And I can make a huge variety of competitive decks. I believe that LSJ's fixes have basically made the game fun again. I think that's where we disagree. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Well, it's possible I agree with you. My point is, though... now the > answers to these questions are cut and dried. The power cards are not > overpowered (well not as much). I can now conceivably play with any > combination of cards and not have my deck be called broken. And I can make a > huge variety of competitive decks. I believe that LSJ's fixes have basically > made the game fun again. I think that's where we disagree. > > -Chris > Actually, the disagreement is over the PRINCIPLE of changing card texts. Like you, i quite like the new rulings in purely game terms. But i do not like the trend in the game towards more errata and cards working other than in the way their text implies. Why do i feel this way? Because i think there's a danger of the game becoming inaccessible. I would rather have an accessible game with minor play-problems than an inaccessible game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well then we may be even closer than I thought. As far as the "major" re-writes go (I include Mind Rape, Return to Innocence, and Tomb of Ramses III), I disagree on them and think that smaller changes would be in order and might actually get more support. I've tried to keep from saying that too much, since it would undermine the main point I was trying to make (which is that, in general, LSJ has done a *great* job with the new rulings, and that those cards *needed* to be changed). As for the other changes, many of them were "non-errata" such as Rotchreck, (D) actions, combat card duration (i.e. Immortal Grapple), and damage prevention (can be used anytime during combat). Others, like the Rutor's Hand errata, and the no-(D) bleeds, were made just to keep things in line with the errata and rulings that no longer existed. These, in fact, make the game *more* accessible, by causing it to work more as the rule book and cards (and common sense) would imply. In fact, I really think that the only thing that makes it less-accessible are the rewrites, all of which, I still maintain, were necessary (well, WwEF might have been unnecessary, but it's a really minor thing... hardly a rewrite). As for the pushes to errata more cards... there are really only a few out there, and I don't think it will ever degenerate to the free-for-all errata-fest you are envisioning. Personally, I think all of the broken cards have been fixed. Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, and Direct Intervention are not, IMO, broken. There's really very little to compare them to to say that they are undercosted. Protected Resources only *really* hurts RtI, which has been fixed, and it pretty much hurts bruise & bleed... I think bruise and bleed can work around this, and might post a message about it later (actually, I'd like to write an entire post about B&B decks). Archon Investigation punishes the nasty stealth bleeder, while also hurting bruise and bleed. I don't particularly like the card, but more often than not it just sits in your hand. Direct Intervention is similar in power to Sudden Reversal, if not weaker. I just plain don't like the card, but then, I never liked SR either. Counterspells suck big time, but that's not a valid reason for errata-ing or banning the card. I could see banning those 3 cards (or maybe just PR and AI) in tournament play, but in general they're not ban or change material as is. Anything else that's up for weakening (e.g. Hostile Takeover) is rather silly. [ quoted text not captured ]