Tournament Report: Anarch Revolt Los Angeles

This is being posted from my work e-mail address. Hi folks - We had a bang up time here last Saturday, as 14 Meths came together to duel in a marathon of V:TES. The drafting began at 11:30 am, and the final round ended at 10:30 pm. Without further ado, here are the results: The standings after 3 rounds were as follows: Mike Courtois 9.5 VP, 174 TP, 60 Blood Paul Johnson 7.5 VP, 180 TP, 77 Bood Robyn Merrill 4.5 VP, 144 TP, 13 Blood Steve Bucy 4 VP, 124 TP, 24 Blood Wade von Grawbadger 4VP, 96 TP, 12 Blood Nat Hammond 2.5 VP, 102 TP, 19 Blood Kieth Thompson 1.5 VP, 102 TP, 21 Blood Brad Ward 1.5 VP, 102 TP, 19 Blood Rob Goudie 1 VP, 104 TP, 0 Blood Brian McGreal 1 VP, 90 TP, 0 Blood Nick Svolos 0 VP, 76 TP, 0 Blood Jason Mulvey 0VP, 64 TP, 0 Blood Andre Caceras 0 VP, 54 TP, 0 Blood Dennis Lien 0 VP, 28 TP, 0 Blood Every round was a drag-out slugfest, as people were trying their best to make do with what cards they drafted. The final seating order was Wade, Paul, Steve, Robyn, Mike (I don't remember who ended up going first). Mike Courtois had dominated in the early rounds with lots of stealth, and as such was the target when it came time for the finals. Although at times it seemed like he was fighting four other methuselahs, he still managed to gain a VP by pounding heck out of poor Wade and then Ancilla Empowerment-ing both he and Wade out at the same time. As always, the psychological warfare was at a fever pitch, with psychmaster Steve Bucy ("Oh man, I can't believe how bad my crypt draw is") finally coming out on top. I have posted his deck below, mostly to show what kind of kitchen sink decks end up working in a draft tournament. The VP distribution in the final round was as follows, in order of finish: Steve Bucy 2 VP, Mike Courtois 1VP, Robyn Merrill 1VP, Paul Johnson 0VP, Wade von Grawbadger 0VP. A few items of note: Even in this limited environment, Life Boon reared its ugly head four times, and probably prevented Wade from a much higher seating in the finals. Does it need to be banned? A question for those smarter than I, but I feel that a *one* card play that really can only be trumped by another card (sudden reversal) should not have so much influence. We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of the participants commented that the draft process takes too long. I would have to agree. I think that perhaps the Elder Draft that Carl Philsatch is suggesting would make for a better, and perhaps quicker draft. Other comments were that 5 packs were not enough, maybe drop 1-3 sealed packs in as well, so that there was a little more deck-building skills involved. I am not sure I agree. If you get up in the 120-150 card range, decks can start to get pretty tuned (especially with a deck of 40 cards), and the "level playing field" changes. And as Paul Johnson (no relation to LSJ) pointed out, the draft is actually part of the deck-building process. The winning deck "I'd never play that Piece of Crap again!" Nik 1 cel Giuliano Vincenzi 2 for Ricki Van Demsy 3 for pro Bear Paw 5 ANI for pro pre Zebulon 5 OBF aus dom pro Heather Florent 6 FOR PRE dom Blood from the edge can go on Heather Lucia Pacciola 6 DOM pre for +1 hand Badger 6 FOR PRO ani pot Gunther 7 ANI for pro aus can pay 1 to untap Mariel - Lady Thunder DOM OBF aus tha special combat ends thingy Emerson Bridges 8 FOR PRE DOM pot Prince of DC Andreas Bard of Crete 9 AUS CEL PRE dom pro Primogen, +1 interecept thingy Basilia 10 ANI FOR PRO obf pot Primogen, she'll light you up! Masters x 13 Deal w/Devil Dominate Effective Mgmt Fortitude Frenzy Protean x 2 Protracted Investment x 2 Rotschreck Vast Wealth Vulnerabity Zoo Hunting Ground Library Animalism Drawing out the Beast Dominate Deflection Threats x 3 Fortitude Dawn Operation x 2 Indomitability x 2 Rapid Healing x 2 Restoration Skin of Rock x 3 Skin of Steel Unflinching Persistence Obfuscate Cloak the Gathering Faceless Night Lost in Crowds Presence Dread Gaze Majesty x 3 Protean Earth Meld x 4 Flesh of Marble Form of Mist x3 Form of the Ghost Gleam of Red eyes Movement of the Slow Body Wolf Claws x 4 Other Minion cards .44 magnum Autarkis Persecution Chainsaw dodge Fake Out Hell Hound OPen Grate x 2 Fourth Tradition, Accounting Praxis Seizure Boston Saturday Night Special Submachine Gun Basically, the way Steve played it was very cool, not too aggressive. Since he had almost no blood recursion, he had to. He would hang loose, protecting his vamps with his S:CE ends cards. Then, when his prey was vulnerable, he would come in and bleed with Threats and finish them off. I have never seen Frenzy used in a tournament until this one. Here I saw it used multiple times to good use! OK, gotta go back to work, Chris Shorb PS, photos will be posted at our web-site soon! -- Chris Shorb Internet Representative ------------------------------- | THIRD PLANET | |<http://www.THEthirdplanet.com>| | thethir...@earthlink.net | | 3631 Pacific Coast Hwy | | Torrance CA 90505 | | USA | | (310) 791-6227 | | fx (310) 791-6230 | -------------------------------

In article <38865F0C...@earthlink.net>, Third Planet <thethir...@earthlink.net> wrote: > This is being posted from my work e-mail address. Hi folks > - We had a bang up time here last Saturday, as 14 Meths came > together to duel in a marathon of V:TES. The drafting began > at 11:30 am, and the final round ended at 10:30 pm. Cool! Good to hear it was a success. I remember that there were tourneys in L.A. with 30 players and more, so either Draft doesn't appeal to the local environment (do they really like constructed that much more?), or the general dwindling of players all over the world during the period of WotC-lack of support, which is over now I hope, has had some impact here, too. ;) Sidenote: the tourney itself took rather long. See below. > (snipped) > > A few items of note: > > Even in this limited environment, Life Boon reared its ugly > head four times, and probably prevented Wade from a much > higher seating in the finals. Does it need to be banned? A > question for those smarter than I, but I feel that a *one* > card play that really can only be trumped by another card > (sudden reversal) should not have so much influence. Well, this could be said about quite a number of cards. My suggestion for Life-boon: it should not be permitted to oust yourself with the card. > > We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 > minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good > clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of > the participants commented that the draft process takes too > long. I would have to agree. I think that perhaps the > Elder Draft that Carl Philsatch is suggesting would make for > a better, and perhaps quicker draft. Oh man. :) It's Carl Pilhatsch, ok? :) It's really not that hard to spell, I've seen worse. :) lol Now, Elder Draft is not an idea of mine. But it's considerably fast for VTES, so that the tourney doesn't last *that* long. I know that players really get annoyed when the event drags on for too long. The Elder Draft requires a judge who takes the time, as there is a time limit for selecting each card, and it is a hybrid between Booster and Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite different ot Magic. Other comments were > that 5 packs were not enough, maybe drop 1-3 sealed packs in > as well, so that there was a little more deck-building > skills involved. I am not sure I agree. If you get up in > the 120-150 card range, decks can start to get pretty tuned > (especially with a deck of 40 cards), and the "level playing > field" changes. And as Paul Johnson (no relation to LSJ) > pointed out, the draft is actually part of the deck-building > process. Draft is the funny thing about it. Agreed, people like that and the fact that the decks are not that focussed as in constructed. Though they can hit hard, too, if drafted good. :) In our experience, 2 Starter work very good. That is about the same amount as 8 Booster. Also, perhaps the 40 card-limit should be raised to 60. Don't know. Mixing editions can also make for a better selection. We tried VTES with DS, and it worked well. Just don't do it booster for booster, the cards *must* be shuffled together before. That's the trick. I would like to start a serious discussion on the Draft-issue. :) Carl Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > Third Planet <thethir...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 > > minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good > > clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of > > the participants commented that the draft process takes too > > long. I would have to agree. I think that perhaps the > > Elder Draft that Carl [Pilhatsch] is suggesting would make for > > a better, and perhaps quicker draft. > Now, Elder Draft is not an idea of mine. But it's considerably fast for > VTES, so that the tourney doesn't last *that* long. I know that players > really get annoyed when the event drags on for too long. > The Elder Draft requires a judge who takes the time, as there is a time > limit for selecting each card, There is a time limit for selecting each card in a DCI Rochester draft, as well. [DCI 75] > and it is a hybrid between Booster and > Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite different ot > Magic. "that suits the needs of some VTES groups". Straight Rochester and straight booster draft work quite well for VTES (at least, for the groups that have tried it around here). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

In article <38870595...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Third Planet <thethir...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 > > > minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good > > > clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of > > > the participants commented that the draft process takes too > > > long. I would have to agree. I think that perhaps the > > > Elder Draft that Carl [Pilhatsch] is suggesting would make for > > > a better, and perhaps quicker draft. > > Now, Elder Draft is not an idea of mine. But it's considerably fast for > > VTES, so that the tourney doesn't last *that* long. I know that players > > really get annoyed when the event drags on for too long. > > The Elder Draft requires a judge who takes the time, as there is a time > > limit for selecting each card, > > There is a time limit for selecting each card in a DCI Rochester draft, > as well. [DCI 75] Ok, it is in Rochester Draft then, but not in booster draft, which is also important. > > > and it is a hybrid between Booster and > > Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite different ot > > Magic. > > "that suits the needs of some VTES groups". > Straight Rochester and straight booster draft work quite well for VTES > (at least, for the groups that have tried it around here). They are *usable* but I sincerly doubt that they work well für VTES. Rochester and Booster were designed for Magic. The problem is that Magic and VTES are quite different, in regards to crypt/library and lands in Magic. Oh yes, you definitely can draft one booster after the other (with both Rochester and Booster style), but it creates some awkward situations. You might (and will) end up with some boosters which don't correspond at all with the cards you drafted so far. E.g. the second booster to go, and you already have decided to go for Gangrel with pro. You have 4 Gangrel, and a couple of pro cards. But bad luck: you don't get to draw anymore Gangrels. You end up with a load of pro cards, but no Gangrels to use them! Ok, you could adapt your needs with every booster, but is that a desireable situation? If you draft all vampires in one go at the beginning, you know exactly what you have in terms of skills, and know what to go for, and what substitutes you could draft. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that you can't possible expect to have a higly focussed deck, but when you draft all vamps before the library, you can decide *better* on a strategy! And, it's easy to handle, we have tried it out many times, and at the EC 59 players were drafting with this system, so experience and reliable data (if we can agree upon that it is somewhat reliable) is at hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Cool! Good to hear it was a success. I remember that there were tourneys >in L.A. with 30 players and more, so either Draft doesn't appeal to the >local environment (do they really like constructed that much more?), or >the general dwindling of players all over the world during the period of >WotC-lack of support, which is over now I hope, has had some impact >here, too. ;) Fear not Carl. :-) The Anarch Revolt tournament was not one of our regularly scheduled convention tournaments (which are again routinely drawing 25 players to all 12 of the tournaments each year). Nor was it our Halloween "Crusade" event. I was happy to see that it drew many locals in addition to some of us hardcore players who actually travelled to get there. I'd be more inclined to view a 14-player tournament at a local game store a sign of health. -Robert

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Third Planet <thethir...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 > > > > minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good > > > > clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of > > > > the participants commented that the draft process takes too > > > > long. I would have to agree. I think that perhaps the > > > > Elder Draft that Carl [Pilhatsch] is suggesting would make for > > > > a better, and perhaps quicker draft. > > > The Elder Draft requires a judge who takes the time, as there is a > > > time limit for selecting each card, > > > > There is a time limit for selecting each card in a DCI Rochester > > draft, as well. [DCI 75] > > Ok, it is in Rochester Draft then, but not in booster draft, which is > also important. Not to the topic at hand ("straight Rochester Draft"), but OK. See [DCI 72] for time limits on DCI Booster Draft tournaments. > > > and it is a hybrid between Booster and > > > Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite different ot > > > Magic. > > > > "that suits the needs of some VTES groups". > > Straight Rochester and straight booster draft work quite well for VTES > > (at least, for the groups that have tried it around here). > > They are *usable* but I sincerly doubt that they work well für VTES. > Rochester and Booster were designed for Magic. The problem is that > Magic and VTES are quite different, in regards to crypt/library and > lands in Magic. Having actually tested them, I do not have such doubts. I have seen that they work well. Just because it works for Magic doesn't mean that it can't work for V:TES. Even though the games are different, they still have some elements in common. > Oh yes, you definitely can draft one booster after the other (with both > Rochester and Booster style), but it creates some awkward situations. No more so than any other Draft format. > You might (and will) end up with some boosters which don't correspond > at all with the cards you drafted so far. E.g. the second booster to > go, and you already have decided to go for Gangrel with pro. You have 4 > Gangrel, and a couple of pro cards. But bad luck: you don't get to draw > anymore Gangrels. You end up with a load of pro cards, but no Gangrels You end up with "a load" of pro cards only if you are not paying attention to the fact that you haven't got any vampires to use them. Smart drafting will avoid this problem. > to use them! Ok, you could adapt your needs with every booster, but is > that a desireable situation? Yes. That is inherent in the nature of draft. There are no guarantees that you will get the cards you need to make a "tuned" deck. How does the Elder Draft ensure that a player will be able to draft the cards he wants? If your group/area/tourney scene has trouble/takes issue with this sort of thing (not being able to draft an appropriate crypt), then you are welcome to implement [DCI 62], e.g., making all vampires freely available to your players who are then free to focus on drafting their libraries. (or vice-versa :-). > If you draft all vampires in one go at the beginning, you know exactly > what you have in terms of skills, and know what to go for, and what > substitutes you could draft. But what if you draft all Gangrels only to discover that the boosters don't correspond to your choice (i.e., they are very light on PRO and ANI and FOR)? > Now, don't get me wrong, I know that you can't possible expect to have > a higly focussed deck, but when you draft all vamps before the library, > you can decide *better* on a strategy! Or, if you draft all your library first, you can decide on a better strategy for drafting vampires. Or you can mix the two, developing your strategy as you see what cards you are able to draft (which refines your draft strategy, and so on). Seriously - that's what happens. Give it a try. > And, it's easy to handle, we have tried it out many times, and at the > EC 59 players were drafting with this system, so experience and > reliable data (if we can agree upon that it is somewhat reliable) is at > hand. Data for the current system is also on hand. At least for those who have tried the system. And the current system doesn't suffer from the drawback that the Elder Draft has - namely of opening more than one pack per player at a time (something the DCI frowns on). We've been over all these points already, if you recall. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Third Planet wrote: > The VP distribution in the final round was as follows, in order of > finish: > Steve Bucy 2 VP, Mike Courtois 1VP, Robyn Merrill 1VP, Paul Johnson > 0VP, Wade von Grawbadger 0VP. how come there were only 4 VP's?

radiophonic oddity wrote in message ... > > >On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Third Planet wrote: > >> The VP distribution in the final round was as follows, in order of >> finish: >> Steve Bucy 2 VP, Mike Courtois 1VP, Robyn Merrill 1VP, Paul Johnson >> 0VP, Wade von Grawbadger 0VP. > >how come there were only 4 VP's? Steve Bucy also gained a VP for being the last player! He should have 3 VPs. He ousted Robyn Merrill and Paul Johnson. -Robert

Third Planet wrote in message <38865F0C...@earthlink.net>... >This is being posted from my work e-mail address. Hi folks >- We had a bang up time here last Saturday, as 14 Meths came >together to duel in a marathon of V:TES. The drafting began >at 11:30 am, and the final round ended at 10:30 pm. It was great to see 14 people from all over show up for this tourney. We had a nice mix... >Without further ado, here are the results: > >The standings after 3 rounds were as follows: > >Mike Courtois 9.5 VP, 174 TP, 60 Blood >Paul Johnson 7.5 VP, 180 TP, 77 Bood >Robyn Merrill 4.5 VP, 144 TP, 13 Blood >Steve Bucy 4 VP, 124 TP, 24 Blood >Wade von Grawbadger 4VP, 96 TP, 12 Blood >Nat Hammond 2.5 VP, 102 TP, 19 Blood >Kieth Thompson 1.5 VP, 102 TP, 21 Blood >Brad Ward 1.5 VP, 102 TP, 19 Blood >Rob Goudie 1 VP, 104 TP, 0 Blood >Brian McGreal 1 VP, 90 TP, 0 Blood >Nick Svolos 0 VP, 76 TP, 0 Blood >Jason Mulvey 0VP, 64 TP, 0 Blood >Andre Caceras 0 VP, 54 TP, 0 Blood >Dennis Lien 0 VP, 28 TP, 0 Blood Mike dominated the first three rounds. His deck was very well built and worked very consistantly. It had a great stealth/vote/bleed combo and just enough other stuff to do well in almost any environment. Mike gets the draft/deck building award. >Every round was a drag-out slugfest, as people were trying >their best to make do with what cards they drafted. The >final seating order was Wade, Paul, Steve, Robyn, Mike (I >don't remember who ended up going first). Mike Courtois had >dominated in the early rounds with lots of stealth, and as >such was the target when it came time for the finals. >Although at times it seemed like he was fighting four other >methuselahs, he still managed to gain a VP by pounding heck >out of poor Wade and then Ancilla Empowerment-ing both he >and Wade out at the same time. Mikes reputation preceded him. Of course with 9.5 VP going into the final it is next to impossible not to be noticed... At times (especially during votes) the entire table DID work against him. >As always, the psychological >warfare was at a fever pitch, with psychmaster Steve Bucy >("Oh man, I can't believe how bad my crypt draw is") finally >coming out on top. I have posted his deck below, mostly to >show what kind of kitchen sink decks end up working in a >draft tournament. The VP distribution in the final round >was as follows, in order of finish: >Steve Bucy 2 VP, Mike Courtois 1VP, Robyn Merrill 1VP, Paul >Johnson 0VP, Wade von Grawbadger 0VP. Actually I finised with 3 VP, Mike and Robyn each had 1 VP. >A few items of note: > >Even in this limited environment, Life Boon reared its ugly >head four times, and probably prevented Wade from a much >higher seating in the finals. Does it need to be banned? A >question for those smarter than I, but I feel that a *one* >card play that really can only be trumped by another card >(sudden reversal) should not have so much influence. Life Boon definetly had a huge influence. I probably would not have even been in the final if I had not benefited from two Life Boon played in the second round. Should it be banned? I would say no. At least not until a ridiculous card like Succubus Club is. >We did straight Rochester Draft. Each pack took about 20 >minutes to draft, and that was with folks going at a good >clip. We had 2 drafting pods of 7 players apiece. Many of >the participants commented that the draft process takes too >long. I would have to agree. I also think it took to long. I believe this is largely due to the 7 player pods. I believe two of 5 and one of 4 would have worked better and faster. The ideal would be 4 player pods. 7 people just take to long to draft things. > I think that perhaps the >Elder Draft that Carl Philsatch is suggesting would make for >a better, and perhaps quicker draft. Other comments were >that 5 packs were not enough, maybe drop 1-3 sealed packs in >as well, so that there was a little more deck-building >skills involved. I definetly agree with this. We needed more cards to draft (maybe 7 packs) or possibly sealed packs. There just wasn't much to work with. > I am not sure I agree. If you get up in >the 120-150 card range, decks can start to get pretty tuned >(especially with a deck of 40 cards), and the "level playing >field" changes. And as Paul Johnson (no relation to LSJ) >pointed out, the draft is actually part of the deck-building >process. I think 100 cards would have been about right. With only 75 or so there just wasn't any need to tune the deck. All we did was remove the 5 to 10 cards from bad draft selection that totally didn't fit. There was almost no interesting modifications or tweeking. Instead of the draft being "part of the deck-building" it became the entire deck construction. >The winning deck >"I'd never play that Piece of Crap again!" LOL. Thank God I won't have to play that piece of crap again! [ quoted text not captured ] At the start of the draft I was hoping for a Ventrue Dominate/Fortitude deck. However things quickly changed as everyone drafted the dominate minion cards and most of the Ventrue. I then switched to Gangrel/Ventrue. At one point there were no vamps I could use so I picked up some Malks for the obfiscate. As the draft went on, and grabbed what I could get, it became more of a aggravated combat deck with lots of defense. After the draft I noticed many huge weeknesses in the deck. 1) No intercept. I just wasn't able to draft any, not even a Cats Guidance. Only Andreas, if I got him in my crypt could help. 2) Little vote power. 3) No rush. Very bad for a mostly combat deck. 4) lack of stealth. Only if I got one of three vamps with Obfiscate or two with superior protean would I have ready stealth. In the two rounds I did well, I got out a vamp with obfiscate and superior protean... I was left wondering what, if anything this deck would do. It appeared to have almost no offense, no active defense, and almost no political power. My strategy was simple... look as pathetic as the deck really was. Relentlessly harrass my prey with one point bleeds in the hope they would block and I could get them in combat. If I got them down low I would hopefully have a threats and some stealth to give them a good hit. On defense: Leave blockers untapped and pray my preditor didn't have any stealth or votes... Steve Bucy

(snipped) > > > There is a time limit for selecting each card in a DCI Rochester > > > draft, as well. [DCI 75] > > > > Ok, it is in Rochester Draft then, but not in booster draft, which is > > also important. > > Not to the topic at hand ("straight Rochester Draft"), but OK. > See [DCI 72] for time limits on DCI Booster Draft tournaments. ??? Can't figure out what you want to say with that. :( > > > > > and it is a hybrid between Booster and > > > > Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite different ot > > > > Magic. > > > > > > "that suits the needs of some VTES groups". > > > Straight Rochester and straight booster draft work quite well for VTES > > > (at least, for the groups that have tried it around here). > > > > They are *usable* but I sincerly doubt that they work well für VTES. > > Rochester and Booster were designed for Magic. The problem is that > > Magic and VTES are quite different, in regards to crypt/library and > > lands in Magic. > > Having actually tested them, I do not have such doubts. I have > seen that they work well. Having actually tested Rochester, booster *and* Elder, I can only say that Elder is the best, fastest and smoothest format. > > Just because it works for Magic doesn't mean that it can't work > for V:TES. Even though the games are different, they still have > some elements in common. They have *some* elemenst in common. But the only thing I can think up right now is "tapping". What else? Ah, yes, the "live"/pool. But other than that? Hm, they are both CCGs and are sold in small packs called boosters. > > > Oh yes, you definitely can draft one booster after the other (with both > > Rochester and Booster style), but it creates some awkward situations. > > No more so than any other Draft format. Your point of view seems to incline that you think that there will never be a format that will be work really good for VTES. (For the moment we assume that there might be a way to make the draft formats better.) > > > You might (and will) end up with some boosters which don't correspond > > at all with the cards you drafted so far. E.g. the second booster to > > go, and you already have decided to go for Gangrel with pro. You have 4 > > Gangrel, and a couple of pro cards. But bad luck: you don't get to draw > > anymore Gangrels. You end up with a load of pro cards, but no Gangrels > > You end up with "a load" of pro cards only if you are not paying attention > to the fact that you haven't got any vampires to use them. Smart drafting > will avoid this problem. "Smart drafting will avoid this problem." You cannot deny that Booster or Rochester are often a kind of lottery. As you draft booster1 vamps- library, booster2 vamps-library, and so on, there is a *lot* of luck involved. > > > to use them! Ok, you could adapt your needs with every booster, but is > > that a desireable situation? > > Yes. > That is inherent in the nature of draft. > There are no guarantees that you will get the cards you need to make > a "tuned" deck. Again, you look at it from the Magic perspective. "That is the nature of Draft". Yes, as it is in Magic! All I'm saying is: it doesn't need to be so in VTES! Even with Elder Draft there is no guarantee that the deck will be "tuned", but you get to draft the Vamps first in Rochester style. So you get all vamps first. Now you *know* what your crypt might look like, and you can formulate a strategy for the library! Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just 1 or 2 Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. If you do it booster after booster, you just might hope to get the fitting vamps, which may never come. Screwed. > > How does the Elder Draft ensure that a player will be able to draft > the cards he wants? There is no draft format that ensures that a player will be able to draft the cards he wants. Elder just makes it possible to formulate a strategy, and the knowledge which skill will be neede and which are totally useless for you! > > If your group/area/tourney scene has trouble/takes issue with this > sort of thing (not being able to draft an appropriate crypt), then you > are welcome to implement [DCI 62], e.g., making all vampires freely > available to your players who are then free to focus on drafting their > libraries. (or vice-versa :-). Actually, that's not a draft anymore. And, it's not my group/area/tourney scene. Your style of discussions is sometimes very ... I don't find a word for it in English. :( Let's say you are ruling out changes, with the explanation that there are rules. It's a way of thinking that prohibits improvements. > > > If you draft all vampires in one go at the beginning, you know exactly > > what you have in terms of skills, and know what to go for, and what > > substitutes you could draft. > > But what if you draft all Gangrels only to discover that the boosters > don't correspond to your choice (i.e., they are very light on PRO and > ANI and FOR)? Bah, that is so unlikely, that I get the feeling you don't know what you are talking about. Let me explain: *if* you draft a large number of Gangrels, the other players on your table, will not have many Gangrels, perhaps none at all. This means that Pro cards will be largely available for you. Secondly: yes, in a single booster, there may be few ani, for, pro cards (just to stay with the Gangrel example), but in Elder draft this is circumvented, as there is a larger pool of cards and they are mixed prior to the drafting. If you'd go booster after booster, you'd screw the possibilty to mix expansions. Try it and you'll see what I mean. > > > Now, don't get me wrong, I know that you can't possible expect to have > > a higly focussed deck, but when you draft all vamps before the library, > > you can decide *better* on a strategy! > > Or, if you draft all your library first, you can decide on a better > strategy for drafting vampires. Yes, you are right, so you agree in this point. Good! It's simply a matter of taste if you go for Vamps first of library cards. A majority of players has stated that it would be better to have the vamps first, as they will act as your foundation of the deck. > > Or you can mix the two, developing your strategy as you see what cards > you are able to draft (which refines your draft strategy, and so on). Chances that you end up with a screwed crypt and library are much greater if you do booster after booster. "Refining your strategy" will not help you against bad luck. And a draft is luck. Even Elder Draft, but here you have a better starting position. > > Seriously - that's what happens. Give it a try. I (and many others) have. I urge you to give Elder draft a try. Just because there are already official DCI formats is no excuse to not try out a format, that might (in this case: is) better suited for VTES. > > > And, it's easy to handle, we have tried it out many times, and at the > > EC 59 players were drafting with this system, so experience and > > reliable data (if we can agree upon that it is somewhat reliable) is at > > hand. > > Data for the current system is also on hand. At least for those who have > tried the system. > You are definitely right here. I can say that I have tried all 3 systems. > And the current system doesn't suffer from the drawback that the Elder Draft > has - namely of opening more than one pack per player at a time (something > the DCI frowns on). Huh, what kind of drawback is that? Seriously, (I guess you are aiming at that), if a player *really* wants to cheat, he does, no matter what. And, during draft, if you do run it properly, there will be almost no opportunity to do so. > > We've been over all these points already, if you recall. Hm, I remember having a discussion on the NG in summer. Back then, all participants seemed quite satisfied with the Elder Draft hybrid. [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > There is a time limit for selecting each card in a DCI Rochester > > > > draft, as well. [DCI 75] > > > > > > Ok, it is in Rochester Draft then, but not in booster draft, which > is > > > also important. > > > > Not to the topic at hand ("straight Rochester Draft"), but OK. > > See [DCI 72] for time limits on DCI Booster Draft tournaments. > > ??? > Can't figure out what you want to say with that. :( You said there is no time limit for selecting cards in Booster Draft. I cited a DCI rule to the contrary. > > > > > and it is a hybrid between Booster and > > > > > Rochester that suits the needs of VTES, as it is quite > different ot > > > > > Magic. > > > > > > > > "that suits the needs of some VTES groups". > > > > Straight Rochester and straight booster draft work quite well for > VTES > > > > (at least, for the groups that have tried it around here). > > > > > > They are *usable* but I sincerly doubt that they work well für VTES. > > > Rochester and Booster were designed for Magic. The problem is that > > > Magic and VTES are quite different, in regards to crypt/library and > > > lands in Magic. > > > > Having actually tested them, I do not have such doubts. I have > > seen that they work well. > > Having actually tested Rochester, booster *and* Elder, I can only say > that Elder is the best, fastest and smoothest format > > > Just because it works for Magic doesn't mean that it can't work > > for V:TES. Even though the games are different, they still have > > some elements in common. > > They have *some* elemenst in common. But the only thing I can think up > right now is "tapping". What else? Ah, yes, the "live"/pool. > But other than that? Hm, they are both CCGs and are sold in small packs > called boosters. The latter part is the key to draft formats. > > > Oh yes, you definitely can draft one booster after the other (with > both > > > Rochester and Booster style), but it creates some awkward > situations. > > > > No more so than any other Draft format. > > Your point of view seems to incline that you think that there will > never be a format that will be work really good for VTES. (For the > moment we assume that there might be a way to make the draft formats > better.) No. It means that a given good format (e.g., Rochester Draft) is no worse than another good format (e.g., Elder Draft). That it is no worse doesn't mean I think it isn't good. > > > You might (and will) end up with some boosters which don't > correspond > > > at all with the cards you drafted so far. E.g. the second booster to > > > go, and you already have decided to go for Gangrel with pro. You > have 4 > > > Gangrel, and a couple of pro cards. But bad luck: you don't get to > draw > > > anymore Gangrels. You end up with a load of pro cards, but no > Gangrels > > > > You end up with "a load" of pro cards only if you are not paying > attention > > to the fact that you haven't got any vampires to use them. Smart > drafting > > will avoid this problem. > > "Smart drafting will avoid this problem." You cannot deny that Booster > or Rochester are often a kind of lottery. As you draft booster1 vamps- > library, booster2 vamps-library, and so on, there is a *lot* of luck > involved. As in Elder Draft. Or any draft, for that matter. But you seem to think that a player will blindly stick to a failing draft strategy. If so, then yes that player will be hurt - not by luck but by his narrow mindedness. If a player starts with a strategy in mind that "luck" would have it isn't in the cards, he should adapt his strategy to the cards available. In any draft. > > > to use them! Ok, you could adapt your needs with every booster, but > is > > > that a desireable situation? > > > > Yes. > > That is inherent in the nature of draft. > > There are no guarantees that you will get the cards you need to make > > a "tuned" deck. > > Again, you look at it from the Magic perspective. "That is the nature > of Draft". Yes, as it is in Magic! All I'm saying is: it doesn't need > to be so in VTES! Yes, it does. It is inherent to draft in any CCG. Draft implies adaptability. The players must adapt their strategies to the cards available - especially since they do not get to examine all the cards available a priori. > Even with Elder Draft there is no guarantee that the deck will be > "tuned", but you get to draft the Vamps first in Rochester style. So > you get all vamps first. Now you *know* what your crypt might look > like, and you can formulate a strategy for the library! You should, if you get all the vamps first. Then you can *hope* that you get the cards that match your vampires. OR Equally valid - you draft your library and crypt at the same time, adjusting your strategy for each based on the cards you get for both. > Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just 1 or 2 > Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. Why is it acceptable to imagine that you could get just 2 Gangrel but not that the packs would be thing in pro (as you say below)? Yes, if you don't draft many Gangrel (or vamps with pro), you shouldn't draft cards that require pro. Conversely, if you don't draft many cards that require pro, you shouldn't draft vampires on the basis of their pro. Why is your way the only way? > If you do it booster after booster, you just might hope to get the > fitting vamps, which may never come. Screwed. Or you may hope to get the fitting library cards which never come. Screwed. Neither of these "screw" situations happen to players who aren't just blindly hoping, but who are "active" in their draft strategy. > > How does the Elder Draft ensure that a player will be able to draft > > the cards he wants? > > There is no draft format that ensures that a player will be able to > draft the cards he wants. Elder just makes it possible to formulate a > strategy, and the knowledge which skill will be neede and which are > totally useless for you! After you have drafted you vampires, sure. And then you can hope that you get cards to match the strategy you are now married to. > > If your group/area/tourney scene has trouble/takes issue with this > > sort of thing (not being able to draft an appropriate crypt), then you > > are welcome to implement [DCI 62], e.g., making all vampires freely > > available to your players who are then free to focus on drafting > their > > libraries. (or vice-versa :-). > > Actually, that's not a draft anymore. And, it's not my Yes it is. A library draft - which seems to be where you place the emphasis. > group/area/tourney scene. Your style of discussions is sometimes very > ... I don't find a word for it in English. :( :-( > Let's say you are ruling out changes, with the explanation that there > are rules. It's a way of thinking that prohibits improvements. No. I'm saying that your "issues" with the DCI Draft formats ("no time limits", "Crypt independence") are already handled by the DCI rules. The "improvements" to the problems you see with the DCI Draft formats are already integrated in the DCI rules. If there is a problem that is not addressed by the DCI rules, that would be different. > > > If you draft all vampires in one go at the beginning, you know > exactly > > > what you have in terms of skills, and know what to go for, and what > > > substitutes you could draft. > > > > But what if you draft all Gangrels only to discover that the boosters > > don't correspond to your choice (i.e., they are very light on PRO and > > ANI and FOR)? > > Bah, that is so unlikely, that I get the feeling you don't know what > you are talking about. Just trying to put your argument into perspective. > Let me explain: *if* you draft a large number of Gangrels, the other > players on your table, will not have many Gangrels, perhaps none at all. > This means that Pro cards will be largely available for you. True, if pro cards are largely available to begin with (luck). And if the other players (knowing you are married to the Gangrel) don't draft the pro cards just to keep them out of your hands (and out of their way). > Secondly: yes, in a single booster, there may be few ani, for, pro > cards (just to stay with the Gangrel example), but in Elder draft this > is circumvented, as there is a larger pool of cards and they are mixed > prior to the drafting. ("Bah". As you say above). Elder Draft doesn't have a larger pool of cards, obviously. Mixing the cards doesn't increase the total number of pro cards. > If you'd go booster after booster, you'd screw the possibilty to mix > expansions. Try it and you'll see what I mean. Why is mixing expansions so important? (And if it is, why is it inconceivable to adapt the Rochester Draft to an alternating-booster format)? > > > Now, don't get me wrong, I know that you can't possible expect to > have > > > a higly focussed deck, but when you draft all vamps before the > library, > > > you can decide *better* on a strategy! > > > > Or, if you draft all your library first, you can decide on a better > > strategy for drafting vampires. > > Yes, you are right, so you agree in this point. Good! It's simply a It is obvious. But it doesn't imply that the cards that remain for you to draft will match your "better strategy". > matter of taste if you go for Vamps first of library cards. A majority > of players has stated that it would be better to have the vamps first, > as they will act as your foundation of the deck. Again the chicken-and-egg. Neither the crypt nor the library comes first. Both should be adapted to suit the other (and themselves). But sure, if one is fixed, you'll have a clearer idea what you "need" for the other. (So, in that sense, you'll have a "better strategy" for drafting the other). But if the available cards in the other do not match your "need", ... But if you draft both simultaneously (as in intermingled or alternating), then you can adapt them both as needed. > > Or you can mix the two, developing your strategy as you see what cards > > you are able to draft (which refines your draft strategy, and so on). > > Chances that you end up with a screwed crypt and library are much > greater if you do booster after booster. "Refining your strategy" will > not help you against bad luck. And a draft is luck. Even Elder Draft, If luck is against you, your strategy won't be as much help, true. But this is true in any draft format. At least with Rochester Draft, you can see how your luck is going before you marry youself off to one strategy (like Gangrel, for example) and you have a chance, through drafting, to circumvent your bad luck (by drafting some Ventrue to match the cards that you have been able to draft, for example). > but here you have a better starting position. I don't see it. Your "better position" is just a more restrictive position. You have a clearer goal, but that doesn't improve your odds of meeting that goal. > > Seriously - that's what happens. Give it a try. > > I (and many others) have. I urge you to give Elder draft a try. I have. It works fine. > Just because there are already official DCI formats is no excuse to not > try out a format, that might (in this case: is) better suited for VTES. It doesn't appear "better suited" to V:TES than the existing formats. > > > And, it's easy to handle, we have tried it out many times, and at > the > > > EC 59 players were drafting with this system, so experience and > > > reliable data (if we can agree upon that it is somewhat reliable) > is at > > > hand. > > > > Data for the current system is also on hand. At least for those who > have > > tried the system. > > > > You are definitely right here. I can say that I have tried all 3 > systems. > > > And the current system doesn't suffer from the drawback that the > Elder Draft > > has - namely of opening more than one pack per player at a time > (something > > the DCI frowns on). > > Huh, what kind of drawback is that? Seriously, (I guess you are aiming One that would prohibit the Elder Draft (in its current form) from being part of the DCI rules. > at that), if a player *really* wants to cheat, he does, no matter what. Yes. And there's no reason to make it easier for him. > And, during draft, if you do run it properly, there will be almost no > opportunity to do so. But more of an opportunity than the current DCI system. > > We've been over all these points already, if you recall. > > Hm, I remember having a discussion on the NG in summer. Back then, all > participants seemed quite satisfied with the Elder Draft hybrid. As much so as now, I guess. The points I make above were made then. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp [ quoted text not captured ]

Folks (LSJ & Carl): At US GenCon (a WotC event) the last several years they have been using a "Michigan Draft" which sounds just like the Elder Draft. That is, everyone opens their packs and places the vampires into one pile and the library into another. Each of the two piles is thoroughly shuffled (no small feat) and then the vampire pile is drafted in Rochester style. After that, the library pile is drafted. From my experience, this is an excellent method of drafting for the reasons Carl mentions. In particular, you are able to know who your vampires first are so you can draft an appropriate library. This is most critical if you have/like/use vampires with lesser-frequency disciplines, like Protean or Thaumaturgy. The reason that Booster and Rochester work so well in Magic is that a drafter gets the land that she needs (in any quantity and distribution) *after* she drafts a library. What if there were more types of lands (say, 10 basic instead of just 5) and these players had to draft land at the same time as their library? It just wouldn't work out as well, would it? Yours, Madman -- Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)

Steve Bucy wrote: > > > Actually I finised with 3 VP, Mike and Robyn each had 1 VP. > DOH!!! Major brain fart. Fortunately, the forms I turned into DCI don't seem to account for actual number of VP's. For those of you who have done V:TES DCI Tourneys alot, is that correct? I used the multiple player sheet, that says VT:ES at the top. Chris -- NEW e-mail address: shr...@alumni.williams.edu Chris Shorb, Monger of stuff Tammy Martin, Queen of the Eastern Marches, and damn good mom Alexander Shorb, little guy who could Shameless plug: <http://www.graphicnovels.com/>

These kind of tournies are a breath of fresh air. We've done this kind a couple of times: Sealed starters and the winner gets every single card. No trading or anything. You will use those "wallpaper" cards you pass by all the time in your box. Deal with the devil is actually used, OOH AAH. This way is a total mess and totally fun. Jeff Prince of Cleveland

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Jeffrey Moore wrote: > You will use those "wallpaper" cards you > pass by all the time in your box. It's always worth looking at *why* you pass them over. Okay, in a much more limited environment such as that of Sealed Deck, you might be using the worse of a similar pair - e.g. Computer Hacking instead of, say, Social Charm or something like that. There are a lot of cards, though, that initially look like wallpaper, but which have their own niche to work in. Consider Betrayer. Long held as a very, very bad card, and always passed over. Mix with Recruitment and lots of Master Phase Actions for the Legbiter Betrayer Deck from Hell. -- James Coupe

> > They have *some* elemenst in common. But the only thing I can think up > > right now is "tapping". What else? Ah, yes, the "live"/pool. > > But other than that? Hm, they are both CCGs and are sold in small > packs > > called boosters. > > The latter part is the key to draft formats. Being sold in boosters? I guess that's a pretty lame key to draft formats. A good draft format should take into account the game mechanics, not if they come along in boosters or not, wouldn't you agree? > > > > Your point of view seems to incline that you think that there will > > never be a format that will be work really good for VTES. (For the > > moment we assume that there might be a way to make the draft formats > > better.) > > No. It means that a given good format (e.g., Rochester Draft) is no > worse than another good format (e.g., Elder Draft). So you say that all 3 formats are equally suited to play VTES drafts. > > > > "Smart drafting will avoid this problem." You cannot deny that Booster > > or Rochester are often a kind of lottery. As you draft booster1 vamps- > > library, booster2 vamps-library, and so on, there is a *lot* of luck > > involved. > > As in Elder Draft. Or any draft, for that matter. > But you seem to think that a player will blindly stick to a failing > draft strategy. If so, then yes that player will be hurt - not by > luck but by his narrow mindedness. Luck is an essential part of drafts. Otherwise you could just stick with constructed. However, you will only know that your draft strategy will be a failing one when the draft is finished. E.g. 6 booster, in the first there are Gangrel, along with pro cards. So you go for Gangrel. In the next booster, there are Gangrel, but no pro cards. Next booster no Gangrel, no pro. What do you do? Switch? Only to dicover that the last 1 or 2 booster contain enough Gangrel and pro to make your deck work? It's luck. More so when you draft one booster after another. > > If a player starts with a strategy in mind that "luck" would have > it isn't in the cards, he should adapt his strategy to the cards > available. In any draft. You can't know what's in the cards till all cards have been drafted. Switching between boosters to a different strategy will screw you. You might end up with a deck composed of 3 different strategies, but you could have had a consistent one if you kept hoping. It's luck. More so in Booster and Rochester than in Elder. > > > > Again, you look at it from the Magic perspective. "That is the nature > > of Draft". Yes, as it is in Magic! All I'm saying is: it doesn't need > > to be so in VTES! > > Yes, it does. It is inherent to draft in any CCG. No, it doesnt. A good draft format *must* take into account the game mechanics of the game in question. Please read another post about draft under a different subject, in which the poster describes the difference between Magic and VTES. It's really good, I couldn't say it in better words. > > > Even with Elder Draft there is no guarantee that the deck will be > > "tuned", but you get to draft the Vamps first in Rochester style. So > > you get all vamps first. Now you *know* what your crypt might look > > like, and you can formulate a strategy for the library! > > You should, if you get all the vamps first. > Then you can *hope* that you get the cards that match your > vampires. You don't have to "hope". Your crypt defines your library in terms of skills you *can* use. Roughly each clan has 3 skills at his disposal, so your choices are widespread enough for the library draft. At the same time you can always take cards that require no discipline (but that's true for any format). The chances to get the cards you need are *really* high, because all disciplines are averaged throughout the cards you get to select from. Chances that you end up with a booster which contains *no* cards you can use in your deck are neglegible (sp?). The other players won't take cards in the beginning just to screw you. When they look at their first 15 cards, they have to take what they need, else they might end up with a rag-tag deck. There is the possibilty that 2 (perhaps, but not likely 3) players are going for dominate. Once a player recognises that other players are going for Dom, he switches to pre or obf or aus (if he hasn't already), cause he can select from differnt skills of his vamps. But in all the drafts I have witnessed, this has *never* been a problem. By the time all players have their vamps, they know what the others will be going for, cause drafting the vamps in a rochester-style lets you see what the others take, and vice versa. So there will almost never be a kind of "struggle" for a single discipline. In the end, this leads to good and playable decks, but never as hard hitting as constructed ones. > OR > Equally valid - you draft your library and crypt at the same time, > adjusting your strategy for each based on the cards you get for > both. Again, this is not a simple game (regarding to game-mechanics) as Magic. To construct a deck with 7 (13) different clans and 10 (17) disciplines to choose from, while using the same techniques and amount of booster as in Magic will not work satisfyingly. There are better ways, Elder draft is one of them, and it's already in use. It's been agreed upon by players from US, Australia and Europe. > > > Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just 1 or 2 > > Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. > > Why is it acceptable to imagine that you could get just 2 Gangrel > but not that the packs would be thing in pro (as you say below)? It's more likely to have a vamp of a specific clan in a pack, than a card that requires a specific skill. There are 7 (13) clans, but 10 (17) skills along with the non-skill cards and masters. > > Yes, if you don't draft many Gangrel (or vamps with pro), you > shouldn't draft cards that require pro. That's common sense. If you do it pack for pack, then you sometimes would draft Gangrel, sometimes you don't. Or, as you get to draft vamps before library, you draft Gangrel, only to find out there's no pro. Next pack full of Gangrel, again no pro. Now you switch. Next pack full of Gangrel, no pro. ok. Next pack full of Gangrel, full of pro, but you don't take that anymore. Switch? Next pack full of Gangrel, full of pro. Screwed. You have a number of Gangrel, 2 or so pro cards, the rest is another clan or discipline based. It's now a deck with two different strategies in it. Is this desireable? > Why is your way the only way? First it's not my way, but the way of a big number of players who have tested and tried out all formats, and agreed on a play-able way. Second this doesn't mean there are other ways to make VTES drafts play better. > > > If you do it booster after booster, you just might hope to get the > > fitting vamps, which may never come. Screwed. > > Or you may hope to get the fitting library cards which never come. > Screwed. That is highly unlikely under Elder. You should know that if you have tried it. > > Neither of these "screw" situations happen to players who aren't > just blindly hoping, but who are "active" in their draft strategy. Why do you assume that Elder draft doesn't require "active" palyers in their strategy? They need to be as active as in any other format. > > > > How does the Elder Draft ensure that a player will be able to draft > > > the cards he wants? > > > > There is no draft format that ensures that a player will be able to > > draft the cards he wants. Elder just makes it possible to formulate a > > strategy, and the knowledge which skill will be neede and which are > > totally useless for you! > > After you have drafted you vampires, sure. > And then you can hope that you get cards to match the strategy you > are now married to. This is much more favourable than hoping to not have to switch strategy after every booster, isn't it? And it's more likely to get a rather well-working deck out of it. > > > > If your group/area/tourney scene has trouble/takes issue with this > > > sort of thing (not being able to draft an appropriate crypt), then > you > > > are welcome to implement [DCI 62], e.g., making all vampires freely > > > available to your players who are then free to focus on drafting > > their > > > libraries. (or vice-versa :-). > > > > Actually, that's not a draft anymore. And, it's not my > > Yes it is. A library draft - which seems to be where you place > the emphasis. No, here you are wrong. A draft where you don't get to draft all the cards in the booster is not a complete draft (at least in VTES), in Magic that may be acceptable, but it isn't in VTES. The emphasis is placed on the vamps, because it makes for a stronger foundation to have them first. You definitely could do it the other way round, but I think that it would be not as solid a foundation to go with. Keep in mind that when you draft your vamps, you get to see what the others draft as well, and vice versa. This ensures that the library will be drafted more easily. > > > group/area/tourney scene. Your style of discussions is sometimes very > > ... I don't find a word for it in English. :( > > :-( Sorry, that shouldn't have been here. I was a bit frustrated, cause I can't put my thoughts into apropriate words sometimes, and some of your statements look to me like loops. ;) > > > Let's say you are ruling out changes, with the explanation that there > > are rules. It's a way of thinking that prohibits improvements. > > No. I'm saying that your "issues" with the DCI Draft formats > ("no time limits", "Crypt independence") are already handled > by the DCI rules. The "improvements" to the problems you see with > the DCI Draft formats are already integrated in the DCI rules. I really don't think so. Otherwise would we have such a discussion? Definitely not. I just don't see that the current DCI rules for VTES take the complex game mechanics and the crypt/library split into account properly. There is room for improvement, and why not mixing two formats together? It makes things interesting. :) > > > If you'd go booster after booster, you'd screw the possibilty to mix > > expansions. Try it and you'll see what I mean. > > Why is mixing expansions so important? > (And if it is, why is it inconceivable to adapt the Rochester Draft > to an alternating-booster format)? There are expansions, so why is it not desireable to use them in a draft? DS and AH can't really be used on their own, and the (hopefully) upcoming expansion won't be either. They need the basic set to work. Imagine the following situation: you want to play Giovanni (obviously DS), they get to be drafted as last boosters. Now, all the other players might already have all they need as they are going for one of the 7 Cam clans. When it comes to the DS booster, they are ready to screw you by taking what you'd need. Desireable? When you mix the cards from all the boosters, you have the same starting point for *all* clans that appear in the draft. I guess that's a situation that *many* players would view as desireable. > > Again the chicken-and-egg. Neither the crypt nor the library comes > first. Both should be adapted to suit the other (and themselves). > But sure, if one is fixed, you'll have a clearer idea what you "need" > for the other. (So, in that sense, you'll have a "better strategy" > for drafting the other). But if the available cards in the other do > not match your "need", ... I agree that it works both ways (library-crypt or crypt-library) but I'd assume that it is more common to build your deck around the vamps, than the other way round, though in some cases you just have to do it the other way round. If you go vamps first, it is quicker than library, because there are less vamps than library cards. Now after the first 20 minutes you have a rough outline of how your deck could look like. You still have plenty of room to include different strats or combos or whatever (most vamps would have an odd disciplin in common, too). The other way round, it's much harder to find the corresponding vamps to your library cards - fewer cards to pick from, with narrow set discipline-range, there are few vamps which have a *lot* of disciplines. You are very limited and more easily screwed by luck and the other players. > > But if you draft both simultaneously (as in intermingled or > alternating), then you can adapt them both as needed. Which is not suitable for a game as complex as VTES. It is for Magic, though. > > If luck is against you, your strategy won't be as much help, true. > But this is true in any draft format. > At least with Rochester Draft, you can see how your luck is going > before you marry youself off to one strategy (like Gangrel, for > example) and you have a chance, through drafting, to circumvent > your bad luck (by drafting some Ventrue to match the cards that > you have been able to draft, for example). You see how your luck is going with Elder, too, and at a much earlier stage. The key is that you draft vamps first, and all the other players can see it, too. As for your Ventrue example, if you have to adapt in every booster, you'll end up with 6 clans out of 6 different booster, with 6 disciplines to put into your deck. That is highly desireable, isnt't it? :) > > > > Seriously - that's what happens. Give it a try. > > > > I (and many others) have. I urge you to give Elder draft a try. > > I have. It works fine. Did you feel restricted? Did it take more time than the other formats? Did it make for better decks? > > > Just because there are already official DCI formats is no excuse to > not > > try out a format, that might (in this case: is) better suited for > VTES. > > It doesn't appear "better suited" to V:TES than the existing formats. Well, it does to many, otherwise it wouldn't have been invented, would it? And, honestly, how many players have tried out Drafts? It's expensive, and not all players like to play not highly tuned construced decks. Draft is for the ones who like to have a bit luck involved. And I still don't agree that Rochester and Booster are the be all and end all for VTES. Maybe even Elder is not, but it goes in the right direction: taking into account the game mechanics. > > > And the current system doesn't suffer from the drawback that the > > Elder Draft > > > has - namely of opening more than one pack per player at a time > > (something > > > the DCI frowns on). > > > > Huh, what kind of drawback is that? Seriously, (I guess you are aiming > > One that would prohibit the Elder Draft (in its current form) > from being part of the DCI rules. I wouldn't take this as a fact. > > > at that), if a player *really* wants to cheat, he does, no matter > what. > > Yes. And there's no reason to make it easier for him. It's definitely not easier for him. > > > And, during draft, if you do run it properly, there will be almost no > > opportunity to do so. > > But more of an opportunity than the current DCI system. No, it is not. > > > > We've been over all these points already, if you recall. > > > > Hm, I remember having a discussion on the NG in summer. Back then, all > > participants seemed quite satisfied with the Elder Draft hybrid. > > As much so as now, I guess. > The points I make above were made then. As I recall you were the only one who had points against the Elder Draft in it's final form (you can correct me here, as I don't have a good memory for threads and stuff). And you haven't been too hard arguing against it, either. Now you do. Is the Elder draft a threat or something to integrity of the rules, the game itself or the DCI? I wonder... Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <nh_h4.32944$Mg.4...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>, "Madman2001" <Mad...@madman.com> wrote: > Folks (LSJ & Carl): > > At US GenCon (a WotC event) the last several years they have been using > a "Michigan Draft" which sounds just like the Elder Draft. Actually, Elder Draft evolved out of GenCon Draft and a version of Booster Draft that involved opening all packs and shuffling the vamps together, then drafting, same with library. All contributors to the discussion could accept the Elder Draft hybrid. So far there have been only positive reports about it. :) > That is, > everyone opens their packs and places the vampires into one pile and > the library into another. Each of the two piles is thoroughly shuffled > (no small feat) and then the vampire pile is drafted in Rochester > style. After that, the library pile is drafted. You mean the GenCon draft here. The Michigan Draft included trading afterwards and was more of a sealed type. > > From my experience, this is an excellent method of drafting for the > reasons Carl mentions. In particular, you are able to know who your > vampires first are so you can draft an appropriate library. This is > most critical if you have/like/use vampires with lesser-frequency > disciplines, like Protean or Thaumaturgy. Correct. > The reason that Booster and Rochester work so well in Magic is that > a drafter gets the land that she needs (in any quantity and > distribution) *after* she drafts a library. What if there were more > types of lands (say, 10 basic instead of just 5) and these players had > to draft land at the same time as their library? It just wouldn't work > out as well, would it? Correct. You are so right here, I couldn't put it in better words. Thanks for your contribution. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > They have *some* elemenst in common. But the only thing I can think > up > > > right now is "tapping". What else? Ah, yes, the "live"/pool. > > > But other than that? Hm, they are both CCGs and are sold in small > > packs > > > called boosters. > > > > The latter part is the key to draft formats. > > Being sold in boosters? I guess that's a pretty lame key to draft > formats. A good draft format should take into account the game > mechanics, not if they come along in boosters or not, wouldn't you > agree? If they are not sold in boosters, then draft formats are much more difficult. A good *CCG* takes into account the game mechanics when setting the distribution of cards in a booster. A good draft is free to make use of that fact. (Although a draft format that alters that distribution, such as Elder Draft, could still be good). > > > Your point of view seems to incline that you think that there will > > > never be a format that will be work really good for VTES. (For the > > > moment we assume that there might be a way to make the draft formats > > > better.) > > > > No. It means that a given good format (e.g., Rochester Draft) is no > > worse than another good format (e.g., Elder Draft). > > So you say that all 3 formats are equally suited to play VTES drafts. As far as that point goes, yes. By, since Elder Draft violates the DCI "rule" of opening only one pack per player at a time, it would need to be substantially better than the formats that subscribe to that rule in order to be adopted by the DCI. > > > "Smart drafting will avoid this problem." You cannot deny that > Booster > > > or Rochester are often a kind of lottery. As you draft booster1 > vamps- > > > library, booster2 vamps-library, and so on, there is a *lot* of luck > > > involved. > > > > As in Elder Draft. Or any draft, for that matter. > > But you seem to think that a player will blindly stick to a failing > > draft strategy. If so, then yes that player will be hurt - not by > > luck but by his narrow mindedness. > > Luck is an essential part of drafts. Otherwise you could just stick with > constructed. However, you will only know that your draft strategy will > be a failing one when the draft is finished. E.g. 6 booster, in the ? It becomes clearer and clearer as you are drafting. As you get more cards, you get more information. The "last card" ("when the draft is finished") doesn't carry *all* of the information about what has been drafted before. > first there are Gangrel, along with pro cards. So you go for Gangrel. In > the next booster, there are Gangrel, but no pro cards. Next booster no > Gangrel, no pro. What do you do? Switch? Only to dicover that the last 1 > or 2 booster contain enough Gangrel and pro to make your deck work? It's > luck. More so when you draft one booster after another. You don't "switch" necessarily - but you should look for a strategy that you have/can get cards for. If you stick to a strategy that requires cards that you don't have, you won't do well. Under Elder Draft in the same situation: You draft a bunch of Gangrel. Now you *have to have* the pro cards to make you deck work (according to your premise above). And everyone in the pod knows this. But there's only enough pro cards to make your deck work in the last two or three rounds of draft. What are you drafting until that point? What do you do to keep the other players from drafting the pro cards *they know* you need? Again, if you marry yourself to a single narrow strategy, you can get into trouble. In any format. > > If a player starts with a strategy in mind that "luck" would have > > it isn't in the cards, he should adapt his strategy to the cards > > available. In any draft. > > You can't know what's in the cards till all cards have been drafted. > Switching between boosters to a different strategy will screw you. You "Switching" may, but "adapting" won't. > might end up with a deck composed of 3 different strategies, but you > could have had a consistent one if you kept hoping. It's luck. More so > in Booster and Rochester than in Elder. I don't see "more so". If you "could have had a consistent one" if you kept hoping in one format, then you could equally have had the same in another. And that hope, if fulfilled, means your deck can work. If unfulfilled, means (in your words), you're screwed. When you see that your hope is not being matched by the cards that jave come your way, better to adapt your hopes than to keep blindly following that hope. > > > Again, you look at it from the Magic perspective. "That is the > nature > > > of Draft". Yes, as it is in Magic! All I'm saying is: it doesn't > need > > > to be so in VTES! > > > > Yes, it does. It is inherent to draft in any CCG. > > No, it doesnt. A good draft format *must* take into account the game > mechanics of the game in question. Please read another post about draft > under a different subject, in which the poster describes the difference > between Magic and VTES. It's really good, I couldn't say it in better > words. OK. So if the differences are accounted for in booster pack distribution? > > > Even with Elder Draft there is no guarantee that the deck will be > > > "tuned", but you get to draft the Vamps first in Rochester style. So > > > you get all vamps first. Now you *know* what your crypt might look > > > like, and you can formulate a strategy for the library! > > > > You should, if you get all the vamps first. > > Then you can *hope* that you get the cards that match your > > vampires. > > You don't have to "hope". Your crypt defines your library in terms of > skills you *can* use. Roughly each clan has 3 skills at his disposal, so > your choices are widespread enough for the library draft. At the same > time you can always take cards that require no discipline (but that's > true for any format). The chances to get the cards you need are *really* Both are true for any format. > high, because all disciplines are averaged throughout the cards you get > to select from. Chances that you end up with a booster which contains > *no* cards you can use in your deck are neglegible (sp?). True in any format. > The other players won't take cards in the beginning just to screw you. Could be. But again, as true in one format as another. > When they look at their first 15 cards, they have to take what they > need, else they might end up with a rag-tag deck. There is the > possibilty that 2 (perhaps, but not likely 3) players are going for > dominate. Once a player recognises that other players are going for Dom, > he switches to pre or obf or aus (if he hasn't already), cause he can > select from differnt skills of his vamps. But in all the drafts I have > witnessed, this has *never* been a problem. By the time all players have > their vamps, they know what the others will be going for, cause drafting > the vamps in a rochester-style lets you see what the others take, and > vice versa. So there will almost never be a kind of "struggle" for a > single discipline. In the end, this leads to good and playable decks, > but never as hard hitting as constructed ones. Right - no problem, as I said. (Or rather, no more/less problematic than other draft formats). > > OR > > Equally valid - you draft your library and crypt at the same time, > > adjusting your strategy for each based on the cards you get for > > both. > > Again, this is not a simple game (regarding to game-mechanics) as Magic. > To construct a deck with 7 (13) different clans and 10 (17) disciplines > to choose from, while using the same techniques and amount of booster as > in Magic will not work satisfyingly. There are better ways, Elder draft It isn't the "same" technique as MtG. But, even if it was, that doesn't mean it isn't "right" for V:TES. And it works quite satisfyingly. > is one of them, and it's already in use. It's been agreed upon by > players from US, Australia and Europe. > > > Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just 1 or > 2 > > > Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. > > > > Why is it acceptable to imagine that you could get just 2 Gangrel > > but not that the packs would be [thin] in pro (as you say below)? > > It's more likely to have a vamp of a specific clan in a pack, than a > card that requires a specific skill. There are 7 (13) clans, but 10 (17) > skills along with the non-skill cards and masters. Umm, OK. But that supports what I was saying (that it is not more likely to be thin in Gangrel than in pro). But the actual probabilities aren't the real issue. The fact is, "luck" could "screw" you, regardless of format. And moreso if you fail to adapt to the "bad luck" when you begin to notice it. > > Yes, if you don't draft many Gangrel (or vamps with pro), you > > shouldn't draft cards that require pro. > > That's common sense. If you do it pack for pack, then you sometimes > would draft Gangrel, sometimes you don't. Or, as you get to draft vamps > before library, you draft Gangrel, only to find out there's no pro. Next > pack full of Gangrel, again no pro. Now you switch. Next pack full of > Gangrel, no pro. ok. Next pack full of Gangrel, full of pro, but you > don't take that anymore. Switch? Next pack full of Gangrel, full of pro. > Screwed. You have a number of Gangrel, 2 or so pro cards, the rest is > another clan or discipline based. It's now a deck with two different > strategies in it. Is this desireable? Two compatible strategies, one would hope. That is desirable, yes. > > Why is your way the only way? > > First it's not my way, but the way of a big number of players who have > tested and tried out all formats, and agreed on a play-able way. I meant "your way" in terms of the way you support to the exclusion of others. > Second this doesn't mean there are other ways to make VTES drafts play > better. If you mean to have another negative in there, which seems likely, then I agree. But consistency is also valued by the DCI, both in terms of game-independence as well as consistency over time. > > > If you do it booster after booster, you just might hope to get the > > > fitting vamps, which may never come. Screwed. > > > > Or you may hope to get the fitting library cards which never come. > > Screwed. > > That is highly unlikely under Elder. You should know that if you have > tried it. The point is that it is just as likely/unlikely in the other formats. In any format, if one does not pay attention to the cards that are available and make the best use of them (rather than sticking to one's early concept of a "best strategy"), you won't do as well. In any format. > > Neither of these "screw" situations happen to players who aren't > > just blindly hoping, but who are "active" in their draft strategy. > > Why do you assume that Elder draft doesn't require "active" palyers in > their strategy? I do not. I was just illustrating what happens if one applies that assuption to Elder Draft equally as you have been applying it to Rochester Draft. > They need to be as active as in any other format. I agree. > > > > How does the Elder Draft ensure that a player will be able to > draft > > > > the cards he wants? > > > > > > There is no draft format that ensures that a player will be able to > > > draft the cards he wants. Elder just makes it possible to formulate > a > > > strategy, and the knowledge which skill will be neede and which are > > > totally useless for you! > > > > After you have drafted you vampires, sure. > > And then you can hope that you get cards to match the strategy you > > are now married to. > > This is much more favourable than hoping to not have to switch strategy > after every booster, isn't it? > And it's more likely to get a rather well-working deck out of it. No. In either format you can hope to be able to stick to the strategy you have been working on. But, in either format, you should be able to adapt your strategy to the cards that become available. Both formats support such ability, and the ability to create well-working decks (as well-working as can be expected in a limited format). > > > > If your group/area/tourney scene has trouble/takes issue with this > > > > sort of thing (not being able to draft an appropriate crypt), then > > you > > > > are welcome to implement [DCI 62], e.g., making all vampires > freely > > > > available to your players who are then free to focus on drafting > > > their > > > > libraries. (or vice-versa :-). > > > > > > Actually, that's not a draft anymore. And, it's not my > > > > Yes it is. A library draft - which seems to be where you place > > the emphasis. > > No, here you are wrong. A draft where you don't get to draft all the > cards in the booster is not a complete draft (at least in VTES), in > Magic that may be acceptable, but it isn't in VTES. Who said you can't draft all of the cards in a booster? You are welcomed to draft all the cards. > The emphasis is placed on the vamps, because it makes for a stronger > foundation to have them first. If you say so. I find that both the library and the crypt depend on each other and should be "tuned" to match each other. > You definitely could do it the other way > round, but I think that it would be not as solid a foundation to go > with. Keep in mind that when you draft your vamps, you get to see what > the others draft as well, and vice versa. This ensures that the library > will be drafted more easily. Same can be said of any ordering of vamp/library drafting. > > > Let's say you are ruling out changes, with the explanation that > there > > > are rules. It's a way of thinking that prohibits improvements. > > > > No. I'm saying that your "issues" with the DCI Draft formats > > ("no time limits", "Crypt independence") are already handled > > by the DCI rules. The "improvements" to the problems you see with > > the DCI Draft formats are already integrated in the DCI rules. > > I really don't think so. Otherwise would we have such a discussion? I frequently have to have "discussions" about what is already printed in the rules, yes. > Definitely not. I just don't see that the current DCI rules for VTES > take the complex game mechanics and the crypt/library split into account > properly. There is room for improvement, and why not mixing two formats > together? It makes things interesting. :) The DCI rules have attempted to take the split into account within the self-imposed limit of packs-per-player. The main "why not" is the one already expressed: opening more than one pack per player at a time. "More interesting" is debatable, but very likely. :-) The formats could be mixed without violating the pack-per-player restriction, however. > > > If you'd go booster after booster, you'd screw the possibilty to mix > > > expansions. Try it and you'll see what I mean. > > > > Why is mixing expansions so important? > > (And if it is, why is it inconceivable to adapt the Rochester Draft > > to an alternating-booster format)? > > There are expansions, so why is it not desireable to use them in a > draft? DS and AH can't really be used on their own, and the (hopefully) > upcoming expansion won't be either. They need the basic set to work. > Imagine the following situation: you want to play Giovanni (obviously > DS), they get to be drafted as last boosters. Now, all the other players > might already have all they need as they are going for one of the 7 Cam > clans. When it comes to the DS booster, they are ready to screw you by > taking what you'd need. Desireable? When you mix the cards from all the > boosters, you have the same starting point for *all* clans that appear > in the draft. I guess that's a situation that *many* players would view > as desireable. Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. > > Again the chicken-and-egg. Neither the crypt nor the library comes > > first. Both should be adapted to suit the other (and themselves). > > But sure, if one is fixed, you'll have a clearer idea what you "need" > > for the other. (So, in that sense, you'll have a "better strategy" > > for drafting the other). But if the available cards in the other do > > not match your "need", ... > > I agree that it works both ways (library-crypt or crypt-library) but I'd > assume that it is more common to build your deck around the vamps, than > the other way round, though in some cases you just have to do it the > other way round. I would assume it is most common to build each with an eye toward the other. > If you go vamps first, it is quicker than library, because there are > less vamps than library cards. Now after the first 20 minutes you have a > rough outline of how your deck could look like. You still have plenty of > room to include different strats or combos or whatever (most vamps would > have an odd disciplin in common, too). The other way round, it's much > harder to find the corresponding vamps to your library cards - fewer > cards to pick from, with narrow set discipline-range, there are few > vamps which have a *lot* of disciplines. You are very limited and more > easily screwed by luck and the other players. I don't share your view on this subject. > > But if you draft both simultaneously (as in intermingled or > > alternating), then you can adapt them both as needed. > > Which is not suitable for a game as complex as VTES. It is for Magic, > though. It is suitable for VTES. Whether it is suitable for MtG is immaterial. > > > > Seriously - that's what happens. Give it a try. > > > > > > I (and many others) have. I urge you to give Elder draft a try. > > > > I have. It works fine. > > Did you feel restricted? Did it take more time than the other formats? > Did it make for better decks? No. No (except for the minimal extra time to explain both of the intermingled draft formats). No (and no worse, either). > > > Just because there are already official DCI formats is no excuse to > > not > > > try out a format, that might (in this case: is) better suited for > > VTES. > > > > It doesn't appear "better suited" to V:TES than the existing formats. > > Well, it does to many, otherwise it wouldn't have been invented, would > it? Ah. So the variants in Darkness Unveiled are better than the standard game? (Or they wouldn't have been invented, right.) :-) > And, honestly, how many players have tried out Drafts? It's > expensive, and not all players like to play not highly tuned construced > decks. Draft is for the ones who like to have a bit luck involved. > And I still don't agree that Rochester and Booster are the be all and > end all for VTES. Maybe even Elder is not, but it goes in the right > direction: taking into account the game mechanics. And in the wrong direction: opening more than one pack per player. > > > > And the current system doesn't suffer from the drawback that the > > > Elder Draft > > > > has - namely of opening more than one pack per player at a time > > > (something > > > > the DCI frowns on). > > > > > > Huh, what kind of drawback is that? Seriously, (I guess you are > aiming > > > > One that would prohibit the Elder Draft (in its current form) > > from being part of the DCI rules. > > I wouldn't take this as a fact. OK. feel free to bend their ears: d...@wizards.com > > > at that), if a player *really* wants to cheat, he does, no matter > > what. > > > > Yes. And there's no reason to make it easier for him. > > It's definitely not easier for him. Yes it is. More cards, more motions in the set-up, more ease of cheating. > > > And, during draft, if you do run it properly, there will be almost > no > > > opportunity to do so. > > > > But more of an opportunity than the current DCI system. > > No, it is not. Yes it is. > > > > We've been over all these points already, if you recall. > > > > > > Hm, I remember having a discussion on the NG in summer. Back then, > all > > > participants seemed quite satisfied with the Elder Draft hybrid. > > > > As much so as now, I guess. > > The points I make above were made then. > > As I recall you were the only one who had points against the Elder Draft > in it's final form (you can correct me here, as I don't have a good > memory for threads and stuff). And you haven't been too hard arguing The number of vocals on each side was *very* small, yes. > against it, either. Now you do. Is the Elder draft a threat or something > to integrity of the rules, the game itself or the DCI? I wonder... I'm not arguing against it, except for the packs-per-player drawback (as I pointed out back then). I'm trying to answer your arguments against the current DCI formats. Parallels to the Elder Draft are a suitable way to accomplish that. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote in message <388930A4...@alumni.williams.edu>... > > >Steve Bucy wrote: >> >> >> Actually I finised with 3 VP, Mike and Robyn each had 1 VP. >> > > >DOH!!! > >Major brain fart. Fortunately, the forms I turned into DCI don't seem >to account for actual number of VP's. For those of you who have done >V:TES DCI Tourneys alot, is that correct? I used the multiple player >sheet, that says VT:ES at the top. Yes, with the new form the only thing that matters is the place the player finished in (1st, 2nd, etc.). Its been suggested that we indicate ties by circling the tied parties. -Robert

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.10001...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Jeffrey Moore wrote: > -snip- > Social Charm or something like that. There are a lot of cards, > though, that initially look like wallpaper, but which have their own > niche to work in. > Yeah!! Like Mummify. oh no, ...wait [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > Yeah!! Like Mummify. I said "a lot" not "all". :) -- James Coupe

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > upcoming expansion won't be either. They need the basic set to work. > Imagine the following situation: you want to play Giovanni (obviously > DS), they get to be drafted as last boosters. One problem with that is going into a draft with fixed ideas as to what you want to play. Being able to react to the cards there, and alter your strategies to it, is a key part of any draft, rather than just picking the cool cards, or the ones you want to play with. Of course, there are always options - if you can play combat or politics with the cards, you get to pick either or both. But going in with narrow ideas about exactly what you want to play is always difficult, especially in a game with as many variations of disciplines as Jyhad. -- James Coupe

> > > > Hm, they are both CCGs and are sold in small > > > > packs called boosters. > > > > > > The latter part is the key to draft formats. > > > > Being sold in boosters? I guess that's a pretty lame key to draft > > formats. A good draft format should take into account the game > > mechanics, not if they come along in boosters or not, wouldn't you > > agree? > > If they are not sold in boosters, then draft formats are much > more difficult. This would not be so for the Elder Draft. As the packs (starters and/or booster) are opened all at once, and then the cards are put together, it's irrelevant if you are using booster or starter. And I don't know of another form of packing, is there any? So I don't think that they key is being sold in booster. > > A good *CCG* takes into account the game mechanics when setting the > distribution of cards in a booster. A good draft is free to make use > of that fact. (Although a draft format that alters that distribution, > such as Elder Draft, could still be good). Do you really think it is done that way? I sincerly doubt that Garfield had drafts in mind as he invented the game Magic, it's mechanics and how the cards would be sold. AFAIK, it wasn't him who has come up with the draft formats for Magic; they were constructed around the existing way that cards were packed and sold: booster (and starter). For Magic this was sufficient. They still had to come up with extra-rules, like lands are given out freely. Garfield also did Jyhad/VTES, but just like the Magic-project, draft tournaments were not an issue at the time the game was concieved. So I cannot agree when you say that a good CCG should take into account the game mechanics when setting the distribution. At the time the distribution is set, draft tournaments were normally not being accounted for; that may have changed since the early days of Jyhad and Magic, though. > > > > Luck is an essential part of drafts. Otherwise you could just stick with > > constructed. However, you will only know that your draft strategy will > > be a failing one when the draft is finished. E.g. 6 booster, in the > > ? It becomes clearer and clearer as you are drafting. As you get > more cards, you get more information. The "last card" ("when the > draft is finished") doesn't carry *all* of the information about > what has been drafted before. Yes, sorry, bad wording on my part. What I meant is, that the draft isn't finished until the last card has been taken. You cannot know what the cards are until you take them. So it *might* happen, that you get the things you need really only with the last card(s). If by then you have already "refined" your drafting strategy, you may have a situation that is beyond hope, just because you refined your strat! > > Under Elder Draft in the same situation: You draft a bunch of Gangrel. > Now you *have to have* the pro cards to make you deck work (according > to your premise above). And everyone in the pod knows this. But there's > only enough pro cards to make your deck work in the last two or three > rounds of draft. What are you drafting until that point? What do you > do to keep the other players from drafting the pro cards *they know* you > need? First let me say that I think I understand you now at last. :) Because of the Gangrel example (which is a very extreme one) you think that I argue on the premise that in Elder draft you *have* to be "married" like in the example I originally cited. Now, actually this example just came off my head the very moment I wrote it. (Or was it the other way round?) But fear not, in the Elder Draft it's by far not that "married", limited, focussed, or however you call it, as you might have the impression. Yes, you have a foundation (i.e. crypt) to work from, but you are still free in your choices what you are going to do. Will it be combat, bleed, votes, weird stuff, combinations thereof, whatever. > > Again, if you marry yourself to a single narrow strategy, you can get > into trouble. In any format. See above, but it would help me answering your points if you defined what you understand under a single narrow strategy, and where you personally draw the line. But in essence you are right, you *can* get into trouble, regardless of format. No dispute here. > > You can't know what's in the cards till all cards have been drafted. > > Switching between boosters to a different strategy will screw you. You > > "Switching" may, but "adapting" won't. Here I have to ask you again for a definition. Otherwise we cannot discuss the point. > > > might end up with a deck composed of 3 different strategies, but you > > could have had a consistent one if you kept hoping. It's luck. More so > > in Booster and Rochester than in Elder. > > I don't see "more so". It's meant that you will almost inadvertently (sp?) have to draft vamps that don't fit into your scheme of things during rochester or booster, as you go pack for pack, and taken each pack on it's own, the amount of vamps is smaller, therefore more limited, therefore the chance that you get the vamps you need smaller. In Elder Draft OTOH > > When you see that your hope is not being matched by the cards that > jave come your way, better to adapt your hopes than to keep blindly > following that hope. But that's again true for all formats. > > > > > No, it doesnt. A good draft format *must* take into account the game > > mechanics of the game in question. > > OK. So if the differences are accounted for in booster pack > distribution? Do you think that that's the case? How comes you believe that? Can you explain? > > > When they look at their first 15 cards, they have to take what they > > need, else they might end up with a rag-tag deck. There is the > > possibilty that 2 (perhaps, but not likely 3) players are going for > > dominate. Once a player recognises that other players are going for Dom, > > he switches to pre or obf or aus (if he hasn't already), cause he can > > select from differnt skills of his vamps. But in all the drafts I have > > witnessed, this has *never* been a problem. By the time all players have > > their vamps, they know what the others will be going for, cause drafting > > the vamps in a rochester-style lets you see what the others take, and > > vice versa. So there will almost never be a kind of "struggle" for a > > single discipline. In the end, this leads to good and playable decks, > > but never as hard hitting as constructed ones. > > Right - no problem, as I said. (Or rather, no more/less problematic > than other draft formats). My I point out that you were the one who said that Elder has the drawback of "being married to a fixed strategy"? In the beginning of the thread I said that having the vamps first is no problem, no it's instead beneficial. With your last statement you are saying that you don't differ in this point anymore. :) > It isn't the "same" technique as MtG. Well, unless there are significantly changes in the rules for Rochester Draft and Booster Draft for VTES compared to Magic, it's the same technique. > But, even if it was, that doesn't mean it isn't "right" for V:TES. > And it works quite satisfyingly. VTES has undisputably very different game mechanics than Magic, but with the current DCI formats, they are only superficially taken into account. > > > > > Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just 1 or > > 2 > > > > Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. > > > > > > Why is it acceptable to imagine that you could get just 2 Gangrel > > > but not that the packs would be [thin] in pro (as you say below)? I think I'll have to clarify that point. In Elder Draft all the vamps are drafted first using Rochester style, so you get to see who drafts which vamps. I was more aiming at the fact that if there are a lot of Gangrel, but you get only 2 or 3 of them, while one of the others has the rest, *then* it's pretty pointless to go for pro, not because there might be few, rather because you can't really make use of them. Again, this is a rather extreme example. > > Screwed. You have a number of Gangrel, 2 or so pro cards, the rest is > > another clan or discipline based. It's now a deck with two different > > strategies in it. Is this desireable? > > Two compatible strategies, one would hope. That is desirable, yes. Sometimes yes, but it's also possible that you didn't have that much luck. It's not desireable if it depends too much on luck. > > If you mean to have another negative in there, which seems likely, then > I agree. But consistency is also valued by the DCI, both in terms of > game-independence as well as consistency over time. Hm, what exactly do you mean with this last sentence? Can you please go a bit more into detail here? > > The point is that it is just as likely/unlikely in the other formats. > In any format, if one does not pay attention to the cards that are > available and make the best use of them (rather than sticking to > one's early concept of a "best strategy"), you won't do as well. In > any format. Okay, perhaps we should take a look at the start of the different drafts. In all 3 formats you get to draft vamps first, the only difference is in Elder you get to draft *all* vamps, whereas in booster and rochester after the first 4? vamps, you switch to the library cards (naturally). Now, I'd say that a player goes into the draft with a vague strategy in mind, e.g. going for bleed, going for combat, going for votes, *or* in terms of vamps: going for weenies, going for vamps with special abilites (e.g. +1 bleed, +1 hand damage, exotic abilities a la Merill Molitor, Melissa Barton, etc.). Before the draft actually starts, nothing is defined, that's the case for all formats. But I'd say that the first vamps you draft (let's say 4, as there are 4 in a VTES booster) defined your overall strategy. At that point you probably won't consider at any point "adapting" from a stealth-bleed or stealth-vote strat to a pure combat strat, will you? So it's true for all 3 formats that you "narrow" yourself to certain types of strategies or variations thereof. The pool of vamps is in every format (let's say you use 2 Starter or 8 booster, and you have a 5 player-pod) 160 vamps, so it's 32 vamps per player. So, here is a point where I could make use of the help of someone who is quite good at calculating probabilities. (Mike, are you there? :) ) In my impression, the chances to get 12 vamps that fit together by either clan or discipline is higher if you have a large pool of vamps, instead of small quantities of vamps that are selected individually (like in booster or rochester). But maybe I'm plain wrong here. Help appreciated. :) Next: You have a broader choice of options with vampires than with library cards. What I mean is if you draft library cards first, you end up with cards that require disciplines (that is, most of the time). Now, each card requires *one* certain discipline. Whereas a vamp usually has more disciplines. If you draft the library cards first, and you have a large amount of Presence cards, you are pretty narrowed in your strategy to bleed, vote, and a bit combat avoidance. OTOH, if you have a number of Brujah, you can go vote, bleed, combat or weird stuff. This is in essence true for every discipline. Therefore it's better to draft the vampires first, they can act as a better foundation for your deck. But please keep in mind that though you have a direction to go, you are not "limited" to a single strategy before you start drafting the library. And as I have already stated before in this thread, in Elder draft you see what vamp-selection the other players have. It's perfectly valid to assume that during the vampire-draft each player will be forced to adapt a different strategy, so the primarily approach of the library draft is different for each of them, and it's more likely that they will not compete over cards. Thus, this may lead (on average) to a deck that's a bit more tuned then their rochester and booster pendants, hence speed of play during the rounds is enhanced (a bit), and it's more likely that rounds will not be terminated by time-limit. I guess that's a good thing. > > > The emphasis is placed on the vamps, because it makes for a stronger > > foundation to have them first. > > If you say so. I find that both the library and the crypt depend on > each other and should be "tuned" to match each other. They do, but I think that the library is more restricting (if you keep insisting on seeing it that way) than the crypt in terms of your further drafting strategy. But see above. :) > "More interesting" is debatable, but very likely. :-) > The formats could be mixed without violating the pack-per-player > restriction, however. They could, but I have already outlined that this might lead to bad situations regarding the expansion vampires and disciplines. > > Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. > The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. Yes, booster after booster. With Elder draft you "mix" the expansion cards into the basic-set cards, then you begin the draft. I think it's better. > > > One that would prohibit the Elder Draft (in its current form) > > > from being part of the DCI rules. > > > > I wouldn't take this as a fact. > > OK. feel free to bend their ears: d...@wizards.com This remains to be seen. At least I'll try it. :) > I'm not arguing against it, except for the packs-per-player drawback (as > I pointed out back then). So this is the only drawback you see then. Well, maybe this problem either can be solved, or it may not be that big drawback that it seems... I'm sorry that I have snipped so many paragraphs, but this huge thread is a bit scary. :) Also, there is no use in debating over things which can't be decided (for what reason ever). So, let's keep up that good discussion. Others are invited to share their toughts as well. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.100012...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > upcoming expansion won't be either. They need the basic set to work. > > Imagine the following situation: you want to play Giovanni (obviously > > DS), they get to be drafted as last boosters. > > One problem with that is going into a draft with fixed ideas as to what > you want to play. Honestly, when you draft, do you start with absolutely no idea what you'd like to do? Surely you'll formulate a strategy in your mind before you start. What I mean is usually you have a vague idea: weenies, bleed, combat, or just take vamps with useful special abilities (+1 bleed, +1 h.d., etc. as that will help in a limited environment much more than in constructed). *Nobody* goes into a draft with fixed ideas, as there is too much luck involved. > Being able to react to the cards there, and alter your > strategies to it, is a key part of any draft, rather than just picking > the cool cards, or the ones you want to play with. :) You pick cards that you don't want to play with? So you'd take e.g. a Society Hunting Ground, though you have only Ventrue so far? :) I for my part only take cards that I at least consider beneficial to my strategy. In any format you have to react to the cards. Assuming it would be different in Elder Draft is not knowing what it actually is or how it runs. :( > > Of course, there are always options - if you can play combat or politics > with the cards, you get to pick either or both. Correct. (tm LSJ) :) > But going in with narrow > ideas about exactly what you want to play is always difficult, especially > in a game with as many variations of disciplines as Jyhad. What do you consider narrow ideas? A bleed concept? A clan concept? A discipline-concept? Please forget the idea that Elder Draft requires you to have a "narrow strategy" and that it's not necessary to "adapt" during the draft. It's just different insofar, that you get the vamps first, and concentrate fully on your library. Yes, it has been debated that it would make no difference whether you draft the crypt or the library first, but if you draft library first then you'd really be "married" to a single strategy. Also, you have a smaller pool of vampires than library cards. This may lead to a situation where you don't get the vampires you need for your strategy; this is more likely than having vamps and not getting fitting library cards. What's more, when you have the crypt first, you have a "foundation" on which you can build your strat, at the same time you are not "married to a single strategy", as stated by LSJ in the thread, that was clearly either a misunderstanding or a wrong perception of the Elder Draft. And we seem to agree that Jyhad is a very complex game, with many disciplines and clans, quite different to Magic's 5 colours (or are there new colours in the new sets? :) ) [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > A good *CCG* takes into account the game mechanics when setting the > > distribution of cards in a booster. A good draft is free to make use > > of that fact. (Although a draft format that alters that distribution, > > such as Elder Draft, could still be good). > > Do you really think it is done that way? I sincerly doubt that Garfield > had drafts in mind as he invented the game Magic, it's mechanics and > how the cards would be sold. AFAIK, it wasn't him who has come up with Correct. But the company learned quite a bit from Magic. Knowledge that went into the design of their later games, like V:TES. > the draft formats for Magic; they were constructed around the existing > way that cards were packed and sold: booster (and starter). For Magic > this was sufficient. They still had to come up with extra-rules, like > lands are given out freely. "Freely", or "trade up to 5 basic" or whatever else the coordinator felt would be sufficient. The coordinator has similar leeway in V:TES events, as well. > Garfield also did Jyhad/VTES, but just like the Magic-project, draft > tournaments were not an issue at the time the game was concieved. No, but packaging the cards in a usable format (without forcing the consumer to buy a case just to play) was. And, by addressing that issue, the draft issue was handled as well. > So I cannot agree when you say that a good CCG should take into account > the game mechanics when setting the distribution. At the time the > distribution is set, draft tournaments were normally not being > accounted for; that may have changed since the early days of Jyhad and > Magic, though. The packing takes into account the game mechanics in such a way as to be playable. A draft format game makes use of that fact, even though it wasn't designed expressly to meet the needs of draft formats. > > > Luck is an essential part of drafts. Otherwise you could just stick > with > > > constructed. However, you will only know that your draft strategy > will > > > be a failing one when the draft is finished. E.g. 6 booster, in the > > > > ? It becomes clearer and clearer as you are drafting. As you get > > more cards, you get more information. The "last card" ("when the > > draft is finished") doesn't carry *all* of the information about > > what has been drafted before. > > Yes, sorry, bad wording on my part. What I meant is, that the draft > isn't finished until the last card has been taken. You cannot know what > the cards are until you take them. So it *might* happen, that you get > the things you need really only with the last card(s). If by then you > have already "refined" your drafting strategy, you may have a situation > that is beyond hope, just because you refined your strat! As true (or not) in any draft format as another. The situation would not be "beyond hope" if you adapted your strategy to match the cards that came your way. Just because you may have done better (or, more probably, far worse) by "relying" on those last, unknown, cards to come up your way doesn't mean that you're beyond hope. > > Under Elder Draft in the same situation: You draft a bunch of Gangrel. > > Now you *have to have* the pro cards to make you deck work (according > > to your premise above). And everyone in the pod knows this. But > there's > > only enough pro cards to make your deck work in the last two or three > > rounds of draft. What are you drafting until that point? What do you > > do to keep the other players from drafting the pro cards *they know* > you > > need? > > First let me say that I think I understand you now at last. :) > Because of the Gangrel example (which is a very extreme one) you think > that I argue on the premise that in Elder draft you *have* to be > "married" like in the example I originally cited. Now, actually this > example just came off my head the very moment I wrote it. (Or was it > the other way round?) But fear not, in the Elder Draft it's by far not > that "married", limited, focussed, or however you call it, as you might > have the impression. Nor is any other draft format. I was simply applying the same assumptions to Elder Draft that you had applied to the other draft formats when stating that they were not workable. I was not under the impression that that was how it worked in practice. > Yes, you have a foundation (i.e. crypt) to work from, but you are still > free in your choices what you are going to do. Will it be combat, > bleed, votes, weird stuff, combinations thereof, whatever. Same with other formats, except that you are free to adapt your "foundation" to better match the choices you are given during the draft. > > Again, if you marry yourself to a single narrow strategy, you can get > > into trouble. In any format. > > See above, but it would help me answering your points if you defined > what you understand under a single narrow strategy, and where you > personally draw the line. Wherever you drew the line - I'm just trying to parallel your argument against the existing formats. > But in essence you are right, you *can* get into trouble, regardless of > format. No dispute here. > > > > You can't know what's in the cards till all cards have been drafted. > > > Switching between boosters to a different strategy will screw you. > You > > > > "Switching" may, but "adapting" won't. > > Here I have to ask you again for a definition. Otherwise we cannot > discuss the point. "Switch" would involve abandoning your initial strategy for a new one. "Adapt" would be incorporating a new strategy into your existing one or modifying your strategy to a new strategy that still uses (most of) the cards you've drafted already. > > > might end up with a deck composed of 3 different strategies, but you > > > could have had a consistent one if you kept hoping. It's luck. More > so > > > in Booster and Rochester than in Elder. > > > > I don't see "more so". > > It's meant that you will almost inadvertently (sp?) have to draft vamps > that don't fit into your scheme of things during rochester or booster, > as you go pack for pack, and taken each pack on its own, the amount of > vamps is smaller, therefore more limited, therefore the chance that you > get the vamps you need smaller. Not in rochester: the vamps from every players' pack are turned first. Two vamps from each player at the pod go into the first draft round. And, in booster, you are free to draft library cards instead of a vampire you don't need. > In Elder Draft OTOH ... "suffers" from the same problems as rochester - there are the same number of total vamps available you don't know who they all are up front you draft from the same size subsets at a time > > When you see that your hope is not being matched by the cards that > > jave come your way, better to adapt your hopes than to keep blindly > > following that hope. > > But that's again true for all formats. Right. Something that you had said was a problem in Rochester Draft. (In that the player would not adapt and would instead blindly follow his hopes) > > > No, it doesnt. A good draft format *must* take into account the game > > > mechanics of the game in question. > > > > OK. So if the differences are accounted for in booster pack > > distribution? > > Do you think that that's the case? How comes you believe that? Can you > explain? See above. [ quoted text not captured ] I don't. The problem you described with Rochester Draft involved a player "marrying" himself to a strategy ('pro' or "Gangrel") and then following that blindly even when the cards didn't come up. I simply applied the same mentality to Elder - with predictable results. > > It isn't the "same" technique as MtG. > > Well, unless there are significant changes in the rules for Rochester > Draft and Booster Draft for VTES compared to Magic, it's the same > technique. [DCI 737] lists the differences. If that's still the "same" to you, then OK. > > But, even if it was, that doesn't mean it isn't "right" for V:TES. > > And it works quite satisfyingly. > > VTES has undisputably very different game mechanics than Magic, but > with the current DCI formats, they are only superficially taken into > account. They are taken fully into account, within the inherent and the self-imposed limits of what a "draft" format is. Just because the results are very similar to other formats doesn't imply that the mechanics of the game are not being met. The concept of "Universal Tournament Rules" was to build rules that meet the requirements of CCGs in general - not of MtG over the rest. Naturally the resulting rules for one game look like the resulting rules for another. > > > > > Pods are 4-5 players, so you'll know when you end up with just > 1 or > > > 2 > > > > > Gangrel, that it's pretty pointless to draft pro cards. > > > > > > > > Why is it acceptable to imagine that you could get just 2 Gangrel > > > > but not that the packs would be [thin] in pro (as you say below)? > > I think I'll have to clarify that point. In Elder Draft all the vamps > are drafted first using Rochester style, so you get to see who drafts > which vamps. I was more aiming at the fact that if there are a lot of > Gangrel, but you get only 2 or 3 of them, while one of the others has > the rest, *then* it's pretty pointless to go for pro, not because there > might be few, rather because you can't really make use of them. > Again, this is a rather extreme example. Again, that extreme example works in a very similar fashion under straight Rochester draft, since you can see when other players draft Gangrel and when they draft pro. > > > Screwed. You have a number of Gangrel, 2 or so pro cards, the rest > is > > > another clan or discipline based. It's now a deck with two different > > > strategies in it. Is this desireable? > > > > Two compatible strategies, one would hope. That is desirable, yes. > > Sometimes yes, but it's also possible that you didn't have that much > luck. It's not desireable if it depends too much on luck. True. Of all formats. Fortunately, none of them rest on more luck than the others (if you start with the same number of boosters, of course). > > If you mean to have another negative in there, which seems likely, > then > > I agree. But consistency is also valued by the DCI, both in terms of > > game-independence as well as consistency over time. > > Hm, what exactly do you mean with this last sentence? Can you please go > a bit more into detail here? Game-Independence: The Universal Tournament Rules were designed to cover all games. Making a new set of rules for one game (when it doesn't *need* different rules) goes against the intention of UTR. Over Time: Changing formats involves a change. That change must be reported to the playing community. Which takes more work than keeping the existing formats. > > The point is that it is just as likely/unlikely in the other formats. > > In any format, if one does not pay attention to the cards that are > > available and make the best use of them (rather than sticking to > > one's early concept of a "best strategy"), you won't do as well. In > > any format. > > Okay, perhaps we should take a look at the start of the different > drafts. > In all 3 formats you get to draft vamps first, the only difference is > in Elder you get to draft *all* vamps, whereas in booster and rochester > after the first 4? vamps, you switch to the library cards (naturally). Well, the order of vamps/library isn't enforced in Booster, but OK. > Now, I'd say that a player goes into the draft with a vague strategy in > mind, e.g. going for bleed, going for combat, going for votes, *or* in > terms of vamps: going for weenies, going for vamps with special > abilites (e.g. +1 bleed, +1 hand damage, exotic abilities a la Merill > Molitor, Melissa Barton, etc.). I wouldn't begin even with a vague strategy - I'd form my stragegy (vaguely at first, then with more and more refinement) based soley on the cards I see. > Before the draft actually starts, nothing is defined, that's the case > for all formats. But I'd say that the first vamps you draft (let's say > 4, as there are 4 in a VTES booster) defined your overall strategy. At > that point you probably won't consider at any point "adapting" from a > stealth-bleed or stealth-vote strat to a pure combat strat, will you? > So it's true for all 3 formats that you "narrow" yourself to certain > types of strategies or variations thereof. The more cards of any type you have, the narrower your strategy. > The pool of vamps is in every format (let's say you use 2 Starter or 8 > booster, and you have a 5 player-pod) 160 vamps, so it's 32 vamps per > player. > So, here is a point where I could make use of the help of someone who > is quite good at calculating probabilities. (Mike, are you there? :) ) > In my impression, the chances to get 12 vamps that fit together by > either clan or discipline is higher if you have a large pool of vamps, > instead of small quantities of vamps that are selected individually > (like in booster or rochester). But maybe I'm plain wrong here. > Help appreciated. :) It's the same in all formats, since the same number of total vamps will be seen over the course of the draft. (The "pool" is the same size). > Next: You have a broader choice of options with vampires than with > library cards. What I mean is if you draft library cards first, you end > up with cards that require disciplines (that is, most of the time). So you can match your vamps to those disciplines - even drafting ones from clans who don't favor that discipline set. > Now, each card requires *one* certain discipline. Whereas a vamp > usually has more disciplines. If you draft the library cards first, and > you have a large amount of Presence cards, you are pretty narrowed in > your strategy to bleed, vote, and a bit combat avoidance. > > OTOH, if you have a number of Brujah, you can go vote, bleed, combat or > weird stuff. The player drafting presence should also be drafting Brujah or Toreador or Ventrue, and would thus know whether or not to also draft auspex or potence or whatever. Every card is part of the picture. > This is in essence true for every discipline. OK. > Therefore it's better to draft the vampires first, they can act as a > better foundation for your deck. But please keep in mind that though > you have a direction to go, you are not "limited" to a single strategy > before you start drafting the library. That's true if you draft the vamps with the library, too. > And as I have already stated before in this thread, in Elder draft you > see what vamp-selection the other players have. It's perfectly valid to > assume that during the vampire-draft each player will be forced to > adapt a different strategy, so the primarily approach of the library > draft is different for each of them, and it's more likely that they > will not compete over cards. > Thus, this may lead (on average) to a deck that's a bit more tuned then > their rochester and booster pendants, hence speed of play during the It doesn't, since the other players are more capable of denying your focus the more they know about your deck while drafting. > rounds is enhanced (a bit), and it's more likely that rounds will not > be terminated by time-limit. I guess that's a good thing. > > > > The emphasis is placed on the vamps, because it makes for a stronger > > > foundation to have them first. > > > > If you say so. I find that both the library and the crypt depend on > > each other and should be "tuned" to match each other. > > They do, but I think that the library is more restricting (if you keep > insisting on seeing it that way) than the crypt in terms of your > further drafting strategy. But see above. :) > > > "More interesting" is debatable, but very likely. :-) > > The formats could be mixed without violating the pack-per-player > > restriction, however. > > They could, but I have already outlined that this might lead to bad > situations regarding the expansion vampires and disciplines. Anything "might lead" to bad situations. That's luck. > > Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. > > The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. > > Yes, booster after booster. With Elder draft you "mix" the expansion > cards into the basic-set cards, then you begin the draft. I think it's > better. I think it is different. But no better and no worse. > > I'm not arguing against it, except for the packs-per-player drawback > (as > > I pointed out back then). > > So this is the only drawback you see then. Well, maybe this problem > either can be solved, or it may not be that big drawback that it > seems... And Elder Draft may not be the big advantage you see it to be. It is just another format. One that involves a clear (to the DCI) drawback that must be overcome with some demonstrable advantages. [ quoted text not captured ]

Just so folks know, when there was a tie, I used their overall finish place to differentiate. Perhaps this was not correct, but there did not seem to be any indication in the rules or on any web site. Did I err? Chris Robert Goudie wrote: > > Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote in message > <388930A4...@alumni.williams.edu>... > > > > > >Steve Bucy wrote: > >> > >> > >> Actually I finised with 3 VP, Mike and Robyn each had 1 VP. > >> > > > > > >DOH!!! > > > >Major brain fart. Fortunately, the forms I turned into DCI don't seem > >to account for actual number of VP's. For those of you who have done > >V:TES DCI Tourneys alot, is that correct? I used the multiple player > >sheet, that says VT:ES at the top. > > Yes, with the new form the only thing that matters is the place the player > finished in (1st, 2nd, etc.). Its been suggested that we indicate ties by > circling the tied parties. > > -Robert -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> The packing takes into account the game mechanics in such a way as to > be playable. A draft format game makes use of that fact, even though > it wasn't designed expressly to meet the needs of draft formats. You might be right about that for *newer* games. If you take e.g. Magic's Urza-something, you have prepacked, playable decks. I heard that they are really play-able out of the starter. OTOH, Jyhad was never that way, and VTES still isn't. If you have one starter you can play, but it's not what I'd call a play-able deck. Too random with 10 different skills and 7 (8) different clans, this won't change, if you only take 40 cards out of the 60 available library cards. If you insist that VTES is really playable (like Magic is *now*) out of the starter/booster, you are decieving yourself. VTES hasn't undergone those changes Magic has, nor is it a new creation which benefits from experience. > Nor is any other draft format. > I was simply applying the same assumptions to Elder Draft that you had > applied to the other draft formats when stating that they were not > workable. > I was not under the impression that that was how it worked in practice. I indicated that rochester and booster don't work *well*, I never said that they are not workable. They don't take VTES game-mechanics into account sufficiently. I pointed out that I think that Elder does, you then implied that it's narrowed, limited, married, whatever. I showed you that that is not the case. Point proven. :) > > Yes, you have a foundation (i.e. crypt) to work from, but you are still > > free in your choices what you are going to do. Will it be combat, > > bleed, votes, weird stuff, combinations thereof, whatever. > > Same with other formats, except that you are free to adapt your > "foundation" to better match the choices you are given during > the draft. *grin* Would you adapt the foundations of a house if you don't like the arrangment of the rooms anymore? You have to build a good and solid foundation. Same in VTES. If you have a good and solid foundation (i.e. the crypt) you can attempt to go for a great deal of different strategies *and* adapt your strategies as the library cards come. That is beneficial to a game with so many variables as VTES, especially in the short time you have for drafting and deck-preparation. > > See above, but it would help me answering your points if you defined > > what you understand under a single narrow strategy, and where you > > personally draw the line. > > Wherever you drew the line - I'm just trying to parallel your > argument against the existing formats. Does that mean you just take my arguments and reverse them? What kind of thinking is that? That way your replies are rather pointless (meaningless). :( > "Switch" would involve abandoning your initial strategy for a new one. > "Adapt" would be incorporating a new strategy into your existing one > or modifying your strategy to a new strategy that still uses (most > of) the cards you've drafted already. Agreed. But by definition it's almost impossible to adapt a bleed deck to a combat deck. So you *are* also married to general strategie. (With vote and bleed it's different, they some things in common.) > And, in booster, you are free to draft library cards instead of a vampire > you don't need. ??? I thought in booster draft it's the same way: first draft vamps out of the booster, then library. If not, that *will* lead to some players having not enough vampires. > > In Elder Draft OTOH > > ... "suffers" from the same problems as rochester - > there are the same number of total vamps available > you don't know who they all are up front > you draft from the same size subsets at a time Yes, because Elder Draft has been derived from rochester and booster, along with some new elements. Drafting the vamps rochester style is good enough. However, even in rochester you alternate between crypt and library. > Right. Something that you had said was a problem in Rochester Draft. > (In that the player would not adapt and would instead blindly follow > his hopes) I think you were interpreting one of my points that way. I doubt that I put it that way... could be wrong though - my English... ;) > > > It isn't the "same" technique as MtG. > > > > Well, unless there are significant changes in the rules for Rochester > > Draft and Booster Draft for VTES compared to Magic, it's the same > > technique. > > [DCI 737] lists the differences. If that's still the "same" to > you, then OK. I just checked the DCI rules again, and I must say that it's absolutely impossible to find the quoted section. If you are on the VTES page (www.wizards.com/VTES) you get an old version of the floor rules. :( From the DCI-section of WotC's hp you can get the UTR, no prob. But the VTES Floor rules are only going to 731. Cool thing, ha? > > > But, even if it was, that doesn't mean it isn't "right" for V:TES. > > > And it works quite satisfyingly. > > > > VTES has undisputably very different game mechanics than Magic, but > > with the current DCI formats, they are only superficially taken into > > account. > > They are taken fully into account, within the inherent and the > self-imposed limits of what a "draft" format is. Out of my memory (can't check right now, see above) it says that you open each pack and draft first vamps, then library. That's the only VTES-specific change. I'd say "taken fully into account" is a bit overstating in this case. > Just because the results are very similar to other formats doesn't > imply that the mechanics of the game are not being met. The concept > of "Universal Tournament Rules" was to build rules that meet the > requirements of CCGs in general - not of MtG over the rest. Naturally > the resulting rules for one game look like the resulting rules for > another. Which in the beginning is ok, when you want to make it easier to apply one set of rules to many games. Naturally you have less work. :) But, is it good to treat everything in the same way? A lot of people would cry out loud if they'd be limited to a narrow way of existence (in real live, I mean). I think the UTR are good to some extent. But it limits the formats of the different games too much. From the point of the rules-monger you are right: it's convenient to have one fixed set of basic rules. But then not attempting to make sufficient ammendments for the different games is not so good. > True. Of all formats. > Fortunately, none of them rest on more luck than the others (if you > start with the same number of boosters, of course). Hm. I don't think so, but I'm not good at probabilities. I still think that drafting in "small portions" (i.e. single booster, one after another) limits you. > Game-Independence: > The Universal Tournament Rules were designed to cover all games. Making > a new set of rules for one game (when it doesn't *need* different rules) > goes against the intention of UTR. Who says it doesn't need different rules??? Different game -> different rules. Wouldn't you agree? UTR are good, they are also convenient for those who invent them and those who have to enforce them. But they are not tailored to the game in question. And that is not a good thing. > Over Time: > Changing formats involves a change. That change must be reported to > the playing community. Which takes more work than keeping the existing > formats. Huh, so change is bad? If changes don't happen, evolution can't either. Not every change is a good one, but the bad ones are recognised, and learned from in the future. By ruling out changes because it's inconvenient, a game or it's tournament rules cannot evolve. > > Okay, perhaps we should take a look at the start of the different > > drafts. > > In all 3 formats you get to draft vamps first, the only difference is > > in Elder you get to draft *all* vamps, whereas in booster and rochester > > after the first 4? vamps, you switch to the library cards (naturally). > > Well, the order of vamps/library isn't enforced in Booster, but OK. Hm. Bad thing. > I wouldn't begin even with a vague strategy - I'd form my stragegy > (vaguely at first, then with more and more refinement) based soley on > the cards I see. So you pick the first card randomly or what? > > > The more cards of any type you have, the narrower your strategy. Yes, many bleeding cards: bleed strategy, many combat cards: combat strat., etc. But, e.g. many Presence cards: bleed, vote, combat avoidance strat. It depends on the cards you have. You can narrow yourself in or not. If you have vampires first, you are not as narrowed in as if you have the library firs. > > It's the same in all formats, since the same number of total vamps > will be seen over the course of the draft. (The "pool" is the same > size). I don't see it that way. IMO, if you alternate between library and crypt, you are more limited. Why? Because you only see a small portion of the vamps in the pool at once, but you have to make your selected cards correspond with the library cards you just drafted in the round before. You are limited to let your strat follow (adapt) the whim of the cards in each seperate booster. Because of that your choices are smaller. > > The player drafting presence should also be drafting Brujah or > Toreador or Ventrue, and would thus know whether or not to also draft > auspex or potence or whatever. What happens, when you find out that though you drafted presence cards from a single booster, you find out that there are no matching vamps with presence? That is the crux of the argument. When not drafting the vamps first, you are much more limited to cards that are compatible during a single booster. I still claim that Elder Draft leads to more consistent decks. > > Therefore it's better to draft the vampires first, they can act as a > > better foundation for your deck. But please keep in mind that though > > you have a direction to go, you are not "limited" to a single strategy > > before you start drafting the library. > > That's true if you draft the vamps with the library, too. It's not. Because you may not have sutiable vamps for the library cards in a booster. > It doesn't, since the other players are more capable of denying > your focus the more they know about your deck while drafting. The other players are always capable of denying you cards you'd need, that's true for any format, it's just easier rochester style. But a player who does this (if the cards he takes don't further his own deck-strategy) puts himself at a disadvantage. There are more players in a tourney who are drafting to get the cards they need. If you draft a card you don't need (but another player) you hurt yoursefl and the other player. The other players in the pod are unaffected, and the players from the other pods are unaffected, too. Denying cards is losing strategy. > > They could, but I have already outlined that this might lead to bad > > situations regarding the expansion vampires and disciplines. > > Anything "might lead" to bad situations. That's luck. Ok, in case of the expansions I alter my previous statement from "might lead" to "will lead" to bad situations. Expansions are a problem in VTES (new clans and new disciplines), contrary to Magic (where no new colours are introduced). > > > > Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. > > > The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. > > > > Yes, booster after booster. With Elder draft you "mix" the expansion > > cards into the basic-set cards, then you begin the draft. I think it's > > better. > > I think it is different. But no better and no worse. It's better, because you give each discipline and clan the same starting probabilities and also each player to decide to play a single expansion clan strat. If you do the expansion boosters individually you deny that option. > > And Elder Draft may not be the big advantage you see it to be. > It is just another format. One that involves a clear (to the DCI) > drawback that must be overcome with some demonstrable advantages. It has a number of advantages: 1. takes less time 2. allows a smooth inclusion of expansions (clans, disciplines) 3. avoids the "bad booster pack" situation (wrong card distribution which is very common in Jyhad/VTES because of the printing-sheets) 4. allows more consistent decks and strats 5. is more interesting :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote: > > Just so folks know, when there was a tie, I used their overall finish > place to differentiate. Perhaps this was not correct, but there did > not seem to be any indication in the rules or on any web site. Did I > err? Yes and no. You should not use any out-of-table method to break ties on the reporting sheet, since that sheet is used to calculate ratings, and the ratings depend only on the table finishing order. But you are free to (and should, IMO) use overall finishing order to break ties for the purpose of handing out prizes. (Also, you should write your comments *below* the pertitent quoted section of text, not above it. :-) > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > > Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin wrote in message > > <388930A4...@alumni.williams.edu>... > > > > > > > > >Steve Bucy wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Actually I finised with 3 VP, Mike and Robyn each had 1 VP. > > >> > > > > > > > > >DOH!!! > > > > > >Major brain fart. Fortunately, the forms I turned into DCI don't seem > > >to account for actual number of VP's. For those of you who have done > > >V:TES DCI Tourneys alot, is that correct? I used the multiple player > > >sheet, that says VT:ES at the top. > > > > Yes, with the new form the only thing that matters is the place the player > > finished in (1st, 2nd, etc.). Its been suggested that we indicate ties by > > circling the tied parties. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > I indicated that rochester and booster don't work *well*, I never said > that they are not workable. They don't take VTES game-mechanics into > account sufficiently. I pointed out that I think that Elder does, you > then implied that it's narrowed, limited, married, whatever. I showed > you that that is not the case. Point proven. :) Your point that rochester and booster don't work well was based on (or at least, the argument was based on) a player somehow being narrow in her drafting. Just as it is not the (usual) case in Edler, it is not the usual case in rochester or booster either. > > > Yes, you have a foundation (i.e. crypt) to work from, but you are > still > > > free in your choices what you are going to do. Will it be combat, > > > bleed, votes, weird stuff, combinations thereof, whatever. > > > > Same with other formats, except that you are free to adapt your > > "foundation" to better match the choices you are given during > > the draft. > > *grin* Would you adapt the foundations of a house if you don't like the > arrangment of the rooms anymore? You have to build a good and solid Would you not inprove the foundation if you found it was not sufficient for the structure above it? The foundation is made to accomodate the structure above it. The builder doesn't simply lay a foundation first (in isolation), and then try to figure out what sort of structure to put on it. > foundation. Same in VTES. If you have a good and solid foundation (i.e. > the crypt) you can attempt to go for a great deal of different > strategies *and* adapt your strategies as the library cards come. > That is beneficial to a game with so many variables as VTES, especially > in the short time you have for drafting and deck-preparation. It works the same way if you draft both at the same time. > > > See above, but it would help me answering your points if you defined > > > what you understand under a single narrow strategy, and where you > > > personally draw the line. > > > > Wherever you drew the line - I'm just trying to parallel your > > argument against the existing formats. > > Does that mean you just take my arguments and reverse them? What kind of > thinking is that? That way your replies are rather pointless > (meaningless). :( If so, then that simply means your original post was pointless. Offering parallel arguments/examples is a standard element of conveying information. > > "Switch" would involve abandoning your initial strategy for a new one. > > "Adapt" would be incorporating a new strategy into your existing one > > or modifying your strategy to a new strategy that still uses (most > > of) the cards you've drafted already. > > Agreed. But by definition it's almost impossible to adapt a bleed deck > to a combat deck. So you *are* also married to general strategie. (With > vote and bleed it's different, they some things in common.) OK. Fortunately, that point applies equally to Elder as to DCI. > > And, in booster, you are free to draft library cards instead of a > vampire > > you don't need. > > ??? > I thought in booster draft it's the same way: first draft vamps out of > the booster, then library. If not, that *will* lead to some players > having not enough vampires. Only if they are foolish enough not to draft sufficient numbers. > > > In Elder Draft OTOH > > > > ... "suffers" from the same problems as rochester - > > there are the same number of total vamps available > > you don't know who they all are up front > > you draft from the same size subsets at a time > > Yes, because Elder Draft has been derived from rochester and booster, > along with some new elements. > Drafting the vamps rochester style is good enough. However, even in > rochester you alternate between crypt and library. Rightly so. > > Right. Something that you had said was a problem in Rochester Draft. > > (In that the player would not adapt and would instead blindly follow > > his hopes) > > I think you were interpreting one of my points that way. I doubt that I > put it that way... could be wrong though - my English... ;) > > > > > It isn't the "same" technique as MtG. > > > > > > Well, unless there are significant changes in the rules for > Rochester > > > Draft and Booster Draft for VTES compared to Magic, it's the same > > > technique. > > > > [DCI 737] lists the differences. If that's still the "same" to > > you, then OK. > > I just checked the DCI rules again, and I must say that it's absolutely > impossible to find the quoted section. If you are on the VTES page > (www.wizards.com/VTES) you get an old version of the floor rules. :( > From the DCI-section of WotC's hp you can get the UTR, no prob. But the > VTES Floor rules are only going to 731. Cool thing, ha? Yes, the on-line rules are incomplete. The printed rules are complete. And I've posted the missing section to the group and the mailing list more than once already (You even replied to it on the VTES-L on 10/28/99). Here it is again: ----- 737. Rules for V:TES Rochester Draft Tournaments This rule works in conjunction with Section 77 and 78 of the Universal Tournament Rules. Players open their first booster packs when the pod judge instructs them to do so. After counting the cards face-down to make sure the pack is correct, players then move all vampire (crypt) cards to the top of the pack face-down. If players do not have the appropriate number of cards in a pack, they must immediately notify the head judge, who will replace the pack. Players then place their opened packs face-down on the table in front of them. At a signal from the pod judge, players place the top two cards from their booster pack [sic] face-up on the table. The pod judge then has players draft according to section 77 and 78 of the Universal Tournament Rules until the packs are completely drafted. ----- > > > > But, even if it was, that doesn't mean it isn't "right" for V:TES. > > > > And it works quite satisfyingly. > > > > > > VTES has undisputably very different game mechanics than Magic, but > > > with the current DCI formats, they are only superficially taken into > > > account. > > > > They are taken fully into account, within the inherent and the > > self-imposed limits of what a "draft" format is. > > Out of my memory (can't check right now, see above) it says that you > open each pack and draft first vamps, then library. That's the only > VTES-specific change. I'd say "taken fully into account" is a bit > overstating in this case. I would not. If you have a better method (that more fully takes it into account) that fits within the prescribed limits (of opening one pack per player at a time), I'd be glad to hear it. > > Just because the results are very similar to other formats doesn't > > imply that the mechanics of the game are not being met. The concept > > of "Universal Tournament Rules" was to build rules that meet the > > requirements of CCGs in general - not of MtG over the rest. Naturally > > the resulting rules for one game look like the resulting rules for > > another. > > Which in the beginning is ok, when you want to make it easier to apply > one set of rules to many games. Naturally you have less work. :) > But, is it good to treat everything in the same way? A lot of people > would cry out loud if they'd be limited to a narrow way of existence (in > real live, I mean). Pointless argument. > I think the UTR are good to some extent. But it limits the formats of > the different games too much. From the point of the rules-monger you are > right: it's convenient to have one fixed set of basic rules. But then > not attempting to make sufficient ammendments for the different games is > not so good. Sure. But sufficient amendments are attempted. cf. [737] > > True. Of all formats. > > Fortunately, none of them rest on more luck than the others (if you > > start with the same number of boosters, of course). > > Hm. I don't think so, but I'm not good at probabilities. I still think > that drafting in "small portions" (i.e. single booster, one after > another) limits you. In Elder you draft from "small portions" at a time, yes? (You don't lay out *all* the vamps face-up before begining to draft vamps, right?) Same limitations. Same probabilities (from a discrete mathematics point of view). > > Game-Independence: > > The Universal Tournament Rules were designed to cover all games. > Making > > a new set of rules for one game (when it doesn't *need* different > rules) > > goes against the intention of UTR. > > Who says it doesn't need different rules??? Different game -> different > rules. Wouldn't you agree? Yes. That's what the different rules are for (see the V:TES game-specific rules, along with the VTES rulebook in general). But making more rules different just so that *none* of the rules are shared is not necessary. Some of the rules work in more than one game. > UTR are good, they are also convenient for those who invent them and > those who have to enforce them. But they are not tailored to the game in > question. And that is not a good thing. They are tailored to the extent necessary. And that is a good thing. > > Over Time: > > Changing formats involves a change. That change must be reported to > > the playing community. Which takes more work than keeping the existing > > formats. > > Huh, so change is bad? If changes don't happen, evolution can't either. Evolution (adapting to meet needs) is good. But change for change's sake alone is not. > Not every change is a good one, but the bad ones are recognised, and > learned from in the future. By ruling out changes because it's > inconvenient, a game or it's tournament rules cannot evolve. Right. Changes are not ruled out. But they have to be warranted. Change that doesn't sufficiently improve the game *is* ruled out, for the simple reason that not enough is gained to counter what is lost (continuity). Witness the lack of errata on certain wallpaper cards - not issued becuase the lack of continuity outweighs the benefit that fixing the card would achieve. > > > Okay, perhaps we should take a look at the start of the different > > > drafts. > > > In all 3 formats you get to draft vamps first, the only difference > is > > > in Elder you get to draft *all* vamps, whereas in booster and > rochester > > > after the first 4? vamps, you switch to the library cards > (naturally). > > > > Well, the order of vamps/library isn't enforced in Booster, but OK. > > Hm. Bad thing. Your opinion. Mine is: fine thing. > > I wouldn't begin even with a vague strategy - I'd form my stragegy > > (vaguely at first, then with more and more refinement) based soley on > > the cards I see. > > So you pick the first card randomly or what? No. I would pick the "best" card out of the set presented. <sheesh> > > The more cards of any type you have, the narrower your strategy. > > Yes, many bleeding cards: bleed strategy, many combat cards: combat > strat., etc. But, e.g. many Presence cards: bleed, vote, combat > avoidance strat. > It depends on the cards you have. You can narrow yourself in or not. > If you have vampires first, you are not as narrowed in as if you have > the library firs. You don't get the library first. You get both, intermixed. This is not narrower than getting the crypt first. > > It's the same in all formats, since the same number of total vamps > > will be seen over the course of the draft. (The "pool" is the same > > size). > > I don't see it that way. IMO, if you alternate between library and > crypt, you are more limited. Why? Because you only see a small portion > of the vamps in the pool at once, but you have to make your selected > cards correspond with the library cards you just drafted in the round > before. You are limited to let your strat follow (adapt) the whim of the > cards in each seperate booster. Because of that your choices are > smaller. I don't see it that way. I see you better able to tune both your crypt and your library to one another. > > The player drafting presence should also be drafting Brujah or > > Toreador or Ventrue, and would thus know whether or not to also draft > > auspex or potence or whatever. > > What happens, when you find out that though you drafted presence cards > from a single booster, you find out that there are no matching vamps > with presence? That is the crux of the argument. Back to your original argument, so back to my original answer: The same thing that happens if you draft anything in any format without drafting the resources you need to use it. The drafters are not *forced* to pay attention to what they're doing, but obviously it would help. > When not drafting the > vamps first, you are much more limited to cards that are compatible > during a single booster. I still claim that Elder Draft leads to more > consistent decks. I still claim otherwise. > > > Therefore it's better to draft the vampires first, they can act as a > > > better foundation for your deck. But please keep in mind that though > > > you have a direction to go, you are not "limited" to a single > strategy > > > before you start drafting the library. > > > > That's true if you draft the vamps with the library, too. > > It's not. Because you may not have sutiable vamps for the library cards > in a booster. Same in any format. That's called luck. (Or foolsihness, if one insists on *continually* drafting library cards one cannot support with the cards already drafted). > > It doesn't, since the other players are more capable of denying > > your focus the more they know about your deck while drafting. > > The other players are always capable of denying you cards you'd need, > that's true for any format, it's just easier rochester style. > But a player who does this (if the cards he takes don't further his own > deck-strategy) puts himself at a disadvantage. There are more players in > a tourney who are drafting to get the cards they need. If you draft a > card you don't need (but another player) you hurt yoursefl and the other > player. The other players in the pod are unaffected, and the players > from the other pods are unaffected, too. > Denying cards is losing strategy. It works in moderation. > > > They could, but I have already outlined that this might lead to bad > > > situations regarding the expansion vampires and disciplines. > > > > Anything "might lead" to bad situations. That's luck. > > Ok, in case of the expansions I alter my previous statement from "might > lead" to "will lead" to bad situations. > Expansions are a problem in VTES (new clans and new disciplines), > contrary to Magic (where no new colours are introduced). I have yet to see that proven. Mixing DS or AH with the base set works just fine. > > > > Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. > > > > The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. > > > > > > Yes, booster after booster. With Elder draft you "mix" the expansion > > > cards into the basic-set cards, then you begin the draft. I think > it's > > > better. > > > > I think it is different. But no better and no worse. > > It's better, because you give each discipline and clan the same starting > probabilities and also each player to decide to play a single expansion > clan strat. If you do the expansion boosters individually you deny that > option. How denied? The same cards are available. > > And Elder Draft may not be the big advantage you see it to be. > > It is just another format. One that involves a clear (to the DCI) > > drawback that must be overcome with some demonstrable advantages. > > It has a number of advantages: > > 1. takes less time Booster draft takes less time than Rochester, in that cards are being drafted in parallel. But other than that, the times are the same. > 2. allows a smooth inclusion of expansions (clans, disciplines) No improvement, since the other formats have the same. > 3. avoids the "bad booster pack" situation (wrong card distribution > which is very common in Jyhad/VTES because of the printing-sheets) No improvement, since by mixing the cards, you actually increase the probability of a bad "pack" of cards somewhere in the mix. > 4. allows more consistent decks and strats Not true. > 5. is more interesting :) OK Unless new points are brought up, I will allow my previous posts to stand as my arguments, and remove myself from this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38904687...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Your point that rochester and booster don't work well was based on > (or at least, the argument was based on) a player somehow being > narrow in her drafting. I have to correct you here: you were the one who insisted that in Elder you’d be married to a single strategy. > Just as it is not the (usual) case in Edler, it is not the usual > case in rochester or booster either. > You brought this argument. Now you say it’s not the (usual) case in all formats. > > *grin* Would you adapt the foundations of a house if you don't like the > > arrangment of the rooms anymore? You have to build a good and solid > > Would you not inprove the foundation if you found it was not sufficient > for the structure above it? First plan, then bulid foundation and then the rest. I’d say once the foundation has been laid, it can’t easily be improved. And that’s a good thing: a foundation is something where to build a solid structure upon. It is not meant to later „improve“ it, unless you want to put considerable effort into it. That’s true for deckbuilding, too. > > The foundation is made to accomodate the structure above it. > The builder doesn't simply lay a foundation first (in isolation), and > then try to figure out what sort of structure to put on it. > Neither does he build the foundation and the structure above it simultanously, or better put: alternatingly. As you would suggest it like the current DCI formats. You simply cannot build the structure until the foundation is finished. That’s true for everything, so it can (and has) to applied to deck-construction, too. The foundation only sets only the rough outline of the structure. What exactly it will look like is still open to you. Same in VTES. If you have a good and solid foundation (i.e. the crypt) you can attempt to go for a great deal of different strategies *and* adapt your strategies as the library cards come. That is beneficial to a game with so many variables as VTES, especially in the short time you have for drafting and deck-preparation. > > It works the same way if you draft both at the same time. Eh..., no. It has been tested (as I have already said one or twice) and drafting both at the same time lead to less satisfactory decks. > > Agreed. But by definition it's almost impossible to adapt a bleed deck > > to a combat deck. So you *are* also married to general strategy. (With > > vote and bleed it's different, they have some things in common.) > > OK. Fortunately, that point applies equally to Elder as to DCI. Yes it does. Once again, in the beginning of the discussion you declared Elder „narrow“, „married to a single strat“ when compared to DCI. Now you say that it’s the same for both. Your assumption has been wrong. > > > > And, in booster, you are free to draft library cards instead of a > > vampire > > > you don't need. > > > > ??? > > I thought in booster draft it's the same way: first draft vamps out of > > the booster, then library. If not, that *will* lead to some players > > having not enough vampires. > > Only if they are foolish enough not to draft sufficient numbers. Unfortunatly I cannot read the section pertaining booster draft. Are the vampires of each booster drafted before or after the library cards, or is there no distincion? If the latter, it’s simply bad. > > > Yes, because Elder Draft has been derived from rochester and booster, > > along with some new elements. > > Drafting the vamps rochester style is good enough. However, even in > > rochester you alternate between crypt and library. > > Rightly so. How „rightly so“? Because you prefer it that way. Because it’s in the rules. And it’s definitely not „rightly so“, because it’s been tested and found to not be satisfactory. > > > I just checked the DCI rules again, and I must say that it's absolutely > > impossible to find the quoted section. If you are on the VTES page > > (www.wizards.com/VTES) you get an old version of the floor rules. :( > > From the DCI-section of WotC's hp you can get the UTR, no prob. But the > > VTES Floor rules are only going to 731. Cool thing, ha? > > ----- > 737. Rules for V:TES Rochester Draft Tournaments > This rule works in conjunction with Section 77 and 78 of the Universal > Tournament Rules. > > Players open their first booster packs when the pod judge instructs them > to do so. After counting the cards face-down to make sure the pack is > correct, players then move all vampire (crypt) cards to the top of the > pack face-down. If players do not have the appropriate number of cards in > a pack, they must immediately notify the head judge, who will replace the > pack. Here is a weakpoint of the rules: we all know that in some packs there may be fewer vamps, just because of the vampiric printing sheets. That’s not a „wrong“ booster. However, the total number of cards in the booster should normally be the same. The rules only take that into account, but not if a player has less vamps. This will lead to some players having fewer vamps. In Elder draft all vamps from all packs are shuffled together and drafted in Rochester style. In the last draft-round, there might be fewer than 2x vamps on the table (where x is the number of players in the pod). In this case the judge deals out enough vamps to bring the number of vamps to 2x. (Obviously he has to open anothe pack.) Which leads to every player having the same number of vamps, and that is definitely desireable. > > > Out of my memory (can't check right now, see above) it says that you > > open each pack and draft first vamps, then library. That's the only > > VTES-specific change. I'd say "taken fully into account" is a bit > > overstating in this case. Let me ammend that according to you (see above) it’s only in Rochester. Not in booster draft. > I would not. > If you have a better method (that more fully takes it into account) > that fits within the prescribed limits (of opening one pack per player > at a time), I'd be glad to hear it. Those limits should be altered. > > > I think the UTR are good to some extent. But it limits the formats of > > the different games too much. From the point of the rules-monger you are > > right: it's convenient to have one fixed set of basic rules. But then > > not attempting to make sufficient ammendments for the different games is > > not so good. > > Sure. But sufficient amendments are attempted. cf. [737] Keywords are „sufficient“ and „attempted“. The attempt was made, but it was not enough. > > In Elder you draft from "small portions" at a time, yes? > (You don't lay out *all* the vamps face-up before begining to > draft vamps, right?) > > Same limitations. > Same probabilities (from a discrete mathematics point of view). You’re probably right in this point. But it does make a difference if you alternate library/crypt or not. > > Who says it doesn't need different rules??? Different game -> different > > rules. Wouldn't you agree? > > Yes. That's what the different rules are for (see the V:TES game- specific > rules, along with the VTES rulebook in general). > > But making more rules different just so that *none* of the rules are > shared is not necessary. Some of the rules work in more than one game. Who said that it should be made „just so that none of the rules are shared“? If it’s beneficial for a game to have different rules, then so be it! > > > > Huh, so change is bad? If changes don't happen, evolution can't either. > > Evolution (adapting to meet needs) is good. > But change for change's sake alone is not. Nobody wants to change things for changes sake. Change is warranted because of percieved shortcomings, or to improve existing processes. Same in CCG’s. > > Not every change is a good one, but the bad ones are recognised, and > > learned from in the future. By ruling out changes because it's > > inconvenient, a game or it's tournament rules cannot evolve. > > Right. Changes are not ruled out. But they have to be warranted. Who decides if a change is warranted. A single person? Whim? A group of secluded playtesters? Perhaps the players as a whole themselves? I wonder. > > Change that doesn't sufficiently improve the game *is* ruled out, for > the simple reason that not enough is gained to counter what is lost > (continuity). This is an argument taken over from the Errata-debate. This is not an Errata-debate. The DCI rules for Magic are changed quite often (at least the banned and restricted lists are), why is it unthinkable to change the VTES rules a bit? > > You don't get the library first. > You get both, intermixed. > This is not narrower than getting the crypt first. I think it is. > > I don't see it that way. > I see you better able to tune both your crypt and your library to one > another. Tuning the library to the crypt is easier than tuning the crypt to the library. Therefore tuning both ot one another has a drawback. > > > It's not. Because you may not have sutiable vamps for the library cards > > in a booster. > > Same in any format. That's called luck. > (Or foolsihness, if one insists on *continually* drafting library cards > one cannot support with the cards already drafted). Well, I was adressing only the vamp-library issue here, not formats. Library cards are more dependent on vampires than vampires on library cards. Vampires can act on their own. Library cards cannot. You will have to have vamps to use library cards. Because of that it’s better to draft vamps before library cards. > > > > It doesn't, since the other players are more capable of denying > > > your focus the more they know about your deck while drafting. > > > > The other players are always capable of denying you cards you'd need, > > that's true for any format, it's just easier rochester style. > > But a player who does this (if the cards he takes don't further his own > > deck-strategy) puts himself at a disadvantage. There are more players in > > a tourney who are drafting to get the cards they need. If you draft a > > card you don't need (but another player) you hurt yoursefl and the other > > player. The other players in the pod are unaffected, and the players > > from the other pods are unaffected, too. > > Denying cards is losing strategy. > > It works in moderation. No, it doesn’t work. It will hurt the denying player as well as the player who gets the important cards denied. It’s a lose-lose situation. > > Ok, in case of the expansions I alter my previous statement from "might > > lead" to "will lead" to bad situations. > > Expansions are a problem in VTES (new clans and new disciplines), > > contrary to Magic (where no new colours are introduced). > > I have yet to see that proven. > Mixing DS or AH with the base set works just fine. Please state how you do it, and why you think it does work fine. Will you? > > > > > Ah. I thought you required them to be intermixed. > > > > > The DCI rules currently support using more than one expansion. > > > > > > > > Yes, booster after booster. With Elder draft you "mix" the expansion > > > > cards into the basic-set cards, then you begin the draft. I think > > it's > > > > better. > > > > > > I think it is different. But no better and no worse. > > > > It's better, because you give each discipline and clan the same starting > > probabilities and also each player to decide to play a single expansion > > clan strat. If you do the expansion boosters individually you deny that > > option. > > How denied? The same cards are available. The same cards are available, but you cannot focus on the expansion clans and their disciplines, because you would either have a drawback when e.g. DS is drafted last, as the other players who don’t focus on the expansion have already made good progress in their deck-composition, whereas you get the lions-share of the cards you want to use later. The others can now much better use a denying strategy. So it’s a win-lose situation. > > > > > It has a number of advantages: > > > > 1. takes less time > > Booster draft takes less time than Rochester, in that cards are being > drafted in parallel. But other than that, the times are the same. Opening all packs in one go rather then one before each draft round takes also less time. You count 15 cards from you pile and go. You can’t do it any faster. > > 2. allows a smooth inclusion of expansions (clans, disciplines) > > No improvement, since the other formats have the same. This is your opinion. It’s not shared. > > > 3. avoids the "bad booster pack" situation (wrong card distribution > > which is very common in Jyhad/VTES because of the printing-sheets) > > No improvement, since by mixing the cards, you actually increase the > probability of a bad "pack" of cards somewhere in the mix. The probability is the same. But it has only impact in the last round of draft. So it runs more smoothly, and all players get the same amount of vamps, hence each has the same base for deckbuilding. > > > 4. allows more consistent decks and strats > > Not true. True. > > > 5. is more interesting :) > > OK > Ok. Agreed. > Unless new points are brought up, I will allow my previous posts to > stand as my arguments, and remove myself from this thread. Of course you are allowed. I also agree that the discussion will not see any positive results. You will not alter your opinions, and I don’t see any arguments of yours that will alter mine as well. („Not true.“, „I don’t see it that way.“ is all nice and good, but has no substance.) Basing the dismissal of Elder just on the opening of all booster packs at once might be technically correct, but is not improving the situation nor proving to be inherently right or better. Also, I’d like to say that I like your type of humor, LSJ. It’s dry, and you have to read some sentences twice to recognise it. Are you sure you are not British? :) Yours, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > > But going in with narrow > > ideas about exactly what you want to play is always difficult, > especially > > in a game with as many variations of disciplines as Jyhad. > > What do you consider narrow ideas? A bleed concept? A clan concept? A > discipline-concept? A clan or very narrow discipline concept, essentially (which should throw earlier comments into greater clarity). Going in thinking "I will play the best Gangrel deck I can get out of this" is, perhaps, a little foolish, if you follow through with the idea. Ideas such as "combat deck" or "bleed and vote" seem fine, to me, but going in with something like "Gangrel protean" deck or "Giovanni" deck, where the options are *so* much narrower seems like making a noose for yourself. People will see things like the Protean cards and, since they may have a few vampires capable of using them, they won't be seriously disadvantaged with them *and* they get to screw you badly, as previously discussed. > And we seem to agree that Jyhad is a very complex game, with many > disciplines and clans, quite different to Magic's 5 colours (or are > there new colours in the new sets? :) ) Purple, anyone? ;) -- James Coupe

carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > carlos_...@my-deja.com wrote: > Unfortunatly I cannot read the section pertaining booster draft. Are the > vampires of each booster drafted before or after the library cards, or > is there > no distincion? If the latter, it?s simply bad. No distinction - the choice is left to the players. > Also, I?d like to say that I like your type of humor, LSJ. It?s dry, and > you have to read some sentences twice to recognise it. Are you sure you > are not British? :) That's what my parents tell me. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, there must have been some trouble with deja.com, because I answered last friday in length, but it hasn't shown up. :( No, I don't want to type all the arguments again, it took a horrible long time. :( > > Unless new points are brought up, I will allow my previous posts to > stand as my arguments, and remove myself from this thread. Ok, I'll remove myself either, since I'm adamant in believing that Elder would allow for better, smoother VTES tournaments, and you're adamant in stating that the DCI would not be likely to adopt the Elder draft formats. Thanks for holding out so long, though. :) [ quoted text not captured ]